Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 38, September 27, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL The Other Coalitions Are Blowing Up: The LaRouche Coalition Must Take Over! by Barbara Boyd

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 38, September 27, 2019

- I. LaRouche’s Proposal

- LaRouche’s Proposals

- WE ARE GOING! Stepping Stones to the Moon and Beyond by Janet G. West

- Peace Through the Advantage of the Other by Antonio A.S. “Butch” Valdes, CPA, MBA

- II. ‘CO2 Reduction is Mass Murder’

- Mandatory Sustainability Standards: The Final Assault on the German Mittelstand by Rainer Apel

- GREEN FINANCE How Climate Hysteria and Radical Environmentalism Are Supposed to Save the System from EIR’s Special Report, ‘CO2 Reduction’ Is a Mass Murder Policy

- III. A Community of Principle Among Nations

- PETITION The Idiocy of McCarthyite Attack on Chinese Scientists and Students

- Win- Win Cooperation Between Eurasia & France for a New Economic Paradigm by Jacques Cheminade

- Economist Galloni Speaks to Xi’an Forum on Italy’s Interest in the Belt and Road by Antonino Galloni

- EIR Releases Special Report ‘CO2 Reduction’ Is a Mass Murder Policy

130 Banks Grab for Dictatorship as System Crumbles

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

The Other Coalitions Are Blowing Up:

The LaRouche Coalition Must Take Over!

by Barbara Boyd

Sept. 19—After the Federal Reserve injected over $200 billion cash into the Wall Street Banks over the past three days, for the first time since 2008-09—yet still failed to push interest rates down into their target range—London and Wall Street are beginning to panic over the near-term stability of their rotten system.

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche first pointed out, their hope for a last-ditch defense is to use the fraudulent panic over so-called climate change, to forcibly channel investment into the “green” schemes they control through cut-outs such as London’s Green Finance Initiative, shortly to be exposed in a new Schiller Institute report. It is this sordid motive which is behind the so-called climate initiatives ongoing at the United Nations today—where LaRouche organizers are present—and the New York School System’s blatant pressure on students and their parents to support a “green” strike this Friday.

At the same time, significant, relevant political shifts are ongoing both in Republican and Democratic circles, so-called. Politico magazine, in stories on Wednesday and Thursday, highlights certain features of the Bolton firing that shed great light on the present political situation in the United States.

As opposed to the analysis presented in the press internationally, that Donald Trump is somehow the captive of John Bolton or Mike Pompeo, the implications here are far more pragmatic and optimistic concerning the dynamic of the President and the corrupt Republican apparatus he used to get elected. Both establishment hawks, Bolton and Pompeo, are representative of substantial Republican Party political factions that helped propel Trump’s insurgent candidacy to victory in 2016. The firing of Bolton, and Pompeo’s likely decision to run for Senate in Kansas, point to Trump finally freeing himself from the establishment Washington, D.C. Republican Party, as their loud complaints to Politico indicate. They call Trump, now, “a government of one,” something which many Trump voters, who chanted, “Drain the Swamp,” obviously intended.

Similar fissures are occurring in the Democratic Party over impeachment. Jerrold Nadler is leading farcical House Judiciary hearings, which this week featured Trump’s 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski reprising portions of the Mueller Report. Nadler’s Democrats, frustrated by Lewandowski’s calmly facing them down over testimony he provided on Trump’s orders to Mueller, resorted to angrily throwing names at him, threatening him with criminal charges, and wildly asserting that his sticking to what he told Robert Mueller signaled “consciousness of guilt.”

Lewandowski told Mueller that the President had asked him to deliver a message to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Sessions should “un-recuse” himself from the Trump/Russia investigation, and should focus that investigation on protecting future elections. This occurred in a context in which the FBI’s James Comey was repeatedly telling Trump that he was not a target of the FBI’s counterintelligence probe, and in which the investigation by the President’s equally diligent lawyers could find no wrongdoing by his campaign.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi openly criticized the Nadler circus to a stunned Democratic caucus behind closed doors last week, according to Politico, noting that the Judiciary Committee was way, way ahead of its skis, and the Democrats in the House did not have the votes to support impeachment. Sticking the shank in, she said, “Go ahead and leak that fact,” concerning the lack of Democratic support for impeachment. At the same time, this week the Jacobin Democratic presidential candidates launched a new, unhinged impeachment drive against Justice Brett Kavanaugh based on a totally fake New York Times story which had to be substantially retracted by the Times, further compromising their 2020 chances.

The shifting dynamics here occur as both the Trump Campaign and the Democrats see the revolt within the American population—demanding industry, infrastructure, and real jobs—as the Wall Street casino begins to collapse. The Democrats are positioning themselves through the genocidal Green New Deal, which LaRouche organizers are exposing, and by making claims about Wall Street reform. The Trump Campaign is looking for an actual economic policy that can build the modern infrastructure required for economic recovery, while funding basic scientific advances, including those needed for fusion power and space travel—a policy readily available in Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws for Economic Recovery. That’s the real New Deal, the LaRouche New Deal, rather than the Green New Deal, which will destroy everyone who touches it, like Medea’s poisoned gown.

Clock wise from upper left: Public Domain/ Ron Przysucha/; Gage Skidmore; Gage Skidmore; Ralph Armstrong/

Clockwise, from upper left: Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Nancy Pelosi, Jerrold Nadler

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

Whom Do Bolton and Pompeo Represent?

Bolton’s first outing following his firing was a private lunch at the Gatestone Institute, a neo-con hotbed which he formerly led. It is the center of the most anti-Muslim clash of civilizations rants in American and British foreign policy circles. Bolton was introduced by Rebekah Mercer, the hedge fund billionaire heiress who has funded all of Bolton’s recent career. Attendees at the dump-on-Trump luncheon included Alan Dershowitz, former Attorney General Mike Mukasey, Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, New York Times attorney Floyd Abrams, former Fox personality John Stossel, former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, and New York billionaire John Catsimatidis. Dershowitz, a committed Zionist, declared that Bolton’s firing was a “national disaster” according to Politico’s report.

Gatestone, once a part of the Hudson Institute and funded by Sears Roebuck heiress Nina Rosenwald, has featured such neo-cons as James Woolsey, Elliott Abrams, William Kristol, and other direct authors of the Iraq War, along with British Thatcherite Tories including Baroness Caroline Cox, Lord Daniel Finkelstein OBE, and the Viscountess Bearsted.

Bolton attacked all of Trump’s foreign policy initiatives at the luncheon. He apparently claimed that Trump had stopped a Bolton-orchestrated attack on Iran after the June 20th shoot-down of an American drone, because of last-minute appeals by Tucker Carlson. He claimed that had that attack gone forward, Iran would not have attacked Saudi Arabia’s oil refinery. Particularly rich, was Bolton’s characterization of Trump’s invitation to the Taliban for peace negotiations at Camp David on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary, as an insult to the 9/11 families. Bolton, of course, was an author of the policies which led directly to the death of 3,000 Americans on that day of infamy.

Tucker Carlson has responded to the Bolton-instigated attacks on him by calling the neo-cons “leftists.” Carlson noted that Samantha Power, Barack Obama’s UN Ambassador, blasted Bolton’s firing. Carlson was alluding to the fact that the first generation of neo-conservatives were followers of Leon Trotsky—card-carrying members of the Fourth International. They changed Trotsky’s core idea of permanent revolution into the neoconservative wet dream of permanent warfare and permanent regime change—facts fully developed in Lyndon LaRouche’s Children of Satan series of pamphlets following the events of 9/11.

President Donald Trump answered Bolton publicly and succinctly, “Well, I was critical of John getting us involved with a lot of other people in the Middle East. . . . We’ve spent $7.5 trillion in the Middle East and you ought to ask a lot of people about that. . . . A lot of people were very critical that I brought him in in the first place because of the fact that he was so in favor of going into the Middle East, and he got stuck in quicksand and we became policemen in the Middle East. It’s ridiculous.”

Bolton, Steve Bannon, Breitbart News, the data firm Cambridge Analytica, and Kellyanne Conway were all Mercer family properties during 2016, and originally supported the British Tory choice, Senator Ted Cruz. Robert Mercer made his billions on Wall Street, manipulating data for currency and other speculation through computer modeling. Typical of his social skills, was his spending over $2.7 million on a model train set for himself. He conducts his politics through his daughter Rebekah, a rabid libertarian and a major financial angel in Republican/Tory circles in both the U.S. and Britain. Mercer sponsored Bannon’s creation of the so-called “alt-right” out of enraged young males primarily addicted to gamer culture. The Mercer group, by all accounts, injected both structure and millions of dollars in cash into Trump’s general election campaign and claimed that this entitled them to a seat at the table.

Pompeo and Mike Pence represent another key Republican constituency within the George H.W. Bush-built Republican Party, the Christian Zionists, a sect created by British intelligence. These alien forces have embedded themselves in the evangelical population in the U.S., and are strident in their support of Israel, but not for any reason that would please the Israeli people. They believe that the ultimate destruction of Israel in Armageddon will bring about the second coming of Christ. Trump was told that he needed this constituency to secure the evangelical vote in 2016, a key to Republican Party success. However, many evangelicals are more than satisfied with the President’s pro-life positions and appointments to the Supreme Court, without the added component about blowing up the world.

EIRNS/Sylvia Spaniolo

LaRouchePAC organizing against the Green New Deal in New York on September 17, 2019.

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

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 38, September 27, 2019

Cover This Week

CC4.0/ Bastian Schumacher

Ecofascists and others riot at the G20 Hamburg summit held on July 7–8, 2017.

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

130 BANKS GRAB FOR DICTATORSHIP

AS SYSTEM CRUMBLES

2 EDITORIAL

The Other Coalitions Are Blowing Up: The LaRouche Coalition Must Take Over!

by Barbara Boyd

I. LAROUCHE’S PROPOSAL

6 LaRouche’s Proposals

March 28, 2008

British special interests have once again declared war upon the U.S. economy in a crisis greater than 2007-2009.

10 WE ARE GOING!

Stepping Stones to the Moon and Beyond

by Janet G. West

14 Peace Through the Advantage of the Other

by Antonio A.S. “Butch” Valdes

II. FROM EIR’S SPECIAL REPORT,

‘CO_2 REDUCTION’ IS MASS MURDER

18 Mandatory Sustainability Standards: The Final Assault on the German Mittelstand

by Rainer Apel

22 GREEN FINANCE

How Climate Hysteria and Radical Environmentalism Are Supposed to Save the System

by EIR Staff

III. A COMMUNITY OF PRINCIPLE AMONG NATIONS

34 PETITION

The Idiocy of McCarthyite Attack on Chinese Scientists and Students

36 Win-Win Cooperation Between Eurasia & France for a New Economic Paradigm

by Jacques Cheminade

40 Economist Galloni Speaks to Xi’an Forum on Italy’s Interest in the Belt and Road

by Antonio Galloni

42 EIR RELEASES SPECIAL REPORT

‘CO[2] Reduction’ Is a Mass Murder Policy

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. LaRouche’s Proposal

LaRouche’s Proposals

EIRNS/Jason Ross

LaRouche Youth Movement rally in San Francisco’s financial district on August 14, 2007.

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

While the first of Lyndon LaRouche’s three measures below is more specific to the crisis of 2007-09, in which context it was issued, the second and third are fully applicable today.

These three documents elaborate the three steps to survival which Lyndon LaRouche outlined in 2008.

Editor’s note: This is a reprint of Lyndon LaRouche’s proposals as published in EIR Vol. 35, No. 13, March 28, 2008, pp. 27-29, available here.

Homeowners and Bank

Protection Act

This is the original model proposal made by LaRouche in late August 2007, of which a variety of versions were passed by more than 75 cities, and 3 state legislative bodies, around the United States.

Here are the essential features of the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007:

1. Congress must establish a Federal agency to place the Federal and state chartered banks under protection, freezing all existing home mortgages for a period of however many months or years are required to adjust the values to fair prices; restructure existing mortgages at appropriate interest rates; and write off all of the cancerous speculative debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other forms of Ponzi schemes that have brought the banking system to the present point of bankruptcy.

