Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 47, Number 21, May 22, 2020

- Cover

- Masthead

- PDF Edition Table of Contents — Volume 47, Number 21, May 22, 2020

- I. Battlefield Reports

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST ‘This Is the Big One’

- LAROUCHE PAC FIRESIDE CHAT The Countercoup: A Treasure Trove Released by Barbara Boyd

- THE MAY 4TH MOVEMENT British Orchestration of U.S.-China Conflict: Three Pertinent Cases by Michael Billington

- II. The Positive Path Forward

- Schiller Institute Conference on the Internet, May 9, 2020 75th Anniversary of V-E Day: Commemorate the Victory Against Fascism with a New Bretton Woods System

- Knowledgeable Optimism by Lyndon LaRouche

- Mobilize the ‘Spirit of the Elbe’ To Meet The Great Challenges of this Century by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- There Is a Positive Path Forward: Will We Take It? by James Jatras

- A Quality of Leadership: De Gaulle and FDR by Jacques Cheminade

- III. The Standard for Truth

- Physical Geometry as Strategy by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (2003)

Knowledgeable Optimism

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

Editor-in-Chief: Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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

Managing Editor: Stephanie Ezrol

Editorial Staff: David Cherry, Charles Notley

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Asia: Michael Billington

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

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

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

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

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

(571) 293-0935

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH,

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: ©2020 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.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 47, Number 21, May 22, 2020

Cover This Week

Stormy Sea at Night by Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky, at the Grand Palace at Peterhof, St. Petersburg, Russia.

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

KNOWLEDGEABLE OPTIMISM

I. BATTLEFIELD REPORTS

3 ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

‘This Is the Big One’

8 LAROUCHE PAC FIRESIDE CHAT

The Countercoup: A Treasure Trove Released

by Barbara Boyd

13 THE MAY 4TH MOVEMENT

British Orchestration of U.S.-China Conflict: Three Pertinent Cases

by Michael Billington

II. THE POSITIVE PATH FORWARD

SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE

May 9, 2020

75th Anniversary of V-E Day:

Commemorate the Victory Against Fascism

with a New Bretton Woods System

22 Knowledgeable Optimism

by Lyndon LaRouche

23 Mobilize the ‘Spirit of the Elbe’ To Meet the Great Challenges of this Century

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

27 There Is a Positive Path Forward: Will We Take It?

by James Jatras

29 A Quality of Leadership: De Gaulle and FDR

by Jacques Cheminade

III. THE STANDARD FOR TRUTH

31 Physical Geometry as Strategy

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

March 21, 2003

International Online Schiller Institute Conference

April 25-26, 2020

Mankind’s Existence Now Depends on the Establishment of a New Paradigm!

Visit the Schiller Institute web page for

all of the conference videos and supporting material.

ADVERTISEMENT

I. Battlefield Reports

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

‘This Is the Big One’

We present here excerpts from the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s May 13 webcast featuring Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The full video is available here.

Harley Schlanger: Hello I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast with our founder and chairwoman, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is May 13, 2020.

Helga, we’ve had a series of very successful events over the last few weeks, and in your discussions, you’ve begun to characterize the crisis by saying that we’re now in the midst of “the Big One.” There are some who are saying, well, bigger things are still to come. What was the basis of your assessment that, with the combination of the crises, we are now in “the Big One”?

It’s a Breakdown Crisis

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I think people tend to focus on aspects of the crisis. They either focus on the incredible economic collapse which is going on—in some countries it’s really dramatic—or, they focus on the coronavirus pandemic as such, or they focus on the crisis in agriculture, or the threatening famine, or other aspects. But the only way to look at this situation is to understand that what we are faced with right now, is not only all of these aspects—which all are part of the picture and many others—but that we are really looking at a breakdown crisis, which has been in focus for at least 50 years. That is how long Lyndon LaRouche has been warning of exactly the kind of crisis now emerging.

I think we should go through the different aspects of it, but the solution can only be one which addresses all of these crises.

C-SPAN

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, has testified for standards on reopening the economy.

WFP/George Fominyen

David Beasley, World Food Program Executive Director, on a recent tour of Burkino Faso. He is warning of a coming global “hunger pandemic.”

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

You have a pandemic that is for sure not under control. Warnings came recently from two sources:

First, at a U.S. Senate hearing yesterday, a rather incredible picture came into being as Professor Anthony Fauci (WHO) and Dr. Robert Redfield (CDC) testified very clearly that the guidelines for so-called “reopening the economy” are very well defined: There has to be for two weeks a shrinking in the number of infected people; there has to be ample ability for testing and contact tracing in case of reemergence of hotspots. But there has been such a rush on both sides of the Atlantic in recent weeks for so-called “reopening the economy,” that many of these guidelines are being completely neglected. This is a very disturbing factor—we will talk about some statements by such experts as Prof. Christian Drosten at Berlin’s Charité Hospital, in a second.

Then you have the crisis in the farm sector. We are about to lose essential farm production, both in the United States and in Europe. David Beasley, Executive Director of the World Food Program, has put out incredible figures warning of a global “hunger pandemic,” reporting that if we don’t prepare and act now, to secure access to food, avoid funding shortfalls and disruptions to trade, the result could be a humanitarian catastrophe in a few short months. If not reversed, we could face the combined consequence of the coronavirus pandemic, the lockdown, and the collapse of agriculture, which would result in famine with projected casualties of 300,000 people per day. This is quite incredible.

And you have the ongoing collapse of the financial system, which definitely requires a reorganization of the entire financial system.

When I said, in various of the conferences we have had over the past weekend, “This is the Big One,” I was referring to a March 30 article in The Hill by Brig. Gen. Peter Zwack (ret.), who has served in various functions in the U.S. military, also as a military attaché in Moscow, who is not a dove, but a hardcore military man. In the article, he said that the present pandemic is a rehearsal for “The Big One” to come, referring to the fact that we can have other viruses and even more dramatic crises.

VOA/Columbus Mavhunga

Hygiene problems in underdeveloped countries may make it almost impossible to fight COVID-19. Here, residents line up for water at a borehole in Harare, Zimbabwe.

CGTN

Underdeveloped countries are more vulnerable to disease and food shortages. Health care workers in Latin America, checking for COVID-19.

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

Consider All Factors Together

I said, “No, you have to look at all of the factors together. You could have a chain reaction collapse into a Dark Age.” So, this current crisis, in my view, is The Big One. It’s an all-encompassing crisis which definitely requires a big solution on a global scale. This is why the Schiller Institute is presently working on a crash program to have such a global approach, with the basic idea that we have to stop that, we have to take on the problem in its fundamentals.

We have to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing sector, because there is no way to stop this pandemic, or any other pandemics looming, nor can we stop the famine, if we do not seriously reverse the absolutely Malthusian policy of keeping the developing sector in a condition of undeserved poverty and misery. We must completely reorganize the world economy. We have to have a credit system. We are now proposing 1.5 billion new, productive jobs be created, most of these have to be in the developing sector, something that needs to be discussed on a global scale. This must be taken up by responsible governments.

We have been raising for quite some time the proposal of my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, that the only way to implement this, is by getting the most important, most powerful countries of the world together, that is, the United States, China, Russia, India, supported by other countries that have important industrial capacities, such as Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, Italy. All of these countries have to mobilize their industrial capacity to solve this problem together. There is no partial solution. No one nation can solve this.

The problem most people have is that they look only at their particular situation, in New York, in Berlin, wherever they are. At best they look at their nation, maybe their continent. But I think this is a crisis which definitely requires that we really find a solution to the problems of the entire planet. That is the approach we are taking.

Schlanger: I think another of the reasons why people missed this, besides the localism or particularism, is that they missed a point that you’ve been emphasizing that was key to your husband’s analysis, which is that this has been ongoing for five decades. There’s been a deliberate tear-down of the industrial manufacturing base in the Western countries, a collapse of public health, and so on—I mean, this is a big part of the crisis, isn’t it?

Schiller Institute V-E Commemoration

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. The situation very clearly demands that we stop thinking in geopolitical terms; that we have to find a solution in cooperation. And you mentioned a remarkably successful event we had over the weekend. We had a very beautiful commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of V-E Day, with quite an incredible discussion of the “Spirit of the Elbe.” This was the moment World War II ended. Soviet and American troops met for the first time, at the Elbe River, near Torgau in Germany, and there was, for a brief moment, the chance to really start a peace order in the post-war period. The soldiers made a solemn oath, the “Oath of the Elbe,” that there should never, ever be such a war again.

If you watch this event, which we held online over the May 9 weekend, you will witness the grave reflection on the losses of World War II—60 million people died. And then, as the contributions of the different speakers developed, there was actually a poetical idea of friendship, of what it means to find a language together in terms of cultural exchanges. One of the World War II veterans spoke very, very beautifully, about his life and the meaning for him of the writings of my husband. By the conclusion, your heart will be filled with the feeling that we can recreate the “Spirit of the Elbe,” that we can recreate a spirit of peaceful cooperation among the nations and the peoples of this planet.

I therefore really urge everyone to watch the entirety of this conference, because that is exactly the spirit that we have to create.

Schlanger: You mentioned the food crisis. There was also an exciting discussion by farmers from Argentina, Germany, and United States, who discovered that they all are facing the same problem, namely, the cartelization of the globalized food production system.

Let’s go back to the coronavirus for a moment. You mentioned Dr. Christian Drosten at the Institute for Virology at Berlin’s Charité Hospital. He has been trying to address some of the spin and scenarios and disinformation that are coming out. What has he been saying? And does this cohere with what you heard from the Senate hearings yesterday?

VOA

In Michigan, frustrated protesters gathered at the state capitol to defy the state’s lockdown rules. The pressure to re-open the economy is evidenced in similar protests around the world, threatening to undermine the health and safety measures required to stop the spread of COVID-19.

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

Danger of ‘Opening Up’ Unprepared

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. He addressed yesterday, in his daily podcast, these demonstrations that have started to take place in many cities around the world of people who oppose the present measures of lockdown, of possible vaccines. People are quite hysterical and have all kinds of theories. I urge people to listen to this particular podcast, to hear his point that all these self-proclaimed “experts,” people who even have titles as doctors and professors and whatnot, who claim that they can judge whether or not to lift the quarantines and social distancing regimen, are completely incompetent, and that this is very dangerous.

He said the only reason he has attracted such attention is that he is not only a virologist, but he is a specialist for this particular virus, and that he would never dare to speak about bacteria, because he knows very little about bacteria. For the lay person, however, there is not a big difference between bacteria and viruses, but once you really study these matters in depth, especially when you have a new virus, you really need to be competent, and these people are obviously not expert in the matter at all, and in most cases in the past, these people have been actively either anti-science or anti-vaccine, or anti-this or anti-that, but somehow they are now all of a sudden discovering their “expertise” on coronavirus.

Dr. Drosten warned that the spreading of this disinformation is extremely dangerous. We have been accused of “selling out,” that we are paid by Bill Gates. But this is all really contributing to an increase in infections—I mean, this is really a very, very serious matter. It’s an unprecedented crisis.

Not much is known about this virus yet. There are new, very disturbing factors. For example, the much-scolded World Health Organization (WHO) has just put out an absolutely correct warning of how irresponsible it is to talk about “herd immunity.” From the beginning, I have insisted that human beings are not a “herd,” we are not animals! You can’t apply such categories to the human species, and in Sweden, where it was applied, an extremely high ratio of elderly people have died! This was absolutely not necessary, had the prescribed measures been applied.

Then you have a strange new set of serious symptoms among children which has emerged. The Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, reported on May 10,

New York State is investigating 85 cases of a COVID-related illness in children. Mostly toddler to elementary school ages, its symptoms are similar to Kawasaki disease, what they call Kawasaki disease or toxic shock-like syndrome. This does not present as a normal COVID case. COVID cases tend to be respiratory. This presents as an inflammation of the blood vessels, sometimes inflammation of the heart.

Several of those children have died.

Then you have the strange situation that the highest rate of new infections is among people between the ages of 35 and 55. Is this a strain mutating, is it a new strain or strains?

Then you have a situation in Wuhan, China, which was subjected to a complete lockdown, eliminating the infection altogether. Now six new cases have appeared, and what do the Chinese do? They are going to test 11 million people in the next week, that is, everybody in the city of Wuhan!

Coronavirus infections are now appearing in the developing countries.

VOA/Columbus Mavhunga

In spite of the government-ordered lockdown, informal economy vendors have begun to line the streets again in Harare, Zimbabwe. They say they’ve had no source of income since the start of the lockdown in March.

CC/Ggia

Refugees from North Africa and Southwest Asia continue to arrive in Europe.

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

The ‘Informal Economy’

The International Labor Organization has published figures showing that of the 3.3 billion in the labor force in the world, 2 billion (60%), are in the so-called “informal economy.” These 2 billion are people living from hand to mouth, day-to-day pay, with no social benefits, no insurance, mostly having no money for medical treatment, so they are completely dependent on government programs. But the governments in many cases don’t have the means.

I have been in many developing countries, and I can tell you, for example, that in the realm of agriculture, an informal job means you have one goat, and you have an entire family sitting on a mini-plot of land, around that goat, and that is their livelihood. We are talking about conditions in which people don’t have clean water, they don’t have electricity, so they can’t even fulfill the hygiene measures which are requested and needed to stay healthy.

This thing is not under control, and I can only say that the indifference toward the suffering of the developing countries, in my view, disqualifies the people who are now ranting and raging saying this is all a plot. The reality is that we are look at the possibility of mass death, of hundreds of millions, and that alone should compel a moral outcry to change this system, because if we don’t, we ourselves are not morally fit to survive in the so-called “advanced sector” which now turns out—and this has been clear for a long time—is not so advanced.

‘Green’ Economy vs. Physical Economy

Schlanger: Re-emerging in the background, something that’s been off the front pages recently, but never went completely away, is the idea of the “green” economy. Adherents are saying, “Isn’t it wonderful that so much industry has been shut down? The animals are coming back to the cities, and the water is clean again,” and on and on. In the last couple of days, leading industrialists in Europe have come out with a crazy proposal for moving ahead with the Green economy. What can you tell us about that?

