Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 32, August 16, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL Stop London’s Planned “Color Revolution” in Hong Kong! by Dennis Small

- EDITORIAL To Change the Killer Culture, Announce the National Mission to Colonize Space by Barbara Boyd

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 32, August 16, 2019

- I. Against the Green Nazi International

- Frontal Assault on Our Living Standard: Multibillionaires Are Financing the ‘Climate Protectors’! by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- INTERVIEW: NINO GALLONI Italian Economist: ‘Good Finance Is the Instrument of the Real Economy’ by Claudio Celani

- II. Cooperation Among Sovereign Nations

- President Putin Offers International Cooperation for Fusion Power Development by Richard A. Black

- Sovereign Nations Can Solve the Global Economic Crisis by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (2010)

- Bolivia Sets Its Sights on Fusion Energy and Eliminating Poverty! by Dennis Small and Cynthia Rush

- III. Mankind’s Galactic Future

- Krafft Ehricke’s 500 Years of Space Exploration by Marsha Freeman

- IV. FDR’s Forgotten Plans for Post-War Asia

- WHO RUNS REGIME-CHANGE OPS AND WHY? When the United States Offered the ‘Belt and Road’ to China by David Shavin

- EDITORIAL Don’t Blame Trump for El Paso Shootings by Doug Mallouk

- EDITORIAL NY TIMES HEADLINE FIASCO The Dangerous Insanity of the Anti-Trump Coup Plotters by Harley Schlanger

Defeat British-Spawned Destabilizations

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

Stop London’s Planned “Color Revolution” in Hong Kong!

by Dennis Small

Aug. 13—The July 20 celebration of the 50th anniversary of Man’s landing on the Moon served as a powerful reminder to the entirety of humanity—all 7.5 billion of us—that there is a way forward for our species, a way based on peaceful cooperation among all nations on achieving the scientific breakthroughs needed to go back to space, and to solve the problems of poverty, financial collapse, and cultural decadence here on Earth. The events of July 20 reminded us that there is no need to tolerate the British Empire’s policy of Malthusian genocide and induced pessimism, which today masquerades in the form of a radically “green” environmentalist movement which brazenly calls for such depopulation.

And for anyone looking closely, and with a sense of the last half-century’s history, the Apollo 11 anniversary also demonstrated that Lyndon LaRouche was right all along in his call for a crash program for fusion energy-based spaced exploration, as well as his call for a Four Power alliance—among the United States, China, Russia and India—to destroy the British Empire and lead the way for all nations out of the current crisis.

Such a Four Power alliance is the only way to avoid the twin dangers of a global financial meltdown, and a strategic confrontation between the United States and China, and the United States and Russia, which the British are trying to unleash—dangers which are both now on the immediate agenda facing the planet.

One of the most dangerous such hot spots is Hong Kong, where the British have launched a full-scale “color revolution” designed to not only destabilize Hong Kong itself, but to force the Chinese government to intervene militarily—as they have said they would if forced to, since Hong Kong is, after all, a part of China and not a separate sovereign nation. From there it would be a short step to provoke some sort of deadly violence, possibly by a “third force” run by foreign intelligence services, to then have a bloody shirt to wave.

It is worth remembering that both China and Russia have explicitly identified such “color revolutions” as a form of modern warfare.

The Chinese government and semi-official media have also been explicit that they see foreign hands behind the Hong Kong destabilization—both the British, who are the historic colonial power in Hong Kong, as well as pro-British elements ensconced in the Trump administration, such as Mike Pompeo’s State Department, National Security Adviser John Bolton’s assets, and of course unhinged Members of Congress. President Trump has been far more measured, stating he understands the bind the Chinese government has been put in, “But I’m sure it’ll work out. I hope it works out for everybody, including China, by the way.”

The Aug. 12 edition of China Daily, for example, ran an article denouncing the historic role of the British, reminding its readers that “after slaughtering thousands in the Opium Wars, Britain flooded the country with the drug, killing countless more.” China Daily also reminded its readers: “Let’s not forget the millions of Indians killed in the Bengal famine engineered under British rule.”

Yet Britain’s Hong Kong provocation, as dangerous as it is, is only one among a number of similar destabilizations that they have unleashed with their global “strategy of tension,” which includes:

• The crisis in Kashmir, where India and Pakistan have been once again brought to the point of war over that disputed territory. China also views its national sovereignty as being threatened by India’s unilateral revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy, so there are now three nuclear powers—India, Pakistan and China—on a potential collision course which could even unleash regional nuclear war. China’s Xinhua news service again pointed the finger in the right direction: “When the South Asian subcontinent gained its independence after World War II, the British colonialists left behind them the Mountbatten Plan and a divided region, the root cause of turmoil and violence.”

• The ongoing attempted coup d’etat against President Donald Trump, whom the British House of Lords has explicitly identified as a threat to its continued global dominance. Part of that ongoing coup is the broader “strategy of tension” underway in the United States itself in the form of mass shootings, increasingly oriented towards suicidal “green” Malthusian ideology.

• The economic warfare and other forms of destabiization variously targeting Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and of course China.

None of these policies actually serve American interests. Their common denominator is to extend the old paradigm of pessimism, warfare, and economic speculation and looting. They are designed to further the British Empire’s drive for preventing an alliance of the Four Powers from replacing their bankrupt system with one based on scientific advance, global economic development, and international cooperation among sovereign nation states. That, and nothing less than that, is America’s actual national interest: the common good of all Mankind.

Lyndon LaRouche, you see, was right all along.

EDITORIAL

To Change the Killer Culture, Announce the National Mission

to Colonize Space

by Barbara Boyd

Mrs. Boyd’s discussion of this topic with a live audience and moderator Dennis Speed is available.

Aug. 7—The case for “the space program as our salvation” is our subject here. It is an urgent change of culture that is strategically necessary not only for the survival of the United States but for the entire world. There are lots of ways to look at the hysteria that has consumed the United States over the past 24 hours. But most important is that none of the so-called answers from all sides of the debate—ban assault weapons, impose red flags, ban video games, do something about mental health, a subject we do not even seem capable of accurately or scientifically defining, are the least bit rational.

President Trump was right when he said that solving the seemingly endless stream of mass murders implies a change of culture; it requires creating a culture that embraces the dignity of human life. He also said that he intends to bring this about.

Since the dignity of human life consists of our creativity, this means increasing our ability to master and shape the laws of the universe, supporting ever larger populations at higher levels of development, mastering space and near space exploration. The discoveries associated with that are the only means of ensuring a true economic recovery and inspiring the cultural optimism characteristic of a national mission. That is something spoken about by President Trump and he seems to understand the idea. Unfortunately, many people around the President, most prominently the decadent Republican Party, don’t understand this. Hence, our mission.

There are two tactical factors being put into play by our exposed and desperate oligarchical opponents. The first is the use of the recent mass shootings to claim that the President of the United States is a secret White Supremacist and must be thrown out of office because his rhetoric caused the recent murders. This is the second phase of the coup against Donald Trump, Robert Mueller having now wandered off the set in a public mental stupor. To paraphrase Karl Marx, the first part might have been serious, but having now been completely exposed as fraudulent, the second phase is a farce that requires an appropriate level of jokes and ironies.

The overarching British strategic policy that makes this new phase of the coup necessary is Trump’s refusal to go along with the advanced sector’s Green New Deal, the myth in which it will seek to enfold the coming collapse of the City of London and Wall Street speculative economy whilst imposing fascist austere dictatorships throughout the advanced sector and destroying any potential of the developing sector.

Green Fraud of the Billionaires

Do you think that most working people in the United States, most black people, Hispanics, and Asians, really give a damn about the Green New Deal? Hell no! It is the preoccupation of rich white and black politicians who otherwise obsess about “virtue signaling” while immersing themselves in a culture of wealth and privilege.

But the second, overarching tactic involved in this phase of the coup is the targeting of the minds of our young people—creating hysteria around gun and other violence, racial violence, and through the apocalyptic brainwashing scenarios presented in the Green New Deal as they impact the labile and still developing minds.

Historically, it is the young who make revolutions for the benefit of mankind in times of crisis. Witness the young age of most of the revolutionaries who created the United States. The aim, today, however is to turn our young into zombies or fascists before the moment of crisis arrives. Already, based on the media’s pumped-up fight against gun violence and the propaganda surrounding climate change and the Green New Deal, Trump’s support among younger layers of the population has dropped by significant percentages.

Now, in making the case for how we fight, I want to report to you a conflict we had within our organization. In 2014, Lyndon LaRouche wrote his “Four New Laws to Save the U.S. Now! Not an Option: An Immediate Necessity,” laws that are equally applicable today. A politically confused, and clearly blocked, editor took LaRouche’s Fourth Law, “Adopt a Fusion-Driver ‘Crash Program’,” which calls for a crash program to build a fusion-power based economy, and decided to change that Law for purposes of publication.

LaRouche in that document presented the unique nature of the human species, the power of reason and creativity, of which no beast and no machine has any capability. He included the idea of experimental science—upon which he relied in proposing this entire program—right after his specific call for a crash program for a fusion economy, the Fourth cardinal law in the document. Instead of the Fourth Law you now see published, that entire last section was reduced to “No to Green Ideology” in the editing of the statement by a reductionist editor. At the same time, others of our mentally blocked associates decided to focus on one law or another in the organizing.

The Power of Being Human

Some decided to focus on Glass-Steagall because it seemed so easily understood. This, a very furious Lyndon LaRouche pointed out, destroyed the meaning of his program and his intention. He said, all of the Four Laws had to be implemented immediately, simultaneously, and quickly to save the economy and should be conceptualized as a unitary force. For that to happen, in an educationally and morally challenged population, the axioms underlying these laws had to be completely understood.

Glass-Steagall, and national banking, are urgent remedial measures for today’s casino economy, which will do us all in if they are not implemented. But the Second Law (national banking) also meant that large amounts of credit have to be quickly directed to building large-scale infrastructure on a modern platform, the funding of fundamental scientific endeavors and breakthroughs, and engagement of the population in those endeavors at wage rates and with productive identities that ensure family formation and fundamental progress.

It also meant, as LaRouche otherwise elaborated on numerous occasions, that the only way this could happen all at once is through announcing a crash program for Moon-Mars exploration as a national mission and making it come into being.

Most people don’t even know that President Donald Trump announced just such a crash program back in May of 2019. He spoke about it during the national celebration on July 20 of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, and has referred to it repeatedly. To counter this, the British have rolled out their “Trump-is-a-racist” meme, while using a degraded Democratic Party, which lost its collective mind in the first stage of the coup, and whose Presidential candidates now parade as quasi-violent clowns, repeating the British mass-media propaganda line, pronouncing the President a racist who is responsible, through his “rhetoric” for the murders with guns of the last week.

In Europe, meanwhile, the City of London’s Green Climate Initiative, being prepared throughout the days of the Trump Presidency, was significantly expanded in a summit that occurred July 2. It is designed to suck huge investments into windmills, austere diets, and other “green” programs and away from any form of productive investment.

Looking to the Stars

Now, imagine that we were producing things—as described in the pamphlet Ben Deniston just wrote about the promise of the Artemis Moon-Mars program (available in the August 9, 2019 issue of EIR) and its necessity, and the video, “Dynatropy: the Creative Universe and Mankind’s Unending Progress,” that Bruce Director and Megan Beets have posted on the LaRouchePAC website, on Lyndon LaRouche’s proof that human cognition and creativity are coherent with the fundamental laws of the universe—producing things on a much expanded basis, a huge basis, thereby addressing young people and challenging them. Addressing the scientific community and challenging it.

Imagine if the President and people from NASA were treating the scientific challenges involved in this like President Franklin Roosevelt treated the war mobilization, briefing every American every Friday about the problems and prospects. Do you think the present level of hysteria would be possible, let alone, tolerated? I don’t mean to give the enemy’s propaganda any more power than it actually has. Most people are ignoring it. The only reason it has any life at all is that we are not “flooding the zone,” so to speak, with the positive alternative: what we are for.

You always have to put first what we are for and organize for that with a laser focus and, as LaRouche used to say, with a killer instinct. What comes up in opposition to that is your enemy’s plays, and you only highlight them in order to understand their vulnerabilities and how to defeat them. The required state of mind, as LaRouche often said, is one of serenity and calm, observing, mapping, and then acting as a scientist waging war would.

The Enemy’s State of Play

Now, with that in mind, let’s look in a little more detail at the current enemy state of play here in the United States. It is very, very old and, for that reason, as Trump might say, boring, and only has an impact because of its endless repetition. It is true that the turning of children into killers of their siblings and parents is, as LaRouche said, the ultimate terrorism, the ultimate crime against civilized society, but the general case is not what is at issue here now. The recent killings in El Paso, Texas and at the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, California were and are specifically being used to target Trump as a racist and intimidate his supporters, and they are manipulated episodes with the hand of British intelligence strongly at play.

Insanity in High Places

The desperation of this ploy can be seen in the bizarre rant yesterday by former Vice President and now Democratic Party pre-candidate for President in 2020, Joe Biden, in which he struggled to manifest sustained feigned anger for a significant period, tired himself out, and then flubbed whole portions of his script.

Another pathetic part of the new narrative, indicative of its outright insanity, was introduced by former FBI counterintelligence official, C. Frank Figliuzzi on MSNBC, claiming that the President, by ordering U.S. flags to be raised on August 8, after the period of mourning for the El Paso and Dayton killings, was wittingly or unwittingly subliminally messaging White Supremacists who find the numbers “88” significant, as being code for “Heil Hitler.” Shades of what British intelligence concocted to claim that Lyndon LaRouche was anti-Semitic. Every time LaRouche referred to British oligarchs, he was supposedly using coded language to refer to Jews. You have to be half-way down the road to crazy if you can even entertain such an argument.

The very first sentences of the manifesto of the El Paso shooter, Patrick Crusius, aged 21, give the game away. He says, “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto.” That endorsement introduces a very rational and cogent presentation of repugnant ideas. Crusius, allegedly posted his manifesto on 8chan’s “/pol/” board titled, “The Inconvenient Truth,” minutes before he went into an El Paso WalMart and deliberately mowed down Hispanics along with random white people caught in his AK47’s machinations. Despite the coherence of his alleged “manifesto,” law enforcement officials otherwise describe him as disoriented and confused.

A 74-page manifesto, titled “The Great Replacement,” allegedly written by Brenden Tarrant was posted on “8chan” just prior to Tarrant’s murder of 51 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand, this past March. The extremely well-organized propaganda rant begins with a circle divided into what are described as the main policy planks of the Alt Right: anti-imperialism, environmentalism, responsible markets, addiction free community, law and order, ethnic autonomy, protection of heritage and culture, and worker’s rights. The manifesto sums this up in the first sentence with Tarrant declaring himself an eco-fascist. He proceeds to outline the necessity of killing off Muslims and non-white-European “races” because of over-population.

The killer, Tarrant, writes, as Prince Phillip and Henry Kissinger did repeatedly before him, that non-white immigrants and non-white populations breed like crazy and will exhaust the Earth’s resources. He says that he realized the necessity of violent fascism when traveling through Europe, saying that he witnessed the killing of white Europeans by the migrants from the Middle East in France. His primary ideological hero is the dead British fascist Oswald Mosely. He speaks repeatedly of the decadence of “The West,” saying that the dividing line around guns in the United States can and must be used to provoke a civil war that will result in the Balkanization of the United States into racially homogenous ethno-states.

British Desperados

The synthesized nature of this creed should tell the alert reader that these ideas, as articulated, are not written by the shooters, although they motivate their actions.

So what is “8chan,” the forum for the two manifestos? “8chan,” run by an American living in the Philippines, is the successor to “4chan,” a British intelligence plaything aimed to attract rebellious and labile young people, particularly those associated with the gamer culture—angry nerds who have already withdrawn from social activity and have severe adolescent difficulties, particularly in relating to the opposite sex.

“4chan” had a channel called “/pol/,” in which politically incorrect and violent postings were encouraged. It became relatively famous because of its association with Gamergate, a doxing scandal in which female gamers were targeted and violently attacked for trying to participate in the violent video game genre. “4chan” also originally attracted people based on its promotion of Japanese anime, a Manichean subculture featuring animated characters and often Nazi and anti-feminist themes. Posters are anonymous and the activities of the hacker group, Anonymous, also a British intelligence creation, were often featured on the site. “8chan” was designed to be even more violent than “4chan.”

It is obvious that both websites and those who participate in them have been tracked by intelligence agencies, if not totally operated by them, since they came into existence many years back.

The activities of Steven Bannon with respect to all of this remain a target of investigation. Whilst operating out of Hong Kong and Hollywood, Bannon headed a gaming company called IGE that used low wage Chinese labor to accumulate advantages in video games, selling the personas and images gained to rich clients who wanted to cheat at video games. Bannon helped persuade private equity firms, including his former employer Goldman Sachs, to invest tens of millions of dollars in the venture. In 2007, however, IGE faced pressure from gaming companies, a class-action lawsuit, an investigation by authorities in Florida, and financial stress. Bannon soon steered IGE away from its virtual goods business. But, he targeted and recruited alienated young gamers from this milieu into his version of the Alt Right.

Additional insight into the synthetic ideological underpinnings of these new-breed racists can be found in the biography of Richard Spencer, the instigator of the Alt Right side of the violent confrontations in Charlottesville, Virginia of August 2017, and the champion of this eco-fascist movement. Spencer’s wife, whom he beat, resulting in divorce, worked for the Russian Eurasian synarchist Alexander Dugin. Like Dugin, with whom he collaborates, Spencer imagines the eco-fascist regime he is putting into place to be the third and final Roman Empire.

Not surprisingly, both Dugin and Spencer are devotees of Nazi Crown Jurist Carl Schmitt. In other words, this is the synarchy that we identified as the Children of Satan in the wake of 9/11, much like the ecological synarchist tendencies LaRouche wrote about in “The New Left, Local Control, and Fascism” in 1968. We are facing two versions of proto-fascist identity politics, a right and a left version. Both end in the same place. If we are to rescue our youth and actually defeat the oligarchy once and for all, LaRouche’s space program is our imminent opportunity to do so, and we do know what to do. It is the answer to how you change the culture.

I can assure you that Lyndon LaRouche is already cheering our success.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 32, August 16, 2019

Cover This Week

VOA Cantonese

Hong Kong police fire tear gas to disperse demonstrators near the Central Government Complex on August 14, 2019.

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

DEFEAT BRITISH-SPAWNED DESTABILIZATIONS

2 EDITORIAL

Stop London’s Planned ‘Color Revolution’ in Hong Kong!

by Dennis Small

4 EDITORIAL

To Change the Killer Culture, Announce the National Mission to Colonize Space

by Barbara Boyd

I. AGAINST THE GREEN NAZI INTERNATIONAL

9 Frontal Assault on Our Living Standard: Multibillionaires Are Financing the ‘Climate Protectors’!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

12 INTERVIEW: NINO GALLONI

Italian Economist: ‘Good Finance Is the Instrument of the Real Economy’

by Claudio Celani

II. COOPERATION AMONG SOVEREIGN NATIONS

15 President Putin Offers International Cooperation for Fusion Power Development

by Richard A. Black

22 LAROUCHE TO PRIVATE WASHINGTON SEMINAR

Sovereign Nations Can Solve the Global Economic Crisis

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

March 17, 2010

28 Bolivia Sets Its Sights on Fusion Energy and Eliminating Poverty!

by Dennis Small and Cynthia Rush

III. MANKIND’S GALACTIC FUTURE

33 Krafft Ehricke’s 500 Years of Space Exploration

by Marsha Freeman

IV. FDR’S FORGOTTEN PLANS FOR POST-WAR ASIA

38 WHO RUNS REGIME-CHANGE OPS AND WHY?

When the United States Offered the ‘Belt and Road’ to China

by David Shavin

59 EDITORIAL

Don’t Blame Trump for El Paso Shootings

by Doug Mallouk

61 EDITORIAL

NY TIMES HEADLINE FIASCO

The Dangerous Insanity of the Anti-Trump Coup Plotters

by Harley Schlanger

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. Against the Green Nazi International

Frontal Assault on Our Living Standard: Multibillionaires Are Financing the ‘Climate Protectors’!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

right: EU/Lukasz Kobus

Left to right: Dennis Meadows, Thomas Malthus, Greta Thunberg

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

Written for the German weekly, Neue Solidarität.

Aug. 10—The news is out. According to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the state of the Earth is catastrophic, but we still have a chance. All we have to do is listen to 16-year-old climate figurehead Greta Thunberg of Sweden, the “Extinction Rebellion,” and Dennis Meadows. Not only do we need to be ashamed to fly; we also need to be ashamed to eat meat, or food generally, to drive cars, travel, heat our homes, and, to get right down to it, we should be ashamed that we exist, because it were better for the climate if we didn’t! And, of course, if you haven’t noticed yet: Snow is black!

Anyone who thinks the trans-Atlantic establishment and its science and media PR lobbyists have gone crazy, has a point. But the madness has a method: The apocalyptic theses of this so-called Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the alleged vicious cycle of unsustainable agriculture, global warming, and extreme weather, are supposed to indoctrinate the population into voluntarily giving up consumption, accepting higher taxes to subsidize the steering of financial flows into so-called “green” investments, accepting dictatorial forms of government and—this is now frankly expressed—accepting a massive reduction of the world population.

IPCC Report: Old Wine in New Bottles

The IPCC report is in fact a long-fermented wine in new bottles, and the argument presented there is ultimately based on the theory, both simplistic and false, of Thomas Malthus, which claims that humanity increases at a geometric rate, while resources, including food production, can only be increased at a slower arithmetic rate. One of the leading neo-Malthusians, Al Gore, added a little sweetener to this wine, admitting that Malthus, of course, could not have foreseen that humankind would make improvements in agricultural technology and therefore could enormously increase the amount of food that can be produced on Earth. But—now the vinegar comes into the wine—to escape this “Malthusian dilemma,” man, like Dr. Faustus, entered into a pact with the devil and committed himself to scientific revolutions.

