Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 40, October 11, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL Joe Biden and Ukraine: A Corrupt, Dim-Witting Agent of Brit Intelligence? by Barbara Boyd and Dennis Speed

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 40, October 11, 2019

- I. The British Oligarchy’s Green Genocide

- IBERO-AMERICAN WEBCAST Climate Change or Creative Change: Mankind’s Next 50 Years in Space

- The Revolt of the Netherlands Against the Threat of Eco-Fascism by Karel Vereycken, founder of the Agora Erasmus website

- II. Man as a Galactic Species

- SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE Foreseeing a Galactic Human Species On ‘Observe the Moon Day’ by Paul Gallagher

- Schiller Institute ‘Moon Day’ in Houston

- NASA’s Greeting to1,500 Moon Day Events by Andrea Jones, 2019 Director of NASA’s “International Observe the Moon Night”

- Let’s Industrialize the Moon Now as a Base for Future Space Exploration by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. in 2009

- CONFERENCE KEYNOTE Space Travel Brings Out Our Identity As Creative Beings by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- Greetings from Russian Ambassador Antonov to the Schiller Institute Conference

- An Approach to U.S.-China Collaboration in Science by Dr. Xing Jijun

- The Best Way to Fusion Power: Go Back to the Moon by Dr. Aaron Olson

- III. LaRouche’s Science of Economic Development

- The Theory of the New World Economic Order by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1982)

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST As Psycho Regime Changers Go Wild, A Revolutionary Spirit Spreads Worldwide

- EDITORIAL For an Economic Renaissance of Humanity and the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche

Joe Biden and Ukraine:

A Corrupt, Dim-Witting Agent of Brit Intelligence?

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

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, Bahnstrasse 4, 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

Joe Biden and Ukraine: A Corrupt, Dim-Witting Agent of Brit Intelligence?

by Barbara Boyd and Dennis Speed

Gage Skidmore

Joseph Biden

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

Oct. 2—Although the Joe Biden 2020 Presidential campaign is now finished, as a result of the already-released and soon-to-be-released Ukraine revelations, it may very well drag on for several weeks before it has officially been declared dead. An accurate autopsy as to what the cause of death was, however, will not be submitted by the Fake News media to the American people, under any circumstances.

“This is pre-eminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly,” said President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in March 1933.

“As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP.” These are the words of Donald Trump, and this is increasingly becoming the inevitable conclusion (even before the Barr and other investigations are completed), which anyone that confronts the present crisis must consider—even the most perplexed.

Just as FDR faced a fascist bankers’ coup against his Presidency, in 1934, so Donald Trump faces one today in 2019, led by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, as well as by a treasonous faction of American intelligence now being deployed through the Former-Democratic Party’s campaign for impeachment of the President of the United States. It is through looking at the Presidential investigation of Ukraine, and of Joe Biden, that the ugly truth about the “bankers’ coup” is best revealed, at the moment.

Left: Gage Skidmore; right: White House/Peter da Souza

Left: Nancy Pelosi; right: President Barack Obama and his CIA Director John Brennan.

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

The President of the United States is committed, as his oath of office requires, to finding out the role foreigners played in the 2016 election meddling directed against him by the Obama White House and John Brennan’s CIA. The big question is whether the British were running the whole show of illegal surveillance and black propaganda against Trump centrally, or whether Obama and Brennan also farmed it out to other nations. This investigation threatens to pull the entire filthy Anglo-American intelligence apparatus down, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has recently described the intelligence community as “her wheelhouse.” Is Pelosi now the acting chairman of “the intelligence agency formerly known as the Democratic Party”?

Obama/Biden, Hillary Clinton, and their entourage used the awesome powers of “Five Eyes” surveillance and propaganda—called in the intelligence trade, “public diplomacy”—first to attempt to rig the 2016 election (which failed) and then to undermine Trump’s presidency. They then claimed that all of their illegal activities were committed in the service of chasing a plot by the Russians to “undermine the elections and blow up the world.” This 1950s-style “Russian plot” story was manufactured to prevent Trump from making peace with Russia, which is against the unnatural globalist “national interests” of Wall Street and the City of London financial district.

CC/Simon Dawson

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, organizing a “financial regime change.”

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

The City of London and Wall Street financial houses, which the intelligence mandarins serve, are on the edge of another blowout, bigger than 2007-08. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney called for “financial regime change” in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in late August. That means “take aim against the United States’ sovereign national credit system.” They know Donald Trump won’t tolerate that. Trump stated at the United Nations: “The future belongs not to the globalists. The future belongs to the patriots.”

The “Green New Deal” which these bankers—not the environmentalists—originated, is nothing but a return to “ecologism” and the zero population growth schemes of the 1930s European-style ecofascism. The Green New Deal is a design for new massive austerity and genocide to be imposed on Africa, Asia, and South America that is supposed to somehow appear to be a heroic defense of “mother nature.” The shutdown of fossil fuels is the only way, other than thermonuclear war, to reduce the population by billions in the short term. That is why Mark Carney, Michael Bloomberg, Christine Lagarde, and others want a supranational “green banker’s dictatorship.”

Trump, on the other hand, has proposed: space exploration to the Moon and Mars, to discover the higher laws that can power our “terrestrial” economy; reindustrialization of the United States on a modern infrastructure platform; and nation-state to nation-state treaties. Durable human survival requires rejecting totally the globalist framework that has been destroying the U.S. and increasing the risk of world war.

To stop this, the intelligence community, acting through House Speaker Pelosi and the zombie Congress, is attacking the U.S. Constitution itself in their bloodlust to take Trump out. They wish to treat the United States as they treated Chile in 1973, Guatemala in 1954, Iran in 1953, etc. They seek to ban Trump supporters’ speech, and that of others as well; they seek to destroy the President’s powers under Article II to conduct foreign policy; they seek to end the executive role of the President enshrined by our founders. They are involved, in the President’s words, in a full-scale coup d’état, to transform the United States into a British-style parliamentary system, preventing any effective role for the nation’s citizens in determining their future.

So, what are you, the American people, prepared to do about it? Before you make the potentially fatal mistake of deciding to “not get involved,” read on.

Biden, Obama, Hillary

Support Neo-Nazis in Ukraine

The Joe Biden scandal concerning Ukraine goes far, far beyond the millions of dollars awarded to Biden’s son, Hunter, for use of the Biden name on various dirty corporate boards in Ukraine and China. As of February 2014, Joe Biden was the U.S. point-man on the Ukraine coup atrocity. The 2014 Ukraine Maidan uprising was aimed at creating a violently anti-Russian, International Monetary Fund controlled regime on Russia’s border, thereby creating a hair-trigger for thermonuclear war. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton surpassed the most right-wing of neocons, working directly with known fascists for this purpose. An estimated $5.1 billion in U.S. taxpayers’ dollars was spent on this effort, which set the world on a march toward thermonuclear Armageddon.

CC

Andriy Parubiy, neo-Nazi Chairman of the Ukrainian parliament from 2016 to April 29, 2019.

YouTube

U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland with Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, feed violent anti-government protesters in Kiev in 2014.

CC/Mstyslav Chernov

Neo-Nazi torch-light marchers in Kiev on Jan. 1, 2014.

CC BY-SA 3.0

Masked demonstrators armed with shovels at the Maidan in 2014.

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

Donald Trump’s election and his promise to seek positive relations with Russia temporarily stopped the mad war drive. The shock troops used by Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland to pull off the coup against Ukraine’s duly elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, were certifiable neo-Nazis, supporters of the World War II Ukrainian butcher Stefan Bandera, who mass-murdered thousands of Poles and Jews. The full dossier on that Nazi coup in Ukraine was reported in a package of articles in the February 24, 2017 issue of EIR, pages 4-20. The Ukrainian-American network surrounding the Chalupa sisters that works with the Democratic National Committee, the Department of Justice, and the State Department to destroy Trump’s candidacy, also supports Bandera’s legacy.

Nazi Devils in the Details

Who were the Bidens’ friends in Ukraine?

“Papa” Joe made various forays to Ukraine to impose shock austerity on the population under terms dictated by the IMF. Biden personally assisted in the reshuffling of Ukraine’s oligarchs so that only those who were rabidly anti-Russian survived. Thousands of Ukrainians died at the result of the civil war in eastern Ukraine and IMF austerity in western Ukraine, while the looting of the economy by the oligarchs was protected by Joe and his friends.

Burisma Holdings, which hired Hunter Biden, is nominally owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, an oil and gas oligarch. It is actually owned, however, by a notorious Ukrainian gangster, Igor Kolomoisky. Kolomoisky had been a significant supporter of the new Ukraine President, Volodymyr Zelensky, despite Kolomoisky’s well-earned reputation as a fraudster, violent thug, and overall international crook. It is Kolomoisky who has provided the most substantial funding for the war in Eastern Ukraine and the Azov Battalion. Following Hunter Biden’s receipt of his Ukraine riches, Kolomoisky was removed from lists banning his travel to the U.S. and his notorious career was whitewashed, despite the fact that national and international financial agencies still viewed him as an entrenched crook. Hence, the President might have been referring to this when he questioned Zelensky in the infamous transcript as to whether the “same people” were around him as were involved in the corrupt dealings with Hunter Biden.

CC/Svetlana.pashko

Oil and gas oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky.

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

In June 2018, Michael Carpenter, Joe Biden’s chief sidekick in his Ukrainian perfidies, brought Andriy Parubiy, then the neo-Nazi speaker of Ukraine parliament, to meet with the U.S. Congress about lethal aid to Ukraine to continue the genocide in eastern Ukraine. When journalist Max Blumenthal confronted Carpenter with the fact that Parubiy had founded two neo-Nazi parties, the Social National Party and the Patriot of Ukraine Party, Carpenter said that Blumenthal was pitching “Russian propaganda.”

Papa Joe’s Ukraine activities have had devastating blowback worldwide, including in the United States. Four white nationalists who trained with the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, now part of Ukraine’s National Guard, participated in the August 11-12, 2017 Unite the Right white supremacist riots in Charlottesville, Virginia; and the Christchurch shooter in New Zealand, whose manifesto influenced recent mass shooters in the United States, also says he visited and trained with the Azov Battalion. William Jarrett Smith, the U.S. Army soldier recently arrested for plotting bomb attacks on American media outlets and Democratic Party politicians, was also an Azov trainee.

So, when Joe Biden opened his vacuous campaign for President with gauzy footage from Charlottesville, proclaiming himself the hero in a fight for America against what he claims Donald Trump represents, think about what you were bamboozled to think, and what was actually going on.

What You Can Do

Join us in stopping this coup right now. Find out if your congressman has joined the intelligence agency/bankers’ coup against the Presidency. Tell him or her to knock it off! Demand full disclosure of British and other foreign intelligence interference in the election of 2016, and the coming election of 2020.

This fraud cannot be allowed to continue with a financial crisis on the horizon. The nation needs to come together, now, behind a true program for economic recovery, a program found in Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws for Economic Recovery: Glass Steagall, to prevent a new bailout at citizen expense; a National Bank, to fund the huge infrastructure projects we need to get the country moving fully again; a renewal of the crash programs on the frontiers of science, such as fusion energy development and space exploration. We need an agreement with Russia, China, and India, now, for a new fixed exchange rate monetary system, and for joint development and scientific projects.

The redirection of the economy toward the production of capital goods, city-building, and modern industry, will ensure that wages and public services are at a level sufficient for family formation, for quality healthcare, and for an education that fosters human creativity—the actual driver of any economy. The warmongers, and those who conducted this insurrection against the President, need to be exposed and jailed.

Your Congressional Representative will be in his or her District over the next two weeks. Find your Representative and deliver this message. If he or she is holding meetings, go to the meetings and deliver this message. Share this with your friends, and organize them to act as any citizen would act with the nation itself at stake. Bring them with you to speak with your representative; commit them to this fight.

Remember: It is the American electoral process which decides who the President is—not treasonous factions of the intelligence community masquerading as elected officials.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 40, October 11, 2019

Cover This Week

CC/Ben Stanfield

Joe Biden (foreground) with his son Hunter and wife Jill.

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

JOE BIDEN AND UKRAINE:

A CORRUPT, DIM-WITTING AGENT OF BRITISH INTELLIGENCE?

2 EDITORIAL

Joe Biden and Ukraine: A Corrupt, Dim-Witting Agent of British Intelligence?

by Barbara Boyd

I. THE BRITISH OLIGARCHY’S GREEN GENOCIDE

7 IBERO-AMERICA WEBCAST

Climate Change or Creative Change: Mankind’s Next 50 Years in Space

by Benjamin Deniston

19 The Revolt of the Netherlands Against the Threat of Eco-Fascism

by Karel Vereycken

II. CONFERENCE: MAN AS A GALACTIC SPECIES

21 Foreseeing a Galactic Human Species on ‘Observe the Moon Day’

by Paul Gallagher

25 ‘Moon Day’ in Houston

26 NASA’s Greeting to 1,500 Moon Day Events

by Andrea Jones

26 Let’s Industrialize the Moon Now as a Base for Future Space Exploration

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Video excerpts

December 3, 2009

28 Space Travel Brings Out Our Identity as Creative Beings

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

34 Greetings from Russian Ambassador Anatoly I. Antonov

34 An Approach to U.S.-China Collaboration in Science

by Dr. Xing Jijun

39 The Best Way to Fusion: Go Back to the Moon

by Dr. Aaron Olson

III. LAROUCHE’S SCIENCE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

40 The Theory of the New World Economic Order

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

October 1982

49 SCHILLER INSTITUTE WEBCAST

As Psycho Regime Changers Go Wild, a Revolutionary Spirit Spreads Worldwide

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

56 For an Economic Renaissance of Humanity and the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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. The British Oligarchy’s Green Genocide

IBERO-AMERICAN WEBCAST

Climate Change or Creative Change: Mankind’s Next 50 Years in Space

EIRNS

Benjamin Deniston (left) with Dennis Small translating, conducting the Spanish-language webcast to Ibero-America.

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

This is the edited transcript of a Spanish-language webcast conducted September 26, 2019 by LaRouche Science Team member Benjamin Deniston. More than 200 people—over half of whom were students—were gathered in four locations: Mexico City; Hermosillo and Querétaro in Mexico; and Buenos Aires, Argentina. An excerpt of the lively Q&A session follows the presentation.

I’m very excited to be speaking to all of you—connecting our continents of the Americas today. We are witnessing a number of very important global developments going on in the world: We’ve had this crazy UN Climate Action Summit occurring; for weeks and months there’s been a building concern and recognition of the financial crisis; and just in the last few days, we see the moves threatening to impeach a democratically elected President Trump in the United States.

I want to emphasize that these are all components of one global strategic picture. The question is, what is the underlying issue? What is the single, unifying thread covering the whole global situation today? I would posit that the key question is: Will the world in the immediate future be governed by an oligarchical imperial system, or will the world be governed under a fair, humanist system. Confronted with that choice, it is critical to ask: “What are the corresponding conceptions of the nature of mankind, of the human species, which are connected to those two juxtaposed options for the world today?

EIRNS

The audience in Mexico City.

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

In that context, let’s go directly to Lyndon LaRouche’s unique notion of the space program. LaRouche’s conception for a Moon-Mars space colonization policy is indispensable today. This is a policy that he has supported for many decades. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has several times put a strong focus on Mr. LaRouche’s 1984 document, “The LaRouche Doctrine: Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.” This was a proposal to end the Cold War, to create a situation of peace on the planet. Mr. LaRouche’s unique insights into how to actually create a stable, durable peace are just as relevant today as they were in the 1980s. I want to read a few short quotes from this document:

The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b) Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all.

And, a bit later:

The powers jointly agree upon the adoption of two tasks as the common interest of mankind, as well as the specific interest of each of the two powers: 1) The establishment of full economic equity respecting the conditions of individual life in all nations of this planet during a period of not more than 50 years; 2) Man’s exploration and colonization of nearby space as the continuing common objective and interest of mankind during and beyond the completion of the first task. The adoption of these two working-goals as the common task and respective interest in common of the two powers and other cooperating nations, constitutes the central point of reference for erosion of the potential political and economic causes of warfare between the powers.

I reference this because LaRouche defined decades ago the needed framework to not simply stop possible war, but to create what he called durable peace—where you could have years, decades, generations into the future, a security guaranteeing you won’t have the outbreak of war. The key to that is not simply a negative opposition to war and conflict, but a positive conception of what all mankind needs in terms of open-ended technological and scientific progress—missions that will bring together the entire global community in joint pursuit of scientific discovery, technological progress, and the application of these developments to increasing the global productive powers of labor, improving the global economy, and improving the conditions of life of all people. This is the necessary prerequisite for any sustained peace on the planet.

Although Mr. LaRouche’s document was written in the context of the Cold War many decades ago, the core principles, the core ideas, are absolutely valid today. If we are going to create a situation of cooperation among the United States, Russia, China, Europe, all nations of the planet, it has to be premised on the positive future of mankind—typified by the Moon-Mars colonization space program.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche addressing a conference on ballistic missile defense in Washington, D.C. on April 13, 1983.

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

Beyond the SDI: the Moon-Mars Mission

Mr. LaRouche described his policy for the Strategic Defense Initiative, and how this grew into and became his idea of the space program in a speech he gave to a Schiller Institute conference on September 2, 2000. A video, released under the title, The Secret of the SDI and Space, with excerpts of that speech, is available here.

In that speech he said,

Lyndon LaRouche [video]: What we have to do is something completely different. We do have the ability to devise systems, new kinds of physical systems, which could deal effectively with thermonuclear missiles—that is, render them effectively, technologically obsolete, down the line. But that was not the extent of my proposal. The proposal was that, instead of having the Soviet Union and the United States engage in this crazy chicken game, called SALT I and ABM, why don’t we find a way out of the conflict itself?

How? Because the Soviet economy, like the U.S. economy, is collapsing. The present policies of the U.S. economy, the present policies of the Soviet economy, ensure a collapse of those economies, physical collapse. So, why don’t we change the policy? Why don’t we go back to the space program of Kennedy, and let’s do what we proved with Kennedy? Remember, according to the estimates that were made in the middle of the 1970s, the United States got more than a dime of additional GNP out of every penny the United States invested in the space program, the Kennedy space program.

The point is, that since increases in productivity come directly, only, from improvements in technology derived from fundamental scientific discoveries, the higher the rate you convert fundamental physical discoveries into practice, the greater the rate of increase of productivity per capita of population, and per square kilometer of area.

The problem of both the Soviet system and our own, although in different degrees, I said at the time, was that the United States was not generating a rate of net growth in physical productivity, sufficient to maintain the economy. Therefore, we needed a program for forced draft, science-driven technological progress, with some mission, like the Moon mission, but as a byproduct of that mission, such as the Moon mission, we would generate spillovers in terms of technological progress, by such a crash, to put the United States economy back on the plus side, in terms of net growth.