Zepp-LaRouche: There is a push by [Italy’s business association] Confindustria, [Germany’s] BDI, and the industrial association in France to go for big investment programs, and that indeed is what is required, but to call for the implementation of the EU Green Deal is coming at this moment of an already weakened economy, where the industrial collapse is really significant.

For example, an Italian think tank has just put out figures showing that in Italy, industrial production from the beginning of the year through April, collapsed by 61%! Now that is not peanuts! And that explains why people are getting so anxious about their personal livelihoods, their future and so forth, but if you then superimpose on such a collapsed economy, a Green Deal economy, you are basically shutting down these countries as industrial nations.

That absolutely must be prevented. In Africa, Latin America, Asia, there are pockets of deep, deep poverty. More and more refugees are pouring into Lampedusa, Italy from Libya. The situation in the Greek islands is horrible. If you want to overcome the crisis, all of these situations must be taken as one. And in order to solve that you need to industrialize Southwest Asia, Africa, Latin America, and for that, you need the economies of Italy, of France, of Germany, and other so-called industrialized countries.

We have to go back to physical economy. We have to go back to the idea of increasing energy-flux density. We need to emphasize breakthroughs once again in our scientific understanding of the principles of our universe. We have to increase the productivity of the economy. All of these principles you can readily find in the economic theories of my late husband. And that is going to be the basis of the world program which we are going to publish in a relatively short period of time.

LAROUCHE PAC FIRESIDE CHAT

The Countercoup:

A Treasure Trove Released

by Barbara Boyd

DoJ

Attorney General William Barr.

Left: Institute of Politics/Kristyn Ulanday; right: C-SPAN

Left: Michael Flynn; right: Roger Stone

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

Mrs. Boyd was a featured guest on the May 14 webcast of the LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat along with Bill Binney, a former technical director for the U.S. National Security Agency. This report is taken from her notes for that presentation. Subheads and embedded links have been added. A video of the full program is available here.

We said that we were going to tell you about big developments in the countercoup tonight. The short way of talking about that is that we now have a lot of meat on the proposition many of us have been arguing since 2017, Bill Binney in particular: Russiagate is the biggest hoax in history; it’s all a lie built on a foundation of sand, which is completely demonstrated once sunlight is shined on the entire affair.

The new developments involve the release of 50-plus classified transcripts from the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Russiagate, which I am working my way through. It also involves the all-out fight to get justice for Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. In the Flynn case, an independent U.S. Attorney appointed by Bill Barr provided the basis for the DOJ to dismiss the Flynn case based on outrageous government misconduct. Right now, Judge Emmet Sullivan, Barack Obama, and Eric Holder are trying to block that result and get Barr fired because it is obvious he is a huge danger to Obama and his friends.

White House/Check Kennedy

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

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

Finally the Director of National Intelligence released the names of the unmaskers of Michael Flynn’s name in the Obama Administration spy operation against him yesterday. That release revealed the heavy involvement of the oval office directly, including former Vice President Joe Biden, but also the involvement of NATO, which has served as a core center of the information warfare directed against the United States, the Treasury Department, and others you might not think of. We have repeatedly talked about that NATO involvement.

What is missing in this release is the unmaskers of Flynn’s conversations with the Russian Ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. It’s a common and hopeful belief that the reason those names are missing is because that information is being used in a criminal leak probe by John Durham. It’s a ten-year felony for whoever provided the contents of these communications to David Ignatius of the Washington Post.

We have also learned that the so-called Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) never happened, not just because of Bill Binney’s proof of that proposition, but because one of the key fabricators, Shawn Henry of CrowdStrike, admitted that CrowdStrike could not prove that any files allegedly staged for exfiltration by Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, alleged tools and tactics of Russian cyber espionage groups, ever went anywhere. It further turns out that the intelligence community had been effectively inside the DNC’s computers from September of 2015 forward. We can come back and explore this in more depth.

Portents of the Future

But first, I want to call your attention to a couple of developments, I call them portents of the future, as described by our enemies that we have to think about. I don’t want to do anything other than to describe their nature to you, because I think our side spends entirely too much time giving these enemies an inflated importance when they, the enemy forces, are reacting on the basis of weakness. As they see, and we should see, you can describe the present situation as an emergent catastrophe, or you can describe it as a huge opportunity for a completely new beginning, as was the 15th century Italian Renaissance, a leap from the past, but one that always involves a terrible cost and a serious reckoning.

The latter seems to me much closer to the reality. Taking that opportunity is the mission I think we all have to undertake.

The Economist magazine, which might be called, with the Financial Times, the leading publications of the extant British Empire, published a cover story this week titled “Dangerous Times.” It features a map with Wall Street and Main Street separated by an ugly, deep, and very obvious moat. They obviously recognize the environment in which they are operating, and that they have to somehow close the gap with Main Street to survive. How they intend to do this, to suck the population into yet another fraudulent scheme that maintains their power, is not at all clear. They just recognize that they have a big problem if the real underpinnings as to why the world’s response to a lower form of life, namely the coronavirus, resulted in mass death, are exposed.

And, it appears their intention is to accomplish this with the same surveillance and mass manipulation tools they have been using to manipulate much of the world since September 11, 2001. That is why the exposure of these tools in the ongoing countercoup is of absolute, paramount importance.

DoD/Cherie Cullen

Gen. Stanley McChrystal (ret.)

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

The Washington Post published an article on May 1 outlining how retired Army General Stanley McChrystal, former head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was advising a new anti-Trump political action committee called “DefeatDisinfo PAC,” which would utilize tactics, employed against terrorists in Afghanistan, against Donald Trump. Another Washington Post article featured a similar company, Main Street One, which received Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funding to counter terrorist propaganda and Russian propaganda in Eastern Europe. I think they are talking about Ukraine when they reference Eastern Europe. And this capability is now also being employed against Donald Trump. These companies—literally popping up all over the political landscape now—are devoted to the proposition that you will wake up in November and welcome Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the next President and Vice President of the United States.

CC/Chatham House

Christopher Wylie

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

‘Information Dominance’

How might these tactics differ from your typical political advertising? Here is how Christopher Wylie, a former employee of the British military contractor SCL Group described the difference in his recently released testimony before the House Intelligence Committee investigating Russiagate.

In military information operations and counterterrorism operations there is something called “information dominance.” In your target’s universe you want to gain access to as many channels of information that affect the decision-making of your target as possible, so that you can inject information into those channels, and then exploit mistakes or altered perceptions of that target.... The goal is to change a person’s perception of what’s happening. If you want to change someone’s perception of something, you will send them information that looks— that is not branded like an advertisement and that may look like a blob, that may look like a news source, that may look like just a chat room with regular people talking.

And if you take this notion of gaining informational dominance, and you take your target and you put—you inject sort of ads, or blogs, or various digital context everywhere where they travel through the Internet, whether you’re clicking or—whether they’re on a search engine, whether they’re on Facebook, they start to see all of this information, and it starts to change how they think about a particular issue, or what is real and what is not real. And so that is something that is quite problematic because that is a fundamental denial of someone’s agency, because if they start to think that something is real when it’s not, then they aren’t making a free choice when they’re going and voting, because they’re basing it on a warped perception.

Wylie is describing, in short, a form of mass brainwashing, the project which evolved when Barack Obama first took office and started talking, through his information czar, Cass Sunstein, about creating “cognitive dissonance” in potential political revolutionaries, rendering them impotent as the result of rage and an inability to think coherently.

C-SPAN

Eric Schmidt

Left to right: CC/Pat Arnow; WEF/swiss-image.ch/Sebastian Derungs; Gage Skidmore

Left to right: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg

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

Brutalizing New York City

Finally, I want to refer you to an article posted May 8 to The Intercept by Naomi Klein, called the “Screen New Deal—Under Cover of Mass Death, Andrew Cuomo calls in Billionaires to Build a High Tech Dystopia.” Andrew Cuomo has invited Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, Bill and Melinda Gates, and Michael Bloomberg to reinvent New York during and after the pandemic. The Gateses will handle education, without physical classrooms, Bloomberg has been assigned to recruit and train contact tracers who will medically profile the population and make sure that they are social distancing and receiving cheap telehealth services through devices they install on themselves. The surveillance state’s premise is that we will install our own chains.

As Klein describes it, “This is a future in which for the privileged, almost everything is home-delivered then screen-shared on a mediated platform. It’s a future that employs far fewer teachers, doctors and drivers. It accepts no cash or credit cards (under guise of virus control) and has skeletal mass transit and far less live art. It is a future that claims to be run on “artificial intelligence” but is actually held together by tens of millions of anonymous workers tucked away in warehouses, data centers, content-moderation mills, electronic sweatshops, lithium mines, industrial farms, meat processing plants and prisons, where they are left unprotected from disease and hyper-exploitation.

This after all was Mike Bloomberg’s vision of New York City as I have covered for LaRouche PAC in some detail. Now, Naomi Klein says, against a harrowing backdrop of mass death, it is being sold to us on the dubious promise that these technologies are the only way possible to pandemic-proof our lives, the indispensable keys to keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe.

As Klein documents, Eric Schmidt is the chair of the Defense Innovation Board and co-chair of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. Schmidt has been arguing that since the Chinese government is willing to spend limitless public money building the infrastructure of high-tech surveillance, while Chinese tech companies pocket the profits from commercial applications, the U.S. dominant position in the global economy is about to collapse. Schmidt is arguing that what he views as the Chinese model for mass surveillance is allowing them to triumph over the U.S. and that only by adopting these mass surveillance methodologies can the U.S. continue to succeed in the world. To be clear, I am not here to talk about China. I am here to tell you what Eric Schmidt and his billionaire colleagues are trying to concoct as the post-pandemic nature of the United States.

I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theory concerning the novel coronavirus, although I remain highly suspicious of the systems analysis models, particularly that of the Imperial College of London, which have been wrong by gross magnitudes. I do subscribe to the idea that the entire span of time from September 11, 2001 forward has been rife with the overt brainwashing techniques described by Christopher Wylie in his House Intelligence Committee testimony, with the explicit goal of destroying the mental powers of this population.

LaRouche’s Winning Method

Yet, the population has continued to revolt against the national security state, against the professional class that serves the very rich, and against the very rich themselves. More and more people are now revolting against every perceived imposition on their freedoms and their ability to make a living. To the extent people act irrationally, it is because they have not been provided with enough of the food of Socratic reason and the actual intellectual American tradition as the baseline identity by which to wage the fight they must wage.

That was the primary mission, if you read him right, of Lyndon LaRouche, bringing back the fundamental identity of the American Republic rooted in science, creativity, and technological progress, but most of all founded on the philosophic tradition from which we sprang—willing to bet, as Franklin did, that Leibniz would win out against Kant and the Enlightenment, that you could trust people with individual freedom if you kept the cultural and scientific levels of the population high enough.

And now, with the mass surveillance systems that have been employed against us being exposed, we have a huge chance to regain that identity, provided we actually identify what it is we are fighting for, what the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are actually all about. What is freedom about? LaRouche visualized it as the ability to think through paradox and resolve the apparently irreconcilable on a higher level of reality. Why is individual freedom so important? Because, ironically, it is a few individuals, geniuses, acting freely and outside a present society’s norms and ideas who actually advance all of humanity.

The tendency toward irrational tribalism can be inflamed, obviously and ironically—as the results of this ongoing coup come out. Given the profound proofs which we are seeing that everything said over the past four years was an outright lie—a lie, which, however, has incapacitated the reasoning powers of almost half of our population, why would anyone believe any authority, even if their life was at stake? But that is only if you don’t realize that this division and inability to govern the United States were and are the primary intention of the coup against Trump. And now, from our enemy’s standpoint, the virus represents a perfect opportunity to further inflame our divisions. It is the great unknown to which hysteria and fear are not atypical human responses, and it is these responses, this fear, which the news media propaganda machine is seeking to fan, daily.

Science will solve the virus and shine the light on every nation’s failures in reality, but that takes time. In the meantime, the answer to the enemy’s offensive lies in our ability to sketch a new beginning, to change, to progress out of the way our enemy has profiled us, to build a brand-new future.

They believe we are linear, that our appetites control us. They believe we are habituated to reacting. They believe we can’t think long term, with discipline, and create a future like our greatest, most optimistic generations did. They believe they have stomped out all of our greatest history and ideas and that people are solidly bought into money, the irrational hand of the market, and popular narcissism. In other words, they believe they have succeeded in cultivating our fear and our pessimism at a time which, in reality, the poet Percy Shelley tells us, is the time for poets, for great leaps in the human mind and its understanding of the universe.

If you ever read Friedrich Schiller’s History of the Thirty Years’ War, you will find that he is at war with nominalism, the arbitrary assignment of cause, rather than the accurate description of dynamics in processes from which hypotheses about causes emerge to be validated.

So, within that context, we can discuss specific developments in the Flynn case, in the DNC “hack,” and in the unmasking, but only in this much more dynamic context, in which I hope you will situate these developments.

THE MAY 4TH MOVEMENT

British Orchestration of U.S.-China Conflict: Three Pertinent Cases

by Michael Billington

The Economist, April 2, 2016.

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

This is an expanded version of the presentation made by the author to the weekly LaRouche Fireside chat on May 7, 2020. The full audio, including extended discussion with a live audience, is available here.

May 16—Russiagate has now been essentially defeated. The MI6 operatives and their accomplices in Obama’s intelligence community and the Congress have been identified, and many may soon face criminal charges for their treasonous coup attempt against the elected President of the United States.

But the British Empire will not easily give up. It greatly fears President Trump’s oft-stated intention and occasional concrete steps toward establishing friendly relations with both Russia and China, relationships that threaten the British imperial divide of the world into East vs. West.

With Russiagate sidelined, they have now unleashed an equally criminal and equally dangerous “Chinagate,” whipping up hysterical accusations against China, against China’s President Xi Jinping, and against the historic Belt and Road Initiative that is taking the Chinese miracle of the past forty years to the rest of the world in the form of vast infrastructure development—precisely what was denied the former colonies by the IMF/World Bank conditionalities following their independence.