CC by SA 2.0

Above: George Soros, one of a number of multi-billionaire funders of the radical climate change movement. Below: Extinction Rebellion demo in London and a FridaysForFuture demo in Germany.

Julia Hawkins

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

So the present-day neo-Malthusians, including the IPCC, are operating from exactly this idea. The achievements of modern agriculture, which has enabled at least a significant part of humanity to have an improved, protein-rich diet, are vilified: meat consumption, as well as other results of scientific progress, are to blame for climate change, and the world can only be saved if we give up driving, flying, heating and air conditioning. And the world population should no longer grow, but must shrink. So, back to the population and living standards of pre-industrial times: horse-drawn carriages for the rich, bicycles or going on foot for the others, and healthy potatoes and millet porridge, this time touted as a vegan diet.

Who Is Funding the Greenies?

A closer look at the financing of Greta Thunberg, the Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Fridays for Future reveals that this movement is being funded by the richest people on Earth. Among the founders and periphery of the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), are to be found Rory Kennedy, the daughter of Robert Kennedy; Aileen Getty, daughter of the late John Paul Getty; and the “philanthropist” Trevor Neilson, whose career has included various forms of collaboration with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner. According to the Guardian, the CEF has already transferred 500,000 euros to XR, which will soon be followed by “ten times as much” money. Breitbart has published internal documents from XR, revealing further five- and six-figure donations by Soros, the European Climate Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and Greenpeace Furka Holdings AG, among others.

Such amounts, of course, are proverbial “peanuts” for jet setters who travel on private planes, helicopters and mega-yachts. Oh yes, and Greta has just embarked on one of these nautical trips to America—“to save flight fuel.” And XR’s Action Handbook, This Is Not a Drill, was generously okayed for publication by Penguin Publishers months before its original release date.

At least these sources of funding make it clear that this is a “fake” rebellion. It is not a grassroots movement, but the Greta hype and XR are the result of a well-orchestrated propaganda campaign that uses modern arguments to create a political climate in which the establishment of fascist dictatorships is accepted as unavoidable.

Surprisingly, one of the authors of the 1972 computer-model-based study Limits to Growth, Dennis Meadows, recently revealed this blatantly in an article in the French newspaper Libération. He writes that climate change and the depletion of fossil energy resources are destroying the basis for the present model of industrial society, refugee flows and famine will increase the chaos, and one thing can be learned from history: that if people have the choice between order and freedom, they will always choose order. Personal liberties are already limited, and this tendency will continue. While this will not resolve the problems that created the chaos, says Meadows, in the short term the political power and financial wealth of those who support authoritarianism will multiply.

A look at history reveals another dimension of the current propaganda campaign. This is not the first time that the financial oligarchy has reacted to a systemic financial and monetary crisis by supporting fascist movements and establishing authoritarian, dictatorial regimes. The international financing of the Nazis by the Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, and by Brown Brothers Harriman—the bank of the Harriman clan, who also supported the eugenics movement in the United States—is a well-documented fact.

Eugenics Becomes Global Genocide

History repeats itself, but never in the same way. What was then the racism of eugenics, is today the inhuman doctrine of alleged overpopulation, which was reformulated by ideologists like Julian Huxley in 1946 as an outgrowth of eugenics, because that term was discredited by the Nazis, and therefore a “radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible.” Today it is supposedly this overpopulation that is destroying our Lebensraum [“living space,” the term used by Nazi geopoliticians]—the Earth.

At the time, this ideology was the breeding ground for the fascist shock troops, who saw their acts of violence justified either by a supposed threat of “communists” or by “non-Aryan” people. And if today’s planet really only has 18 months (as Prince Charles now says), why should not a young person of 17 or 19 years do everything to fight the apparent cause—industrial society—using all available means?

The same media who report on every sound Greta makes as though it were Einstein’s discovery of the general theory of relativity, are dead silent about a passage in the text of the manifesto of the suspected mass shooter of El Paso, where 22 people were recently killed and 24 injured. It does not reflect the policy of President Trump in the least, but very much that of his opponents. The passage in question says:

The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources.

I just want to say that I love the people of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.

We Are Not Animals! We Are Human!

The main flaw in this image of man—from Malthus and all the neo-Malthusians to poor Greta—is that they have all adopted the oligarchic image of man, which regards the masses of humans as parasites, polluters, and even a sort of animal—and from this point of view their reduction of course appears to be a good thing.

But that’s not what people are. Man differs from all other creatures in that, through his native creativity, he continually discovers new principles of the physical universe, and, with the help of scientific and technological advances, can completely redefine the resources that humanity needs for its survival. The major spacefaring nations, China, Russia, India, the USA, and in this case even Europe with its European Space Agency (ESA), are demonstrating that humanity is about to create a whole new economic platform, in the sense that Lyndon LaRouche has defined. The idea of a “Moon village,” a permanent industrialization of the Moon as a starting point for a future Mars project and interstellar space flight, redefines everything that humans have previously imagined as “resources” on Earth.

The existential danger for humanity today does not lie in an imminent climate catastrophe, but rather, among other things, in a wrong reaction to cyclical climate change. Above all, it consists in the way in which the neo-liberal oligarchy, in the tradition of the1930s, is responding to the new world financial and monetary crisis: by supporting fascist movements and attempting to establish a dictatorship—even if this time an eco-dictatorship.

The same British-dominated oligarchy, just as it did then, is resorting to geopolitics, to the destabilization of alleged adversaries, such as the current attempt to weaken China and Russia through “color revolutions,” and, if possible, to bring about regime change there. That the German Greens Party is a compliant instrument of this geopolitics has been adequately demonstrated by Greens leader Joschka Fischer’s support for the NATO war against Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as by the Greens’ support for a deployment of the German Armed Forces to the Persian Gulf.

If we have learned anything from history, it is not to let those events run their course, if we want to prevent an escalation into a Third World War. We urgently need a return to the Abrahamic-humanistic image of man, which regards man as intellectually and morally infinitely perfectible! Even though this is a minority opinion that, according to Chinese artist/activist Ai Weiwei is not paid any respect in Germany, it is still in accordance with the reality of humanity in the universe.

—zepp-larouche@eir.de

INTERVIEW: NINO GALLONI

Italian Economist: ‘Good Finance Is the Instrument of the Real Economy’

by Claudio Celani

Aug. 9—As the new Italian government was sworn in last year, we wrote that it could be a game-changer in Europe with its anti-austerity approach in economic policy and its anti-geopolitical approach in foreign policy. And so it was. But we also warned in EIR on May 25, 2018, that the anti-growth component dominating one of the coalition partners, the Movimento Cinque Stelle (Five Star Movement), would be problematic.

This negative element has built up an inner conflict between Five Star and its Lega party partner, which exploded on Aug. 7 in a vote in Parliament on a motion introduced by Five Star against a major infrastructure project, the Turin-Lyon section of the TEN-T European Transport Corridor 3 (Lisbon-Kiev). To upgrade the existing connection, a high-speed railway line is being built along the corridor, which includes a 57.5 km tunnel under the Alps between Italy and France. The Five Star motion was defeated, as the Lega and the entire opposition voted against it, thus opening a political crisis which became a government crisis when the Lega introduced a no-confidence motion into the Senate on Aug. 10.

Etienne Ansotte

Ursula von der Leyen, newly elected President of the European Commission.

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

The split between the two coalition partners had appeared to be irreconcilable already on July 16, when Five Star members voted to elect Ursula von der Leyen as the new President of the European Commission, after she had delivered a fanatic speech in the European Parliament on climate policy. Marco Zanni, head of the Lega faction in the European Parliament, characterized her policy as “Taliban-like” in explaining the Lega “No” vote. Eventually it came out that, without the Five Star votes, von der Leyen would not have been elected.

It was clear then, that the Five Star movement was jumping on board the new “climate policy” agenda of deindustrialization pushed by the European Union, so that it is conceivable that the Italian government crisis had already been decided at the EU level.

On his side, Lega head and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini pointed to the Five Star opposition to a serious investment policy as the main reason for the government crisis. Indeed, the Five Star movement, controlling all the economic ministries, has blocked all major infrastructure projects, causing a loss of euro 56 billion per annum in additional logistics costs for Italian firms, as compared to an adequate infrastructure policy.

As we go to print, the Italian Parliament is setting the date for a no-confidence vote. After the vote, the ball will be in the court of President Sergio Mattarella, who will decide whether to appoint a new Prime Minister or to hold early elections. Experience shows that in these circumstances anything can happen. Under the existing political alliances in the current Parliament, no majority is possible other than “yellow-green” (Five Star-Lega) or “yellow-pink” (Five Star-Democratic Party), the latter being the most unnatural one. However, if petty interests prevail, Five Star members of Parliament might decide to ally with their Democratic Party (PD) adversaries to form a new government while avoiding early elections, as both groups know that most of them won’t be re-elected.

The pro-EU establishment—of which Mattarella is a member—is working on that profile to favor a pro-austerity cabinet and avoid early elections, which would give the Lega 40%. However, the constituencies of both the Five Star and PD would regard such an unelected coalition (already dubbed the “Ursula government” after EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen) as treasonous, and would punish the two parties accordingly when they get the chance to vote.

In the following interview, given to EIR’s Claudio Celani on August 8, economist Nino Galloni offers an insider view on the Italian crisis, including a discussion of what a correct environment, climate and economic policy should be.

Real Economy and Real Environmental Protection

EIR: Italy’s Five Star Party opened a crisis in the Italian government Aug. 7, when it voted against the Turin-Lyon high-speed rail project, a strategic part of Corridor 3 of the Trans-European Transport Network. Is Five Star still dominated by the ideology of “de-growth”?

EIRNS/Julien Lemaitre

Nino Galloni

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

Nino Galloni: The Five Star movement has always had two contradictory souls in economics: one post-Keynesian (which in my re-elaboration is very close to Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas, and can be characterized as “responsible growth”) and one of “de-growth” and mainstream environmentalism.

EIR: Whether it is called “de-growth” or climate protection, there is a real anti-emission hysteria, inclusive of European Union institutions. Where is this leading us, and what is your view of it? Lyndon LaRouche, whom you knew personally, pointed to the decisive role of energy-flux density, and said that its increase or decrease determines the survival or decline of societies. Do you agree?

Galloni: The issue must be correctly addressed. First of all, we must distinguish the causes of climate change from those of pollution (with their effects on nature and health). The former is cyclical and have always been present; the only difference is that now they are occurring in a situation of greater human activity than in the past. But today we have the technology to deal with them—not to stop them; therefore, humanity must collaborate in its own interest. The causes, therefore, are not man-made and not even due to the increase of CO_2, which is a tiny component of greenhouse gases, which consist 98% of water vapor, without which we wouldn’t have life on Earth.

Pollution, instead, is the consequence of the ill-conceived effort to block growth, which, through globalization, has slowed down the introduction of ever more advanced technologies (what LaRouche called the intensification of energy flux-density), in order to promote competition policies based purely on cutting production costs. Thus, we are still the captive of hydrocarbons, although non-polluting, convenient alternatives are available, which are compatible with the growth—including demographic growth—of humanity.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark

Prince Charles

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

EIR: The Italian government has signed a partnership with Britain on the COP26 conference which will take place in London at the end of 2020. Prince Charles solemnly declared last month that the eighteen months that separate us from that deadline will decide the destiny of the Earth. Is it wise, in your view, for Italy to ally with the United Kingdom in a campaign that actually targets China and other developing countries, and aims at blocking their development?

Galloni: It is not wise, because it is totally unfounded that in eighteen months the Earth will have used up all resources. Resources are becoming scarce for given technologies (as in the erroneous linear equations of the Club of Rome and company), but human history is a history of growth, which leads to a steady reduction of needed resources or—which is the same thing—to the reduction of resources (and polluting factors) per unit of product.

Change the Paradigm

EIR: Again, the UK—or better, the City of London—has launched the Green Finance Initiative, to divert hundreds of billions into a “CO_2-neutral” conversion of the economy. Is this the attempt to bail out the bankrupt financial system through a new mega-bubble?

Galloni: The connection between ultra-speculative finance, transnational movements, and environmental hysteria is evident. We must counterpose to it a political project that puts humanity and a new relationship with Nature in the center, while dumping the model that puts Nature alone in the center. Drastic population reduction is the link between irrational de-growth and vested financial interests.

EIR: In order to sustain the bubble, they demand government money to be obtained through “emission taxes,” and, using modern brainwashing techniques, to convince citizens that they should willingly reduce consumption and change their habits. Will they succeed?

Galloni: Habits are already changing in highly industrialized countries. Material products are losing importance as compared with immaterial products, but in order for the process to be positive, we need to increase family incomes. In those countries which must still reach acceptable levels of material consumption, we must instead promote more development of domestic demand and less growth of exports. But this is already occurring and will require a coming together of countries which are in favor of the de-dollarization of the world economy (including Trump’s USA, even if it is not always clear that they want this). In other words, a New Bretton Woods.

EIR: What do you think of LaRouche’s Four Laws, the set of solutions he said were necessary to solve the economic crisis? (In brief: the Glass-Steagall Act, National Banking, use of Public Credit to raise physical productivity; and a fusion energy science-driver program.)

Galloni: I know and fully support the four instruments proposed by LaRouche.

EIR: The Italian government has represented a shift in Europe in its break with austerity policies. After one year, the incompatible aspects of the two components of the coalition, Lega and Five Star, seem to be exploding into a government crisis. Are we going towards early elections in your view? Or is there another solution for the differences on investment, the EU, and budget policy?

U.S. Army/Elizabeth Fraser

Matteo Salvini, Lega head and Deputy Prime Minister.

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

Galloni: I think that [Lega head Matteo] Salvini understands that his tax-reform proposals would lead to harmful spending cuts, given the current makeup of the government. That consideration leads him to favor early elections to increase his party’s control. To continue with the current coalition, on the other hand, he would need support from the moderate and technocratic component of the government [Economy and Finance Minister Giovanni Tria—ed.], which I consider difficult to obtain.

EIR: After a promising start, the push towards a new Italian policy in the Mediterranean and on the New Silk Road has also lost momentum. What are the problems in your view, and how to proceed?

Galloni: As I have touched upon throughout the interview, we must change the Paradigm: away from the search for balancing accounts, and instead towards economic balance. Good finance is the instrument of the real economy. Causal relations go from real balance to balancing the accounts, and not the other way around.

II. Cooperation Among Sovereign Nations

President Putin Offers

International Cooperation for

Fusion Power Development

by Richard A. Black

kremlin.ru

Russian President Vladimir Putin addressing the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 7, 2019.

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

Richard A. Black is the Schiller Institute representative at the United Nations in New York.

July 27—Over the past several years, Schiller Institute founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche has forcefully brought forward for international dialogue, the warning that the Old Paradigm of liberal economics, and related foreign relations, is dying and dangerous. A New Paradigm is urgently required. Despite fierce opposition, this new reality is close at hand, through the potential cooperative pursuit, among key nations, of both space exploration and of the harnessing of the vast energy resource of thermonuclear fusion. Now, these same themes are being prominently addressed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and other leading Russian figures.

In July, President Putin delivered a very strong appeal for international cooperation in the development of fusion power in his address to a major international manufacturing conference hosted in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Putin’s sharp call for an international economic policy based on a new “science driver” of fusion research and achievement, coupled with his recent attacks on the “Euro-Atlantic model” of banking, in light of the 2008 financial crisis, positions President Putin to potentially define a new course for Russia—a course which rejects the British Mont Pelerin Society model installed in Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Zepp-LaRouche, speaking in Beijing in May of this year, raised the issue of the current collapse of the British Empire-defined “liberal” order in the West:

We are now experiencing a precious moment, for never before in history has the conscious design of a new epoch, with the idea of a unified humanity as a higher idea, been so clearly defined as a task.

She offered a pathway towards a new ordering principle for humanity, exposed the failure of the “liberalism,” of today, and defined a direction for natural science with emphasis on international cooperation for galactic space travel and on the related harnessing of limitless energy through controlled thermonuclear fusion.

Zepp-LaRouche had developed similar themes in a well-attended address in Moscow, in October 2018, to a branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Perhaps reflecting the adage, “Ideas whose time has come,” Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin is currently developing similar themes. This raises the question, “Is President Putin not only preparing to jettison the ‘liberal’ economics of the IMF and Thatcherism, but, as well, to move towards the production and innovation policies of China and the American economist Lyndon LaRouche?”

EIRNS/William Jones

Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressing a forum at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University in Beijing, China on May 22, 2019.

FAN-TV Federal news agency

Helga Zepp-LaRouche addresses the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation on October 24, 2018.

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

Liberalism is ‘Obsolete’

In a wide-ranging interview with editors of the Financial Times (FT) of London, published June 27, 2019, President Putin spoke at great length about his view that the “Liberalism” of the West had become “obsolete.” In that interview he stated:

What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon?. . . The ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of people.

There is . . . the so-called “liberal idea,” which has outlived its purpose. Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable. . . .

So, the “liberal idea” has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population. Or take the traditional values. I am not trying to insult anyone, because we have been condemned for our alleged homophobia as it is. But we have no problems with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as they wish. . . . But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.

All right, have we forgotten that all of us live in a world based on Biblical values? Even atheists and everyone else live in this world. We do not have to think about this every day, attend church and pray, thereby showing that we are devout Christians or Muslims or Jews. However, deep inside there must be some universal human rules and moral values. In this sense, traditional values are more stable and more important for millions of people than this liberal idea, which, in my opinion, is really ceasing to exist.

kremlin.ru

Russian President Vladimir Putin is briefed on new technologies at the International Industrial Trade Fair in Yekaterinburg, Russia on July 9, 2019.

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

This dramatic attack by President Putin was also reflected earlier, in his June 7 keynote address at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). There he presented the failure of what he termed the “Euro-Atlantic” economic model, as exemplified by the global economic crisis of 2008.

Likewise, in an interview on the eve of the SPIEF, Putin commented that it is regrettable that young people are being mobilized into the streets on environmental issues, yet, there are no such demonstrations over the “global threat” of world war.

Alexander Yakovenko, Russia’s Ambassador to the UK.

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

Importance of FDR and Glass-Steagall

Again, in early July, an exposé of the failure of “liberal economics” was presented by another leading Russian government official, Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Alexander Yakovenko. In an article published in the widely read Russian government daily newspaper, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, titled, “An Idea That’s Lost its Steam—What Happened to the Western Liberal Idea?” Yakovenko in part responds to a defense of liberalism by Financial Times Economics Editor Martin Wolf. Yakovenko, referring to President Putin’s FT interview, writes:

Thus, the Russian leader had merely stated the existence of a problem, which the Western elites are incapable of acknowledging, as they desperately insist that there is no alternative to the status quo.

Yakovenko then identifies the takedown of Glass-Steagall banking separation in the West as a key element of the “liberal” economics which has led to economic failure in the West:

The systemic crisis of Western Society, to call things by their name, goes back to Reaganism and Thatcherism, i.e., to the early 1980s, when, forgetting the lessons of the Great Depression, led to attempts by the Anglo-Americans to “test out” pure capitalism of the pre-1929 model, unleashing the spontaneous action of the “self-regulating market” with a minimized regulatory role of the state—the key idea of liberal economics. There was simply no place left for the notion of some social responsibility on the part of business.

Simultaneously, there was a several-stage takedown of regulation of the financial sector through the Glass-Steagall law, which had been one of the key elements of F.D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. . . . It is lawful that the current crisis came about in 2008 in the banking sector, which had lost its connection with the real sector of the economy.

Later on, the Anglo-Saxons started to impose neo-liberalism, as it began to be called, on the European Union through the Lisbon Agenda. Tony Blair, the UK Prime Minister at the time, did a lot in that regard. When Margaret Thatcher was asked what she considered her greatest achievement, she replied that it was Blair, who under the slogan of “New Labour,” had continued her economic policies.

EIRNS/Rachel Douglas

Stanislav Menshikov (left) with Lyndon LaRouche in Moscow, Russia on May 16, 2007.

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

‘Liberal’ Economics Caused Genocide in Russia

The same Thatcherite economic policy was brought into Russia in the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, in the form of the Shock Therapy policy from London and Wall Street. This has been documented by Professor Stanislav Menshikov in his book, The Anatomy of Russian Capitalism and by Academician and Adviser to President Putin on Eurasian Affairs, Sergei Glazyev in the book, Genocide: Russia and the New World Order. In June 2001, Glazyev, as Chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on Economic Policy, invited American economist Lyndon LaRouche to testify in the State Duma on national economic security in times of financial crisis.

The Shock Therapy policy amounted to a genocide against the Russian population: an absolute, steep rise of the death rate and the collapse of the productive sector of the economy in favor of wild speculation and capital flight. In the Russian weekly Zavtra of June 6, Academician Glazyev pointed out that of all the G20 countries, “only Russia and Brazil are conducting a macroeconomic policy in line with IMF recommendations,” i.e., budget austerity and high interest rates. According to Glazyev, “We in Russia have created for ourselves a chronic crisis, following IMF recommendations to starve our economy of credit.” Russia’s economy today is characterized by budget austerity, high interest rates, sliding household real incomes, rising value-added taxes, and a recently raised retirement age for workers, raised to the average age of life expectancy!

Fusion: Nature’s Creation Processes

Is President Putin moving in the direction of ditching these hold-over policies of “liberal” genocide forced on Russia in the 1990s? On July 9, President Putin addressed the Second Global Manufacturing and Industrialization Summit (GMIS), held in Yekaterinburg, east of the Ural Mountains. GMIS is a joint initiative of the United Arab Emirates and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). In that speech, he obliterated the arguments of the Greenies who demand that mankind “give up progress” so as to benefit the “local well-being for a select few.” He called for international scientific cooperation to develop controlled thermonuclear fusion—“a colossal, inexhaustible, and safe source of energy . . .” derived from “nature-like technologies that reproduce natural processes and systems according to the laws of nature.”