The Soviet economy does not work for similar reasons, different, but similar reasons. Therefore, if the Soviet Union, with its vast military-scientific technological capability, were to put that capability, in cooperation with us, in global technological progress, and if we focussed upon developing countries—South America, Africa, Asia—to do what [President Franklin] Roosevelt proposed be done for these countries, had he not died, then the benefit of such a program would put the two economies back on the plus side, together with Europe; and it would also be a way of creating a global agenda which would solve the conflict problem.

Now, that was the SDI, in original form, which was what [President Ronald] Reagan proposed on March 23, 1983, in his television broadcast, nothing else. Later, due to the Heritage Foundation and other clowns, that definition of SDI was sabotaged, and destroyed. As a result, in the field, even though there are a few competent people rattling around in the cages there, there is no competence in the U.S. military on this question of missile defense. It was destroyed in the summer of 1983, through the Heritage Foundation’s influence on Reagan Administration policy. . . .

[But my proposal] had tremendous support: In 1982 and ’83, even in ’84, I had meetings with some of the highest-level military and other authorities in Western Europe, and elsewhere, as well as in the U.S., on this question. I was an integral part of the planning, and campaign for this. I carried this message into Europe before anybody outside the National Security Council, except me, knew about it. And only a few people at the National Security Council knew about it, and some of them tried to sabotage it the minute they found out about it. But this shows there was an approach, which could have solved the problem. Andropov turned it down cold. Other people in the Soviet Union looked at it much more seriously, but Andropov—who had a commitment to something else at the time, namely, the British—turned it down flat, without discussion. And that was the way it got killed. . . .

Now, we did the same thing later, coming out of ’85. We had a friend of ours, who died, Krafft Ehricke, who was a leading space scientist, first for Germany, then for the United States. And he had become a friend of ours. When he died of cancer, Helga, my wife, organized a conference, sponsored by others, for him. So, as part of this thing, we put our heads together: What would we do at a conference? We were getting his friends from all over the world, and so forth, and other interested people involved—we had this conference in Virginia, in Reston. What would we do?

Well, I said, let’s take what he wanted to do, and go a step further. Now, Krafft Ehricke’s favorite project was the automatic industrialization of the Moon, and he was the man who had been working on the project in the 1950s and later, for the industrial development of the Moon, with the idea that the Moon would be developed, as Krafft Ehricke and others had proposed also, as a base, an industrial base, on which we would build much of the weight of the spacecraft we’d use to explore the Solar System more extensively.

Convair/NASA

In 1958, during testimony before Congress, Krafft Ehricke presented a proposal to use the Atlas ICBM as a four-man space station.

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

So, I said, why not go the next step? This is Krafft’s project, he laid out a project that was very well defined; it’s one thing to honor it. Let’s do something more: Let’s go to Mars! So, what I did was to take the base work that Krafft had done, and others had done, and simply took this, and said, here’s the obvious. Here’s why we have to go to colonize Mars—not to build housing developments on Mars, not that sort of thing, but to create a Los Alamos-type science city under the surface of Mars, which would be a base for general, beyond-Mars space exploration, into the universe generally—to get away from the Sun, because the Sun is a very noisy place, and you can’t see things, and hear things clearly, with all that noise of this big Sun rumbling around out there. So if you can get a bit further out, at a place where there’s a much thinner atmosphere, you build a science-base out there, and you use that as a base from which to deploy other pieces of equipment into Mars nearby-space, then you can conduct observations of the universe, which we can’t do from Earth. We can get into frequencies and so forth we otherwise can’t get into.

But, I said, the reason for doing this, would be fairly estimated—it would take us 40 years to get a landing on Mars under these kinds of conditions. So, let’s do it. Why? Because of the spinoff benefits of the science-driver project needed to make it in 40 years. It may take you 40 years to get to Mars, but you’re going to get a lot of benefits on Earth from the technological spillover in the short run.

The Green Policy is Genocide

Deniston: That was Mr. LaRouche defining his notion of durable peace, and where the Moon-Mars program fits into a recovery program for the global economy.

Every generation needs to have the opportunity, has the right, to contribute something fundamentally new to mankind as a whole. With the Mars program, this current generation should be looking at going back to the Moon, building industries on the Moon, building bases on the Moon, learning how to utilize the resources from the Moon itself. That can support the next generation going farther to Mars; building scientific cities on Mars, expanding our knowledge of the universe in ways we could never do outside of this Moon-Mars program.

As Mr. LaRouche emphasized, the technologies and science required to accomplish these missions will create the largest possible benefits for the economies across the globe here on Earth. That is durable peace, because it creates growth, but it also creates a future-oriented mission that fulfills the requirements, the destiny of human creativity—what makes mankind unique. That’s the opportunity for the world before us today.

What we just saw at the United Nations with this climate change conference is the opposite. That whole event, and everything it represents, is meant to stop and defeat this type of future-oriented program for the planet. Despite what they tell you in the media, from the United Nations, from other outlets, this is not really about climate. There isn’t a climate crisis; mankind is not going to create a climate crisis with his human economic activity—especially not from CO_2 emissions. But, as we’re going to discuss, this is actually an economic policy to suppress development, to limit population growth, and re-implement an imperial or colonial policy.

I want to highlight a quote from a very influential figure in this whole climate scare and broader environmentalist movement. This is a quote from Prince Philip, who is the Royal Consort to the Queen of England and has been one of the most important figures promoting the broader environmentalist movement going back to the 1950s and 1960s. In a 1981 interview with a U.S. publication called People magazine, Prince Philip said:

I was in Sri Lanka recently, where a United Nations project set out in the late 1940s to eradicate malaria. It’s an island, and it was therefore possible to destroy the mosquito carrying the disease. What people didn’t realize was that malaria was actually controlling the growth of population. The consequence was that, within 20 years, the population doubled. Now they’ve got to find something for all these people to do, and some way to feed them. Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed; not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation, and war.

Public Domain

Prince Philip in 2007.

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

So, that gives you a taste of the underlying ideology of the people who created this narrative of a climate change crisis. It emerged from this oligarchical ideology of population reduction—the belief that a small number of people should control the world’s resources, keep the population low and under-developed, and utilize whatever means they can to force that system on the world.

Margaret Mead Speaks for the Oligarchs

Let’s move on to a 1975 conference, called “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering.” This was a very important event, which proceeded the climate change scare or global warming issue. In her keynote to this conference, one of the organizers, Margaret Mead said the following:

We are proposing that, before there is a corresponding attempt to develop a law of the air, the scientific community advise the United Nations and individual powerful nation-states or aggregations of weaker nation-states, in an attempt to arrive at some overview about what is presently known about the hazards to the atmosphere from man-made interventions, and how scientific knowledge, coupled with intellectual social action, can protect people of the world from dangerous and preventable interference with the atmosphere upon which all life depends.

That might sound somewhat reasonable, but then she continues, and identifies the real objective of this 1975 conference, saying:

What we need from scientists are estimates presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility, but at the same time, as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests. That will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings. Warnings which parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane.

This was a key conference. It preceded the launching of the climate change scare. As conference organizers said very clearly, as Margaret Mead said, they weren’t looking for definitive scientific evidence, or scientific discovery. They were looking for plausible estimates that they can exploit in order to create scare stories that will force the masses of the population to respond as if they were animals fleeing from a natural disaster. Many of the conference participants had already bought into this population reduction ideology.

In that context, I would like to take a few minutes to actually discuss some of the science of carbon dioxide and climate. But keep these statements from Margaret Mead and Prince Philip in your mind, in the background.

Figure 1

Adapted from Indermühle et al., 2000

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

CO_2 Does Not Cause Climate Change

The first point we want to make is that the historical evidence and the geological evidence show that changes in the CO_2 level do not control the climate. This is one graph [Figure 1] that was used by former Vice President Al Gore, in an attempt to show that CO_2 controlled the Earth’s climate and temperature. What you see in the top of the graph is an extremely close relation between global temperature and carbon dioxide levels for the past 600,000 years. However, when this data was studied more closely, it was shown that the temperature changes came before the CO_2 changes. So, the CO_2 was responding to the Earth’s climate system, not the other way around. The CO_2 was released from the oceans as an effect of the changing temperature. Many people were told that this proves that CO_2 controls the climate, when in fact, it shows the opposite.

Figure 2

Temperature and CO_2 Levels for Past 500 Million Years

Adapted from Berner and Kothavala, 2001 and Veizer et al., 2001

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

On the next graph [Figure 2], we look at a longer time scale, covering the past 500 million years; the time period during which complex life has existed on Earth. On the top, we see the variation in CO_2 levels, and on the bottom, temperature. There is no correlation. There are periods when CO_2 goes up, and temperature goes down. So, the idea that CO_2 simply is going to control what the Earth’s temperature does, is not proven by the historical record.

Now it is true that over the past century we have seen a slight warming of the planet, and that has corresponded to higher levels of CO_2. However, it has never been proven that the CO_2 is causing that change in temperature; and it’s never been proven that that isn’t simply a natural variation of the Earth’s climate.

Figure 3

‘Hockey Stick’: Global Temperature Change

Over Past 1,000 Years

IPCC, 2001

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

This [Figure 3] is a rather famous fraudulent graphic which was used to attempt to push the climate change scare onto the population. This is the supposed temperature of the planet over the past 1,000 years. You see what appears to be a relatively stable level of temperature until the last 100 or 150 years, when all of a sudden, the temperature shoots up; which corresponds to humans emitting CO_2 emissions. This was used to claim that the natural climate does not vary much at all, and therefore any changes that we’re seeing now must be due to human activity.

However, it was shown that this entire study was fraudulent. They used a methodology that would guarantee this type of graph would be produced. More recent studies of this same time period have shown that the natural variation of the climate over the past 1,000 years is far more varied than what was previously claimed. The recent periods of temperature change and climate change are completely consistent with what we know about the natural history of the Earth.

Figure 4

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

I want to highlight one last piece of evidence. This [Figure 4] is a comparison of projections of global temperature according to climate models, compared with what actual temperatures have been recorded. The black line shows what the models would predict, based on the CO_2 emissions, while the red and blue lines show actual measurements of temperature from satellite measurements.

If you contrast the scientific realities of CO_2 and climate, against this never-ending barrage of claims that we’re heading into a climate crisis, it really forces the question of what is really behind this policy. The climate historical and geological records do not show that CO_2 is a major driver of climate, and the models that have been used to claim that we’re heading towards a crisis, have been shown to be fraudulent—or inaccurate, to put it nicely. We’ve been given studies and data which have been presenting completely incorrect pictures of what’s actually been happening.

The Oligarchy’s Agenda

Think back to what Margaret Mead said. She said, you, the scientist—she was speaking to scientists at the 1975 conference—need to give us plausible estimates that we can exploit to scare people into going with what we want to push. If you have that in mind, everything we’re seeing now is completely clear. The science doesn’t add up with the scare stories being run in the media. We’ve been repeatedly told we only have five years to act, or ten years to act; that’s been going on for 30 years now. There is no crisis from CO_2 emissions—but we do have a serious problem with the people who have created and pushed this whole scare story.

I want to return to Prince Philip, who openly spoke about how it was bad that we eradicated malaria, because he thinks diseases should be allowed to run rampant to reduce world populations. He was a leading figure in a group of people who created the modern environmentalist movement in the 1950s and 1960s. It was not about protecting water or soils or the Earth; it was about suppressing the economic development of countries around the world. Together with Prince Philip, you had Julian Huxley, also of the United Kingdom, and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. These were three leading figures who created the World Wildlife Fund, which became one of the most prominent and leading environmentalist organizations, along with a whole array of other institutions to push this genocidal perspective.

Julian Huxley was a leader of the British Eugenics Society, both before World War II and well after World War II. Even after the world was exposed to the horrors of Hitler’s eugenics program, Huxley continued to promote eugenics, including in his position [as the first Director-General] at UNESCO [in 1946]. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands worked as a member of the Nazi SS intelligence unit. He only resigned from the Nazis in the mid-1930s for political reasons of his marriage [to Queen Juliana]. After the war, he was the director of KLM airlines, when it was actively flying Nazi war criminals out of Germany to escape prosecution.

Then we have Prince Philip, who had similar relations with pro-Nazi elements in the British establishment in the 1930s. He became a co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund and continued to express his views about population reduction very clearly, as we saw from that 1981 quote.

The point is, we had leading proponents of eugenics, pro-Nazi forces, and leading forces of British imperialism, who came together after World War II, and they created a new way to implement their policies of population control, control of nations, control of resources under the name of “environmentalism,” and more recently, “climate change.” Obviously, many of the general population who have been scared into supporting the climate change issue, don’t necessarily believe all of these things. But they’re being duped to follow a policy that was created by these imperial forces.

Even today, Mark Carney, who is Governor of the Bank of England, is now creating this Green Climate Fund by which they have pulled together 130 of the world’s largest banks, and they’re going to say, we’re going to refuse to invest money in any project that doesn’t cohere with their CO_2 reduction program. That means no economic development is going to be allowed under that policy.

LaRouche: There Are No Limits to Growth

Now, look at what China has done over the past 25 years. They’ve lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But to do that, they had to develop a lot of power; almost a ten-fold increase in their power consumption over the past ten years. A major increase in energy-flux density. That came with a lot of CO_2 emissions. If other nations are denied the ability to emit CO_2, they’re going to be denied the right to develop. That’s the underlying political objective behind the climate change scare. The intention is to promote a policy of limits to growth, world population reduction, and a new form of imperialism. That’s what we have to defeat. That is the system that is collapsing.

We must replace that with Lyndon LaRouche’s policies of No Limits to Growth, durable peace implemented through shared technological and scientific progress—such as lunar industrialization and human colonization of Mars. The Moon is covered in the best available fuel for fusion power that we know of. There are simply no limited resources; only limits on our science and technology. If we go to the Moon and develop the fusion resources from the Moon, we can not only power the entire Earth; we can power mankind’s expansion through the Solar System. That is the policy of durable peace, durable survival that we are really on the verge of implementing in the current world situation.

With that, I would be happy to take any questions, and I would love to hear what you have to say.

Excerpts from the Discussion Following Ben Deniston’s Presentation

From Argentina: I’m greatly impressed by the policies and programs of the Schiller Institute, based on its founder Lyndon LaRouche, especially the proposal for the New Silk Road. Now we have just heard a well-documented presentation on Project Artemis, for international cooperation of the world’s leading powers for a Moon-Mars mission. Is this part of the Schiller Institute’s strategy, and its political activity, to change the current predatory paradigm and establish collaborative projects for the benefit of all mankind?

Benjamin Deniston: Yes, that’s exactly it. I would just like to reference Mr. LaRouche’s memorandum for the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., his LaRouche Doctrine from 1984. And that’s exactly what he said: If we want the powers of the world to cooperate, we can’t just say “war is bad”; we can’t just try to stop conflicts. If you really want to address the underlying issue, you have to create the conditions, as Mr. LaRouche said, for durable peace, which has a very specific requirement for mankind, for human beings. Because it is our nature to progress, to develop. No animal species is like mankind. Animals have fixed ecological relations to the environment, they can’t change that.

Only mankind has demonstrated something completely different, something completely unique, where we go through what seems to be almost like an evolutionary change, but it’s purely cognitive, it’s purely creative in its origin and its source. And so, mankind, when it’s being natural and healthy, is always moving from one stage to the next.

Mr. LaRouche was clear that empire and oligarchies that try to suppress and stop that development, are the real threat, that we might have conflicts and disagreements, but as long as we are moving forward as one mankind towards a common objective that encapsulates the whole population, we can have the conditions to ensure we can move through any challenges and create sustainable peace.

Absolutely, space exploration, space development is key to the future cooperation and peace among the leading powers on this planet. I would reference the situation in the United States, where Trump is under attack because he is trying to move in this direction. He’s not perfect on every issue. He has many issues that we might not all agree with. But the core fight in the United States, right now, is that Trump wants to change the U.S. foreign policy away from conflict with Russia, and away from these wars, like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, which have been devastating for the world over the last two Presidential regimes. That is what’s behind the attempt to impeach him, to try and remove him from power around exactly this issue.

At the same time, the global financial system is showing signs of a new crisis, and we see the reemergence and accelerated push of this climate change fraud. I see all of these as part of one process. This old, imperial, oligarchical paradigm is failing, and there is a real potential to replace it with LaRouche’s program, and the space program serves as a leading point of that program.

I would also like to thank the first person for their remarks: I appreciate them very much. I think his points are absolutely valid, and I’m glad he made them.

Patriot and Citizen of the World

From Mexico City: I’m a student of international relations. I’m sort of struck by this, because I’m one of those people who has a moral problem, because I don’t know whether or not to believe everything they tell me is true. I really thank Mr. Deniston for having enlightened us with this information. How can we fight against this fear? How can we unite to benefit all humanity?

From Mexico City: I’m also a student of international relations. You said we could go to the Moon. What impact would that have on the equilibrium of nature? I’m concerned about that.

Deniston: Regarding the second question, I think we need to develop the Moon. I’m not sure of any negative impacts that would have. If we take a big-picture look, this Solar System is not going to last forever, the Sun is not going to last forever, whether it’s a few billion years from now, four or five or two, we can know with scientific certainty, at some point, the entire Solar System is going to be uninhabitable. The only form of life that we know of, that has any potential to continue life’s existence beyond the Solar System, into the galaxy, is mankind.

That doesn’t mean we have to destroy environments as we do that: Human progress can improve environments and make things better. For example, what the climate change scare promoters do not say, is that the Earth has been getting greener, with more plant life, year after year after year, for the last four decades. Some of it is due to human irrigation and management of water systems; some of it is due to the increased CO_2 levels in the atmosphere, ensuring that plants are more productive. As we develop and advance technologically, we can improve the environment and improve the planet in a harmonious way, and we should look at that as our mission, our unique characteristic as human beings. As far as we know today, we’re the only form of life that can ensure that process of growth continues into the long-term future.

The biggest environmental problems we have come from poverty and lack of development, so we need to push forward with new technologies and uplift living standards, if we want to improve things. That’s what I would say.

From San Juan del Río, Querétaro, Mexico: Why should we colonize space?

From Mexico City: I’m a university student studying robotic engineering. My understanding is that nuclear plants basically produce steam as a by-product. What would happen with fusion? Do you use uranium and plutonium? And if the idea is to travel to the Moon to get helium-3, is helium-3 an element like plutonium?

A Spiritual Sense of Science

Deniston: To take those questions in reverse order, we would harvest helium-3 from the lunar surface, and then we could transport the helium-3 back to Earth, to be used in fusion reactors on Earth. It could also be used to power spacecraft, which can depart from orbit around the Moon with fusion-powered drives.

The reason we are interested in helium-3 is that it is a unique type of fusion reaction, which allows a much more efficient conversion of all of the energy produced when you fuse the elements. You can be far more efficient in utilizing that energy that’s produced: For electricity generation you can produce more electricity, and for rocket systems, for space travel, you can produce more thrust, more push for your rockets. So, we would want to use helium-3 to power the Earth, and to power mankind’s travel throughout the Solar System. The amount of energy in 1 kg of fusion fuel, like helium-3, is a million times more than 1 kg of coal or oil.