Trump had established a close personal relationship with Xi Jinping, whom he called a “brilliant leader” and a “great man” as recently as August 2019, and was well on his way to resolving the vast trade imbalance (which Trump blamed not on China, but on the globalization policies of Bush and Obama).

The ‘China Virus’

But the attacks on China have escalated dramatically with the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, to the point that the world is suddenly careening towards war between nuclear armed states. Every accusation against China regarding its supposed responsibility for the pandemic—from the likes of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the China-phobe Peter Navarro, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and from media and members of the Congress—is easily proven to be a fabrication. More important is to recognize that every one of these lies was initiated by British agencies representing the Empire’s desperate effort to prevent Trump’s intention to be friends with Russia and China.

In its December 26, 2019 issue, The Economist, a major voice for the Empire’s seat of power in the City of London, launched a campaign to turn President Trump against China:

Yet by instinct Mr. Trump is not a conventional hawk, if hawkishness is defined as objecting to the principles that guide China’s modern rise, from its authoritarian political system to its embrace of state capitalism, in which the government’s deep pockets and legal powers are used to create local champions while bullying or excluding foreign competitors. Indeed, Mr. Trump says that he does not blame China for trade cheating, calling its leaders smart…. Mr. Trump has pursued a narrower agenda: namely, reducing the trade deficit by pushing China to buy American goods, above all from farm states important to his re-election in November. [Adding hopefully:] In an American election year, when there will be no political downside to talking tough on China, events could push Mr. Trump into cold-war-style confrontations that he has avoided until now.

The British are not shy about announcing their imperial intentions.

Then look at the Henry Jackson Society, a London institution named after the American war-hawk, Senator Henry Jackson, who played a leading role in the formation of the neoconservative movement. The Henry Jackson Society includes both British and American neocons, including former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, who played a major role in Russiagate. The Society is something of a sister organization of the Atlantic Council in Washington. These are the people and organizations who insist that the U.S.-British special relationship has to rule the world in perpetuity. They agree with the House of Lords report, U.K. Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order of December 2018, which argued:

Our alliance with the United States remains our top priority and cornerstone of what we wish to achieve in the world. [Warning:] Should President Trump win a second term, or a similar administration succeed him, the damage to UK-U.S. relations will be longer lasting.

It was this Henry Jackson Society which first launched a campaign to make China “pay” for all costs associated with the pandemic. Its report, “Coronavirus Compensation? Assessing China’s Potential Culpability and Avenues of Legal Response,” released on April 6, drew this headline in London’s The Mail on Sunday: “China Owes U.S. £351 Billion: Britain Should Pursue Beijing Through the International Courts for Coronavirus Compensation, Major Study Claims.”

This lunacy was quickly picked up in the U.S. press, and a week later was turned into draft legislation by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who introduced the “Justice for Victims of COVID-19” bill to hold the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) responsible for causing the COVID-19 global pandemic.” Sen. Hawley’s website reported: “The bill would strip China of its sovereign immunity and create a private right of action against the CCP for reckless actions like silencing whistleblowers and withholding critical information about COVID-19” and “create the Justice for Victims of COVID-19 Task Force at the State Department to lead an international investigation into Beijing’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak and to secure compensation from the Chinese government.”

Then the same Henry Jackson Society held a virtual conference on April 20, which this author attended, where the general theme could be characterized as, “My God! The Chinese are winning! They’re winning the hearts and minds of the countries in Africa and South America and Asia, because they’re building infrastructure. They now have the Health Silk Road, where they’re helping them to build up some health care capacity. We have to stop them! People think they’re doing this for benevolent reasons, but we know that they’re actually out to take over the world.” A few days later Tucker Carlson wailed on his Fox News show, “By the time this pandemic has played out, China plans to rule the world.” Absolute hysteria, psychosis. It’s as mad as McCarthyism.

CC/Fronteiras do Pensamento/Luiz Munhoz

Niall Ferguson, spokesman for the British Empire.

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

The Empire’s Niall Ferguson

Then there is Niall Ferguson. Ferguson is a very well-known British professor and historian. He taught at Oxford, then went on to Harvard; now he’s at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California. He’s famous for his 2002 book, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, in which he praises the British Empire for all that is good in the world, and advises the U.S. to follow its model:

[T]he story of the Empire has many lessons for the world today—in particular for the United States as it stands on the brink of a new era of imperial power, based once again on economic and military supremacy.

It is this proud spokesman for Empire who on April 5, in the London Sunday Times, launched the “Big Lie,” Goebbels-style, knowing his slavish followers in the European and American press would report it as Gospel Truth from the great man. Ferguson asks of China:

After it became clear that there was a full-blown epidemic spreading from Wuhan to the rest of Hubei province, why did you cut off travel from Hubei to the rest of China—on January 23—but not from Hubei to the rest of the world?... As far as I can tell from the available records, however, regular direct flights from Wuhan continued to run to London, Paris, Rome, New York and San Francisco throughout January and in some cases into February.

Immediately most of the world press repeated this lie, asserting it was a proven fact, that China was intentionally infecting the rest of the world with a deadly virus—which would truly be an act equivalent to war. President Trump repeated the lie, as did Pompeo and Navarro and others, repeatedly. The usually sensible military commentator, Col. Pat Lang, raged:

I now consider the CCP and the Chinese government to be enemies of the U.S. that are engaged in an undeclared war against the Unites States. The present pandemic is merely one theater of that war.

The only problem is that the entire story was fabricated by Niall Ferguson, to drive the U.S. into the hands of the British Empire’s desired conflict with China. Daniel Bell, a professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing who had once taught with Ferguson, wrote to him to get the evidence, and received back FlightStats records of flights from Wuhan in January and February. A simple reading of the statistics showed that the post-January 23 flights never left Wuhan! He confirmed that fact in the Chinese language records. A lie which could start a war—

White House

Matthew Pottinger, Deputy National Security Advisor on China.

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

NSC’s Matt Pottinger and the May 4th Movement

The worst, and the last of these lies that I’m going to review here, is that of Matthew Pottinger, who is now the top National Security Advisor to President Trump on China. Pottinger—the son of former Assistant Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger, who conspired with Henry Kissinger in the early 1980s in setting up the “Get LaRouche Task Force”—speaks Chinese fluently. On May 4th, Matt Pottinger gave a video presentation to a conference at the University of Virginia, entirely in Chinese with English subtitles, in honor of the May 4th Movement, the uprising in China in 1919 following the Versailles Treaty ending World War 1.

Despite the fact that China officially supported the British against Germany, the Versailles Treaty nonetheless refused to return Shandong Province, which had been a part of Germany’s “sphere of influence,” to Chinese sovereign control, but gave it to Japan as a prize. The Chinese were shocked and outraged.

Why did Pottinger give his speech to an American audience in Chinese? The presentation was, in essence, an open call for insurrection within China. He delivered his speech in Chinese, to directly address the Chinese people; calling on them to rise up against the “authoritarian Confucian dictatorship of the Communist Party of China.” Not only was it full of lies about what’s going on today in China, but it was also based on lies concerning the May 4th Movement in 1919.

I believe it’s important to examine what actually happened in 1919 during the May 4th uprising. The Chinese had been dragged into World War I on the side of the British, against the advice of Sun Yat-Sen. Sun Yat-Sen, who had led the 1911 revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty and ended the Imperial System in China, had been trained in the American System and Hamiltonian economic principles when he was schooled by Americans in Hawaii at the end of the 19th Century.

He then went back to China, leading the Republican Revolution of 1911. His organizing program, called the “Three Principles of the People,” came directly from Abraham Lincoln’s concept of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” His writings explicitly educated the Chinese people in the economic principles of Alexander Hamilton, the national “directed credit” policies which built America into an industrial power. He understood the evil of the British Empire, but also understood the difference between Hamilton and the slavery system supported by the Jeffersonians.

CC

Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, trained in American System economics, led the 1911 revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty and ended the Imperial System in China. Shown: A sculpture of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen in Chinatown, Los Angeles, California.

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

But the Republican revolution faltered, as warlords asserted their power—one even tried, unsuccessfully, to restore the Monarchy. The country was not unified around Sun Yat-Sen’s movement; but he was nonetheless viewed as a hero and had a considerable following.

Sun Yat-Sen had warned that if China joined the war on the side of the British, then even if the British won, China would not join in the benefits of victory, but would be chopped up and passed out to others, which is exactly what happened, as Shandong Province was handed over to Japan, sparking the May 4th revolt. Hundreds of thousands of people poured out onto Tiananmen Square, demonstrating against this colonial treatment. The potential that Sun Yat-Sen’s movement would succeed through this ferment in establishing an American System Republic was very clear to the British.

LoC

John Dewey, “a fierce opponent of Classical education,” was one of the most destructive figures in American history.

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

Now, what did Matt Pottinger have to say about this? Did he mention Sun Yat-Sen? Not a word. The only person he mentioned was Hu Shih. He acknowledges that Hu Shih was trained by a Columbia University professor named John Dewey. We have long identified John Dewey as one of the most destructive figures in American history. He was the guru of the so-called “pragmatist movement,” where pragmatism means, “Don’t worry about the truth, just do what you need to do to get the result you want.” Dewey was also a fierce opponent of Classical education. He considered Classical education to be a waste; in fact, he advocated “de-schooling.” Why go to school? You need to “learn by doing,” not by studying books, and certainly not ancient books written by dead people.

This was a policy that found its ugly realization 45 years later in the Cultural Revolution, when Chinese schools were shut down and the students were sent to the countryside to “learn from the peasants.”

One of Dewey’s leading students at Columbia was Hu Shih. After the May 4th revolt, John Dewey went to China; his translator and guide was Hu Shih.

Hu Shih in 1960 (above), and with his teacher John Dewey, between 1938 and 1942.

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

What does Pottinger have to say about all this? He said, “Hu Shih was the example of somebody standing up against the evil Confucian bureaucracy.” Pottinger did not hide that he was speaking about today as well. He said that Taiwan is the example of the kind of “democracy” we need; not the “autocracy” on the Mainland. Of course, this is an open attack on the “One-China, Two Systems” policy which has been the fundamental basis of U.S.-China relations and cooperation since the re-establishment of relations in the 1970s. To reject the One-China policy has always been considered a casus belli by Beijing.

Pottinger said: “Who are the Hu Shihs of today?” Then he listed a number of dissidents, people who have been supported by the “color revolution” institutions in the West, such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the George Soros networks. He even said that the Hu Shihs of today are “the millions of Hong Kong citizens who peacefully demonstrated for the rule of law last year.” I’m sure all of you have seen videos of the black-clad, hooded terrorists who were setting fire to Hong Kong and attacking police. These were not peaceful demonstrations; this was an anarchistic revolt, which these institutions hoped would be turned into an effort to bring down Beijing and China as a whole.

Then Pottinger says—and this is very important, remember, this is the top advisor to the President of the United States on China in the National Security Council:

As the May 4th movement today marks the inaugural year of its second century, what will be its ultimate legacy? Will the movement’s democratic aspirations remain unfilled for another century? Will the core ideas be deleted or distorted through official censorship by the Communist Party? That’s what the Communist Party would like to do. [Then, directly attacking Confucianism:] Hu Shih and his people were a broadside against the Confucian power structure that enforced conformity over free thought.

This is an open call for insurrection, for regime change. So, this is virtually a call for war, or at least a color revolution. It is also an open cultural war against the core of China’s Confucian heritage, a heritage recognized by the greatest minds of the Christian renaissance of Europe, especially Gottfried Leibniz, as compatible with the fundamental tenets of Christianity.

The Empire’s Right-Left Attack on Sun Yat-Sen

John Dewey was an American, but his deployment to China was a British move. When the British saw that the May 4th Movement could provide Sun Yat-Sen the opportunity to transform China into an American-style republic based on Hamiltonian economics, and based on the moral principles of the American Revolution—they went to work to stop it.

Bertrand Russell in China, 1920-21: Your poverty is due to Confucianism, not British imperialism.

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

They sent their two top agents, Bertrand Russell directly from England—Bertrand Russell, who LaRouche long identified as the most evil man of the 20th Century—and John Dewey from Columbia University, who was actually deployed by the House of Morgan. His trip was paid for by the Morgan banks, while Dewey wrote reports on the trip in a Morgan-linked publication, The New Republic. J.P. Morgan was an American, but he was essentially a British banker, living in London and functioning as a key part of the British banking aristocracy, i.e., the British Empire.

Russell first travelled to Russia in 1920, three years after the 1917 Russian Revolution. He praised the Bolsheviks and essentially said, we don’t want communism in England, but it’s great for you Russians. Then he went to China where his message was: you need Bolshevism; you need a communist government. It’s not good for us, but it’s great for you. You need to get rid of this Confucian ideology. Confucianism is the cause of China’s backwardness, he said—not British colonialism, not two Opium Wars with British gunships, not British control of China’s finances and trade for the past century—it was the fault of Confucianism. Russell taught classes in Beijing that Mao Zedong attended. Chen Duxiu, the founder of the Communist Party in 1921, is believed to have attended these classes, while he was also an associate of Hu Shih.

It was a classic British right-left operation—Bertrand Russell’s “left” opposition to Sun Yat-Sen’s American System, while John Dewey, with Hu Shih, was creating a so-called “democratic” opposition to Sun. But he didn’t mean democracy in the sense of American-style republicanism. He meant British-style parliamentary democracy.

LoC/Underwood & Underwood

Margaret Sanger preached eugenics—race science—in China and America. Here she is attending a birth control conference in New York in 1925 with Dr. Charles V. Drysdale, President of the Malthusian League.

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

Eugenics and Margaret Sanger

To give a sense of how really evil Hu Shih and this crowd were, not only did he advise John Dewey when Dewey was in China from 1919 to 1921, he also was the interpreter and guide for Margaret Sanger when she came to China in 1922, selling racist eugenics. Sanger’s name is paraded about by some people as a hero in the women’s movement, because she was one of the initial supporters of birth control. But why did Margaret Sanger support birth control? When she came back from China, she praised the awakening in China to the need for “selective methods.”

