Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 31, August 9, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL MEGA-MANIPULATION Rescuing the Bankrupt Financial System with Climate Hysteria! by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 31, August 9, 2019

- I. Mankind’s New Mission

- We Commit to the Moon-Mars Mission by Benjamin Deniston

- LAROUCHE WEBCAST ‘Why Do We Go to Mars?’ by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

- II. The Oligarchy’s Anti-China Rampage

- Xinjiang Province: China Rejects All Accusations by Christine Bierre

- China Chooses Development and Education, Not War, to Combat Terrorism by Mike Billington

- THREAT TO CHINA SCHOLARS Universities Speak Out Against Dark-Ages Witch Hunt by Brian Lantz

- III. Defeating Green Malthusianism

- Extinction Rebellion: British Push Greens for Human Extinction by Michael Billington

- INTERVIEW: BILL BULLARD Defend Food Supply and Independent Cattlemen Against ‘Green’ Globalist Attack

Extending Humanity’s Power through the Solar System

Founder: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1922–2019)

Editor-in-Chief: Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Co-Editors: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher, Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Managing Editor: Stephanie Ezrol

Editorial Staff: David Cherry, Charles Notley

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Asia: Michael Billington

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

United Nations, N.Y.C.: Richard Black, Leni Rubinstein

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

(50 issues), by EIR News Service, Inc.,

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

(571) 293-0935

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH, Postfach Bahnstrasse 9a, D-65205, Wiesbaden, Germany

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

Denmark: EIR - Danmark, Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, DK-1903 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 35 43 60 40, Fax: +45 35 43 87 57. e-mail: eirdk@hotmail.com.

Mexico City: EIR, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz 242-2

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

Copyright: ©2019 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

Signed articles in EIR represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Editorial Board.

EDITORIAL

MEGA-MANIPULATION

Rescuing the Bankrupt Financial System with Climate Hysteria!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Originally published in the German newspaper Neue Solidarität.

Aug. 3—As the storm signals of the impending financial crisis become more alarming, we are witnessing what is probably the largest social engineering experiment that has ever taken place. The aim of this trans-Atlantic campaign is to make the population—with the help of orchestrated climate hysteria (“We only have 18 months left!”)—voluntarily accept a collapse of its standard of living while directing all investments into “green” projects.

At the same time, the “Great Transformation of the World Economy” is supposed to give “green” investors huge profits and—together with the miraculous increase in money supply via endless “Quantitative Easing”—postpone the collapse of the hopelessly bankrupt financial system once again.

Sixteen-year-old climate star Greta Thunberg, the FridaysForFuture (F4F) student movement, and the Extinction Rebellion (XR) are being strategically exploited by the neoliberal financial oligarchy through a whole complex of institutions and organizations—including investment bankers, consulting firms, the Tavistock Institute, entire battalions of psychologists and behavioral therapists, the World Bank, the European Union (EU), and several billionaires, as well as internet platforms and veterans of the population reduction lobby.

‘Green New Deal’ Is a Bad Deal

It uses the whole gamut—from panic-stricken children to “Green New Deal”-advocating “internet personalities,” to groups that are also willing to cross the boundaries from civil resistance to more violent forms—to enforce the demands of the Paris Climate Agreement well before the agreed-upon date of 2050. It includes all the green cadres, from Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project to the internet platform, “We don’t have time,” on whose advisory board sits, among others, Greta Thunberg.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel who, along with Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, had previously praised the F4F movement, commented in her summer press conference that Thunberg’s demonstrations had certainly accelerated the government’s decision-making process toward implementing efficient measures to reduce CO_2 emissions. The German “Climate Cabinet” will announce a whole series of measures on September 20, among which the determination of a “carbon price” will be of central importance. Whoever “pollutes” the atmosphere with carbon dioxide will have to pay a price in the future.

Thus, Mrs. Merkel has finally joined the camp of the ideological climate lobby that wants to “nudge” the population, via an increase in prices for energy and transport, to change its behavior. In practical terms, this will mean that a majority of people will no longer be able to afford to use cars or planes, or have adequate heating or power supply.

It means a bonanza for investors, on the other hand, should this measure become policy. This point was made at a June 7 event on “Sustainable Financing” at the House of Finance at Goethe University in Frankfurt by Dr. Christian Thimann, Chairman of the Executive Board of Athene Deutschland Holding, a subsidiary of the insurance company Athora and a long-time employee of the IMF and European Central Bank.

Often one strives unsuccessfully for years for something, and then suddenly something surprising happens, which changes everything. For example, the topics of the “limits to growth” of the Club of Rome, and climate protection, have been under discussion for decades, but only after the notable phrase, “The climate goals will only be achieved if we direct the capital flows into sectors with low emissions,” was formulated in the Paris Climate Agreement, did the climate for the financial sector change completely. Suddenly the issue of “sustainable investment” became central to the economy; suddenly twelve million young people took to the streets, and suddenly this became a “big thing.”

The EU is working on guidelines on emissions trading and climate protection, and legislation that is designed to make these guidelines binding for investment in green technology. For an industrialized nation like Germany, but also for the whole of Europe, this is nothing less than a pre-programmed course for economic suicide.

For what neither the EU bureaucrats nor the sharks of the financial sector understand, are the principles upon which the real, physical economy is built: There is a direct correlation between the energy-flux density applied in the production process, the productivity of the economy, and the number of people whose lives can be supported through these parameters. A diversion of investments exclusively into so-called “sustainable” areas, e.g., “renewable” energy sources such as electricity generated by wind turbines and solar cells, as well as carbon emissions trading, and mandating that the transport, construction, and agriculture sectors must comply with climate regulations, in fact means devolution back to pre-industrial society. For Germany it effectively means the emigration of young workers, more of the aging population left without adequate care, and general impoverishment.

Scientists Dispute Anthropogenic Climate Change

This “Great Transformation,” the complete decarbonization of the world economy, which has long been propagated by German climatologist Hans Joachim “John” Schellnhuber, CBE, is all the more criminal, because the alleged scientific consensus on the thesis of anthropogenic climate change is a fiction. There are many declarations worldwide that have been signed by thousands of scientists, including the late Frederick Seitz, the former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; scientists and scholars associated with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC); and hundreds of Italian, Scandinavian, and Japanese scientists addressing this very problem.

Contested by all these experts, is the claim that the anthropogenic contribution to climate change plays any noteworthy role. They argue that the causes of changes in the Earth’s climate are, above all, natural fluctuations that have to do with processes on the Sun, cosmic radiation influences on cloud formation, the Solar system’s changing position in the Milky Way galaxy, and other cosmic phenomena.

They also stress that climate simulation models do not reflect the actual climatic fluctuations of the past 10,000 years, and that nature—not man—determines the climate. As the recent petition by the Committee of Italian Scientists led by the renowned Professor Uberto Crescenti highlights, it is therefore illusory to suggest that a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions could control the climate.

However, Christoph M. Schmidt, the chairman of the so-called economic “Five Wise Men” of Germany, the top advisory body of the German government, did not refrain from praising the F4F movement at its Congress in Dortmund, for allegedly making it clear to the public that present policies cannot continue. Schmidt also fully supported an increase in the CO_2 emission allowance price as a “basic tool” in the fight against climate change. His appearance in Dortmund and his statement are equally scandalous in view of the consequences of this policy and raise the question of whether he should resign because of incompetence, or because of profiteering.

Banks and Foundations in the

Climate Line-Up

In the financial markets, initiatives are popping up such as the Climate Bond Initiative, which seeks to turn the $100 trillion global bond market into a giant new platform for investing in sustainable economic activity of all kinds. (The EU has so far provided “only” $360 billion.) Participants in this initiative include the Rockefeller Foundation, Bank of America, HSBC, the Inter-American Development Bank, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the government of Switzerland, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Frederick Mulder Foundation, OAK Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, FSD Africa, NAB (Australia), European Climate Foundation, the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trust, the EU’s Horizon 2020 Program, Climate Works Foundation, UNDP, Climate KIC, KR Foundation, and Martin International. Equally active are the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), The Economist magazine, and the Green Climate Fund, to name but a few.

Ironically, it is clear to Greta Thunberg herself that wealthy interests are involved in the controversy. In a speech to schoolchildren in Katowice, Poland, she said:

I do not care about being known. My concern is climate justice and a livable planet. Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunities of a small group of people who want to make more and more money.

However, exactly these sentences were deleted in the publication of this speech by the Internet platform Avaaz. Avaaz, a product of the George Soros-related MoveOn.org platform, specializes in collecting personal information on every conceivable topic by organizing petitions around the world.

Will the Real Economy Survive?

This is precisely the point: At a time when the real economy in Europe and the United States is crumbling and the next collapse of the financial system can be delayed only by a new flood of liquidity, a new gold rush for green investment is being generated, which perhaps may enable speculators to make a large amount of money for a short time. The effect on the developing countries will be catastrophic, the non-affluent part of the population in our country will be clobbered, and after a super-short boom in the monetary area, Germany will be destroyed as an industrial location.

It is high time to pull the emergency brake. But who will do this if the EU and the Berlin government are part of the problem, and the Greens obviously represent the same thing, only colored in green? It can only come from the parts of society that are the victims of that policy: the middle class, the productive part of the working population, parents, teachers and all thinking people.

We urgently need a public debate on these issues. Germany is currently driving at full speed off the cliff!

zepp-larouche@eir.de

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 31, August 9, 2019

Cover This Week

NASA/JPL/CalTech

An artist’s rendering of the Cassini-Huygens space research mission, a joint project of NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency, which is studying Saturn and its system, including its rings and natural satellites.

---------------------------------------------

EXTENDING HUMANITY’S POWER THROUGH THE SOLAR SYSTEM

2 EDITORIAL

Mega-Manipulation: Rescuing the Bankrupt Financial System with Climate Hysteria!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

I. MANKIND’S NEW MISSION

6 We Commit to the Moon-Mars Mission

by Benjamin Deniston

15 LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Why Do We Go to Mars?

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

June 26, 2010

II. THE OLIGARCHY’S ANTI-CHINA RAMPAGE

20 Xinjiang Province: China Rejects All Accusations

by Christine Bierre

26 China Chooses Development and Education, Not War, to Combat Terrorism

by Michael Billington

31 THREAT TO CHINA SCHOLARS

Universities Speak Out Against Dark-Ages Witch Hunt

by Brian Lantz

III. DEFEATING GREEN MALTHUSIANISM

36 Extinction Rebellion: British Push Greens for Human Extinction

by Michael Billington

38 INTERVIEW: BILL BULLARD

Defend Food Supply and Independent Cattlemen Against ‘Green’ Globalist Attack

The Jan. 27, 1989 Jailing of Lyndon LaRouche

Defined an Era, Which Now Must End

Watch The LaRouche Case video

Watch the LaRouche Memorial video

Sign the Petition to Exonerate LaRouche at lpac.co/exonerate

I. Mankind’s New Mission

We Commit to the Moon-Mars Mission

by Benjamin Deniston

With contributions from Kesha Rogers and Paul Gallagher. The video of Deniston’s July 27 presentation on this subject is available on the LaRouche PAC website.

Christopher Sloan

Artist’s concept of Selenopolis, Krafft Ehricke’s city on the Moon, a modern city housing thousands, powered by fusion power plants seen under construction on the right.

---------------------------------------------

Aug. 4—A 50-year, international crash program for lunar industrialization, the development of fusion-powered space flight, and Mars colonization will be the most important driver for the U.S. and global economies. President Trump’s plan to return to the Moon by 2024 is the correct first step; let’s see the full program through.

LaRouche PAC is circulating the petition, “We Commit to the Moon-Mars Mission,” calling upon President Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress to commit to the following crucial elements required to ensure the success of that mission. Each of these elements, enumerated here, is further developed in the pages that follow.

• Successfully realize the Artemis mission to bring mankind—including the first woman—to the Moon to stay in 2024, as President Trump and his NASA Administrator, Jim Bridenstine, have called for.

• Make Artemis the first step towards the industrialization of the Moon, as the economic platform enabling human colonization of Mars and human exploration of the Solar System—as first thoroughly defined by the late space visionary Krafft Ehricke.

• Develop advanced fusion propulsion spacecraft, fueled by the helium-3 resources on the Moon—enabling safe and rapid human travel to Mars and other regions in the Solar System, with the goal of achieving constant one-gravity acceleration/deceleration as the standard for human interplanetary missions.

• Achieve this Moon-Mars program through an international 50-year crash program, as outlined by the late economist Lyndon LaRouche—ensuring the high rates of economic payback on Earth which can only be reached by developing new space and fusion technologies, and sharing those technologies internationally as the basis for durable peace on this planet.

• Reform or eliminate the speculative and predatory aspects of the international financial system, as a necessary step to ensure sovereign nations can generate the long-term credit agreements needed to facilitate this mission.

• Remove barriers to international collaboration in space—especially impediments to U.S. cooperation with China and Russia (as typified by the so-called Wolf Amendment, barring NASA from working with China).

This program coheres with remarks made by Lyndon LaRouche to a December 2009 international conference in Russia:

In order to realize the objectives which stand before us now, we have to give mankind a new mission—mankind as a whole. The mission is typified by the idea of the Mars colonization program. This requires us to make the kinds of changes, in terms of scientific progress, which are needed for mankind’s future existence.

We have many problems on this planet. And we can not solve those problems, extensively, without going into a development of the Solar System as a habitat of mankind. We’re on the edge of doing that, scientifically. There are many scientific discoveries, yet to be made, which will make it possible to act for man’s colonization of Mars. That will be in some time to come. But what we need now is the intention of accomplishing the Mars colonization program. We need to educate and develop generations of young people who will be oriented to that kind of mission. In the coming period, we will have the birth of young people who will be part of the colonization of Mars, in one way or the other, before this century is out.

We need to give mankind a sense of purpose, developmental purpose, not only throughout the planet, but through the influence of Earth on the adjoining regions of the Solar System, and beyond.

Those objectives are feasible. There are, admittedly, many problems to be solved, scientific problems, which are not yet resolved. We have many questions. But, essentially, we know this is feasible. We know this should be feasible within two or three generations. What we have to do, is give to people, who will be the grandchildren, born now, to give them something to realize. When we’re dead and gone, they will be there, three generations from now, four generations from now. They will be the people who actually colonize areas beyond Earth itself. We need to give them the opportunity to do so. We need to give society, in the meantime, the mission-orientation of achieving that colonization, for our descendants, three generations or so down the line.