This is critical for space travel, because you can take the equivalent of far more fuel with you, and you can do completely new modes of travel through space. Currently it takes about eight months to go from Earth to Mars, which is a very dangerous trip for astronauts, because of the zero gravity and the high radiation environment. With fusion-powered systems, with helium-3, you could get there much faster, potentially as fast as two to three days, so you’re transforming an eight-month trip to one that would take less than a week. This would completely revolutionize mankind’s access to the Solar System. We could have manned missions to Mars, to other places, and we can really investigate the Solar System in completely new ways.

At the same time, the helium-3 can be used again back on Earth, to provide immense amounts of power. If people imagine the old U.S. space shuttle, the spacecraft we used to use to send people into Earth orbit, if that cargo bay was filled with helium-3 that would produce enough power to power the entire United States for about a half-year—one cargo bay load. It’s really an incredible amount of power, provided by fusion.

Why do we want to colonize space? Because it’s a big universe out there. We’re on this one little planet, and the whole Solar System is sitting there, waiting for us. We have new things to discover, new adventures to take, and entire areas to develop throughout the Solar System. It’s not about abandoning the Earth, or forgetting about the Earth, but it’s a natural process of human development and expansion. If you want to look at it in a practical way, we have all kinds of dangers posed to life on this planet, asteroids and comets—so in that sense, we absolutely need to go into space, and we need to become a species that has some control over the Solar System, to prevent these kinds of threats from ever becoming catastrophic tragedies.

But in a more spiritual sense, this is humanity’s destiny to develop and expand and grow. Any society that just repeats the same activities, generation after generation after generation, degenerates. We need to progress, we need to move into new frontiers. We need to give younger generations new challenges and new missions that will inspire them, drive their imagination, and give them the sense of a positive contribution to mankind as a whole, and space is one of the leading areas for that.

CC/Lorenzo Caccianiga

The control building of the Pierre Auger Observatory, designed to detect and measure ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, located in Malargüe, Argentina.

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

Cosmic Rays and Rockets

From Argentina, Air Commodore (ret.) Horacio Ricciardelli: Back in the 1960s, Argentina had a number of international agreements, one of which was with the Max Planck Institute of Germany, in which various rockets were launched containing a chemical compound, a plasma, which used the electromagnetic lines of the Earth and it took a little over eight minutes to travel from the South Pole to the North Pole. Since we are talking about developing space and shortening the time it takes to travel, there is a lot of research about using electromagnetic energy to travel. And even in the vacuum of outer space you could create your own electromagnetic field on the space vehicles.

A second question is that in the Argentine province of Mendoza, there is an institute that for many years has carried out experiments having to do with capturing cosmic rays. There are two such sites in the world: the other is in St. Louis, in the United States. Tanks are used which have special instrumentation and triple distilled water, in which the cosmic rays which are captured are capable of producing enough electricity to power a city of more than 20,000 people. . . .

Deniston: I appreciate the question. The idea of capturing energy from cosmic radiation is new to me, so I’d be interested to look more into that, and I appreciate your bringing it up. The one thing I’m more familiar with is the role of cosmic radiation in the Earth’s climate system, which is a very interesting area of study, and coincides with some of our discussion about climate change. We have many records that show that cosmic rays coming from our galaxy play a critical role in affecting clouds and cloud formation, which then has a major effect on climate.

And some rather amazing studies have shown, based on this relation, that the biggest driver of climate change throughout the long-term geological history of the Earth has been the travels of the Solar System through different parts of the galaxy as it orbits the galactic center, which have higher and lower levels of cosmic radiation, which opens up a rather fascinating investigation, where we can look at the history of the Earth’s climate, which can tell us things about the nature of our galaxy, going back billions of years, all provided by this role of cosmic rays. It also shows you how little we currently really know about these larger questions of our relation to our galaxy.

Some of these questions about frontier technologies for space travel, alternative ways of powering spacecraft or providing energy, these are all things that need to be investigated in the context of this kind of Moon-Mars mission orientation program.

I also want to emphasize one additional element of Mr. LaRouche’s program, what he discussed in the 1980s as the LaRouche Doctrine. He was emphatic that while the United States and the Soviet Union, at the time, should be collaborating and driving these frontier areas of scientific investigation in space, that they also need to be engaged in exporting machines, tools, capital goods, throughout the developing world, to rapidly accelerate the development of all the economies of the planet, such that it’s a global program to uplift the productive powers and the living standards of all nations. At the time, he discussed it as eliminating the relics of colonialism.

CC/Fracu

A mockup of Argentina’s Tronador (Thunderer) II, a liquid-fueled rocket designed to lift payloads into Low Earth Orbit.

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

This is how we should look at the program today, where the United States, and other countries, like China, Russia, nations in Europe, are collaborating in these areas. There’s room for all the nations to participate. The policy on Earth needs to be geared towards providing the infrastructure, technologies, and productive capabilities, required to uplift the global economy.

Helium-3 and Fusion

From Mexico City: I’m majoring in aeronautical engineering, and I’d like to know: How would you go about transporting helium-3 from the lunar surface to Earth? How do you make sure no one country controls all resources? Would an organization be created to regulate these kinds of projects?

Deniston: I would refer you to the work being done at University of Wisconsin. They have an institute that has been studying this issue in great detail for many years. The leaders of this grouping are a leading fusion scientist, who’s studied fusion for decades, and especially focussed on the use of helium-3 fuel for fusion; and the other leader is a former Apollo astronaut, somebody who walked on the Moon, Harrison Schmitt. And they’re two key figures in this institute and they’ve done, in collaboration with graduate students and other researchers, many, many studies on these questions.

They have designs for proposals for the mining apparatus, where you would need to provide a certain amount of heating to the lunar soil to release the helium-3, along with other gases which are also going to be useful for various uses; and then how to capture that, separate it, put it into the relevant containers, and then launch it into orbit for shipping back to Earth.

This is a highly complex endeavor, but with the right level of investment, it’s certainly possible.

The important thing about fusion fuels, including helium-3, is they are incredibly energy-dense. So again, one space shuttle, one spacecraft worth of helium-3 fuel, could power the entire United States for a half-year, which is incredible. You don’t need huge volumes; if you had a system set up for maybe 10, 20 shipments a year, that could provide a very substantial part of the world’s power requirements. It doesn’t have to provide all of them, but it would be an important contribution to the global energy needs, which would also be provided by hydropower, other forms of fusion, with other fuels, nuclear fission and so on. So helium-3 wouldn’t be the sole source of energy for the global economy, but it would be an important contribution.

This would also be the opportunity for the fuller industrialization of the Moon. We can also produce all kinds of resources and equipment that we can use for our expansion into space, and this was the basis for Mr. LaRouche’s collaboration with Krafft Ehricke, who was a space visionary from the Apollo era, a very eminent scientist and engineer, whose work is still being used today in some of the rocket systems used by NASA and other agencies.

They looked at everything you can do to develop infrastructure, manufacturing, and similar capabilities on the Moon itself, so we can create a situation where we don’t have to launch everything up from the surface of the Earth, which is a very difficult and energy-intensive process. For example, we could be producing water and oxygen from the Moon, and providing that to space stations around the Earth, more cheaply and easily than lifting that up off the surface of the Earth. We could be producing components for spacecraft from the material from the Moon itself, which would be far easier to then lift up from the Moon, because the gravity is so much lower, and you could build your spacecraft for going to Mars and other places, from material on the Moon.

Krafft Ehricke estimated that it was less than one-tenth of the energy and cost, to provide resources from the lunar surface, all the way down to Earth orbit, as compared with launching those resources from the Earth itself. It becomes far easier to develop the capabilities needed for mankind to really expand into the Solar System, if we develop the Moon in this way.

Viewing the United States

On the other question: There is a very interesting, and somewhat complex situation in the United States. President Trump was elected, I think, not only because of who he is, but because of the state of the American people: Many of the people that voted Trump into office are people that both of the political parties had ignored, had forgotten about, didn’t care about. These are people that have been treated very poorly by both parties in the United States, and their vote in 2016 signalled a real desire for revolt, for change in the U.S. political system, and that is still an ongoing fight.

At the very heart of the attempt to impeach Trump is his disagreement and conflict with the idea of trying to have a military confrontation with Russia, through the situation in Ukraine. So it just shows you that there’s an ongoing fight, where Trump has emerged, to some degree, as a leader of people who are tired of the U.S. military policy of Obama and Bush, and have a desire to end that policy, and begin investing and rebuilding the United States economy again.

Trump represents a certain natural revolt against what had been very bad policies. And our activity in the United States, but also in collaboration with others—what’s being done in all the locations on with us here, tonight, in Europe, in Asia—is critical. Because, as LaRouche always insisted, the most powerful thing we have are valid ideas. It’s not the amount of people you have out in the streets, it’s not how much money you have; it’s that, do you have ideas, concepts that will work in unique situations, and that people will gravitate towards because they realize this is correct, and this is what needs to happen?

That’s what we have right now. We have a situation where our leadership in providing these ideas is key. We’re dealing with a situation where the existing system is breaking down and people are looking for alternatives to replace it. So let’s do it!

The Revolt of the Netherlands Against the Threat of Eco-Fascism

by Karel Vereycken, founder of the Agora Erasmus website

Oct. 4—Thousands of Dutch farmers demonstrated Oct. 1 against threats to modern agriculture in the name of protection against “climate change.” They took to the highways and rolled their tractors into Holland’s capital, The Hague, for a giant rally, causing over 700 miles of traffic jams.

Dutch agriculture was built on the postwar model of “intensive” highly mechanized agriculture (using high-quality seeds, fertilizer, irrigation and machinery) and has always been synonymous with high productivity per capita and per hectare. Today, “Farmers and growers are sick of being painted as a ‘problem’ that needs a ‘solution’,” said Dirk Bruins of the agricultural industry group LTO (Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie, Agricultural and Horticultural Association).

The government has not yet taken any specific action that would hurt farming, but the mere fact that some politicians are advocating the insane idea of dramatically reducing livestock herds, led to an explosion of public anger.

Left: CC/Levien Willemse; right: Flikr/G20 Argentina

Left: Tjeerd de Groot; right: Carola Schouten

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

Tjeerd de Groot, a Member of Parliament of the ruling D66 party, floated the idea of cutting in half the number of livestock allowed, while offering farmers financial compensation. This idea was strongly rejected by Dutch Agriculture Minister Carola Schouten, who was deployed to the demonstration in order to cool down the situation as much as possible.

Not surprisingly, the criminal, Malthusian idea of cutting livestock herds in half has popped up just when the financial oligarchy is promoting radical green activists who want to turn agriculture and industry into “climate crimes,” to further the British-led global drive of “greening world finance.”

Before becoming a Member of the Lower House in 2017, De Groot began his career as a high-level civil servant in the Ministry of Agriculture, and then became the head of a major milk production cartel. His background and connections are the reasons farmers see his statement as a trial balloon that could become real were public opinion to go with it.

Like many other governments in Europe, the Dutch government has committed itself to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions to 49% of 1990 levels by 2030. Nitrous oxide (N_2O) figures in the list of greenhouse gases. Nitrous oxide occurs in small amounts in the atmosphere. Today, it is estimated that 30% of the nitrous oxide in the atmosphere is the result of human activity, chiefly agriculture.

In the Netherlands, the idea of crippling agriculture was raised in answer to the ruling of a top Dutch court, which found in May that “Dutch rules for granting building and farming permits breach EU law on protecting nature from nitrogen [-containing] emissions such as ammonia and nitrous oxide.” As a result of the ruling, thousands of construction projects for housing and highways were halted overnight.

De Groot said: “Politics has to decide. Young people want a house but cannot find one. The building industry will grind to a halt because of the court ruling about nitrogen [N_2O]. The construction of roads and public transportation systems are also threatened. And the damage of nitrogen [N_2O] to nature is far too large.”

With Aristotelian sophistry, De Groot did the math: “Of all Dutch emissions of nitrogen [N_2O], 70% come from agriculture, mostly from intensive cattle-raising. That is enormous. At the same time, cattle-raising contributes only 1% of our GDP, which is out of proportion.” De Groot wants the government to force farmers to choose: Either they stop raising cattle, or they convert to a “circular economy,” only feeding the animals on foodstuffs humans don’t eat, thereby lowering the “pressure” on the planet—and stop using fertilizer! Of course, such a conversion, away from intensive farming, would automatically decrease the number of livestock.

To sell this eco-fascism to the public, the government is claiming that such a regression from modern agriculture will “free up space” (Lebensraum) for new housing! Knowing that Dutch public opinion backs the farmers, Dutch television is spreading the idea that unless livestock herds are reduced, domestic animals might be the next target. So far, the partners of the D66 party inside the government coalition (VVD, ChristenUnie and CDA), are very reluctant to back its proposal. When the Dutch Council for the Environment and Infrastructure made a similar proposal last year, in order “to reach the targets of the COP21 Paris accords,” all three government coalition partners reacted negatively.

Buy 'Global Warming' Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science

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

II. Man as a Galactic Species

SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE

Foreseeing a Galactic Human Species

On ‘Observe the Moon Day’

by Paul Gallagher

Oct. 5—Millions of Americans have been inspired by NASA’s aggressive new goals of returning human beings to the Moon in 2024 and to Mars by 2033. But for Americans to really get behind the Artemis Moon-Mars mission, and push it through over environmentalist and “Earth firster” opposition, they must understand what space exploration means for mankind as a whole.

With four powers now exploring the Moon and other nations preparing to do so, perhaps the most global space celebration is International Observe the Moon Day, Oct. 5, for which more than 1,500 events were held around the world. The Schiller Institute brought the occasion alive with a conference in New York City on “Man as a Galactic Species: The Necessary Alternative to War,” which presented all of the reasons that space colonization shows “man is greater than his destiny,” as moderator Dennis Speed quoted Friedrich Schiller at the start.

In welcoming the audience of 100 Schiller Institute members and newly interested contacts—including an inquisitive group of students from New York City’s Aviation High School, and others from city colleges—Speed said that mankind has the potential to exist in “the arc of galaxies,” and that “there is a Being of the universe that powers that universe, whose nature it is our destiny to know” in the long course of space travel and colonization. He added that with India’s exploration of the Moon’s south pole, China’s work on the far side, and Russian-U.S. cooperation, “these four powers can bring a new world into being.”[box: Speakers at the Oct. 5 Schiller Institute Conference]

The conference saw part of a webcast presentation of Dec. 3, 2009 by the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche, speaking when the U.S. and other economies were collapsed by the financial crash of 2008, and proclaiming that space exploration promised the greatest increases in human productivity if supported with productive credit. “Let’s industrialize the Moon now as a basis for future space exploration,” LaRouche had said then. “Only a mission-objective for the future can moralize populations. . . . Mankind is not going to stick around in this nook of the Earth. We are going out into the galaxy and explore it. We have to tell our grandchildren, this is what we must do.” A decade later, the Trump Administration has made this a U.S. mission.

The conference heard a message of greetings and support from Russia’s U.S. Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and opened with a welcoming message, by video, from NASA’s Andrea Jones to all the events occurring all over the world, “not only for NASA or just for scientists.” And after a brief but inspiring keynote by Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the conference heard and questioned Dr. Xing Jijun, Counselor and Head of the Science and Technology Section of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in New York, and a panel of speakers on the scientific, engineering, and political aspects of truly marking “International Moon Day”—by quickly going back to the Moon and settling there!

A Vision That Began with Jules Verne

Helga Zepp-LaRouche proclaimed Oct. 5 “a truly joyous day. All around the world—and actually, above it, namely on the ISS—there are celebrations of the International Observe the Moon Day, and all the people who are celebrating have caught a very healthy disease: Moon Fever.” The celebration is just 10 years old, marking NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and its companion LCROSS satellite, reaching Moon orbit in 2009. Zepp-LaRouche said “there are 1,564 events taking place all over the world,” and she gave some details, including more than 500 events in the United States. “The millions taking part in these events are the avant garde of the future of civilization,” she said.

The near side of the Moon.

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

Tracing this Moon Fever to its distant origins with Jules Verne’s 1865 novel, From the Earth to the Moon, Zepp-LaRouche said that its global nature made cooperation among nations, not competition, the key to mankind’s success. Quoting her friend, the late space visionary Krafft Ehricke, she stated that aeronautics and astronautics will revolutionize all sciences and fields of endeavor. “Space projects prove that mankind is capable of overcoming all apparently insurmountable obstacles,” she said.

Those obstacles, and the cooperation among nations to overcome them, were discussed in detail by Science and Technology Counselor at the Consulate General of China in New York, Dr. Xing Jijun, who spoke on “The Approach to U.S.-China Cooperation in Science.” We can’t ignore the shift from the last 40 years’ U.S. relations with China, he said, to trade war and talk of other wars; but the key to scientific cooperation lies in two words: “innovation” and “cooperation.” He gave a striking definition of innovation: when the nation uses new knowledge that is discovered to provide a better life for its people. Innovation, he noted, is the broadest spectrum for innovation.

Dr. Xing pointed to the fact that China is now still ranked only 14th among nations on the “index of innovation,” although steadily rising—“We are still learning from other countries.” He hoped China would be in the “top five by 2035” and by 2050, “we and the United States could be together at the top of innovation.” But, “it’s not the way some people talk about it—that China is trying to take over the leadership of this-and-that, or whatever. It’s not that way. We know ourselves.” In fact, China hopes the U.S. government will spend more on its R&D budget, and still lead the way. As for cooperation, Dr. Xing said, “Go to the Moon. Go to Mars. Fusion energy is not very far from us; in 20-30 years it could be a major energy source. For these things, Chinese scientists are open, and we wish to work together.”

Dr. Xing’s response, later, to a statement from an audience member about the current witch hunt of Chinese scientific researchers in the United States, was noteworthy.

Learning the Nature of Science

What are the fundamental scientific advances to be anticipated in a human development of the Moon that will open the prospect of the human race becoming a galactic species which truly knows the universe?

Benjamin Deniston, science advisor to the Schiller Institute, in his presentation, “Mankind’s Future Lies in the Stars,” discussed at length two exemplary “new prospects for science,” as nations join in looking to the Moon as the first step of mankind’s journey into the Solar System.

First, the “radio silence” of the Moon’s far side, which is always turned away from the great radiative and electromagnetic “noise” of the Earth, provides a long-awaited opening for observing space in the very low frequency range of radio waves, never done before. Many dramatically differing pictures of galaxies and universal processes emerge when we switch from observing with visual-spectrum telescopes, to infrared, to x-ray, to radio wave, etc. “We don’t know what the universe looks like in the very low-frequency range,” but soon, from the Moon’s far side, we will.

And second, Deniston described how we’ll take more steps toward understanding what happens as the Sun—and the Solar System with it—orbit around the Milky Way galaxy, passing through its spiral arms, and “bobbing” up above and down below the plane of the galaxy. Implications for life? “The largest climate change of the past million years is associated with our Solar System’s movement through the galaxy.” The same for the variety of species living on Earth, the cycles by which the number of species increases, and more. The Moon, with no protective atmosphere or magnetic field, bears a “record of intensity” of radiation from deep space, which we can measure from there.