Keep in mind, this is 1922. In America, we had the Chinese exclusion laws, which made it illegal for Chinese to come to America, at least to the West Coast, for nearly half a century—one of the most racist periods of American history. Here is Margaret Sanger:

The menace of indiscriminate immigration, the fertility of the unfit, and the increasing burden on the healthful and vigorous members of American society of the delinquent and dependent classes, together with the growing danger of the abnormal fecundity of the feeble-minded, all emphasize the necessity of clear-sightedness and courageously facing the problem and the possibilities of birth control as a practical and feasible weapon against national and racial decadence. [emphasis added]

Eugenics—race science—that’s what this was. That’s what they called science. When Hu Shih said we want democracy and science, he meant eugenics; just like today’s climate change “science,” which is not science, it’s anti-science. Perverse, Malthusian, genocidal anti-science.

That’s what Matt Pottinger is openly supporting today, to overthrow the Chinese regime. You can see why the Chinese are angry about this, and what we have to overcome.

Spirit of Bandung

I want to review a second case of the British intervening to make sure that the U.S. and China never collaborate. It is the case of the Bandung Conference in 1955. You all are familiar with the fact that President Franklin Roosevelt openly told Winston Churchill that we were not fighting World War II to save the British Empire, nor the colonies ruled by the French, nor the Portuguese, nor the Dutch. After the war, FDR said, we were going to use American System methods to build these countries the way we were building the U.S. during the 1930s under Roosevelt’s New Deal, through American System directed credits.

The problem was that Roosevelt died before the war was over. A little man came in, President Harry Truman, who was the initial purveyor of McCarthyism, before McCarthy—the anti-China and anti-Russia hysteria in the United States called McCarthyism was actually run by this little man, Truman, who was a puppet of Wall Street, run by the British. Instead of preventing the return of colonialism, Truman turned the U.S. Navy over to the British and the French and the Dutch and the Portuguese, to help them retake their colonies. The excuse was, “Well, we have to, because otherwise they will be taken over by Communists, and we can’t allow the Communists in.”

We had, as a result, 30 years of bloody colonial warfare, in a period which could have, in fact, been a period of development and progress. The first war as a result of all this was waged by the Indonesians, who, under the leadership of Sukarno, after years of war against the Dutch, who were aided by the British, were able to throw the Dutch out and establish an independent Republic of Indonesia.

Soon after he had succeeded in that war, President Sukarno—along with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Gamal Abdel Nasser or Egypt, and a few others—sponsored an “Asia-Africa Conference” in the city of Bandung, on the island of Java, Indonesia. He called this the first conference of the former colonial nations, held without the presence of their colonial masters. Sukarno put it this way: “This is the first meeting of the colored peoples of the world.” This was 1955 in Bandung. Which gave rise to the “Spirit of Bandung.” Their purpose was to advance the anti-colonial fight, but the immediate purpose of that meeting was to prevent what they saw as the looming threat of a U.S.-China war. The invitation to that meeting read as follows:

The desire of the five sponsors is to lay a firm foundation for China’s peaceful relations with the rest of the world. Not only the West, but also with the other areas of Southeast Asia.

That referred to the concern in some Southeast Asian countries that China was supporting insurgency movements. Remember, this was 1955. In 1954, just a year earlier, the Vietnamese, under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh, had overthrown the French colonialists at Dien Bien Phu. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist, but as he said in his writings, over and over again, “I am a Communist, but I am primarily a nationalist.”

At the end of World War II, Ho Chi Minh wrote eight letters to President Truman, with the aid of U.S. OSS operatives, saying, please, come and take over our country from the French and help us gain our independence, the way America is granting the Philippines their independence. But the little man Truman never responded.

Sukarno described the Bandung Conference in 1955 as a continuation of the American Revolution. The coming together of African and Asian countries out of colonialism, he said, is continuing the fight that was launched in 1776 by the American Revolution.

NARA

Despite opposition from his own cabinet, President Eisenhower sent a message of support to the Bandung Conference. The Dulles brothers, Allen at the CIA and John Foster at State (shown here with Eisenhower), hated Sukarno, and moved quickly to bring him down and subvert the Spirit of Bandung.

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

President Eisenhower, despite opposition from his own cabinet, sent a message of support to this meeting saying, “This meeting is providing an opportunity at a critical hour to voice the peaceful aspiration of the peoples of the world to exert a practical influence for peace where peace is now in grave jeopardy.”

Indeed, we were on the verge of war with China. The McCarthyites were claiming that China was infiltrating America, subverting our institutions and so forth—very much like McCarthyites Mike Pompeo and Christopher Wray are saying today. The reason for the Bandung Conference was to bring together the Non-Aligned nations, the nations that were not part of the U.S. bloc or the Soviet/China bloc; the West bloc or the East bloc. They said, let’s have a new world that’s based on cooperation and peace.

China’s Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, second only to Mao in the Chinese hierarchy, attended the Bandung Conference. Both Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping—who led China’s reform and opening up after the horror of the Cultural Revolution—were in France in the early 1920s, working and studying. It was in France that they joined the communist movement, not in China. Zhou always represented that faction of the Communist Party of China which strongly supported science and technology and collaboration with the West. So, Zhou Enlai came to the Bandung Conference, and it was there that the attending nations adopted the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence”: sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs, mutual non-aggression, and peaceful coexistence.

This was the basis for what became the Non-Aligned Movement, and the key purpose was stopping a war. Zhou Enlai pledged that China would not support insurgencies in places like Thailand. They would support nationalists fighting colonial powers, as in Vietnam, but they would not support insurgencies against independent nations, whether they called themselves communist or not. There was hope that there would be peace with the United States—and Eisenhower’s support for the Bandung Conference was reason for hope that a peaceful resolution with the U.S. was possible.

Unfortunately, you had the Dulles brothers surrounding Eisenhower—Allen Dulles as CIA chief, and John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State—who were Wall Street lackeys supporting the British policy. They hated Russia and China, hated the so-called communists, hated Sukarno. “Either you’re with us or against us,” they said.

How did the British respond to the Spirit of Bandung? They were horrified, and they moved quickly to subvert it. They worked with people like the Dulles brothers in the U.S. to try to bring down Sukarno, arming several attempted insurgencies which failed.

President John F. Kennedy refused to accept the idea that every nationalist fighting against the colonialist powers was necessarily a communist enemy of the United States. Here he is welcoming President Sukarno to the U.S. in 1961.

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

When John Kennedy was elected President in 1960, he openly supported Sukarno, just as he supported other nationalists around the world. He refused to accept the idea that every nationalist fighting against the colonialist powers was necessarily a communist enemy of the United States. He absolutely refused to send the Army into Vietnam. He had allowed the CIA and intelligence agents to go in to try to counter some of the communist insurgency in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, but he had made it clear that he was not going to allow the U.S. military to replace the French in Vietnam the way the British wanted him to.

In fact, he made it clear to his associates that he was going to make peace with China in his second term—which, of course, he never reached. His support for Sukarno was just another piece that made the British hate what Kennedy was doing.

So, how did they respond? They killed Kennedy in 1963. They had killed Ngo Dinh Diem, the President of Vietnam who was Kennedy’s friend, just days earlier, turning Vietnam over to puppet military leaders, and launched the Vietnam War in 1964. Then, in 1965, they carried out one of the most vile, genocidal atrocities in modern history, in which literally hundreds of thousands of Indonesians were slaughtered by radical Muslims who were provided with machetes and sent out to kill so-called “communists”—the majority of the population who supported Sukarno. This was how the British responded to their perception of “danger” that the U.S. might be drawn into collaboration with China and with Russia.

The Schiller Institute Conference of April 25-26, “Mankind’s Existence Now Depends on the Establishment of a New Paradigm,” showed that leaders of China, Russia, Europe and the U.S. can work together for the common aims of Mankind, demonstrating very clearly to the President and to the world that it is possible to bring about the coalition of these great powers to counter this British imperial policy. Trump is being dragged into the anti-China policy, possibly being convinced that to get re-elected, he has to be anti-China. We must demonstrate that there is a constituency in America that sees through this dangerous ploy.

This is a moment of truth; the threat of war is enormous. And yet, people are being stripped of their delusions—the pandemic and the economic crisis demonstrate that we have allowed our nation to become stripped of its economic resources; culturally destroyed through drugs, the counterculture, and ugliness. People are open to a deeper idea of what we are as a nation, and what people are as human beings. But nothing less than that is going to work.

Buy The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge

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

II. The Positive Path Forward

Schiller Institute Conference on the Internet

May 9, 2020

75th Anniversary of V-E Day: Commemorate the Victory Against Fascism with a New Bretton Woods System

A report on this conference, and the presentation by H.E. Mr. Dmitry Polyanskiy representing the Russian Federation, was featured in last week’s EIR. This week we present the other four opening speeches from that three-hour conference. More will be presented in upcoming issues of EIR.

Knowledgeable Optimism

by Lyndon LaRouche

This is the edited version of an excerpt from a presentation by Mr. LaRouche in Queens, New York in June 2003. A video of that presentation, which was broadcast as part of the June 8, 2019 memorial for Lyndon LaRouche in New York City, is available here.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

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

Friends, if you look around the world today, you have two pictures, one, a fearful one, the spread of war, the threat of war, terror. On the other hand, in Asia in particular, Eurasia in general, there’s a new movement, a new cooperation among the nations of Asia, steps toward cooperation: Pakistan, India, China, Southeast Asia, Iran, nations of central Asia, Russia, moving toward Europe. The world is in a great crisis, a great economic crisis. The financial system is in danger of collapse, and will collapse. But we can fix that. Governments have the power to fix those kinds of problems, and life will go on. The problem is, above all, the mind of the people of the world.

The other aspect which is important as I see it, around the world today, is pessimism. In the United States there is great pessimism; there’s an affliction of pessimism in politics. What we sometimes call corruption in politics, and it is corruption, is a fruit of pessimism. People say you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube; you can’t change the way things are going; you can’t improve the political system; you can’t solve the problems; you’ve got to learn to live with the problems—pessimism. And pessimism leads to corruption. And around the world, the same problem—pessimism, pessimism in Africa, especially in black Africa, pessimism in Europe, pessimism in Eastern Europe, and less so in China. China is more confident, but fear in Korea, fear of what might happen, fear in Japan.

So, the most important thing, in my view, in my experience in leadership, is optimism, not arbitrary optimism, not false optimism, but knowledgeable optimism. The knowledge that we can, if we will, do the things that have to be done.

I know that in the period of World War II, when the United States had gone through a great period of pessimism in the 1920s and early 1930s, we began to come out of that pessimism during the period of the 1930s and the war. We were able to meet the challenge of war and the challenge of the hope of peace, which Roosevelt represented, because there was optimism in the people. I saw things happen in wartime, under wartime conditions, which expressed optimism. People would do what they thought was impossible, because they were optimistic.

I’m confident that the United States can change. It can change from what it is now. It can change quickly. What we’re doing now is wrong, but it can change. It doesn’t have to go on like this. And I’m determined to bring that change about. And being an older man, I have nothing to fear, and therefore, I can go ahead and do it, or try to do it at least. But I think one should not be pessimistic. I know what goes on in the United States, I know the persecution of so-called minority groups. I know the persecution of Islamic populations, or people from Islamic backgrounds. This is a melting pot country, we have everybody in this country.

This is not a country of Anglo-Saxons, it’s a melting pot nation from all parts of the world. Chinese, Koreans, Mexican-Americans, Spanish-speaking Americans of all kinds, all branches of Europe, Turkey, the Middle East, Egypt—they’re all here. This is a melting pot country in which the richness of the country is the fact that we’re a melting pot country. We live together, and by living together with different cultures and backgrounds, we have an understanding of what peace means. It means we’re united by a common purpose to create a society and a world that works in a certain way. I’m convinced we can do it, and I’m convinced that you should be optimistic, too, with me. I think we can change this. I’m determined to change it. I think we can succeed.

Mobilize the ‘Spirit of the Elbe’ To Meet The Great Challenges of this Century

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

This is the edited transcript of opening remarks of Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and President of the Schiller Institute. She spoke to the May 9 conference from Germany. Subheads and embedded links have been added. A video of her presentation is available here.

Schiller Institute

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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

I greet all of you on this day which marks both the end of World War II and the defeat of National Socialism.

It is actually high time for a very deep reflection, much deeper than people usually have. Especially in times of an amazing historical amnesia, when the question of war is almost not present in the minds of people; at least not in the way they should be thinking about it. Those who had the experience of World War II are getting old, and only a few are still alive. For many young people, world wars are not an issue at all, and for the United States, in any case, wars since the Civil War have always been wars somewhere else, not on American territory. So, you have a population which is almost sleep-walking into the danger of a new world war.

It is therefore of existential importance that we try—despite the fact that our moderator Dennis Speed is right when he says we have to approach life with a sense of optimism—in light of the realities of this world and the dangers of a new geopolitical confrontation, it is absolutely necessary to truly remember the full nature of World War II, to relive it in a sense. To remember the absolute horrors of that war, and then to see the real importance of what happened when soldiers of the United States and soldiers of the Soviet Union met for the first time on April 25, 1945 at the Elbe River near Torgau, Germany.

As they extended their hands to each other they made a solemn oath, the Oath of Torgau, swearing never to have such a war again, and to create a world in which people could sleep peacefully without the fear that bombs would fall on their heads. Their emotions and their pledge on that momentous occasion has become known as the “Spirit of the Elbe.”

The danger today is that we are repeating the mistakes by not paying attention to how the two world wars came into being. World War II was a collapse into barbarism that engulfed the whole world. It was a situation where acts were perpetrated that destroyed all ideas of civilization. It was a war around the whole world. Sixty-five nations were involved directly or indirectly. There were 110 million soldiers under arms. The victims were mostly civilians. Altogether, 60 million dead. There was the Holocaust, and other massacres; there were genocides, war crimes, all of it the result of the inhuman ideologies of some of the key protagonists and the way they were manipulated on a chess board orchestrated by the forces of the Empire.

The Horrors of War

Just to recall: Adolf Hitler had the utopian idea to create a 1,000-year Reich, which people who read Mein Kampf and other writings could have known. Even so, later it was found that Mein Kampf was not read so much.