Artemis: Back to the Moon by 2024

Successfully realize the Artemis mission to bring mankind—including the first woman—to the Moon to stay in 2024, as President Trump and his NASA Administrator, Jim Bridenstine, have called for.

Have you heard? After more than 45 years, we’re finally going back to the Moon—this time to stay! In 2017 President Trump signed Space Policy Directive 1 calling for the return of American astronauts to the surface of the Moon, and in 2019 he said this should be accomplished by 2024 (before the end of his prospective second term). This bold plan has been called Project Artemis, named after the twin sister of the ancient Greek god Apollo (the namesake of the first Moon-landing program). It’s a very fitting name, as this mission will bring the first woman to the Moon.

The Project Artemis plan is to land astronauts on the Moon’s South Pole by 2024, followed by the establishment of a regular human presence on the Moon by 2028—focused on new scientific investigations, learning how to utilize the resources of the Moon, and demonstrating technological advancements needed for human exploration of Mars.

The Lunar South Pole is of particular interest. As NASA’s deputy associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate, Steven Clarke, said:[fn_1]

We know the South Pole region contains ice and may be rich in other resources based on our observations from orbit, but, otherwise, it’s a completely unexplored world. . . . The South Pole is far from the Apollo landing sites clustered around the equator, so it will offer us a new challenge and a new environment to explore as we build our capabilities to travel farther into space.

On the South Pole, the current target is Shackleton crater. Measuring 13 miles across and 2.5 miles deep, the crater’s peaks are exposed to almost continuous sunlight, while its floors and walls are in near perpetual shadow. As discovered in recent years, these permanently shadowed craters contain critical stores of water ice, while the access to sunlight at the peaks is of interest for solar power (until compact nuclear power can be brought online). As NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine has stressed, we are going back to the Moon to stay, requiring that we learn how to utilize the resources available on the Moon.

How are we going to get there? NASA’s current plan is as follows.

In June of 2020, the first mission, Artemis 1, will use a Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to send an uncrewed flight of the Orion spacecraft into an orbit reaching 40,000 miles beyond the Moon (testing key hardware and operations).

In 2022 we’ll see the first phase of the Gateway Lunar Orbital Platform, establishing humanity’s first lunar-orbit space station. In 2023, Artemis 2 will bring four astronauts on a lunar fly-by mission (bringing mankind beyond low-Earth orbit for the first time since Apollo). By 2024 the Gateway Lunar Orbital space station will have power and propulsion, a small human habitat, and a docking port for the Orion spacecraft.

In 2024 Artemis 3 will send the Orion spacecraft to dock with the lunar Gateway space station, from which the astronauts will descend to the lunar surface in a new lunar landing vehicle—the first crewed landing on the Moon since Apollo 17 in 1972!

From 2025 to 2028, a series of additional Artemis missions have been proposed to establish a permanent lunar outpost, and pursue the objectives of scientific investigations, the study and utilization of lunar resources, and preparation for manned Mars missions.

Artemis will open a new chapter in the history of mankind—marking the beginning of mankind’s expansion into the Solar System, and the industrialization of the Moon is the next critical step.

Lunar Industrialization

Make Artemis the first step towards the industrialization of the Moon, as the economic platform enabling human colonization of Mars and human exploration of the Solar System—as first thoroughly defined by the late space visionary Krafft Ehricke.

The Moon isn’t just an exciting place to explore; it will provide key resources for the interplanetary economy and become a vital manufacturing center supporting mankind’s colonization of Mars and beyond.

The first comprehensive lunar industrial program was designed by the great space visionary, rocket pioneer, and philosopher Krafft Ehricke (1917-1984). As Ehricke noted, “the energy required to deliver cargo from the Moon to geosynchronous orbit and return to the Moon is 7.2% of that required for the same mission from Earth”[fn_2] (the significantly lower gravity on the Moon makes it much easier to launch from the lunar surface). Because of this, once we get mining, processing, manufacturing, and transportation infrastructure operating on the Moon, it becomes far more economical to develop and launch certain products from the lunar surface (as compared with launching from Earth).

One of the first resources we’ll develop from the Moon will be water—used not only for the needs of astronauts and eventual space agriculture, but also to provide oxygen and hydrogen for propellant. Even at this very first stage of lunar mining, the ability to refuel spacecraft in Earth orbit or lunar orbit using lunar resources will qualitatively transform mankind’s relation to space—freeing us from the immense limitation of needing to lift all space mission requirements from the Earth’s surface. (Note that 90% of the weight of the Saturn V rocket that took mankind to the Moon was simply fuel.)

Additional priority lunar resources include helium-3 for fusion (discussed below) and rare-earth metals. Further resources available in abundance on the Moon include silicon, aluminum, magnesium, iron, and titanium (with many additional resources available in varying abundances).

Compact, advanced nuclear fission systems can power the first lunar mining and manufacturing capabilities, while more advanced capabilities will come with the development of fusion technologies. As stated in a 1987 study of Lyndon LaRouche’s Moon-Mars program:[fn_3]

The breakthrough in materials-separation and processing, however, will be the application of directed energy, rather than conventional gross heat, through the technologies developed in the emerging fields of laser and plasma chemistry. The fusion power plant can provide coherent microwaves, x-rays, visible light, and electromagnetic radiation from the entire spectrum, which can be applied directly to materials. Plasma processing, using by-products of the fusion reaction, can be used in a “fusion torch” or furnace, to break rocks and soil down into their constituent elements directly. Processing without chemicals, high temperatures, equipment with moving parts, holding vats, or other intermediate steps, will bring humanity into the era of one-step materials-refining.

Not only will this support entirely new capabilities in space, the technologies needed for mining and processing the dispersed resources on the Moon—and the technologies required for manufacturing in space environments (with an emphasis on increasingly automated systems)—will create the largest levels of economic payback on Earth (as discussed below).

Table 1

Type of Space Operation Supported | Specific Products or Services Provided by Space Operations | Contributions from Lunar industries & Infrastructure | Delivery Location for Lunar Products or Services

Information | Communications, monitoring, navigation, etc. | Servicing/repair of satellites in geostationary orbit. | Primarily geosynchronous orbit

Transportation | Cargo and passenger flights between Earth orbits and lunar orbits | Lunar liquid oxygen, [lunar hydrogen], propellant containers, heat shields | Refueling stations in lunar orbit, distant Earth orbit, geostationary, and low Earth orbit.

Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals; electronic and optical products; solar panels; alloys, parts, components | Raw materials, semi-finished products | Near Earth orbit

Space Stations | Manufacturing; medical and recreational facilities; food production; exo-urban habitats | Oxygen for air; water; components, subsystems, and entire modules | Near Earth orbit | geostationary, and other orbits

---------------------------------------------

As much as possible, the large components for space stations, spacecraft, and other space infrastructure should increasingly be constructed from lunar and other near-Earth resources, with facilities on the Moon and in lunar and Earth orbits. Table 1, adapted from a 1983 study by Ehricke, illustrates how resources and products developed from the Moon will be used to support various Earth-Moon space operations.[fn_4]

In the mid-1980s, Lyndon LaRouche, picking up on Ehricke’s work, proposed that the fusion-powered spacecraft used for manned Mars missions should be largely manufactured from lunar resources—integrating the success of a Mars colonization mission with the requirements of lunar industrialization and fusion propulsion technologies.

Lunar Helium-3 for Fusion Propulsion

Develop advanced fusion propulsion spacecraft, fueled by the helium-3 resources on the Moon—enabling safe and rapid human travel to Mars and other regions in the Solar System, with the goal of achieving constant one-gravity acceleration/deceleration as the standard for human interplanetary missions.

Figure 1

Lunar Delivery to Earth Orbit

The green, 200-day, trajectory is a standard orbital trajectory— the best option available with chemical propulsion systems. The two red trajectories (two days and one week) are fusion-powered flights to Mars at its closest and farthest positions from Earth (travelling at a constant one-gravity acceleration/deceleration).

---------------------------------------------

Rapid and safe human travel to other planets—such as Mars—requires fusion propulsion. For example, using today’s technologies based on chemical propulsion systems, a flight to Mars takes about 200 days—subjecting prospective astronauts to an extended stay in the dangerous, high-radiation deep-space environment, and the debilitating effects of prolonged zero-gravity on the body. With advanced fusion propulsion, a trip from lunar orbit to Mars orbit can take less than two days.

TABLE 2

Energy Density Values

| Energy in 1 kg of fuel | Increase over chemical

Chemical (hydrogen and oxygen) | 4 kWh | —

Nuclear fission (nuclear power plant fuel) | 1 million kWh | 250,000

Fusion (deuterium and helium-3) | 100 million kWh | 25,000,000

The energy density values have been rounded to the first significant digit, for emphasis on the orders of magnitude. More precise values are: 3.72 kWh/kg for hydrogen-oxygen, 1.03 x 10^6 kWh/kg for typical nuclear fission fuels used in power plants, and 9.75 x 10^7 kWh/kg for deuterium-helium-3 fusion. Direct fission of uranium-235, outside of the context of a nuclear fuel containing significant amounts of uranium-238, is 2.28 x 10^6 kWh/kg.

---------------------------------------------

How can fusion get us to Mars 100 times faster? It starts with energy density: fusion reactions provide millions of times more energy (per unit of weight) compared to chemical reactions. With today’s chemical propulsion systems, interplanetary spacecraft can only carry enough fuel for short burns of thrust, sending the spacecraft on a slow orbital trajectory for the majority of the flight (with no ability to carry the additional heavy weight of the fuel required for anything more than short burns). With fusion reactions, once spacecraft can be equipped with the equivalent of 25 million times more fuel (owing to the higher energy density), an entirely new mode of space travel becomes possible: constant high-thrust acceleration spaceflight—with the ultimate goal of acceleration rates that simulate Earth’s gravity (one Earth gravity) for the crew during the entire trip.[fn_5]

While constant-acceleration space flight at one gravity is the gold standard we’ll strive for, earlier generations of fusion propulsion systems will come first (along with fission systems), and important improvements will be provided along the way. Various designs for fusion-powered spacecraft have been investigated for decades (including proposals from NASA, the national laboratories, and ongoing studies by private companies), although the development of fusion propulsion in space has suffered from the same problem as fusion power on Earth—a crippling lack of funding. (See box: The Suppression of Fusion.)

However, the prospects of returning to the Moon are now stimulating a new perspective on fusion, with growing international interest in the helium-3 fusion fuel resources available on the Moon. This rare isotope of helium, helium-3, is far more abundant on the Moon (compared to Earth), and is a superior fusion fuel (compared with the fusion fuels available on Earth).

Currently fusion experiments largely focus on hydrogen isotope fuels, where most of the energy released can’t be directed or controlled (and can only be captured to generate heat). This is workable for first-generation fusion power plants generating electricity, but the shift to helium-3 fuels opens up an entirely new regime of potential. With helium-3 fusion, nearly all of the energy produced by the fusion reactions can be directed and controlled. For power plants, this enables more efficient modes of electricity generation (with far less energy lost as heat, potentially doubling the electricity produced per unit of energy).

For spacecraft propulsion, helium-3 ensures that nearly all of the fusion energy can be directly applied to the thrust propelling the spacecraft—allowing for far more efficient engine designs.

It has been estimated that there is enough helium-3 on the Moon to power the Earth for thousands of years. The unique availability of this ideal fusion fuel on the Moon, coupled with the fusion requirements for space travel and for powering the Earth, push the lunar helium-3 program to the forefront of the lunar industrialization program.

Economic Payback

Achieve this Moon-Mars program through an international 50-year crash program, as outlined by the late economist Lyndon LaRouche—ensuring the high rates of economic payback on Earth which can only be reached by developing new space and fusion technologies, and sharing those technologies internationally as the basis for durable peace on this planet. [box: The Suppression of Fusion]

A Moon-Mars crash program to develop the technologies required for lunar industrialization, fusion-powered space travel at one-gravity acceleration, and Mars colonization is the most important program for generating economic growth today. To understand this, simply look at the precedent of President John F. Kennedy’s Apollo lunar landing program. For every $1 the U.S. government spent on the 1960s Apollo program, the U.S. economy generated over $10 in payback within the next decade—a pretty good investment![fn_6]

However, despite the resounding economic success of the Apollo program, most economists and politicians today understand very little about how and why crash programs work as economic drivers—or, what even qualifies as a crash program.

The defining characteristic of a successful economic driver crash program is the accelerated development and implementation of new technologies throughout the economy which increase the productive powers of the labor force.

For a counter-example, doubling or tripling the physical and financial costs of electricity by forced mass-implementation of solar and wind power generation is not a positive economic crash program. Creating the technologies needed for fusion-powered space fight and a human base on Mars in 50 years is the key program that will generate the technological breakthroughs that will advance the global economy.

As Lyndon LaRouche states in his 1984 “LaRouche Doctrine”:[fn_7]

Advances in technology are transmitted into the productive process as a whole through the incorporation of improved technologies in capital goods, most emphatically capital goods of the machine-tool or analogous classifications. Therefore, the only means by which a national economy can sustain significant rates of technological progress, is by placing emphasis upon the capital-goods sector of production, and maintaining sufficiently high rates of turnover in that sector to foster high rates of technological innovation in the goods produced.

Since capital goods and machine tools are the items used to produce all the other goods required by the economy, when the capital goods employ new technologies the productive powers of the labor force are increased as a result—ensuring the same labor force (applying the same effort) can produce more of the goods required by society, and at higher qualities, because they’re utilizing higher technology capital goods in the productive process.

This is the secret of the economic success of the Apollo program. As would be expected, capital goods production for the aerospace sector of the U.S. economy dramatically increased under Apollo, rising 90% in the 1960s, over the 1950s—however, the non-aerospace and non-defense sectors increased as well, and at a faster rate, with non-aerospace and non-defense capital goods production increasing 130% over that same time period, and with many of these new capital goods incorporating the new technologies developed by the Apollo program (since it only took two years for Apollo technologies to be applied in the general economy).