Putin denounced the rejection of nuclear and hydrocarbon energy as “a road to nowhere” that will “only lead to new conflicts. . . .” Importantly, he offered Russia’s pre-eminent science research infrastructure for cooperation among international teams of scientists, in order to create “better living conditions and opportunities for unleashing human potential. . . .”

Will Russia Adopt China’s Innovations?

The extraordinary success of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its poverty elimination programs—which have already lifted 800 million Chinese out of poverty and brought great projects of infrastructure to the former colonial sector—has had an impact on Russia. Just before the SPIEF, Presidents Putin and Xi announced an upgrading of their relationship to a “Comprehensive Partnership of Coordination for a New Era.” Thirty China-Russia investment projects were agreed upon. On the sidelines of the mid-June Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in the Kyrgyz Republic, and at the Osaka, Japan G20 summit at the end of June, Presidents Putin and Xi again discussed economic and strategic matters, and were joined by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Putin advisor Academician Sergei Glazyev has been active in organizing and leading seminars of experts in both Russia and China, with an eye toward shifting Russia’s economic policy. With Russia’s 2019 first quarter annualized GDP growth at a stagnant 0.5 per cent, and with average household incomes sliding, economic stagnation is, today, a political concern for the Kremlin. Glazyev argues that if Russia were to follow China’s type of credit policies, it could rapidly achieve 8 to 10 per cent growth annually. Half of still-existing industrial manufacturing capacity in Russia, he says, remains idle.

Last year, speaking to a conference of Chinese and Russian economists, Glazyev said:

Under International Monetary Fund (IMF) supervision, the heads of our economic agencies continue to implement market fundamentalism, which is incompatible with the accelerated economic growth goals set by the President of Russia. I would send our ministers to do internships in China, to make them understand how to develop an economy in today’s world.

Federation Council of the Federal Assembly

Sergei Glazyev, advisor to President Putin.

Glazyev said that Putin’s remarks were “fundamental and, in many respects, revolutionary . . . a fundamental breakthrough in terms of both a theoretical grasp of the current systemic crisis, and proposals for practical ways out of it.”

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

Glazyev Evaluates New Potentials

In recent web TV and newspaper interviews, Glazyev has stepped up his polemical criticism of the Russian Central Bank leadership and other economic officials who have been schooled in Anglo-American neoliberal economics—a part of the “liberal idea” which President Putin has, recently, so sharply criticized.

In a June 17 interview, Glazyev noted President Putin’s recent speech at the SPIEF, in which President Putin characterized as a failure, the West’s Quantitative Easing “solution” to the 2008 global financial crisis. Glazyev said that Putin’s remarks were “fundamental and, in many respects, revolutionary.” He called President Putin’s language at the SPIEF “a fundamental breakthrough in terms of both a theoretical grasp of the current systemic crisis, and proposals for practical ways out of it.” He said that President Putin’s speech at SPIEF could be compared in significance—in the economic realm—to what Putin’s 2007 security policy speech in Munich, Germany represented, in the military-strategic realm.

In the midst of these important discussions, the worldwide July commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Mankind’s first landing on the Moon has become the occasion for furthering the appreciation that mankind can collaborate in science for the economic betterment of all. During the week of July 20, celebrations and forums took place in 124 nations to mark Man’s first steps on another planetary body. A Russian rocket was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, sending a team of astronauts from Italy, Russia and the United States to the International Space Station. India launched its Chandrayaan-2 mission to the Moon. The U.S. celebrated NASA’s newly announced Artemis Mission to put a woman and man on the Moon by 2024. Meanwhile, China’s Moon rover was re-activated to continue exploration of the far side of the Moon. “Moon fever” has excited the imagination of millions of people around the globe.

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche envisioned this spirit in her 2018 address to the Russian Academy of Sciences:

The combination of a fusion economy and the industrialization of the Moon, as the next steps in an unlimited process of mankind’s continued mastery of the laws of the universe, will mean an entirely new economic platform in the sense defined by Lyndon LaRouche.

Now in 2019, President Putin’s recent public discussions concerning universal moral values, international economic policy, and most importantly, fusion power, in particular, are a valuable contribution pointing toward that “entirely new economic platform in the sense defined by Lyndon LaRouche.”

President Putin on

Fusion Power—‘A Colossal, Inexhaustible, and Safe Source of Energy’

On July 9, 2019, President Putin gave an address at the Second Global Manufacturing and Industrialization Summit (GMIS) held in Yekaterinburg, Russia. The Summit was attended by 3,300 delegates and media representatives, 120 heads of foreign companies and 250 heads of Russian companies. Many foreign ministers and diplomatic personnel were also in attendance. The following are excerpts from that address. Subheads have been added.

It is not yet clear how to combine long-term development and production build-up while preserving nature and high living standards. How do we prevent the digital technological revolution, robotization and the general move to the “internet of things” from ending in a deadlock without resources and with environmental damage?. . .

Regrettably, instead of discussing essential matters on the climatic and environmental agenda, we often see overt populism, false allegations, and, I dare say, obscurantism.

Things have reached the point of appeals to give up progress, doing which would make it possible, at best, to perpetuate the situation and create local wellbeing for a select few. At the same time, millions of people will have to settle for what they have today or, it would be more honest to say, what they don’t have today: access to clean water, food, education and other fruits of civilization.

Naturally, such outdated approaches are a road to nowhere. They can only lead to new conflicts. . . .

Absolutist, blind faith in simple, showy but ineffective solutions can lead to problems . . . such as the total rejection of nuclear or hydrocarbon energy, for example, in favor of exclusive reliance on existing alternative energy sources. Will it be comfortable to live on a planet covered with stockades of wind turbines and several layers of solar batteries?. . .

Everybody knows that wind power is good, but is anyone thinking about the birds? How many birds die? [Windmills] vibrate so much that worms crawl out of the ground. This is not a joke, really, it is a serious side-effect of these modern modes of energy generation. . . .

Radically New Technologies

I believe that in order to secure cleaner air, water and food, which also means a better quality of life and longevity for billions of people on our planet, we must offer radically new technologies and more efficient and environmentally friendly devices.

Such super-efficient scientific, engineering and manufacturing solutions will help us establish a balance between the biosphere and the technosphere, as well as to minimize and better control the anthropogenic impact on nature, on the environment. This also includes so-called nature-like technologies that reproduce natural processes and systems according to the laws of nature.

It may seem strange at first, but thermonuclear fusion energy, which in fact is similar to how heat and light are produced deep within our star, the Sun, is an example of such nature-like technologies. Potentially we can harness a colossal, inexhaustible, and safe source of energy. But we will only succeed in fusion power and other fundamental tasks if we establish broad international cooperation and interaction between government and business, and unite the efforts of researchers representing different scientific schools and areas—if technological development becomes truly global, and does not get split up, or held back by attempts to monopolize progress, limit access to education, and put up new obstacles to the free exchange of knowledge and ideas.

Russia Open to this Cooperation

By the way, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) serves as a prime example of open scientific and technological cooperation. Scientists are now planning to use it to achieve controlled thermonuclear fusion. Our country is actively participating in this project and is now prepared to suggest using Russia’s scientific infrastructure for joint research, joint scientific investigation, for the international scientific teams working on nature-like and other breakthrough technologies, including unique mega-science installations.

With their help, scientists will be able to literally see nature’s processes of creation. I would like to note that such an installation has become an essential part of the interdisciplinary center for nature-like convergent technologies, in operation for more than a decade at one of Russia’s largest scientific centers, the Kurchatov Institute. . . .

For international research teams who want to work in Russia, and for hosting large-scale interdisciplinary projects and establishing international scientific clusters, we intend to come up with the most comfortable conditions and support mechanisms. . . .

To accomplish these goals, we intend to use the potential of our major, partially government-owned companies. As you may know, I recently visited Italy and spoke to our partners; our colleagues, there, use partially government-owned enterprises. It might seem strange, but we are following the same direction—first, because this is an international task, and second, there exist state resources that we can use in key development areas. . . .

I believe that in this era of tectonic changes and, sadly, of increasing uncertainty, absolute values—that is, creating better living conditions and opportunities for unleashing human potential—must be a priority. Impressive technological development should serve this purpose. This is where great responsibility lies with us for the future of our nation and the world in general—, and we definitely must work together.

Friends, Russia is open to this kind of expansive and equitable cooperation.

March 17, 2010

Sovereign Nations Can Solve the Global Economic Crisis

Lyndon LaRouche made the following remarks to a private gathering of diplomats in Washington, D.C. on March 17, 2010.

The issue, of course, is really, internationally, economy. And presently, despite all wishful thinking, under the present system, the entire economic system of the planet is about to crash. The crash will be centered in the trans-Atlantic community, of course, but the point is, Asia—those parts of Asia which are moving in a positive direction—is going to have great difficulty in trying to operate in a world in which the trans-Atlantic side has collapsed.

Frankly, and this is absolutely frank: Unless we get rid of this President [Barack Obama], very soon, in the United States, there’s no chance that the world’s going to make it. Because if this President continues to be President, the U.S. is going to crash, and when the U.S. crashes, Europe will crash, the entire Atlantic region will crash, and that will bring down entirely the market upon which Asian countries, and others, depend for marginal support for stability.

So, therefore, it’s obvious, as I emphasized to people in the United States just recently, and abroad, that this President has to go. That’s not your responsibility; that’s ours. We will do the best we can.

And he is very unpopular with the American people. Over 60% of the population does not like him. A large number, probably a majority, wish he would go away immediately. Some members of the Congress are frightened, and therefore some politicians are frightened, of the power of the British, and the President. And President Obama is essentially a puppet of the British. And therefore, they’re afraid to throw him out. But sometimes in these processes, as in history, history has its own way of helping people to do the right thing, to get rid of bad governments.

I think this is one of the occasions. Because the anger building up in the U.S. population, against this Presidency and this Congress—if you want to be out of politics in the United States today, be presently a member of the Congress. They’re the most unpopular species we have presently. It’s not that they’re all bad—they’re not all bad people; they’re just a little bit cowardly. And they get intimidated by the kind of pressures that come upon them.

Most of the American people, frankly, hate this Presidency. But they don’t hate the President so much, because they don’t consider Obama an American. The ones they hate are the ones whom they believed were their trusted friends in the Congress, who, they believe, have betrayed them. They don’t believe the President has betrayed them; he’s just doing bad things. But because the Congress supports this President, they hate the Congress, and they hate the present government.

So, there is a process underway, despite the cowards in our ranks; there is a movement to get rid of this current Presidency. And it will happen. The question is, when it will happen. It can happen within weeks from now. It can happen around the issue of trying to push through this Nazi-like health-care policy, which the President is fanatically committed to.

Rebuilding the Shattered World Economy

We have another problem. Once we get rid of that problem, we have a major problem, apart from the Anglo-American problem. The major problem is that we have a shattered world economy.

This is not something new. This has been going on for a long time.

Asia, for example, because of low wage rates, has been producing goods which were formerly produced by Europe, formerly produced in the United States, and so forth, and therefore, we see the bankruptcy most concentrated in the collapsing part of the world economy which is the trans-Atlantic region.

Courtesy of the Council for the Study of Productive Forces (SOSPS), Russian Federation

An alliance of sovereign nation-states could unite almost every part of the world by high-speed rail. Shown here, an artist’s rendition of the proposed Bering Strait Tunnel.

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

But, part of the process has been that the trans-Pacific region has depended upon the market represented by the trans-Atlantic region. And therefore, we have a real world crisis. If you put the two parts together, this is not a safe situation.

Now, what’s happened, and just to give you a picture of how this happened. . . . I’ve been forecasting since the Summer of 1956. I was at that time an executive for a consulting firm in the United States, and doing my own consulting, out of that office. And on the basis of the studies I was doing, I forecast that, by the end of February, or the begining of March of the following year, there would be the biggest depression in the United States, since World War II. And it happened.

Everyone else failed in this, because they depended upon what’s called financial forecasting, statistical financial forecasting. Mathematics of finance. And the world doesn’t work like that.

For example: I use this often, the case from [Vladimir] Vernadsky’s work, that what really counts, is physical factors.

Take it, for example, from Vernadsky’s standpoint. Let’s start with how the thing works. We have a planet which is based on physical economy. Now, one of the elements of physical economy, in ancient and modern times, is iron. Since about the time of the Hittites, we began using iron. We went to the areas where the iron was in the richest concentrations. And thus, we tended to use up those richest concentrations, the ones we could handle with our technology at the time, and we drew it down. Which meant that there was a physical cause of a decline in the economy, if we didn’t make technological progress. And that has happened, repeatedly.

One of the key factors in this, of course, is the development of modes of power. Monkeys and chimpanzees and so forth, do not use fire. Human beings are distinguished by the artful use of fire; and it’s not just fire. Society progresses by increasing what we call the energy-flux-density of power. You increase the energy-flux-density of power—which means going from wood and charcoal, to coal, to gasses and so forth—and we’ve now entered a period in which, only on the basis of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion power, can we maintain a world economy successfully. We have to keep going to a higher energy-flux-density.

But the characteristic of mankind is that we make inventions, which are of the nature of largely scientific inventions, but also cultural arts, which shape the way we use our physical, scientific progress. And thus, mankind increases the productive powers of labor, through increasing power, through the development of basic economic infrastructure, and so forth, so that we’re able to maintain, and depend upon, a growing world population.

The problem has been, for example, on the Asian side, the Pacific side, that we had too many poor people. Now, you can’t solve the problem by eliminating poor people, but you have to find ways of increasing the productive powers of labor, even in countries such as those in the trans-Pacific region, which have many poor people. India, China, and so forth. Therefore, you need a process of development.

The problem has been that since the middle of the 1960s, the United States and Western Europe have been collapsing in their own productive powers, and have been depending increasingly on cheap labor markets outside of Europe and the United States. So, therefore, we’ve had a process of increase of some activity in the trans-Pacific region, but we’ve had a decline in the productive powers of labor in Europe and the United States. And that’s where our problem lies. That’s why we need nuclear power.

But the other problem is, in the United States, with shutting down the auto industry and a few things like that, we just shut down the economy! We have virtually shut down the economy. In 1967-68, the United States shut down, went negative, on basic economic infrastructure. We produced some new infrastructure, but we lost more, by attrition. That happened under President Johnson. It was a side-effect of the war in Vietnam, which was used to draw down the infrastructure. And since 1968, there has been a net, accelerating shrinkage in basic economic infrastructure.

How To Move Poor Populations

So, you have a situation in China, you have a situation now in Siberia, and other countries—you have a shortage of basic economic infrastructure among populations which are, in large degree, very poor. We can talk about a 60% poverty factor. It’s not just poverty, it’s the lack of skills. What we’re doing today, where we’re doing something successfully—and you see this in China, you see a commitment on this on the side of Russia, you see this in terms of India—you see an improvement based on nuclear power.

For example, a couple years ago, I was dealing with this problem, meeting with some of our friends in India, who are in Indian government circles, and one of the things we discussed when I was there, was the question of nuclear power for India.

Now, even though at that time, already, Russia was delivering some nuclear power plants to India, the problem was that for the needs of India, there was not enough nuclear power on line, available, to meet the challenge of India. And this has been improved since then, by some policy changes. We see a recognition of this problem in poor countries, such as India, and other Asian countries, which have 80% or 60% very poor people, with very poor skills, with very little infrastructure to support them.

The only way that we can move these populations upward, is two things: First of all, basic economic infrastructure: water systems, railway systems, super-railway systems, power systems in general. But, we can not solve the problem technologically, and I could use the case of India as an example of that, where it has 60 to 70% of extremely poor people, in an essentially hopeless situation.

EIRNS/Gary Gennazio

The late Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (above) would always make sure there was something in the budget to benefit the very poor, through even small technological advances. Below: LaRouche in the Indian village of Mandi, April 24, 1982.

EIRNS

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

Mrs. Indira Gandhi, when she was heading the government of India, would do things. I was on friendly terms with that government at that time, so we had a lot of joint discussions about common interests, that sort of thing. And she would, every year, in every season’s budget, would always get something for the very poor people in India, which would give them a small increment upward.

For example, replacing their carts with ball-bearing carts, which would make the thing just that more efficient. Getting more fruit trees, through their Department of Agriculture there. An Indian would burn the trees in sight, to cook his food, but would not burn a fruit tree. Therefore, her idea was to improve the number and quality, of fruit trees available, which would be a climate enhancement, and at the same time, would be a source of nourishment, which would improve things.

The main thing for poor people in poor countries, is to enhance their optimism about the future. If they’re optimistic about the future, they’ll be conservative. If they’re not optimistic, they will, as any people are, tend to be desperate.

A Solution in Sight

So, today we’ve got this problem, which I think is in sight of solution. It’s crucial.

We have presently two leading elements of power sources, on which the world depends. If you’re not talking about nuclear power, you’re not serious, because without nuclear power, there is no possible net improvement in the world. It’s just not possible. We’ve got to the point that’s the level we must have.

Well, we have a basic source. One is the thorium cycle, thorium nuclear-reaction cycle. And the supplies of thorium in the world are actually larger than those of uranium, at present. But, to get a reactor going, you have to charge it, with plutonium. And because of certain restrictions, and restrictions on development of certain technologies, we do not have the ability to charge it. For example, we did not have, two years ago, in India, the prospect of the ability to charge both the large uranium reactors, and also the needed thorium reactors. The thorium reactors are generally smaller, faster. They’re actually safer, from many standpoints. And there’s an abundance of thorium.

And you take a case like India, the poor areas of India, where you have virtually no infrastructure. The addition of power, of thorium power, means we can actually solve a great number of problems in the areas of very poor people, fairly rapidly. For example, clean water: a very simple thing. All kinds of things of that sort.

So, therefore, we now have a perspective, under presently changed policies toward the use of nuclear power, in many countries—we have the ability, a perspective: combined with mass transportation development, water management, that sort of thing, and more nuclear power, using both thorium and uranium, as basic forms of this. That is the way we can accelerate productivity per capita, in countries which have many very poor people in them.

Because you have a cultural problem—you can overcome the cultural problem by increasing the amount of power available to assist the population. You can do that by going to mass transportation—not automobiles, but mass transportation. Private automobiles are not an efficient way of moving things around. Trucks, or anything else. And we now have high-speed, very high-speed rail. We’ll be going to magnetic levitation more extensively, because those are the modes of the future.

We also have the prospect before us, of the opening up of the development of the Bering Strait railway tunnel. We have the prospect of uniting every part of the world, by high-speed equivalent of rail, except Australia. Australia has a little problem, a geological problem there, which makes it very difficult to do that kind of thing. But if we go ahead, as was intended after the 1970s in Russia, with the Trans-Siberian Railroad—that was a limited objective, but the principle was there: That railway system, which covers an area, potentially, of mineral resources of North Asia, opens up the entire world to high-speed, efficient transportation, much more efficient than shipping. We can beat shipping with high-speed rail. We can beat it in economy, we can beat it in lost time. If we create an international maglev rail system, we can have a qualitative improvement in productivity, because of this advantage of magnetic levitation, and similar high-speed rail, over shipping.

So, these are the kinds of things we can do.

Get Rid of the Green Policies

What I would propose we should be doing, is using these technologies, first of all, to force Europe and the United states and South America, to behave themselves, and stop the silly things they’re doing, in terms of policy. Green policies are mass murder! We must eliminate green policies. Because the energy-flux-density of green policies is insufficient to maintain the present human population.

The British have come up with a proposal of cutting down the human population. Their proposal is to reduce it from 6.7 billion people, to 2, or less! That’s the green policy; that’s what we’re getting in the trans-Atlantic region. A green policy of reducing the potential population density, as a way of driving down population. You’ll have a bunch of poor stupid people, less than 2 billion on this planet, where we now have 6.7 or 6.8 billion. And we’ll have more.

To support a population of this size, in good health and good condition, and in peaceful relations, requires a nuclear revolution, in terms of policymaking. And elimination of windmills, and similar kinds of nonsense. . . . A windmill, for example, used as a power source, costs more in its whole lifetime, from construction to use to cutting it down, than you get out of the windmill.

Solar power is negative. If you want to use solar power, grow trees! Trees will convert up to 10% of the radiant, incident power. That’s your moisture, temperature. You want a better climate? Grow trees! Grow high-quality trees. Tear up the solar collectors; they destroy more wealth than they create. Going back to primitive technologies destroys more wealth than it creates.

Optimism is located in the kinds of infrastructure typified by high-speed rail and magnetic levitation, by large-scale water management systems, by programs of developing foliage, different kinds of foliage, growth of trees, this sort of thing, to master the natural capabilities of the planet, with high technology.

Preventing a New Dark Age

That’s what we must do, and we must do this because we are collapsing, and have collapsed the productive powers of labor far below survival levels. We are now headed toward a global dark age, unless these technologies are changed. There are tendencies in Asia, as in the recent agreements among Russia, China, and India, and other countries, which indicate a willingness to move in that direction on the part of those countries. These are the correct directions. They need some enhancement, they need some reinforcement; but that’s correct. What we have to do, is force the same thing to occur in the trans-Atlantic community, because it is the trans-Atlantic community which is breaking up.

For example, Western and Central Europe have no sovereignty—none. They can not create credit. They have no authority to create credit. They’re a British colony! From Belarus and Russia, to the Atlantic, the whole continental territory is a British colony, which is being looted and managed. We have a parasitical economy based on usury, fraudulent usury. The money is made by sucking the blood of the people and the population.

So, we also need, therefore, a revolutionary change in international monetary financial policy. We can not live on the kind of trends in economic policy, financial policy, which have ruled the United States since October 1987. We have to go back to a fixed-exchange-rate system of the type that Franklin Roosevelt intended; not the Truman version, but the Roosevelt version. We have to go back to that. And thus, we have to create a situation in which you can lend money from credit systems which are sovereign credit systems.