These involve insights into the nature of science itself, he said: Is it simply sense perception of facts, or a reconceptualization of the laws of the universe. As Lyndon LaRouche foresaw, much of lunar studies do not and will not fit the “Newtonian universe,” but an inherently “open” and developing one.

For Dr. Aaron Olson of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University of Wisconsin, Moon colonization involves the world-changing breakthrough of producing fusion power, the power process which drives the Sun, and using it for ultrafast propulsion of rockets through space. This is because the Moon’s surface layer, or “regolith,” contains millions of tons of helium-3, which is essentially non-existent on Earth and is by far the best fuel for fusion reactions. Helium-3 fusion releases only charged particles (protons) which can be directly converted into electricity rather than into heat, and causes no radioactive emissions. Dr. Olson’s subject was “Mining Helium-3 on the Moon,” the means of bringing fusion power production into space.

Dr. Harrison Schmitt, the Apollo 13 astronaut who brought Moon regolith back to Earth and is the senior advisor at the FTI, noticed in signs of lunar volcanic eruption, that ejected matter seemed to “flow” on the surface despite the lack of any liquid there. He hypothesized a gas, which turned out to be helium-3. FTI’s experiments are developing “lunar helium-3 miner designs” for an apparatus to be employed on the Moon to cause a large-scale release of the gas and capture it as an easily transportable fusion fuel. [box: “Budgets determine what’s possible. Talk to your member of Congress. I think the first step would be fully funding the Artemis Project”]

Dr. Olson, who had met with the Aviation High School students the previous day, in replying to one of their questions, said that professors at Wisconsin are partners in a NASA Fellowship Program with the Kennedy Space Center, who also work on regolith handling and on lunar ice.

A basic scientific question, “Is anything true because a lot of people [even a lot of scientists] think it?” was examined by Schiller Institute science advisor Jason Ross in a sharp and humorous presentation, “CO_2 Reduction Policy is Costly, Deadly and Unnecessary.” Ross debunked thoroughly the claims that “climate emergency” is the essence of science and gives the human species a dismal future—and showed that wild claims of this kind have been made constantly for the past half-century, with no basis in real science at all. “Enforcing energy poverty is murder, plain and simple,” he said. Ross answered questions from the Aviation High students.

Finally Joseph Foster, in his presentation, “From Project Diana to Project Artemis,” highlighted one example of the nearly two centuries of Moon Fever among scientists and visionaries of space travel, which Helga LaRouche had traced out. Foster described a 1940s U.S. project, backed by military resources, which allowed the first precise calculations of the Moon’s size, its exact orbit, and where it was in that orbit at a certain time—all essential if people are going to travel to the Moon and land on it.

Space and the Developing World

After a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with the speakers, Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s concluding comment on the “bacillus of optimism” which space exploration provides human culture, sent the audience members out to solve problems.

“The reason the occupation with space and the physical laws of the universe is so very important,” she said, “is that it absolutely has everything to do with the image of man which you derive out of that. I think the big controversy of our time is, is mankind a parasite, is every additional human being just a burden for nature? Is it worth it to protect the spiders and little insects, or is it better to do what is the urgent question, of the development of Africa. . . . Space is the absolute best antidote [to cultural pessimism] because it leads you to the creativity of the human person, and it leads you to the kind of optimism which is the key to conquering every barrier of knowledge. . . .”

Speakers at the Oct. 5 Conference

‘Man as a Galactic Species:

The Necessary Alternative to War’

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President of the Schiller Institute (by video)

Andrea Jones, Public Engagement Lead of Solar System Exploration Systems at NASA (video)

Anatoly Antonov, Ambassador of Russia to the United States (greetings)

Dr. Xing Jijun, Counselor, Head of Science and Technology Section, New York Consulate General, People’s Republic of China

Benjamin Deniston, Science Advisor to the Schiller Institute

Dr. Aaron Olson, Fusion Technology Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Jason Ross, Science Advisor to the Schiller Institute

Joseph Foster, InfoAge Space Exploration Center, New Jersey

The video of the full conference is available here.

[back to text]

“Budgets determine what’s possible. Talk to your member of Congress. I think the first step would be fully funding the Artemis Project”

—Fusion scientist Dr. Aaron Olson to an Aviation High School student’s question about support for science research.

As of Oct. 5, five days into the Fiscal Year 2020, neither the House nor the Senate had yet finally appropriated a budget for NASA’s crucial first year of acceleration of the Artemis program to start Moon settlement by the goal of 2024. Only the Senate Appropriations Committee has made a budget so far, and although it increases funding for “space exploration” (by human beings) by more than a billion dollars, it is nearly half a billion short of what Project Artemis needs in the year which began Oct. 1. The shortfall affects, above all, development of the lander to bring the crew down to the lunar surface, which is one of the completely new elements of Artemis.

NASA nonetheless began on Oct. 1 to take proposals from companies and institutes for development of the lander. It is acting on the hope that Congress will authorize and appropriate a NASA FY2020 budget by Jan. 1, with the full increase in funding the White House requested—$1.6 billion—to get the Moon-Mars mission off the starting line and on schedule for 2024. [back to text]

Schiller Institute ‘Moon Day’ in Houston

Schiller Institute

Retired physicist and top NASA scientist F. Don Cooper shared his experiences creating the technology that helped launch Apollo 11 at a Schiller Institute celebration of “Observe the Moon Day” in Houston, Texas on May 5, 2019.

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

Oct. 6—As speakers, guests and an audience connected by internet gathered in New York City on October 5 for the Schiller Institute’s Conference, “Mankind as a Galactic Species: The Necessary Alternative to War,” a sister event was taking place 1,400 miles away in Houston, Texas.

The Houston event—which included a simulcast of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s speech to the New York meeting, as well as the playing of the Dec. 3, 2009 video presentation by Lyndon LaRouche (both available in this issue of EIR)—presented its own panel of speakers, including Don Cooper, a retired physicist and former top scientist with the Apollo space program; Joel DeJean, a LaRouche PAC leader and engineering expert; and a filmed interview with Mike Paluszek, President of Princeton Satellite Systems, the leading U.S. firm in the field of Fusion propulsion.

Former Congressional candidate and LaRouche PAC leader Kesha Rogers hosted the event and delivered remarks of her own. In her opening statement, she reminded the audience both that October 5 is “International Observe the Moon Day,” and that this is also simultaneously National Space Week. Rogers asked the meeting’s participants to consider that all great human progress is the work of visionaries. Stating that we have to begin to view humanity as a galactic species and that “the Moon is the gateway to the stars,” she challenged each audience member: “You have to become a visionary.”

Don Cooper provided the audience with an overview of U.S. efforts in rocket science, beginning with the work of Robert Goddard in the 1920s. He then presented a first-hand account of his years of work at NASA, including his role in developing technology for the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon, his work on the Saturn V rocket, and the work of his team in safely returning the crew of Apollo 13 to Earth. Mr. Cooper described the outreach he is constantly involved in with high school and other students, urging them to take up the challenge to build a better future.

Joel DeJean presented a detailed overview of the leading research efforts in Fusion energy now underway in the United States, including at Princeton University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Lockheed. He stressed the importance of what access to the helium-3 deposits on the Moon will mean in escalating all of these research projects. He also discussed the importance of the France-based international Fusion project, the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), a collaborative effort of 35 nations.

The event concluded with a filmed interview with Mike Paluszek, President of Princeton Satellite Systems, a company which is now intensively working on what is called Direct Fusion Drive, using a small, 1 megawatt fusion device for rocket propulsion, as well as for many potential applications on Earth. Such a fusion drive will allow a rocket to reach Jupiter in one year and Saturn in two years. Here again, Mr. Paluszek stressed the importance of helium-3 as the fuel component which is vital to making such a fusion drive possible.

NASA’s Greeting to

1,500 Moon Day Events

by Andrea Jones

2019 Director of NASA’s “International Observe the Moon Night”

Schiller Institute

Andrea Jones

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

This is the edited transcript of the Andrea Jones video greeting that was presented to open the Schiller Institute conference, “Man as a Galactic Species: The Necessary Alternative to War,” in New York on October 5.

Hello! And welcome to this global celebration of lunar science, exploration, celestial observations, and our personal and cultural connections to the Moon. My name is Andrea Jones, and I am the Public Engagement Lead of the Solar System Exploration Division at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and the Director of International Observe the Moon Night.

This is a very exciting year for the Moon! We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Apollo Moon landing, and many more Apollo program anniversaries to come. We have an international fleet of robotic explorers at the Moon that are reshaping our understanding of our nearest neighbor in space, and we are looking forward to returning to the Moon with NASA’s Artemis program landing the first woman and the next man on the Moon by 2024. Right now, we’re also celebrating ten years of International Observe the Moon Night. We are united with people around the world, looking up and observing and celebrating the Moon together. I am so glad that you are a part of it. I hope you have a wonderful time connecting with lunar enthusiasts in your community, and around the world.

Be sure to share your view of the Moon, or a glimpse into your celebration using the hashtag #observethemoon on multiple social media platforms, including our Flickr gallery. Find resources that will help you learn more on moon.nasa.gov/observe.

Let’s Industrialize the Moon Now

as a Base for Future Space Exploration

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. in 2009

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

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

The following is an edited transcript of excerpts from a December 3, 2009 speech by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. presented by video to the Schiller Institute Conference in New York on October 5.

But we have to do something else. We have to mobilize the population and its imagination. Because only the desire for a better future, only goals for a better future, can mobilize a population to be motivated, to do what has to be done. When you put this Mars question: We have to industrialize the Moon, which is already a project that’s understood: Ten nations are actually concerned, with the idea of industrializing the Moon; ten nations that are Moon-landing oriented. We have to take the Moon, and make the Moon a baseline, for going into space.

In other words, you don’t want to build up tremendous weight in apparatus on Earth and have to pump that stuff up to the Moon! What you do is, you take your technology to the Moon, and then you find the raw materials on the Moon, which you use to build the craft. Now you build the craft which will actually take you, or take whatever you want to send, to Mars, in that direction. So you have to build an industrialization of the Moon.

Remember, this is not a new idea! The space pioneers, as early as the immediate post-war period, in the 1950s in the United States, were already talking about that, as they were in the Soviet Union, and in other places. The Mars objective was the objective, the planet Mars. Getting there is going to be complicated; it’s going to take a lot of science, a lot of development, but that’s our mission. We’re thinking ahead: We’re not thinking about what we’re going to get tomorrow; we’re thinking about what our people are going to have, two or three generations ahead.

A Purpose in Life

And we’re thinking about the purpose in life, which we’re giving to young people today, who are coming out of adolescence—the purpose in life, for them! When they ask themselves, “To what purpose am I living? Am I living to my satisfaction? Am I an animal? Or am I living for the sake of my coming generations? Am I living for the joy of my old age? Am I living to do the things that will give me joy in my old age?” It will take a grandfather, who will tell his grandson, “I helped build that! And here’s what you’re going to do, in your time.”

It’s that force of imagination, when that becomes the policy of nations, to develop the imagination in this way, the scientific imagination, the cultural imagination, where do we want to go? What do we want to promise to our grandchildren, and their grandchildren? What do we expect as goals that we think we can realize in this term of life? How do we have to educate our people, what do we have to do now, to give a meaning to life? I mean, are we animals? That we just eat, and have pleasure, from one moment to the other? Or, are we people, who are thinking about humanity, about future generations, are thinking about what we owe to past generations, and what we owe to future generations? Do our lives have meaning? Do they have purpose? Or are we just silly pleasure-seekers, or something? Entertainment-seekers?

And the problem we have today, is a cultural problem, which is a moral problem: Is that under a zero-growth society, a zero technological growth society, a greenie society, mankind becomes less than an animal in moral value. . . .

The population requirements that we must anticipate right now, is a world level of population of 7 billion. We have to anticipate that now, in this coming generation. And we have to prepare to be able to meet that challenge. And we can! The point is, as you make people creative, you inspire them to be creative. Inspire them to see objectives beyond what their habits are today, and they will be creative, and they will create the ability to satisfy these goals. And mankind is not going to stick around as being just in the nook of this Earth, just some corner of the Solar System: Mankind is going out into the universe. If we can have a constantly accelerated flight within our galaxy, men, in their own lifetime, can explore some distant parts of this galaxy. We can do it.

We’re not going to do this tomorrow, but our perspective has to be in that direction. It’s what we have to tell our children, and our grandchildren: “This is what we must do.” And when you capture the imagination of people, in a realistic way, this way, then they become moral, because they become inspired to do good. . . .

Power of High Energy-Flux Density

So therefore, we don’t want this nonsense anymore. What we need is high energy-flux density power, and high energy-flux density is the measurement of effectiveness of production. The higher the energy-flux density—and this means you go from incident sunlight, you go up the scale toward nuclear power, and then to thermonuclear power, and beyond that. . . .

Well, for example: If you wanted to take a ship, and you wanted the ship to take you from Earth-orbit, as in, from the Moon to Mars orbit, with people in it—if you wanted to have that ship travel at a speed which gives a gravitational effect for the inhabitants of the capsule, you will have a tank attached to it, as big as the Moon, just to contain the fuel. It’s not a very good idea.

So therefore, what you need, is you need a much higher energy-flux density thing; you need fusion thrust. And where do you get the fusion thrust? Well, you go to the Moon. That’s your filling station. You’ll find at the filling station on the Moon, there’s helium-3, an isotope of helium. Helium-3 is the best fuel for thermonuclear fusion, it’s the most efficient. So if you wanted to have a ship go, so the one-gravity effect on the passengers and the crew, between Earth orbit and Mars orbit, you would want to have thermonuclear fusion as your propellant. And it would come from helium-3, picked up from the gas station on the Moon.

And most of the equipment you would fly in, would also be built on the Moon, from raw materials which are present on the Moon. And once we get into that racket, we find that we’re not limited to the Moon. Once we become gatherers of raw materials and so forth, in various parts of the Solar System, then, we find that we have many more kinds of resources to deal with.

So, in general, the point is, is we have to go to this kind of development. Therefore, we want a space orientation. We want a power/space orientation combined, to complement the development of a railway system. Now, in this process, when you start to build the railway system, of the type we’re talking about, you’re going to have to recreate the machine-tool production, and so forth, that you need.

Increase the Powers of Labor

So, essentially, in my view, in the United States, what we would do by tradition: We would take a large-scale project, like the Tennessee Valley program, or our developing a railway system, the transcontinental railway system—you would take that project, and you would assign Federal responsibility for creating the credit, and authorizing this, to build this system. You would then go to private contractors, along the way, who would pick up on filling out subcontractors on these projects, which is the way things always work in the United States, when they worked. And thus, you take a driver, some scientific project, like a space program, or a railway program, a water program, building power plants—these things now become the stimulus, which spin off the subcontracts and opportunities for expanding industry again.

So, now we want to increase the productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer. We take the large projects as drivers. We take the offshoots of the large projects, which are largely national projects, as stimulants for the smaller level, for people who do the things that are necessary to support the major projects out there. Now, you can expand, raise the level, with aid of education, which is stimulated by this, to increase the productive powers of labor per capita in physical terms.

And that’s what we used to do, in our best time! That’s what we did under Roosevelt, with a lot of improvisation. Do it again! That’s the solution for Asia, as well! You have to have the process of self-development of a population, through the kinds of goals and stimulants which will enable that to occur in a lawful way. And you have to have a people-carry orientation—that’s to say, when you’ve got little kids out there, young people, who have no future, who are extremely poor, with no significant prospect of getting a better life—this is the way you approach that problem. You transform people who have no future, and you give them a future, by creating this process, where they’re assimilated into the process of the general growth of the society.

CONFERENCE KEYNOTE

Space Travel Brings Out Our Identity

As Creative Beings

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Schiller Institute

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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

This is the edited transcript of the keynote address, an interchange with the audience, and concluding remarks presented by Schiller Institute founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche to the institute’s conference in New York titled, “Mankind as a Galactic Species: The Necessary Alternative to War,” held on October 5, 2019 in New York.

Hello! I am very happy to address you, even if it’s only via the internet and video. Today is a truly joyous day! All around the world, and actually above—on the International Space Station—there are celebrations of the International Observe the Moon Day. All the people who are celebrating have caught a very healthy disease—Moon Fever. The annual celebration of Moon Day began only 10 years ago. This year there are 1,564 events taking place all over the world: 526 in the United States, 298 in Europe, 268 in India, 67 in China, 27 in Africa, and 103 in Latin America.

The number of people watching and participating in this is in the hundreds of thousands, probably in the millions. I think I’m not overstating it when I insist that these people are the vanguard of the future identity of civilization. Because they understand that mankind must be united, not in a space race for the sake of competition, but through cooperation; because this is the only way to have a long-term, sustainable existence of the human species in space.

Anonymous

Nicholas of Cusa

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

Nicholas of Cusa, the great 15th century thinker, concluded that the only reason representatives of different nations, cultures, and languages are able to even communicate with each other, is that they all produce great scientists. I would especially add that it is because they have produced astrophysicists who understand that the future of mankind is for mankind to be a galactic species.

The Power of Space Research and Travel

Let me give you quote from our collaborator, Krafft Ehricke, who was a board member of the Schiller Institute until he died in 1984. He described very clearly why space travel and space research are so absolutely important. In his 1957 book, The Anthropology of Astronautics, he wrote:

The concept of space travel carries with it enormous impact, because it challenges man on practically all fronts of his physical and spiritual existence. The idea of travelling to other celestial bodies reflects to the highest degree, the independence and agility of the human mind. It lends ultimate dignity to man’s technical and scientific endeavors. Above all, it touches on the philosophy of his very existence. As a result, the concept of space travel disregards national borders, refuses to recognize differences of historical or ethnological origin, and penetrates the fiber of one sociological or political creed as fast as that of the next.

As a technical concept, astronautics is all-embracing, and more revolutionary than anything conceived so far, including even atomic technology. As a scientific concept, it is bound to stimulate and rejuvenate practically all fields from astronomy to zoology. Its sociological and political implications are such that future generations may well describe as ‘cautious’ even the boldest prediction of our time.

Now that unbelievable power of space research and travel may become obvious to you if you reflect that the idea of man leaving Earth and travelling to other planets is only 154 years old. It was first presented in the novel by Jules Verne, From the Earth to the Moon. That was a novel, but it contained many highly accurate predictions that later became true. I would call it much more a vision for the future of mankind than science fiction, because it actually inspired many of the pioneers of space like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, a Russian space pioneer (who has a crater named after him on the far side of the Moon); Hermann Oberth; Robert Goddard; and Krafft Ehricke himself, who stood on the shoulders of Hermann Oberth, but was greatly inspired by the movie of Fritz Lang, The Woman in the Moon of 1929.

A scene from the 1929 silent film Frau im Mond (Woman in the Moon).

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

Today, we are very much beyond the novel and beyond the movie. Astronautics has become a scientifically recognized discipline, and only those people who are troglodytes ridicule those who promote space travel, like some of the mainstream media that ridiculed my husband in 1988 for his marvelous movie, which you should all watch, The Woman on Mars, with its beautiful vision of colonizing Mars.