Thus, Apollo was a successful economic driver crash program, not merely affecting the industries and productive processes immediately related to space, but driving the entire economy to a higher technological level. The source of Apollo’s greater than $10-to-$1 payback is no mystery, and can, and must, be done again.

The present and future requirements for the U.S. and world economies are immense. The United States has suffered from two generations of post-industrial policies, ensuring much of the productive workforce and associated skill sets have been lost, and manufacturing facilities have been shut down. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the United States needs $4.5 trillion in infrastructure investment by 2025 simply to fix the country’s existing water systems, roads, bridges, dams, etc.—without even considering new infrastructure systems like a modern high-speed rail network, or a continental water management system.

The world also has great needs over the coming generations, with an expected global population of 9.5 billion in 25 years, and 10.5 billion in 50 years. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has made tremendous strides in starting a long-suppressed process of infrastructure development for much of the developing world, and it will take an incredible effort to complete the full-scale modern infrastructure development required world-wide.

For example, over the next 25 years, global electricity generation will need to be quadrupled (at minimum), requiring the equivalent of 10,000 large nuclear power plants; if we take China’s high-speed rail development as a benchmark, the world will need 400,000 miles of high-speed rail; and with 35% of the world population dependent upon dwindling groundwater supplies, massive water transfer and desalination systems will be required for basic water security.

It’s because of the immense costs of these requirements in the United States and globally, that we can’t afford not to commit to this Moon-Mars program.

LaRouche’s 50-year crash program for lunar industrialization, fusion propulsion at one-gravity acceleration, and Mars colonization encapsulates all the major categories of technological advance immediately before us. Securing these technologies through the pursuit of mankind’s destiny on the Moon and Mars is the only way to secure mankind’s future on Earth.

Reform the International Financial System

Reform or eliminate the speculative and predatory aspects of the international financial system, as a necessary step to ensure sovereign nations can generate the long-term credit agreements needed to facilitate this mission.

The new space and fusion technologies generated by the Moon-Mars mission will create tremendous leaps in productivity and economic wealth when applied throughout the industrial economies of the leading spacefaring nations, and proliferated to the developing countries as high technology capital goods exports.

This means a new credit and monetary system needs to be set up, which restricts or ends flows of capital into speculation, looting, and the kinds of banking fraud we’ve become so familiar with in the 21st Century. The new system is designed to channel capital flows, instead, into new, high-technology industry, new and more advanced economic infrastructure, scientific institutions, and direct productive investment in other nations.

These goals had been Franklin Roosevelt’s goals for the Bretton Woods credit and money system created at the end of World War II. During the 30 years that Bretton Woods operated, average economic growth was 4% per year in the industrial economies and 3% per year in what were called the Third World countries—the highest sustained growth rates in history. When the Bretton Woods system was torn down and replaced with the current system of floating currency exchange rates and unregulated financial speculation, economic growth and wage levels plunged.

Therefore a “new Bretton Woods” is needed to ensure the required investments can be made in the science and technologies needed for lunar industrialization, fusion power development, and Mars colonization—a commitment to 50 years of rapid, real, and sustained progress. Starting in the 1990s, the late economist Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) proposed four specific nations should take the lead in launching this new Bretton Woods system: the United States, China, India and Russia (nations which are now also key leaders in space technology).

First, these nations should initiate a new Bretton Woods conference to work out long-term agreements for joint investments to develop the Moon-Mars mission technologies, and to build new economic infrastructure on Earth utilizing existing and future technologies. They—including other nations that join in—will establish an international development bank or a series of international funds for such investments.

Additionally, each nation can issue new credit for the space and fusion crash programs, and new infrastructure construction, through a national bank or national credit institution of its own.

Next, nations will need to establish new relative values between their currencies, and guarantee to keep these new currency exchange rates stable (utilizing controls against currency speculation). The U.S. dollar’s value, for example, is too high because of constant speculative investments in dollar assets, holding back U.S. productive investment and economic growth; a new Bretton Woods agreement would end this.

Finally, a new Bretton Woods credit system requires that nations use the Glass-Steagall Act principle—separating commercial lending banks from investment banking and speculative “shadow banks” (only commercial banking is to be protected and deposits insured by the taxpayer—no more bailing out losses from speculation). Thus, commercial banks will participate in the mobilization of credit to companies producing for the Moon-Mars mission and energy technology crash programs, and won’t divert federal credit into worthless speculation.

With this new system, money and credit can serve its proper function: to facilitate physical investments in the future creation of higher levels of physical productivity of societies. As before with the Apollo program, LaRouche’s 50-year Moon-Mars program will generate far more value that its costs.

Remove Barriers to Collaboration in Space

Remove barriers to international collaboration in space—especially impediments to U.S. cooperation with China and Russia (as typified by the so-called Wolf Amendment, barring NASA from working with China).

The new historical era initiated with LaRouche’s Moon-Mars program is also the end of the era of geopolitics—a dog-eat-dog view of the world built upon the assumptions of finite resources and limits to growth.

As Ehricke beautifully elucidated in his philosophical work, this “closed-world” view is unnatural, and will only lead to further conflict, war, and suffering. Mankind’s natural condition is the creation of an “open-world” process, in which the conquest of the Moon and Mars are the next frontiers in a trajectory of endless progress for our species—bringing new resources, new technologies, and new wealth at every step of the way. The necessity of pursuing this next frontier—to ensure mankind doesn’t suffer from a “closed-world” death spiral—is what Ehricke called the Extraterrestrial Imperative.

We see this conflict between “open” vs. “closed” world views expressed today in the attempts to subvert and block U.S. cooperation with China and Russia. In 2011, the U.S. Congress passed the so-called Wolf amendment (colloquially named after former U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf), prohibiting NASA from working with any Chinese citizens affiliated with the Chinese government (including the China National Space Administration).

While NASA can work with Russia’s space agency Roscosmos, our overall relations with Russia have further deteriorated following the fraudulent “Russiagate” accusations of interference with the 2016 U.S. presidential election (coming on top of decades of military-strategic policies intended to threaten Russia’s security).

It’s time to end these geopolitical, closed-world policies, and engage in cooperation with China, Russia, and other nations in an international pursuit of LaRouche’s 50-year Moon-Mars program.

As Lyndon LaRouche said in an address to that December 2009 international conference in Russia:

In order to realize the objectives which stand before us now, we have to give mankind a new mission—mankind as a whole. The mission is typified by the idea of the Mars colonization program. This requires us to make the kinds of changes, in terms of scientific progress, which are needed for mankind’s future existence.

We have many problems on this planet. And we can not solve those problems, extensively, without going into a development of the Solar System as a habitat of mankind. We’re on the edge of doing that, scientifically. There are many scientific discoveries, yet to be made, which will make it possible to act for man’s colonization of Mars. That will be in some time to come. But what we need now is the intention of accomplishing the Mars colonization program. We need to educate and develop generations of young people, who will be oriented to that kind of mission. In the coming period, we will have the birth of young people who will be part of the colonization of Mars, in one way or the other, before this century is out.

We need to give mankind a sense of purpose, developmental purpose, not only throughout the planet, but through the influence of Earth on the adjoining regions of the Solar System, and beyond.

Those objectives are feasible. There are, admittedly, many problems to be solved, scientific problems, which are not yet resolved. We have many questions. But, essentially, we know this is feasible. We know this should be feasible within two or three generations. What we have to do, is give to people, who will be the grandchildren, born now, to give them something to realize. When we’re dead and gone, they will be there, three generations from now, four generations from now. They will be the people who actually colonize areas beyond Earth itself. We need to give them the opportunity to do so. We need to give society, in the meantime, the mission-orientation of achieving that colonization, for our descendants, three generations or so down the line.

[fn_1]. “Moon’s South Pole in NASA’s Landing Sites,” NASA.gov, April 15, 2019, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/moon-s-south-pole-in-nasa-s-landing-sites [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. “Lunar Industrialization and Settlement—Birth of Polyglobal Civilization,” Krafft Ehricke, in: Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, edited by W.W. Mendell, Houston, TX: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1985, p. 827. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. Executive Intelligence Review Quarterly Economic Report, First Quarter 1987, page 122. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. “Profitability of Manufacturing in Space in View of Lunar Industrial Development and Geo-Socio-Economic Benefit” (presented to ASME Winter Meeting—Manufacturing in Space, Boston, Nov 17-18, 1983). Published in L. Kops, ed., Manufacturing in Space, PED Vol. 11 (NY: ASME, 1983), pp.183-198). [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. Technically, this would be constant acceleration for the first half of the flight, rotating the spacecraft 180 degrees at the midpoint, and constant deceleration for the latter half of the trip. [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]. “The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending,” Michael K. Evans, Chase Econometric Associates, Inc., April 1976. [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]. “The LaRouche Doctrine: Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.,” Executive Intelligence Review, April 17, 1984. [back to text for fn_7]

The Suppression of Fusion

Values are in 2008 dollars. Actual fusion funding is the average annual funding from 1976 to 2005, as provided by the Department of Energy for magnetic confinement fusion research and development. The fusion crash program values are from the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, as reported in “Fusion Power by Magnetic Confinement: Program Plan: 1976,” ERDA report ERDA-76/110. The Manhattan Project and Apollo Program values are from “The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and the Federal Energy Technology R&D Programs: A Comparative Analysis,” by Deborah D. Stine, June 30, 2009, in the Congressional Research Service’s Report for Congress, RL34645.

The actual fusion funding is from the Department of Energy magnetic confinement fusion research and development program. The fusion crash program values are from the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration’s “Logic III” (fusion power by 1998) as reported in “Fusion Power by Magnetic Confinement: Program Plan: 1976,” ERDA report ERDA-76/110. Assessment in 2008 dollars.

---------------------------------------------

The reason we don’t have commercial, widespread fusion power today is that the required crash program was never implemented. For example, in 1976 the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration defined a comprehensive proposal for a crash program development of fusion power in 15 to 30 years—an approach that would have brought fusion power online by 2005 at the latest, and by 1990 at the earliest.

In terms of total funding, this 1976 proposal would have sat between two earlier successful crash programs, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program. In terms of average annual funding, it was on the lower end (compared with Apollo and the Manhattan Project).

However, at the time of this 1976 study, it was also noted that constant funding at the projected 1978 level wouldn’t be enough to achieve the breakthrough—a “fusion never” level of funding. In reality, since the early 1980s fusion funding has been below the “fusion never” level, and far below the crash program requirements. The reason your home isn’t powered by abundant, cheap fusion power today is that the required investments were simply never made. [back to text]

First published in EIR on July 26, 2010

LAROUCHE WEBCAST

‘Why Do We Go to Mars?’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

CC BY-SA 3.0/Pancotti

A spacecraft powered by fusion arrives at Mars, as conceived in 2013 by a NASA-funded project of MSNW LLC and the University of Washington. It uses deuterium-tritium fuel in a magneto-inertial fusion system.

---------------------------------------------

The following is an extract from Lyndon LaRouche’s keynote address to a June 26, 2010 LaRouche PAC webcast from Northern Virginia. The meeting was chaired by his national spokeswoman Debra Hanania-Freeman. His keynote was followed by a nearly three-hour dialogue with participants. Click here to watch the entire webcast or click here to read the entire webcast.

This Republic is the most precious thing, that the world has seen in a very long time. And it’s now being destroyed. And it’s being destroyed in part, because our own people do not know, and understand, the legacy which they represent, which they embody. They don’t know what kind of education system we require to be citizens, really—not to qualify for voting, that’s important; but to be citizens: that is, to embody this legacy from many generations before us, a legacy of humanity’s progress, which we, in particular, established with the creation of this Republic. We have allowed that to be taken away from us, and destroyed!

Mankind Needs a New Dimension

And this is a question of physical economy. And all the other aspects of economy are essentially appendages of that mission. We’re now at the point, that, if this nation is destroyed—as it’s being destroyed under this President [Barack Obama] and that pack of scoundrels and fools and cowards and prostitutes who represent our Congress today—if we allow this to happen, this will be a calamity for all humanity, for generations to come.

Therefore, we have to go to Mars, not because we want to get there, but we don’t want to fail to get there! Because, what does this mean? We’re going to a new conception of basic economic infrastructure, which started with the space pioneers in the 1920s, and into the United States. We began to realize that mankind needs a new dimension, beyond railroads, beyond old water systems, needs a new dimension for the expression of humanity in the Solar System.

This is not just for “getting there.” This is for giving man a mission, a natural mission for mankind, on which we will base the culture which increases mankind’s options, and also the security of humanity. That is, by developing ourselves, instead of sitting on one planet and depleting that planet and doing nothing else, and becoming fat and lazy—instead of that, let’s take on a mission!

Let’s look ahead 75 years, three generations. And let’s take what we have now, with these—we’ve got young people under 25 who are in a disastrous state of education in life. They’re going no place, unless we do something for them. We’re going to have to give them a mission, and an opportunity, which inspires them, so that their children will not be so damned stupid. And therefore, by three successive generations of development, I’m satisfied, from the work that we’ve been doing in the Basement,[fn_1] and similar kinds of things, I’m satisfied that we could develop the scientific and technological capabilities, in three successive generations—all the time, bringing our people up to a higher level of productivity—to make up for what we’ve lost, and to go beyond that. And it’s certain to me, that there are the technologies available to us today, which, if we continue to develop them, will enable us to do that.

There are monstrous problems in trying to get to Mars! That’s not empty space out there. Mankind needs a gravitational system or the equivalent to live. You get away from Earth’s gravitation, and Earth’s protection of our environment, you’re in trouble! We faced this, in going to the Moon, and with the space work generally. This is largely in the medical/biological area, among other things. But we know we can solve the problem. What the solution is, precisely, we don’t know: So, we’ve got to find out!

We know we have to develop the Moon, which is accessible to us, readily, with technology already developed by us. We know we can develop an industry on the Moon, because you don’t want to take off from Earth, and lug a lot of things up from Earth; there’s just too much effort involved. Go to the Moon, take your technology to the Moon, develop industries on the Moon: You can build the spacecraft and other things you need, to go to Mars!

Which has been the mission, ever since the 1920s, when the landing on the Moon was first planned by some people in Germany! That got diverted into a different purpose of course, under Hitler. But, we revived that, after the war, and we went in that direction, on a program which was not designed to make weapons. It was designed to enable us to go to the Moon, and by going to the Moon, to be able to go to Mars!