The only way we can run this planet is by perfectly sovereign nation-states. And the sovereign nation-states now must have some medium of essential cooperation, in order to deal with common problems of mankind. There has to be a great flow into some parts of the world, of technology. That means exports. The technology will require 30- to 50-year investments, which means credit over a long term will be required. It will be required among nations in their trade with each other. It must be at a low interest rate, because if you get above about 2% interest rate, poor countries, in particular, can not stand it, and you can not get many necessary things as investments internationally.

Therefore, you must have a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, not the present monetary system. We will not get out of this mess unless we do what I intend we should do. Have one big great birthday celebration! On that day, we will burn up all the bad credit of the planet; but Roosevelt-style, by a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, not a monetary system.

In other words, we must eliminate the tyranny of international finance, which preys upon and sucks the blood of mankind now. The authority for creation of credit lies with the sovereign nation-states. But the sovereign nation-states must have agreements among themselves, which are fixed-exchange-rate agreements, which prevent the interest rates and charges from rising, which will kill off trade.

And therefore, we need an agreement among sovereign nation-states to say, “We sovereign nation-states”—not colonies—“we run the planet. We run the planet based on the sovereignty of the individual nation-state. Therefore, we must have agreements among ourselves, especially trade, fixed-exchange-rate agreements, and agreements to help one another. And we can do just fine.” We have to eliminate this imperial system, which has dominated Europe since the period of the Peloponnesian War, either in explicit empires, or in the form of empire that the British represent today, as a financial empire.

That’s our problem. And we have to have the courage to do that, and do it promptly, otherwise it’s not going to work.

Transrapid

The maglev from Shanghai to its airport, which China now plans to extend. “Optimism is located in the kinds of infrastructure typified by high-speed rail and magnetic levitation,” said LaRouche.

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

Obama Is in the Way

We have run out of time, and this President is our impediment. You will find in the American people out there, about 60-70% of them hate the members of Congress. They hate them for this reason; they hate them because this Congress supports this President. They want the President out, but they don’t hate him, because they never considered him a friend. They hate the people whom they elected, as members of Congress, the people who should have been their friends, who have turned against them and betrayed them.

And the American people, as you saw last August and you’ll see more and more now, the American population, the American citizen, believes that their representative in Congress has betrayed them, with very few exceptions. And they hate them. You have a bunch of terrified members of Congress, who are bending to Obama on a health-care policy which is a direct copy of that of Adolf Hitler during World War II, and intentionally so. It comes out of people like Tony Blair, who’s about as evil as you could find on this planet, in terms of performance.

So therefore, we come to a point that is the breaking point in politics, where the American people are prepared to turn against their own representatives, including President Obama, because of the crimes the Congress and this President have committed against them, and threaten to commit. This health-care legislation is Adolf Hitler legislation; it’s a direct copy of Hitler’s policy, and therefore it must go. And if he sponsors it, he must go. We must not have genocide on this planet, which is a British policy; it’s a policy of these types of people.

But I believe we have reached the point of crisis in the United States, where some gigantic, sudden changes can be made. The important thing is that we, who represent various nations as sovereign nation-states, come quickly to an agreement—which we need—which will change the character of this system and open up new hope for mankind. It’s possible; it’s necessary. And by our being conscious among ourselves, as nations, as sovereign nation-states, of what our common interests are, the common interests of mankind, and coming to rapid agreement on essential points of agreement, especially Constitutional agreements among sovereign nation-states, we can get out of this mess.

It will take us 50 years to undo the damage that we’ve suffered in the recent period, but we can do it, if we have the will to do it and exert the power to do it. But we must work together; we must understand the system as a whole. We must respect sovereignty of nation-states, because without sovereignty of nation-states, a people can not work with their own government. They can not have confidence in their own government. And confidence in the governments which are responsible, is essential to do this job.

This is the worst crisis in modern history; it’s also the greatest opportunity in modern history, and it depends upon consciousness and will to do some simple things in terms of policy which will fix it. And bring the trans-Atlantic region and the trans-Pacific region into harmony with each other.

Bolivia Sets Its Sights on Fusion Energy and Eliminating Poverty!

by Dennis Small and Cynthia Rush

CC/Matthew Straubmuller

Alvaro García Linera, Vice President of Bolivia.

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

Aug. 5—Speaking on July 13 in the Bolivian city of El Alto, Vice President Alvaro García Linera proclaimed that the Nuclear Technology Research and Development Center being built in that city by Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, “represents the future of the country. . . . We may be poor, but we’re very intelligent.” With the new center, whose completion is scheduled for 2021, García Linera emphasized that “we are forging Bolivia’s development for the 21st, the 22nd and 23rd centuries. Never again will we be last; we’re going to be first!”

The Vice President went on to outline the many benefits the new center will offer in areas of healthcare, industry, science and technology, in addition to training professionals for research into various aspects of nuclear energy. As reported by the Bolivian Information Agency (ABI) July 13, García Linera also emphasized the importance of research into fusion energy:

There will also be a group of scientists who will study the atom, its composition; we’ve already asked Russia and France. We want to be co-participants in the study of electric energy from nuclear fusion, so that 20 or 30 years from now, we’ll be rubbing shoulders with the Russians, the Argentines, the French. . . . This is the peaceful use of nuclear energy for agriculture, for the body, for energy.

kremlin.ru

Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, being welcomed to the Kremlin in Moscow by Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, on July 2, 2019.

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

This strikingly optimistic and future-defined orientation has characterized the government of President Evo Morales, who has been in office since January 2006, and under his leadership Bolivia is being transformed from South America’s historically poorest country to one of the region’s fastest growing, working closely with China’s Belt and Road Initiative and with Russia on numerous high-technology and infrastructure projects.

Morales in fact met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on July 11, during which Putin pointed to the “unique” quality of the nuclear center being built, as it is located at 4,150 meters above sea level (13,615 feet), exclaiming:

The center will dedicate its efforts to research in the peaceful use of nuclear energy; its applications will cover various sectors of industry, geology, medicine and agriculture. There hasn’t yet been a similar experience in world practice.

Morales has invited Putin to attend the center’s official inauguration in 2021, although a section of the center is expected to open in October of this year.

Evgeny Pakermanov, president of Rusatom Overseas (a Rosatom subsidiary), elaborated in July 3 remarks to Sputnik that the new Bolivian nuclear center can potentially transform that country into a regional center of scientific excellence. For Bolivia, Pakermanov said, the new center will open the “door for reaching another level of scientific capabilities and the possibility of carrying out scientific activities at a regional level.” The center will have a 200 kW research reactor, and several laboratories for research in a variety of fields “with regional implications,” Pakermanov told Sputnik. It will also have a food irradiation capability, which will “make possible the development of exports and increase agricultural yields,” Pakermanov explained, noting that it will also make possible an expertise in nuclear medicine for treatment of cancer.

Pakermanov added that Rosatom has built more than 120 such centers, twenty of them abroad. Zambia has recently signed a contract for one, and talks are taking place with Serbia, Rwanda, Vietnam and other countries, according to the Rosatom executive.

Headline reads: “Bolivia inaugurates cable car line in La Paz.”

CC/Dan Lundberg

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

A Modern, Thousand-Year-Old Culture

Bolivia is raising eyebrows in South America and around the world, because it is determined to leapfrog from being South America’s most impoverished nation for decades, into an advanced technology future. Nothing sums this outlook up better than a short 60-second video released by the Bolivian government on the day that Morales met with Putin, which concluded proudly: “A people with a thousand years of history, with advanced technology is invincible,” in a proud reference to Bolivia’s ancient civilization. The video announced that,

we nationalized, we industrialized, we’ve grown as never before in history, and now is the moment for a great technological leap with the nuclear research center.

It quotes a Bolivian doctor specializing in nuclear medicine, who said, “We need state-of-the-art technology to save lives.” Then a young Bolivian enthusiastically states that the country’s new center is “a great opportunity for young people, for professionals, but above all, it’s a great opportunity for Bolivia.” A coffee exporter notes that if the export of food is important to obtain foreign exchange to develop the country, “with nuclear technology, we’ll do it better and more safely.”

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

As the video noted, Bolivia’s current upward trajectory began four months after Evo Morales assumed the Presidency, with the May 2006 re-nationalization of Bolivia’s vital oil and natural gas enterprises and reserves, which had been sold off to international interests for a song during the wave of London-led privatizations that swept Ibero-America and other regions during the 1990s. National ownership, control and use of these vital resources for industrialization—and not for looting by foreign financial interests—was the first sine qua non of escaping poverty and backwardness.

Lyndon LaRouche recognized this from the moment the re-nationalization was announced, and fully supported the measure. He stated at that time:

Privatization has been cancelled. The castration of Bolivia has been ended, and this has some very significant implications for the entire continent. No one should have been surprised at what Evo Morales did with the de-privatization. He said from the start of his [presidential] campaign that he would do this. We are seeing a policy phase-shift.

Over the following 13 years of Morales’s governments, that phase-shift has expressed itself in Bolivia in major progress in reducing poverty and moving along the path towards industrialization and, more recently, major scientific and technological progress.

Fighting Poverty Is Contagious

“If China can do it, why not we?” is a question increasingly heard among the leaders of developing nations on all continents. They are studying and talking about China’s sobering achievement of lifting nearly 800 million human beings—over a tenth of the human race!—out of poverty in some 40 years.

In the case of Bolivia, China is both a model and a partner in Bolivia’s battle to defeat poverty. A key case-in-point is what can be called the “Mutún Model.” This refers to the agreements that were reached in 2017 between China and Bolivia to develop Bolivia’s enormous iron ore (and manganese) deposits at Mutún, in the southeast corner of the country. Emphatically included in the accords is downstream processing of the iron ore, including establishing the country’s first steel-producing plant. Bolivia’s dream has always been to use its significant natural resources to leverage its own advanced industrial development, but for decades, controlling international financial interests have refused to permit that. Now, with China’s participation, it will occur.

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

China’s Ambassador to Bolivia, Liang Yu, was emphatic in an October 2, 2017 interview with the Bolivian daily El Deber, that China intends to “energetically” help Bolivia, in any way Bolivia wishes, to develop into a prosperous, industrial nation at the center of a prosperous and developing South America:

Expanding cooperation in such areas as productive capacity, mining and energy, infrastructure, the development of highways, airports, railroads and hydroelectric plants, and collaboration and exchanges in such areas as aerospace, telecommunications, science and technology, and protection of the environment, will drive the development of Bolivian industrialization; the value-

added of Bolivian products will increase, and its capacity for autonomous development will advance.

Ambassador Liang cited in particular, the contract signed for China’s Sinosteel Equipment and Engineering Co. to build a steel complex near Mutún. Sinosteel’s contract is to build an iron ore concentration plant, a pelletizing plant, a direct reduction plant, and a steelworks with a continuous caster and a rolling mill, such that Bolivia can become largely self-sufficient in sponge iron, structural steel and “long products” (bars, rods, beams and rails).

Ambassador Liang rightly called the Mutún steel complex “a gigantic step for the industrialization of Bolivia.” Eventually, Bolivia will become a steel exporter, after the second phase of the project is completed, including construction of the necessary logistical capabilities for export (roads, bridges, railways, and port infrastructure).

As for poverty, Bolivia has historically been the poorest country in South America, competing with destitute Honduras for the dubious distinction of being the second poorest country in the entire Latin American and Caribbean region. Haiti remains by far and away the poorest of all.

President Morales, speaking to Sputnik on July 4, one week prior to his state visit to Russia, stated:

We have reduced poverty from 38.2% in 2005 to 15% in 2019. We are very encouraged. Now we have a plan as we head towards our bicentenary in 2025. We would like to have less than 5% extreme poverty.

Two poor Bolivian children.

FIGURE 1

Extreme Poverty, Bolivia and Honduras

(% of population)

FIGURE 2

Poverty Reduction, 2000–2017

(% of population)

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

By a different measure of poverty—the World Bank standard of an average income of less than $1.90 per person, per day, being considered “extreme poverty”—Bolivia’s extreme poverty rate fell from about 25% in 1999, to 6% in 2017. During that same period Honduras started out with about the same poverty rate, 26%, which then dropped to 16%, nearly triple that of Bolivia (see Figure 1, covering the years 2000 to 2017). Still another measure of poverty, provided by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), shows a reduction in poverty in Bolivia that far outpaced Honduras, Mexico, El Salvador and other nations, and is only matched by Peru (see Figure 2).

Morales elaborated on the mission of his Presidency: “My challenge, fundamentally, since I come from the poorest families, is to keep reducing poverty. I would not like for there to be children like in the 1960s and 1970s. That’s my great hope.”

Asked what makes him most proud, Morales said:

First, having left the past behind. Having buried the colonial state. . . . Having stopped being that beggar State, a pauper people. Now we have a dignified and sovereign people. . . . Above all I’m proud of our economic growth. Of my 13 years in office, in six we have been first in economic growth in South America, according to data from international organizations. Never before had Bolivia been first in anything. If it was first in South America, it was only in poverty and in matters of corruption.

Morales concluded:

Happiness for me is to live well. And my enormous satisfaction is having converted more than two million Bolivians into middle class people. That is the result of my administration. That encourages us a lot to continue with social programs for the good of humanity. . . . Bolivia, in some 15 to 20 years, is going to be an economic power. I would like our country . . . to share the little we have for the good of humanity.

Directed Credit

How was this achieved?

Vice President Alvaro García Linera was asked exactly that question by a reporter for CNN Mexico during a late July visit to that country. He answered:

It has been done by fusing financial capital with productive capital, by requiring the private banking sector to channel 60% of its money to productive investment and construction. Likewise, it was decided that 50% of the private bank sector’s earnings would go to the State. Since this money is returned to society and that invigorates the economy, that then returns to the banks. . . . What the banks lost with one hand, at the end they recover with the other.

FIGURE 3

Bolivia: Average Growth Rates

(average annual %)

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

The approach is working—as it has whenever Hamiltonian directed credit policies have been applied around the world. If one looks at indices of physical production (i.e., not GDP or other monetary measures), manufacturing in Bolivia grew at an average annual rate of 2.5% in the 11 years between 1994 and 2005, and after Morales came into office in January 2006, over the next 11 years (2005-2016) the average annual growth rate jumped to 4.3%. Electricity generation grew by 3.7% per year in the first period, and by 6.9% per year under Morales. Cement production rose by 5.8% per year in the first period, and by 8.7% in the second one (see Figure 3).

Such physical indices give a much more scientific reading of the country’s real economy than the standard GDP figures, which show an even more dramatic shift, growing at an average annual rate of 5.3% from 1994 to 2005, and by 12.2% from 2005 to 2016.

During a June 24 ceremony honoring ten recipients of scholarships who are leaving to study nuclear technology in Russia, President Morales and Vice President García Linera offered an optimistic view of the future awaiting the country through the development of nuclear technology and related fields.

With the mastery that these young people acquire in Russia—another group is studying nuclear medicine in Argentina—Bolivians, Morales tweeted, “are advancing together toward our liberation and technological sovereignty.” García Linera added that these young scientists—a “scientific elite” in training—will be responsible for “the control and direction of the totality of industries and centers of advanced research that Bolivia is building to guarantee Bolivia’s economic future for the next thirty years,” the Bolivian Information Agency reported.

García Linera also said that he foresees a future in which Bolivia would sign agreements with Russia, the U.S., France and others who are “advancing in the production of ecological energy through nuclear fusion.”

III. Mankind’s Galactic Future

Krafft Ehricke’s 500 Years of

Space Exploration

by Marsha Freeman

Courtesy of Krafft Ehricke

Krafft Ehricke explaining his concept of an Earth-orbiting hospital to CBS TV’s Walter Cronkite.

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

“In the last analysis, interstellar flight will be an extension of the process of learning through which we mature.” It will be the “unfolding of human civilization.”

Aug. 10—In October 1942, Krafft Ehricke stood on the roof of a building at the Army rocket research station at Peenemünde and watched mankind’s first rocket to succeed in leaving the Earth’s atmosphere and crossing into space. He related many years later that he was so excited he “almost fell off the roof.” It was like “Columbus or Magellan standing at the edge of a new epoch.”

After World War II, Krafft Ehricke came to the United States. He was the developer of the energetic Centaur liquid hydrogen rocket that opened the Solar System for robotic exploration.

The main body of Krafft Ehricke’s work is, however, devoted to looking to the future. He could see a future in which mankind left petty differences behind and as one civilization, developed the ability to leave Earth and travel among the stars. He proposed that “the ultimate meaning [of interstellar exploration] relates solely to its effect on the evolution of the human species . . . Interstellar operations will be experienced by the human species and in terms of a human civilization or they will not be experienced at all.”

In 1957, at the opening of the Space Age, Krafft Ehricke promulgated three laws of astronautics to guide the new epoch. His second law reads: “Not only Earth, but the entire Solar System and as much of the Universe as we can reach under the laws of nature, are man’s rightful field of activity.”

Excerpts from some of Ehricke’s writings were published in this author’s book, Krafft Ehricke’s Extraterrestrial Imperative (Apogee Books, 2008). We present here material from four chapters of his unpublished book on interstellar exploration, and from a 1976 paper, which further explicate Ehricke’s concretization of this second law.

Androcells: Flight Between the Stars

A few centuries from now, mankind will have created new, self-sufficient artificial planets. These manmade planets, which Krafft Ehricke calls Androcells, will travel through interstellar space using fusion propulsion, transporting scientists to explore beyond our Solar System. The Androcells will be made from lunar materials and will be “equipped with terrestrial life.”

Even with the most advanced propulsion technology envisioned for centuries in the future, such as mater-anti-matter drivers, only a fraction of the speed of light will be attained. Considering the distance between stars, interstellar travel times will not be over one man’s lifetime but over many generations. “Androcells are characterized by complete resource autarchy,” Krafft Ehricke wrote, meaning that they must be self-sufficient and independent of Earth. The travelers will have available “local” resources, such as helium-3 fuel for their fusion-driven propulsion system from the giant gas planets of the Solar System, and minerals and raw materials from small bodies they will come across, such as asteroids and comets. Helium-3 fusion will not only be key for supplying electric power and propulsion, but also for carrying artificial suns, illumination, powering laser tools, materials processing, and changing temperatures.

Scientists on these traveling Androcells would be able to make (relatively) close observations of stars in every phase of their evolution. It would be possible to examine some of the thousands of planets and solar systems that have already been discovered orbiting other stars, which are barely visible from Earth.

This project would be aided, Krafft Ehricke reports, by earlier research:

Advanced orbiting and especially advanced lunar observatories will permit us to search systemically for planetary systems among the stars, and we may be able to recognize systematic differences between stellar spectral classes so far as abundance of planetary systems is concerned . . .

Knowing certain distinctions between star types could narrow the search for solar systems, which closer examination may reveal, could be possible abodes for life.

This future exploration of the far reaches of interstellar space, 500 years from now, will set man free from any limitations. Mankind will be able to establish new civilizations with new cultures, that conform to Ehricke’s Third Law: “By expanding through the Universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life endowed with the power of reason and the wisdom of the moral law within himself.”

The precedent Krafft Ehricke cites, in accordance with his Third Law, is the setting of principles by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, in the creation of the United States.

Courtesy of Krafft Ehricke

Androcells are self-sufficient, fusion-powered new “planets,” which will carry the multi-generational explorers of interstellar space.

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

‘Remaking the Solar System’

In October 1976, at the dedication conference of the International Space Hall of Fame, in Alamogordo, New Mexico, Ehricke presented a paper titled, “Astropolis and Androcell—The Psychology and Technology of Space Utilization and Extraterrestrialization.”

Extraterrestrialization, the creation of whole new worlds, Krafft Ehricke explains, takes place through three phases. First, machines are put into space. Then, human and biological elements are introduced. “Extraterrestrialization integrates the two into components of whole new worlds.”

In the third stage, mankind will be ready to “leave the harbor and emerge into the open sea of space.” The civilization that develops through the Androcell “is truly three-dimensional, and becomes four-dimensional as it spreads out through interstellar space. . . .The two-dimensional existence on Earth’s land surface ultimately becomes only a brief (by evolutionary standards) interim phase . . .The growth potential of all life forms (not only human) capable of emerging into this infinity exceed all comprehension. It relegates all its previous history to the proverbial first step in a journey that lasts a thousand miles.”

Before crews set off for expeditions in interstellar space, to develop the technology as well as the intellectual stamina for multi-decade, multi-generational missions, technology will be developed on self-sustaining new worlds—planetellas—which will operate within the Solar System. These new “Earths” will be the foundation of the Androcells, which will be cut lose from Earth, to explore interstellar space.

Flow of Development from Earth to the Moon to the Planets

Courtesy of Krafft Ehricke

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

Krafft Ehricke proposed that planetellas be placed in heliocentric orbit, 1 astronomical unit (A.U.) from the Sun (the distance between the Earth and the Sun, approximately 93 million miles). This is described as the “goldilocks” zone, where a planet is neither too hot nor too cold, but is within the range of pressure and temperature for water to persist in a liquid state, and, therefore, for life to persist. Of course the Earth only occupies a tiny portion of the huge circumference of its orbit. Were new planets to fill in the empty space, 70,000 Earths could be accommodated, if they were lined up side by side like a string of pearls.

Konstantin Tsiolkovskii suggested in 1895 that mankind may eventually reconstruct the Solar System so as to more efficiently use that biologically valuable region at around 1 A.U. One option would be to move some of the mass in the outer Solar System inward toward the Sun, to 1 A.U. This would, in essence, allow the Sun’s total output to be used to support a population that Tsiolkovskii estimated at 300 billion billion.

Freeman Dyson, Krafft Ehricke reports, calculated in 1959 that Jupiter’s mass alone would suffice to construct a spherical shell of 2 A.U. radius and two to three meters thickness around the Sun.

“Compared to such endeavors as Tsiolkovskii’s and Dyson’s, the establishment of planetellas for a few thousand and eventually for a few million people is a modest undertaking indeed, which should be realizable in the next one or two centuries,” Krafft Ehricke asserts.