Then you had the Tanaka Memorial of 1927 in Japan, which had a concrete plan for world conquest. As a result, you had tremendous suffering of people in Russia, which all tolled lost 27 million of its people.

Victory Day, in remembrance of the end of the Great Patriotic War, is therefore today the greatest holiday in Russia. For Germany, you had total capitulation, unconditional surrender. It took my country 35 years to come around to the idea, introduced by then President Richard von Weizsäcker, that May 8, 1945, was actually the day of Germany’s liberation, and therefore not simply the day of the end of World War II or capitulation; that implied that the Germans were also, or many Germans were also, the victims of National Socialism, which was not a self-evident idea immediately in the postwar period.

Almost completely blacked out in the West is the fact that China suffered the second-largest number of casualties. Japanese aggression, which had started in 1937, led to unbelievable battles with high mortality in China. The Massacre of Nanjing, is still a memory of absolute horror for the Chinese people. That war lasted even longer, to September 2, 1945.

Why am I saying that there were not just these protagonists—Japan, Germany, Italy, and so forth—but that there was also geopolitical manipulation? EIR has documented in great detail the role of the British in manipulating the chess board, which led to World War I—including the ouster of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in 1890, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, the two Balkan Wars, and finally the shots at Sarajevo, which was just the trigger but not the cause of World War I.

We should also remember that manipulation occurred before World War II by some people financing Hitler’s coming to power. Among them, the then Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, and the eugenics faction in the United States around Averell Harriman, who was convinced that the racist aims of Hitler were perfectly in line with their own intentions. We know that some people who had studied Hitler’s intentions in Mein Kampf and other writings, knew that you just had to put Hitler into power, and war with the Soviet Union, sooner or later, would be inevitable.

There was just now an article in Sputnik by one of their journalists and former BBC correspondent Chris Summers, who reports that Churchill, within hours after Roosevelt’s death on April 12, 1945, ordered his Imperial General Staff to draft a war plan against the Soviet Union. Fortunately, this was rejected by the American Joint Chiefs. But it took only two more weeks after Torgau, which had evoked the “Spirit of the Elbe,” until Truman invited Churchill to come to Fulton, Missouri, where he delivered his infamous Iron Curtain speech, which launched the Cold War.

Since that time, the world has lived in one form or another under the Damocles Sword of nuclear war. We should keep that memory in mind when we look at the very important difference between two recent official statements on the occasion of VE Day. First, there is the joint communiqué of President Trump and President Putin for today’s occasion, wherein both of them said that this event at the end of World War II and the meeting at Torgau are examples of the fact that our nations—meaning the United States and Russia—can cooperate, that they can put aside differences, build trust, and cooperate in the pursuit of greater causes.

The Great Challenges of the Century

In their statement, Trump and Putin say, “As we work today to confront the most important challenges of the 21st Century, we pay tribute to the valor and courage of all of those who fought together to defeat fascism. Their heroic feat will never be forgotten.”

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on the other side, has chosen a different narrative by putting out a joint statement with the foreign ministers of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Baltic countries, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, which is a completely geopolitical narrative with the connotation of anti-communism, anti-Russia, implicitly equating Russia with communism.

So, let’s go to what are the great challenges of this century. You have the pandemic, which is unprecedented and causing havoc, not only in the casualties of the people dying from coronavirus, but also with unprecedented effects on the world economy, about half of which is locked down. Now you have an increasing rebellion in some countries where the populations there no longer agree that such measures are necessary. Some authorities are fearing a murmur of mass opposition and implicitly chaos. But that’s just one aspect.

It intersects with incredible effects. The ILO, the International Labor Organization, just published figures saying that 60% of all jobs in the world—that is 2 billion of 3.3 billion jobs—are actually in the “informal economy.” Under conditions of lockdown, that means that these people who are living from hand-to-mouth have been thrown overnight into an absolute crisis of not having enough to eat.

In Africa, the informal economy is 86% of the jobs; it is 50% in India. In India, where the lockdown has been in place since the end of March, serious social crisis is building. On top of that, come reports from the World Food Programme that we are looking at the danger of a world famine. On April 21, David Beasley, the director of the World Food Programme, briefed the UN Security Council that we are heading towards a global famine of Biblical dimensions. Before the coronavirus crisis erupted, 821 million were living in permanent food insecurity. In the past, the World Food Programme gave food relief for 80 million of those people in 80 countries. But, because of the pandemic and the escalation of many other crises, this number has jumped to 265 million a year.

If this famine fully develops, as Mr. Beasley is warning, the death rate of famine could go up to 300,000 people a day! If food can be mobilized, famine can be averted, but that danger clearly exists. In Africa, there are 194 million people in need of food supplies in 37 nations. In Asia, it’s 61 million in 10 nations; in Latin America, it’s 33 million in 6 nations.

Because of the crisis of agriculture, the tonnage to relieve this shortage may not be there. Farmers in the United States and Europe are protesting because the policies of the EU impose completely unreasonable conditions on the farmers, threatening their very existence. Large tractorcade demonstrations were already going on in the streets since last fall. In the United States, many farms are in danger of going out of business. Because of the coronavirus crisis, there is now a shortage developing where food is being rationed. Meat is rationed in the United States. Food processing and meat processing plants are being closed down because of the high infection rate among their employees. These are things which can be remedied, but it urgently requires immediate action.

The Great Solutions for the Century

If there is one lesson from the defeat of National Socialism and the fact that two World Wars happened, it is that we absolutely have to put aside all geopolitical confrontations, all secondary issues, and go back to the spirit of Torgau and the oath of the soldiers from the Soviet Union and the United States at the time to create a peaceful world. That is why the Schiller Institute, in the spirit of Lyndon LaRouche, is calling for a Four Power Agreement, and why we are mobilizing internationally, including an effort to get the youth of this world mobilized to demand, with a chorus of countries and forces around the world, that the four most important countries of the world make an emergency summit and fix the world system.

Where should the solution come from if not from the most powerful governments? The United States, Russia, China, and India, supported by other nations, must fix this situation. There is no other place. The G20? Well, they had the chance, but there are too many forces moving in too many different directions. The G7 you can almost forget, as well as other regional organizations, valuable as they may be—like the BRICS, the SCO, other organizations I could name. In the Four Powers together, resides a powerful enough combination to force a change of the system.

Now, what are these changes that are necessary? I think the obvious immediate one is, we need a world health system. Every single country of the world must have a health system as good as the standard used to be in the United States with the Hill-Burton Act, or as the health systems of Germany and France were before the privatization of the health sector that began in the 1970s. Naturally, you need a crash program—temporary hospitals, the kind of measures that were done in Wuhan and Hubei province in China. But then you have to turn that into permanent health facilities, and for that you need infrastructure; you can’t put a hospital in the middle of the desert. In other words, you have to earnestly start to overcome the under-development of the developing countries.

There is a program that can be the blueprint to start this kind of global infrastructure development tomorrow if the political will can be mobilized. That is the program published in 2014 by the Schiller Institute, called The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge. This was our answer to President Xi Jinping putting the New Silk Road on the agenda, and this was a program we have worked on literally for more than 40 years. It contains a concrete development plan for Africa, which we published in 1976; it contains a program for the integration of Latin America; for the development of South Asia, the Pacific Basin, the Eurasian Land-Bridge, the Oasis Plan for Southwest Asia, and many more aspects. So, we have a blueprint to completely start the development of the planet immediately.

Concrete Steps for Good

As a first step, you need to implement a New Bretton Woods system to replace the bankrupt casino economy, kept alive only by insane amounts of liquidity being pumped in by central banks. That liquidity pumping will lead in the short-term to a hyperinflationary blow-out of the entire system. We have to go back to the idea of Bretton Woods as Franklin D. Roosevelt intended it; namely, that the main aim is to overcome poverty in the developing countries by providing them with long-term, low-interest credit lines for real industrialization. This program was never implemented because of the untimely death of Roosevelt, and the fact that Churchill and Truman organized much of the environment of the actual Bretton Woods which was then implemented, despite some useful features it had.

Roosevelt’s idea that the need to overcome poverty and increase the living standard of the entire world population as the precondition for a durable peace and stability is absolutely valid today. The Four Powers must combine that policy with the implementation of the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche.

First, a global Glass-Steagall separation of the banks. The commercial banks must be protected; the casino part of the finance system has to be ended. Then, a national bank in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton in every country for credit generation, combining these national banks internationally into a New Bretton Woods System which then provides credit lines for large development projects.

The fourth law of Lyndon LaRouche is even more important, because it defines the basis for the implementation of the common aims of mankind. You need to increase the productivity of the entire world economy, because as the present coincidence of crises—the pandemic, the famine, the collapse of the real economy—demonstrates, the present industrial capacity of the entire world economy is not sufficient to provide for the livelihood of the current world population of a little over 7.5 billion. We need a crash program for the implementation of the commercial use of fusion power, which is largely a question of international cooperation and large funding. We need to invest in biophysics to find the causes of the coronavirus as well as many other potential viruses which could come easily after this pandemic.

There is no guarantee that an even more horrible virus will not follow immediately upon the coronavirus. We have to better understand the issues of life, the issues of the laws of the universe in order to combat these kinds of threats. And naturally, we need international space cooperation, which is the way to our future, and the more adult cooperation required in our human civilization.

So, those are some very concrete steps we can take. They may sound impossible and utopian, but the big question remains: “Is mankind fit to survive? Can we create a basis, an order of international relations among nations, which guarantees the durable survivability of the human species?” I would like to have that question answered in a positive way. So, if we think about the heroes of the World Wars, especially World War II, and what it meant to defeat National Socialism, then if these lives are not to be sacrificed in vain, we had better come back to the Spirit of the Elbe and settle the question of cooperation among nations for good.

There Is a Positive Path Forward: Will We Take It?

by James Jatras

This is the edited transcription of the opening remarks by Mr. Jatras, a former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy advisor to the U.S. Senate Republican leadership, to the Schiller Institute conference on May 9. Subheads have been added. A video of his presentation is available here.

Schiller Institute

James Jatras

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

Thank you so much. I want to express my appreciation to Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche and to the Schiller Institute for inviting me to speak in this very distinguished company.

I’ve just been pondering the contrast and complementarity between the clip from Mr. Lyndon LaRouche of several years ago, talking about the need for optimism, and then juxtaposing that to not necessarily pessimism, but the experience we all have, that our hopes for a more constructive future, for a more cooperative future, on so many occasions have been dashed. Certainly, that was the case at the end of World War II, when we had the “Spirit of the Elbe,” but the promise it held out was not fulfilled for reasons we all understand. We had another chance in 1991, when Communism ended, and it was possible to say, “Fine, we had that wreck from the 20th Century, we can now put it behind us. Let’s try to move forward on a more cooperative and constructive basis.” That unfortunately did not happen either.

As an American, I’m sorry to have to say all this, what many of us saw, as I did, working as I was at the State Department at the time, and later for the U.S. Senate, was the apparatus of power as it worked in Washington.

The Global Situation

That power apparatus looked at the change in the global situation as simply an opportunity for us to claim, in the name of American leadership, global domination; as two ideologists of neo-conservatism put it, “benevolent global hegemony.” Thirty years have passed in essentially a wasted opportunity, making what should have been a positive path forward for humanity, one that now threatens its very existence.

One looks back, for example, that during the time of the first Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, there was at least I think on both sides, a very serious appreciation that if something were to go wrong, and a war were to take place, that could very well be the end of humanity, and so safeguards had to be put in place to make sure that wouldn’t happen. Instead, as we have embarked on what many people are calling a new Cold War with Russia, those safeguards are being systematically dismantled.

There’s almost a sense of a reckless glee on the part of some elements of the American establishment, that we can poke the Russians, we can poke the Chinese, we can poke the Iranians, or the Venezuelans, or the North Koreans, whoever. And what are they going to do about it, because we’re big and powerful. That’s not a good way to behave; that’s likely to result in something unexpected and devastating that nobody really wanted, nobody really expected.

So, I think we find ourselves at a crossroads, between, on the one hand, wanting to have that realistic optimism that Mr. LaRouche spoke of; that as human beings, we always have a potential. That with God’s help, there is always something good that can happen if we go about things intelligently and realistically. On the other hand, to have no illusions about what the dangers are, and how other actors will double down on mistakes that have been made in the past.

The Problem Is with Washington

This brings us, unfortunately, to the question of American politics. I think everybody in this discussion today would agree, that we need to have the big four countries. A few years ago, some of us were calling for a meeting of the big three. Trump and Xi, and I certainly think Prime Minister Modi should be included in that company, that we need to have the primary responsible countries in the world come to a common agreement. It’s correct what Helga Zepp-LaRouche said that the G7 is not going to do it; the G20 is not going to do it.

It has to be, so to speak, the big boys, who can come to a meeting of the minds. And I would say, in a certain sense, similar to what we saw with the concert of Europe in the 19th Century, to make sure that the rules of the road are understood. That we have an understanding of not stepping on the other powers’ toes in areas that are vital to their national interest, but negligible to ours.

The problem is, unfortunately, again, what goes on in Washington. I think the juxtaposition that Helga made between President Trump’s statement about the meeting on the Elbe, versus the statement by Secretary of State Pompeo, illustrates this almost schizophrenia in the American administration which, as far as many of us can tell, basically pits President Trump against everybody else in his administration. If there’s anybody in his administration who would like to go down that path of a responsible meeting of the minds with the other principal world leaders, it will be President Trump.

But then you’re very hard pressed to say, “And who in his administration actually agrees with him about that?” Certainly not Mr. Pompeo, not Mr. Esper over at the Pentagon, not Mr. O’Brien at the NSC. For reasons that I’m not going to speculate on, he has managed to assemble an administration composed of people who all want to double down on the same errors that have been made in the last few decades.

Can Trump Break Free To Do What’s Right?

Now, can he break free of that? This has been the big imponderable that has faced us for the last three years as the “Russia, Russia, Russia” hysteria has been ginned up. Now we’re seeing in the context of the coronavirus, a “China, China, China” hysteria being ginned up. So, the short-term prospects of a lightbulb going on in Washington, of President Trump saying, “I now have the power and determination to go do this, this, and this that need to be done,”—again, one wants to be optimistic, but you try to see the path of how that can take place: How those ideas can not only stir a response in the President’s mind, to which I think he would be receptive, but he then actually carrying them out, given all of the bureaucratic resistance to him.