Why do we go to Mars? Because it’s the nature of man to do so: The nature of man is expressed by the fact that we are not a fixed species, with fixed behavior. We’re a species that must develop, as mankind has developed, despite all the setbacks. Mankind has greatly improved, since our first evidence of what mankind was on this planet. Improved through technology, through intellectual development, stimulated by technology; by improvements in culture, especially Classical culture.

And the purpose of man, is to find his place in the universe.

Don’t worry about what the destination is. We’ve got to find our place in the universe: We must develop! Mankind is creative. Mankind must create! Mankind must develop!

And if we do that—the space program, as we would develop it—my estimate is, that it will take three generations to develop the capability to actually put human beings safely on Mars. To solve the problem of gravitation in interplanetary flight and that sort of thing. We can do it! We don’t have a population which is trained, yet, to undertake that mission. But we have a population, which is ready to be uplifted from despair, now, and plan that the grandchildren of people today, of young people today—the grandchildren of young people today will solve that problem! And it should be our mission to dedicate the United States, in particular, and the planet as a whole to that mission, to give mankind a sense and a determination of a future which should belong to mankind.

Mankind was put in this universe for some purpose. We’re not always too sure what that purpose is. But we’re sure of one thing about that purpose: It requires, as history has shown us, the development of the intellectual powers of mankind, the intellectual powers of man’s progress. The future, if it means anything to have children and grandchildren, is to ensure that the children and grandchildren have made an upwards step, beyond what’s impossible now. And to do as we’ve done before, from our past experience, in making the kind of progress, the changes in behavior, and progress, and increase in the power of mankind, to solve great problems, problems of disease, all kinds of problems.

NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona

The purpose of the Mars Mission is that, “within three generations, we’ll take this wretched nation, this poor, broken-down, ruined, betrayed nation, and, in cooperation with other nations on this planet, we will develop a technology and the people capable of carrying it, which will, step by step, bring man to his true dignity, to recognize the place of man in the universe.” Shown: An artist’s concept of NASA’s Phoenix Mars Lander just before touchdown on the Red Planet, 2008.

---------------------------------------------

The Mars Mission and Immortality

We know that is a requirement for man. Therefore, we have to put a name on it, and the name we put on it for the short term, is the Mars Mission. And we say, that within three generations, we’ll take this wretched nation, this poor, broken-down, ruined, betrayed nation, and, in cooperation with other nations on this planet, we will develop a technology and the people capable of carrying it, which will, step by step, bring man to his true dignity, to recognize the place of man in the universe. Not to what we’re going to do in the universe, ultimately, but to know we’re there!

And we need that.

You know, people talk about immortality and so forth—what’s it mean? Just another person being produced, to replace the one that died? No. Immortality is the certain understanding, that you are living today, because you are doing something, which is going to lead to the development of man’s power in the future. Your immortality lies in your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren beyond that. Your immortality, your purpose of your life, is what comes out of it! That you’re a permanent part of the universe! Because, by developing within the universe, you’ve demonstrated that you’re not just a drop on the planet: You are part of the universe, forever!

And that should motivate you.

Now: This kind of thinking, requires some changes in economics. So therefore, back to the point: infrastructure. What we shall do, is, we shall take what we have of our technology, now, what remains of it, and what we’re getting, and what we can share with other nations—we’re going to take that technology, and we’re going to build the infrastructure needed to develop the industries, and other things we need. So what we do, is, we take a project like a transcontinental rail system, and transcontinental water system, other similar kinds of systems, which are global in effect, but for ourselves, for the inside of the United States.

We must now, since we’re going to be short, the banks are going to be short of money, we have to do this reorganization, which means we’re going to save some banks, but they’re not going to be able to carry themselves on their present level of activity. They will be banks in bankruptcy reorganization.

Now, what’s your plan for banking reorganization of these bankrupt banks that we have saved, which now conform to a Glass-Steagall standard? You’re going to have to say, “Well, we don’t owe any more of this debt. Most of this Federal debt just died! We killed it, before it took us over.”

What we are going to do, is, we are going to take these great infrastructure projects, which we know desperately we need today; we are going to use these infrastructure projects as a way of rebuilding the skills and attitudes of our own population. We are going to educate them for this mission. And then, as we do that, we’re going to say, “Wait a minute! But, how do we develop this infrastructure?” Oh, well, we’ve got to build an industry.

Ahh!! So, we’ll build an industry to make the infrastructure projects work! We will make many industries. We will build water systems as part of the infrastructure. That will also stimulate more work.

So, now we will take this population, which is halfway cast off, and abused, and we will give it work! What kind of work? We will give them the work of developing the infrastructure. We’ll give them the work of the industries, which at various parts and localities in the United States, are industries which are going to supply what is necessary to build the infrastructure! We are going to put the nation back to work.

And we’re going to take Federal credit, under the U.S. Constitution—having cancelled this phony debt!—we now are clear to utter new credit, under our Constitution. We’re capable of reforming our Federal banking system, as Alexander Hamilton would have done, and generating credit, which is now going to go, number one, to these infrastructure projects, and next, also, to the industries and agriculture which is necessary to support the infrastructure projects.

Now, we have an employment plan.

We have to have a technology driver, a long-term technology driver: The space program becomes the conception of the spillover—because we had spillover before, with the Kennedy program—the spillover of technology and science from the space program, will be the stimulant for the progress in the quality of performance of our rebuilding of the economy.

So, now the Federal government, with its power, having cancelled all this worthless debt, will now fund the banks. It will go to our commercial banks, within the Federal system, and their spinoffs in the states and localities, and they will now get Federal credit, to pass through to the banks, to go to support and fund the local industries and other things that go with the infrastructure, and the industrial and agricultural development. All we need, is the ability to pay the interest on that debt.

And where does that come from? It comes from the gains in technology, science and technology: You increase the productive powers of labor. What you’re investing in, is the increase in the productive powers of labor, including turning people who are not productive at all today, and showing them how to become productive, and giving them the opportunity to become productive.

So therefore, we are not concerned about “money,” as such. There’s no magic in money. Money is simply an arrangement which is necessary, to coordinate a flow of credit, within a diversified economy. That’s all. It’s a way you pay people, a way you buy, and a way you sell. And you have to have a system which is reliable. But it’s for that purpose: the same thing as the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s system of scrip. And that worked fine! For two generations, it created miracles! And Europe was shocked by it, astonished by it—and frightened by it.

So that’s all we have to do, is have a reasonable interest rate, a basic 1.5% interest rate in the Federal system and the international system. A fixed exchange rate among nation-states, which are sovereigns. And that’s all we need! But we need the imagination and the devotion to make it work.

So therefore, don’t worry about the money. We’re going to cancel most of it! As Franklin Roosevelt would say, “Winston! We’re going to cancel your system! And we’re going to bring back the American System, which worked just fine, until you got your paws on it, you ol’ bum!” That’s the matter.

Now therefore, the questions which should concern us, are questions, issues, which I touched upon, in what I said so far: We need mission orientations which are physical. Now, physical does not mean just, you know, sweat. Physical means you have a conception of man’s relationship in the universe.

There Is No Such Thing as ‘Zero Growth’

Now, we have had a great help from a Russian, and he had great help from a lot of other people, like Pasteur of France, things like that: Vernadsky. And Vernadsky was probably the greatest scientific thinker, in terms of his actual concrete achievements, in Russia, during the first half of the last century.

What Vernadsky did, with a prompting, in large degree, from the example of Louis Pasteur, was to recognize that the physical universe is composed of three primary sub-elements, things which are not living processes, nor products of living processes as such. Then you have living processes in general—animals, plants, and so forth. Then you have mankind. Now, all living processes are anti-entropic, that is, they are, intrinsically, as processes, they tend to grow: They have a principle of growth in them. Growth and development. The entire history of paleontology and so forth shows that the nature of living processes—and this is even true of the non-living process—grow. There is no such thing as zero growth in the universe! There is zero growth in some minds, and also retrogression, but that’s a different question—and behavior.

But in principle, nature does not dictate zero growth. We’re not in a zero growth. There is no such thing as a principle of entropy: Everything grows.

Look, you have the evolution of the planet, you’re dealing with this petroleum mess in the Caribbean. What is this? Well, the Earth—hey, buddy, the Earth makes petroleum! And it makes it down there, deep! Deep wells, gas, and all that gunk, it makes all this stuff! Which is not living, but it is being created.

Then you look at animal life. You say, where does animal life start, in our account? Well, it starts with kinds of things you wouldn’t even recognize as life, today. And then you have the development of new species, one after the other, layers and layers of species, increasing their power over the planet, changing the character of the planet. Wonderful! And then, you get man: And the difference in man is, we are capable of conscious creation! Animal life itself, all animal processes, the development of higher species, from lower species; the development of planets!

Where’d the planets come from? They came from the Sun. The Sun, one day, began shedding, like a disk-like formation around itself. And it began to slow down a little bit, because it kept throwing this material off, which sort of slowed down its rate of rotation. And then, inside this layer of material, this disk-like formation, the Sun irradiated this, and caused a process of development, where you get the famous thing which you used to get in chemistry about the 92 elements of the Periodic Table.

And you have in the planets, forms of matter which do not exist in the Sun! They were developed, by the Sun, in this process of synthesis. This created a gaseous state, as Gauss said, and, because of certain characteristics of the orbit, as Gauss observed, these layers worked like fractional distillation. The different planetary orbits began to condense, and form planets and moons and other such stuff. And suddenly, we had the 92-element Periodic Table presented to us—at my age, in my youth. Things have grown since that time. I didn’t do it, but it’s grown.

So the universe itself is inherently creative! The Solar System is a creation of the Sun. The process of the Sun creating the Solar System is a product of the characteristics of the galaxy! We are simply—and our Sun, our Solar System, is on the edge of our galaxy. Our galaxy is one of many galaxies. These many galaxies form a universe, beyond what we even know—we have estimates now, but it’s there. Everything is creative. Naturally creative! Every state of nature, defined by Vernadsky, is creative. The animal kingdom is creative; life is creative, inherently! And life is everywhere.

Humanity is consciously creative! Only mankind can willfully generate a higher state of organization within the universe, willfully, by an act of will, an act of knowledge. Our mission is that. And that’s what should guide us; that’s what should be our mission.

That’s what we’ve lost! Because all the greatest scientists and all the greatest thinkers of mankind have always thought in that direction, and have always moved in that direction.

So therefore, the task is this, and that is the essence of physical economy.

[fn_1]. The “Basement” refers to a group of young people who are collaborating with LaRouche in making fundamental scientific breakthroughs, especially, at this time, in the field of cosmic radiation, and its impact on man’s ability for interplanetary travel. [back to text for fn_1]

II. The Oligarchy’s Anti-China Rampage

Xinjiang Province: China

Rejects All Accusations

by Christine Bierre

MOFA/Yang Chaoyue

Group photo of tour group. Christine Bierre is in the center.

---------------------------------------------

PARIS, July 23—Hardly had the breakthroughs of the Xi-Trump meeting occurred at the G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan than London and its neo-conservative allies, in and out of the Trump administration, escalated a new flank in the war of nerves against China. Following the demonization of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by London’s neo-con and liberal acolytes in the United States and Europe, the trade-war hype, the Huawei saga, and the Hong Kong mass demo destabilization, in come accusations of mass torture in Xinjiang.

C. Bierre

Xiahe County vista in the Gannan (Gaxiu) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Gansu Province, July 19, 2019.

magicznytybet.pl

A seminar at the China Tibetology Research Center in Beijing, July 8, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Attacks have been growing in recent months against China’s counter-terrorist offensive in this region, a region that has suffered the most from the spillover of terrorism spawned in recent years’ Middle East wars. A Uyghur contingent that had joined ISIS and Al Qaeda in those wars brought that terrorism home to China. Accusations have been made that China has illegally jailed 1-3 million Uyghurs, and is subjecting them to torture, brainwashing and even organ harvesting!

These accusations came to a head on July 10 when a group of 22 nations (18 European nations joined by Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand), addressed a letter to Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, noting “disturbing reports of large-scale arbitrary detentions of Uyghurs, and other Muslim and minority communities.” On July 13, however, a group of 37 other countries sent their own letter to the UN authorities, backing China and praising its government for having invited diplomats, think-tanks and media to visit Xinjiang, noting that “what they saw and heard in Xinjiang was in total contradiction with what had been reported by certain Western media.” Among the signers were ten Muslim states!

The Chinese government has, in fact, successfully conducted a counter-terror operation and is continuing to organize visits to Xinjiang. Between July 7 and 14, representing the French Schiller Institute’s China desk and as a journalist who writes on strategic and defense questions, I had the opportunity of participating in one such visit, with a very interesting group of experts. They were representatives from Russia, Italy, France, Poland, Pakistan, Thailand, and New Zealand, including journalists and academic think-tank experts, most of whom had in-depth experience and knowledge of China. Our eight-day “Information Mission” concentrated on China’s policies towards ethnic and religious minorities in general, and on its policies of counter-terrorism in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

magicznytybet.pl

Seminar at the Institute of Borderline States in Beijing, July 8, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

China’s Policies Towards Minorities

Our tour started with seminars at the Institute of Tibetology and the Institute of Borderline States, in Beijing. China, with its more than 5,000-year history, is a centralized but multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, home to 56 different ethnic groups, which benefit from having equal rights with the Han majority (92%). China has created 5 autonomous regions and 30 autonomous prefectures, in which minorities are granted some advantages beyond those available to the Han majority, such as favorable quotas to enter schools and greater access to public services as well as an exemption from the “one child only” policy that had been applied to the Han. Religious practices are strongly protected as long as they don’t promote separatist or extremist ideas. The Koran, the Bible and other scriptures are published by the State and are accessible through the internet and available at all libraries. The Muslim religion is practiced in 39,000 mosques in China (25,000 in Xinjiang alone) and requires only certification of the Imams.

The contribution of ethnic minorities to the particularly rich cultural and religious heritage of China is fully recognized by the State. However, due to the difficulty of reaching out to them in the border lands of China (e.g., Mongolia, Tibet, Xinjiang) and the daunting challenges of their geography, economic development has lagged, a weakness which the enemies of China have always exploited.