Today several countries have Moon and Mars projects—the United States with its Artemis program, as well as programs in India and China. Johann-Dietrich Wörner, the Director-General of the ESA (European Space Agency), which actually represents the best of the European attitude these days, announced “Space 4.0,” saying that the international Moon village which ESA is planning to build in cooperation hopefully with all the other space agencies, will no longer be the preserve of just a few space-faring nations; it will be open to all governments, private companies, academia, and industry.

There are still some obstacles to be overcome, but there are promising signs of international cooperation. For example, NASA and the China National Space Administration (CNSA) coordinated efforts around the recent touchdown of the Chang’e-4 lunar mission, where the Moon lander and Yutu-2 rover landed on the far side of the Moon. Images of the Chang’e-4 landing were taken by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and released in February of this year. This was clearly a first step in international cooperation between the United States and China, which is still hindered a lot by the Wolf Amendment in the United States. The leading scientist of China’s lunar program, Wu Weiren, referred to a request made some years ago by NASA at an international conference, to “borrow” the Chang’e-4 spacecraft and the Chinese far-side relay satellite in order to plan a mission to the Moon’s far side.

There is extensive cooperation going on between NASA, Roscosmos (Russia’s State Corporation for Space Activities), the ESA, and India’s Space Research Organization, and even with many developing countries. This is the vision of Krafft Ehricke and also of my husband Lyndon LaRouche, that the Moon would be the first colony of this endeavor. As Tsiolkovsky said, “It is true that the Earth is the cradle of mankind, but man cannot stay in the cradle forever. The Solar System will be our kindergarten.”

Now Krafft Ehricke’s vision of the Moon city Selenopolis is becoming a reality. Lyndon LaRouche’s idea of a Mars colony is now very concretely on the table with Artemis, and with the Chinese Mars mission in 2020, which will test if it’s possible to have terraforming on Mars, in which ESA is also cooperating. There is already a model for such a Mars city in China’s Gobi Desert.

ESA/Foster + Partners

An artist’s depiction of the European Space Agency’s design for a lunar base which offers protection from meteorites, gamma radiation, and high temperature fluctuations.

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

Why Go to Space?

The beauty of all this is that space projects prove that man is capable of overcoming all seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Lyn, in one of his many beautiful writings about space, asked the question, “Why should man go to space?”

“Why,” many people ask, “should we spend all this money for space when there are so many problems on the Earth?” Now, we have one such representative of this world outlook in Bernie Sanders, who, because of his New Green Deal, wants to solve all problems on Earth first and only then spend the rest for NASA projects. This reminds one of Cervantes’ Don Quixote fighting windmills, but I cannot see how you can reach the Moon or Mars or other planets with windmills for power.

It is the nature of man to conquer all challenges by exploring the unknown. Krafft Ehricke referred to the qualitative steps, just to give you an idea, that mankind again and again made such steps into the unknown. He refers to Homer who, in the Odyssey, describes how Odysseus got on a ship not knowing where he would end up. Then, there was the operation by Christopher Columbus, which led to Europe’s discovery of the New World, when he also did not know exactly where he would wind up, even though he had maps from Paolo Toscanelli and an idea. But it didn’t turn out exactly as planned. Then think about Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space; or think about the Apollo 8 mission. Each time, a qualitative step was made, boundaries were overcome.

With that perspective in mind, it is very clear that even colonies on the Moon and Mars will not be the limit. They will be only the stepping stones for a new era of discoveries for future cosmic civilizations. Sure, it is clear that space research has a utilitarian value; there is often the quote that “Every cent spent on the Apollo project brought fourteen cents return in profit.” But there are already many forward benefits of space technology today. For example, agriculture is vastly aided by space technology. Space medicine, new materials, the vast resources on other celestial bodies. Think about all the breakthroughs about the fundamental questions of the laws of the universe which we would not even have an inkling of if we only look with our nose to the ground on the Earth.

In 1966, Lyndon LaRouche wrote in “The Science and Technology Needed to Colonize Mars,” that it was absolutely necessary to go outside the Earth’s atmosphere, to go to places like the far side of the Moon, or Mars, as an indispensable precondition for studying the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, from the very long to the very short waves emanating from all the distant stars and galaxies.

If we go in this direction, new questions will be posed, questions that aren’t even known today. We will find so-called anomalies which will manifest themselves as disturbing experimental differences with the textbooks. These will occur in the combination of astrophysics, micro-physics, optical biophysics. Every time such an anomaly occurs, it will open the door to new insights about the universe.

International Cooperation Is Required

This absolutely requires international cooperation. In April of this year, the working group of the Event Horizon Telescope published the first images of the immediate environment of a super-massive black hole in the center of the galaxy M87. This galaxy is only 55 million light-years away from us at most, and its mass is 6.5 trillion times the mass of our Sun. But with this discovery, the theoretical hypothesis of Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and the assumption of such black holes was proven, more than 100 years after the theory. This effort required cooperation of many countries around the world. Hundreds of scientists, using ten radio telescopes in locations around the world. That span was needed to make this imaging successful.

Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration

First image of a black hole environment, seen at the center of galaxy M87.

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

In the same way, if we build a colony on Mars, which will have to be self-sufficient and will be a long-term endeavor, it will only function if it has the size of a city with hundreds if not thousands of scientists and many more people in life-supporting systems. This requires international cooperation. All of this has a deeper anthropological significance.

Lyndon LaRouche correctly said that we have to look not only at the span of this present century, but into the next, and several centuries ahead. Man, in that time, will not only be capable of operating in the Solar System, but very likely in the entire galaxy, and maybe even beyond that in some distant future.

There is a profound question associated with this concerning the nature of man. It is very clear, as we have developed as a species from very primitive forms—the Stone Age and many steps beyond that—that man, by going into space, by developing colonies on other planets, will change his identity as mankind. I’m absolutely optimistic that that will be very positive—that through the increase of knowledge about the physical universe, and through aesthetical education, our moral character will increasingly improve. Space travel will enable mankind, in the not so far distant future, to become truly human.

The Necessary Next Discovery

Question: Hi, this is José from New York. I have two questions, one for Helga and one for Dr. Aaron Olson. I’d like to start with my question for Helga, and I’d also like to thank her for a wonderful introduction.

My question is, I know you speak a lot about Nicholas of Cusa and other great thinkers. How are you able to take an idea that existed as far back as the 15th century and make it relevant in the 21st century?. . .

Zepp-LaRouche: Many ideas of Nicholas of Cusa are eternal: That is the characteristic of ideas. Some of them are just not going to lose their importance. For example, the question of inventions. Cusa developed a method of defining the necessary next invention, and he developed the idea that you have to have a prescience, so that you know that what you find is what you search for, because otherwise, you discover something and you don’t know if that’s really what was needed.

This has very much to do with Lyndon LaRouche’s method of having a parameter with which you can define if a discovery is good, and brings mankind forward, or not? As you know, and have probably discussed many times, it is Lyn’s conception of potential relative population-density and the associated idea of energy-flux density in the production process: Now these parameters can tell you exactly if a discovery is necessary or not.

There are many discoveries being made in the area of green technology, of solar, of wind, of batteries, of all of these things. But are they going to lead mankind to the necessary next level of development? Maybe they’re all a waste of energy, despite the fact that they may include some useful new technologies. In the large scale, this work does not coincide with the anti-entropic laws of the universe, and therefore, is leading mankind in a completely wrong direction.

Nicholas of Cusa could not know the specifics of it, but using his method of defining the necessary next discovery, he said that each individual recapitulates the entire evolution of the universe up to that point, and from that standpoint, you can then determine the necessary next step.

So, while the particulars may be changing, the method is absolutely valid. Of the many ideas of Cusa, I only want to pick out one more, which is also very important, and that is the method of thinking of the coincidence of opposites, the coincidentia oppositorum.

The Coincidence of Opposites

Most people suffer from an inability to imagine the next higher level of unity. But it is precisely this ability, which is absolutely required, for example, to get to the kind of international cooperation among the United States, and China, and Russia, and India, and Europe, and Africa, and so forth. If you cannot think on the level of the coincidence of opposites, you cannot possibly think how it is that politics is not a zero-sum game, and you will always think in terms of geopolitical interests, where one is winning and the other one is losing.

And if you look at the anti-China witch-hunt going on these days, which was mentioned, that is absolutely based on that wrong kind of thinking, which happens to be also the kind of Aristotelian tradition Ben Deniston was referring to, which was so clearly defined by Lyn in his 1978 paper, “The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites.”

This concept of the concidentia oppositorum, the coincidence of opposites, this is very close to the Chinese thinking of establishing, or trying to develop a harmony among people, among individuals, among nations. It is what Xi Jinping calls the “shared community of the joint future of mankind.”

Cusa on the Eternity of the Soul and

of Its Creations

Nicholas of Cusa also had the idea that every human discovery occurs in the human soul. The fact that the sciences discovered by the soul—the music, the geometry, the mathematics, the other areas of science—are all eternal, and that the soul is inventing all of them, is proof that the soul, which is of a higher order than that which is being created, must also be eternal. This, in my view, is one of the most beautiful arguments for the immortality of the soul I know of, of all the great thinkers of the past.

Nicholas also said that each such discovery is so important that there should be an immediate—I would use a modern term—an international pooling of knowledge, so that all other nations have access to this discovery, so that the development of none of them is held up by denying access to this knowledge. I think this is an extremely important principle, one that China is following in respect to many developing countries, by offering for them to participate in the most advanced space experiments and space programs. Sometimes patents are necessary, but every qualitative discovery, such as the control of fusion power, and other breakthroughs, should not be hidden, but be made available to the whole world to share and accelerate development.

In Nicholas of Cusa you find many, many extremely progressive ideas, which make him actually much more modern for the 21st century than most people who are in academia today.

I don’t know if I have answered your question; I could say a lot more, but that’s for starters.

Follow-Up: No, it does, and thank you for clarifying that. And that’s kind of what I meant about the design of experiments. Because, Mr. Harrison Schmitt, while he was up there on the Moon, had a hypothesis about the effects of the volcanic activity on the mountains of the Moon—no water, it might have been gases. That may or may not be true, but what is needed is an experiment to prove or disprove that hypothesis, and that’s what my question was about. Thank you, Mrs. LaRouche.

NASA

Earth seen at night from the International Space Station, showing the lights of human civilization.

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

Cultural Optimism, Cultural Pessimism

Zepp-LaRouche: The reason why our occupation with space and the physical laws of the universe is so very important, has everything to do with the image of man which you derive out of that. I think the big controversy of our time is, is man a parasite, is every additional human being just a burden for nature? Is it worth it to protect spiders and little insects, or is it better to address the urgent development of Africa?

It is estimated that there will be 2.5 billion people in Africa by 2050, and for me, this is one of the crucial questions of morality. Either there will be a tremendous refugee crisis and all its attendant horrors, such as people drowning in the Mediterranean, and coast guard troops shooting at them; or we join hands and develop the African nations. Africa is the continent with the greatest development potential, because most of its population will be young people. The average age will be something like 18 or 19 years. Africa will need hundreds of millions of jobs for these young people.

The reason that space is so absolutely important is that once you actually start to study the laws of the physical universe, the galaxies, their governing principles, you begin to realize that we are not in a closed system, but in an expanding system which is huge! I mean, I am always still flabbergasted by the idea that by using the Hubble Space Telescope, mankind has discovered two trillion galaxies!

Now, I think that shows you that we are just making absolute baby-steps in knowing what this physical universe is like, and why the optimistic view represented by such people as Robert Goddard or Krafft Ehricke, or my late husband, is so important: Because if you look at the longer cycles of history, you can actually see that every time humanity was gripped by pessimism, it led to a catastrophe.

That was the case of the 14th century in Europe; that was the case of the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, where mass cultural pessimism led to fascism and Nazism. On the other hand, when an optimistic world outlook and image of man prevailed, such that every human being was seen as a creative person, lives were bettered. If universal education is provided to every child, every child has the potential of becoming a genius, and in that capacity, contributes to the benefit of all of humanity.

Now, the difference between these two views, cultural optimism and a vision of the future leading to beautiful periods, and its opposite, cultural pessimism leading to fascism, is a very important criterion for us today. This poor girl Greta Thunberg is so—I think she will break down soon anyway—but meanwhile, she is injecting millions of teenagers with pessimism. Desperate children are taking violent actions—and you will see a lot more violence as already announced by the Extinction Rebellion. This is eco-fascism. It’s something which is not only brown, but also green.

There are now so many spacefaring nations, and the optimism bacillus has sort of caught on. There are many third world countries that absolutely want to be leading space nations pretty soon. I think this is fantastic! Space is the absolute best antidote, because it leads to the creativity of the human person, and it leads to the kind of optimism which is key to conquering every barrier of knowledge and so-called political obstacles, and this is human nature: We can do everything if we do not impose arbitrary limitations on ourselves. That happens to be the first of Krafft Ehricke’s Laws of Space, and I think this is absolutely the case.

Greetings from Russian Ambassador Antonov to the Schiller Institute Conference

Washington.mid.ru

Anatoly I. Antonov

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

Greetings by Ambassador of Russia in the U.S.A., Anatoly I. Antonov, to participants of the Conference “Mankind as a Galactic Species” on October 5, 2019.

Dear Friends,

It is a pleasure for me to greet all of you at the Conference “Mankind as a Galactic Species.”

For centuries, people had been dreaming of the conquest of space. Russia is proud that it was our compatriot, Yuri A. Gagarin, who made the first space flight on April 12, 1961 and thereby opened a new era in the history of humankind. This event was a scientific and technological breakthrough which paved the way to unexplored horizons. More than 560 people have been on the Earth orbit since then. Thanks to cosmonauts, scientists and engineers from different countries, unique technologies were created which now serve all people on the planet.

As leaders in space exploration, Russia and the United States have a long history of constructive cooperation in this sphere. We jointly implemented such large-scale projects as “Soyuz-Apollo” and “Mir-Shuttle.” Nowadays, we are successfully working at the International Space Station.

I am sure that our countries’ productive collaboration in space will continue for the sake of progress and development of all humanity.

I wish you a successful Conference!

—Anatoly Antonov

An Approach to U.S.-China Collaboration in Science

by Dr. Xing Jijun

Schiller Institute

Dr. Xing Jijun

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

This is the edited transcript of the speech presented by Dr. Xing Jijun to the Schiller Institute conference in New York, “Mankind as a Galactic Species: The Necessary Alternative to War,” on October 5, 2019. Subheads have been added. Dr. Xing is Counselor and Head of the Science and Technology Section of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in New York.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you Dennis for your introduction, and also thank you Richard and to your colleagues for inviting me here, today. It’s really my great pleasure to be speaking to my colleagues and other members of the Schiller Institute. I hesitate, in such a public presentation, having to follow such impressive speakers as Dr. LaRouche and Madame LaRouche, who have addressed a great many things. I feel a bit humble in talking about the future, and about the future of technologies. But, I will try my best.

Richard assigned me a topic, “An Approach to U.S.-China Cooperation in Science.” A big topic. I think it should be approached as a question, because the logic has now changed. For the past 40 years, people have seen cooperation as good—we should work together, we should learn from each other, and we should try to do things that benefit both China and the U.S.A., and also the whole world. But today, some people try to find an alternative, people talk a lot about war, about trade war, or other wars. Even if we don’t like it, we do have to confront it, we have to face it.

Today, to provide an approach for future cooperation between China and the U.S.A., I would like to mention two key words. The first one is “innovation,” and the second one, we come back to, is “cooperation.”

Cc/N509FZ

A flyby during the 70th Anniversary celebration in Beijing of the founding of the People’s Republic of China on Oct. 1, 2019.

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

Innovation—For the Benefit of the Millions

The new China has just celebrated its 70th National Day anniversary. It took us quite a long time to follow the trends of technology and modern society, because we had, in China, suffered so many setbacks in the last 200 or more years. Fortunately, in the last 70 years, and especially in the last 40 years, we have come to understand that we should open up more to the world, to the new knowledge, to new technologies, and innovative ways to develop ourselves. We do have such an understanding of innovation right now; we try our best.

Personally, I began to understand the word “innovation,” starting about 20 years ago, since 1997. When people talked about “innovation,” I didn’t really know what that meant. I thought it was just a kind of research or the acquiring of knowledge through education. But gradually, I learned that “innovation” really has a broader meaning. It is based on knowledge, on technologies, but not only that.

Innovation means creating value for society through innovation. You have to use your knowledge and your technology to provide products and services to the people. You’re working for the betterment of society. Otherwise, you may have much knowledge in your head, in your mind, or you may have a new technology, but, if you don’t produce good products for your people, then you have no value. For instance, in China, we have 1.4 billion people. We need to have enough food for all of us! It is only through innovation that we can solve such problems.

Over the last 40 years, we in China have tried to provide enough food to feed our people. At the same time, we are trying to discover what is happening in the galaxy, on the Moon, on Mars. So, even though we still have a lot of difficulties producing enough food, we still think the future is bright.

What is innovation really? There are three stages, or phases to innovation. The first phase is a technology “push.” For instance, we find with electricity-if we have bright lights, we can have a conference here even in the evening, that’s a “technology push.”

Cc/DaiLuo

Connecting over 500 cities across China is a network of high-speed rail, with bullet trains that can reach a top speed of 350 km/hr (217 mph).

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

Later, we know that people when they have more knowledge and more material things, then they will have a bigger dream or a better dream. So, then we will hear, “I want to go further. I want to fly. I want not only to ride a bicycle; I want to drive a car!” That’s the second stage of innovation, the design “pull.” There’s the “technology push,” and then there’s the “design pull.”

Then, because we want to travel farther and faster, we have railroads. For instance, when I was a student, it took me almost eight hours to travel home, on a train going less than 60 km/hour. But now, we have 350 km/hour train, a much faster train. So that’s our desire: we want to travel fast, we want to travel far, so we have created high-speed trains.

Upward Access for Everybody

But now, the world is changing greatly and changing fast, so the “technology push” and “design pull” is not enough! People mention a lot of things that we have to face in the future. Currently, we have emerging diseases that we never have had before. For instance, in 2003, in China we had SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) suddenly. We have climate issues, even if we have different opinions about their cause, we know that something is happening. We have energy problems and other challenges. Now we realize that people—whether in New York, or in New Jersey, or in California, or in China—we all face the same problems. The only difference is that in China, we suffer some of the problems more seriously than you do in the West, but we do have similar problems.

So now and in the future, the third phase of innovation is “facing and solving global challenges.” Global challenges then become the number-one driver, they become a very important power for innovation. So, I think that is why we hear from Dr. LaRouche, and the Ambassador from Russia that we must try to solve global challenges, now and in the future—not by war, but by some necessary and possible alternatives, by innovation and cooperation.

So, personally, I think the best alternative is to use our minds, to be hardworking, and to learn from other people, as I have tried to do. Of course, we all are the same. We hope, we want to learn, we want to work together with others, and we hope that there will be an upward access for everybody to knowledge, to technologies, to innovation, allowing each person to be hardworking, and to be always learning. That’s my understanding of the three phases of innovation.