But why be limited to the distance from the Sun of the only planet in the Solar System—as far we know—that supports life? What if we could make our own artificial sun, using the same fusion energy that powers the stars? This is what Krafft Ehricke proposes to do.

The basis for the development of helioids or artificial sunlets, is advances in nuclear fusion and giant heliocentric transports. “The helioids provide the necessary prerequisites for opening the outer solar system to human colonization.” Although Tsiolkovskii in his time “could not envision it,” there is an alternative to “reconstructing the solar system by transporting more planetary matter into the Sun’s ecosphere,” approximately Earth’s distance from the Sun, which can support life. Instead, Krafft Ehricke suggests, carry the “nuclear fire” into the outer Solar System.

“These helioids would circle their new planetellas at a relatively close distance, not radiating omnidirectionally, which would be quite inefficient, but illuminating and irradiating them, primarily by means of a directed beam—Ptolemaic systems in which the sun revolves about the habitat instead of vice versa in the Copernican system.”

Having their own sun and fusion for energy and propulsion, the planetellas set the stage for multi-generational expeditions, possible within the next 500 years.

Courtesy of Krafft Ehricke

Astropolis will be a city in space, built in Earth orbit with materials from the Moon.

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

Astropolis: A City in Earth Orbit

As Krafft Ehricke conceived the pathway to the stars, it will require a step during which a smaller-scale version of the interstellar Androcell would be designed. This large structure in near-Earth orbit, he says, is no longer a space station or a construction base. Astropolis is a model city in space.

The design of such a city will be modular, with the possibility of adding new sections as needed, as the population grows; as science and technology advance; and to replace sections that are out-of-date. A broad array of human activities will take place in the city—many of which were actually originally conceived as possible activities for the International Space Station, but were never implemented.

These activities include research facilities, manufacturing facilities, and hospital care. Residential sections of the city will have to take into consideration factors required for a healthy mental and social environment, and will include private apartments, and open spaces for public use.

The Research Section is designed to carry out “extensive and applied research,” Ehricke explains. For example: “On Earth, laboratories may simulate many environments, but they cannot simulate the correct combination of gravity, vacuum, temperature, and radiation environment on the surface of bodies like our Moon, Mars, Mercury, the surface of the Martian moons or the asteroids [bodies smaller than the Earth, with a fraction of a 1-g gravity level]. This becomes possible on Astropolis.”

The breadth of activities in Astropolis is possible because it will be slowly rotating. This provides the environment for microgravity experiments and also a 1-g environment to prevent people from becoming deconditioned during their stay.

Fusion/Chris Sloan

Selenopolis, Krafft Ehricke’s lunar city, will enable the industrial development of the Moon.

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

Selenopolis: A City on the Moon

Our nearest neighbor, the Moon, has a vital role to play in laying the foundation for all future phases of space exploration—in the construction of new planets crucial for exploring the Solar System, and in creating Androcells, which will go beyond our Solar System. All of this will require raw materials and manufactured goods produced on the Moon.

Krafft Ehricke’s vision for the future of the Moon was not just as a way-station for crews headed to other places, but as the Earth’s “Seventh Continent,” through which the Moon’s economy would become integrated with Earth’s. The most advanced technologies would be developed and tested on the Moon. The Moon will also enable us to test the human factors involved in adjusting to long-duration space missions.

The residents of Krafft Ehricke’s Moon project would not be living on a base such as that on Antarctica, but in a city Ehricke named Selenopolis. The tens of thousands of people living in Selenopolis will be employed in mining, manufacturing, and transportation industries as well as in managing the infrastructure of the city. Some will also be specialists in charge of research, such as agricultural experiments and food production. Astronomers and other physical scientists will be studying the Moon itself and the cosmos.

Courtesy of Krafft Ehricke

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

The economic development of the Moon is the first stage in what Krafft Ehricke describes as exo-industrialization. He proposes that the men and women who “make up industrial teams [will] operate in space for more or less limited periods. They are and remain terrestrials,” as do tourists and other visitors.

“Through the demands of exo-industrialization, new infrastructure will be required, including advanced space transportation, human habitats,” and the ability to construct large facilities in orbit and on the Moon. Ehricke wrote in his 1976 paper, “The new material resource base acquired in this phase will be the Moon.”

Although Krafft Ehricke described in detail the products that would accrue from mining the Moon and promoted the use of helium-3 as a fusion fuel, he does not mention mining helium-3 on the Moon. It was only after he passed away that scientists, taking another look at the lunar rock samples that the Apollo astronauts had brought back from the Moon, discovered that there was enough helium-3 on the Moon—deposited over eons by the solar wind—to make the Moon a viable supplier of this precious fuel for fusion.

Courtesy of Krafft Ehricke

Krafft Ehricke

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

Ehricke envisioned Selenopolis as “the transition from the early industrial settlements to a more comprehensive colonization of the Moon.” Further, he wrote that the Moon “offers an ideal testing and proving ground for rationally and effectively exploring and developing all aspects involving the building of whole new worlds.”

The United States is now embarked on the Artemis program to land astronauts on the Moon. Establishing human civilization on the Moon is being discussed by many nations in the world today, with an eye to exploiting lunar resources for humanity’s future, such as helium-3. And indeed, helium-3 is pivotal, both as a fusion fuel to make manned, deep space exploration possible, and to create a new standard against which all other sources of power are measured. The lunar programs, some still in formation, should be seen in the way that Krafft Ehricke saw the next 500 years: as the opportunity for all nations to work together as one civilization, embarking upon the proverbial “journey of a thousand miles that begins with a single step.”

IV. FDR’s Forgotten Plans for Post-War Asia

WHO RUNS REGIME-CHANGE OPS AND WHY?

When the United States Offered the ‘Belt and Road’ to China

by David Shavin

FDR Presidential Library/Everett Collection

Vice President Henry Wallace and President Franklin Roosevelt, on March 10, 1942 before a radio broadcast against inflation.

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

Preface

Aug. 10—Seventy-five years ago, in the summer of 1944, the United States offered a “Belt and Road” policy for the massive economic development of China. The British elite’s immediate response was to attempt a regime-change operation in the United States. Hence, a story for our time.

At the time, it was the American policy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His Vice-President, Henry Wallace,[fn_1] took the lead in the promotion of America’s policy of ending colonial backwardness throughout the world. In 1940, Roosevelt had forcefully insisted upon Wallace as his new Vice-President. He threatened the reactionary and racist elements in his own Democratic party: If they didn’t submit to Roosevelt’s choice of Wallace, Roosevelt himself would not run for President. Roosevelt knew that in order to defeat Hitler, the United States would have to overcome its justified distrust of European wars, and that the only just basis for doing so was to adopt a war goal of ending British, French and Dutch colonialism. To actually have a “war to end all wars,” unlike the fatally-flawed World War I, to complete the job, the massive war-fighting capabilities would have to be harnessed for massive economic development—literally, beating swords into plowshares. In 1940, this was Roosevelt’s thinking—hence, his insistence upon Wallace as his Vice-President and as the key promoter of an American foreign policy of massive infrastructure projects and the elimination of poverty.

The U.S.’s “Belt and Road” proposal, written by Wallace, was entitled Our Job in the Pacific. It was published in tandem with Wallace’s mission to China in June, 1944. However, in June, 1943, British Secret Intelligence had purloined a draft copy of Wallace’s paper, and were horrified by what they saw—the end of their Empire.

NARA

Left to right: Chairman of the Republic of China Chiang Kai-shek, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Cairo, Egypt on November 25, 1943.

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

Then, as now, the British Empire—centered in the City of London financial enclave—faced an existential crisis, and proceeded to risk everything, gambling that they could force a regime change in the United States. In direct response to Wallace’s draft, in the summer of 1943, Prime Minister Winston Churchill—along with the head of MI6, Stewart Menzies, the head of MI6’s outpost in the United States, William Stephenson, and the British ambassador in Washington, Lord Halifax—all demanded of Roosevelt that Vice-President Henry Wallace be removed. Their demand was explicitly and specifically based upon their complete opposition to the United States’ plan to industrialize and develop China. How a clever, and not unsophisticated, Roosevelt dealt with the British regime-change demand is a bit of a complex story, but one worth telling.

But first, a word of explanation. The vaunted spy capabilities and covert operations of the British Empire are highly dependent upon identifying and exploiting the weaknesses of nations and of their leaders. Blackmail, rumors leaked to the media, destabilizations, assassinations and the like, in the end, always depend upon their target’s susceptibility to retreat into the role of a victim.

The classic case is that exposed by the Greek playwright, Aeschylus. In his Oedipus trilogy, the tragic actions of Oedipus—killing his father and bedding his mother—are the result of his parents’ willingness to believe the Oracle of Delphi, and to guide their actions under the reign of a magical power. Oedipus is unaware of the identity of his parents precisely because they responded to the oracle’s “prediction”—by sending their infant child away. They took the precise and necessary action that could make the oracle’s prediction work. Such a victim frame of mind is the hidden, but critical, component of the operation.

However, neither the Roosevelt/Wallace offensive nor the Xi Jinping’s current “Belt and Road” offensive are those of victims. Consequently, they pose special problems for the British. While the Empire’s dirty tricks may appear invincible (and are inevitably portrayed that way), they don’t appear quite so magical in the light of day. Hence, an examination of the Empire’s regime-change operation of 1943/44 may cast some needed light on the turbulent hysteria of today.

I. The American ‘Belt and Road’ Offered to China

In June, 1944, Vice-President Henry Wallace travelled to China and presented America’s policy to industrialize China, along with modernizing her agriculture, as the lynchpin of ending colonialism in Asia and the post-war world. Here are select components of his Our Job in the Pacific booklet:[fn_2]

There is no doubt that in Eastern Asia, American investments can be made to result in such a rapid raising of the standard of living of a billion people—half the population of the world—as to unleash significant forces for the peace and prosperity, not only of America but of the world. [Asia needs capital and technical knowhow.] America’s need will be to utilize fully our greatly expanded industrial capacity. [Post-war full employment matches the] great need of our goods to use in their reconstruction and rehabilitation programs. . . . To form a balanced opinion [as to how much investment,] we need to look forward to the kind of world we shall be living in twenty years from now, for it is conditions then which will have a bearing on the ability of the borrowing countries to repay. . . .

clipart.com

Henry Wallace with Chiang Kai-shek and Madame Chiang.

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

Wallace then proceeds to estimate repayment ability based upon the physical expansion of imports and exports generated:

We now have enough knowledge to create miracles in our environment which can transform the economic life of vast numbers of people. . . . [This is exemplified by] what the TVA has done for the poverty-stricken land and people of the Tennessee Valley, the productivity that has been stimulated by the power that emanates from the [Grand] Coulee Dam. . . . Industrialization will raise the standard of living of Asiatic peoples and create new markets for American goods and opportunities for American investment, involving questions of government loans, credits and tariffs; but all this will be possible only if accompanied by improvements in Asiatic agriculture. [It’s important for] . . . enthusiasts for industrialization not to get too far ahead of agricultural improvement. . . .

[Presently, 80% of a billion people live on very small farms with primitive tools, with maybe an ox, a donkey or a simple water wheel. Hence, the value of a day’s work is about $0.20 (25 to 50 times less than in the U.S.), and it takes four to five farm families to support one city family, about the stage we had reached in America when we escaped the British colonial system (1790’s). But now (1944), in America, one farm family supports four to five city families. Industrialization requires great efficiency in agriculture as a base; otherwise, industries would just turn the former colonies into cheap labor for advanced countries. Further, public health goes hand-in-hand with industrialization. Presently, there is] . . . great human debility from disease associated with bad water, from malnutrition, malaria, hookworm, tuberculosis and venereal diseases. [This is neither natural nor genetic. Rather,] the peoples of Asia created several high and sophisticated cultures distinguished by the range of their philosophic thought, the depth of their religious feeling, and the early development of some kinds of scientific discovery, especially in astronomy, mathematics and hydraulic engineering. [But industrialization in the West in the 19th century left them behind.]

A free, strong, prosperous and democratic China could serve as an immensely powerful stabilizing factor in the Pacific . . . and if the time comes when a democratic China can cooperate with a free India, the trend toward freedom in Asia will be assured. . . . There are still people, over-influenced by crude theories of power politics, who raise the question whether China might not become too strong. . . .

Wallace then quotes from Chiang Kai-shek:

China has no desire to replace Western imperialism in Asia with an Oriental imperialism. . . . [Wallace continues:] It is vital to the United States, it is vital to China, and it is vital to Russia that there be peaceful and friendly relations between China and Russia, China and America, and Russia and America. China and Russia complement and supplement each other on the continent of Asia, and the two together complement and supplement America’s position in the Pacific.

Wallace provided a map with “Subject Asia” in black and “Free Asia” in white. In the former, Subject or Colonial Asia—including India, Dutch East Indies, Indo-China, Burma, Malaya and many islands—it

is to our advantage . . . to see an orderly process transition [out of colonial status. Further, Wallace emphasized that] the moral benefit to America herself of the assumption of leadership will not be lessened by the fact that only by making others prosperous can we preserve and increase our own prosperity. . . . Until all Asia is free and prosperous, our own prosperity and freedom are in danger.

Univ. of Iowa/Wallace Collection

On his South American goodwill tour of 1943, Henry Wallace is greeted by President Manuel Ávila Camacho in Mexico.

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

On June 21, 1944, in his initial meeting with the head of nationalist China, Chiang Kai-shek, Wallace presented his policy for the massive expansion of China’s industry and agriculture. Wallace’s diary simply notes that he explained to Chiang that China’s agricultural and industrial sectors can be greatly strengthened with key input from the United States; and in this context, there was a basis for Chiang’s Kuomintang government and his Chinese Communist opponents to both benefit, and so, to work out a united government. Further, a modus vivendi between Soviet Russia and non-communist China could be worked out.

At that very time, back in Washington, D.C., a group of Democratic Party political hacks were working overtime, attempting to dislodge Wallace. This article will expose them as underlings of a British operation initiated one year earlier. The evidence indicates the regime-change operation was initiated by the British elite in June, 1943. Only afterwards did they bring in the clowns.

II. Background: FDR’s Project to End Empires

Until 1940, never had a two-term U.S. President sought a third consecutive term. However, Roosevelt was convinced that the threatening world events around Hitler’s fascism and Japan’s militarism required American leadership beyond normal electioneering, and that he could not walk away from the crisis.

However, to stop Hitler, the United States would have to make an alliance with Great Britain—and the United States could not repeat the mistake of World War I, functioning as a lapdog within the geopolitical squabbles of imperial interests. This time, the only justification for such a strategic intervention by America would be on the basis of ending colonialism, of ending the geopolitics that had brought Hitler to power. Roosevelt’s thinking was part and parcel of his decision to pick Henry Wallace as his Vice President, to ramrod his nomination past the Democratic Party hacks, and to assign Wallace the task of leading the charge around the world for an American, anti-colonial economic development program for wiping out poverty.

Prior to Wallace’s trip to China, he had brought this message to Mexico in 1942 and to South America in 1943. The British may have chafed at such activities in such places, but it was the plan to develop China and all of Asia—the core of their colonial empire—that pushed them into a risky regime-change mode.

Briefly stated: It was no secret that the primary imperial policy of London in the 1930’s had been to have fascist Germany arise and make war against Soviet Russia, until both of these two continental powers bled each other to death. However, in 1939, Stalin—after years of failed efforts to get Western powers to work together to deal with the Hitler problem—cut his own deal with Hitler with a non-aggression pact. The Frankenstein monster, Hitler, was now turned westward. The Neville Chamberlain crowd in England had been outplayed by Stalin, and Churchill came into power as Prime Minister to lead a war cabinet.

There is a documented record of the deep policy division between Roosevelt and Churchill as to how the post-war world would be designed. In sum, the British always intended to re-impose their empire after their war, and they fully intended to have Russia and Germany bleed each other to death. This was at the core of Churchill’s ridiculous maneuvers, games, and outright lies to avoid fully engaging Hitler in war, to delay opening up the promised Second Front in 1942, in 1943, and—if Churchill had his way—also in 1944. One cannot properly evaluate how Roosevelt attempted to handle the regime-change push of 1943/4, outside of this strategic reality.[fn_3]

FDR Presidential Library

Left to right: Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Quebec, Canada, August 18, 1943.

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

At their first major conference, in August, 1941, at Placentia Bay off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, Roosevelt laid down his conditions to Churchill in his famous Atlantic Charter: There would be no territorial gains from the war; all peoples had a right to self-determination; trade barriers would be lessened; advancement of social welfare would go hand-in-hand with global economic projects; and a war aim of ending poverty, “a world free from want.”

Churchill knew that the British Empire’s colonial trading arrangements failed the standard of the Atlantic Charter, but Roosevelt left him no choice but to sign.

Henry Wallace took to the radio, on May 8, 1942, amplifying Roosevelt’s “Atlantic Charter” orientation with Wallace’s “Century of the Common Man” speech.[fn_4] In that speech, Wallace explicitly and boldly invoked President Abraham Lincoln’s moral standard for the United States—that the country could not long survive “half-slave and half-free”—and then extended it worldwide: There must be the development and uplifting of populations out of backward peasantry and imperial looting, to the type of freedom involved in development of the mental powers (reading, writing, the ability to form opinions, etc.) and the rise of scientific inventions and industrial progress. Either choose to progress or submit to fascist tyranny. Further echoing Lincoln, whose Second Inaugural addressed the reason for the existence of the evil of slavery, Wallace confronted Americans with the reason behind the evil of Hitlerian fascism. As evil as Hitler was, the world must become better from finally dealing with mistakes that had allowed such evil.

Churchill fumed. At the time of the Atlantic Charter meeting, he had no choice but to appear to submit; however, soon he made his position clear for the powers-that-be in London, with his infamous (October, 1942) address at Mansion House:[fn_5]

Let me . . . make this clear lest there be any mistake about it in any quarter: we mean to hold our own. I did not become the King’s First Minister to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.[fn_6]

As Roosevelt’s colleague and speechwriter, Robert Sherwood, explained it:

Churchill had waited a long time [fourteen months] for an opportunity to say just that. He had suffered and seethed when Roosevelt urged him to establish an independent, federated India, when Roosevelt proclaimed that the principles of the Atlantic Charter extended also to the Pacific and Indian Oceans and everywhere else on earth. . . .[fn_7]

III. Churchill: ‘All You Get Is a Dirty Brown’

For the first year-and-a-half of the United States’ entry into the war, Roosevelt had experienced Churchill’s duplicitous stalling tactics. Roosevelt and Gen. George C. Marshall would secure agreement from Churchill and the British Joint Chiefs for the direct assault on Nazi Germany by means of a cross-Channel invasion; and Churchill would instruct his Joint Chiefs to ignore the agreements. Roosevelt and Stalin knew that the British meant to have Germany and Russia chew each other up. Roosevelt’s commitment to a post-war alliance of the great powers for real economic collaboration was put into serious jeopardy.

At this critical juncture, it was Henry Wallace who took the lead in confronting Churchill. In May, 1943, Churchill came to Washington, to sabotage yet another invasion agreement.[fn_8] Now, as the stalling game got more and more transparent, Churchill tried to do what can only be described as attempting to “get real” with Roosevelt with an appeal to Roosevelt’s “high-born” nature—that only the Anglo-Americans could run the world, due to Anglo-Saxon superiority. Henry Wallace took the lead in confronting Churchill’s racist and incompetent view.

Wallace described the British Embassy luncheon of May 22nd: “Churchill . . . was all the time building an atmosphere of ‘we Anglo-Saxons are the ones who really know how to run the show’.” Then the White House’s reciprocal luncheon, two days later:

Apparently my frank talking with Churchill at the Saturday and Monday luncheons has caused the British to reach the conclusion that I am not playing their game of arranging matters so that the Anglo-Saxons will rule the world. If we try to rule in the spirit which seems to be animating Churchill, there will be serious trouble ahead. I am quite sure, in spite of all his protestations to the contrary, that Churchill is capable of working with Russia to double-cross the United States, and with the United States to double-cross Russia. . . . I said bluntly that I thought the notion of Anglo-Saxon superiority, inherent in Churchill’s approach, would be offensive to many of the nations of the world as well as to a number of people in the United States. Churchill had had quite a bit of whiskey, which, however, did not affect the clarity of his thinking process but did perhaps increase his frankness. He said why be apologetic about Anglo-Saxon superiority, that we were superior.

Finally, Wallace later recounted a bit more of that interchange:

Like so many Tories in England and the United States, he believes in the innate superiority of the Anglo-Saxon or Teutonic strain. I argued with him against a permanent Anglo-American bloc . . . but I pointed out that if we were to have [a bloc], there is more justification for an alliance with Latin America than with England. He turned to me fiercely and said: “I am a painter, and I know if you mix the colors, all you get is a dirty brown.”[fn_9]

Wallace’s intervention threw cold water onto Churchill’s game.[fn_10]

That weekend, the British drew a big bulls-eye around Wallace’s head. Lord Halifax deployed his agent, Roald Dahl, to make it known to Wallace that he had crossed the line.[fn_11] Sometime within the next one to four weeks, British intelligence had purloined a copy of Wallace’s draft of Our Job in the Pacific.

IV. Churchill Retaliates: Steals Wallace Manuscript

The story offered, decades later, by the British spy, Raold Dahl, was that, in June, 1943, the draft copy dropped into his lap. It seems that Charles Marsh, Wallace’s associate, merely desired ex-pilot Dahl’s thoughts on the subject of the future of aviation, as developed in Wallace’s draft (even though one would be hard-pressed to characterize Wallace’s draft as a work on aviation). Dahl’s version stretches credulity: While in Marsh’s apartment, he was able to: a) rapidly evaluate the intelligence value of the forty-odd pages (“an immensely secret cabinet document” that “made my hair stand on end. . . .”); b) call his contact with the BSC, (British Security Co-ordination), the British MI6 covert operation in America; and c) get the manuscript to a courier who was able to copy and return it. And all this was done within thirty minutes and without Marsh taking notice.