Xinjiang has been part of China ever since the Han dynasty, under the name of “Western territories.” But, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, taking advantage of China’s weakness, the British, the Russians, and the Japanese fought for the control of this area in what was then called the “Great Game.” The ideologies of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Islamism promoted by the different camps gave birth to a movement in favor of an “Oriental Turkestan.”

Some were calling for an independent state on Xinjiang’s territory; others, for an Islamic State extending from Turkey to Xinjiang. The heirs to the British Empire today are following the same policies towards the Uyghurs and Tibetans. Is it a coincidence that the so-called freedom and liberation movements are both financed by the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington and that their main propaganda instrument, Radio Free Asia, was recreated by the U.S. government in 1996 and has been run by it ever since?

What is important in the Chinese counter-terror offensive is that it is based on the recognition that economic development is the key to solving those problems: “We have to eliminate the soil which allows extremist groups to recruit people, and that is poverty,” insisted the president of the Institute of Borderline States in Beijing. The counter-terrorist campaign is also based on a clear differentiation between those who have committed major crimes, who are punished severely, and those who have committed minor crimes, who are offered a very positive rehabilitation program if they admit to their crimes and clearly express a desire to change. The Chinese policy aims, says the government, at striking the right balance between “severity” and “leniency.”

Gansu and Xinjiang

Our visit took us to two of the poorest provinces of China today, Gansu and Xinjiang. But thanks to modern road and rail infrastructure such as the Beijing-Urumqi Expressway inaugurated in 2017 and the Lanzhou-Urumqi high-speed train, these provinces are rapidly catching up with the rest of the nation. Both provinces played key roles in the ancient Silk Roads and are strategic to the success of the BRI today.

Gansu has a Tibetan minority and Xinjiang, a large minority of Muslim Uyghurs (45%). In these areas our group saw the ongoing “poverty alleviation” measures that had started with the Western development strategy (1999) and were accelerated by the BRI beginning in 2013. We also witnessed the strong protection given by the State to local cultures and to the practice of religions, and, in Xinjiang in particular, the ongoing massive rehabilitation efforts in this area, which has almost eliminated all terrorist attacks in the last three years, to the great relief of local populations and the Chinese government.

Gansu is a province with great disparities: a very mineral-rich soil, but a mountainous and desert-like geography. The rich Tibetan autonomous prefecture of Gannan (TAR) is an exception to this. We visited this beautiful area, home to some 120 Buddhist temples, and in particular to the Labrang monastery of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Here, a monk, with a Socratic outlook, having engaged in a 20-year study of philosophy, gave us a tour. “Man is not a beast,” he stressed. “He has access to the light of reason. Man can know truth, but for that he must first know himself!”

magicznytybet.pl

A model Tibetan village in Gannan, July 11, 2019.

C. Bierre

Labrang Tibetan Buddhist Monastery in Xiahe County, Gannan, July 10, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

We visited a model village in Gaxiu that will replace 95 poorer villages totaling 1,800 inhabitants, as part of the extensive effort to meet the goals set by Xi Jinping of eliminating all extreme poverty by 2021. Five such new villages, equipped with clinics, primary schools, and areas for growing vegetables, have been already built. Twenty-five more will be built by next year. The villages are financed by the government, but built by the people, who become owners of their homes. Richer provinces also contribute 0.1% of their income. Today, in this area, 100% of the population has access to clean water and to 15 years of free education. With the orientation towards industry, ecological investments and tourism, a Tibetan yak herder today can expect to go from a yearly 9,000 Yuan income to 30,000 Yuan.

Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

On July 12 we headed towards Xinjiang, taking a bus through the mountains on good roads that had gas stations and restroom facilities. First we visited Turpan, then the capital city, Urumqi.

These areas are the supposed site of the alleged massive arrests by the Chinese government. This Western state is strategic to the success of the BRI. It not only represents a sixth of China’s territory and is very rich in raw materials; it is also the door to the Silk Road leading to Europe. Without a peaceful Xinjiang, there will be no Belt and Road Initiative! Xinjiang has a large Uyghur minority and shares borders with eight states (Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kashmir) in which poverty and religious extremism are often endemic. This is the province in China that is most exposed to terrorism.

However, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs official accompanying us stated emphatically: “The Chinese government is not fighting Muslims or Uyghurs; it is fighting terrorism that has spilled over into our country through these borders, from people going back and forth to the wars in the Middle East.” Between 8,000 and 15,000 Uyghurs are reported to have joined ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, with the explicit aim of pursuing their Holy War against Beijing next.

A large International Exhibit on terrorism in Urumqi demonstrates, with extensive photo and video material, the extent of the problem. No less than 14,000 bloody attacks occurred in Xinjiang between 1992 and 2015—suicide bomb attacks, vehicles launched against people in crowded areas, arbitrary knife, machete and axe attacks against ordinary people. The high point of these attacks was the 2009 riots in Urumqi which left 197 dead and more than 1,600 wounded.

A Preventive War Against Terrorism

This is the background to understanding what the Chinese government calls a preventive counter-terrorist policy. First, the decision was taken to improve the living standards of the local population, through development of infrastructure. And it works! Infrastructure has boosted tourism in the ancient city of Turpan, from 8 to 10 million visitors between 2016 and 2017 and up to 6 million in just the first six months of 2019.

In a White Paper on Xinjiang published on March 2019, the Chinese government lists the efforts it is conducting to “ensure and improve public well-being” in this area. Among those efforts are plans to transfer 100,000 jobs to southern Xinjiang (2018-2020); creating 1,400,000 new industrial jobs; free universal health checkups; health insurances for 15 serious illnesses; improving the social security system; and increasing allowances granted to impoverished populations.

While those having committed major crimes undergo “severe punishment,” those having committed minor crimes and having confessed, repented, and shown willingness to reintegrate into society, are treated with “leniency” and offered a full rehabilitation package.

Those who accept reintegration are then recruited to vocational centers where they undergo a well thought-out strategy of rehabilitation that can go from several months to several years. The first phase is the mastering of spoken and written Mandarin, along with their own languages, to be able to integrate in the society; then civic education given by legal experts, which educates people on China’s standards of criminal law.

C. Bierre

Learning medical first aid skills at a Gaochang vocational center in Turpan Prefecture, July 12, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Trainees then can choose among different vocational activities they want to learn in order to improve their chances to get gainful employment. The choices offered depend on the job potentialities of the local market. Options range from hairdressing, to garment production, medical first aid, tourism, and factory work. According to the White Paper, these rehabilitation centers for minor delinquents adopt “a boarding school management system,” in which “students can have home visits on a regular basis and can ask for leave to attend to personal matters. When the trainees meet the proper trade assessment standards, they get completion certificates and are assisted in getting jobs.”

C. Bierre

Learning machine-sewing at a Gaochang vocational center in Turpan, July 12, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Visiting Vocational Centers

When we arrived in Turpan, it was over 103 degrees Fahrenheit, which is normal in its 100-day summer season! We first visited the Gaochang District vocational education and training center that has a capacity of 600 students.

The counter-terror policies were clearly carefully thought out. Xinjiang is well known for its beautiful folklore. What better way to counter the Wahhabite ideology, which rejects progress and social activities, than with beautiful music and dance? We were invited to watch a dance performance by a highly professional group, with projected images of local realities and of modern China in the background.

We then visited the vocational classes. One group was reading out loud in Mandarin a text composed by the class, focusing on local values. Later we spent some time in the civic education classes, before moving to vocational classes in learning how to use sewing machines, how to apply first aid, and a class training tourist guides. We then witnessed a group receiving art lessons: ten people were learning figure drawing and the use of watercolors in one room; another group was practicing calligraphy, copying and translating between Chinese and Uyghur; others were singing in a chorus accompanied by instrumental musicians.

magicznytybet.pl

Portrait drawing at a Gaochang vocational center in Turpan, July 12, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

There were many young people in those groups, especially young women. In the artistic classes, there was a form of playfulness and freedom, which is the key to reorienting people towards productive ideas of society, and contributing to social harmony, rather than criminal behavior. The environment we saw in those classes is coherent with the Chinese government’s stated policy of creating not only a functioning Xinjiang, but also a “beautiful Xinjiang.” Through these efforts and others, we saw a productive cross-cultural approach, bringing together different ethnic groups and the Han, coherent with the national orientation of China as a multi-ethnic unity, without trying to eliminate or marginalize minorities.

magicznytybet.pl

A view of People’s Square in Urumqi, July 13, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Urumqi

At Urumqi, we visited a cross-cultural center, created in 2001, working on the same principle. People of different ethnic groups are brought together to practice dancing, choral singing, cooking or other activities in order to better know each other. Here also, the environment was free and playful.

Our last stop in Urumqi was the White Mosque where the Imam reported the participation of 200 to 300 people in services every day; 1,000 to 2,000 on Fridays, and up to 5,000 during Ramadan. Parallel to the ongoing crackdown on terrorists in the area, the government has improved the material conditions in these mosques—providing water, electricity, flush toilets, radio and television facilities, libraries, and fans and air conditioning.

We visited the museum and public areas, confirming what other witnesses have reported, that the security situation has vastly improved in Xinjiang. The police presence and checkpoints, which were very visible last year, have disappeared. We were able to walk around the large, beautiful central park, which was thick with probably as many as 10,000 people enjoying themselves in the environs. The last stop was shopping at the bustling Grand International Bazaar.

A street scene at the Urumqi International Grand Bazaar, July 14, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

China Denounces ‘Double Standards’

In such information missions, often the fear is that the country visited might restrict your access, displaying select showcase locations. The composition of our group was very helpful in addressing this concern, many having long experience in China and the regions of China that we were visiting. The group included Russian scholars from the Far East Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who have visited the province and worked closely with Chinese institutes on the Xinjiang minorities, for more than 15 years; a former Pakistani Air Force officer, who is now a journalist and TV anchorman—his first visit to Xinjiang goes back to 1974; and the head of a China-New Zealand friendship association who organizes tourist trips to China, and is also involved half the year in poverty reduction programs in China.

All these experts confirmed the important improvement of living standards and infrastructure in the areas with which they were familiar. Our Pakistani expert, a practicing Muslim, who has a keen interest in seeing that Muslims can practice freely, confirmed that this is the case.

I can say that we saw a successful model for dealing with a highly degraded security situation, in a very humane way, in this very large country of 1.4 billion inhabitants. The Chinese government White Paper openly discusses that “a large number of people are undergoing training.”

The terrorist problem is not Chinese in origin. China has been successful in bringing some 800 million people out of extreme poverty in the last 30 years. The approach to its western regions is aimed at solving the economic problems of provinces like Gansu and Xinjiang. But foreign powers, which since the end of the 1990s have been playing with fire, have been using Wahhabite extremists as cannon fodder first in Afghanistan, then against Libya and Syria. Chinese officials met on this trip denounced, in this respect, the “double standards” of some Western countries, which make distinctions between “extremists” useful to themselves, and others they decide to battle, letting “useful extremists” operate against China, some based in European countries.

In order to bring terrorism once and for all to an end, I am convinced, it is urgent, that this problem be brought up, once again, at the UN Security Council, as was done most effectively during the Syrian war. We were told, in briefings during the trip, that this approach is one supported by China.

China Chooses Development and Education, Not War, to Combat Terrorism

by Mike Billington

Public Domain/ Ron Przysucha/

Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Secretary of State, repeats lies about China.

---------------------------------------------

Aug. 2—The western world has been bombarded with virulent anti-China diatribes over the past year, reaching a fever pitch with the claim that the Chinese state has rounded up millions of Muslims in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, placing them in “concentration camps.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on May 2 told Fox News the camps were “reminiscent of the 1930s,” conjuring up images of Nazi death camps. Neocon fanatic Gordon G. Chang, author of the totally discredited book, The Coming Collapse of China, even claimed there were crematoria in the camps to dispose of the bodies.

It is indeed true that China has set up detention institutions, however these institutions are providing vocational education and training to those who have violated minor laws, such as refusing to carry government ID cards, calling them not “halal,” rather than making those individuals go through the regular judicial system.

Any comparison to Soviet Gulag “re-education” camps, or the outrageous comparison to Nazi death camps, is easily shown to be a vicious lie, in keeping with the desperate effort to describe China’s Belt and Road Initiative as an imperial plot to control the world.

A public letter from members of the most recent incarnation of the neocon Committee on the Present Danger, now focused on China, claims that China “is expanding its reach around the globe, co-opting our allies and other nations with the promise of economic gain, often with authoritarian capitalism posing as free commerce, corrupt business practices that go unchecked, state-controlled entities posing as objective academic, scientific, or media institutions; and trade and development deals that lack reciprocity, transparency, and sustainability. The CCP [Chinese Communist Party] corrupts everything it touches.”

This comes from a western faction that has fully supported the neo-colonial policy of denying infrastructure and industrial development to the formerly colonized nations, on the grounds that such modern technology was not “appropriate” to their level of development.

In fact, China has welcomed foreign individuals and reporters to visit the detention centers. National Public Radio (NPR) in the United States sent a team in May and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) visited in June, both publishing extensive, fully illustrated reports. While the authors of these reports tried to portray the detention centers in the most negative light possible, they couldn’t cover up the reality that these institutions are indeed providing extensive education—in the Mandarin language, Chinese history, and law—and specific vocational training, to thousands and thousands of mostly poor Uighur youths. The pictures accompanying the articles show diligent students, many dressed in traditional Uighur clothes, in clean classrooms and dormitories.

This past month, a group of experts from different parts of the world, most having long experience with China, were hosted on an eight-day “Information Mission” concentrating on China’s policies towards ethnic and religious minorities in general, and on its policies of counterterrorism in Xinjiang and neighboring Gansu Province. This group included Christine Bierre from the French office of the Schiller Institute, who wrote an extensive report on the trip, which accompanies this article.

The picture provided by the combination of the quite hostile NPR and BBC journalists, and the friendlier group of China experts, is actually very clear—and yet it is being totally ignored by the European and American press and those hell-bent on stoking confrontation with China.

The rising pace of truly hysterical attacks on China is largely motivated by the fear that President Trump, especially with the exposure of the “Russia collusion” hoax, will finally be able to successfully carrying out his stated intention of building friendly, cooperative relations with both Russia and China, a cooperation which threatens the very existence of Empire—the British imperial division of the world into warring blocs, East vs. West.