If we see innovation as a chain—like we talk about supply chains, we talk about knowledge chains—innovation can also be a chain. It can be a chain of knowledge, education, research, development, demonstration, market commercialization, industrialization, and the creation of products and value. A lot of things. So it’s not only research, not only scientific development; it’s really a broad spectrum of innovation and its spin-offs.

America is a great innovative country. It’s really an example for the world to learn from, especially for China. In China, we make our targets, and we create our vision. China also wants to be innovative. Why not?

However, we still see the great gap between us and the modern, advanced countries, especially the U.S.A. So, we have our targets, we are hoping that by 2020 we will be an innovative country. Right now, we are not. There is a deficit of innovation in different countries. China is yearly going upwards in innovation, but this year we are only in 14th place; so there are 13 countries ahead of us. It’s a long way to go. We are trying to learn from other countries, especially the U.S.A. And I also think next year we could be one of the innovative countries; then we will be working even harder—what will happen in the year 2035? It’s a long way to go. I will have already retired, and the young people will have to follow up!

China Is a Major Market for the U.S.A.

Even by 2035, we don’t think that we will surpass the U.S.A. or other advanced countries, but we do think that we could be in the top ten or top five by the year 2035. And if we look further ahead, to the year 2050—we will have had 30 years—we ask, is it possible that we could be at the top? At the top means to be among some countries at the top. Of course, the U.S.A. has already been on the top for 100 years! So, by that time, by the year 2050, we could be together at the top, to make more contributions to the whole world.

I know it sounds very ambitious. We know we have a lot of hard work to do. However, it’s not the way some people talk about it—that China is trying to take over the leadership of this-and-that, or whatever. It’s not that way. We know ourselves. We know that 20 or 30 years ago, we did not have access to the modern knowledge system. So, we have a long way to go. We know that we have a lot of things that we should probably stick with, but there are some things we will change. One thing that we will never change is that we have made ourselves open, we want to learn from the outside world. That will never change.

So believe me, believe us, that is our vision: only by learning from others can you make yourself happy, make yourself stronger. Even if you know that you will not become so big—being stronger doesn’t mean that when I’m stronger, I will do something or other. No, only when we are all stronger, can we confront global challenges together. This is the third phase of innovation, which I mentioned: the real power behind innovation is the demand of the “global challenge.” Were we still very, very weak, as 70 years ago, as 40 years ago, even as 10 years ago, we would not be able to join hands together with the people outside of China for all mankind, to overcome all the challenges. That’s my view of the first key word, innovation.

Now, to our discussion of cooperation. Innovation is not only the creation of knowledge, scientific research, and mathematical discoveries. Those things are very, very important. Without the discoveries about nature, without basic knowledge and research, we cannot go further. The Moon or Mars will still be far away from us unless we learn to understand the physical world. If we have knowledge, the education to know those things, then we can become more innovative.

Thinking about innovation, or knowledge chains, or fields of research and technological development, we also working on the future applications of tomorrow’s technology. We can have a big spectrum in which we can work together in both knowledge chains and in the applications of that knowledge. We already work together for a lot of things. We mentioned technology and also innovation. For any product or service, you have to have a market. China is one of the largest markets—of course, smaller than U.S. market, but we are one of the large markets. If you forget this market, or we have to close this market, where are you going to sell your high-technology products or services? That’s the question, and we can think about that.

Therefore this means that we do have a lot of potential to work together, to cooperate in science, in research, in innovation. But, frankly speaking, we do face challenges, especially nowadays.

NASA/Bill Ingalls

In space suits, Hazzaa Ali Almansoori of the UAE (left), and Expedition 59 and 60 crewmembers Alexey Ovchinin of Roscosmos (center) and Nick Hague of NASA (right), relax outside the Soyuz MS-12 spacecraft after the latter two spent 203 days in space aboard the ISS, landing in a remote area near Zhezkazgan, Kazakhstan, Oct. 3, 2019.

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

Could the U.S.A. Spend More on R&D?

You know, every day, I read the newspaper, I watch TV. It’s not always good news for everyone. Especially here in New York, every day you have fake news, right? Every day. I don’t know which one is the true one and which one is the fake one, but we can wait and see. But as I have mentioned, if you have the fake news, at least you should be able to identify whether it’s fake or not fake, by examination, because you have eyes, you can find out.

But the terrible thing is if there is some false logic introduced, then the world changes even for the worse. Now, something we have done before—everyone said it was good—we worked together to go to the Moon, with Russia, with India, with China, and we try to find the good things. But now, anything involving working together with China is not as good as it was before. Such logic is terrible.

For instance, my first assignment here was the year 2016, just three years ago. When I talk about Chinese achievements with people they think it’s good! Because when China is doing well, then we can all work well together. But now, the logic has been changed, so that if China is doing well, then that will be seen as a threat. What kind of a threat? Everything is mentioned as a threat, a threat—I think that’s very bad logic. If someone is working hard, it doesn’t mean that someone is trying to take you over! So you have different choices.

You know, we, in China, hope we can catch up—and we hope someone behind us will then go even further! That’s what scientists and the people pursue. For instance, if Richard is a good researcher and I’m trying to learn, and then I reach his level, I then really hope he reaches the next level—so, then I have the example to follow. So, for the person who is up front, there are several approaches or alternatives. If you go further, that’s good. So we hope the advanced countries, especially the U.S.A., can lead the innovation, can lead in the correct way.

We don’t like the situation: you do not want to go further, but just turn back and say, “You have to stop.” That’s not what we want to see. Instead, we hope to see, “C’mon! C’mon!” China has a big market, I can sell you technology, I do have the new technology here in my pocket!” As it was before. So, I do hope the U.S.A.—especially the government—can spend more on an R&D budget, and your education budget. But I just hope positively that you will still lead the way! Then, we know there’s a direction to go.

The most difficult thing is if you have no one ahead of you, then you could be lost. So, like during the last Schiller Institute conference on the 50th anniversary of the Apollo Moon landing in July, I mentioned 5G: People think China is now leading in this sector. But for 6G, who will be the leader? Personally, I think the U.S.A. should, because for the 5G, we are here, so for the 6G you can go there. Maybe for the 7G, Europe will go further! That’s normal competition.

ITER

The cryoplant provides cooling fluids to ITER, the world’s largest magnetic confinement plasma physics experiment, in France.

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

Let’s Cooperate on Fusion Energy!

I hear now they say, “Competition is not a four-letter word.” Right? Yes, they say that. But, cooperation is a better word! Right? I don’t know the exact meaning, or the story behind this phrase, but I’m sure, personally, that cooperation is a better word! [applause] Thank you.

Back to my topic: In what areas could we cooperate more in this serious situation, when some people want decoupling, or want to stop us? I have talked about a big spectrum of innovation. First we have basic research in knowledge—discoveries, the work of the scientists. That has no boundaries; everybody knows science has no boundaries. That’s an area where we should have more cooperation, and not this not-cooperation-friendly situation. For the mid-section of technology applications, there are many more complicated questions. If someone doesn’t want to work with you, you have no way to proceed. It’s not unlike marriage: If one person wants to keep the marriage, it’s not a good marriage; it is only good if the two people want to live together.

So this middle part of science is more difficult. For example, even nowadays, just now the previous speaker mentioned the space program, where the U.S.A., Russia, and some other countries all work together, even including China in the past. But then suddenly, about 10 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the Wolf Amendment to ban cooperation with China. Never mind, we can try to have our own programs. But these programs are still open to the outside world. So that part is very difficult.

But we have a third part in science, which is an upward part, which is for future technologies, future applications of new technologies, like exploration of other parts of our galaxy: Go to the Moon, go to Mars, find new resources like the fusion technologies. If we have limited energy—as people have already mentioned, with oil or gas, or something else—it could be that one day we will have no more of those resources. So, what should we do? Fusion is one of the choices. And also, it’s not very far off—maybe 20 or 30 years, fusion could become a major energy source. For those things, we should work together.

China now is one of the members of ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor); ITER is the international fusion program. We do think this part of the spectrum is also an area where we can still keep good cooperation. If some people see this as a threat instead, let us take action together to solve a problem for humankind, for the future. It is not a threat to anyone: It’s a protection, it’s a system for the development of the whole world. We should join hands globally to do this.

So, my last words are that, even in this very special situation, we still can find great potentials, we still can find a lot of areas where we can work together. For those areas, at least, the Chinese scientists are always open: we want to learn, work together, as we had usually done before.

Thank you so much for inviting me here to speak to you. [applause] And also, I wish the conference a great success. Thank you.

The Best Way to Fusion Power:

Go Back to the Moon

Courtesy Dr. Aaron Olson

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

Dr. Aaron Olson of the Fusion Technology Institute and the University of Wisconsin briefed the conference on the ways helium-3—the ideal fuel for fusion power reactions, but not found on the Earth—could be mined on the Moon’s surface, where it exists in large quantities. One important key to opening up this pathway to fusion power was an observation and intuition formed by physicist and astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmitt while on the Moon with Apollo 17.

“You get nuclear power, without any radioactive waste. That’s incredible,” Dr. Olson said. “Many of you in the audience may be wondering, where does this helium-3 originate? It’s actually created in the Sun. At all times the Sun is fusing hydrogen with hydrogen as part of its core. But it’s also fusing other things all the time. That’s how we get a lot of our heavier isotopes and heavier elements. They’re actually created inside stars. So, helium-3 . . . is actually created inside of a star. And what happens is, it’s emitted from the Sun in something called the solar wind.

“The solar wind is a flux of charged particles that’s emitting from the Sun at all times. Because it’s charged, any body in the Solar System that has a magnetic field around it, deflects this charged flux of particles. On Earth we have a very powerful magnetic field that protects us from a number of the things that are being emitted, not only from our Sun, but from a lot of other sources across the Solar System and our galaxy. . . . Fortunately for us, we have a very healthy atmosphere. . . . But the Moon has neither a magnetic field nor a substantial atmosphere.

“Because of that, over the lifetime—4.5 billion years, 5 billion years roughly—the time the Moon has existed, it has had a tremendous amount of helium-3 that’s been bombarded onto its surface. A fraction of that still remains today and is retained in the first 3-5 meters depth on the lunar surface. And because of the Soviet missions in the 1960s and ’70s, and the Apollo missions in the ’60s and ’70s, we got proof of this. In fact, 360 kilograms of the material from the Apollo missions was brought back to Earth. And samples . . . were heated up, and gave out not only helium-3, but a number of other volatile gases that came off that soil.

“One great place to get a lot of background on all of this—not only the solar wind part of it, but also the Apollo samples, the Luna-16, Luna-20 and Luna-24 missions as well, that brought back samples that had helium-3—would be the book, Return to the Moon, by Apollo astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmitt.”

III. LaRouche’s Science of Economic Development

October 1982

The Theory of the

New World Economic Order

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editor’s note: This is a reprint of the speech given to the founding conference of the Club of Life on October 20-21, 1982. It was published in EIR Vol. 9, No. 42, Nov. 2, 1982, pp. 31-35 and as part of an 82-page pamphlet published by Campaigner Publications, “Proceedings of the Founding Conference of the Club of Life, Rome, Italy, October 20 & 21, 1982.”

EIRNS

Lyndon LaRouche addressing the founding conference of the German Club of Life in Karlsruhe, Germany in 1983.

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

The following is the text of the speech by EIR founder Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., to the founding conference of the Club of Life, October 20 and 21, 1982 in Rome, Italy. Mr. LaRouche is Chairman of the Advisory Council of the National Democratic Policy Committee in the United States. He is the creator of the LaRouche-Riemann econometric model and has written many books on the interrelated subjects of economics, education, and statecraft.

Since a fundamental shift in economic policy of the United States of America, over the period 1966-1969, the world as a whole has been moving at an accelerating rate, into not only a new world economic depression, but also depression-connected genocide against entire nations and people in many parts of the world.

At the moment we are assembled here, we are already inside the opening phase of a new economic depression worse than that of the 1930s. We are, at this moment, at the brink of a chain-reaction of collapse of financial institutions. If this collapse of financial structures occurs, the collapse of combined financial, political and social institutions worldwide will be as devastating as the collapse of Central Europe during the middle of the fourteenth century. Without a more or less immediate, and comprehensive reform of the world’s leading monetary institutions, and a profound and sudden change in monetary policies, this combined economic and financial collapse cannot be prevented.

I can add the fact that many among the most influential and powerful financial executives of the world broadly agree with my characterization of the international, economic and financial situation, even though a majority of them continue so far to reject the specific policy-recommendations I have continued to propose since a Bonn, West Germany press conference of April 24, 1975.

During 1966-1967, the British psychological warfare agency, the London Tavistock Institute submitted a report called the Rapoport Report to the U.S.A.’s Johnson administration. Tavistock expressed professed alarm at the psychological effects of scientific and engineering breakthroughs being accomplished chiefly under the auspices of the U.S.A.’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Tavistock warned that popular admiration for scientific achievements was fostering an excessively pro-scientific, pro-rationalist outlook within the U.S. population.

The Johnson administration accepted the recommendations of this Tavistock report and launched a program then named “The Great Society” as part of a policy of cutting back sharply on technological and scientific progress. This pro-neo-Malthusian policy was deeply embedded within institutions and policies of the United States under Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter. Although President Reagan is professedly an opponent of neo-Malthusianism, large chunks of the U.S. government as well as influential private institutions of the U.S. are continuing a neo-Malthusian policy at the present time.

Although the recent decade eruption of neo-Malthusian dogmas did not originate within the United States, the acceptance of those policies by the U.S.A. government has tilted the balance of world political forces in favor of neo-Malthusian dogmas and policies of practice worldwide.

This widespread toleration and support for neo-Malthusian policies is an effort to overthrow the most fundamental tenets of Judeo-Christian civilization. Although the 1967 Populorum Progressio and the 1981 Laborem Exercens are specifically encyclicals of the Roman Catholic confession, in their essentials these two encyclicals are to be adopted by the nations and peoples of the world, whatever their particular religious profession. These encyclicals are, to be used as ecumenical doctrines, addressing the fundamental values of not only Judeo-Christian civilization, but all forces which adhere to the principles of the sacredness and dignity of human life throughout the world.

I ask you to focus your attention for a moment on the manner in which neo-Malthusian dogmas and the depression are interacting at this particular moment of history. Then, I shall stress the connection between the principles of Laborem Exercens and modern economic science. Finally, I shall summarize the scientific basis for the establishment of a New World Economic Order meeting the requirement of Laborem Exercens and Populorum Progressio.

Interconnection Between Neo-Malthusianism and Economic Depression

If the leading institutions of the world still adhered to the human values generally accepted as recently as the early 1960s, the governments and political parties of most nations would judge the present and recent policies of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to be a hideous failure. In former times, we rightly judged economic and financial policies by a certain standard of social performance, by the standard of developing the material conditions of individuals’ human life worldwide, and fostering of that technological progress upon which the maintenance of human life depends.

In former times, men and women of goodwill judged economic and financial policies as good, bad, better or worse as the policies succeeded or failed in contributing to the development of the quality of life of the family and the individual in society generally. If we still adhered to those traditional Judeo-Christian values, we would regard the so-called “conditionalities” policies of the International Monetary Fund and other institutions as moral failures, and we would demand reforms of those institutions efficient to the purpose of correcting the evil being wrought by such “conditionalities” policies today.

Middle photo: Yoichi Okamoto; right photo: EIRNS/Stanley Ezrol

Left to right: Thomas Malthus; General Maxwell Taylor, in 1965; Alexander King, Chairman of the Club of Rome, in 1991.

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

Today, the spread of neo-Malthusian dogmas has destroyed the essential moral fabric of many governments and other powerful institutions. By spreading the false and evil dogma that the world is overpopulated, we remove objection to economic and monetary policies whose effect is to savagely reduce the alleged overpopulation.

In some leading circles, including politically powerful circles in my own nation, the United States, it is much worse. The same powerful rentier financier families which supported Adolf Hitler’s eugenics dogmas of practice back during the early 1930s are presently demanding that the United States adopt as its day-to-day military policy a doctrine of “population and raw materials wars” against the nations of the developing sector.

General Maxwell Taylor of the Draper Fund’s Population Crisis Committee is typical of but one of numerous powerful influentials, rooted among former Hitler supporters, who demand depopulation of the developing sector as a whole to about half or less the present population-levels by the turn of the present century. Two reports, named respectively Global 2000 and Global Futures issued by the outgoing Carter administration, insist on the same genocidal policies as General Maxwell Taylor, although those two reports demand much lower quantities of population reduction than does a radical genocidalist such as Taylor.

This is not merely a Western manifestation. The purportedly prestigious International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) is prominent among vehicles which link neo-Malthusians of the OECD countries with neo-Malthusians of the Soviet bloc. Among the fanatics such as Taylor and admirers of the Club of Rome, economic policies which cause genocide in developing nations are praised and supported as means by which savage population reduction will be accomplished. Many of such influential circles support the “conditionalities” policies of the International Monetary Fund because of the well-founded belief that such “conditionalities” policies will foster savage reduction in population-levels among the developing nations.

In the worst instances such as former OECD Director Alexander King, the support for savage population reduction is blended with shameless Anglo-Saxon racialism, demanding savage reduction in population of Turks, Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards as well as darker-skinned peoples of the developing nations generally.

Such conscious genocidalists are to be viewed as fully as evil as the Nazis’ eugenics doctrine of practice. However, these evil ones are merely the center of a larger problem. Although most of the persons tolerating neo-Malthusian policies such as the environmentalists, have refused to think through the practical consequences of the dogma, their corruption with such neo-Malthusian belief provides a mass political base of toleration for the wittingly evil work of men and women such as Maxwell Taylor.

UNICEF/Gilles Vauclair

In Cholomo, Honduras, sleep interrupts an exhausted child laborer’s hand-stitching of cowhide covers onto softballs produced for the U.S. market.

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

So, among the circles directing the IMF’s “conditionalities” policies, no longer are economic and monetary policies judged from the standpoint of the sacredness and dignity of individual human life. Human life is now being tolerated or taken away as the convenience of existing monetary policies demands. The repeatedly stated policy-outlook of leading bankers and others has been, over the period since the 1975 Rambouillet Conference, that it is a regrettable necessity that present monetary policies will cause mass death in the developing sector.

Economic Science

My chief personal role in the effort to establish a just new world economic order has been to apply my special skills as an economist, to design policy-structures of economic and monetary policies, through which the general objectives of Populorum Progressio can be brought into durable reality over the period of twenty-five to fifty years ahead.

AU-UN IST/Stuart Price

Starving women and children rush to a feeding center in Mogadishu, Somalia, July 20, 2011.

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

My standpoint in economic science is essentially the policy adopted by the young constitutional republic of the United States, the policy which Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was first to name “the American System of political-economy.” This American System was based on the discovery of economic science by Gottfried Leibniz, and was channeled into the young United States through students of the Oratorian teaching-order, who had been among the leading defenders of scientific education in France and Italy during the eighteenth century. The further development of the American System during the first half of the nineteenth century was chiefly a benefit of the work of France’s École Polytechnique beginning 1794, the collaborators of Lazare Carnot.