2. During this transitional period, all foreclosures shall be frozen, allowing American families to retain their homes. Monthly payments, the effective equivalent of rental payments, shall be made to designated banks, which can then use the funds as collateral for normal lending practices, thus recapitalizing the banking system. Ultimately, these affordable monthly payments will be factored into new mortgages, reflecting the deflation of the housing bubble, and the establishment of appropriate property valuations, and reduced fixed mortgage interest rates. It is to be expected that this process of shakeout of the housing market will take several years to achieve. In this interim period, no homeowner shall be evicted from his or her property, and the Federal and state chartered banks shall be protected, so they can resume their traditional functions, serving local communities, and facilitating credit for investment in productive industries, agriculture, infrastructure, etc.

3. State governors shall assume the administrative responsibilities for implementing the program, including the “rental” assessments to designated banks, under the authority of the Federal government, which will provide the necessary credits and guarantees to assure the successful transition.

A Two-Tiered Credit System

This statement by LaRouche was released on Jan. 25, 2008, under the title, “How to Defend Your Dollar.”

British special interests backed by the [European Central Bank’s] arrogant Trichet, have declared war upon the U.S. economy through tricking the foolish President of the U.S.A., his foolish Speaker of the House, and the foolish Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, into cheapening the U.S. dollar, while Trichet et al. brag about tricking the U.S. dollar into ruining itself. Were the U.S.A. to adopt my recommended policy for defense of the value of the U.S. dollar, speculators betting on Trichet’s slyness, could be dumped into a taste of their own bankruptcy, an experience which would tend to promote better behavior from them in future weeks.

The U.S. must dump the recent, foolish, pro-hyper-inflationary policies of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben “Helicopter money” Bernanke, for a two-tier U.S. Treasury policy of uttering currency on capital account. The general price or monetary emission by the U.S. Treasury (i.e., by the Treasury, or Federal Reserve System) must be a two-tier policy: a.) One price for the open market, at a significant number of points higher than the ECB, and b.) a special, protected price for long-term to medium-term credit uttered for the benefit of protected prime categories such as household mortgages enjoying Federal bankruptcy protection, and regular (Federally or state-chartered) banks. The latter category should be priced as loans at between 1% and 2% per annum.

The purpose is not to injure our European neighbors’ governments and financial authorities, especially multi-national agencies, but to encourage them to return to recognizing the benefits of civilized modes of cooperative behavior consistent with that 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which governs all among the actually civilized nations of Europe.

This correction of the ignorant behavior of the present U.S. President and Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is an indispensable, included feature of any competent defense of the U.S. and its people from the currently onrushing, hyper-inflationary breakdown-crisis now gripping the trans-Atlantic community as a whole. Without the specific measures which I have stipulated here, the U.S.A. would soon be bankrupted, and our people ruined, by the foolish policies recently adopted by both Mr. Bernanke and by the U.S. President and the foolish Speaker of the House.

European speculators beware, the U.S. tiger is wounded, but still has claws and teeth. Continue the stunt which some in Europe are attempting against the U.S.A., and many much-too-greedy European speculators will wake up soon, much poorer, but a little wiser, in the morning. Were I President, I would guarantee such effects by morning; Americans who do not support my policy will suffer suddenly and badly enough that they will be “quicker on the draw” on the next weekend this problem might come up again.

A Four-Power Agreement for a

New Monetary System

This discussion of the necessary measures to establish a new monetary system, replacing the current bankrupt one, comes from LaRouche’s “Prolegomena for a Democratic Party Platform,” in his book, The State of Our Union: The End of Our Delusion! pp. 109-111, published by the LaRouche Political Action Committee in September 2007.

3.10 The Economic Action To Be Taken

So, an elementary remedy exists, potentially, provided the right combination of powerful nations of the world now proceeds, quickly, to make it happen. Those sponsoring nations must cooperate to the effect of playing a leading role in establishing a new world system, based on a network of treaty-agreements, which, in effect, replaces the cancerously rotted-out International Monetary System (IMF) of today, by a profoundly reorganized IMF, thus crafting one which echoes the original intentions of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt for a global, fixed-exchange-rate system.

3.11 This means a new world credit system, rather than a monetarist system, a new system in which nests of long-range treaty-agreements among sovereign states prevail, which are freed of the kinds of pro-monetarist central banking complexes which have dominated the recent decades in world affairs.

I propose that a powerful initiating group of nations, the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India, should join to assemble as a core around which to quickly rally other sovereign states, to put the world’s present monetary-financial system into reorganization-in-bankruptcy, and also put a set of virtually bankrupt national central banking systems, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve System, into a state of receivership, by the relevant sovereigns, for reorganization in bankruptcy by relevant governments.

3.12 Under such an initiative, the physical, social, and economic stability of each and all of the cooperating sovereign states, will depend on conducting the reorganization in a manner which ensures the continuation, and also accelerating growth of all employment in physical production of goods and in traditionally pre-1971 forms of essential professional and related services.

3.13 Financial debt attributable to financial and related forms of speculation, which have the underlying character of gambling debts, must be either summarily nullified, or reorganized in a way which is suited to bring about that beneficial result.

3.14 The creation of a new international system will eradicate present, hopelessly ruined monetarist systems, and replace them, as the intention of the formation of the Bretton Woods System shows the pathway, with an American System-style new monetary order in the world, under which the government monopoly in sovereign utterance of credit, as a monopoly of the respective sovereign nations, replaces all so-called central banking systems. This is complemented by the establishment of so-called protectionist systems, with what were formerly employed under the name of “fair trade,” rather than as “free trade” systems.

3.15 Although the generation of credit, through the sovereign nation-state’s monopoly on the utterance of its lawful currency, will be applicable to many good purposes, the primary use of the expansion of the actual or implied money-supply shall be medium- to long-term formation of physical capital, of which it must be expected that no less than about half of that investment will enter circulation as investment in the development of essential basic economic infrastructure.

3.16 This ratio of infrastructure to the remainder of the economy can be achieved and sustained, provided there is a proper emphasis on science-driven scientific and technological progress. The recovery will be slower during the first decade of such a program, and a bit better in the second. Therefore, a long-term scheduling of repayments of capital is needed, as each case will indicate.

3.17 At the outset, the world will be gripped by a situation in which only meager supplies of private investment credit will be available. Most private financial capital is presently either vanishing from the market, or will have vanished early in the onset of the crisis-conditions produced, and reorganizations in bankruptcy required by the presently accelerating, chain-reaction failure of the world’s principal existing monetary-financial systems.

Therefore, state credit, at interest rates below two percent simple interest per annum, for long-term investments in public infrastructure, will be the principal source of, and driver for long-term capital formation, that chiefly in basic economic infrastructure. The investment in infrastructure will also serve as the driver for the recovery and growth of the private sector, and through construction and related investments in the public sector which will create the growing market for the products of the private sector.

3.18 This requires a strictly managed set of sovereign nation-state economies bound together by a fixed-exchange-rate system. Such a system will be managed, chiefly, through treaty agreements among partners in the credit and in tariffs of the system.

For example, as I proposed legislation to this effect during 2005 and beyond, I intended then, that the Federal government should “capture” the relevant idled potential of the U.S. automobile-manufacturing sector, using the machine-tool capabilities which have been inherently embedded in the capacity of the automotive sector since war production of the 1939-1945 interval, for supplying the needs of physical capital improvements and expansion in the public sector of the Federal, State, and local governments. The market for such products was implicitly vast and long-term in nature, and remains so today. Now, we must recapture that potential which was lost through a failure of the U.S. Congress during 2006; however, much of the lost capability could still be regrouped, and could thus re-energize localities in the U.S. which have been ruined as a result of the Congress’s failure to act as required.

Buy The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, Volume II

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

WE ARE GOING!

Stepping Stones to the Moon

and Beyond

by Janet G. West

NASA/SAIC Pat Rawlings

An artist’s conception of the NASA Orion spacecraft.

Sept. 21—In March 2019, speaking before the National Space Council, Vice President Mike Pence announced the goal to send the first woman and the next man to the Moon by 2024, and to develop a sustainable human presence on the Moon by 2028. In July 2019, NASA announced that this new mission would be named “Artemis,” who, in Greek mythology, is the twin sister of Apollo and the goddess of the Moon. Fifty years ago, the Apollo project landed the first men on the Moon, so it is fitting that the next phase be so named.

Numerous components are key to the success of the Artemis mission, including next-generation lunar modules/landers, habitats for long-term human activity, and power/propulsion initiatives. The program will involve the Orion spacecraft, the Gateway lunar orbiter, and the Space Launch System rocket (SLS), with a focus on reusable spacecraft and architecture, and an eye towards future colonization of Mars. This program is an outcome of Space Policy Directive 1, signed by President Donald Trump in 2017.

“Similar to the 1960s, we too have an opportunity to take a giant leap forward for all of humanity,” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said as part of the July NASA announcement. “President Trump and Vice President Pence have given us a bold direction to return to the Moon by 2024 and then go forward to Mars. Their direction is not empty rhetoric. They have backed up their vision with the budget requests needed to accomplish this objective. . . .”

The Gateway Mission

NASA is already engaged with a number of partners to design and build the Gateway, a small way-station that will orbit the Moon. It will be much smaller than the International Space Station, and will provide short-term living quarters, scientific and research laboratories, and docking ports for visiting spacecraft, supporting both human and robotic missions. Astronauts will use it in going to and from the surface of the Moon, staying for perhaps a few weeks at a time, but not long-term.

Gateway will be a sustainable and reusable command and service module, capable of remaining in orbit for 15 years. It will have solar-electrical propulsion, making it maneuverable, and making more areas of the Moon accessible than ever before. The Gateway could even be transitioned into different orbits as needed. The power and propulsion systems for Gateway are the first components that NASA is working on, to establish a firm foundation to go forward.

On September 13, NASA announced it had awarded a contract with a company in Colorado, Advanced Space, to develop a small “CubeSat” to test the dynamics of an unusual orbit planned for the use of the Gateway mission. The orbit is known as a “near-rectilinear halo orbit” (NRHO)—in other words, an extremely elliptical orbit—which passes over the poles of the Moon, with one of the foci of the ellipse being the south pole of the Moon.

The south polar region is of great interest to many nations, since it is there where large amounts of water ice have been found, and appears to be the most hospitable area of the Moon for staging human and/or robotic landings and explorations. In this orbit, the spacecraft will rotate with the Moon as it orbits Earth, and will pass as close as 1,000 miles and as far as 43,500 miles from the lunar surface.

“This mission is highly ambitious in both cost and schedule—and taking that deliberate risk is part of the objective of this mission—alongside the rapid technological advancement in cislunar navigation and the opportunity to verify orbital trajectory assumptions and retire unknowns for future missions,” Jim Reuter, associate administrator for space technology at NASA, said in the September 13 statement announcing the contract.

The test project using the CubeSat is named CAPSTONE (Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment), and could be launched as soon as December 2020. It will not only test the NRHO, but also a navigation system that will measure its position relative to NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and how that distance changes over time, allowing the CubeSat to measure its position without relying on ground stations. Another company, Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems, will partner with Advanced Space, providing the spacecraft while Advanced Space will handle the overall project management, as well as some of the crucial technologies, such as the navigation system—known as the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System (CAPS).

The chief executive of Advanced Space, Brad Cheetham, commented, “The CAPSTONE mission will be an opportunity to demonstrate core components of CAPS as well as other capabilities we have been working on. . . . We see this work as a pathfinder for NASA as well as future missions to the Moon by others.”

This particular CubeSat will be about the size and shape of a large microwave oven, and will be the first spacecraft to test this orbit. The orbit will used by the Gateway way-station for establishing permanent colonies on the Moon, both for their own sake—the exploration and development of the Moon—and also as a potential launching point for Mars and beyond. CubeSats are a class of nanosatellites using a standard size and form factor. “One Unit” (1U) is a cube measuring 10 cm (about 4 inches) on an edge, and can be scaled up to 12U. The development of CubeSats has developed into its own industry, with academia, government and industry collaborating on design and development, and is a cost-effective platform for new technology demonstrations and science investigations (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

NASA.gov

Artist’s illustration of the CAPSTONE CubeSat.

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

The launch of the CAPSTONE is crucial to demonstrate the stability of the NRHO.

Why an ‘NRHO’?!

Who devised the NRHO, and why do we care what it is? It is a highly elliptical orbit (“nearly a straight line”), and is considered to be in “cislunar space.” “Cislunar” is Latin for “on this side of the Moon” and refers to the volume of space between Earth and the orbit of the Moon. It includes other orbits with familiar terms such as LEO (low Earth orbit), Medium Earth Orbit, and GSO (geosynchronous/geostationary orbit).