LoC/Carl Van Vechten

Roald Dahl

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

What Dahl does not mention is that, for the previous six months, he had been dispatched by Lord Halifax, the British Ambassador in Washington, to spy on Wallace. In the fall of 1942, the British film director, Gabriel Pascal, came to Washington, supposedly to pitch a film project to Wallace. (Of course, the film was never actually produced.) It was to expand upon Wallace’s themes from his “Common Man” speech. The film would show a post-war world where good had triumphed over evil, where Wallace’s common man had prevailed.[fn_12] Charles Marsh would finance it and Pascal would select Dahl to write the film script. In December, 1942, Pascal met with Lord Halifax at the British Embassy in Washington, whereby Dahl received his assignment, and, the next day, Dahl was introduced to Wallace.

Dahl saw both Marsh and Wallace over the next six months, hanging around Marsh’s salon and serving as a tennis partner for the athletic Vice-President. In mid-June, 1943, Halifax and another man joined Dahl and Wallace to play doubles. Curiously, this was precisely the time that Stephenson obtained Wallace’s draft document.

The copy of the manuscript quickly made its way to Lord Halifax; to William Stephenson, the head of the BSC; to Stephenson’s boss, Sir Stewart Menzies, the Chief of MI6; and to Churchill. All were mortified. Dahl relates: “I was later told that Churchill could hardly believe what he was reading.” Later, Dahl would sound out Marsh, “You know Churchill is likely to ask the President to get a new Vice President.”[fn_13]

V. Dahl’s Cover Story

Prior to his “Wallace” assignment, Dahl had mainly been employed by Halifax’s Embassy to bed influential Washington women, such as Congresswoman, Clare Boothe Luce.[fn_14] He was a tall, handsome British pilot, who had been built up into a war hero, as he had survived a plane crash in North Africa. In fact, he had simply run out of fuel, while transporting a plane through a non-hostile area. It became his ticket out of the front lines, whence British intelligence sent him to Washington, as a military attaché at the British Embassy. The British Information Service proceeded to compose a “shot-down-in-action” magazine story on Dahl, which was then folded into the 1942 movie, Eagle Squadron. (Dahl’s “co-authorship” of this fiction was actually the beginning of the writing career, for which he would later attain his celebrity.) Dahl attended a party for the release of the movie, one given by Helen Ogden Reid, a family friend of MI6 head Stewart Menzies.[fn_15] Such was the creation of a British war hero in Washington.

According to Dahl, a few months after his introduction to Wallace, he managed an entrée to the White House via Eleanor Roosevelt. The screenwriter Dahl of 1942 was employed by Walt Disney for a cartoon—also never produced—of a story of mysterious little gremlins that would mess with the workings of aircraft. (Assumedly, the same gremlins had emptied Dahl’s fuel tank, causing his crash.) Dahl’s script became a children’s book, The Gremlins, which, in the spring of 1943, he sent to Eleanor Roosevelt.

Dahl and his roommate, British assistant naval attaché, Lieutenant Richard Miles, were both invited to the White House (on June 1, 1943), and to Roosevelt’s home, Hyde Park (the July 4th weekend). Dahl explains the invitations as due to Eleanor finding his book charming. Dahl reported back to Stephenson on Roosevelt’s reactions at Hyde Park to Churchill’s phone calls. It was sometime in between the two visits to the Roosevelts that Dahl “accidentally” ran across Wallace’s draft. Shortly afterwards, Dahl was rewarded with a promotion to “Squadron leader, Wing Commander.”

Left: Walter Stoneman

Sir Stewart Menzies, Chief of MI6 (1939-1952) (left); and Canadian Sir William Stephenson (code name Intrepid), senior representative of British Security Coordination for the western hemisphere during World War II.

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

VI. Stephenson: ‘I Took Action’

William Stephenson described his response to Dahl’s purloined manuscript: “I came to regard Wallace as a menace and I took action to ensure that the White House was aware that the British government would view with concern Wallace’s appearance on the ticket. . . .” Stephenson’s intermediary with the White House was a dubious character, one Ernest Cuneo, the official American liaison with Stephenson’s BSC. Though paid by the U.S. government, Cuneo would prove to be a complete lapdog for the British Empire.[fn_16] Undoubtedly, Cuneo was Stephenson’s official vehicle for ensuring “that the White House was aware” of their “Wallace must go” demand.

However, Stephenson’s actions went beyond having Cuneo deliver an oral message to the White House. In 1943, he opened investigations on Wallace, along with those, such as Owen Lattimore, who were involved in Wallace’s China project. Then he fed “intelligence leads” to J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI.[fn_17] Cuneo himself proudly outlined the BSC operations:

Given the time, the situation, and the mood, it is not surprising however, that BSC also went beyond the legal, the ethical, and the proper. Throughout the neutral Americas, and especially in the U.S., it ran espionage agents, tampered with the mails, tapped telephones, smuggled propaganda into the country, disrupted public gatherings, covertly subsidized newspapers, radios, and organizations, perpetrated forgeries—even palming one off on the President of the United States . . . and possibly murdered one or more persons in this country.[fn_18]

VII. Cuneo’s ‘Canambria’: Empire on Steroids

Ernest Cuneo was the liaison between Stephenson’s BSC and the rest of Washington, including the OSS, the FBI, the State Department and the White House. His private papers provide a unique insight into the thinking of the circles of Stephenson and Halifax:

When the President asked for post-war planning, I suggested that the English-speaking peoples form a new nationality, an additional common citizenship, under the acronym of Canambria. It was clear to practically everyone that the European Empires were on their last legs. Accordingly, American energy was needed to supply the energy which Great Britain was about to lose. . . .

I believed in the creation of a new nation of the English-Speaking Peoples by dual citizenship. Canada, America, Britain, Australia and New Zealand [that is, the future “Five Eyes”] would form the nation of Canambria, and each citizen, as in the U.S., would become a dual citizen[fn_19]. . . . The immediate effect would be the welding of the British and American battle fleets into one permanent world navy, thus evolving the Pax Brittannia into the Pax Canambria. This had to be done because it was apparent that Britain could not retain her colonies. . . . I discussed this with Stephenson and Lord Halifax.

Smithsonian Institution Archives

Owen Lattimore

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

Further, Cuneo had his own insight on the “Henry Wallace” problem:

This was a most serious matter for Great Britain. . . . Henry Wallace and Mrs. Roosevelt, pure spirits if there were any, felt deeply that the vast mass of humanity was victimized, ground down and exploited by the voracious greed of the predatory economic royalists. They wanted a New Deal for the world. Our country’s plight in 1932 was bad enough, “one third of a nation ill-clad, ill-fed, ill-housed.” They were agonized even more by the condition of the world that ‘two-thirds of the human race went to bed every night—hungry. . . .[fn_20] They believed that European imperialism was the root cause of the evil. Therefore, they believed that the British Empire had to be dissolved, and of course, along with it, the French and the Dutch. The Japanese and Nazi Empires we were about to crush. The British Empire and the others must be liquidated. . . .

By 1944, the Communists had completely surrounded Vice President Wallace. . . .[fn_21] The whole atmosphere around the White House was thick with anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism. No one could quarrel with the facts of the theory [of anti-colonialism]. In effect, however, it meant the dissolution of the European Empires. . . . Somehow, somewhere FDR convinced himself that he could convince Stalin that a Big Four Power Group, the U.S., Great Britain, Russia and China could keep the peace. This was fatuous. . . . I was damned if I was going to see the British American alliance broken in the first place and in the second place, I was damned if I was going to see a new Russo-Chinese imperial dictatorship substituted for at worst, the [British] devil we knew.

VIII. Halifax and Churchill to Roosevelt: Dump Henry Wallace

That June, 1943, while Stephenson, Menzies, Halifax and Churchill geared up to force Roosevelt’s hand on removing his Vice-President, Roosevelt had his hands full trying to make the anti-Hitler alliance work. Russia had lost millions of soldiers and civilians, awaiting a real Western front. Churchill continually broke commitments for the Second Front, and now Stalin had to hear that the May “Trident” conference in Washington had postponed the invasion yet again, from August, 1943 to May, 1944.

LoC

President Franklin Roosevelt and General Secretary Joseph Stalin in Tehran, Iran on December 1, 1943.

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

Stalin, in his “Personal and Secret Message of Premier J. V. Stalin to President Roosevelt,”[fn_22] reviewed the promises of Casablanca and took apart the newest, and rather pathetic, “dog-ate-my-homework” excuse. This newest delay was being blamed on logistics; so Stalin quoted from Roosevelt’s and Churchill’s 1942 and 1943 messages (about the United States and Great Britain “carrying out preparations energetically,” etc.), making the case that either they had no idea how to make preparations, or they were simply lying. Stalin makes clear that the charade is over. Roosevelt has not been able to “herd the cat” (Churchill) and now has to be concerned that the British game endangers his plan for post-war collaboration, sending the world back into imperial geo-politics. This is the primary concern on Roosevelt’s mind at the time, as the British have escalated to regime-change mode.

After Stephenson and Cuneo, Lord Halifax weighed in on the White House regarding the dumping of Wallace. His first private meeting with Roosevelt, after his outrage over the Wallace document, was on July 7, 1943. However, Halifax did not succeed with Roosevelt, and so Churchill stepped in. Even though he had just concluded extensive meetings five weeks earlier, he suddenly had to see Roosevelt again.[fn_23] His new concern certainly wasn’t about implementing the invasion plans.[fn_24] Rather, Churchill’s personal intervention regarding Wallace would have been part of their next meetings, in and around the August, 1943 “Quebec Conference.”[fn_25]

Roosevelt refused the demands to drop Wallace from the ticket. Further, he fully endorsed Wallace’s mission to China. The evidence is, however, that Roosevelt did agree to an open Democratic Party nominating convention in July of 1944—that is, while Roosevelt endorsed Wallace for his VP, he would not dictate to the convention his choice, the way he had done in 1940. Roosevelt had good reason to believe that Wallace had the majority support of the Democratic Party rank and file, and that he could “have his cake, and eat it, too.”[fn_26] This author surmises that Roosevelt thought he could finesse the situation, getting both the Second Front against Germany (the invasion across the English Channel) and Wallace—but that his prime objective in the summer of 1943 was to keep the alliance together and to crush Hitler.

IX. Underlings: Resist, Even if Nation Plunges into Chaos

There is quite a bit written as to the role of the Democratic Party’s “machine” politicians in pushing Wallace out, writings that deliberately ignore any strategic reality and any British intelligence operations.

Certainly, there is little doubt that, from May, 1944 to the July convention, some party bureaucrats beholden to Wall-Street contributors, united with a bloc of racist, Southern Democrats, did the bidding of Churchill et al., without, at that point, having to take day-to-day instructions. Nevertheless, the underlings, after the fact, did attempt to provide a different “narrative” so as to cover for British intelligence. Two examples make the point.

Amongst Cuneo’s private papers, he relates the “insider’s” intelligence to which he was made privy:

[In August, 1943, Speaker of the House, Sam] Rayburn asked a private conference with the President on a matter of utmost importance. Rayburn, according to my information, informed the President . . . [that] it was the opinion of Rayburn and others on the Hill that should Henry Wallace ever succeed the President, the resistance to him on the Hill . . . would be so great that the nation would be plunged into chaos. . . .

PD-USGov

Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives (1940-47, 1949-53, 1955-61).

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

Congressional leaders would lead a resistance that would knowingly drive the nation into chaos? What would possibly provoke Rayburn to make such a threat to his President? Regardless, Cuneo continues: “. . .[T]o this the President was reported to have answered that neither he nor anyone with whom he ran could possibly be the candidate of other than a free convention. . . .” Cuneo’s interpretation: “Freely translated, it meant that FDR expected the nomination again, but would not force Wallace on the Party as he did in 1940. In that case, Henry to the wolves must go.”

It is a minor matter that Cuneo’s account omits any mention of Stephenson’s prior action to warn the White House, even though Cuneo was the liaison between Stephenson and the White House. However, of major significance is that, even though Roosevelt heard the stunning message from the Speaker of the House, Rayburn, that Congress would lead a resistance that would plunge the nation into chaos, rather remarkably Roosevelt still refused to back down on keeping and endorsing Wallace, only agreeing to an open convention. Of course, Cuneo interprets Roosevelt’s refusal to dump Wallace to mean that it is up to his gang of wolves to deal with Wallace.

Finally, a small, though most telling item: Either Cuneo or his source on the meeting significantly obscured the date of the meeting, citing August, 1943. But the only private meeting that Rayburn actually had with Roosevelt that summer was a month earlier, July 9th, from 9:10 to 9:55 a.m.—exactly two days after Lord Halifax’s session with Roosevelt! While this is possibly a coincidence, it is also fully coherent with “the bosses have set the agenda, Roosevelt didn’t give Halifax what he asked for, and it is time to send in the clowns.” Certainly, the very act of moving the date away from any proximity to Halifax’s July 7th meeting, argues against a coincidence, and is suggestive of Rayburn getting his instructions from Halifax and/or Stephenson. Later that summer, Rayburn was chosen for the cover of Henry Luce’s Time magazine.

The second example is the hilarious case of Democratic National Committee (DNC) Treasurer Edwin W. Pauley, who has proudly taken credit for dumping Wallace. When asked, decades later,[fn_27] the seemingly harmless question as to “when” he had “first become interested” in dumping Wallace, he seems at pains to suggest it was his own sovereign act: I “gave this a great deal of thought” based upon “my own intellectual experience in Government. . .,” etc., and is ready to continue in that vein. These are the words of an underling, at pains to claim credit.

The interviewer interrupts to repeat the same, simple question, “When?” Pauley: “I can date it specifically when I took this action. It was about a year before the convention that I proceeded to prevent his becoming the President. . . .”

The timing of “about a year” would mean around July, 1943, and is coherent with the Stephenson/Halifax actions; but why even say “specifically” and then give a general time period, “about a year”? Again, possibly nothing, but it sounds like nothing but his knowledge of a specific event, one which, even almost three decades later, he knows that he can’t talk about.

X. The Deal: Churchill’s ‘Momentous Change,’ the Atomic Bomb and the ‘Special Relationship’

Churchill and Roosevelt officially met near Quebec, Canada from August 17 to 24, 1943. On the third day, August 19, Roosevelt finally nailed Churchill down on the May, 1944 date. (This involved specific deadlines, beginning in the fall of 1943, for supplies to be sent from the Mediterranean theatre, back to England in preparation for the actual invasion.) Churchill’s personal physician, Lord Moran, thinks Churchill’s agreement is a “momentous change”:

Harry Hopkins . . . told me that at yesterday’s session Winston ‘came clean’ about a Second Front, that he “threw in his hand. . . . Winston is no longer against [Gen. George] Marshall’s plan for landing on the coast of France”. . . . It is indeed a momentous change of front on the part of the Prime Minister; the end of an argument that has gone on since the Americans came in to the war.[fn_28]

Churchill’s “momentous change” was not a religious conversion. In fact, he had extracted quite a price. Roosevelt got his Second Front and would still endorse Wallace, but Britain and the U.S. would initiate a “special relationship.” Specifically, the British would turn over to the Americans their “Tube Alloys” project (their initial work on the atomic bomb) and the Americans would develop the bomb, keeping the British “in the loop,” but keeping the strictest secrecy from their wartime ally, Russia. This arrangement, in fact, was the occasion for Churchill’s first employment of the term, “special relationship.” Further, the secret sharing of intelligence on the bomb project was the actual birth of what would become, with the later addition of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the infamous “Five Eyes” arrangement—still plaguing our world today. Hence, the three “coincidences” of August, 1943, suggesting an arrangement between Roosevelt and Churchill: a) the “momentous change” of Churchill on the Second Front; b) the atomic bomb deal, what Churchill tagged the “special relationship”; and c) Roosevelt’s “finesse”—keeping Wallace but allowing an open convention., but allowing an open convention.

XI. Compromise, Yes; But No Substitute for Leadership

At the conclusion of the Quebec Conference, Roosevelt was asked by his son, Elliott, “[H]ow the Great Debate was going.”[fn_29] “Well,” he said, “it begins to look as though the debate is over. The British have been working on a plan for the cross-channel invasion. . . .” A few days later, he added, “Even our alliance with Britain . . . holds dangers of making it seem to China and Russia that we support wholly the British line in international politics.” He indicated that he would also make compromises with Stalin that would make it seem that he was anti-British.

Then his conclusion: “The United States will have to lead. . . We will be able to do that. . . . Britain is on the decline. . . . America is the only great power that can make peace in the world stick.” (The emphasis upon “lead” is in the original.) That was Roosevelt’s thinking, that such compromises could only be justified if the U.S. kept the upper hand with strong leadership. That was Roosevelt’s plan.

Roosevelt’s long-awaited conference with Stalin was now set to begin in late November, in Teheran. In the week prior, at the Cairo Conference of Roosevelt and Churchill, Roosevelt told his son that Churchill was squirming over the battle plan “that was all settled at Quebec. . . . [Elliott] offered the comment that at least their military ideas made sense, taken in conjunction with their Empire commitments.” Roosevelt exploded: “Of course they do. . . . But their Empire ideas are nineteenth century, if not eighteenth or seventeenth. And we’re fighting a twentieth-century war.” Roosevelt clearly understood that Churchill’s behavior was a lawful expression of the British Empire’s ideology. There was no way out except for American leadership.

XII. Iran and China: Economic Development to Replace Colonialism

Also at the Cairo Conference, November, 1943, Roosevelt met with Chiang Kai-shek and Madame Chiang. Roosevelt’s special effort to involve China in the planning for the post-colonial, post-war world only underlined the seriousness of his thinking. He secured their agreement on a unity government with the communists, to be formed in order to defeat the Japanese. The unity was possible only within the Our Job in the Pacific economic approach, already written up, that Wallace would bring to China seven months later. Importantly, Madame Chiang recognized that a massive literacy campaign was required, and offered her plan for such. Chiang Kai-shek asked FDR for “support against the British moving into Hong Kong and Shanghai and Canton with the same old extraterritorial rights they enjoyed before the war.

The following week, at the Tehran Conference, Roosevelt discussed with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi how Iran’s barren desert had once been a forest, and that reforestation was key for the reconstruction of Iran. On the spot, he had his aide, Pat Hurley, draw up a memorandum on Iran’s economic sovereignty, “breaking Britain’s grip on Iran’s oil and mineral deposits.” He told his son, Elliott, that Hurley would do a good job, because, unlike the State Department, he was loyal:

[A]ny number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me . . . just because . . . those career diplomats aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that. . . . It’s like the British Foreign Office.[fn_30]

Then, a few days later, Roosevelt met privately with Stalin on—

China after the war, the Chinese Communists, and so on. Couldn’t do a lot of that talking while Winston was around, because it had to do with British extraterritorial rights in Hong Kong, Canton, and Shanghai . . . how if we agreed to support Chiang against the British on that point, he would agree to form a really democratic government in China. . . . Uncle Joe agreed that of course Manchuria would remain with the Chinese and agreed to help us back Chiang against the British. [That is, Stalin preferred the “anti-communist” Chiang Kai-shek to the British.] And Pat Hurley [who had just drawn up an economic development plan for Iran] has gone on to Moscow to carry our talks further. . . . If anybody can straighten out the mess of internal Chinese politics, he’s the man.

Otherwise, Roosevelt clearly employed Stalin and the Russians to cement Churchill into the invasion agreement. While Churchill had, in correspondence, lied to Stalin, in the face-to-face meeting, there was no more equivocating. Of the status of the Overlord invasion, Elliott wrote: “It’s settled at last,” Father said happily. “And,” he added wrily, “for the fourth time.” However, Roosevelt was exhausted. At Yalta, he suffered a feinting episode, a harbinger of worsening heart problems that would severely reduce his schedule over the next six months.

XIII. Roosevelt and Wallace Plan the China Trip

In late winter, Roosevelt and Wallace solidified Wallace’s planned trip to China. In February 1944, they jointly reviewed maps of the area. Wallace described his thinking to Roosevelt:

. . .[T]his part of the world was going to have the most rapidly growing population, that there was going to be pioneer exploitation of this part of the world, that roads, airports, and railroads would be built, that there would be need for construction machines and machine tools. I said that I felt this area had the very greatest importance to the United States, that technologically speaking we were the leaders with regard to this area.

Roosevelt was also quite interested in the possibilities of Russia’s Siberia. Amongst other matters, Wallace’s research showed that there “are significant uranium deposits. . . . It is my guess that this will eventually make passé oil, coal, waterpower, etc., as sources of power. . . .”

Roosevelt’s discussions with Wallace on the China project certainly put the important, but subsumed, matter of a united effort of Nationalists and Communists in China, in fighting the Japanese, within a higher strategy. On their March 3rd planning session, Roosevelt chose to share a story with Wallace. Alluding to the May, 1943 Trident Conference, where Wallace had confronted Churchill, Roosevelt said: “A year or so ago when Churchill was over here, I called his attention to the fact [that. . .] the French have no longer any claim to French Indochina and I am sure the Chinese will not want French Indochina.” Churchill came back by saying, “Of course, the Chinese will want it.” The President then twitted Churchill by saying, “Well, you are speaking for Britain which has been for centuries an imperialistic power and you have several generations of imperialist ancestors behind you. You have never refused a square mile anywhere that you could lay your hands on.” Wallace noted that Roosevelt had brought up French Indochina both with Chiang Kai-shek and Stalin, and both had agreed to Roosevelt’s Philippine model of a transition period to independence with a defined date ending the transition. Then Roosevelt turned to Churchill: “Well, we are three to one against you on this. You had better come across and we will make it unanimous.” Churchill said, “Well, I will have to consult with my cabinet.” Ten months later, Churchill still had no answer, and Roosevelt had made his point to Wallace.