With regard to not only the epidemiological, but the economic and financial wreckage that’s being caused in the wake of this virus, maybe, as in other crisis situations, this also gives us grounds for some optimism. We see a lot of people at the grassroots level beginning to rebel against what they’re being told they must do in terms of lockdown. In many cases, we know many of the edicts are quite arbitrary, and nonsensical in terms of what people are being told to do. And I think a lot of people are expressing their opposition to that. I think Helga is right about the widespread threat of a breakdown of our infrastructure, a breakdown in our food supply system, that is even going to hit a country like the United States, much less what it is going to do elsewhere in the world.

I’ll give you a case in point. We are now looking at the possibility of meat shortages in American supermarkets, a large part of this being caused by the fact that only certain processors are allowed to sell to certain customers under Federal law. It’s not even possible so far to change those regulations so that other suppliers can get that food from the farmers to the people who need it. The question is, can this crisis result in some step away from the domination of an establishment that has essentially run this country into the ground, and is facing the world with a new world war, and perhaps the final world war. This is what we do not know.

So, I think what we all need to focus on is that there is a path forward; it’s a positive path forward. We all know what the contours are, they’ve been very clearly set out by people like Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute, and of course by the late Lyndon LaRouche. The question is, can the dislocations that are caused by the current crisis result in an opportunity for American policymakers, and above all, President Trump to finally say, “We need to break free of these shackles that have doomed the policies of the past, and do what needs to be done that should be evident to everyone.”

A Quality of Leadership: De Gaulle and FDR

by Jacques Cheminade

This is the edited transcript of the opening remarks by Mr. Cheminade, founder and head of the French political party, Solidarité & Progrès. He spoke to the Schiller Institute May 9 conference from France. Subheads and embedded links have been added. A video of his presentation is available here.

Schiller Institute

Jacques Cheminade

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

I greet all of you with great hope. I have something to add to our reflections to throw some prejudices overboard and raise the issue of our community of principle to define our future beyond and above the issue in itself.

The defeat of Nazism and fascism can never be forgotten. And the followers of those who then were united to fight against them should now, today, raise their political conscience to the level which allowed our victory. That is why I find it essential for the understanding of our common past, and moreover, the accomplishment of our future, to raise the too-often misunderstood question of the relations of the Free French and the then American administration—of Charles de Gaulle and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during World War II.

I wrote have written about de Gaulle and Roosevelt and our common security, on behalf of our common future. Lyndon LaRouche wrote with me, a book called, France after de Gaulle [La France après de Gaulle]. He wrote most of it, but we had many discussions about it.

The Malicious Legend

There is a dark legend about the relations between Roosevelt and de Gaulle, and we should dissipate the unnecessary and evil clouds of that legend. The legend says that Roosevelt and de Gaulle utterly disliked each other, even to the level of considering each other as enemies. Many Americans say that Roosevelt considered de Gaulle as an anti-American proto-fascist; and many French pretend that Roosevelt was an American imperialist who wanted to take over the world. It is essential today to rise above such vulgar, petty, and subordinate quarrels. Both de Gaulle and Roosevelt not only fought together for the same cause, but both overcame the prejudices and stereotypes of their time and their social environment. True, they dissented on many issues during the war. I will mention two and show that both issues were solved at a higher level.

First, when Roosevelt and Churchill decided to meet at what at the time was French Morocco, in Casablanca, in January 1943, de Gaulle was furious because the decision was made without asking France first. He nonetheless agreed to go to Casablanca, and he met Roosevelt. After that meeting, Roosevelt said that de Gaulle was maybe an unbearable fellow, but he was a much better patriot than all other Frenchman of those times.

Second, when the American GIs disembarked in France, de Gaulle was again furious—he was often furious—because he had not been informed in advance. And he flipped because the American administration had planted a live military government in the occupied territories and the Am-Franc currency, as if France had not had an established government, the Free French Government—his government—thought de Gaulle. The issue was solved when Roosevelt and Eisenhower allowed de Gaulle’s Free French forces to enter Paris before everybody else, in August 1944.

Most of the differences between de Gaulle and Roosevelt were solved because both men pushed those differences aside. De Gaulle understood that a certain French-American team tried to prevent or sabotage the possibility of a meeting between President Roosevelt and himself. Roosevelt understood that his services—mainly at the time in the State Department, or people like Robert Murphy in Algiers, and mainly, of course, Winston Churchill himself—wanted to antagonize him against de Gaulle. He understood that the American people considered that instead, de Gaulle was a true representative of the French nation.

De Gaulle, who met Roosevelt three times between July 6 and July 9, 1944, said that both represented the interests of their respective nations, but had no hostile feelings against each other, and on the contrary, had a commitment to common values. After Roosevelt died, de Gaulle stressed that if he had lived longer, once the war had been won, that he and FDR would certainly have had time for a long dialogue, saying he was sure that FDR would have understood and appreciated the reasons which guided our actions, as the leaders of France and the United States.

Then, de Gaulle was politically eliminated. In July 1955, de Gaulle told Douglas Dillon, the American ambassador in Paris, “I always remember my difficulties with President Roosevelt. And retrospectively, I consider that we were both right.” And he later added, “If he [Roosevelt] had lived longer, world history would have been so different.” De Gaulle always kept an autographed picture of Roosevelt over his desk in his house at La Boisserie.

Mission Oriented Leadership

At least four lessons have to be learned for today from those decisive moments.

First, always defend the cause of your nation, whatever your personal feelings or temporary inclinations about the persons involved. Not as a thing in itself, but as a commitment to a better, more human future for the whole of humanity.

Second, never trust the services trying to flatter or confuse you. Roosevelt was right to fear the amateurism and unreliability of the French services, which were heavily under British influence. De Gaulle feared them as well. Roosevelt despised the intrigues around him, and the inclinations of the State Department bureaucracy; de Gaulle, too.

The worst enemies are sometimes inside your own government, as was said before: The later assassination attempts against de Gaulle in the 1960s are proof of it.

Three, never forget when you fight that your mission is to win. Never forget that your mission is to win for the cause of your nation, for the world and for humanity, for human creativity. Never identify yourself with defeat. Even if you appear to most as being stubborn as a mule, keep going.

Why is that so important today? Because de Gaulle and Roosevelt have something very deep in common: They were guided by their mission, both, against all odds. They were not like today’s politicians, an animal circus. And because from both we should learn to put parochial, petty issues aside and go for the best in us, for the advantage of the other, and, more profoundly today, for the coincidentia oppositorum, as Nicholas of Cusa and Helga Zepp-LaRouche very often tell us. They are coming at a higher level than the apparent geopolitical confrontations, which is the very condition, to come at a higher level—the very condition for creative policies.

Four, never trust those that want to divide us from our mission: divide and rule, what Churchill always tried to do—unfortunately, he had a perverse gift for doing bad things. Let’s always look above the meanness of the British Empire. It’s a trap and it’s the last trap we should get rid of. Remember what Churchill said about World War II. He was asked, “What were your worst moments?” and he answered, “The heaviest cross I had to bear was de Gaulle’s Cross of Lorraine.”

To Win Our Future

To win our future, we have to look at it as if we were in the future, inspired by those in our past who created a future for us. This is what Roosevelt did in 1933, with the Glass-Steagall Act, and de Gaulle did as well in 1945, he did the same. This is what President Kennedy did, then strongly supported by de Gaulle, in the Cuban Missile Crisis—de Gaulle was the first to support Kennedy at that moment.

Never think that Roosevelt was anti-French or de Gaulle anti-American. We all, who are their children and grandchildren, are inspired by both of them and by their fighting spirit—which they had in common—on this 75th anniversary. Today our very future is at stake, as never before. And as Lyndon LaRouche understood, we are facing our tragic fate. Let’s make of this tragedy an opportunity.

On his June 18, 1940 call, his famous call of 1940 from London, de Gaulle addressed those who were desperate because of the French defeat. He said, stop it. This is not a European conflict; it is an international war of civilizations. The industrial power of the United States has not yet been thrown onto the battlefield. We are destined to overcome, help me. Help me.

I had to say this on this May 9th, because we need to muster our best sources of inspiration to stand up and fight. Now, with the neighborly, demanding, inestimable, and exemplary contributions of Lyndon LaRouche’s writings and life, with his profound ideas, and his deep emotional commitment, we have that in our hands to create, I would say, a universal melting pot, where all will be physically and mentally fed. That is our challenge on this May 9th.

III. The Standard for Truth

March 21, 2003

Physical Geometry as Strategy

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in EIR, Vol. 30, No. 13, April 4, 2003, pp. 11-24.

EIRNS/Christopher Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche, keynoting the Schiller Institute conference in Bad Schwalbach, Germany on March 21, 2003: “This war against Iraq is not inevitable. Its continuation is not inevitable. We must stop it. Those who say, let’s accept an inevitable war, and try to clean up afterward, are fools. There is no afterwards. There’s only a continuing war.”

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

This is Mr. LaRouche’s keynote presentation to the March 21-23, 2003 Schiller Institute conference, “How to Reconstruct a Bankrupt World,” in Bad Schwalbach, Germany. The audio of his speech, with the introduction by Amelia Robinson, is available as Part 1 and Part 2.

There is a combination of farce and tragedy in progress in Washington, D.C. It’s a kind of Shakespearean farce, in which President George W. Bush is playing the role of King Lear, and his Vice President that of Lady Macbeth. But this is a very serious matter. Sometimes fools will do what others will not do, and sometimes, he who wishes to have a great crime committed, finds a fool to do it, because he won’t shrink from it, because he doesn’t know any better. Like this poor President, who sincerely does not know what he’s doing. Has no idea what the reality is, in which he’s operating.

What we have to understand is that, in this tragedy, as in all Classical tragedies, in all true tragedies in history, the root of disaster is not leaders of the people. It is not leading institutions. It is the people themselves, who bring disaster upon themselves, by selecting leaders, or by supporting leaders, who are the agents of that disaster. That’s what the Greek tragedy teaches. That’s what Shakespeare teaches. That’s what Schiller teaches. That’s truth.

Therefore, when we come to a time of crisis, the people must, first of all, examine themselves, and when studying the misleaders, they must look inside themselves, and find the error by which they become complicit in the evil work done by those leaders.

What is happening to us today, in the world, came as no surprise to me. I’ve been aware of this, more or less clearly, for more than 40 years. I saw the things that happened, in particular, at the end of World War II. I was a soldier in the war. I saw the transformation of those with whom I served, in the immediate period following the war. I saw the Truman era, which was an era of evil, succeeding a heroic era, that of Franklin Roosevelt. I saw among those who had shown the courage of soldiers in war, that when they returned to their homes, in the United States, very soon, within a year or two, they capitulated to fears. They capitulated to the pressure of their wives. They capitulated to their own fears, the fear that, if they said the wrong thing, if they didn’t say what was expected of them, in the period of the so-called U.S.-Soviet conflict, that they would be crushed. They would lose employment. Their families would suffer. They wouldn’t realize the goals of raising a family. And so they crawled. And about 90% or more of them, who returned as soldiers, crawled.

They adopted the habit of crawling, throughout the late 1940s and 1950s. They crawled. They degraded themselves. They taught their children to be careful, to learn how to adapt in life, to learn how to degrade themselves. And then, they got through, because Truman was replaced by Eisenhower. And that was important. That was a gain. Truman was a very evil man. He was a stupid little man—but an evil one. And the reason we got rid of him, was to save the country from what he represented. And because Eisenhower had been a general, who represented the American military tradition, and since the followers of Churchill and of Truman represented a new tradition, an evil one, Eisenhower’s presidency was a period of stability, and regroupment, for the American people.

At the moment he died—or got out of office, rather—Hell broke loose. We had the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassination of President Kennedy, which was part of the pattern: He was not killed by Oswald; he was killed by a special operation, inside our country, called the Special Warfare section, which does these kinds of things. Then we were plunged into the Vietnam War, under Johnson. Johnson was not responsible. It was done as part of a process. And from that time on, we were headed toward Hell. Not immediately, but down the road. We were headed to degeneration: degeneration represented by the Vietnam War; degeneration represented by the rock-drug-sex counterculture, which corrupted much of the youth, entering university level, at that time. They’ve not recovered from that effect.

We Became Corrupt

We were transformed step by step, from the most productive society on the planet, the greatest rate of productivity per capita, in the world! We were transformed into a parasitical consumer society, living by our power to extract concessions from other parts of the world. We looted the world, to feed ourselves, and said we were better off, because we had gone to a consumer society. We destroyed the instinct for honest work in our people, into an instinct for getting money, even living on credit cards, rather than earning money. You had debt crush you. We became corrupt. Our culture became corrupt. Our entertainment became rotten. Our economic practices, rotten. Universities today are barely recognizable as institutions of learning. In our schools, we don’t educate people any more—rarely. We rehearse them, to pass multiple-choice questionnaires, prepared questionnaires. We score the answers to those questionnaires, by computer. The students know nothing.They have learned to pass the questionnaire. And the students are not rewarded for passing the questionnaire. The students’ institutions are rewarded, relatively. The state is rewarded. Officials are rewarded, for this corruption. We have people coming out of the universities, who don’t know anything, but they’ve got degrees. They’re professionally retarded.

We don’t make things any more. We have benchmarking. We fired the engineers, who were the experimental engineers, and replaced them by engineers who run computers. They go into their computer schemes, and they pull out formulas, from the computer. They paste these formulas together, and they tell you, that’s an automobile, which turns over fine at over 45 miles an hour. It may kill you.

We produce things that don’t work. You go into the stores in the United States, for example. We have mostly junk. Not goods of the type we’d be proud to own years ago. Junk. Produced by virtual slave labor in various parts of the world. That’s our condition. We’ve become morally decadent. And because we allowed ourselves, to become morally decadent, in this and related ways, we are now being punished, by the kind of leadership we have selected, to guide us into this maw of degradation.