Dr. Kathleen Howell, inspired as a youth by the first Moon Landing to investigate orbits, made it her life’s work. She earned her PhD from Stanford University in 1983, and is currently the Hsu Lo Distinguished Professor at Purdue University in the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Her proposed orbits have already been implemented by NASA with the Genesis mission of 2001, which was a sample-return probe. The Genesis probe collected solar wind particles in an area beyond the orbit of the Moon, and was placed in a stable orbit around L1 (Lagrange point 1). Currently, this is where the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory Satellite (SOHO) is located, since it always has an unobstructed view of the Sun (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Wikipedia

The flightpath of Genesis around L1—Halo Orbit is in red.

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

Lagrange points are positions in space at which gravitational forces (as well as centrifugal forces) are in balance, so these areas can be used by a spacecraft to reduce the fuel consumption needed to remain in the same position. There are five Lagrange points for the system of the Earth, Sun and Moon; the Lagrange points are different for the other planets. Of these five, three are unstable and two are stable. The unstable points are known as L1, L2, and L3. Even though unstable (spacecraft at these points must have regular course and attitude corrections), L2 is ideal for astronomical exploration because spacecraft can be close enough to readily communicate with Earth, and it also provides an unobstructed view of deep space. L2 is the future home of the James Webb Space Telescope (expected launch, March 30, 2021; see Figure 3).

Figure 3

Wikimedia Commons

Schematic of Lagrange points for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

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

Howell’s doctoral thesis examined a family of orbits around these Lagrange points (so-called “halo orbits” because they appear to form a halo about the point they’re orbiting). Besides the advantage of less fuel consumption to maintain location and recalibrate orientation, this type of orbit can have unobstructed lines of sight with Earth and the Moon at all times, and therefore can maintain communication with astronauts, even on the far side of the Moon.

Most experts in the 1980s considered halo orbits to be interesting, but eccentric and erratic novelties, of little use. Howell saw something else. She continued to explore the family of orbits represented in computer simulations. When she moved the elliptical orbit around the Moon closer to the vertical, and placed one of the foci of the ellipse closer to the Moon (instead of having the Moon at the center), she discovered that the orbit became metastable: A spacecraft could stay on course with a minimal use of thrusters, allowing it to stay in orbit for extended periods of time. It is this kind of orbit that the CAPSTONE will test; NASA anticipates that CAPSTONE’s CubeSat will reach lunar orbit in about three months, and the primary mission will last six months. A video animation, “Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit Explained and Visualized” is available here.

The World Needs Genius

America is not alone in this endeavor—NASA is working in cooperation with the ESA (European Space Agency) and other entities—but because of our particular revolutionary world view, America once again has a unique opportunity to lead the world into a bright future, and to inspire the current generation. When the U.S. first began manned space exploration, everything had to be designed, engineered and fabricated from scratch—giving a boost to American industries from Playtex to Raytheon to Grumman, and others. In many cases, these components were handmade with superb precision.

With expanded exploration will come new demands for more versatile space suits, habitats and space transport vehicles that can spark the imaginations of our young people. And, like the explosion of activity in wake of President John F. Kennedy’s September 12, 1962 speech at Rice University, “We Choose to Go to the Moon,” this renewed commitment, not just to space exploration—but to colonization—can jump-start the productive economy, the demands for education, and a change in our culture in America towards the New Paradigm.

Genius is not simply a matter of IQ—it is an exceptional quality of a creative intellect that also engages the deep expression of agapē, which is not a “feeling,” but an act of the Free Will. One prerequisite for even an element of genius is curiosity, and curiosity of a particular species. It isn’t an aimless “what if” for idle purposes, but an intense search for a solution to a problem that can affect the well-being of mankind.

One is reminded of Friedrich Schiller’s poem, “Columbus”:

Steer, bold mariner, on! albeit witlings deride thee,

And the steersman drop idly his hand at the helm.

Ever and ever to westward! there must the coast be discovered,

If it but lie distinct, luminous lie in thy mind.

Trust to the God that leads thee, and follow the sea that is silent;

Did it not yet exist, now would it rise from the flood.

Nature with Genius stands united in league everlasting;

What is promised by one, surely the other performs. (Anonymous translation)

Wherever mankind goes in the Universe, we take this noble quality and culture with us, to joyfully reach out to new frontiers.

For Further Reading

Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit Explained and Visualized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5O77OV9_ek

Artemis mission: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/us/nasa-artemis-program-scn/index.html

Space News website article: https://spacenews.com/nasa-cubesat-to-test-lunar-gateway-orbit/

NASA: “We are going . . .” https://www.nasa.gov/specials/moon2mars/#top

Peace Through the Advantage of the Other

by Antonio A.S. “Butch” Valdes, CPA, MBA

Ver Archivido/Philippine LaRouche Society

Butch Valdes speaking at the World Philosophic Forum in Manila, September 16, 2019.

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

The following speech was presented on September 15 at an international conference sponsored by the World Philosophic Forum—Philippines at the Century Park Hotel in Manila. The Chairman of WPF—Philippines, Shariff Ibrahim Albani, and the international President of the WPF, Professor Igor I. Kondrashin of Russia, also spoke at the conference, which was attended by more than 1,000 people from 37 countries. The speech can be watched here.

I cannot overemphasize the strategic value of an international conference of this nature and composition. Conventions of various kinds organized by groups and associations continue to be held all over the world, but to my humble knowledge, none has been convened of this nature and purpose. It is not organized by any religious organizations, yet it is full of spirituality. It is not organized by any political and ideological group, yet it addresses the concern of the whole world’s population. And that the conference is held here in the Philippines is indicative that the sovereignty of all nations, large or small, rich or poor, is a recognized principle.

Ver Archivido/Philippine LaRouche Society

Panel of speakers at the World Philosophic Forum.

Ver Archivido/Philippine LaRouche Society

Butch Valdes on the podium.

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

Political and Economic Crises Today

Current political and economic crises now confront our world: the Middle East conflicts (Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, the Israeli-Palestine impasse); South American economies (Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil); the Korean Peninsula; and territorial tensions (South China Sea/West Philippine Sea) have risen to unprecedented, historic levels, threatening global conflict which could very well annihilate present civilization. Thirty thousand or more nuclear warheads in the possession of the superpowers, at 20 megatons each, are ready to be unleashed in a war of total destruction, with the capability of killing the world’s population 20 times over. While the hegemony of western powers is seen to be waning, their control over the world’s monetary system collapsing, and their economies in a process of collapse, the United States, UK, France, Germany and their allies have asserted themselves militarily in various regional theaters.

The U.S. pivot of 60% of its mighty naval power to Southeast Asia, with the Philippines right at the center, has heightened a general apprehension not only among our people, but the people of all Southeast Asian nations, and China.

The causes of conflict have not changed over the history of mankind. Man, motivated by power and greed, tries to control and overpower his fellow man—revolutions by the oppressed to change the oppressors—resulting in local, regional, and world wars.

Gerard ter Borch

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

Peace via the Advantage of the Other

The strategic question confronting us today, with civilization as a whole threatened with extinction, is: If we want to create a new world order of peace and development to ensure survival and prosperity for all nations, how do we achieve that peace?

An important, historic precedent is the Peace of Westphalia after the Thirty Years War, which ended in 1648. It was a war that rampaged Europe in waves, vicious and violent, for 30 years, involving many countries, including Germany, Austria (Hapsburg), Hungary, France, Sweden, Czechia (Bohemia), Denmark, Spain, and the Netherlands.

The Peace of Westphalia, when all the warring parties finally came together, was the first time that a European community of sovereign states was established. And it was only possible because all of its members recognized each other as having equal legal standing, and guaranteed each other their independence.

It was clear that this not only required good will, but a minimum of efficient guarantees. Most important, was the idea that the raison d’étre—the reason for its existence, the identity of this new alliance—of this community of states, could never be only for self-preservation. It would be morally justified only if it realized ideas and principles which had a higher unifying purpose than just the survival of the states themselves.

Such principles exist in the treaties of 1648. Some were expressed for the first time in history. These negotiations lasted for four years, 1644-48, and in the end, Protestants, Catholics, monarchies, and republican forms of government were treated as having equal status in negotiations and in the treaty.

The peace treaty defined the principles of sovereignty and equality in numerous subcontracts, and in this way became the constitution of the new system of states.

Pierre Mignard

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

Cardinal Jules Mazarin, as the leader of France, the ascendant nation among others, is credited with initiating the move towards peace. The guarantees of independence, recognition of sovereignty, the cessation of hostilities, and forgiveness of damages done to lives and properties, were the result of the principle laid down by the leaders of these nations. To paraphrase a portion of the historic document, Article I of the peace treaty states:

And this Peace must be so honest and seriously guarded and nourished that each part furthers the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other, and that both forms, from the side of the entire Roman Reich [Holy Roman Empire] with the Kingdom of France, as well as the other way around, from the Kingdom of France with the Roman Reich. A faithful neighborhood should be renewed and flourish for peace and friendship, and flourish again.

The agreement called for the principle of promoting the advantage of the other. All proposals coming from every country involved must be to the advantage of the other.

This is a very precious idea. It is essential to have peace. It is the idea of Nicolaus of Cusa, which he had in the 15th century, that peace in the microcosm is only possible when you have the development of all microcosms. You can only have peace among different nations if each nation develops itself fully, and regards as its self-interest the development the others fully, and vice-versa.

The Treaty of the Peace of Westphalia states that peace is the highest goal of the community states. It was the first time such a framework was created different from the principle of the limitless right of the victorious party—that might is right. This was a gigantic step forward in international law, where might is not right—and the stronger should not necessarily prevail.

Resolving Southeast Asian Disputes Today

The present, ongoing dispute here in Southeast Asia, particularly over the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, is a case which, I believe, may find resolution along the principles I have described above. Ideally, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte may consider convening the ten ASEAN member countries to propose to all countries involved, the very principles which have found acceptance in Europe in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia.

Consider the following:

1. China and the ten member-nations of the ASEAN convene and sign a non-aggression treaty, committing to mutually beneficial agreements of exploiting the resources of the disputed waters;

2. Guarantee the freedom of navigation to all commercial and military vessels intending to use the strait of Malacca, going to or coming from their respective ports;

3. Encourage the construction of the Kra Canal in Thailand in order to de-congest Malacca strait and provide all with an alternative route for benefit of all nations;

4. Demilitarize the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, banning from the whole sea military bases for nuclear weapons;

5. China and ASEAN propose assistance to the United States in rebuilding its infrastructure requirements especially a network of fast rail systems, and make an accommodation to fair trade for mutual benefit.

No less than the renowned philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, in his Ethics, Law, and Civilization (1693), in reference to the principles of the Peace of Westphalia, wrote:

Charity is universal benevolence, and benevolence is the habit of loving. Moreover, to love is to take delight in the happiness of another, or, what amounts to the same thing, it is to regard another’s happiness as one’s own.

We all must realize that the China Sea dispute is not merely a Philippines/China problem—it in fact has global security implications, just as do many other regional disputes.

It is not enough that a treaty be signed by the parties without efficient assurances that all will abide. It is also difficult to enforce where leaders change and so may their motivations. But what will bind the countries more, must necessarily include the beneficial effect on all their populations—an economic order which ensures development and prosperity for all.

Working towards peace in Europe during the 17th century, Cardinal Mazarin and Jean Baptiste Colbert closely studied the river systems with the end in view of enhancing commerce and economic activity between northern and southern Europe. The rivers Rhine, Vistula, Oder, Elbe, Weser, and Ems were being used as territorial boundaries—instead they sought to make them economic corridors—to enhance development and communication.

Mazarin understood that peace among nations must necessarily include a collaboration towards prosperity for all, if it is to last.

Ver Archivido/Philippine LaRouche Society

Butch Valdes presents LaRouche’s World Land-Bridge Network, showing key links and corridors.

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

No Limits to Growth: Great Projects Today

Today, what better manifestation of this principle can be understood in the promotion of our historic effort by man, now committed to by no less than 130 countries, to implement the One Belt One Road project, now known as the Belt and Road Initiative which aims to construct economic corridors of high-tech, fast rail systems to connect all seven continents of the world by land. We will soon be able to travel around the world by land, transport cargo by land on a transportation system which travels up to 1,000 miles per hour. The impact on world commerce of this facility is obvious.