XIV. Controversy in Washington

Otherwise, there is much discussion, to various effects, in Washington about the Roosevelt/Wallace initiative in Asia. Edward Stettinius, Cordell Hull’s Undersecretary of State, contacted Wallace to relate that “the President . . . had his heart set on my going to China. . . . Lauch Currie, Davies, and Fairbank[fn_31] came in to express the opinion that they thought it was very important for me to go to China. They felt that my mere presence there would straighten out certain difficulties, especially difficulties between the Russians and the Chinese. . . .”

In June, once Our Job in the Pacific was actually published, Lord Halifax for Britain, along with Alexander Loudoun for the Dutch, registered formal protests with Cordell Hull at the State Department. Of note, London had some hopes that, in Roosevelt’s administration, it was Hull who might best counter Wallace.[fn_32]

However, if so, Roosevelt seems to have been pre-emptive with Hull, as reflected in Wallace’s report: “. . .I told the President . . . that I had talked to Hull on the telephone with regard to the trip to China. . . . It immediately appeared that the President is much stronger for the trip than I had ever thought. . . .” Apparently, Roosevelt had both received and overruled Hull’s objections.

Stephenson, years later, would tell his biographer that, in early 1944, he had assured Menzies and Churchill that Roosevelt was all in on the plan to “jettison” Wallace, as he was dragging down the ticket. While this claim was seized upon by those who would rewrite history to denigrate Roosevelt, the evidence simply does not back him up. In early 1944, contemporaneous with Stephenson’s claim, the Gallup Poll had Wallace as an overwhelming first choice for Vice-President amongst the rank and file Democrats in every section of the country. Wallace was at 46%, with the second-place Cordell Hull coming in at 21%. (The remaining 33% was shared amongst several others.) Roosevelt had solid reasons to believe that his finesse would work out. And Stephenson had reasons to assure his bosses that Roosevelt was in on the fix.

Anything close to an honestly open convention would have clearly resulted in a Wallace victory. However, with an assurance that Roosevelt will not intervene for Wallace, as he did in 1940, the Party’s machinery was put to work to defy the rank and file—or as Cuneo put it, “Wallace to the wolves must go.” That March, Wallace received a strange visit from the Vice Chairman of the DNC, Oscar Ewing, who had come to downplay Wallace’s chances. Evidently, he was sent to sound Wallace out. Wallace didn’t react: “I did not tell him that I had heard . . . that [his boss, DNC Chairman] Hannegan was passing word around that it was ‘thumbs down’ on me. . . . My own feeling is that there is something else involved although I don’t know just what it is. . . .”

LoC

Gen. Chiang Kai-shek and Madame Chiang greet Clare Boothe Luce in April 1942.

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

On April 21, 1944, Wallace publicly announced the China initiative. He spoke in terms of the United States’ mission in developing China, as the United States had developed the American West in the thirty years (1870-1900) after the christening of the Transcontinental Railroad:

Following the war, the common men of the world will fill up the vacant spots as they try to attain a fuller and deeper life by harnessing nature. This is the kind of a job with which our fathers and grandfathers were fully familiar. We Americans should examine what is going on in the most sympathetic way.

Privately, Wallace organized John Carter Vincent, the head of the State Department’s Chinese Affairs section, who is to accompany Wallace to China: “I gave him a copy of Chinese extract of the Confucius Economics on the constantly normal granary.”[fn_33] Three decades prior, Wallace had been impressed at the work of Ch’en Huan-chang, the founder of the National Confucian Association, including, among other things, the accounting of the moral and economic role of central government in buying surplus grain in good seasons and selling during droughts—hence, stabilizing a staple of life.

Wallace’s announcement occasioned push-backs. Claire Booth Luce attempted to undermine Roosevelt’s plan to get Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists to collaborate. On May 2, Wallace noted that “. . . Mrs. Luce had spoken to my sister Mary about [Time magazine’s] Ted White just returning from China and had asked if I did not want to see him” to hear how Chiang’s government is worthy of disdain, while the Chinese communists were okay. “I am not going to see White or Mrs. Luce.”

There is no little irony here, as what later become the “McCarthy” witch-hunts, originated with the British intelligence organizations singling out as “commies” every one of Wallace’s collaborators on the China trip—particularly Lattimore, Vincent and Currie.[fn_34] But the point here is not to choose between Chiang and the Chinese Communists, but rather to see who plays both sides against the middle, trying to defeat Roosevelt’s “Belt and Road” approach, an approach with the potential to overcome the ideological games.

Three days after Wallace’s most sustained planning session with Vincent and Lattimore, the FBI’s Assistant Director of its Security Division, D. M. Ladd, submitted his first report to Hoover on them.[fn_35] However, Hoover and Ladd were acting in the wake of British intelligence. Earlier, Stephenson’s operation had been rooting around for months for dirt on Wallace, Vincent, Lattimore and the Institute of Pacific Relations—the organization that was to publish Wallace’s Our Job in the Pacific. Their ‘intelligence’ had been forwarded to Hoover.

In early May, Roosevelt, back from an extended period of recuperation, addressed his Cabinet on the importance of Wallace’s trip to China. He then met privately with Wallace on the trip: “He went into it in some little details and seemed to be delighted” at the inclusion of the Siberia stops. “Apparently he seemed to think the schedule was all right in every way.”

LoC/Office of War Information

A view of the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River, in Washington State.

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

XV. Wallace in China

Wallace left on May 20th for a tour of Russia’s Siberia, then was in China from June 18 to July 5, 1944. Wallace’s first official session with Chiang was on June 21st, when he laid out the American policy for the massive development of Chinese industry and agriculture. The British Foreign Office took offense to Wallace’s presentation at the Generalissimo’s June 21st dinner. While it remains a question as to what the British knew and how they knew it, still it was enough that the author of Our Job in the Pacific met with the President of China. Lord Halifax took the matter up with both the State Department and the White House.[fn_36]

The next day, Wallace recorded, we “plunge into Conversation II”—but he found that Chiang had completely failed to grasp Wallace’s “win-win” offer.[fn_37] Wallace pressed Chiang on a simpler initial step: opening up dealings with the communist opposition, beginning with allowing a U.S. Army intelligence unit to visit them. Afterwards, Wallace met late into the evening with Madame Chiang and her influential brother, Foreign Minister T. V. Soong,[fn_38] making sure that they knew Wallace’s concern about Chiang. One assumes that they passed along those concerns to Chiang.

The next morning, before the scheduled breakfast meeting, the Generalissimo requested to meet privately with Lattimore, to ask him “pretty bluntly what VP trip all about.”[fn_39] Lattimore’s account is that he tried to explain to Chiang that postwar reconversion would require expanded markets for American production, and since Russia would need U.S. machinery and techniques, “U.S. big business, finance, industry are pressing for an understanding with Russia good enough to allow economic confidence on both sides. There is not a whit of ideology in this.”

Perhaps his account was a bit cautious, but it was acceptable as a beginning. However, next, he did the Generalissimo a great disservice, by indicating to him that the economic projects for China would be somewhat into the indefinite future and would not have financial backing from America. It remains unclear what Lattimore was basing this upon, nor even why he conveyed this to Chiang, but it could only have sent the message that Wallace’s big projects were just window-dressing. It seems the potential for a positive shock to Chiang’s thinking by the boldness of Wallace’s conception was completely blunted by Lattimore.[fn_40]

Wallace confronted Chiang with a cable from Roosevelt on allowing the deployment of the U.S. Army intelligence officers to the communist area in the north; and, that afternoon, Chiang did relent. While this was a long-awaited breakthrough, it was still far short of what was possible.

There is no indication that Chiang was ever properly briefed on Wallace’s pamphlet by any of his advisors, nor that he digested much of what Wallace himself was presenting. That evening, Wallace proposed a flanking maneuver, that T. V. Soong accompany him back to Washington, to co-ordinate on furthering the project.

Finally, on June 24th, Wallace and Chiang released a joint statement, which identified China, the Soviet Union, the United States and the British Commonwealth, as the four principal powers in the Pacific which must work together to achieve self-government throughout Asia. They must agree on “measures in the political, economic and social fields to prepare those dependent peoples for self-government within a specified practical time limit. . . . [N]o balance of power arrangements would serve the ends of peace.”[fn_41]

Even this formulation—a general description lacking the specific content of Wallace’s “BRI” offer—was added by the British to their list of Wallace’s sins.

Meanwhile, three days later, at the White House, Roosevelt met for seventy-five minutes with Chiang’s brother-in-law, Dr. Kung. His degree from Yale was in economics; and he had held positions as Minister of Industry and Commerce, and even a term as the Premier of China. Roosevelt asked him to return the next day for another seventy-five minute session. These meetings, along with Wallace’s debriefings to Roosevelt, would result in an economic team being sent to China in August. Roosevelt asked Donald Nelson,[fn_42] the Chairman of the War Production Board, to head up the team, dedicated to both a war-time and a post-war economic mobilization.[fn_43] Nelson organized a Chinese War Production Board, renamed, after the war, the American Production Mission in China. Truman terminated the latter, less than three months after peace was declared.

NARA/Abbie Rowe

Edward Wood (Lord Fairfax), UK Ambassador to the U.S., with an unidentified military officer, at National Airport in Washington, D.C. on November 10, 1945.

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

Curiously, the morning after Roosevelt first met with Kung, Lord Halifax visited the White House. Roosevelt gave Halifax all of fifteen minutes to register the British Empire’s protest over Our Job in the Pacific, over Wallace’s presentation to Chiang on June 21, over the June 24 Joint Statement of Wallace and Chiang (calling for the self-government of Asian nations), and assumedly over Kung’s visit. Roosevelt’s response to Halifax was to proceed, later that day, with his second seventy-five-minute meeting with Kung—making for a glum Halifax.

Wallace toured China for two more weeks. Of particular importance was his meetings in Chengtu with Chang Ch’un [Zhang Qun], the governor of Szechwan Province. They inspected the famous Min River Irrigation District, dating back to 300 BC. Wallace noted: “500,000 acres irrigated land. . . . Next after the Nile, this is probably the oldest irrigation system in the world and probably the simplest.” They discussed the importance of major infrastructure projects and on the possibility of a unity government. (Chang later served, in 1946, with Zhou Enlai on General Marshall’s “Committee of Three,” attempting to establish the unity government. In 1947, he headed the first coalition government, but his Kuomintang party never really got behind Chang’s policies for land reform, price controls and constitutional government. Marshall’s project failed.) Then Wallace headed home.

Public Domain

The Committee of Three, from left: Chinese Nationalist Chang Ch’un (Zhang Qun), Gen. George C. Marshall, and Communist representative Zhou Enlai on December 31, 1945.

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

XVI. ‘Henry to the Wolves Must Go’

On Wallace’s first day back in Washington, he had a lunch meeting with Roosevelt, where Roosevelt kidded him as to “how many people looked on [Wallace] as a communist or worse. . . . He said some referred to Wallace as that fellow who wants to give a quart of milk to every Hottentot. . . .” (This certainly was Cuneo’s expression, though he may have been merely repeating what he had gotten from Stephenson, et al.)

Roosevelt agreed to publicly announce his endorsement of Wallace shortly, prior to next week’s convention: “I trust the name with me will be Henry A. Wallace. He is equipped for the future. We have made a team which pulls together, thinks alike and plans alike.” Following this extended session with Wallace of over two hours, Roosevelt invited Dr. Kung back for yet another meeting the next day.

Harry S. Truman Presidential Library

“The Wolves”—Cuneo with Hannegan’s gang, celebrating at NYC’s Stork Club, circa 1944. Pictured (l-r): Ernest Cuneo, liaison to BSC; Walter Winchell, primary press outlet for Cuneo; George Killion, DNC Treasurer; Edwin W. Pauley, DNC ex-Treasurer and manager of the Democratic Party’s 1944 National Convention; Rich Bay (unknown); Robert E. Hannegan, DNC chairman; and Richard Nacy, DNC Executive Vice-Chair.

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

That very evening, July 11th, the Hannegan gang[fn_44] confronted Roosevelt. (The stories from the gang on that evening are all-serving, and are not worth untangling here.) The central contention, that Wallace was a liability to the ticket, was transparently ridiculous. Wallace had polled significantly ahead of all his Democratic rivals the whole time. Roosevelt’s re-worded endorsement of Wallace reflected the pressure put upon Roosevelt that evening, but it was still an endorsement:

I have been associated with Henry Wallace during his past four years as Vice President, for eight years earlier while he was Secretary of Agriculture and well before that. I like him and respect him and he is my personal friend. For those reasons, I personally would vote for his re-nomination if I were a delegate to the Convention. At the same time, I do not wish to appear in any way as dictating to the Convention. Obviously the Convention must do the deciding.

Hannegan’s gang took what they could get and ran with it.[fn_45]

The next day, with Roosevelt still endorsing Wallace, Hannegan visited Wallace, telling him to withdraw as he “did not have a chance. . . .” As both of them knew that Wallace had the large majority of rank-and-file delegates, this was simply “Mafia-talk” for “We’ve got the fix on this.” Wallace refused, telling Hannegan only that he knew quite well that Hannegan had been working against him for quite a while.

Hannegan left the meeting in a huff. (He happened upon a friendly reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and blurted out that Wallace was a terrible person, and that Hannegan’s number one job was to get Wallace off the ticket. Hannegan proceeded to organize a media campaign, touting the supposed “imminent withdrawal” of Wallace; and Edwin Pauley would claim that he had used Walter Lippmann’s article,[fn_46] calling for the dumping of Wallace, “to great advantage among the delegates.”

On Thursday, July 13th, a day after Roosevelt’s third meeting with Dr. Kung, Wallace went into greater detail with Roosevelt on China.[fn_47] Afterwards, Roosevelt told Wallace of his Tuesday night meeting with the Hannegan gang. “According to the President, they all thought I would harm the ticket.”

Again, while both Roosevelt and Wallace knew this was a line, it was undeniable that Wallace would harm the DNC finances. Hannegan et al. had made Wall Street’s intentions known. “I said at once to the President, ‘If you think so, I will withdraw at once.’ ” Roosevelt then gave Wallace his written endorsement. Finally, he “drew me close and turned on his full smile with a very hearty handclasp, saying, ‘While I cannot put it this way in public, I hope it will be the same old team.’ ”

Wallace, at that point, would still have easily carried the Chicago convention.

Hannegan came back at Roosevelt one last time on July 15th, interrupting Roosevelt’s train as it was passing through Chicago. The best that Hannegan could secure from Roosevelt was the infamous note of Roosevelt’s agreement to an open convention: “You have written me about Harry Truman and Bill Douglas. I should, of course, be very glad to run with either of them and believe either one of them would bring real strength to the ticket.”

This was language that nobody could construe as an actual endorsement, but Hannegan misrepresented it to the convention. As the inimitable Cuneo witnessed the scene: “Hannegan followed out the script. He suddenly swept up the steps with California’s Ed Pauley and Kentucky’s Paul Porter and with great authority, proceeded triumphantly to the podium. He declared, yeah hollered, that he had a letter from the President of the United States. The President declared that he would be delighted to run with either Harry S Truman or William O. Douglas as his running mate.” It was enough to deprive Wallace of a first-ballot victory, and to allow the wheeling and dealing to settle upon Truman. Churchill’s regime-change accomplished.

XVII. A Republic, Caught in the Webs of Our Own Making

Two weeks later, Truman visited Wallace, claiming that he had been forced into the situation, and that he was terribly unhappy. He wanted Wallace to know that “he had not been engaged in any ‘machinations’ for the nomination.”

Afterwards Wallace noted in his diary that Truman “had told me on the floor of the Senate that I was his candidate” but then had campaigned for Sam Rayburn and Jimmy Byrnes, adding, “This kind of action convinces me beyond doubt that he [Truman] is a small opportunistic man, a man of good instincts but, therefore, probably all the more dangerous. As he moves out more in the public eye, he will get caught in the webs of his own making.” Wallace’s forecast was incisive.

We conclude with one example that reinforces Wallace’s estimation of Truman, one too pathetic to have been made up. Truman would claim that Churchill’s infamous March 5, 1946 “Iron Curtain”[fn_48] speech at Fulton, Missouri, was his own doing. The clever Truman, as he would have it, knew that the country would not immediately accept such ideological claptrap, so he manipulated Churchill into the “Iron Curtain” speech as a “trial balloon.” (In fact, most editorial pages denounced the speech. Only a few, such as the Wall Street Journal, initially supported it.)

After some time, when it could become the operative reality, Truman could claim credit for the political transformation and reap the political benefits for himself. He was manipulating the British! However, it was Truman’s massive capacity for self-delusion that, in the eyes of the British, made running an empire so much easier. Hence, we have a little man with grand delusions, or Wallace’s “small opportunistic man” who got the country “caught in the webs” of its own making—webs that can now be cleared away with the embracing of the very American “Belt and Road” policy.

XVIII. Summary: Courageous Leadership or Farce

In 1940, President Roosevelt, faced with the Nazi threat, and aware of the imperial decisions at the end of World War I that led to World War II, decided the only justifiable basis to fight the war was with the goal of eliminating empire. He insisted on Henry Wallace as his Vice-President so as to take the point. After Wallace confronted Churchill, British intelligence targeted Wallace for “active measures.” They purloined his draft policy for China and Asia, reacting at the highest levels as if their imperial existence was at stake, and demanding the removal of the U.S. Vice-President. Roosevelt refused their demand, but thought he could steer matters, both to secure a strategic alliance hinged upon the Second Front, and still keep Wallace.

This report has not attempted to retread all the matters of Roosevelt’s greatly weakened physical state in 1944, nor all of the dirty dealings of the underlings at the July, 1944 Democratic National Convention, etc. Those matters have been covered elsewhere by others. The emphasis here is that, when the United States does what we were founded to do as a republic, empire cannot but react as if its days are numbered. It will throw in everything, including the kitchen sink, into hysterical lies relying upon the victims to flinch. Roosevelt knew that real leadership meant pressing forward on the strategic level. However, as a subordinate part of that, he attempted a finesse; and it, indeed, failed.[fn_49]

The United States suffers to this day from the assault on the post-war plan to develop China and Asia, and the replacement of Wallace by Truman. The psychological horror of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan; the 1945/6 decision not to re-deploy the war-economy for massive civilian infrastructure projects, and the consequent scramble for jobs and for “making up” for the lost time during the war—all this disoriented what had been a mission-oriented wartime population. Without a clear notion of mission, patriotism was grafted onto the psycho-dynamics of a football game—with the Russians as the opposing team. The British 1943/4 targeting of Wallace and his collaborators became, over the next five-to-ten years, the disinformation fed to Sen. Joe McCarthy. The British Empire to this day relies upon their bet that the “dumb jock” Americans will jerk when their leash is pulled.

Tragedy, the second time, is farce. Refusing to learn how the original tragedy was brought about is itself the greater tragedy. It is time to end the farce.

One hundred and fifty years ago, the United States, with the critical aid of Chinese labor, completed Lincoln’s great project, the Transcontinental Railroad, the largest infrastructure project in the history of the world to that point.

Seventy-five years ago, the United States announced an even bigger project to develop all of Asia, utilizing the power of the mobilized U.S. economy. It centered upon the cultural reserves of China to wipe away a century of dishonor and to lead Asia with massive infrastructure projects.

Today, China is relying upon the revival of the anti-colonial, cultural reserves of America. It should not have taken seventy-five years to get to this point, but here we are: this time it is —China’s Xi Jinping who is offering the United States our own historic policy, one that would indeed make America great again.

Roosevelt’s “anti-farce” message: Bold leadership is the one thing that British imperial games cannot abide.