The Chinese Melting Pot

Islam came to China along the ancient Silk Road soon after the lifetime of the Prophet Mohammad, in the 7th Century. The thousands of Muslims who arrived both overland and by sea in the 7th to the 10th centuries included many traders, diplomats, and scientists. Beginning in the 10th Century, during the Song Dynasty, Islamic astronomers played a critical role in China’s court in determining the calendar, leading to Muslim astronomers being recruited in large numbers from the Arab world during later dynasties.

There are over 20 million Muslims in China today. About half are Muslims of Hui ethnic minority, spread across China, who are primarily descendants of Arab and Persian migrants along the ancient Silk Road. The Uighurs and other Islamic populations of Turkish descendent are largely concentrated in Xinjiang. Ten of China’s 56 officially recognized minority peoples are predominantly Muslim. Islam today is practiced openly and freely across China—there are 57,000 Islamic clerics in China, and 39,000 mosques, 25,000 of them in Xinjiang.

The same is true of Christianity, Buddhism and other religions. There are more than 100 million Christians, and a similar number of Buddhists, who also practice their religion freely, despite fake news peddled by the anti-China propaganda outlets in the West.

CC BY-SA 2.5 es

The Afaq Khoja Mausoleum near Kashgar, Xinjiang Province.

---------------------------------------------

The exploitation of the Uighur people by the terrorist networks of Al-Qaeda and Islamic State began with training in Pakistani camps of selected Uighurs for terrorist operations within China, and expanded when recruits were sent to Syria following the outbreak of the western-supported terrorist uprising there in 2011. Under the name of the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP), an estimated 15,000 Uighurs have fought with the terrorists in Syria, with many returning to Xinjiang. It is estimated that as many as 5,000 are still in Syria, with the terrorists holding out in Idlib province.

A March 8, 2017 posting on The Diplomat provided a partial transcription of a February 2017 video released by the Islamic State in the Uighur language. The Diplomat reports that the 30-minute video shows—

footage of the detention of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang by the Chinese state, images of violent torture in prisons, and escape to the Islamic State. The authors inserted an excerpt of a speech by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from July 2014, wherein he broadly declared the Caliphate to include parts of China. Next, a bearded Uyghur militant wearing camouflage and surrounded by jihadists speaks in Uighur promising to wage a “holy war” to the bitter end until Sharia law has been spread throughout the world. He recites poetry in Uighur and swears loyalty and love to al-Baghdadi. . . . A militant teacher with his head covered . . . says, “Today we are fighting against kafirs [infidels] all around the world. Soon the black flag of Tawhid (Unity of Allah) will be hanging in the capital cities of the United States, Russia, and China. . . . Oh, you Chinese, who do not understand what people say! We are the soldiers of Allah; will make you understand Islam with the tongues of our weapons. We will come to you to shed blood like rivers and avenge the oppressed.” After that, he brutally decapitates a prisoner dressed in red, who is hanging upside down.

CC/Golegota

The Id Kah Mosque in the oasis city of Kashgar, Xinjiang.

---------------------------------------------

It is of note that the offices of the “Free Tibet” and “Free Xinjiang” movements, financed by U.S. regime-change networks, including the National Endowment for Democracy and the Soros-funded groups, are headquartered at the same address in Washington, D.C.

Education and Jobs

Du Bin, the head of the Information Office of China’s Office of the State Council, who guided the NPR tour in May, told the journalists that one important aspect of countering the terrorist organizing in the Uighur community was education and poverty eradication: “Detaining and educating them and providing job skills are all necessary to help the Xinjiang region achieve a national goal of eradicating poverty by 2020,” he told the NPR journalists. NPR’s report ridiculed the Chinese claim that the people in the facilities had been “harboring extremist thoughts,” but it also quotes Mejit Mahmut, the ethnic Uighur principal of one facility—the Kashgar Vocational Education and Training Center—saying that the 1,500 students in the facility, mostly Uighur, are treated well and are free to return home to their families on weekends. The average stay in the facilities is eight months, he said.

Real Development

Since China launched its “Great Leap West” in 1999 to develop the vast, desperately poor regions of its far western provinces—and especially since President Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road Economic Belt in Kazakhstan in 2013—Xinjiang has gone from being an isolated, land-locked region of poor farmers and merchants, to becoming a booming agro-industrial center, part of the greatest infrastructural development process in human history.

Then, there were few roads, and the only railroad was the Lanzhou-Xinjiang-Kazakhstan line passing through Urumqi. Now, hundreds of trains travel back and forth to Xinjiang, from the Chinese East Coast, and from Europe, every year. Two paved highways of 436 km and 562 km now cross the Taklamakan Desert, once known as a place where “once you go in, you never come out.” This modern transportation infrastructure connects the relatively more developed northern region to the isolated and impoverished southern region of Xinjiang. Average income in the province has increased more than ten-fold, for both the Uighur and the Han populations. Education and health facilities have expanded exponentially.

Human Rights Mafia Not Pleased

In a July 8 letter to the UN Human Rights Council, 22 ambassadors to the UN organizations in Geneva condemned China’s policies towards the minority Uighurs in Xinjiang. According to Reuters on July 10, the letter raised concerns about “large-scale places of detention, as well as widespread surveillance and restrictions, particularly targeting Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang.” The signers called on China to allow “meaningful access” to experts, and wrote:

We call on China to uphold its national laws and international obligations and to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion or belief in Xinjiang and across China. . . . We call also on China to refrain from the arbitrary detention and restrictions on freedom of movement of Uighurs, and other Muslim and minority communities in Xinjiang.

An unofficial list names the signers as the ambassadors of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. The United States did not sign.

China’s Foreign Ministry accurately said the letter “neglected the facts” and was a slander against China, an interference in its affairs, and the politicization of human rights.

On July 12, 37 UN ambassadors in Geneva countered with their own letter to the Human Rights Council, praising China’s humane approach to fighting separatist/terrorist recruitment efforts. By the end of the day on July 26, fully 50 ambassadors to the United Nations Office in Geneva, including many from majority-Islamic countries, had signed the counter-letter strongly praising China’s policies in Xinjiang.

Xinhua quoted from this joint letter on July 13:

We commend China’s remarkable achievements in the field of human rights by adhering to the people-centered development philosophy and protecting and promoting human rights through development. We also appreciate China’s contributions to the international human rights cause. Faced with the grave challenge of terrorism and extremism, China has undertaken a series of counter-terrorism and de-radicalization measures in Xinjiang, including setting up vocational education and training centers. Now safety and security has returned to Xinjiang and the fundamental human rights of people there have enjoyed stronger senses of fulfillment, happiness and security.

The ambassadors expressed their “firm opposition” to certain countries’ practice of politicizing human rights issues, by naming and shaming, and publicly exerting pressures on other countries.

The original 37 signers were from Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Kuwait, Laos, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

By July 26, they had been joined by 13 more including Iran, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Djibouti and Palestine.

On August 1, Global Times editorialized:

It is worthy of recognition that the situation in Xinjiang has been changed through strengthening social governance that uproots extremism, rather than through massive violence. Without an “anti-terror war” or “cultural revolution,” Xinjiang has kept its original social structure and cultural tradition, but terrorism and related evil forces have been destroyed. . . . Over the past year, Xinjiang has invited tens of foreign envoy groups, international observers and journalists to visit the autonomous region, especially the vocational education and training centers. This attitude is a manifestation of Xinjiang’s sincerity in combining anti-terrorism and de-radicalization work with respect for human rights. Xinjiang once suffered from chaos over a period of time. Terrorists were rampant and extremism echoed external forces.

There have been no terrorist attacks in Xinjiang in the past three years.

Education, or ‘War on Terrorism’?

As in Tibet, those who cry for a return to the backwardness and the impoverishment of the old days in Xinjiang can only be those who, like Prince Charles, wish to preserve the Empire and reduce the world’s population, keeping the majority of the world’s citizens living in primitive conditions. Contrast the education-method to counter terrorism being implemented in Xinjiang to that of Tony Blair, George Bush, and Barack Obama—bombing entire nations into oblivion under the name of a “war on terror,” killing hundreds of thousands, mostly civilians, with a result that there are more terrorists created than existed in the first place. Were America and the European nations to join with China and Russia in the New Silk Road, in joint development of the formerly colonialized nations, then the terrorist scourge would be soon eliminated.

THREAT TO CHINA SCHOLARS

Universities Speak Out

Against Dark-Ages Witch Hunt

by Brian Lantz

Aug. 3—In recent weeks, a growing number of U.S. universities have spoken out in defense of the advancement of science and the free exchange of scientific ideas. Their statements and actions have been in defense of Chinese and Chinese-American students and researchers at U.S. institutions, singled out in a new McCarthyite witch hunt.

Defending their foreign students, researchers and academics, university officials from Caltech, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Stanford, University of Michigan, University of Pittsburgh, Yale and others have released statements upholding American core ideals. University associations—including the Association of American Universities and the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration—are actively lobbying and, in some cases, joining legal actions.

The broader British Empire-instigated assault, on all forms of mutually beneficial cooperation between the United States and China, continues to rely on a “thin reed” of neocon networks embedded in U.S. think tanks, the Congress, media and White House. This is also the case on university campuses; it is now being challenged.

Not a Moment Too Soon

“Russiagate” move over! A heavy-handed scheme is again afoot promoting fear, led by sophistical neocons and unscrupulous politicians. Two key congressional bills—the Securing American Science and Technology Act (H.R. 3038) in the House and the Secure American Research Act (S.2133) in the Senate—would create a White House-led working group to coordinate new federal activities to wall off fundamental research, citing threats of China spies. Representatives from 19 federal agencies would have the job of coming up with common definitions of the scope of the threat and creating a straight-jacket (“best practices”) that universities and government laboratories must adhere to. The academic community is to be allotted a token advisory role. In the process, suspicion and incompetence will prevail as the classrooms and laboratories of scientific discovery go dark.

Center: U.S. Army National Guard/Michelle Gonzalez

Left to right: Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ); Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX); Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI).

---------------------------------------------

The “soft ball” version in the House is co-sponsored by representatives Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) and Jim Langevin (D-RI). Its goal, Sherrill says, is “a unified approach to protect research without creating overlapping or contradictory federal requirements.” The Senate bill is much darker. The Senate bill has bipartisan support, as three Democrats joined Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and four other Republicans as initial co-sponsors. A July 17 press release from Cornyn, chair of a Senate Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, describes universities as “soft targets . . . for Chinese human espionage and cyberattacks.” More on S.2133 below.

One should be reminded of the 1950s efforts in the South to stop the integration of public places, for example by filling in public swimming pools with earth. China is now a leading nation in space science and exploration; Russia and China are leading in hypersonic weapons delivery systems; and China leads in quantum computing research—the list goes on. As university officials are warning, the actual damage will be to science in the United States. The Hungarian-American nuclear physicist Dr. Edward Teller—whom no one ever accused of being a Russian or Chinese spy—famously warned:

[E]xaggerated secrecy will drive away the best people. It is where secrecy gets married to general rules, to bureaucracy, to doctrine—that is where secrecy does most of its harm.

Further, these mechanisms can just as well be used against other people and other ideas. For example, on “national security” grounds, a Malthusian green fascist agenda could be so enforced. This selected group of politicized, unelected “representatives” of federal agencies, supported by academics purportedly representing “the overwhelming majority of scientists,” could use their powers to arguably end science all together.

Noteworthy is the June 13, 2019 Bloomberg Businessweek cover story, warning of the disastrous consequences of the FBI-instigated witch hunt to date, with a cover titled, “How Not To Cure Cancer: The U.S. is Purging Chinese Scientists in New Red Scare.”

The President of the United States himself has now waded into the debate. On the sidelines of the G-20 summit, President Trump proclaimed his support for Chinese students to continue to attend American universities.

Left: AAU; right: Pomona College

Left: Tobin Smith; right: Miriam Feldblum

---------------------------------------------

University Associations to Action

The Association of American Universities (AAU), a Washington, D.C.-based organization of top research institutions, is among other institutions engaged in efforts on Capitol Hill. Tobin Smith, Vice President for policy of the AAU, is charging that the proposed new legislation, “. . . ignores that we have mechanisms already in place to safeguard research,” including classification and export controls.

In an interview with Science magazine, Smith stated, “We’ve had a huge challenge with Congress. . . . They don’t know all the steps we have already taken” to address the threat. “But we also have to remind them that a core piece of what universities do is sharing information, not walling it off.”

Legal actions are also under way to protect students. In December 2018, 65 U.S. colleges and universities filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in a legal challenge to changes in immigration policy. The judge’s decision is now awaited in that case. The Federal case, Guilford College et al v. Nielsen et al (Case Number 1:18-cv-00891), was filed in North Carolina by four smaller colleges. The immigration policy changes would back-date “unlawful presence” definitions regarding holders of F, J, or M visas. These are student and research-related visas.

Most of the institutions filing amicus curiae briefs are members of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. Miriam Feldblum, Executive Director of the Presidents’ Alliance, which represents 420 presidents and chancellors of public and private colleges and universities, spoke to EIR emphasizing that, “a focus on security, and maintaining openness, are not mutually exclusive.” She stressed, “It is important to support international students and scholars to promote intellectual innovation.” She added that “It is also important to ensure that all domestic and international students get a full education.” The association, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit with a particular focus “on the legal landscape,” is concerned, she said, that “on campus, in communities, in the public sphere, and in legislation—all of these are areas where we can make contributions.”

Witch Hunt Is Ongoing

While recent attention has been given to the scandals surrounding noted Chinese-American researchers at the Houston Medical Center, the assault on university students and scientists is ongoing across the country. In May, Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia fired a husband-wife team of noted researchers, neuroscientists Li Xiao-Jiang and Li Shihua, 23-year veterans of the University. Both are American citizens, and their work has been on Huntington’s disease. To raise additional grants for their research they openly applied to China’s “1000 Talents” program, to finance the use of larger animals (pigs) in their highly regarded research. Despite being completely open and documenting their multiple sources of funds, Emory University—under the gun of the FBI and National Institutes of Health (NIH)—summarily fired the Li’s and closed their research laboratory. Said Dr. Li in a statement:

I was shocked that Emory University would terminate a tenured professor in such an unusual and abrupt fashion and close our combined lab consisting of a number of graduates and postdoctoral trainees without giving me specific details for the reasons behind my termination.