Another great historical project of this century—an ongoing project—that continues to give us hope, and has conjoined all the superpowers, is the Moon-Mars Project. The United States, China, Russia, India, and including Japan, France, and Germany, are collaborating in plans to land a team of astronaut-engineers and scientists on the Moon, construct a base-station there, and from that base-station launch another team to land on Mars. The stated Moon landing goal is 2024—it’s highly possible that before the decade is over man will be well on its way towards realizing a collective effort in making another giant leap for mankind—the colonization of Mars.

Then, as now, mankind is at a crossroads. One path leads to war, despair and destruction. The other leads to hope, prosperity and development for coming generations.

With the powers given to us by our Creator, there are no limits to growth. As history has taught us, if we are motivated by the common good, and act benevolently to the advantage of the other, we will learn to use our rivers and our oceans, and even outer space, not as territorial boundaries, but rather as corridors of commerce, and economic and scientific activity to enhance the quality of life of all human beings on this planet.

It is my fervent hope that we citizens of the world, patriots of our countries, use this defining, historic moment to make the spark that ignites the spirit of a new world renaissance.

Thank you, all!

Antonio Valdes founded, and leads, the Philippine LaRouche Society, and also founded the Katipunan ng Demokratikong Pilipino (Philippine Democratic Party) in 2018, and led a slate of candidates for the Senate in the 2019 election. A former Undersecretary in the Department of Education, Valdes has been a leading voice in the Philippines for international cooperation in the Belt and Road Initiative, for nuclear power, and for Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws and New Bretton Woods. Valdes hosts a radio show every Sunday night, on DZXL 558, available live on the internet at 7:00 p.m. Manila time.

II. ‘CO_2 Reduction is Mass Murder’

Mandatory Sustainability Standards: The Final Assault on

the German Mittelstand

by Rainer Apel

CC/KUKA Roboter GmBH, Bachmann

Germany is a world leader in high-precision manufacturing. Shown is a Grenzebach flat glass producing plant.

EIRNS

Paris-Berlin-Vienna Productive Triangle and its spiral arms of development.

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

Sept. 20—The Mittelstand, the 300,000 highly productive, mostly family-owned small and medium sized firms in Germany, is a core feature of that nation’s industrial productivity. Often the source of just a few specialized products, these firms are mostly export-oriented and maintain a cutting-edge technical know-how unmatched anywhere else in the world. Machines, machine parts and machine tools produced by Germany’s Mittelstand have had their biggest markets in the developed industrial economies, particularly in Europe, the United States, Russia, India and China. Many countries would see much of their industrial sectors collapse without machines from Germany. This is because of the precision, reliability, and long-term maintenance guarantee that are associated with “Made in Germany” quality.

It is because of this, that Lyndon H. LaRouche at the end of the 1980s presented his “Productive Triangle” program, calling for significant improvements in industry within the triangle formed by the cities of Berlin, Paris and Vienna, encompassing a geographical area home to most of the productive Mittelstand firms in Europe. LaRouche asserted that without these firms playing a leading role, the development of the rest of Eurasia would be impossible, and this has also been the assessment of the geopolitical enemies of such a development, the monetarists of the trans-Atlantic system who use every trick in their books and their control of key institutions like the European Commission to sabotage the outreach of the Mittelstand to the East.

After decades of being hamstrung by a flood of regulations from the European Commission, most productive Mittelstand entrepreneurs in Germany have reached the conclusion that most of the EU bureaucracy and its “experts” are incompetent and almost totally divorced from any understanding of economic reality. But these entrepreneurs have had great difficulty recognizing that there is a method behind this incompetence. The motive driving all of these excessive regulations is to open up Europe to cheap imports from other parts of the world. The EU has made production costly, thereby discouraging entrepreneurs from continuing production, while at the same time severing lines of credit.

Protecting the Predators

For many years, the EU financial market regulations were directed at protecting the very large, internationally active “systemic” private banks while dismantling the credit lines offered by savings and community banks, particularly to companies of the small and medium-sized productive industrial sector.

This EU campaign has not been totally successful, which explains the July attack by the International Monetary Fund on the family-owned companies in Germany, portraying them as the cause of all major problems. As a central institution of the trans-Atlantic monetarist system, the IMF profoundly dislikes the fact that productive Mittelstand firms in Germany which have done well—especially when actively engaged in China’s Belt and Road strategy—re-invest their profits back into their own machinery and production, instead of depositing this money at the banks.

The other offensive of the EU Commission is their attempt to impose regulations going far beyond the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) index of late 2017 which obliges companies with more than 500 employees to report regularly on the social side of their activities. That index had already incorporated ecologist ideas and policies.

The EU’s planned expansion of regulations will not only make reporting on “sustainability” standards mandatory, but will also extend that mandatory reporting to the small and medium-sized companies, and, furthermore, will prohibit banks and other financial institutions from issuing loans for investments and projects rated as “unsustainable,” according to a long list worked out by the EU experts. There are two groups of experts: the Green Bond Standard Subgroup of the Technical Expert group, and the subgroup “Taxonomy, Technical Report,” which are preparing the ratings standards for future bank loans.

These and other, related activities are coordinated by the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG), also known as “task force on green financing.” The work done by the experts was originally scheduled to become legislation before the May 2019 elections for European Parliament, but fortunately got postponed until June, and then until sometime in the autumn of 2019, or maybe the spring of 2020.

This legislative package must be stopped, because it will declare most of the Mittelstand producers and products “unsustainable,” putting those companies on a blacklist, not fundable by bank loans. Only companies with products labeled “sustainable” can hope to receive bank loans, and only, if at all, after long bureaucratic procedures and intense studies of thick manuals defining what can be viewed as “sustainable.” Real economic activity would come to a standstill, particularly if production costs were disproportionally high—which is the new normal in Germany. Electricity prices have risen drastically because of the priority the German government has given to “renewable” energy sources like solar, wind, and biomass.

The advantage of such dangerous nonsense for the private banks is that trillions of euros would be held by the banks instead of being invested in productive industry and infrastructure. The “systemic” banks would then offer loans only for highly select categories of unproductive “green investments,” thereby complying with the planned EU regulations.

CC 2.0/ Soichiro Mihara

The cooling tower of the former experimental sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor near Kalkar, Germany. The site has been repurposed to an amusement park known as Wunderland Kalkar.

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

No Reliable Power Supply, No Production

The prelude to the “green investment” campaign in Germany was the 2011 government decree calling for an exit from nuclear power by 2022 and replacing that loss of power generation with energy from so-called “renewable” sources such as solar, wind, and biomass. The shutting down of nuclear power plants has not only created a “renewables” sector that depends on state subsidies of 25 billion euros annually, but has also made electricity costs for industry twice as high as those in neighboring France.

The early 2019 government decree to exit from coal-fired electricity by 2035-2038, combined with the exit from nuclear power, will, if not reversed, make electricity unaffordable for German industry. At present, the remaining nuclear power capacity and the coal-powered sector account for about 50% of the German energy supply. If that were shut down and replaced by inefficient and unreliable power from weather-dependent solar panels and wind parks, industrial production in Germany would no longer be possible.

Public Domain

Above, a typical wind turbine installation in Germany.Below, the world’s largest solar panel array, in Freising, Germany.

CC/sofoton.es

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

The expansion of the unpredictable, unreliable supply of electricity from solar and wind would inevitably lead to frequent blackouts. Production processes in the chemical and plastics industries, but also in many other industries, cannot tolerate even temporary interruption of their power inputs. Such interruptions would damage production machinery and necessitate repairs lasting at least several days—if such repairs were feasible at all.

This is a threat to the existence of large industrial companies, but also to the hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized companies in Germany, many of which are “hidden world champions” because they produce machines or parts that are unmatched on a global scale in terms of efficiency, precision and life expectancy.

Germany’s current energy policy is all the more insane, as other countries in Europe that have also subscribed to the “sustainability” perspective, are not exiting from nuclear power, and are instead considering building new nuclear power plants.

The government of Finland insists, with the explicit support of its Green Alliance coalition partner, that the current, 30% share of nuclear energy in the national power mix must be maintained. The government of Poland just recently announced plans to expand its nuclear power sector to a capacity of 60 gigawatts by 2043, with nuclear power replacing the coal plants that now generate most of Poland’s power. The government of Bulgaria has just announced its intent to complete its nuclear power project at Belene, after having halted construction in 2012. It is expected that the contract will be awarded before the end of this year. Germany has seven nuclear reactors left; France still has 50.

CC/Roger W.

Diesel and gasoline powered cars and trucks are slated for elimination to meet zero CO_2 and NO emission standards. Shown is the Wolfsburg, Germany Volkswagen factory, the world‘s largest manufacturing plant.

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

Attack on the Automobile Sector, the Centerpiece of German Industry

Years of ecologist campaigns against driving and producing automobiles, particularly on the issue of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, have contributed to a substantial drop in car sales in Germany. Legal cases, launched by such organizations as Deutsche Umwelthilfe (German Environment Aid, DUH), have triggered a wave of inner-city bans of diesel-powered cars in the heavily populated urban regions—often enforced by rulings of local courts.

Parallel massive propaganda for e-cars has contributed to a collapse in the market for diesel cars and also to declining sales of traditional gasoline cars. In July, domestic car sales by Volkswagen, the leading car manufacturer in Germany, were 6.3% lower than in the same month the previous year. The campaign for e-cars is all the more absurd, as neither a realistic perspective for building a national grid of battery charging stations exists, nor does a realistic perspective for having the required power capacities available in an era of “renewables,” in which solar and wind will have to compensate for the loss of nuclear and coal which today still provide 45% of Germany’s power needs.

The attack against the automobile sector hits at the centerpiece of German industry: automobile manufacturing absorbs the greatest quantity of steel and plastics of any industrial sector. About 20% of the national machine-building sector supplies the automobile sector. And 70% of all cars produced in Germany are exported, accounting for one-third of annual exports and supporting 700,000 jobs.

Germany’s railway grid has been drastically thinned out during the past three decades, especially in the countryside. Therefore, the personal mobility, especially for the large number of daily commuters between the big cities and the regions surrounding them, depends on cars. But, for radical ecologists that hate industrial civilization, cars are the enemy.

Therefore it is fitting that the Extinction Rebellion (XR)—the direct-action movement that likes to blockade roads, railway tracks, bridges and industrial facilities—began its attack on Frankfurt’s annual International Automobile Exhibition (IAA), the world’s largest car show, on September 14. Deutsche Welle reported that protestors “were thrilled with the turnout, as cyclists brought traffic to a crawl on several major motorways as they made their way to the IAA protest.” CNN reported the head of another “climate action” group extolling the willingness of protestors to “to take part in a civil disobedience campaign and put their bodies in the way of the powerful auto industry.”

GREEN FINANCE

How Climate Hysteria and

Radical Environmentalism

Are Supposed to Save the System

from EIR’s Special Report, ‘CO_2 Reduction’ Is a Mass Murder Policy

Greening World Finance

Sept. 20—The global push for a transition to a “climate sustainable economy” cannot be understood unless it is put in context of the bankrupt global financial system. The “greening of the economy” is nothing but the last effort to bail out the system with a new giant financial bubble. Not accidentally, in a paper published on September 12, 2019, the Institute of International Finance, the cartel of the financial industry, has characterized the green economy as “the new gold.”

As we are drafting this report, central banks and government efforts to keep the global financial system artificially alive after the 2008 financial crisis are approaching their exhaustion. The big 2008 bailout blew out central bank balance sheets and pushed government budgets to the limit of over-indebtedness, rolling over and actually increasing the global debt bubble.

Overall, global debt had grown to $244 trillion as of the third quarter of 2018, a 100% increase from a decade ago. At the same time, austerity measures implemented by governments in order to make the bailouts “fiscally sustainable” have brought the real economy to a halt. A decade of liquidity injections by central banks with zero and now negative interest rates has kept inflating the bubble while failing in the purported aim of reviving the real economy.

As a result, the system is facing a liquidity crisis in the short term, which will require an even larger bailout effort than in 2008, when the Fed alone committed up to $16.8 trillion overnight to prevent a total collapse.