There was a noble effort to revive this American System policy by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Prior to his premature death, President Roosevelt had committed himself to a post-war policy of ridding the world of the institutions and vestiges of colonialism, and what Roosevelt described as the continuing evil of British eighteenth-century methods in the world’s economic and monetary affairs. He projected what was then called an “American Century” policy for the postwar world, a policy centered around a system of great infrastructural building projects, such as transforming the Sahel region into the breadbasket of Africa.

President Franklin Roosevelt (left) and UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Casablanca Conference in 1943.

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

After President Roosevelt’s premature death, the United States discarded Roosevelt’s policy, in favor of the policies demanded by Prime Minister Winston Churchill. With U.S. support and toleration, the post-war monetary order of Bretton Woods became a thinly-disguised neocolonialist order. While breakthroughs such as DDT lengthened life-expectancies among populations of former colonial nations, the prevailing monetary policies prevented those nations from consistently developing their economies at rates needed to sustain these populations.

After Roosevelt’s death, there were a few leading circles which have attempted to revive policy-initiatives along the same lines. The efforts of France’s President Charles de Gaulle and of Pope Paul VI are most notable. The great projects proposal of the Mitsubishi Research Institute illustrate the same direction of effort. Although there have been religious and other forces favoring such a change in policy among OECD nations, the principal political constituency for such an effort has been the so-called developing nations.

My own efforts, especially since my Bonn, West Germany press-conference of April 1975 on this subject, have been chiefly my own work as an economist, taking advantage of my success in developing a mathematical-analytical apparatus of the sort required for a more refined application of the American System.

For example, with aid of numbers of my immediate collaborators, beginning November 1979, we have published a regular quarterly forecast for the U.S. economy. This forecast has been consistently correct, whereas all competing governmental and private forecasts published have been consistently wrong to the point of absurdity over the same period to date.

It is of practical importance that I indicate my accomplishments in economic science over other currents of political-economists, since the points that I have to report to you are not accepted among most economists today. Since my version of economics has produced consistently accurate forecasts, whereas my factional opponents have produced only consistent failures in forecasting, certain relevant conclusions follow logically.

All modern economic science originates with the injunction of the Book of Genesis: mankind must “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth and subdue it.” That is not only Judeo-Christian doctrine; any policy which contradicts that imperative is absurd on purely scientific grounds.

Portrait by Johann Friedrich Wentzel

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

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

In economic science, beginning with the work of Gottfried Leibniz, we measure the performance of economies by their successful increase of the productive powers of labor. This was established as the centerpiece of the American System in Hamilton’s December 1791 Report to the U.S. Congress entitled “On the Subject of Manufactures.”

The quantity we measure is probably best named potential relative population-density. In other words, what is the average number of persons which can be sustained per square kilometer of habitable, improved land, solely by means of the changes in the material condition of nature effected by the labor of the population inhabiting the land.

In a primitive condition, such as that which the anthropologists name a hunting-and-gathering society, society can not exceed a level of about one person for an average ten to fifteen square kilometers of inhabitable land, which would mean approximately ten millions persons as the total human population of the world at any time. Without modern industry, the total population of the world could not exceed approximately one billions persons, most of which must be living in immiserated conditions.

CC BY-SA 3.0

The Saugus Iron Works, the first integrated ironworks in North America, founded in 1646 by John Winthrop the Younger.

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

Mankind rose above the hunting-and-gathering level about twelve thousand years or more ago, with the development of agriculture. The earliest form of true scientific technology was ancient astronomy used for navigation of craft like the Vikings’ boats, and the adaptation of this astronomical science for the guidance of agriculture. Through the development of the heat-powered machine, whose theoretical basis was first elaborated by Leibniz, the modern industrial revolution began in eighteenth-century France, and has brought the existing potential population level of the world up to about ten billions persons or more, on condition we widely deploy the kinds of technology which are either already in use in some parts of the world or which could be developed for general use during the remaining decades of this century. If we develop commercial thermonuclear fusion as a source of heat-energy for general human use, which can be accomplished during this immediate period ahead, that would raise the potential relative population-density of the human race to several tens of billions.

Building of the Transcontinental Railroad, near Castle Rock, Colorado, c.1869.

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

The chief among the long-term problems of economy is that without advances in technology, the depletion of certain kinds of natural resources in use raises the social costs of exploiting resources to the level that the potential relative population-density of society falls. If any society adhered to a zero-technological-growth policy sufficiently long, that lack of realized technological progress would by itself unleash the proverbial Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse upon such a misguided people.

So, since Leibniz’s discoveries, we define economic science as a study of the manner in which the use of technological progress maintains and increases this potential relative population-density.

There are several correlated facts of economic development essential to economic science. Since I have more fully elaborated this in recent publications such as Operation Juárez, I shall limit myself merely to identifying these points here, and refer you to my elaborated writings on this subject for fuller details. Here, I list merely a few of the most essential highlights of development policy, and then proceed to my concluding remarks.

CC 3.0/Charles C. Watson, Jr.

The Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant in Burke County, Georgia, in 2011.

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

The most immediate correlative of increase of potential relative population-density is an increase in the number of kilowatt-hours used both per square kilometer and per-capita. Although scientific progress enables us to use each kilowatt-hour with greater efficiency respecting work accomplished per-capita, the quality of existence of the individual in a society is delimited by the level of average, per-capita quantity of kilowatt-hours used per square kilometer and per capita.

If a society today relies upon so-called renewable resources of energy, as the misguided World Bank and Brandt Commission suggest, that society will collapse and die. Without so-called artificial energy-sources, which means increasing emphasis on nuclear technologies, the world’s population must unavoidably collapse in level by several billions over the course of the coming decades. We require over the course of the coming two to three decades, about 3,000 billions watts of energy added by hydroelectric power generated as part of large-scale water-management projects, and between 7,000 and 10,000 billions watts of nuclear-generated energy, otherwise a new world economic order is unachievable—and hundreds of millions, or even billions of persons will die for lack of energy needed to sustain life.

CCO 1.0

The light rail overpass at the Mexico Square vehicular traffic circle in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

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

Next to energy-development itself, we need great infrastructure-building projects. We need great projects of water management, great improvements in transportation-capacity, and consistent policies of improvement in the urban infrastructure essential to industrial development.

Although infrastructure does not necessarily produce end product, consumable wealth in and of itself, infrastructure-building represents the necessary improvement of nature without which agricultural and industrial development can not prosper.

Finally, but not least, we must rid the policies of nations of those policies of practice which imply that the labor of men is the labor of a mere beast of burden. It is not simple labor which produces wealth, but rather the development of the productive powers of labor. We require populations which can produce and assimilate advances in technologies. Educational programs and correlated developments in popular culture are the indispensable human preconditions for use and improvement of productive technologies. In economic policy-making and practice, we must never lose sight of fundamental principles. Economics is merely the indispensable means for producing the material conditions of life. It is the development of the power of reason within the individual which reflects the true, proper higher purpose of existence of nations. The individual needs the material conditions of life appropriate to the fostering of his or her divine potentialities, those potentialities which distinguish man absolutely from the beasts. The individual requires a society which gives the individual the opportunity to contribute good, a society which cherishes the good contributed by its members and at the same time discourages wickedness done by individuals. It is· the good that must be served. Economics is but an indispensable means serving that higher purpose.

Yet, economics has a moral purpose even higher than providing the material preconditions for life. In technological progress, we express mankind’s process of perfecting its knowledge of the lawful composition of creation. Through scientific progress directed to that purpose, mankind increases the individual’s powers to employ the laws of the universe, but also brings the individual will into improved perception of the lawfulness of creation, and into more perfect submission to the ordering of continuing creation in the universe. In properly directed labor, in the development of the productive powers of labor, we foster reason within society as a whole and within the individual’s development within society.

Finally, the Monetary Problem

The center of the world’s problems today is the great power exerted by agglomeration of rentier-financier family wealth, a wealth whose chief institutional basis is the practice of ground-rent and usury. These agglomerations of financier power associated with such families have controlled the forms of dominant financial and monetary institutions ruling most of the world over approximately a hundred years to the present time. Their instruments of power over governments and national economies have been both the privately-controlled central banking institutions of nations, and supra-national institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements and GATT.

Through the predominance of such families in controlling leading financial and monetary institutions, the major portion of the world’s supply of lendable credit has been concentrated increasingly in ground-rent and usury, checking and significantly preventing otherwise objectively feasible and sound investments in infrastructure, agricultural development and industry.

Exemplary is the case of the post-war United States. At the beginning of the post-war period, 62% of the total labor-force of the United States was employed as operatives, either in production of wealth or in transporting produced wealth. Today less than 28% of the total labor-force of the United States is so employed. This means, in social terms, that the ratio of economic overhead to production of wealth has been increased from 28/62nds to 62/28ths.

Similar trends exist in Western Europe and Japan, and have infected poisonously the urban culture of numerous developing nations.

The major portion of accumulation of internal and external indebtedness of nations, of combined public and private indebtedness, has been pyramided through lending-policies, and borrowing-policies, which increase geometrically nations’ per-capita indebtedness, while contracting geometrically the wealth-producing power of the nations per-capita. Since the 1971-1972 monetary-policy actions and the 1975 Rambouillet monetary conference, the process of pyramiding debts while contracting production per-capita has accelerated. Since the usurious policies introduced by U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker during October 1979, the usurious pyramiding of debt has accelerated, while investment in long-term production of wealth has collapsed, also at an accelerating rate.

We have presently reached the point, that the existing “conditionalities” of the IMF, World Bank, BIS, and GATT policies, prevent the developing nations from earning the means of payment against usuriously pyramided debt-service obligations. It is not that those nations are unwilling to pay their debts, but that they can not pay those debts without resorting to the kinds of “conditionalities” measures which mean economic mass-murder against their own populations.

This imminent financial collapse of the world economy could be prevented within a proverbial several hours of deliberation by governments, if the will to do so existed. Two sets of measures would be indispensable.

NRCS/Jeff Vanuga

Handline sprinkler irrigation of germinating crops in Yuma, Arizona.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

The Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River in the state of Washington.

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

First, governments must reorganize the world monetary order. Governments must bring down the prime interest-rates of banking-systems to between 2 percent and 4 percent by political decision. The existing debts must be reorganized, through establishing a cut-off date for existing obligations, and replacing existing obligations with issues of long-term bonds at low interest-rates.

Second, the ability of nations to develop economically, and hence to pay the new debts as payments come due, requires a gold-reserve-based international monetary order, and the issuance of Treasury currency-notes by governments, to be used for long-term lending in domestic and international development-investments of merit.

The highest priorities for development must be these.

In the developing sector generally, there must be an emphasis upon increasing both the per-hectare yields of agriculture, and the number of hectares included in effecting improved yields for the nation as a whole. This must be done through aid of infrastructural projects defining the environment of agricultural development, and through injections of modern agricultural technologies to improve significantly even the relatively most primitive modes of agriculture presently in use.

A network of great infrastructural projects, emphasizing energy-development, water-management, transportation and urban infrastructure.

A fostering of capital-goods industries in both presently industrialized and developing nations.

In brief, we must undertake the American Century policy as exemplified by the vision of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

We may hope that fear of the chaos now on the verge of erupting will bring some of the more sensible elements of the international financial community to their senses, at last. We must welcome such cooperation, but if we are unable to defeat resistance from those rentier-financier and neo-Malthusian quarters, our civilization will die, like Sodom and Gomorrah, for want of sufficient persons with the goodness of will to render this sick civilization of ours still morally fit to survive.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

As Psycho Regime Changers Go Wild,

A Revolutionary Spirit Spreads Worldwide

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s October 6, 2019 New Paradigm interview with the founder of the Schiller Institutes, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, by Harley Schlanger. A video of the webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s Oct. 6, 2019, and there’s a lot to talk about today. We’re in the midst of an escalation of various regime-change operations, and I think we’ll start with the one in the United States, the operation against President Donald Trump, which he correctly identified as a coup, not an impeachment. Helga, what is going on with this?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: It is very remarkable that the President of the United States says that this is a coup against him. I think this deserves reflection, because if you listened to the mainstream media, at least in Europe, you would absolutely not think that that’s a possibility, because the mainstream media here are so absolutely 100% against Trump.

Gage Skidmore

Joe Biden

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

What he said is enormous! This is not just words. We know that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham went to Italy; they’re now investigating the Joseph Mifsud role in setting up the former Trump campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos. Reports will come out, from Durham, from Barr, probably also from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. So a lot of evidence will come out, and if that’s not enough, Trump said, given the fact that two years were wasted, and $42 million in taxpayer money was wasted, with Russiagate, after which absolutely nothing came out, he is planning to do litigation, himself. Even if these reports don’t surface all the involvement of foreign governments, but not the Russian government, what will come out is that there was an involvement between Biden and the Ukrainian government of Poroshenko. So, I think this has the potential of really causing an earthquake where all these people who have been involved in this coup may face some very, very big surprises.

And if this comes out, which can happen very shortly, I think an earthquake will go through the entire world, but especially rocking the trans-Atlantic liberal establishment, who all were somehow supportive of this coup, at least in attitude. So this is a really big story, and I think we will be in for some big, big surprises.

Trump Now Investigating

Coup Attempt

Schlanger: When Trump spoke the other day, he identified not just Ukraine, but the United Kingdom, Australia and Italy, minimally, as being involved, as well as the Obama administration. This gets right to the heart of the setup that was run from the British with Christopher Steele, GCHQ, MI6, working with the Obama team.

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, yes. The big question, naturally will be what did Obama know and when did he know it? Joe Biden’s Presidential ambitions are already as good as finished, because Trump has now not only requested that the Ukrainian government to investigate the involvement of Biden and his son, Hunter, with Burisma, the oil and gas corporation, which has been investigated for many things in Ukraine already. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that will happen. Trump has also demanded that the Chinese government should look into what happened in 2013, when Joe Biden and his son were involved in a $1.5 billion operation in China.

Presidential Administration of Ukraine/Mykhaylo Markiv

Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine.

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

This is perfectly the right of President Trump to do. The Democrats, naturally, try to make that again a story, saying he’s trying to collude now with China and with Ukraine, but he as President has the right to determine what is going on and if there was a coup, he has all the right in the world to investigate how it happened.

Schlanger: Helga, as one who’s been commenting on this, and working on it for some time, I’d like to get your thoughts on a simple question that should be asked, but very few people are asking: why the sudden rush to judgment? The so-called whistleblower’s report was out in one day, and the next day, the impeachment calls, the inquiry was started, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shifted her position—what’s really behind this?

Gage Skidmore

Nancy Pelosi

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

Zepp-LaRouche: I can only make an hypothesis, because the facts of this are not yet established, but Pelosi, who otherwise has been close to the intelligence community for her entire political life, nevertheless insisted against the left wing of the Democratic Party that impeachment was a losing proposition for the Democrats, because the voters in 2020 absolutely have other concerns than yet another scandal against Trump. They want to know, what about their jobs, what about health care—and if the Democrats are only going against the President, who after all still has a very high popularity and has a hard core of supporters and many people who are in a swing mood—they could go this way or that way—Pelosi so far argued that it was too risky to go for impeachment.

Now, why did she change her position, and why did this whistleblower sound off, who many people think is a CIA agent? Pelosi went to New York, this was in the context of this Bloomberg Green finance conference; we don’t know exactly with whom she met, but then she came back and she all of a sudden was for impeachment. The only hypothesis one can put forward, is that she met with some of the top Wall Street banking circles, and they basically told her that Wall Street would not finance the Democratic candidates in the upcoming campaign. And since a congressman in the United States needs at least $5 million to have any chance, given the present plutocracy system (which is very far from a democracy), naturally, that argument is overwhelming, so she basically came out for impeachment.

But this is a big, big risk: It can completely backfire and many people know that. There were actually several voices already saying this may end up with a lot of tears for the establishment.

Regime Change Underway in Hong Kong

Schlanger: While the regime change is escalating in the United States, there’s another place where it’s now clear the intention is regime change, and that’s Hong Kong. This has just deteriorated as we’ve seen more violence and brutality from the so-called “demonstrators.” What’s your view of what’s happening there?

Zepp-LaRouche: The New York Times has an opinion piece by Bret Stephens, who by the way, in his former capacity as the editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post had given the “Man of the Year” prize to Paul Wolfowitz for his involvement in starting the Iraq War in 2003; so you have a real hawk of the worst neo-con tradition. In his October 3 article in the New York Times, “Is China Heading for Crisis? The Protests in Hong Kong Accelerate the Contradictions in Beijing,” he writes that China is already having enormous trouble, that capital is fleeing China, and now this Hong Kong thing is bringing it over the edge; and that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s dream to have a modern well-to-do China is all going up in smoke, and that the Belt and Road is not functioning.

So, it’s an open call, unveiled, for regime change. Meantime, the Chinese media have covered a lot of the sources of the funding of the Hong Kong opposition—the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the CIA; the NED bragged that they trained a lot of the opposition leaders. And then, to top it all, Chris Patten, the last British Empire Governor of Hong Kong, when it was still a British colony, he called on the opposition in Hong Kong to form an alternative government and then charge the police and Beijing with crimes and so forth!

Schiller Institute

Above: The 1996 Beijing Symposium on Economic Development of the Regions Along the New Euro-Asia Continental Bridge, which was addressed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Below: Sir Leon Brittan, European Commission Vice President.

CC/Friends of Europe

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

Now, I think this is an incredible thing. I’ve had Sir Leon Brittan on my radar for a very long time. In 1996, I participated as a speaker in the first major conference on the Eurasian Land-Bridge in Beijing, presenting our proposal for the New Silk Road, the Eurasian Land-Bridge. Sir Leon Brittan was at that conference, also, and he personally had delayed the emergence of this conference for more than two years, by always arguing that he had no time, and since the Chinese wanted the EU involved, he was actually able to postpone this conference. The speech he gave was really a declaration of war against the New Silk Road by saying it will not function because there will be terrorism and there will be instability along all the routes. See “China Must Play by ‘Free Trade’ Rules,” the May 7, 1996 speech of Sir Leon Brittan [EIR June 14, 1996]. So, already in 1996, the British policy against the New Silk Road was revealed, which has not changed, and is now becoming very, very apparent in Hong Kong.

I think the Chinese government probably should appeal to the United Nations, or basically say that if significant forces on the British side are demanding an alternative government should be formed, then maybe the deal which supposedly still lasts till 2047, when Hong Kong is supposed to be integrated into the mainland, and the present status of One Country, Two Systems is supposed to be replaced—maybe that is now putting that deal in question and there should be right now a vote. Because it’s not that the Hong Kong population is all like that: This is a very virulent and loud minority using terrorist means, everything from Molotov cocktails, metal pipes; and if you look at the video footage which exists of this 18-year-old who was shot, and which the Western media nevertheless claimed this was all police violence, these people were absolutely on a terrorist rampage, and it was self defense by the police.