—davidshavin@larouchepub.com

[fn_1]. Henry Agard Wallace, a Lincoln Republican, was Roosevelt’s Agriculture Secretary for the first eight years of the administration. His scientific work involved, among other things, the development of improved agricultural seeds. See: Robert L. Baker’s “Henry Wallace Would Never Have Dropped the Bomb on Japan,” EIR Vol. 30, No. 43, November 7, 2003. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Henry A. Wallace, Our Job in the Pacific, American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations, June 1944. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. A study—beyond the scope of this article—of the Roosevelt-Churchill interchanges at their conferences from Argentia Bay in 1941 to Quebec in 1943 would document Churchill’s persistent lying to Roosevelt, in defense of his geopolitical game; and Roosevelt’s appraisal as to how to deal with such a lying ally. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. Later, Wallace produced a widely-circulated film version of his radio speech. Of note, Wallace had taken up the challenge to Roosevelt’s approach coming from Henry Luce’s “American Century” editorial, published in his February, 1941 Life magazine. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. Churchill’s speech at Mansion House. The Mansion House is the official residence of the head of the “City of London Corporation” (who is, simultaneously, the Lord Mayor of the “City of London”—that is, not the Mayor of London, but of the financial enclave within, and distinct from, London). [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]. Martin Luther King, Jr. explicitly cited Churchill’s Mansion House address, to characterize the problem of the entrenched imperial mindset. (King’s 1957 sermon to his Montgomery, Alabama congregation was given upon his return from witnessing the birth of Ghana and the inauguration of Kwame Nkrumah as Prime Minister.) [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]. Robert E. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History, 1949. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]. This was the May, 1943 Trident Conference. At the January, 1943 Casablanca Conference, Churchill had delayed the spring, 1943 invasion to August, 1943; and Stalin had responded with a recitation of the broken promises. [back to text for fn_8]

[fn_9]. Evidently, Churchill and Hitler, in their youth, had studied at the same school of painting. [back to text for fn_9]

[fn_10]. Eleanor Roosevelt commented, later in 1943: “Henry Wallace has come out in the last year. He is showing signs of leadership. That pleases me.” [back to text for fn_10]

[fn_11]. Roald Dahl conveyed the message to Wallace via Charles Marsh, Texas newspaper tycoon who ran a political salon on 17th Street, NW, in Washington. The next day, May 25, Wallace entered into his diary: “Charley Marsh told me that it had just come to him during the last few days that the British had their fingers crossed so far as I was concerned.” [back to text for fn_11]

[fn_12]. Gabriel Pascal was famous for film adaptations of George Bernard Shaw’s works. (As a youth, Pascal had first impressed the much older Shaw, when he came across Shaw swimming naked. Shaw dared the young Pascal to strip and join him in the water—which the boy did without hesitation.) Otherwise, Pascal worked under the mystic, Meher Baba, in India. (Baba frequently cited Pascal and Friedrich Nietzsche as his models of geniuses that he had met over the years.) Both Pascal and Hitler made the list of the “world’s famous men of 1938”—as defined by Henry Luce’s Time magazine. [back to text for fn_12]

[fn_13]. Both quotes may be found in Jennet Conant’s The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington, 2008. [back to text for fn_13]

[fn_14]. Dahl complained to Halifax that he was “all f——- out” because Clare Luce “had screwed [him] from one end of the room to the other for three goddam nights . . .” Halifax maintained that he must perform his duty. Possibly true, but Dahl was a story-teller. (Churchill’s son, Randolph, was another of Luce’s lovers.) [back to text for fn_14]

[fn_15]. Helen Ogden Reid’s father-in-law, Whitelaw Reid, was the Anglophile U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, 1905-1911. [back to text for fn_15]

[fn_16]. William Stephenson certainly appreciated Ernest Cuneo, frequently entertaining him in his New York City apartment, and allowing him to date and marry one of Stephenson’s secretaries. Cuneo actually moved into the New York City building where Stephenson kept his penthouse. [back to text for fn_16]

[fn_17]. Years later, in 1949, this would become the core of what became known as the “McCarthy” investigations. Sen. Joseph McCarthy would declare Owen Lattimore the No. 1 communist spy in the U.S. [back to text for fn_17]

[fn_18]. Ernest Cuneo Papers, Box 107 (CIA file). FDR Library, Hyde Park, NY. This author thanks the most helpful and knowledgeable staff at the FDR Library; and also his wife, Nancy, for her agreeing to spend our vacation digging through box after box of material. All of Cuneo’s quotes are from this same Cuneo collection. [back to text for fn_18]

[fn_19]. Cuneo cites as precedent that living in, e.g., Virginia makes one a dual citizen, of Virginia and the U.S.—and now the U.S. would simply be like a state in the larger country of Canambria. [back to text for fn_19]

[fn_20]. Cuneo admitted that he had also suffered from the Roosevelt/Wallace delusion of wanting to feed “every Hottentot” in the world, but had learned better. His revealing explanation: While he enjoyed playing football in college, his two years in the NFL was different. Someone would get hurt on the field, and the crowds would roar (not unlike the Roman Coliseum, with lions mauling Christians). This, he explained, taught him the reality of human nature. [back to text for fn_20]

[fn_21]. Cuneo’s used the word “Communist” simply to mean anyone who was against imperialism and in favor of feeding people. One searches in vain through his papers, even for a cover story for his allegation. (Of note, Cuneo, as Stephenson’s liaison with Hoover’s FBI, would be instrumental in the 1944 equivalent of a “Steele Dossier.”) [back to text for fn_21]

[fn_22]. See: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/daybyday/resource/june-1943/ [back to text for fn_22]

[fn_23]. “At the beginning of July, I began to feel the need for a new meeting with the President . . .” —the opening of Churchill’s August 31, 1943 speech from Quebec. [back to text for fn_23]

[fn_24]. On that, Churchill was completely duplicitous, telling his Chiefs of Staff that the agreement with Roosevelt on a May, 1944 invasion wasn’t real, and was being moved to a later date. (His “bait and switch” game continued uninterrupted, seemingly without even blinking an eye.) [back to text for fn_24]

[fn_25]. Churchill actually arrived at Roosevelt’s home in Hyde Park five days prior to the Quebec Conference, the only time Churchill and Roosevelt had pre-meetings before their many conferences. Further, after Quebec, Churchill stayed for two more weeks, both at Hyde Park and the White House. [back to text for fn_25]

[fn_26]. Roosevelt was aware that he was making a compromise, and that Wallace’s enemies would use an open convention to try to defeat the majority of the delegates; but it is likely he counted upon his own active role to keep matters from getting out of hand. However, months later, his collapsed health and greatly reduced work schedule upset any such plan. [back to text for fn_26]

[fn_27]. Interview with J.R. Fuchs in 1971: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/oral-histories/pauleye [back to text for fn_27]

[fn_28]. Lord Moran’s diary for August 20, 1943. Churchill. Taken from the Diaries of Lord Moran, 1966. [back to text for fn_28]

[fn_29]. All of the following quotations of Roosevelt’s discussions with his son, Elliott, are found in Elliott’s As He Saw It—a book he published in 1946 because the small-minded Truman had led a retreat from FDR’s leadership. [back to text for fn_29]

[fn_30]. One example: The State Department’s summary of Wallace’s June 21, 1944 meeting with Chiang Kai-shek simply edited out the following in their official version: “Mr. Wallace told Pres. Chiang of Pres. Roosevelt’s comment that the British did not consider China a great power; that Pres. Roosevelt wanted China to be a great power in fact as well as in theory; that at Cairo the British were opposed to giving any reality to China’s position as one of the ‘Big Four,’ and that at Teheran the Russians were cool regarding China. Mr. Wallace then quoted to Pres. Chiang the following statement made by Pres. Roosevelt: ‘Churchill is old. A new British Government will give Hongkong to China and the next day China will make it a free port’.” [back to text for fn_30]

[fn_31]. John P. Davies was the foreign service officer assigned to the staff of Gen. Joseph Stilwell, U.S. commanding general in the China, Burma, India theater. John K. Fairbank was the Harvard professor of Chinese history, and an assistant to Lauchlin Currie, the Deputy Administrator for the Foreign Economic Administration. Lauchlin Currie had conducted missions to China in 1941-1942. [back to text for fn_31]

[fn_32]. When Lord Halifax went to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, to protest Wallace’s actions in China, Hull sympathized. He gave no support to Wallace, only saying that Wallace’s policies and actions were not those of the State Department, but “was the President’s doing.” [back to text for fn_32]

[fn_33]. Wallace: “I first learned about the Ever-Normal granary by reading a doctor’s degree thesis written by Chen Huan-chang, a Chinese scholar at Columbia University. The title of his [1911] thesis was ‘The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School.’ As a result I wrote several editorials for Wallaces’ Farmer during the decade of the twenties entitled ‘The Ever-Normal Granary’.” Letter to Derk Bodde, quoted in his article, “Henry A. Wallace and the Ever-Normal Granary,” The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4, Aug., 1946, pp. 411-426. [back to text for fn_33]

[fn_34]. Alfred Kohlberg was Senator Joseph McCarthy’s source. He had taken offense to Wallace’s trip to China and to Our Job in the Pacific, published by the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). In November, 1944, he charged that the IPR had been infiltrated by communists. His meetings with McCarthy, in March, 1950, centered upon Owen Lattimore and IPR. McCarthy then named Lattimore as the top Russian espionage agent in the United States. Kohlberg made his fortune in using cheap labor, working up Irish linens in China and selling them at upscale department stores. It was his fortune that kick-started the John Birch Society. [back to text for fn_34]

[fn_35]. D.M. Ladd was promoted to No. 3 at the FBI, under Hoover and Clyde Tolson, on May 5, 1949, in co-ordination with the escalation of the “McCarthy” witch-hunt. He would supervise all of the major cases, including the Alger Hiss and Rosenberg cases. [back to text for fn_35]

[fn_36]. The Brits would also object to the June 24 Joint Statement of Wallace and Chiang. Halifax first went to Secretary of State Hull, who said that Wallace’s policies and actions were not those of the State Department, but “was the President’s doing.” Later, on October 6, 1944, about ten weeks after the convention, Halifax would inform Wallace at a social gathering that he had been “in London at the time [June] this all broke and that the London Foreign Office was tremendously disturbed. . . .” [back to text for fn_36]

[fn_37]. “[W]e listen to the Gimo’s [Generalissimo’s] case . . ., full of bitter feeling and poor logic. I like the Gimo but fear his lack of vision will doom him to a Kerensky’s fate. I was very sad after the second conversation.” Wallace’s diary for June 22, 1944. [back to text for fn_37]

[fn_38]. The Soong family included Madame Chiang’s siblings: a brother, T.V. Soong; one sister who married Sun Yat-sen; and another sister who married Dr. H.H. Kung—who was meeting with Roosevelt that same week. [back to text for fn_38]

[fn_39]. Lattimore’s diary entry for June 23, 1944, found, e.g., in Robert P. Newman’s Owen Lattimore and the “Loss” of China, 1992. [back to text for fn_39]

[fn_40]. Another puzzling action by Lattimore that week: When Wallace was recruiting T.V. Soong to come to Washington, Lattimore expressed to the two of them his disdain for the Soong clan—that they were already planning to flee China, and that Dr. Kung—meeting that same day with Roosevelt—had already done so. Not only was it untrue, but it was not even credible gossip. [back to text for fn_40]

[fn_41]. Afterwards, while they rode to the airport, Wallace recorded twelve points, labeled “To Pres. from Gimo.” While they reflect a well-intentioned effort, one desiring to please Roosevelt, it was clear that Chiang had not comprehended what he had been offered. (Chiang’s message included: “Grateful for abrogation of unequal treaties” of the British; Wallace’s visit “shows great friendship for China”; Chiang “has utmost confidence in Dr. Kung. In helping Kung, will be helping Gimo”; and that he “hopes” to “promote land ownership & breaking up of large landholdings” while getting “interest rates for farmers down to 10%.”) [back to text for fn_41]

[fn_42]. My thanks to EIR’s Dean Andromidas for calling my attention to the August mission. Wallace had worked together with Nelson and greatly respected him. On July 13, 1944, Wallace’s third meeting with Roosevelt that first week back, they discussed sending Nelson to China. [back to text for fn_42]

[fn_43]. Roosevelt’s instructions to Nelson stressed three points: a) To make a study and analysis, with recommendations, of China’s postwar economic conditions and with particular reference to the relationship of the United States Government to China’s postwar economy. Proper consideration should be given to an exploration of what part of Japan’s pre-war industrial exports could appropriately be utilized to foster China’s economy. b) To assure the Generalissimo and his advisers that this nation does not wish to dominate China’s internal economy, but rather to take an appropriate economic interest with the full knowledge that China is a sovereign power, and that, in the long run, the Chinese people should dominate their own internal economy. c) The mission should be concluded with a report and recommendations as to this government’s economic policy toward China, with an indication as to what parts of their industrial economy would require public or underwritten loans on the one hand, and what parts of the economy could be assisted purely by private American capital, and the restrictions which should be placed on those investments by American citizens. [back to text for fn_43]

[fn_44]. Robert E. Hannegan had been head of the Internal Revenue Service in St. Louis. In 1943, then Senator Truman had recommended him for the DNC chair. It was understood that he could secure Wall Street contributions. [back to text for fn_44]

[fn_45]. However, the latter-day interpretation that Roosevelt had agreed to push Wallace out is simply not backed up by the actual events. For example, one of the gang, Paul McNutt reacted to Roosevelt’s endorsement, by telling Senator Claude Pepper, “Well, it won’t be Wallace this time. I do not give a damn what Roosevelt says.” Clearly, they had not gotten what they wanted from Roosevelt. [back to text for fn_45]

[fn_46]. Cuneo’s primary role for Stephenson was to insert the British political line into the writings of U.S. political columnists. Walter Lippmann was one of his top conduits. [back to text for fn_46]

[fn_47]. Wallace had suggested Gen. Wedemeyer to replace Stilwell and to follow up with Chiang Kai-shek. A month later, Roosevelt fixed upon his trusted Gen. Patrick Hurley “as the man to coordinate America’s efforts in China” and someone who had made a “very favorable impression” upon Wallace. Both men were sent. [back to text for fn_47]

[fn_48]. Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” was lifted from Nazi Propaganda Minister, Josef Goebbels, whose February 25,1945 article warned: “[T]he Soviets . . . would occupy all of East and Southeast Europe along with the greater part of the Reich. An iron curtain would fall over this enormous territory controlled by the Soviet Union, behind which nations would be slaughtered. The Jewish press in London and New York would probably still be applauding.” [back to text for fn_48]

[fn_49]. Clearly, Roosevelt’s heart failure of early 1944 radically altered his work schedule, leaving him with very limited desire, patience or capacity for dealing with all the underlings. However, his failing health should not be considered the prime factor in the regime-change, but rather as an aggravating factor. [back to text for fn_49]

EDITORIAL

Don’t Blame Trump

for El Paso Shootings

by Doug Mallouk

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

The following letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun was published prominently on its website on August 8, 2019. Mallouk has been a long-time organizer with the LaRouche movement.

The Baltimore Sun editorial (“Is President Trump Serious about Bipartisan Solutions to Hate-Driven Shootings?” Aug. 5) stops just short of directly accusing the President of inciting the horrific mass shooting in El Paso. But you lob in the verbal hand grenade that he and the assailant are “kindred spirits.” There is no polite way to put it—this is flat out disinformation.

A simple reading of the entire “manifesto” put out by the alleged shooter reveals a very different picture than the narrative created by the mainstream press based on a selective sample of sound bite snippets of his ravings. Certainly, he is a disgusting anti-Hispanic bigot, but his racism is predicated on a more general hatred he spews out for humankind as a whole. And this is a worldview he shares, not at all with Donald Trump, but rather with the extreme, ultra-Malthusian wing of the environmentalist movement, the folks who despise the President with a bright green passion.

Please don’t take my word on this. Let him speak for himself. Here are some excerpts from his screed that the press has chosen to omit:

The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over-harvesting resources. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to slow this down is almost non-existent. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just to wipe water off our hands (and) most of ya’ll are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable. (Emphasis added.)

The above worldview bears no resemblance at all to anything ever uttered by President Trump, either before or after becoming President. But on the other hand, there exists a veritable trove of public domain citations from the green proponents of global depopulation—everyone from “philosopher” Bertrand Russell to the eco-terrorists of Earth First, to today’s Extinction Rebellion—that completely cohere with the previous paragraph. Do tell me again, just who are the kindred spirits?

Humankind Creates Resources

Of course, it must be said in fairness, that the outpourings of a clearly demented individual should not be taken at face value. Nor should any political figure be held liable for the destructive actions of some self-proclaimed supporter. The Dayton shooter was a Trump-hating leftist supporter of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but I certainly would not try to score cheap political points by blaming her for his rampage, despite massive political differences I have with her.

Nonetheless, ideas do matter. If one believes that humankind is some polluting cancer on the planet Earth, that we live in a world of scarce, dwindling resources, or that economic growth only accelerates the depletion of the biosphere, as do many green radicals, then it is really a very short hop to advocating various anti-human “solutions,” emphatically including racialist genocide. The alleged El Paso shooter, as ugly as his actions may have been, is guilty of relentlessly, logically pursuing his axiomatic premises to their sickening conclusion.

Here’s the good news. His axioms—and those of the green movement—are all wrong. As anti-Malthusian thinkers like economist Lyndon LaRouche and space scientist Krafft Ehricke have repeatedly noted, the human species, unlike any other, actually creates resources. Through scientific progress, we redefine previously useless materials as valuable new assets to production. Oil was just black goop in the ground until the development of the internal combustion engine. With the harnessing of thermonuclear fusion, ordinary seawater becomes the fuel for a far greater power over nature than ever before existed. And, for those concerned about these things, it emits zero radioactive by-products, and not one molecule of the so-called pollutant, CO_2.

So the upshot should be clear. You don’t have to kill innumerable innocent people in El Paso, Dayton, or anyplace else, to “save the Earth.” And you don’t have to falsely link President Trump to a murderous outlook that is diametrically opposed to what he, or any sane American, actually believes.

EDITORIAL

NY TIMES HEADLINE FIASCO

The Dangerous Insanity of the

Anti-Trump Coup Plotters

by Harley Schlanger

Aug. 9—The virulent blow-back against the truthful headline in the New York Times’ (NYT) lead article on President Trump’s remarks to the nation on August 5, in response to the mass killings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, reveals the desperation of those committed to removing Trump, following the utter failure of the Russiagate investigation to provide the means to do so. The headline in the first print edition of the paper on August 6 read, “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism.” This accurately conveyed the central theme of Trump’s address, in which he described the killings as a “crime against all humanity,” and said that, “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy.”

Referring to these events as acts of “monstrous evil,” a product of “mental illness and hatred” in a “culture that celebrates violence,” he offered preliminary proposals to counter the “sinister ideologies” behind the hatred, and the causes of desperation which drive individuals to commit mass murder. Among his proposals were long overdue steps to counter the environment in which such acts occur, including measures to put in place means to look for “early warning signs” of troubled individuals; reform of the mental health system to deal with such individuals; and efforts to “stop the glorification of violence,” by addressing the proliferation of “gruesome and grizzly video games.” While the media predictably rejected his comment on video games, acquaintances of the Dayton shooter told the media that he spent hours playing such games, as have many of those who have committed mass murders.

As all presidents have done in the past when such atrocities have occurred, Trump traveled to Dayton and El Paso to console the nation, and to inspire unity, rejecting partisanship. “Hate has no place in America,” he declared, while acknowledging that the “cultural change” needed to overcome it “is hard.”

Anti-Trumpers Unleash Hatred

Within an hour of the appearance of the NYT headline, the anti-Trumpers launched a furious response, complete with a “#Cancel NYT” barrage on Twitter. A spokeswoman for the NYT, Eileen Murphy, defended the braying mob, saying that the “original headline was flawed.” In the second edition, the NYT changed it to “Assailing Hate but Not Guns.” This too was criticized as appearing “too sympathetic” to Trump. Critics spewed that it is wrong to present Trump’s call for unity as “sincere,” and Dan Rather, once a respected journalist with CBS News, went so far as to say that media should not report Trump’s words, but cover his intent, which Rather divined as being to promote racial polarization and white supremacy. Vanity Fair reported that the executive editor of the NYT, Dean Baquet, has come under attack during the Trump presidency “for his efforts to appear neutral.”

Such a characterization is incredible, as the NYT—along with the Washington Post, MSNBC and CNN—has been among the most aggressive in promoting the fake story behind Russiagate, filling its pages daily with leaks and lies from London-based and Obama intelligence agency operatives, alleging that Trump was elected by Russian interference, that he “colluded” with the Russians, that he “obstructed justice” to cover up the crime, and that his overtures to establish mutually beneficial relations with Russia were driven by his fear of sex scandal blackmail by Putin—all stories which were ultimately rejected by the report issued by Special Counsel, Robert Mueller. But this hysterical response is characteristic of the escalation against Trump in the wake of the Mueller report, representing a phase shift in the drive for a regime-change coup in Washington.

Who’s Inciting Insanity?

The President’s would-be opponents in the 2020 election are engaged in a new level of open incitement against him, with full support from the hypocrites of the mainstream media. In the aftermath of the tragedies in El Paso and Dayton, they are charging that it was Trump who provoked the horrific events, through his comments and actions. While accusing him of using these events to attack his challengers, they themselves are employing increasingly violent and provocative language against him.

Joe Biden, for example, the purported front-runner among Democrats, asserted that “the President has fanned the flames of white supremacy,” using both “language” and “code.” The shootings, he said, were caused by hatred, “which has been fueled by rhetoric which is divisive, and it’s causing people to die.” He tweeted that Trump is using his office “to encourage and embolden white supremacy.”

Two weeks before the shootings, Sen. Elizabeth Warren accused Trump of “trying to stir up as much hatred and dissension in the country as possible.” After the two mass shootings, she claimed, “He’s responsible” for the killings, and called him a “white supremacist,” a slander also expressed by another candidate, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke. Sen. Corey Booker, another presidential aspirant, went so far as to call for a ban on Trump campaign rallies, saying they are “a breeding ground for racism.”

Such comments, blaming Trump for the acts of deranged individuals, fly in the face of recent history. Such mass shootings, unfortunately, have become increasingly common in the United States, numbering 37 during the Obama presidency. These included the targeting of an African American church in Charleston, South Carolina in June 2015, in which a white supremacist killed nine people during a church service.

Further, the desperation of the media to blame Trump for the escalation of verbal attacks was evident in a Los Angeles Times article on his tweets, in which Trump criticized his opponents for saying he was responsible for the mass murders. The Times accused him of logging onto Twitter “to insult Democratic politicians,” of “politicizing last weekend’s killings,” ignoring the voluminous, opportunistic efforts by his opponents to do precisely that.

Instead of discussing the proposals in his August 5 address as a starting point to address the violence, these rants escalate the polarization, which has been the response of Democrats and their mainstream media backers, to the failure of the Mueller report to provide evidence to justify impeachment proceedings against Trump.

While accusing him of extremist, partisan rhetoric, the anti-Trump mob has spent more than two-and-a-half years charging him with sexual perversion, using the discredited, fabricated dossier compiled by former British MI6 agent Christopher Steele—which was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign—to make the case. The Steele dossier also was fraudulently used by the FBI to obtain a warrant from the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court to spy on the Trump campaign. This illegal activity is now itself the subject of an investigation, launched by Attorney General William Barr, looking into the origin of the anti-Trump campaign, which predated his November 2016 election victory.

Further, Mueller’s failure to prove the Russian narrative, and his confused and unconvincing testimony before Congressional committees on July 24, has precipitated the opening of this new phase of the coup, with harsher rhetoric against Trump as a “racist” and a “fascist.”

An example of this is the mid-June eruption of freshman Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who charged that the detention centers housing immigrants detained for unlawful entry—or awaiting asylum or deportation—on the border with Mexico are “concentration camps.” To ensure that the comparison of Trump to the Nazis was not missed, she defended her use of the term “concentration camps” by invoking the phrase “Never Again” and then asserting, “A presidency that creates concentration camps is fascist.” A self-identified “Antifa” terrorist, who firebombed a facility of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Washington State, credited AOC’s rhetoric with inspiring his action.