Nobody has the crystal ball to forecast when the collapse will occur, but warnings such as the one that occurred on September 17, when a liquidity crisis sent the interbank lending rate up to 10%, forcing the Federal Reserve into emergency liquidity actions and back toward quantitative easing programs, should be taken seriously.

The answer of the financial industry to the threatened collapse of the system is the creation of a new giant bubble financed with taxpayers’ and “helicopter” money. The new bubble is called “green finance.” It won’t work, but it will do devastating damage to society if we don’t stop it in time.

Left: wikipedia; right: CC/Policy Exchange

Left: Philipp Hildebrand, former Swiss National Bank chairman; right: Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England.

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

A ‘Regime Change’ for the Financial System

In leading the efforts for “greening” the financial system, both Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and Wall Street giant BlackRock LLP are promoting many other new and exotic ideas to save the current bankrupt system.

Among the proposals brought up, before and after the meeting of central bankers at the Kansas City Fed’s August 2019 Economic Policy Symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, is that offered by four prominent BlackRock executives, who issued a paper proposing a new monetary policy to be applied when the next crisis hits; they called it “going direct,” meaning that central banks could print money and directly lend to governments, institutions, firms, etc. Such a policy, sometimes called “helicopter money” (as by former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke), is supposed to allow a return of some desired inflation without increasing public debts.

One of those executives, former Swiss National Bank Chairman Philipp Hildebrand, called the scheme a “regime change” in monetary affairs in an interview with Bloomberg Aug. 15, 2019:

We are going to see a regime change in monetary policy that’s as big a deal as the one we saw between pre-crisis [of 2008] and post-crisis, a blurring of fiscal and monetary activities and responsibilities.

In this “regime change,” the central banks will still be independent of the governments, but the governments won’t be independent from central banks. BlackRock called its immediate scheme the Standby Emergency Fiscal Facility, or SEFF.

From his side, Carney, speaking at the Jackson Hole meeting, proposed that, to have a world economy less hostage to the United States-China trade disputes, one should create a synthetic world currency to replace the dollar, an international new reserve digital currency he calls a “synthetic hegemonic currency” (SHC). He described it as being modeled on Facebook’s proposed Libra, but issued and controlled by central banks working with, but ruling over governments.

The central banks’ “regime change” could happen much more quickly than Mark Carney was letting on in his remarks about a “Libra-like” digital currency replacing the dollar.

The global pile of bonds with negative interest rates has climbed to nearly $18 trillion, more than 30% of the entire universe of bonded debt. There is almost no “advanced economy” government debt outside the United States which does not have a negative yield. And U.S. Treasury rates are being pushed toward zero interest, as the Federal Reserve cuts rates and as investment funds exit from negative-interest bonds elsewhere and pour into Treasuries, where interest, for a little while longer, can still be earned.

Lending at significant interest now characterizes an increasingly “subprime” world of corporate leveraged debt (lending to already super-indebted companies and “zombie” companies), consumer rotating credit such as credit cards, auto loans, etc., and debt of cash-strapped local agencies. Above all, lending at interest characterizes speculative trades and instruments, etc., including those derivatives contracts which enable profits to be made by lending at negative interest! This regime prioritizes securitization and speculation more and more, and is now looking toward another crash of unsupported and unpayable “subprime” debt of various kinds—the “everything bubble.”

In a world of negative-interest sovereign debt, investor demand for governments’ sovereign debt could, in the very near future, drop significantly. Already on Aug. 21, another “shocking” development occurred: A 2-billion-euro German government bond, of 30-years maturity but with a negative interest rate (!), failed to sell at auction. This leaves big dealer banks holding sovereign debt which didn’t sell, to be bought by the central banks—which was the outcome in the German case.

And in a second step, it can leave the central banks to simply print the whole amount which governments once borrowed for their spending. That is the regime-change BlackRock proposed.

Digital Money and Green Boondoggles

As “shocking” as BlackRock’s scheme and Mark Carney’s “Libra-like” proposal are in themselves, equally striking is that both are leaders in the current “climate change finance.” The Green Finance Initiative of the central banks is spearheaded by Carney’s Bank of England.

BlackRock LLP, together with the Rhodium Group, are pushing a sophisticated “Google Maps”-type program classifying the “climate change risk” to investments in U.S. municipal bonds, electric utilities, and commercial real estate, literally property by property. Risk, that is, from “extreme heat waves,” wildfires, floods, extreme storms, etc. Fossil fuel production facilities are all classified “high risk” in this program, reflecting only the virtual reality of investment advice—get out of them.

BlackRock’s program is a pilot project for the “sustainable finance classification system” the European Commission is working at, also called “Taxonomy” (see below, “The High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance”). Once the Taxonomy system is in place, customers can be induced to invest their money into “green projects,” and a “committee of experts” can be designated by central banks to decide how to spend the money printed for government “use in creating inflation.”

On the record of their current activity, if the BoE’s Carney and BlackRock’s “experts” get their way, “green finance” is going to be the central banks’ favorite cause for printing “fiscal money for purposes of inflation” (“helicopter money”).

And no such helicopter money is more finger-tip controllable by central banks than a world digital currency issued by them.

As Lyndon LaRouche said, if London, Wall Street and the central banks stubbornly refuse to accept the necessary bankruptcy reorganization of their system, they have no other option than to supply the rope to hang themselves. The straightforward and urgent measures to prevent them hanging all of us with them, are the Glass-Steagall Act, and pushing the central banks aside by creating “Hamiltonian” national banks to issue productive credit for national purposes.

The Tipping Point

In his 2019 book, Hydrogen is the New Oil: How 7 Energy Battles Are Giving Birth to a Carbon-Free World, French energy expert Thierry Lepercq foretells that what happened to the subprimes is about to happen to the financial assets of the oil and gas sector:

In effect, the investments into subprimes, real estate loans made to people not really able to repay them, were all based on a single strong conviction: the U.S. real estate market, which never saw a low for generations, would never decline. Therefore, if somebody didn’t repay his subprime loan, the bank would evict the person and by selling the house, get more money back than ever invested.

However, when the real estate bubble fueled by the subprimes reached its tipping point in 2007, all the actors, banks, professionals, public authorities, were in a state of denial: “It cannot go down.” . . . In one instant, the markets shifted from confidence (based on denial) to panic, the effect of a thousand beating wings of a butterfly.

The author’s evaluation is that the Divest Oil Initiative, which encourages investors to sell shares and bonds of oil and gas companies, is gaining steam. At the end of 2018, already $6 trillion had left the sector.

Creative Commons 2.0

The heads of delegations to the UN Climate Change Conference, Paris (COP21), left to right: Enrique Peña Nieto, François Hollande, Angela Merkel, Michelle Bachelet.

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

Towards a ‘Minsky’ Climate Moment

It has to be noted in this context, that Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and his French counterpart François Villeroy de Galhau, former BNP Paribas investment banker now Governor of the Banque de France, have repeatedly called the world’s financial institutions to take into account the risk of a sharp and sudden drop in the value of financial assets challenged by energy transition.

According to the current Malthusian financial oligarchy, the estimated amount of losses of “stranded” assets, i.e., the fossil energy resources considered from now on as “non-exploitable” for reasons of carbon emissions and climate hysteria, is evaluated at $20 trillion since the historic speech of Mark Carney at the 2015 G20 summit in Belek, Turkey. At that time, Carney, who, besides being the Governor of the Bank of England, presided over the Bank for International Settlements’ Financial Stability Board and served a role in the crafting of the Preamble to the Paris COP21 Climate Summit Agreement, colorfully described the pending risk as a “Minsky climate moment,” a brutal crash of stranded fossil fuel-related assets.

Some insiders of the current financial system believe that such a “Minsky climate moment” represents the miraculous opportunity of a systemic breaking point eventually allowing them to save their failed financial interests via a green overhaul of the global financial system.

To such insiders, the decision is whether to wait for—or, even better, to cause the emergence of—the right time to sell, or even to short these assets that are considered intrinsically worthless, and to do so at what they hope will be their highest price before collapsing.

Profiles of the Green Finance Conspirators

The December 2015 Paris COP21 conference was a watershed for Green Finance policies. Although the recommendation to build a Green Finance system was already the essence of the famous 700-page report on the “economics of climate change” commissioned in 2006 by the British government and written by London School of Economics economist Nicholas Stern, it was at the Paris COP21 that for the first time Green Finance made its way into a final document.

In that framework, the following institutions, among others, were founded:

• The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), to convince and engage central banks and supervisors in policies to “green” world finances;

• The High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (HLEG) to draft EU policies;

• The Green Finance Institute (GFI), to make sure that the City of London maintains its hegemony over the “Greened” finance system.

The common purpose of those initiatives is to promote legislation that diverts financial flows from the “CO_2 economy” into a “CO_2-free economy.”

Network for Greening the Financial System

The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) was created at the COP21 by eight central banks and supervisors and now has 42 members and eight observers. Its stated purpose:

To help strengthen the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments in the broader context of environmentally sustainable development.

What distinguishes the NGFS from the other Green Finance institutions is the “manage risks” function proper to supervisors and central banks. Being aware of the fact that a massive shift from CO_2-connected assets to CO_2-neutral assets can provoke a deadly shock to the financial system (the “Minsky climate moment”), the task is to price that risk and build reserves—or their equivalent.

Its mastermind appears to be Bank of England Governor Mark Carney. Its steering committee is heavily populated by Northern European institutions: Bank of England, Banque de France, Bundesbank, Nederlandsche Bank, and the Swedish FSA. The Bank al-Maghrib, Banco de México, Monetary Authority of Singapore, and the People’s Bank of China are also members of the steering committee.

CC4.0/ Denis Morin

François Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Banque de France.

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

Its website and administrative HQ is hosted by the Banque de France in Paris following Carney’s full backing of François Villeroy de Galhau, a former executive of BNP Paribas and currently Governor of the Banque de France.

On April 17, 2019, the NGFS presented its latest report, “A call for comprehensive action.” At the presentation event at the Banque de France, Villeroy de Galhau had the following to say:

Climate change is real; it is global and irreversible. Even if policymakers bear the primary responsibility, we need all hands on deck to tackle climate change, as demonstrated today with this wide audience. Indeed, “preventing the airplane from crashing” remains a continuous endeavor, which is now undertaken by many more institutions every day. In mainstreaming sustainable finance, finance cannot replace policymakers, but finance can help. And as a central banker and supervisor, the Banque de France is determined to help. Last year, in Amsterdam, I even said that this challenge is our “new frontier.” This is why we initiated the Network of central banks and supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), during the One Planet Summit on December 2017. And, in 16 months, our club of the willing has increased almost fivefold, from 8 founding members to over 40 members and observers with its Chair Frank Elderson [official of the Dutch Central Bank and member of the Supervisory Council of the European Central Bank] and the Banque de France as Secretariat. We are now represented on the five continents; NGFS members’ jurisdictions cover 44% of global GDP and 45% of greenhouse gas emissions. We collectively supervise two-thirds of systemic financial institutions, banks and insurers alike. What appears obvious to most of us today was not previously set in stone.

The report recommends four actions:

First, integrate the monitoring of climate-related financial risks into day-to-day supervisory work, financial stability monitoring and board risk management. Supervisors are encouraged to set expectations to ensure financial firms are adequately addressing the financial risks from climate change, including by conducting scenario analysis to assess their strategic resilience to climate change policy. Firms are encouraged to take a long-term, strategic approach to the consideration of these risks, and to embed them into their business-as-usual governance and risk-management frameworks.

Second, lead by example. Central banks are encouraged to integrate sustainability into their own portfolio management.

Third, collaborate to bridge the data gaps to enhance the assessment of climate-related risks. Public authorities should share and if possible, make publicly available any climate-risk data.

Fourth, build in-house capacity and share knowledge with other stakeholders on management of climate-related financial risks. An important element to achieving effective consideration of climate risks across the financial system is to support internal and external collaboration.