Many more such FBI/NIH investigations are ongoing, with undisclosed firings and disbarment from future NIH funding.

Meanwhile, Song Xianzhong, President of Jinan University in Guangzhou, China, has announced that the university would welcome Li Xiao-Jiang and Li Shihua, as well as their research team, if they wish to return to China. The Li’s have been visiting professors at Jinan University’s Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Institute for CNS Regeneration since 2017. The United States would lose; China would gain.

University Leaders Speak Out

In response, University leaders are now speaking out. Here are quotes from some of the more significant statements of university presidents and chancellors. Their ideas should become contagious and are certainly very much needed.

• From a statement titled, “In Support of Global Engagement,” by University of Pittsburgh Chancellor Patrick Gallagher:

Our very mission—to leverage knowledge for society’s gain—demands a global perspective. We seek to tackle the world’s greatest challenges. We welcome the most talented faculty, students, staff and visitors from near and far. And we collaborate with the most distinguished scholars, universities and research institutions from around the world. . . .

Yet, this long-standing tradition of global academic engagement is increasingly under attack. Rising geopolitical tensions over economic competitiveness, trade and national security have begun to erode support for the robust global academic engagement. . . .

National and economic security are based, to a large extent, on access to the latest knowledge and technology. This linkage places research-intensive universities like Pitt at the front lines of these issues. As a result—and for the first time since the end of the Cold War—university-based research and scholarship are facing calls to restrict global engagement. A rising tide of fear is fueling uncertainty, confusion and rapidly changing responses by our federal agencies, and the effects of government policies on research universities have been especially striking.

Collaborations between scientists across national boundaries have been subject to unprecedented scrutiny. Established practices have been prohibited on technicalities. And researchers, particularly immigrants and visitors from China, have been the target of aggressive investigations and public sanctions.

At Pitt, our mission demands better—and so does our University community. . . .

• From a memo “To the Members of the MIT Community,” by Massachusetts Institute of Technology President L. Rafael Reif:

MIT has flourished, like the United States itself, because it has been a magnet for the world’s finest talent, a global laboratory where people from every culture and background inspire each other and invent the future, together.

Today, I feel compelled to share my dismay about some circumstances painfully relevant to our fellow MIT community members of Chinese descent. And I believe that because we treasure them as friends and colleagues, their situation and its larger national context should concern us all. . . .

Protracted visa delays. Harsh rhetoric against most immigrants and a range of other groups, because of religion, race, ethnicity or national origin. Together, such actions and policies have turned the volume all the way up on the message that the U.S. is closing the door—that we no longer seek to be a magnet for the world’s most driven and creative individuals. I believe this message is not consistent with how America has succeeded. I am certain it is not how the Institute has succeeded. And we should expect it to have serious long-term costs for the nation and for MIT. . . .

• From a memo dated July 11, 2019 to the Caltech Community, titled, “Our International Community of Scholars,” by Caltech President Thomas F. Rosenbaum and Provost David A. Tirrell:

The strength of the United States as a scientific, technological, and economic power has depended crucially on the contributions of scholars and entrepreneurs from all over the world. Our universities, in particular, have long opened their doors to foreign talent, seeking to become destinations for the most creative, original minds, irrespective of heritage or national origin. At Caltech, 45% of our faculty were born outside the United States, and roughly the same percentage of our graduate student body is international. Approximately 35% of American Nobel Prizes in the sciences have been awarded to individuals born outside the United States. . . .

CC

Qian Xuesen (Tsien Hsue-shen), in 2007.

---------------------------------------------

The Case of Qian Xuesen

The statement from Caltech should be seen in the light of Caltech’s important role in founding what is now NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and specifically the role of the late Qian Xuesen (Hsue-Shen Tsien, 1911-2009). Dr. Qian emigrated to the United States in 1936 and worked at Caltech under Theodore von Kármán, who referred to him as an “undisputed genius.” He was a co-founder of Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, now part of NASA. During World War II, Qian worked on the Manhattan Project and served in the U.S. Army.

Yet in 1949 Qian was denied citizenship, declared a communist sympathizer during the “Red Scare,” and lost his security clearance. He was kept under house arrest for five years until he was finally allowed to return to China in 1955. In China, he became the father of China’s rocket program, among many other scientific accomplishments. In 1979, Dr. Qian Xuesen was awarded Caltech’s Distinguished Alumni Award for his lifetime of achievements.

National Security Run by Medieval Idiots?

Contrary to the claims of hand-waving neocons and unscrupulous politicians, U.S. universities and research centers have long operated under established rules governing research. For example, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, during the Cold War. NSDD 189 spelled out that, “where the national security requires control, the mechanism for control of information generated during federally funded fundamental research in science, technology and engineering at colleges, universities and laboratories is classification.” NSDD 189 also firmly stated, “It is the policy of this Administration that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted.” “Fundamental research” here includes both basic and applied research. Laws, more than sufficient, already exist.

Now, rather than well-conceived, limited classification procedures, a whole set of Kafkaesque procedures are proposed for imposition on universities. For instance, John Cornyn’s Senate Bill S.2133 would require any institution receiving federal research dollars to follow tough cybersecurity procedures, issued in 2016 for far more limited purposes.

These CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information) cybersecurity rules would burden institutions and researchers with more than 100 additional security-related requirements. The rules cover everything from multifactor log-on authentication and more stringent auditing procedures to additional training and heightened physical security.

Mary Millsaps, Director of Research Information Assurance for Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, as reported in Science magazine, said:

We already have firewalls, [referring to cybersecurity provisions that are standard for most research projects]. They generally involve what I call passive monitoring, that is, systems to ensure that we’re following the rules. But controlled [unclassified information] research imposes an additional layer of institutional oversight that requires active monitoring by somebody at all times. And I would be concerned if they want to put those additional levels of control on everything.

C-SPAN

Christopher Wray, FBI Director.

---------------------------------------------

The Fight Is Not Over

The outcome of this fight to defend America’s soul is not yet determined. FBI Director Christopher Wray, in an appearance before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C. on July 23, again described China as the “greatest national security threat,” and said that it is seeking “economic dominance” over the U.S. He praised the Texas A&M University System for its work to help other academic institutions with their cybersecurity efforts, and for its collaboration with the FBI. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), archly stated at those hearings that he harbors concerns about universities protecting vital information.

It were better to investigate the investigators.

The message coming from Wray and Cruz is not the message coming from the President of the United States. On the sidelines of the G20 Summit on June 29—once again breaking with his pro-British Empire, neocon advisers—President Trump stated, “We want to have Chinese students to attend our great schools and great universities. They are great students and tremendous assets.” Someone, Trump said, had claimed it was harder for Chinese students to enter the United States under his immigration policies. “If it were, that somebody viewed it that way, I don’t,” Trump said.

III. Defeating Green Malthusianism

Extinction Rebellion: British Push Greens for Human Extinction

by Michael Billington

Left: EC/Lukasz Kobus; right: CC

Left: Molly Scott Cato; right: Bertrand Russell

---------------------------------------------

July 31—The Extinction Rebellion (XR)—spawned in the UK last October and now spreading rapidly across Europe and into the United States—must not be taken lightly as merely psychotic lunacy, although it is that as well. The intention of this offensive—the destruction of modern industrial civilization—is not hidden in XR’s founding principles, published in a letter to The Guardian on Oct. 26, 2018, signed by 94 academics, politicians, and social activists, which states that governments are guilty of “failing to acknowledge that infinite economic growth on a planet with finite resources is non-viable.” This fundamental lie—that we live in a world of scarce resources—was refuted by Lyndon LaRouche in his 1983 book, There Are No Limits to Growth. Based on that lie, the XR letter concludes: “It is therefore not only our right, but our moral duty to bypass the government’s inaction and flagrant dereliction of duty, and to rebel to defend life itself.”

The letter’s authors were Dr. Alison Green, a psychologist at England’s Arden University, a private, for-profit institution, and Molly Scott Cato, a British Member of the European Parliament from the British Green Party. Cato is not only anti-carbon but also a raving anti-nuclear campaigner—demonstrating that the Extinction Rebellion’s intention is not actually anti-carbon, but anti-industry and anti-science. The signers of the letter include former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who is encouraging children to skip school to demand de-industrialization.

A large number of the signers are psychiatrists, and not surprisingly, the Extinction Rebellion prides itself on being modeled on Bertrand Russell’s 1960 creation of the supposedly pro-peace “Committee of 100” civil disobedience movement. Yet it was Russell who called for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union in the Oct. 1, 1946 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The role of psychiatrists in XR is quite telling.

Bertrand Russell, described by Lyndon LaRouche as the “most evil man of the 20th Century,” referred to “mass psychology” as the most important tool for politics. In his 1952 book, The Impact of Science on Society, Russell wrote:

[Mass psychology’s] importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called “education.” Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part. What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. . . . It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

CC/Catharina Gerritsen

Extinction Rebellion “Die-In” at the University of Amsterdam on April 18, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

The XR groups, an exercise in such mass psychology, are now shutting down traffic and defacing monuments, but can be expected to proceed to terrorist attacks on CO_2-producing factories and power plants soon. They are fascists wearing green shirts rather than brown. They are at the center of the ongoing destruction of Germany, the leading industrial nation of Europe.

CC BY-SA 3.0

Christoph M. Schmidt

---------------------------------------------

A key speaker at the ongoing five-day conference of the Extinction Rebellion in Dortmund is Christoph Schmidt, who has been Chancellor Angela Merkel’s leading economic adviser for the past ten years, during which time the German government began the total shut-down of nuclear power production and the closure of all coal-fired power plants, planning to survive primarily on windmills and solar panels. The international XR movement is also targetting the United States, and is currently focussed on the UN Climate Action Summit in New York, scheduled for September 23.

The Antidote

This demonic movement must be exposed and repudiated, but that will only be successful if the populations of Europe and the United States are given the tools to break through the cultural and psychological warfare.

Never has the opportunity to do exactly that been greater than it is today, given the enthusiasm and optimism awakened by the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo Moon Landing, together with the announcement by President Donald Trump and NASA chief Jim Bridenstine of the Artemis Moon-Mars mission, to return to the Moon by 2024 in a crash program. The mission is to return to the Moon and stay—to build the industrial and scientific capacity to serve as a base for human travel to Mars and beyond. The LaRouche PAC petition, “We Commit to the Moon-Mars Mission,” is addressed to that spark of creativity and optimism, especially in youth, who have been denied that vision of the future ever since the assassination of John Kennedy, the Indochina War, and the prosecution of Lyndon LaRouche.

The exoneration of LaRouche is a crucial element of ensuring that that mission succeeds. We can, and must, awaken American patriots and citizens of the world to the reality of the lost decades since his ideas were suppressed, by the same British imperial forces now being exposed as the instigators of the failed coup attempt against President Trump.

INTERVIEW: BILL BULLARD

Defend Food Supply and Independent Cattlemen Against ‘Green’ Globalist Attack

R-CALF USA

Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA.

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Legal Fund United Stock Growers of America) is the largest producer-only cattle trade association in the United States. Headquartered in Billings, Montana, it was founded 20 years ago, and is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of stock producers. R-CALF USA has some 5,000 members in 46 states. Bill Bullard has been CEO since 2001.

---------------------------------------------

This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted by telephone on July 18, by EIR’s Robert Baker, a member of R-CALF USA, with Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America) from R-CALF’s headquarters in Billings, Montana.

Robert Baker: Today is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo-11 launch to the Moon. Today, the American System policies upon which our nation was founded are being challenged on many fronts. We, and the communities in which we live, are in a real crisis, in farming and manufacturing. R-CALF USA is on the front lines in defending independent cattlemen. Would you report on your latest key initiatives?

Bill Bullard: For two decades, we have been working to restore competition in the marketplace for independent producers. We have followed traditional lobbying techniques, travelling to Washington, D.C., and talking to our members of Congress—trying to persuade members of Congress and Administration officials to make changes to the current direction of policies that affect cattle producers. The policies that are in place today are the legal framework in which our markets function, and our members raise and sell cattle. But decades ago, the multi-national meatpackers began to shape public policy, and thereby shape the legal framework in which we operate, to their benefit, at the expense of producers. We presently have regulations, laws, and policies that are designed to increase the profitability of multi-national meatpackers—globalists, if you will.

We found that we were beating our head against the wall in talking to government at the national level. And then we realized that there were organizations that have been doing the same things for over a century, and their success had been no better than ours.

Instead of trying to reform the policies by passing new laws, we decided, let’s first examine whether or not we are properly enforcing the laws we already have. With respect to the consolidation of the marketplace, today we have only four packers controlling 85% of the U.S. fed-cattle market—one of the most highly-concentrated sectors in our economy. We have suspected that the four meatpackers were engaged in practices to manipulate prices.

Investigations of the Big Meatpackers

We asked for thorough investigations of the operations of those big meatpackers in the marketplace at the federal level—the impact they’re having on competition, and whether or not the meatpackers were engaged in unlawful conduct by violating anti-trust laws. Investigations were initiated, first in 2009, and then we asked again in 2016, after we saw unprecedented collapse in our market prices, and then again in September in 2018, when we saw anomalies in the cattle futures market.

As a result of those investigations, we gathered more information suggesting to us that, in fact, the meatpackers were not following existing law. We think that they are violating the U.S. anti-trust laws of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, an Act that incorporated anti-trust issues, prohibiting monopolies and prohibiting specific conduct that financially harms and disadvantages independent producers.

With that new-found information resulting from these investigations, we sought out a law firm to represent us in enforcing U.S. anti-trust laws, and in bringing competitive markets back for independent producers.

Our sister poultry and hog industries have already gone down that road, and both of those industries are now completely captured by the meatpackers from birth to plate, or egg to plate, in the case of the poultry industry. We call that process, “chickenization.” The process eliminates competition and substitutes a command and control regime administered by the meatpackers. We did not want our cattle industry to go there and were not about to allow the meatpackers to chickenize the largest segment of American agriculture, the live cattle industry.