So, we got George W. Bush. How we got him is rather interesting. Maybe his father could explain, or maybe the mother’s responsible, I don’t know. But we got him because it was decided that no person qualified for the office of President, would be allowed to run credibly for that office, in the year 2000 elections. We had Al Gore, who’s more dangerous than George Bush. He would have had us in a war six months ago, or a year ago. He’s a captive of the same people who are controlling George Bush today. George Bush is a man of no competence, whose understanding of geography is less than limited. And who has problems, honest problems.

But we put a man into office, and the alternative we could have put in the office, was equally incompetent. We put an incompetent into the top executive position of the U.S. government, at a point the world was already plunging into the worst crisis in modern history. “He’s going to make the decisions.” Of course he’s not going to make the decisions. He’s a puppet. A puppet full of emotions, and loose strings, which are pulled to make him do what they wish him to do. Now, I’m going to make this clear.

But I also try to make clear, in discussing tragedy, that a time of tragedy is a time of a search for the sublime. When a people discovers that it’s been behaving as a fool, for a long period of time, and that foolishness brings it to a point where it is doomed, by its own foolishness, its own foolish opinions, its own foolish assumptions about what’s good, and what’s wrong, at that time, the people face a great crisis. They face a great threat. And if a threat is bad enough, maybe they ask themselves, what did we do wrong? As long as they blame the leaders, they will not find the answer. When they blame themselves, a cure is available. Because they have to find that in themselves, which led them to walk the road toward degradation.

This has always been the case in history. Mankind has never really grown up. In all civilizations, great ventures have been made in the creation of states. Some of these things are memorable as achievements. But then they degenerated, in the fashion that Solon writes in his letter, his poem that he writes toward the end of his life, in telling the Athenians how they had degenerated, years after he had led them to freedom.

This is the history of mankind. Great ventures of nationhood come forth, and they degenerate. And the people like it. They become accustomed to it. It becomes their way of life, their opinion. And then a time of crisis comes. And the question is, can they discover their honor, can they discover truth, and change the way they think, in order to change the way they behave.

And that’s how mankind has often renewed itself. Because the sublime has come, the recognition not only that what they’ve been doing is wrong, but that if they look for answers, there may be available answers, there may be teachers and leaders who will provide these answers, or these instructions, and thus nations have saved themselves.

FDR Library

President Franklin D. Roosevelt “turned the United States back to itself, to the principles upon which it was founded, the principles of Abraham Lincoln, the principles of John Quincy Adams.”

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

The Case of Franklin Roosevelt

Typical is the case of Franklin Roosevelt. From 1901, when the British and others assassinated President McKinley, until 1932, when Roosevelt was elected, in the general election, the United States was predominantly in a process of degeneration. Theodore Roosevelt was an heir, and an ideologue, of the defeated Confederacy. And that’s what he represented: degeneracy. He would have been a fascist, if he’d had a little longer time to complete his work. There was an interval of Taft, of President Taft, an Ohio Republican, who was not so bad, but then we had another fascist, Woodrow Wilson, who was the person who founded, or re-founded, the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, from the White House. That was the President, the Ku Klux Klan President, in the White House. Europe had some experience with this gentleman.

Then, we had Harding, who was a mixed bag. Then we had Coolidge, who is not a mixed bag: He was evil. And we had the apparatus which put Coolidge into power, controlled the Hoover Administration, up to virtually the point that Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933.

So we had 32 years of degeneration of the United States, and fortunately, at that time, a Franklin Roosevelt, whose great-grandfather had been a collaborator of Alexander Hamilton, who had called upon this side of his patriotic family tradition as Governor of New York State, to lead the United States out of Hell, by winning an election for the cause of the common man, for the so-called “forgotten man,” who had been abused in these 32 years, under Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, and Hoover. He turned the United States back to itself, back to the principles upon which it was founded, the principles of Abraham Lincoln, the principles of John Quincy Adams, and we renewed ourselves, as Lincoln had renewed us again with his Presidency.

These are examples of the sublime: Where leaders come from within a nation, to lead it out of its own degradation, by providing answers which the nation is willing to listen to at that moment of crisis.

We are now again in such a situation. Since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was committed to going back to the Franklin Roosevelt tradition, the United States has gone through a long process of degeneration, more deeply, in some respects, than ever before in our national history, and thus we were given two candidates for President, leading candidates for President, in the year 2000, who fit the desires of the American people. Either by wish, or by negligence. And what we’re suffering today, in the United States, and around the world, is the result of that choice, that negligence, by the people of the United States themselves—and also, the people in Europe.

We see what happened recently, in the case of the German Chancellor, and the French President. That the horror that was being presented to them, the combination of a world depression, and the threat of a general outbreak of warfare—global warfare, not just Iraq—horrified them, to the point that the French President, the German Chancellor, and the Russian President, formed what became known as the so-called European Triangle of resistance to what was coming out of the United States. Resistance because they recognized, that this was not a war against Iraq, as the French Foreign Minister said in the UN proceedings: This was a war against civilization! It was an expression of an American policy, a U.S. policy, which was a threat to civilization as a whole.

Now, let me just take it from there, and indicate how the story goes from there.

On the 27th of January 2001, on the eve of the inauguration of President George Bush, I made a broadcast, by network, broadcast by the video network, of an estimate, a report, on what would happen under an inaugurated President George Bush. I pretty much forecast what has happened today. I did not know of Sept. 11, 2001, but I forecast in a certain manner of speaking. In the following way.

Go back to Germany 1928, 1933. We had in 1928 the fall of the Hermann Mueller government, which was a reflection of an onrushing global financial crisis, economic crisis, hitting Germany especially hard—especially under foreign domination of the Versailles powers. No one solved the problem. Nineteen-thirty-one: There was an understanding of what the solution was, but it wasn’t implemented. It came to 1932-33. You had a Chancellor, von Schleicher, who under optimal conditions, could have been an effective Chancellor to prevent the war. Why? Because Franklin Roosevelt had been elected in November 1932, in the same period, approximately, that von Schleicher was appointed Chancellor of Germany. If von Schleicher had not been overthrown, then, he would have still been Chancellor at the time that Roosevelt was actually inaugurated President of the United States in March of 1933. So, had von Schleicher been the Chancellor of Germany in March 1933, the United States, and Germany, would have been cooperating on the policies, like those of Franklin Roosevelt internationally. There would have been no world war.

NARA

The Nazis organized the Reichstag fire, providing the pretext for implementing the Emergency Decree, crafted by Carl Schmitt, which made Hitler a dictator. September 11, 2001 was the “Reichstag fire” of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chicken-hawks.

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

What intervened was, that a group of forces, based on the former head of the Bank of England, from Britain [Montagu Norman], and his partner, of the Harriman family, and the grandfather of the present President of the United States, Prescott Bush, moved the money, which was American-controlled money, under British direction, to save the Nazi party and Hitler from the oblivion they deserved at that point. Not only was the Nazi party, and Hitler’s position—Hitler was thinking of suicide—not only were they saved from oblivion, but on the 28th of January 1933, von Schleicher was thrown out, under pressure on Hindenburg, and Hitler became the Chancellor on the 30th of January.

A short time after that, in March, the Nazis organized what was called the Reichstag fire. Immediately there was implemented, an act, crafted by the man who had created—probably you will hear about him from me a bit more here, Leo Strauss. This Carl Schmitt had crafted the Notverordnungen. The implementation of that, under circumstances of the Reichstag fire, made Hitler a dictator, and from that event, and what followed with the wave of assassinations during the period, the Summer of 1934, World War II was inevitable.There was no force on the planet that was going to stop it. All we could do was prepare for it.

Now, we’re not in such a bad situation today, but that’s the situation then.

A Doomed System

What I forecast, in my broadcast, on the 27th of January of 2001, was that, we are in a situation today, where, by the year 2000, the United States was already in a hyperinflationary mode—that is, the rate of money being printed, or issued in other ways, to roll over bankrupt financial assets, was such that we were in a hyperinflationary spiral. That meant that the postwar system, especially the system of the post-1971 floating-exchange-rate system, was now at an end phase: It was doomed. Nothing could have saved this financial system, then or now. The IMF in its present form, can not survive. If it does survive, then the human race won’t survive.

So I said, then, in January, that’s where we were. Therefore, we would expect, given what the Bush Administration is, what forces were involved, that we have to expect, not only a depression, an accelerating depression, which has accelerated, in fact, since then—it was already in process earlier. But that we had to look for the occurrence of a Reichstag-fire-like event, a terrorist event, which will be used as a pretext, to bring in emergency government into power in the United States, which would then launch war, or a warlike posture, in order to attempt to control the political situation, by worldwide warfare, rather than facing the economic crisis.

Now, there are some people who think that the war against Iraq, is a war against Iraq: It is not a war against Iraq. It is a war against the pretext of Iraq, to start a world war. The purpose behind this, is a world war, not an Iraq war. If you don’t stop, there is no “after” the Iraq war. The Iraq war will never end. The destruction of Iraq, may occur within the next days or weeks, but the Iraq war will never end. Because you will be going into another war, under an administration, which is totally committed to a worldwide fascist imperialism. I’ll make clear what that is.

Therefore, we must stop it. This war is not inevitable. Its continuation is not inevitable. We must stop it. Those who say, let’s accept an inevitable war, and try to clean up afterward, are fools. There is no afterwards. There’s only a continuing war. You could expect the bombing of North Korea to occur, almost automatically, in the context of this, if it’s not stopped. And it won’t stop there. Iran is on the target list already. And this war could spill into Iran, already. The war would explode throughout the Middle East, if it’s continued. It can not be stopped, unless the war as a whole is stopped.

China is one of the nations targetted by this war, which gives you some sense of what the dimensions are, what we’re up against. We must stop this war.

An Opportunity for Recovery

There’s a positive side to this situation. I referred to it already, the so-called European Triangle. The fear which has struck Europe, and the positive response we’ve had already from Chirac, as well as his Foreign Minister, from the Chancellor in Germany, from others, and from Russia—I think a very positive shift in Russia’s response—means that the world recognizes that it’s a danger that must be stopped.

We also have at the same time, a recognition of crises and problems, in East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, among nations that are composed of the so-called Strategic Triangle, of Russia, China, and India. That is a triangle of nations, which, if they agree to cooperate, represent a fulcrum of stability, both economic stability, and general security, for the entire area of Asia. This includes also the North Asia complex, of the Koreas, the two parts of Korea, which should be unified, to one degree or another. It also includes that part of China, which is adjacent to Korea. It includes part of Russia. It includes also the industrial forces in Japan, who are opposed to the warlike policy of the present Prime Minister.

These forces know they need a recovery program. They know that a recovery program, and cooperation, is the only force in existence against this spreading war. There are forces in Europe, as well as in Asia, who recognize the importance of closer ties of cooperation, especially economically based, on technology transfer relations on the long-term, between Western Europe, and Asia.

These things must occur now.

Therefore, this is a force for the good. The issue is, how do we make this force for good, this potential force for good, how do we make it effective? First of all, how do we make it a conscious factor in the minds of people around the world? It exists. Some people in Russia, as well as in Germany, and France, know it exists. Some in China, some in Korea, some in Japan, some in India, will appreciate the importance of this opportunity. But that’s not enough.

EIRNS/Debra Jambor

“No peace movement could ever stop a war, even though it may be useful. Somebody has to pull the strings of power, to set into motion the action, around which popular opinion can then mobilize, and grow.” Here, an anti-war demonstration in Houston, Texas on March 22, 2003.

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

Public opinion, even good public opinion, will never stop a horror show, or solve a problem. Someone has to pull the strings of power, to make it conscious, and make it happen. And that’s what I’m determined to do. To pull the strings of power. Not to spread good opinion, not to spread good information, but to touch people inside, to cause those in positions of leadership, to act, as they must act. Because the people will respond to action from appropriate leaders.

The people may have opinions. Look at the anti-war opinions around the world. Does it stop the war? It does not stop the war. Is it useful? Yes, it’s useful. Will it stop a war? It will not stop a war. No peace movement could ever stop a war, even though it may be useful. Somebody has to pull the strings of power, to set into motion the action, around which popular opinion can then mobilize, and grow. And be mobilized for what? For action! Not for negative action, but for positive action. The positive action, of course, is to create a new international monetary-financial system. To take the IMF and put it into bankruptcy reorganization. To bring nations together to do that. To create a just new world economic order, by agreeing to form a new monetary system, based on certain principles of cooperation, which are acceptable among the participating nations. Not one nation, or two nations, to give the answers to the world, but an assembly of leading nations of the world, who agree on certain principles, to govern a new monetary system, whose immediate goal is to lead the world out of the present depression.

The mobilization of a hopeful humanity, for a recovery from this horror show, is the one thing that could stop the war.

Yes, other action is necessary. But the will to act, by the people and by institutions, depends upon an initiative, which is given by leadership. Popular opinion will never save civilization. It can destroy it, but it will never save it. Until mankind grows up more generally, mankind will continue to depend upon the intervention of leading circles, who are capable, and resolved, to make sure that what happens, will happen, for the sake of humanity. And in those circumstances, we find a humanity, relieved from such a crisis, does respond. Not always, but usually.

Popular Opinion

Therefore, what’s the problem here? I said, the problem is, the assumptions of popular opinion by which the people and nations have so far destroyed themselves, especially during the past 40 years, in Europe, the Americas, and elsewhere. What does that mean?

That means, don’t trust your own independent thinking. You probably don’t have any actually independent thinking, but you delude yourself that you do. Because you have seen people doing things, generation after generation, in the postwar period, and especially in the past 40 years, doing things which have led this civilization to self-destruction. So obviously, what people usually think, is wrong. And therefore, independent thinking is not independent thinking. Something is controlling the way they think, and act, which is causing them to do the things that lead to the destruction of civilization. That is what Solon warned the Athenians against, as Athens began to degenerate during his later years of life.

Independent thinking is not valid, because it’s not independent. Independent thinking means blinding yourself to false assumptions which are controlling your opinion. In the same sense that a Cartesian geometry specifies certain axioms, definitions, and postulates, as the basis for a formal geometry, an ivory-tower geometry.