Composition of the High Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, founded December 2016

Expert | Title | Organisation | Stakeholder group

BECKER, Julie | Member of Executive Committee | Luxembourg Stock Exchange | Finance

(stock exchange)

BILLING, Magnus | CEO | ALECTA | Finance

(pension fund)

CANFIN, Pascal | CEO | WWF France | Civil society

DUPRE, Stan | CEO | 2° Investment Initiative | Civil society

FISHER, Paul | Senior Associate | University of Cambridge | Academic

GROSZEK, Mieczyslaw | Vice President | Polish Bank Association | Finance

(banks)

HARRIS, David | Head Sustainable Business and Director of ESG | London Stock Exchange Group | Finance

(stock exchange)

HOLMES, Ingrid | Director | E3G | Civil society

HUSSON-TRAORE, Anne-Catherine | CEO | NOVETHIC | Research

KIDNEY, Sean | CEO | Climate Bonds Initiative | Civil society

KIVISAARI, Esko | Deputy Managing Director | Federation of Finnish Financial Services | Finance

KRUSE, Claudia | Managing Director, Global Responsible Investment and Governance | APG Asset Management | Finance

(asset manager)

MATTISON, Richard | CEO | TRUCOST (S&P Global) | Finance

(ratings/analytics)

McCarthy, Arlene | Special Advisor to the Chairman, Bloomberg | AMC Strategy | Finance

(data/analytics)

MICILOTTA, Flavia | Executive Director | EUROSIF | Civil society

SCHMIDT, Michael | Board Member | DEKA Investment | Finance

(asset manager)

THIMANN, Christian (Chairperson) | Group Head of Regulation, Sustainability and Insurance Foresight | AXA | Finance

(insurance)

VANDER STICHELE, Myriam | Senior Researcher | SOMO | Civil society (Research)

WAYGOOD, Steve | Chief Responsible Investment Officer | AVIVA investors | Finance

(insurance)

ZAOUATI, Philippe | CEO | MIROVA | Finance

(asset manager)

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

The High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance

The High Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Sustainable Finance was created in 2016 and drafted what has become the Commission Action Plan, approved by the EU Council in February 2019.

Founder of the HLEG is Christian Thimann, Chairman of the Management Board at Athora Insurance Holding Germany, and former senior AXA manager, long-time advisor to the EU Commission and the ECB. Thimann, who teaches at the Paris School of Economics, boasts of having drafted the infamous EU Fiscal Compact together with Olivier Guersant, Director-General of the EU’s General Directorate on Financial Stability and Capital Markets (DG FISMA), who later founded the HLEG with Thimann and EU Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis.

In a speech at the House of Finance at Goethe University in Frankfurt on July 27, 2019, Thimann said:

If you read the [COP21] Agreement suddenly in Article 2, the financial sector is mentioned. It was an issue for ecologists, industrialists, and scientists. And suddenly in the 21st session [i.e., COP21] you have a remarkable sentence about finance. It says the following: “The climate targets will only be achieved, if we start to reorient capital flows towards a low emission world. . . .”

This is now a process that is going on, where the European Commission is asking experts from the private sector: Can you please tell us, how we would do that. . .? And this is the program that the commission has been working on for two years, which is now being cast into law.

Thimann went on to praise Greta Thunberg’s FridaysForFuture and Extinction Rebellion (XR) movements, saying:

And then come the political lessons, when 12 million young people come into the streets and suddenly you have this big topic going.

In a March 13, 2019 article, Thimann recounted the “inside story” of how the HLEG came to life and how it drafted the EU Action Plan. In only three years of work, the HLEG has lobbied all EU institutions, committees and subcommittees, held a consultation with financial institutions and issued a final report in January 2018. But,

Before we had published our final report, we had in a sense achieved our goal: to make sustainable finance a permanent part of Europe’s approach to governing capital. Two months later, the Commission released its own action plan, with a striking correspondence between our core recommendations and its proposals for hard policy and regulatory action. Now one year on, the intensity of EU action on sustainable finance is truly impressive, whether on developing a common taxonomy, introducing new labels and standards, incorporating sustainability into investment advice, integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) into credit ratings, clarifying investor duties, upgrading prudential regulation, or strengthening disclosure and corporate governance. At the end of February 2019, the EU approved the first legislative action under the Action Plan focusing on investment benchmarks.

Green Finance Initiative

The Green Finance Initiative (GFI) was created in London in 2018 to make sure that the City of London remains in control of the “greened” financial system.

On its web page, GFI states:

The City of London Corporation—the body responsible for running London’s Square Mile—regards green finance as prudent, profitable and one of the best tools available in the race to cut carbon. That’s why, in January 2016, we launched our Green Finance Initiative in partnership with government.

The initiative brings together international expertise from across the financial and professional services sector. It aims to:

• Provide public and market leadership on green finance;

• Advocate for specific regulatory and policy proposals that might enhance the green finance sector worldwide;

• Promote London and the UK as a leading global centre for the provision of green financial and professional services.

The GFI’s chairman is Sir Roger Gifford, a British banker whose connections to Sweden raise questions about the network that controls Fridays4Future’s Greta Thunberg. (Also take note of the fact that one of the primary controllers of the pathetic Thunberg is Professor Kevin Anderson, a leading climate fanatic in the UK, who predicts that only an elite of one-half billion people will survive the coming global warming disaster.)

Gifford is UK head of branch of Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken, the Swedish SEB bank, which does some financing for IKEA, whose Daniela Rogosic, their global PR director, is on the Advisory Board of Greta promoter Ingmar Rentzhog’s “We Don’t Have Time” platform. Gifford is also head of the British-Swedish Chamber of Commerce.

The GFI was publicly launched during the Climate Action Week last July in London. Presenting the new institute, initially funded by the UK Treasury and the City, former Barclays banker and GFI CEO Rhian-Mari Thomas explained the GFI mission:

“To accelerate the domestic and global transition to a zero carbon and climate resilient economy through mobilizing capital.” The main focus of the GFI will be to build “capacities and financial products to finance resilient [green] infrastructure” globally, “financing sustainable commodity production across the supply chain,” and “enforcing leading financial institutions to co-create the revenue-generating and profitable solutions with business, with policy makers.”

In other words, the financial “industry” will “produce” new securities and derivative “instruments” to draw liquidity issued by central banks. A portion of those securities will be even purchased by the ECB in its next asset purchase program.

The launch of the GFI during the Climate Action Week shows how the financial institutions, the media, the corrupt political elite and the XR battering ram act in a coordinated way to achieve their aims.

One month earlier, The Extinction Rebellion (XR) movement had scored its first success in the United Kingdom, where the House of Commons adopted its demand of declaring a Climate Emergency on May 1. The motion for a Climate Emergency was introduced by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The Sustainable Finance Working Group

The Sustainable Finance Working Group (SFWG) is the “private counterpart” to the work of the Central Banks and Supervisors’ Network for Greening the Financial System. Established in 2018 by the Institute of International Finance (IIF), the global association of financial institutions, the IIF has co-authored all decisions to bail out and “reform” the financial system since 2008, including the introduction of the infamous “bail-in” procedures. One could actually say that the financial industry represented by the IIF and the system of central banks is one and the same thing, as proven by their officials going through revolving doors in both directions. Indeed, current chairman of the IIF is Axel Weber, former head of the Bundesbank.

On its website, the SFWG states its aim:

To bring together key stakeholders to identify and promote capital markets solutions that support the development and growth of sustainable finance. The SFWG includes representatives from global banks, major institutional investors, credit ratings agencies, consultancies and other interested parties, as well as public sector collaborators such as the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), World Bank/IFC and many more.

The IIF Sustainable Finance Working Group is chaired by Daniel Klier, Group Head of Strategy and Global Head of Sustainable Finance for HSBC (formerly the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp.) The SFWG has four subgroups, which cover a range of themes including:

• Engagement with Regulators and Policymakers (including the Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System);

• Disclosure and Data (including the work of the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures);

• Taxonomy and Impact Investment (defining and scaling up sustainable finance); and

• Climate Economics (understanding the impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks for the global economy and financial stability).

The SFWG boasts:

IIF member firms around the world have been launching a wealth of new products, investment vehicles and programs to help bring sustainability considerations into the mainstream of global finance. Our job is to help connect these initiatives and align forces with public sector efforts to reach the same vitally important goals.

SFWG’s Chair Daniel Klier comes from HSBC, one among the top speculative megabanks in the world. HSBC’s derivatives book expanded 15% in the first six months of 2019, with gross derivatives notional value standing at $39 trillion at the end of June.

In a letter to the European Commission dated March 25, 2019, the IIF recommends that the Taxonomy scheme being worked out at the Commission leaves no option to companies but to engage in the Green economy. The perspective it gives for manufacturing companies and farms is: either you go green or you die.

The letter is signed by Sonja Gibbs, IIF Managing Director and Head of Sustainable Finance and Global Policy Initiatives. Gibbs is a co-author of report dated Sept. 12, 2019, with a self-betraying title: “Sustainable Finance in Focus: Green Is the New Gold.” The authors gloat about the growth of the green bubble, which “came close to $235 billion in the first eight months of 2019,” and is expected to reach $350 billion in 2019. A chart shows that returns on so-called green bonds have been higher than Investment grade bonds: 14.8% vs. 13.8% cumulatively, 2017 to date.

However, the green bond market is still miniscule: 0.5% of the $110 trillion global bond market. The IIF suggests a few measures to promote its expansion, including providing more liquidity and the “further development of a green high-yield bond market, as well as green securitization and green lending markets.”

High-yield is a synonym for junk bonds. Securitization allows spreading the risk across the global system. This is repeating the same failed recipes over and over again in the hope that they will work.

Green New Deal

The Worst Infrastructure Plan Is Also the Most Expensive

The cost of building solar power infrastructure—solar panels and photovoltaic cells—has been reduced further in China than in any other country. There, what are sensibly called “rooftop solar” installations are paid no more when they sell power to the city grids, than they are charged when they have to buy power because the sun is not shining. Thus, since May of 2019, no subsidies have been paid out.

But this does not make solar a baseload power source. The users rely on a local or regional grid that is powered by baseline power sources, most often coal- or gas-powered plants. The energy efficiency is low; the power density is, comparatively, even lower. Nor does this exchange price between “rooftop solar” and the grid express the actual costs of solar power; solar power is still dependent on a publicly-financed power grid. Anyone talking about “going off the grid” is speaking only of the smallest installations on a house or shed, and relying on expensive batteries to store enough power for that micro-installation.

When it comes to what are called in China “solar plants,” which are intended to provide power to a commercial enterprise like a warehouse or a computer center, the state subsidy definitely remains in place even in the power exchange; and the uncounted costs are much higher. The solar panels are not placed on the roof of the building, but in a “solar farm” more or less distant from the commercial facility, and additional elements of the electric grid are needed to step up, transport, and step down the electric power.

Far more important: Solar and wind power are completely inadequate to greater human enterprises because of their very low and varying (intermittent) power density. Can anyone imagine launching into space on a solar-powered rocket? Riding a magnetic levitation railroad powered by wind turbines?

Since 2006, massive programs to build solar and wind farms and new electric grids to link them, have always been accompanied with proposed heavy new taxes, sometimes on “the wealthy,” but always on “carbon”—that is, coal and oil production, blast furnace steel production, gasoline and internal combustion engines, etc.

Creative Commons 2.0/Becker1999

Green New Deal rally in Detroit, July 2019.

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

This began with the “Global Green Party,” including the U.S. Green Party, in 2006, inspired by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); then the British “Green New Deal Group” in 2008; and most influentially, the United Nations Environmental Programme’s Green New Deal proposal that same year.

In the United States this idea of a heavy carbon tax for “green” spending is being pushed by the senior figures of the Wall Street establishment: George Shultz, James Baker III, and Michael Bloomberg.

The “Baker-Shultz carbon tax” of $40/ton rising to $65/ton is being promoted personally by these figures into Congress and the financial and business community, avoiding demonstrations and publicity. Acting in parallel is the biggest and most powerful investment fund on Wall Street, BlackRock LLP, as already detailed above.

Multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg is more the activist, having considered a 2020 presidential campaign as a green new deal Democrat. Bloomberg’s green-infrastructure colleague Arnold Schwarzenegger, under sponsorship by the British Rothschilds and the royal family, had publicly toyed with the same idea in 2008, despite not being U.S.-born. Bloomberg gives green grants through his foundation, including one, for the “greening” of Georgetown, Texas, which wrought such misfortunes that the city of 70,000 has demonstratively given it back.

As in that misguided example, the basis of the Green New Deal has always been the same since 2006:

• Shut down electricity production by coal, oil, nuclear power, and to a great extent by hydroelectric power;

• Replace it all, somehow, by solar and wind farms and geothermal energy schemes;

• Build new electricity grids to transfer this power from the desert, mountain, and rural plains areas where it will be generated.