In April 2019, we filed an historic anti-trust class-action lawsuit alleging that the Big Four packers in the United States—Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef, now owned by the Brazilian firm Marfrig—are engaged in unlawful conduct, artificially depressing prices paid to independent cattle producers, and to increase their profit margins as a result. This case is in its early throes, and will probably go on for three to four years.

We now have the opportunity to create awareness of the devastating impact that this violation of U.S. anti-trust laws causes to an entire industry, and in this case, to the largest agricultural industry—so this is big, it’s monumental. We hope that it can help us re-shape a competitive marketplace, where independent producers can choose for themselves, where and how to produce their cattle. And then we will afford them a competitive marketplace, in which to market those cattle.

Baker: On July 12, EIR published a special issue called, “The Bitter Truth About the U.S. Economy.” We reported on the terrible situations in different sectors of the economy of the country—the crisis in the farm belt, the de-industrialization, the drugs, the homelessness. The spirit of how we can mobilize for a bright future, is shown in this week’s 50th anniversary of the landing on the Moon. President Trump has called for a new Moon-Mars mission.

Would you recount what you have seen happening in the livestock sector in the past few decades in your part of the world?

Status of the Livestock Industry

Bullard: The livestock industry has long provided the economic cornerstone for rural America. Cattle and livestock production have been mentioned in every State of the Union address by the President. It is vitally important to the economic well-being of all of America, particularly rural America. In the 1960s and 1970s, the meatpackers decided to capture the poultry supply chain away from independent producers, and vertically integrate that industry so that became completely controlled by the packers. As a result, where once we had tens of thousands of poultry producers, we now have about 25,000 that now produce the majority of all the poultry consumed in America.

And then in the ’80s and ’90s, those same meatpackers deployed the model they had perfected in the poultry industry to the hog industry. And in the course of less than half a lifetime, beginning in the 1980s, they wiped out 90% of all the hog producers in this country. And, of course, that helped to hollow out rural communities all across America. They vertically integrated the hog industry, and so now control it, eliminating over 600,000 hog producers in the process during this period. From the packers’ perspective, they simply eliminated all those pesky farmers who were too numerous to effectively manage and control. And now we’re down to about 65,000 hog farmers whom they can control.

Decline in Number of U.S. Feedlots, 1996-2017

(loss of 83,900 feedlots in past 22 years)

---------------------------------------------

The cattle industry is the last frontier. Two decades ago, the meatpackers began in earnest to vertically integrate the cattle industry, using the same model they have now perfected in both the poultry and hog industries. Half a lifetime ago, in 1980, we had about 1.3 million cattle producers. Today, we’re down to 729,000. That means we’ve lost 43% of all the cattle producers that were in business just a short time ago. They are gone today. That has truly been the death knell for rural communities in many areas. And has certainly hollowed out rural America.

We’re on a course where young entrants are almost non-existent. Young, aspiring farmers and ranchers that want to raise cattle, find that the profitability is lacking. They’ve watched their parents struggle. In many instances, they’ve watched their parents lose their ranches. We have a real problem in that the average age of a rancher today is up in the late 60s. We have few entrants entering the industry.

At the same time that we have growing beef demand, we have shrunk the size of our domestic cattle herd. We have become more and more reliant on imported beef to satisfy the demand of the number one beef consuming market in the world, which is the United States of America. Narrowing down to some of the details, we see that the competitiveness of our industry is being dismantled and destroyed. We’re destroying the competitive marketing channels, the infrastructure that can sustain and maintain a competitive marketplace.

For example, the most numerous participants in the cattle industry, are those who raise and maintain a mother cow herd, raise calves every year, and so on. We call them cow-calf operators. They market their cattle in the feed lots. Even in just the last two decades, we’ve seen a 75% reduction in the number of feedlots in America. We have restricted access to the marketplace, because now there are only a relatively few markets left in which to market cattle. And once the marketing side of this is consolidated and access to the marketplace is restricted, a huge opportunity is provided for the gatekeepers—the multinational packers leverage prices downward in order to essentially coerce producers into entering production contracts with the packer, just in order to have a timely market for their livestock.

Over the course of the last 40 years, we have seen a significant and substantial reduction in the competitiveness of our industry, and the dismantling and destruction of our competitive marketing channels. Once that infrastructure is lost, it’s game over. Because then, our industry, like the poultry industry, will have no other means to continue other operations, unless the industry itself vertically integrates under this chickenized model.

Baker: The speed at which all of this has taken place, especially since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and World Trade Organization (WTO), is incredible. It’s like the 17th century British East India Company imposing a worldwide monopoly. What will happen if this is allowed to continue?

The Multinationals Take Over

Bullard: The ongoing trend, which is alarming—because it’s a trend of an exodus of independent farmers and ranchers—will continue, unless we make substantial progress in reversing course. That is, industries that are subjected to immense market power by the dominant companies that control the marketplace. And it’s true in the livestock sector, and the grain sector.

These multinational corporations have moved from the United States to other countries onto a global platform in order to impart that legal framework that they desire, upon every country. That’s where the World Trade Organization fits into this model. And it’s where these trade agreements have actually facilitated the meatpackers’ desire to vertically integrate industries, because it gave them access to unlimited supplies. And they were able to source cheaper, undifferentiated products in foreign countries, and use those products as direct substitutes for the production of U.S. farmers and ranchers.

These products are then sold to unsuspecting consumers, who believed that they were produced by American farmers, when in fact, they are being imported in large volumes from foreign countries where the health, safety and environmental standards are far less stringent than they are in the United States. As a result of bringing in this cheaper product, that is undifferentiated, they’ve used these imports to depress prices, with the result of displacing domestic production.

We’re losing our supply chains in the United States. They are being outsourced to foreign countries. Under the new Trump Administration, there have been efforts to return those supply chains to the United States. But as of this point in time, there has been no effort whatsoever, on the part of the Administration, to restore the viability of the live cattle supply chain in the United States of America.

That’s disconcerting—government has been facilitating all of this. This is all part of the effort by the multinationals and globalists to persuade governments to pursue this global economic model that benefits the multinational meatpackers. We found that our government here in the United States is disinterested in doing what our members have asked them to do. Instead, they continue to follow the globalist agenda, and it’s devastating our domestic supply chains, and in particular, our U.S. live cattle supply chain.

You mention the North American Free Trade Agreement—we’ve lost 20% of our farmers and ranchers that raise cattle, just in the past 25 years. When we entered the North American Free Trade Agreement, the promise was, that it would provide us with more market access, and that it would increase trade. It did increase trade. It did increase exports. But at the same time, it increased imports at a much faster pace, so it actually accelerated the globalist efforts to grant the multinational meatpackers unlimited access to cheaper, undifferentiated produce, with which to displace domestic production and domestic producers.

Baker: Ranchers are told a myth that exports will save the day. Consumers don’t know what they’re actually eating.

U.S. Beef Imports

2015 Imports Doubled Since ’80s,

Are Now About 20% of Domestic Production

---------------------------------------------

‘Product of USA’ Fraud

Bullard: The big myth out there, is that the beef that is being consumed by Americans is all produced by American farmers and ranchers, and it’s all produced under the highest health and safety standards of the world, and that’s U.S. production and safety standards. That is, in fact, a myth.

In our industry, three billion pounds of beef are imported from more than 20 countries, and we import millions of head of live cattle. All of the meat imported into the United States, is eligible to receive a “Product of USA” label if it is run through a U.S. processing plant. So all an importer has to do is import large volumes of beef from Uruguay, Nicaragua, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or Mexico, bring it into the United States, unwrap it in a U.S. processing plant, and then it can be sold to the retail sector, and to consumers, with a “Product of USA” label on it.

There are live animals imported from Canada and Mexico—about two million head a year. All of the beef that is derived from those animals is eligible for a “Product of the USA” label. Consumers are being hoodwinked, in that they are being misled as to the origins of the food that they are feeding their families.

That is why, back at the turn of this century, in 2002, we were instrumental in passing a mandatory “Country of Origin” Labelling (COOL) law, that required consumers to be informed as to the origins of their chicken, beef, pork, lamb, fruits, vegetables, fish, and seafood, and certain nuts like macadamia nuts and peanuts. The mandatory COOL law was passed in 2002.

But the globalists regrouped. They convinced Congress not to implement that law with respect to beef and hogs. So we had a period from 2002, when the law was passed, and, for many of these other commodities—fruits and vegetables, and fish and seafood, for example, and nuts—they were required to be labelled very quickly, relatively, but beef and pork were held up, because the beef packers convinced Congress to deprive the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any funds with which to implement that law.

So it’s been a huge battle ever since 2002. In the first phase, when “Country of Origin” labelling for beef and pork was first implemented in 2009, it was only partially implemented. It wasn’t until 2013 that we had full implementation of the law. All of that three billion pounds of imported beef had to retain its foreign label all the way through retail sale to the consumer. Beginning May 2013, all beef derived from animals slaughtered in the United States had to be labelled as to where the animal was born, where it was raised, and where it was harvested.

For the first time in history, consumers had accurate information as to the origins of some of their basic foodstuffs. But the multinationals regrouped, partnering with the World Trade Organization, in order to convince our weak-kneed Congress, to repeal the law for beef and pork because the meatpackers were losing their windfall profits that they gained from selling this undifferentiated product.

In 2015, in its infinite wisdom, Congress repealed the mandatory COOL law for beef and pork. So now, beef and pork are outliers. All those other commodities continue to be subject to the mandatory Country of Origin Labelling law. But consumers no longer have the information as to the origins of their beef or their pork, as of today. The label only denotes where that product went through the last stage of processing.

Robert L. Baker

The top package in this supermarket meat case, shows the “Beyond Beef” brand of meat substitute. The “Grass Fed” label on the other beef, though marked “Product of U.S.A.,” is likely foreign-produced, since nearly 80 percent of grass-fed beef by value is imported. “Grass fed” can also mean anything at all, including livestock raised in pens, fed extruded grass pellets.

---------------------------------------------

Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

Baker: Now we see the globalist food, financial, and commodity crowd operating under the banner of “green” sustainability. The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef is one of the organizations that is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing against ranchers, and eaters. What do you see in this greenie onslaught?

Bullard: We have to go back to where the efforts of globalization first began with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that transformed into the World Trade Organization and many other satellite global organizations like the World Animal Health Organization. There was so much push-back from independent citizens against these efforts, that the multinational meatpackers and other globalists that you mentioned were frustrated in their inability to have already achieved their goal of complete control of the supply chains.

The new move is this Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, as the means by which the globalists themselves will no longer completely rely on any kind of a (national) government structure, but instead, their command of access to the marketplace is now unveiled in this global initiative to gain more control over the supply chains—production supply chains—by limiting access to the marketplace.

This is all about control, using the term “sustainability” as a means of causing producers to acquiesce into this command-and-control regime. It is essentially an effort to ensure that everywhere in the globe, food is produced the same. So that the meatpackers can choose from anywhere in the world to source their inputs, and then sell it, in the largest consumer market in the world—right here in the United States. And so they begin the process of convincing producers, that they must follow certain dictates in order to have access to the marketplace. And they start with dictates that producers might readily agree on, in terms of sustainability, and in fact, what many producers are already practicing.

Then suddenly, the Global Roundtable agrees that only if you become certified under these certain production practices, will you have access to the marketplace that they control. And in order to assure that producers are, in fact, doing that, they require individual identification of private property—the livestock owned by producers. And require producers to register their premises, where they maintain their operations. And require producers to report whenever they move their livestock from one premises to another.

In other words, it’s to give the multinationals information as to every aspect of the supply chain, both in terms of production and in timing. And then, they would impose upon producers the cost of obtaining a third party auditor to ensure that the production has met the standards that the meatpackers have demanded.

This is a very, very dangerous road that we’re presently on. For a governmental structure, the globalists have substituted their own market control and market access structure, in order to impart upon the entire industry the standards they themselves want to apply. We have been fighting this Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, recognizing that it is simply an extension of the work of the governmental structures in Geneva, the World Trade Organization. The impact on the producers and the citizens is the same. It’s a loss of liberty. It’s a loss of independence. And it is in fact, subjecting producers and consumers to daily control on the part of those multinational meatpackers and others that are involved in this.

Baker: Do you see the Global Roundtable activating in other parts of the world?

Bullard: It already is. There are Global Roundtables for Australia, Brazil, Canada. I think virtually everywhere in the world is now in the process of being organized under the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef structure. And this all traces back to the World Trade Organization. This is all part and parcel of the overall effort to globalize economics and regulatory structures, by the multinational meatpackers—since they have a seamless supply of inputs, as well as a seamless access to consumers. It is a dangerous road to go on.

Baker: Well, there’s a lot of joy in seeking the truth, and fighting for what is right. What excitement do you and your associates have in what R-CALF has set in motion for the right policies?

Hope in the Judicial System

Bullard: We’re finally seeing some push-back through this Administration on some of these policies. But we continue to have a huge number of old-guard free traders who really do represent the self-interest of the multi-national companies that have benefitted the most from the skewed trade policies. It’s going to take us a while to work through that, and to reverse it. It must be reversed, because the current track that we’re on is leading to a lower gross domestic product, leading to hollowing out of our economic sectors, and creating huge financial problems for the United States and all the industries that operate here. The myth behind free trade, and the push by the globalists are with us today, and only recently have we seen any effort to restore the viability and credibility and strength of the United States, with respect to these failed trade policies.

History tells where we’ve been, and the trends tell us where we’re going. We recognize that we have to change policy. I guess the excitement will come when we achieve success in those policy changes, and when we see a growing awareness among citizens for the inappropriate path that we’re presently on. We’re seeing that more and more today. We’re seeing, for example, our own organization becoming stronger, with more people joining the organization, more people are recognizing on a daily basis, that they’ve been fed a false bill of goods, and that their interests have not been represented for decades.

By changing our strategy now, as we’ve begun to use the judicial system, in order to accomplish objectives that neither Congress nor the Administration had any interest whatsoever in addressing—that has become very exciting for us, because we have found a new means to do what is right, for our members and for all of America. It gives us hope, that while there is corruption in Congress and within the administrations and a disinterest in what’s happening to men and women who are workers, and manufacturers, and farmers, we are finding that in the judicial system, it is less biased. It is not subject to the huge lobbying dollars that are flowing into Congress and the Administration. We are very hopeful that this this will be the forum in which to effect lasting and beneficial changes for the working people in the United States.