I think what is probably advisable, that the role of the British should be documented by the Chinese even more than they have done so far. They’ve already had articles saying now what the British did with the Opium Wars—which after all, is the reason why Hong Kong became part of the British Empire in the first place—that ugly face is now again showing itself.

I think this is a very, very unbelievable color revolution/regime change operation, but it’s completely ludicrous to think that will endanger the government in Beijing, which is absolutely in a strong position. They have just had the beautiful celebration of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. So, I think this is a completely desperate, ludicrous attempt, but it shows you the absolute viciousness of these forces.

State of Chinese Economy and People

Schlanger: Helga, that leads me right into the next question, which is, if you look at the Western media and listen to the usual voices in the Western politicians and others, they’re trying to make the case that China is weak, its economy is collapsing, that Xi is going for top-down dictatorship, there’s a lot of opposition. But you were just there: You’ve been participating in numerous events there recently. Is there any truth to that image that they’re trying to present?

Zepp-LaRouche: I have no indication that there is anything like this going on at all. Because, as you just mentioned, I was in China, in Beijing in May. I participated in the Asian Dialogue of Civilizations. Then I was there in September, where I participated in the Euro-Asia Economic Forum in Xi’an. I had many discussions. And, you know, people are happy! People are absolutely proud to be Chinese, they are self-confident, they know what they have done. The Chinese economic miracle is the greatest transformation of any country from a state of extreme poverty into a well-to-do country: They have gotten 800 million people out of poverty. They want to eliminate extreme poverty completely by next year! And given their record, I’m absolutely confident that they will succeed in doing that.

Now, I mean, look: This is not in an abstract space. China has launched the Belt and Road Initiative. More than 130 countries are participating in it in one way or another—with Memorandums of Understanding, with great projects, with all kinds of agreements, and China gets the resonance from these countries! I have observed with my own eyes and ears, that in general, the condition of Africa, Asia, Latin America before China entered the world stage in such a big way in the last 10 and especially the last 6 years—was absolutely no hope for the developing sector to overcome and get out of this terrible poverty which they were left in with the end of colonialism, and then the following IMF conditionalities. It was only when China started to invest in their infrastructure, in railroads, in industrial parks, in agriculture, that these countries have a clear perspective for overcoming poverty. And this is just more attractive.

I mean, the West is claiming all this “democracy” and “human rights,” and so forth, that they are the sole owners of a “rules-based order.” Now, a “rules-based order”—I have an image of that, and it looks like former German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble! Who, with his “black zero,” has made all the economies of southern Europe completely unhappy. He reduced them by one-third, and the EU Commission has prevented any kind of development in the Balkans, in Southern Europe, and that is what they call a “rules-based order.” Now, that is not an attractive model. So the Chinese naturally know all of this, and they know that they have improved the lives of not only the Chinese population, but that many other countries have studied and are now imitating how China has overcome this poverty and has entered a path of development towards becoming a middle-class economy for the majority of their citizens, and this is causing optimism!

So, I don’t think there is any truth to this matter. Sure, China has economic difficulties, as a result of the trade war, as a result of Hong Kong—this is a big factor; but I don’t think it has any chance at all to change this government, because they have the full support of the population, who is very grateful and identifies with the cause of politics in China. That is my direct observation, and that is the best I can say.

State of the Trans-Atlantic Economy

Schlanger: Just one final point on this: the people who are saying China is collapsing, are watching the Western neo-liberal model actually undergoing a collapse, as we’ve seen in recent days, with the repo liquidity crisis and so on. Do you have anything to say about that?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, you know, we are now in October, so in three weeks or so, there is likely the Brexit. As of now, one cannot see how this thing can be resolved in any way, even if they postpone it to the end of the year. This is a completely unworkable thing, and who knows what will happen. Because I don’t think they have it under control at all.

Then you have the derivatives crisis, which is lingering. There was just a warning article in “Wall Street on Parade” that the big insurance companies are all still involved in massive derivatives trading; they didn’t change that after 2008. So this is just one more of the many mines which could detonate. And we saw, with the Thomas Cook Group bankruptcy that this is having all kinds of reverberations in all the countries which relied on tourism and tourist businesses—Spain, Greece, Italy, Turkey—all of them, the hotels and so forth are suffering. So this is a powder keg.

It just absolutely makes the point that the proposals of my late husband, to have a New Bretton Woods system, and go for global Glass-Steagall, this is the only way to go, which is why we have to absolutely stop this regime change operation against Trump and against China, because only if these two strongest economies are working together, plus some other countries, do you have any chance to get out of this crisis, without a big chaos.

C-SPAN

In the best tradition of Jonathan Swift, a LaRouche PAC activist stuns a town hall of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with the “modest proposal” that the fastest way to save the planet from excess CO_2 is to eat babies.

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

‘Eat Babies’ Prank Exposes AOC

Schlanger: Now, if we can move to something which is actually quite humorous—the intervention of one of our young members at a town meeting of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC); where this young woman stood up, and in the best tradition of Jonathan Swift, discussed the idea that the solution to the global warming crisis is eating babies. Helga, this went viral; millions of people saw it. It’s been commented on by everyone. What’s your thought about this?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, this is quite amusing. I tweeted an article by the Washington Post some years ago, where they proposed that the Republicans should eat babies! So all this hysteria should be seen in perspective.

It proved one thing: That AOC is not the sharpest cookie on the planet, because, while this young member was imitating Greta in a certain sense, also, AOC didn’t get it, because she then answered to the idea that babies should be eaten to save the world from CO_2, she said, yeah, yeah, there are many ways to find the solution.

Many people didn’t get it—the whole first coverage was that people thought this was just a normal AOC supporter. And if you watch this video, it’s actually quite funny, because this young member spoke for two minutes and all the audience was looking and they didn’t say, “Hey, c’mon! This is crazy, you can’t eat babies!” But they just thought this was a normal discussion. So it really shows you the lack of humor, the lack of intelligence, and I think some people really got it—like Tucker Carlson, and I think Pat Lang, and a couple of other commentators got the point. So I can only invite you, our audience, don’t miss this video, because it’s good political satire of the first class.

President Putin on Greta Thunberg

Schlanger: And also we had a comment this week from Russian President Putin on Greta Thunberg, which you may want to share with people.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I think that is quite important: Putin, at the Russian Energy Week international forum comment on that, and what he said there is very worth mentioning. Because he said, well, maybe Greta Thunberg is a sincere girl, but the people who are using her, this is absolutely to be condemned. Because to rile up extreme emotions in young people, which can destroy their character is something one should absolutely not do. And if you have seen this poor girl, Greta, when she is really beside herself, you really fear that some emotional damage will be inflicted on her by all this publicity.

Kremlin.ru

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers some morality to those who would follow Greta Thunberg, at the Russian Energy Week International Forum on October 2, 2019.

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

And then Putin also made another point, which I think people should really reflect about. He said, apparently nobody explained to Greta that the world is very complex and that the Asians and the Africans, they insist that they want to have similar benefits from the economy like people in Sweden. And basically, are you telling them that they should stay in poverty for the next 30 years, and their children another 30 years?

And I think this is a very important point, because given the fact that, still, 60% of world energy comes from coal and natural gas, and if you actually take coal out of power production, for a continent like Africa, this means absolutely no development, and it means genocide. And should we tell the African young people that we are going to deny them development? I don’t think that that is a morally presentable idea: And people should really think about it, because many of these greenies, in Germany for example, they belong to the part of people who earn the most money, they don’t have to consider what it means to be poor in an African country or some other developing country, and therefore, they’re so absolutely arrogant and have total lack of empathy with what is actually going on in the real world.

Schiller Institute Conference and NASA Promote Mankind

Schlanger: I think it’s important then to look at the counter to this: While central bankers are spreading pessimism through their funding of the green movement and the regime changers are disrupting the potential for a community for a shared future to be brought into being, you participated in an event yesterday which was quite extraordinary: “Mankind Is a Galactic Species: The Necessary Alternative to War.” You gave a very stirring keynote, but a lot of very interesting participants. Can you give us a report on what you saw, the potential for optimism coming from this kind of approach?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, this “International Observe the Moon” day, this was started in 2010, so this was actually the tenth year when this was taking place. And in my short speech, I pointed to the fact that on that same day, there were more than 1,500 events around the world—500 in the United States, 300 in India, and 300 in Europe. So if you look at how many people participated, it goes easily into the hundreds of thousands, probably more than a million people, who have a healthy disease: “Moon Fever.” Moon Fever is something which is really very optimistic, because once you start to think about making a colony on the Moon—this, by the way is not only planned by China, by NASA, the Artemis program of President Trump who wants to have a man and a woman on the Moon in a little bit more than four years from now, and a permanent station by 2028; it’s the policy of the European Space Agency, ESA; the General Director Johann-Dietrich Wörner, calls it Space 4.0, because he says this is no longer just for the space-faring countries, but it’s open to all governments, all companies, all academia, and all businesses to participate, and that is exactly the kind of open integration of space projects which will establish a higher level of reason of international cooperation.

Now, I think the question of space projects, the idea of not only going to the Moon, industrializing the Moon as the stepping stone, for a city on Mars!—you know, China will start next year, their Mars expedition to investigate whether terraforming is possible on Mars; they already have a test model for that in the Gobi Desert where they’re training young people, astronauts and engineers for such future deployments; and if you build a city on Mars, you need a city, because if you want to have hundreds of scientists, you need thousands of people who support the city, who keep the systems going. So, this is an absolutely fascinating idea.

And I also discussed the work and the vision of my late husband, of Krafft Ehricke, the German-American space pioneer, who had this absolutely fantastic idea that it is the natural character of man to find new areas in space, that man is a spacefaring species. And that has not just some very practical implications; you know, it will be a complete counter to the narrow-minded idea that we are living in an Earth-bound, limited system. It has a deep, anthropological meaning, because it’s a question of what is the character of man? We are not animals: We can again, and again, overcome seemingly unsurmountable borders.

And Krafft Ehricke—I like this a lot—he mentioned Homer’s reference to Odysseus: When Odysseus started to go to sea with his ship, he didn’t know where he would end up. The same, more or less, was true for Columbus, who, in spite of the fact that he naturally had maps and had an idea, but he thought he would go to India. So, then, naturally, Yuri Gagarin, the first man to go into space,—I mean, the idea that man can leave the surface of the Earth and go into orbit, no animal would ever think that! I have not seen the nicest dogs or donkeys to discuss that they would build a spaceship and explore what is the far side of the Moon like?

I think this is very exciting, and it instills a tremendous optimism, because once people realize that there are new frontiers of knowledge, they completely change their attitude and become optimistic. And I think optimism is, for the mental health of people, the most important, because if you’re culturally pessimistic and you think there is no future, well, then all kinds of terrible things can happen, as we have seen in the ’30s in Europe, where cultural pessimism was the basis for everything that happened wrong in the ’20s and the ’30s. And I don’t think we should repeat any of this, but we should have a different approach, of reaching a new paradigm in the history of mankind: And space travel is one extremely indispensable component for that.

Schlanger: A video of the event yesterday is available on the Schiller Institute website. And also, Helga, you wrote a statement “Economic Renaissance of Humanity and the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche,” available in EIR, which people should use and get out as part of this spread of optimism.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

Don’t Sit on the Fence!

Zepp-LaRouche: I can only ask you: Don’t sit on the fence. Really, you may not think it in Germany, which is probably the last country where changes for the better will happen, but there is around the world a revolutionary spirit, because I think we are reaching the point Lincoln talked about, where you can fool some people all the time, and you fool all the people some of the time, but not everybody all the time. I think we are approaching this, because many people realize that there is something completely different going on, than the mass media are trying to tell you. And people are not that stupid, so in the United States, I think we are on the verge of, really, maybe a revolutionary spirit which is spreading, and I think the best you can do is join us: Get active with the Schiller Institute, and be an active part of a change for the better.

Schlanger: OK, Helga, and we’ll see you again next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, till next week!

EDITORIAL

For an Economic Renaissance of

Humanity and the

Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche

This is a new statement from Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche to be circulated by various individuals and organizations on six continents in the second round of International Days of Action, Oct. 10-15. The first round, on September 10 and 12, which was reported in the Sept. 20, 2019 issue of EIR, distributed Zepp-LaRouche’s earlier statement, “The Age of Reason Is in the Stars!” an international call to youth “to see that the climate-change madness is completely contrary to the true identity of man as a spacefaring species, which can, with space technology, attack any problem, including that of climate change.” That “International Call to Youth” was printed in the EIR of September 6, 2019.

Imagine: the end of the world happens, and nobody comes! Picture teenage climate idol Greta Thunberg, and all the central bankers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers, and speculators, who are euphoric about the alleged certainty that the planet will boil over in 18 months (according to Prince Charles)—while the latter are even more ecstatic over the astronomical profits they think can be made from “green finances.” But then, nevertheless, the world—despite various climate fluctuations—simply continues to exist!

This variation on the peace movement’s old slogan, “Suppose there’s a war and nobody comes,” is useful to make the point that an ideology only influences reality if the majority of the population believe it.

There is no climate emergency. The climate data of the past 500 million years show that the Earth’s climate has varied continuously, with a constant alternation between warm and cold periods. (The last of those cold periods only ended in 1850 with the end of the Little Ice Age.) The climate alarmists of today cannot base themselves on scientifically verifiable facts, so they instead use climate models whose predictions have already proved to be exaggerated. The failure of these models underscores the fact that the climate is a highly complex subject, which must urgently be put back on a scientific basis. While anthropogenic activities have a limited effect on the climate, to ignore—as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does—the profound impact of processes in the Sun and in our galaxy is the height of scientific incompetence!

The demonization of CO_2 and the resulting goal of decarbonizing the world economy are just as rational as burning witches at the stake, as a remedy for disease. CO_2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to the continued existence of life on Earth—for the flourishing of plants and agriculture, for human existence. The real emergency is the drive for the decarbonization of the global economy pushed by the financial sector, which would lead to a collapse of the industrialized countries, the destruction of the developing world, and massive, global population reduction—that is, genocide.

Central Bankers Push

‘Financial Regime Change’

The climate hysteria orchestrated by the financial sector and the mainstream media is the biggest-ever propagandistic manipulation, a creation of hysteria which has worked so effectively that Nazi propaganda master Josef Goebbels would readily give up his job due to his relative failure.

The real issue at stake is quite different. The neo-liberal financial system is absolutely finished. The causes of the 2008 crash, far from having been remedied, have instead been compounded through eleven years of quantitative easing and interest rates set at zero, or even below zero. What is the financial oligarchy’s plan? Central banks, according to the proposal recently presented by BlackRock at the Jackson Hole annual bankers’ meeting, should effect a “regime change” under which the central banks, which will maintain their status as “independent,” will print large amounts of money and give it directly to governments, which will only be allowed to spend it according to the rules set by the central banks. It is in principle, the same method that Hitler’s Finance Minister Hjalmar Schacht used to fund the Nazi military buildup. This time, all the money created is to be used to “green” the world economy.

For the majority of people who are trapped in the neoliberal ideology orchestrated by the mainstream media, it is very hard to imagine that the axiomatics of this system are completely wrong. This ideology includes not only planned “regime change” by central banks, but also “regime change” targetting U.S. President Donald Trump, and also Russia and China—seen clearly in the “color revolution” now being fomented in Hong Kong. And it also includes the idea that it is perfectly normal for a small layer of rich people to become ever richer, while the majority grows ever poorer; that Africa should remain underdeveloped forever; that every human being is a parasite, polluting the environment; and that the limits of growth have now been reached. Let’s not forget the liberal ideas that “anything goes,” and that every opinion is as good as every other.

However, from the standpoint of the laws of the universe, and the evolution of humanity which only moves forward in coherence with those laws, these axioms are just as wrong as most of the assumptions of the Middle Ages that resulted in scholasticism, witchcraft, and flagellation.

There Are No Limits to Growth!

If we are to get out of the currently escalating crisis, in which everything seems to be spinning out of control, we need to change our entire way of thinking. We need to find a point of reference from which we can reappraise all our assumptions about mankind and the universe we inhabit, and examine their validity. This point of reference is space research and space travel.

Manned space travel is the triumphant proof that Leibniz was correct to argue that we live in the best of all worlds, not in the sense cynically satirized by Voltaire (who was in a sense the Sir David Attenborough of his time) in attacking the optimistic image of man of Leibniz, but in that manned space travel demonstrates that mankind is the only creative species (known so far), which can, through the discovery of ever new principles of the physical universe, create the basis to overcome all bounds.

As Lyndon LaRouche demonstrated in his groundbreaking book, There Are No Limits to Growth, and in his entire life’s work, it is the original discoveries of ever more complex, experimentally verifiable principles of the universe, that provide the basis for completely new economic platforms, which can generate the means to sustain more, better-fed, and better educated people with longer life expectancy. In that way, the concept of growth is not that imagined simplistically by fools, such as Malthus, who think in the causal world of Euclidean arithmetical or geometrical multiplication, but it corresponds to a multiply-connected Riemannian manifold that unfolds to higher orders that cannot be understood in terms of the lower ones. Creative reason, as the most developed element of the universe, creates new singularities that can increase the degree of human effectiveness in the universe beyond all bounds.

The best examples of this are the foreseeable mastery of thermonuclear fusion—in which man imitates the fusion process in the Sun and thereby produces unlimited amounts of energy and raw materials reserves—and the confirmation of Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, as was recently done with the verification of gravitational waves, and the imaging of black holes, which are at the center of each of the two trillion galaxies that the Hubble Space Telescope has been able to detect so far.

A New Way of Thinking

This new way of thinking must reject the pseudo-religions of bankers, mainstream media, and climate apostles, and replace them with a scientific debate about experimentally verifiable facts. The Artemis program enacted by President Trump, which will bring people back to the Moon by 2024 and establish a permanent station there by 2028, is promising in this regard, as are the space programs of China, India, Russia, and the European Space Agency. China’s unprecedented economic success and the dynamics of its New Silk Road show that the focus on scientific innovation is more beneficial for the countries involved, than the neoliberal system’s focus on financial profit no matter the cost in human lives.

If it is possible to bring Europe and the United States into cooperation with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, and, in the case of the U.S., into working with China on space travel, mankind will not be talking about being on the verge of a climate apocalypse, but rather be initiating a new era, in which man’s inherent capacity for reason can freely develop, and we can enter, in a certain sense, the adulthood of our species. We will shape a more human age, and demonstrate that this world is actually the best of all possible worlds, because the potential for genius exists in every human being, and the degrees of freedom in the development of our species will increase, without limit, to the extent that more people can realize that potential in themselves.

The indispensable step to achieve this new paradigm of thinking is the full exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche, who was persecuted and imprisoned in the 1980s and 1990s by the evil and desperate Grand Inquisitors of the British Empire, in their attempt to block access to his ideas.

We need the bold and optimistic vision of thinkers like Leibniz, Schiller, Einstein, Krafft Ehricke, and Lyndon LaRouche, because the cultural pessimism of Malthus, Nietzsche, and Spengler leads to fascism and war, while positive ideas of mankind lead to new Renaissances and flourishing periods in history. It is up to all of us, which direction we take!