Advocates of such a scheme must deal with the uncomfortable fact that the intermittent power sources they propose must be backed up by “spinning reserve power” produced with natural gas—a fossil fuel—all the while promising that breakthroughs in “energy storage”—huge batteries—will, someday, replace the natural gas turbines.

They do not hide the fact that they plan to spend immense funds carrying out their scheme.

Now, with the Green New Deal resolution/legislation put into Congress at the start of its current session in January 2019 by Sens. Ed Markey and Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, another order of magnitude has been added to the spending: simply printing money.

Funding would come primarily from certain public agencies, including the U.S. Federal Reserve and a new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks.

More than 40 Democrats in Congress endorsed this resolution, with some sleight-of-hand about imitating the German Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), the Franklin Roosevelt era Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) or the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

The Democrats now insist that any “infrastructure” legislation has to claim a connection to the KfW, which has become Germany’s largest lender to “green” solar and wind projects. But unlike the KfW or the AIIB, the Federal Reserve issues currency, i.e., prints money. That gives you an idea that the immense planned expenditures for a “Green New Deal” are now going far beyond a carbon tax alone.

Creative Commons 2.0

Democratic Party presidential hopefuls all endorse the Green New Deal. A campaign rally in Detroit, Michigan on August 1, 2009.

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

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal, the latest one, specifies throwing $16.3 trillion in public funds alone into the green pot, in the decade to Jan. 1, 2030, by which time the United States economy and households are supposed to be using exclusively solar, wind, and geothermal electricity.

Suffice to say that $8 trillion is the highest estimate any expert has made, of the investment needed to build new high-technology platforms of U.S. economic infrastructure as a whole—redeveloping ports, replacing old lock-and-dam systems, building protective sea gates and seawalls against destructive storms, electrifying intercity and urban rail corridors, new water management and water purification and desalination projects, etc., and to add a great deal of highly efficient nuclear baseload power to the electricity grid for economic expansion.

Why is it that part of Sanders’ Green New Deal, demands putting twice that much into what is best called an attempted “re-electrification” of the power grid with solar and wind power, and an intention to replace fossil-fuel road driving and structural heating with electric cars, trucks and buildings? The Sanders proposals don’t even consider electrifying the existing rail system, much less expanding and improving it.

The partial answer is that solar and wind technologies are far below nuclear or even coal, in energy efficiency, power density, reliability, and useful life. Solar and wind require new energy storage systems of huge batteries—$850 billion, says Sanders. They will require a new electric grid, because they are generated at such great distances from the centers of industry and urban life—another $560 billion, says the Senator. Plus some $1.65 trillion to build the massive solar and wind farms themselves, gobbling up hundreds of times more space than nuclear plants producing—reliably and constantly—the same electrical power.

The Green New Deal says:

The New Deal provided inexpensive electricity to America through efforts like the Rural Electrification Administration and the Federal Power Marketing Administrations. If the federal government was able to electrify America under FDR without computers or any of the modern technologies we have available to us today, think of what we can do today.

As if computers produced electricity rather than consuming it! The New Deal electrification was actually based, above all, on the creation of great new electric generation capacity with hydropower, then a more efficient electricity technology than steam from coal or oil, and one which used ongoing technological breakthroughs in dam design and construction. This was a technological step forward; solar and wind power are leaps backward.

In fact, Sen. Sanders’ $16.3 trillion appears to be a public funds underestimate. A group of academics at Stanford University, led by Environmental Engineering Prof. Mark Jacobson, published “road maps” for all 50 states to reach a so-called “zero-emissions economy”—in their planning, by 2035 rather than Sanders’ 2030—and they say it will take $25-30 trillion! That’s 3-4 times the highest estimate yet made by sane experts for a complete high-technology rebuilding of America’s economic infrastructure. Jacobson’s team includes Dr. Jonathan G. Koomey of Stanford, who works out of George Shultz’s Rocky Mountain Institute; and Prof. Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts, who runs a “green energy” company which would greatly benefit, and has worked for the United Nations and—for the Sanders Institute of Senator Bernie.

III. A Community of Principle Among Nations

PETITION

The Idiocy of McCarthyite Attack on Chinese Scientists and Students

Creative Commons 2.0/Lars Ploughmann

Magnetic levitation train in Shanghai.

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

Sept. 19—The following petition is titled, “Who Owns the Principle of Gravity? Deporting and Spying on Chinese Scientists and Students Will Not Make Us Smarter, Healthier or Safer.” The petition, which demands an immediate end to the vilification and persecution of Chinese and Chinese-American researchers and students, is being circulated by LaRouche PAC and the Schiller Institute.

On April 26, 2019, FBI Director Christopher Wray gave an address to the Council on Foreign Relations in which he made the astonishing claim that “no country poses a broader, more severe intelligence collection threat than China.” He explained:

China has pioneered a societal approach to stealing innovation any way it can, from a wide array of businesses, universities, and organizations. They’re doing this through Chinese intelligence services, through state-owned enterprises, through ostensibly private companies, through graduate students and researchers, and through a variety of actors working on behalf of China.

During his 2018 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wray put it this way:

One of the things we’re trying to do is view the China threat as not just a whole-of-government threat, but a whole-of-society threat on their end. . . . And I think it’s going to take a whole-of-society response by us.

The above two quotes are not from a paranoid intelligence officer from the movie Dr. Strangelove, although they sound like it. Hopefully the removal of John Bolton from his post as National Security Advisor will prove to be a step toward sanity in U.S.-China relations, but the danger to world affairs is too great to merely “hope” for a change. The anti-China fear-mongering must stop now.

After the firing of several top Chinese-American scientists, and the deportation of several Chinese post-doctoral students who were working on curing cancer and Huntington’s disease, as well as the denial of visas to Chinese students trying to return for the new semester at several American universities, the FBI is demanding that university presidents, deans and professors assist in this McCarthyite witch hunt by carefully monitoring—i.e., spying on—the Chinese and Chinese-American students in their institutions, especially if the students are studying science, mathematics, IT or anything else with possible military applications.

Has China actually expressed an intent to destroy the United States? Or is it merely that some consider the development of China to be a threat to the United States? Is the threat actually the development of China, or is it the lack of development of the United States?

If a researcher discovers an effective treatment for a deadly disease, wouldn’t it be important to have a dialogue about how best to make this treatment available to those who are suffering, with appropriate patent laws and regulations, as opposed to taking action to halt the dialogue and shut down the research? Today, scientific research and journals are, by nature, international. Many research projects involve teams working in the West and in China, publishing papers together, on two continents. The actions of the FBI and related branches of government to persecute Chinese scientists in the U.S. is nothing less than an assault on science itself.

What about the discovery of a universal principle, like gravity? If China makes the same discovery as an American researcher, or if a Chinese scientist observes an American experiment and tries to replicate it in China, has the principle been “stolen”? Does it no longer exist here because it also exists there? The great Hungarian-American physicist Dr. Edward Teller warned in a September 1987 interview with The Scientist:

Exaggerated secrecy will drive away the best people. It is where secrecy gets married to bureaucracy, to doctrine—that is where secrecy does most of its harm.

If we in the United States fail to act on a discovery of principle, by neglecting to put it into practice—as was the case with mag-lev rail, which was developed at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, but never built in the United States—is that the fault of the Chinese?

It is true that China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty in the last 30 years, while deaths from poverty-related diseases have increased dramatically over the same time period in the United States. It is also true that China has landed on the far side of the Moon and sprouted seeds there. China has doubled its budget for fusion research, while in the United States, fusion research has been starved nearly to death for lack of funding.

CLEP

China’s Yutu-2 rover rolls from the Chang’e-4 lander on the far side of the Moon.

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

These developments are not an attack by China on the United States, nor is it China which has prevented us from making desperately needed repairs to basic infrastructure, or investing needed funds in the space program, medical research or other scientific endeavors. This has been the policy of the elected government of the United States for the past 50 years, which is only now beginning to change with the announcement of the Artemis Program for a manned landing on the Moon in 2024.

The stifling of cooperation and dialogue among scientists trying to solve the same problems, especially from varying perspectives, is akin to putting an iron rod through the spokes of the wheels of human progress.

As demonstrated by Socrates, Plato, and Confucius centuries ago, the pathway to true knowledge is through dialogue and free exchange of ideas. Obviously, there will be specific areas of military application that may need to be classified for a period of time. But exploring our Solar System and galaxy, and curing devastating diseases, such as cancer, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s, are endeavors for the benefit of humankind as a whole. If Americans are not allowed to collaborate with the Chinese in these scientific endeavors, the Chinese will go elsewhere, as they are already doing with their space program.

Open and collaborative international cooperation promotes the self-interest, properly defined, of all people and all nations.

Win- Win Cooperation Between Eurasia & France for a New Economic Paradigm

by Jacques Cheminade

EIRNS/Pat Holzer

From left, Antonio Galloni, Italian economist; Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President of the Schiller Institute; Jacques Cheminade, and Odile Mojon of the French Solidarité & Progrès Party, at the 2019 Euro-Asia Economic Forum’s Think-Tank Meeting, in Xi’an, China.

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

Jacques Cheminade is the President of the French political party, Solidarité & Progrès. This is the edited transcript of his presentation to the 2019 Euro-Asia Economic Forum, Think-Tank Meeting, which took place in historic Xi’an, China, bringing together over 1,000 people, representing more than 58 nations from Europe and Asia, for two days of presentations and discussion, September 10-11. Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote to the Forum’s Think-Tank Meeting appears in the September 20, 2019 issue of EIR.

Historically, many philosophers, politicians, economists and, more generally, humanists have tried to create an organized architecture of cooperation among Europe, Eurasia and China. All were inspired by the need to share the best of their cultures for a common development, to inspire creativity and innovation along the way as the necessary basis for world peace. We owe it to all of them from the past—and let me mention here Leibniz’s 17th-century Novissima sinica—to accomplish their dreams. At the same time, with the same impulse, we owe it to the coming generations of our respective countries to take up this humanist challenge for a much better future.

We all know that we have reached a point of great emergency, with a world financial system doomed to crash, if it does not change, and the surge of trade and technology wars threatening to degenerate into cold and even possibly nuclear wars, if nothing crucial is undertaken to prevent them. In that dramatic context, it is undeniable that the only worldwide project which promotes cooperation and exchanges among the main civilizations, both concrete and forward looking, is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This Silk Road Economic Belt is now interfaced with the Eurasian Economic Union project. This represents a group of more than a 150 countries and organizations in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas.

www.elysee

French President Emmanuel Macron in Xi’an, China, January 8, 2018.

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

There are more and more voices in Western Europe which have begun to understand that it is obviously the alternative to a failed Western financial system. Our future, as President Xi Jinping has expressed it so many times, is that of a win-win new order based on inclusivity, connectivity and interactivity. French President Emmanuel Macron, in his recent speech to the French ambassadors, recognized that the world has changed, and a new, audacious spirit has to prevail in relations among nations. When he was in Xi’an, here, at the beginning of January 2018, he called for “a fair multilateralism” and stressed that “the New Silk Road reactivates the concept of civilization in the domain of the imagination, a concept to be shared.”

If we want such declarations to go beyond the level of words, we have to take bold initiatives, concretely and immediately. I would like China and Europe, China and France, to work together in all areas of technological innovation at a faster pace. I would like all European countries to understand that the Chinese Thirteenth Plan and the vision of Made in China 2025 are in our common interest.

The Advantage of the Other

To transform China into a global manufacturing leader, to become a high-end producer of goods and “a major world power in scientific and technological innovation by 2050,” should not be seen as some sort of undue competition but as a contribution to our common international development.

To say it bluntly, the present policy of the United States, which, towards China, unfortunately is more in the British imperial tradition, and the hypocritical behavior of the European Commission, rather obsessed by “rivalry” and not by cooperation, are exactly the opposite of what the world needs.

True, we need in Europe a common policy of investments that will define our future, but not in order to confront any other country. On the contrary, we need a common policy to create the conditions of “understanding, coexistence and cooperation,” as once defined by General de Gaulle, when he said in January 1964: “It is not excluded that China will become again, in the next century, what it was during so many centuries, the main power in the universe.” It is today.

ina.fr

President of France, Charles de Gaulle, June 27, 1958.

CC/Zewan

Montargis, France in 2003.

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

Concretely, this is understood in the French economic sector. Let me give you an example: I recently met the mayor of the small city of Montargis, south of Paris, to give him the Schiller Institute’s French-language report on the The New Silk Road, The World Land-Bridge, To End Geopolitics. He not only understood what we mean by a physical, human economy, for the common benefit of all, against geopolitics where the winner takes all, but he gave me an example of it. Montargis is launching the “University 3000 program” specializing in artificial intelligence to host Chinese students as early as next year.

This is all the more significant in that Montargis was one of the main centers where the Chinese students/workers gathered in France between 1919 and 1924, and it is there that Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yi, and many others launched the Chinese Communist Party. I was there on May 4, 2019—this year—for the hundredth anniversary of 1919.

When we in Europe think about China, we should understand that Chang’an, our Xi’an, was the first city in the world with 2 million inhabitants under the Tang dynasty, and that Kaifeng [one of the Eight Ancient Capitals of China], under the Song, had more than a million inhabitants.

We should also remember that your civilization gave us the invention of paper, matches, bells, compasses, ship wheels, mill wheels, noodles, and many other things, such as the use of coal and gunpowder. Our 12th and 15th century renaissances would not have taken place without China and the communications from China through the Arab world.

We also know that today’s China economic policy is inspired by the works of Friedrich List and of Alexander Hamilton, and in part by the school of French indicative planning. Unfortunately—for us Westerners and Europeans—these inspirations are better understood and implemented in China today than in our own countries. In working together with you, we need, therefore, to rediscover the roots of your attachment to the future, whereas we in Europe too often tend to lament every change.

This should be in our minds when we think of our areas of cooperation today. The dynamics have to be multilateral, in their various contributions, but under a community of principle inspired by the common interests of Humanity.

The spirit of the Treaty of Westphalia, as President Xi Jinping once said, which is to seek the advantage of the other, is absolutely compatible with the Confucian principle that what you do for the other should be directed by ren [benevolence], or, I may add, inspired by the tianxia system.

CC/Jagooah

End of the Airbus A320 assembly line in the factory in Tianjin, China, September 28, 2008.

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

Science & Industry, No Rogue Green Ideology

Let’s go now to concrete examples as, rightly so, China likes to do. In the long term, our cooperation is extremely significant in the aerospace and nuclear sectors.

I am happy that the Taishan I and II nuclear reactors are operational in China. The future areas of advanced cooperation are: (1) the construction of the nuclear reprocessing plant in China, a $23 billion project comparable in size to the Three Gorges Dam and a key project for both of us; (2) fusion power development, the energy of the future, with our Sino-French Fusion Energy Center; and (3) the fast neutron reactor. We hope that China will continue the development of the fast neutron dreactor, even while we French have stopped our fast-breeder nuclear reactor project, ASTRID (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration).

In the aeronautics sector, Airbus, Safran (for the engines) and Zodiac (for the inner equipment of the airplane), cooperate in the COMAC 919. Airbus’s only assembly line outside of Europe is in Tianjin. Our École nationale de l’aviation civile [ENAC, the French civil aviation university] annually trains more than 60 Chinese pilots in France, and the Institute of Sino-European Aviation Engineering trains more than 80 engineers per year.

In the space sector, we have, as a joint project, two relatively small satellites, CFOSAT and SVOM, which study gamma rays produced by supernovas at the end of their lives.

But we should do much more and much better, unifying our cooperation in those sectors from top down and from bottom up, sponsoring a network of European small and medium-sized enterprises in China to create a spirit of win-win friendly cooperation around the main projects.

Among our other domains of excellence is the public health system, and in this area, the Pasteur Institute is cooperating with Chinese institutions to develop geriatric and environmental medicine.

We also have very interesting areas of cooperation which started quite well but should develop more, in the areas of smart and environmentally sound cities, treatment of toxic and industrial waste, and water distribution. Here I have something to say. It is mandatory to master and to clean the environment, in order to create the conditions for better industrial development. But this urgent matter should not be confused with a “green ideology” that promotes nature against human beings, considered as polluters or looters. The optimism of your culture should help us to get rid of the pessimistic attachment to a rogue green ecology, which is transforming our Western countries into an anti-science, Malthusian world outlook exploited by destructive financial interests.

I have not spoken of the automobile industry, because I think that it is in the process of becoming fully Chinese, or about our luxury goods produced in Europe, which may meet market demands but not secure the take-off of economies.

EIRNS/Pat Holzer

Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Jacques Cheminade in Xi’an, China, speaking at the Euro-Asia Economic Forum, in September, 2019.

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

We Need Impatient Patience

The two main areas of cooperation for the future are above all, Chinese investments in France and in all of Europe. First is port development: The great Paris-Rouen-Le Havre (HAROPA) project connects Paris, our capital, into a single integrated port oriented towards both Asia and Northern Europe. On the southern part of our continent, there are the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese ports of Genoa, Valencia, and Sina; to the north, Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Hamburg; and let us not forget Piraeus and Tangiers. Secondly, we are rediscovering in France, through economic necessity, which is also very important for China, what we call “territorial development,” (aménagement du territoire). It means bridging the welfare and economic development gaps between the countryside and the cities by distributing and managing resources more efficiently.

Finally, France and other European countries have a broad and promising area of cooperation with China in the development of African nations. President Macron declared here in Xi’an: “I express my wish for the commitment of China in Africa.” We have to overcome prejudices on many sides, but a fair and straightforward approach will remove those obstacles, the important needs of our partners being an open door for us all.

Let me end my presentation with this from Karl Marx, that labor gets hold of things and “resurrects them from the dead,” to which your governments have given Chinese and Confucian characteristics. Those, together with the Greek and Christian notion of agape¯, should lead our cooperation to enter a new paradigm, free from imperial designs and opening an Age of Reason.

To happen, it must include the contributions of the world’s main powers, China, Russia, India and the United States, for a new economic system, the New Bretton Woods conceived by Lyndon LaRouche, towards which the New Silk Road opens the way. To contribute to it, Europe has to awaken from its “sleep of reason,” because the sleep of reason generates monsters. Europe must become a positive factor, not a bystander harboring grudges, subject to imperial follies. And we all agree that to face the danger—the immediate danger before us all—requires a very impatient, cooperative patience.

Economist Galloni Speaks to Xi’an Forum on Italy’s Interest in the Belt and Road

by Antonino Galloni

CC/Vladislav Talaev

Antonio Serra, 16th century Italian philosopher and economist in the mercantilist tradition.

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

Italian economist and Schiller Institute adviser Antonino (“Nino”) Galloni spoke at the 2019 Euro-Asia Economic Forum in Xi’an, China on Sept. 12. His presentation, on Italy’s interest in cooperating with the Belt and Road Initiative, follows.

Italy is interested in all investment and cooperation initiatives that support development processes. Why? Because, selecting three different development situations, we are interested in all of them.

1. Africa in general, and countries with a high rate of demographic growth but low GDP growth, will be able to achieve a higher domestic economic growth [by] improving their domestic industries, substituting imports, upgrading infrastructure, and building efficient connections with Europe and the rest of the world. Those countries should export less raw materials and semi-finished products by creating productive capacity to fulfill their domestic demand and decrease exports produced by low-wage labor.

The first economist who spoke of this was the Italian Antonio Serra, a friend of the famous philosopher Tommaso Campanella at the end of the 16th century. Serra demonstrated to the Spanish Viceroy, that State wealth was not achieved by collecting gold or silver through taxes or selling raw materials, but by improving the industriousness of citizens, mainly by education. For his theory he was imprisoned without trial and died in jail. Less than two centuries after, the Bourbons picked up his theories and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies [the unified kingdoms of Naples and Sicily] became the richest and most powerful nation in the Mediterranean: Exports of raw materials were banned and domestic industries improved.

African and other countries requiring more development, have to abandon every form of colonialism and must improve their internal industries, substitute domestic manufactures for imports, and upgrade infrastructure to build efficient connections with Europe and the rest of the World. Sub-Saharan areas need more water, a goal that can be achieved with adequate technologies and initiatives like the Transaqua project.[fn_1]

The Transaqua Project

UNDP/Lamine Bal

Participants at a Conference in Berlin on peacebuilding and economic development in the Lake Chad Region, in September 2018.

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

2. Countries with older industrialization must develop immaterial productions without neglecting the importance of manufactures and energy, but understanding that less people can produce all the goods we need. Energy flux must be intensified, because containing it—in the false perspective of helping the environment—is a mistake, as Lyndon LaRouche taught us: Old technologies—inadequate to modern development—are among the causes of pollution. It is technological progress that allows the reduction of polluting agents per unit of production, not the contrary.

Most industrialized countries have gone through the post-industrial stage (with the growth of service sectors) and are now in the “post-capitalistic stage,” i.e., ever less employment in industries and services with increased need of caring activities (for people, the environment, maintenance of existing goods) where costs are higher than revenues.

3. Recently industrialized countries, like China, have correctly chosen to increase their domestic demand instead of their exports. More investments, especially in infrastructure, and the increase of wages and employment, are compatible with the increase of profits, but not with the increase of the rate of profit (as percentage of investment) which is the typical outlook of stock markets and financial investors. So, it is probable that a downward speculation begins to hit after the upward speculation. China has inaugurated the post-industrial stage that countries such as Italy have gone through during the period 1980-2010; but China’s development will be faster. . . . I think that it will complete the stage in around five years from now.

We have good reasons to think that emerging countries will intensify their thrust towards new international agreements such as Bretton Woods, even if not the same as those established 75 years ago.

[fn_1]. The Transaqua project is an idea developed by a team led by Marcello Vichi of the Italian engineering firm Bonifica, to replenish Lake Chad by collecting water in a navigable waterway running north to the lake from north-east tributaries of the Congo River in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic. This infrastructure project would also lead to hydroelectric power production and irrigation. The construction of this great project would provide productive jobs for millions of Africans, and lay the basis for further development of the region. At the International Lake Chad Conference, held in Abuja, Nigeria, Feb. 25-28, 2018, the Transaqua proposal was adopted by Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon, and the Central African Republic. During the Abuja conference, the Italian government responded by announcing an initial grant for a feasibility study. [back to text for fn_1]

EIR Releases Special Report

‘CO_2 Reduction’ Is a Mass Murder Policy

M. Besheer/VOA

Deluded youths gather Aug. 30, 3019, outside the United Nations in New York to demand action on global warming.

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

Sept. 22—EIR has released a Special Report titled, “‘CO_2 Reduction’ Is a Mass Murder Policy: Designed by Wall Street and the City of London.” The dossier, which includes Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s “International Call to Youth: The Age of Reason Is in the Stars!” is intended for mass publication and circulation to provide full exposure of the “green finance” mobilization of a virtual new Children’s Crusade in the service of drastic reduction of human population.

This report is being circulated by Executive Intelligence Review on the occasion of the 74th session of the UN General Assembly, which will be preceded by a Climate Summit convened by the Secretary General. This summit is supposedly being held to “address the climate emergency” and claims that this will “require an unprecedented effort from all sectors of society.”

This unprecedented effort, in order to reduce emissions of CO_2, would be not only costly, but deadly as well. The denial of efficient, affordable energy to a world in need would necessarily lead to the loss of millions of lives and the impoverishment of many millions more.

This is intentional.

Read this report to learn the dark story of the modern environmentalist movement. Come to understand why the world’s greatest financial powers are eagerly supporting climate hysteria. Encounter data refuting the supposed certainty of a world cataclysm facing us in a dozen years, and gain a fuller appreciation of the complexity of the Earth’s climate, in the context of the mechanisms of the solar system and beyond.

Most crucially, grasp the immense potential of the present moment.

We stand at the dawn of a new paradigm of relations among nations and peoples, in which win-win cooperation can replace—forever—the conflict that has characterized the succession of empires plaguing mankind, with the British Empire as its current incarnation.

By ending the imperial idea that growth and development should be prevented to maintain a static hierarchy of power (and a beastly image of mankind!), we can unleash the economic, scientific, and cultural growth that should characterize us as members of the most beautiful species on the planet—as human beings.

This unique potential is expressed in the opening article of this report, a press release written by Schiller Institute Founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche for use during international days of action held by the LaRouche movement and its friends everywhere—in Latin America, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, and in the United States.

The youth of the world must be rallied to see that climate-change madness is completely contrary to the true identity of man as a spacefaring species, which can, with space technology, solve any problem and overcome any limits.