Now, this geometry is false. It does not correspond to the real world, to the real physical world. But anyone who believes it, is a fool. But they will pass the course, if they believe it. They will come to a conclusion, based on this geometry, and say, “that is my own independent opinion.” It is not their independent opinion. It is an opinion they formed, because they accepted certain taught definitions, axioms, and postulates. And they are controlled, by those assumptions. (I’ll get to free trade, here, in a moment. And indicate how that works.)

So, therefore, the problem today is, you’ve got to not only question the assumptions of nations and governments, but you’ve got to question your own assumptions, and hesitate a moment, before you leap to a conclusion, about what the problem is, or what the solution is. Because your conclusion will probably be wrong, unless you examine the false assumptions which have heretofore controlled the way you think, what you call your independent opinion.

Therefore, we come to the question of axioms.

FIGURE 1

A Typical Collapse Function

EIR

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

Now, let’s start the fun. This is probably familiar to a number of you. What I’m going to do, is demonstrate exactly how a piece of elementary foolishness has dominated the so-called independent thinking of most people in North America, and Europe, okay? Over the past 30 years, about. This Figure 1, A Typical Collapse Function, is a pedagogical chart. It’s not an actual statistical chart. It’s a pedagogical approximation. Represented on the far left is the economy circa 1966, in the United Kingdom and the United States. The far right approximates the present. What has happened over this period, is in terms of the process, the degeneracy of the present world monetary-financial system. Its economic degeneracy has taken the form of an increase in per capita, per square kilometer, quantity of so-called financial values, market values, so-called. If you believe in the market—well, pigs don’t like to think about the market, do they?

Then the second curve is monetary aggregates. That is, the amount of money which is being generated, or the equivalent of money, which is being generated to pump the financial markets. Those markets have not grown because productivity has increased. Quite the contrary. Markets have grown because money is being pumped into financial markets, and this increase of money, then generates, marginally, by leverage, it generates an increase in financial aggregates. Even if there’s no real increase in value.

The third curve is a declining trend, per capita and per square kilometer, in terms of physical assets, including infrastructure, produced, and available. That has been the tendency in the Americas, and Europe, and has its effects on not only Africa, but also Asia, and Japan, in particular. Japan is also the same kind of thing. Japan is an economy being destroyed by exactly this kind of process.

FIGURE 2

The Collapse Reaches a Critical Point of Instability

EIR

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

Now, let’s go to the next phase. Figure 2, The Collapse Reaches a Critical Point of Instability represents the year 2000. Let me describe exactly what happened in this year 2000 problem. In 1998, there was an end of the bubble being pumped up, worldwide, which had been based largely upon looting the former Soviet Union, and countries which had been part of the Comecon. So that looting had occurred on a massive scale, partly under the friends of Andropov, his survivors, in the late 1980s. It accelerated greatly with the fall of Soviet power. And that continued under the new generation of thieves, under Yeltsin, into the year 1998.

So, this looting had reached sort of a limit, and the last gasp of the effort, was by the Vice President of the United States, who was an asset of Marc Rich, Al Gore. And Al Gore had entered into a dirty relationship to the Yeltsin re-election campaign, which was called Golden Ada, which was dirty diamonds, dead people all over the place, that kind of thing. The usual kind of gangster operation.

So, the operation had been done with a crowd in New York, Long Term Capital Management Corporation, which had used derivatives to try to take this phony paper, being generated under Yeltsin in Russia, and to give it an apparent value, by marketing it through these long-term financial derivatives. In August of 1998, that bubble collapsed. The Federal Reserve System, and others, stepped in massively, to save the U.S. financial system from a collapse of the hedge funds, which had been involved in this operation.

At that point, people around President Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton himself—I guess I can say it now—said he was right, pointing to me and you other guys were wrong.

He announced, and it later became public, that in September of 1998 he had gone to New York, to the Council on Foreign Relations, and announced to them, that he was committed, at that point, to a reform of the international monetary system, a reform which had been prompted at my suggestion. He and his Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin, thought they could get it through. They soon found out the meaning of Monica Lewinsky in the basement—because a great scandal was run, and then an impeachment scandal, to try to get Clinton out, and Clinton was therefore stopped by the impeachment scandal, from proceeding with negotiating monetary reform.

That’s real history.

The ‘Wall of Money’

So, at that point, what they did in New York, with the aid of George Soros—who’s also a thief and a drug pusher—they agreed that the way to solve the problem, because they had a Brazil crisis coming up in February 1999, they said, “How are we going to get through the Brazil crisis, on top of the present crisis?” And George Soros said, “Wall of money. Print money. Generate money, in all forms, quickly. Flood the world with money.” And, by flooding the world with enough money, that is, monetary aggregate, you can prevent the financial collapse from occurring.

Well, that’s exactly what did occur, for a time. That’s what this represents.

In 1999, we get the first indication, that the amount of money being pumped into the system, to roll over threatened financial assets, exceeded the amount of the financial assets being rolled over.

Now that has a precedent: In German history, 1923—June through November of 1923—the great hyperinflationary explosion. Well, that’s what that represents.

Now, because the United States is able to loot a lot of countries (which Germany could not do in 1923), the United States and others have been able to moderate the effect of this. But, since that time, this process has been ongoing.

About the year 2000, I went through the figures again, with my associates, and we determined, that this was not simply an episodic phenomenon—not a surge—but that this was a permanent part of the process. That this system would not survive, except in this form, with the amount of monetary aggregate being pumped in, to feed the amount of financial aggregate being rolled over. That meant the extermination of the system.

FIGURE 3

The U.S. Economy’s Collapse Function

Since 1996

(Indexed to 1st Quarter 1996 = 1.00)

FIGURE 4

Top 20% of Population Have More Than Half of All After-Tax Income

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

Figures 1 and 2 were idealized representation, pedagogical representations. Figures 3 and 4 present actual figures. Figure 3, The U.S. Economy’s Collapse Function Since 1996, show the effect of this, approximately the present: Figure 4, The Top 20% of Population Have More than Half of all After-Tax Income, shows that, as a result of the changes, inside the United States, there has been—in terms of family-income levels—the lower 80% of families of the United States, have been suffering a major shift in the percentile of the national income received.

But, not only that, the physical amount, the physical value of the income of the average family of the lower 80%, has collapsed—physically, absolutely, as well as the total population.

So, what we had is a destruction, a physical destruction, of the U.S. economy, and a physical destruction of the conditions of life of the lower 80% of the U.S. population.

Have any of you been exposed to courses in economics, in universities, or someplace else? Or newspaper columns. They tell you that money, that the market is what’s important. That the improvement of financial assets (we can put this to one side), that the increase of financial assets, that the yields on bonds, stocks, and so forth, on the financial market, is a measure of health. They will tell you that the amount of money being circulated, is a measure of health, financial health, economic health. For this past period, most of the world has believed that the United States, and Europe, were in excellent condition, because of the amount of money in circulation, the amount of financial profit reported in markets in the recent years, and similar kinds of things.

It was all fraud! There never any truth to it! Because the physical value of the total product of these economies, per capita and per square kilometer, was collapsing! And the collapse was not some accidental or incidental collapse, it was a systemic collapse. That is, the way the system was designed to operate was inherently destroying the level of actual, physical income, the physical standard of living, per capita and per square kilometer, in all these nations.

So therefore, if you believed in monetary theory; if you believed in John Maynard Keynes; if you believed in financial accounting, you’re an idiot. Because, you were operating on assumptions, axiomatic assumptions, which had no correspondence to reality. So, you would come up here, with your own, independent thinking, about how the financial market is operating, about how to make money in business and similar kinds of things, based on monetary and financial theories. And, to the extent that you believed that, your so-called “independent opinion” was less than worthless. It was junk!

The Principle of Truth

Let’s go to some more of these things: First of all, let’s take something, that some of the young people here are quite familiar with—the question of Gauss’s 1799 paper on the subject of the fundamental theorem of algebra. It was an attack on two of the leading so-called mathematicians of the 18th Century and early 19th Century: Leonhard Euler and Lagrange, among others. They were wrong! They made the same kind of mistake, which Gauss corrected. But some people haven’t corrected it, to this day. They’re still teaching the Lagrange ideas, the ideas of Euler, today. Their independent opinion is controlled, by a false axiom, by false definitions, axioms, and postulates. Their opinion is worthless. It’s less than worthless: It’s dangerous.

So, when we started the youth movement, the question for me, was: How do we organize the efforts of development among the youth? And I answered the fellows, at one of our conferences, when this question came up, because, what Gauss represents, is two things, in this particular case—also in this case. What Gauss represents is a principle of truth: that there is knowable truth in the universe. But, there is the possibility of a competent, independent opinion, but it has to be based on, and derived from, a principle of truth. Principles of truth, which have universal application. So, I said, we’ll take this as the principle of truth.

Eduard Ritmüller

Carl Gauss (1777-1855) represents the principle of truth: that there is knowable truth in the universe. LaRouche chose Gauss’s fundamental theorem of algebra as the keystone for pedagogical work by the LaRouche Youth Movement.

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

So, here’s the implication: What Gauss did, is essentially what’s been done, in the time of Plato, by a student of the follower of Pythagoras and Plato, on the question of the doubling of the line, the doubling of the square, and the doubling of the cube; you have a big problem. This is what demonstrates—compare this with this financial bookkeeping thing. What this demonstrated, is that the standard of truth can not be determined mathematically. There is no such thing as simple, pure mathematical truth—doesn’t exist. There is a truth in mathematics, which is always demonstrated in Classical Greek cases, as in these particular interesting cases, to which Gauss’s work refers.

What Gauss had done, like some people before him, such as Cusa, Brunelleschi, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Huyghens, and so forth, was revive Classical Greek knowledge, and principles, after a long period of rotten degeneration. Because the prevailing opinion and knowledge of Europe had been degenerated, ever since the rise of Rome, in which these ideas, Classical ideas, which had persisted up until 200 B.C., and maybe somewhat later, were being crushed by the introduction of the Roman way of thinking! Which has been the consistent problem of our civilization, since that time.

Then, in the 15th Century, with the Renaissance, it was the rebirth of this kind of Classical knowledge, from this ancient period of Classical Greece. And, what Gauss did, was essentially in modern terms, with modern evidence, and modern science, re-created the foundations, in that work and other work that he did, the foundations for a restoration of the Classical knowledge of the ancient Greek type: the Classical knowledge, based on a Platonic principle of truth.

What I did with this, was to say, “I’ve got a bunch of young people, who wish to go some place. They’re looking to me to give them some signpost, for which direction to take.” Therefore, the first thing they have to know, is they have to have the principle of truth, to sort out all this nonsense that’s floating around, to come up with some standard to know, what I’m talking about. How do I come up with a competent form of independent opinion? The idea, that if you can proceed from that, you have a principle of truth—and you know what you mean by “truth”—which most people in this world, don’t know today; and most people in most universities definitely do not know, today; and most professors, in most universities definitely don’t know, today (let alone the politicians, and newspaper editors).

Therefore, if you have a principle of truth, and know what you mean by “universal truth,” then you can use that, in the form of how to construct Platonic dialogue, Socratic dialogue, to attack any problem, with some insight into what will constitute “truth.” Therefore, you can then proceed, by true dialogue, undertaking any energetic dialogue, on all kinds of issues—you can begin to sort out the truth from the garbage, from popular opinion. Then, you can walk in, with confidence, anywhere, and discuss almost anything, if you’re willing to go through that process with anybody else who’s willing to go through the same process.

What we need in this planet, now, is a standard of truth, to develop leaders of a stronger character—a stronger, individual, personal character, operating on the basis of a principle of truth, who can influence institutions; institutions in the case of the United States and Europe, particularly, of the previous generation, the generation of the Baby Boomers. Because the Baby Boomers were subjected to this terrible change in culture, which took over, beginning about 1964: the so-called “rock-drug-sex counterculture,” and the kinds of things that have gone on since, the kind of movements. And, they became a “now generation,” which has lost the idea that truth lay, as it did for most earlier generations among responsible, moral people; truth used to mean, that what you are doing today, as an adult, in particular, is going to be good over the next two generations to come. Therefore, you had a future orientation, as opposed to a “now generation” orientation. You looked at your children and grandchildren, as a point of reference, for this kind of achievement.

We’ve lost that.

Therefore, what we have to do, in a time of crisis, when the Baby-Boomer generation is faced with the fact that its ideology was wrong, its opinion was wrong, its behavior was wrong, is to confront them, with the evidence that there is truth. Since anyone, who’s got any brains and sensitivity at all, knows, that my grandchildren’s generation—which is what these young people represent—my grandchildren’s generation, is my future. The meaning of what I do, lies in what they represent, as my future, and what comes out of the generation to come from them.

Therefore, anybody, including a Baby Boomer, confronted with that kind of evidence, can respond, and say, “Look, our generation has a future.” The Baby-Boomer generation, in the United States and Europe, is a generation, which believes that it has no future. And, they’re right, as the present Iraq War reflects that.

But, it’s the older generation, which has been blocked on this, which has accepted the “now generation” principle, and has gone along—see younger people, of their children’s age, moving, that will move the older people; because, people are moved by that, because they’re human. People are moved by their children and grandchildren, or by people who might have been their children and grandchildren.

They’re moved by that, in any part of the world. People are moved when they go to Africa, and see the suffering. They’re moved by the children. They’re moved by the youth with no future. Their morality is disturbed, by this spectacle. And therefore, a youth movement, which is able to convey a sense of truth, a universal principle of truth, of the type which is typified by the case of Gauss’s paper: That is a powerful force.We’ve never had a youth movement, in modern times, of that type. I simply said, “Let’s have it. Why not?”

The Gauss Standard

Just to get to the examples, of other things, that apply to them: There are two dimensions of truth, by the Gauss standard. One, is the truth, as it pertains, as in physical science, to the relationship of the individual mind, acting upon the universe, which we usually call “physical science.” The second one, is the way in which society, using these ideas of physical science, is able to act socially, and effectively upon the universe: universality of existence. Therefore, there are only two kinds of truth: This kind of truth, individual relationship to nature truth, on the one level; and social relations, which pertain to man’s relationship to nature, and to man.

And therefore, the principle of truth applies to both. And, we have to have a society which rejects Kant, which recognizes that Kant was the thing that poisoned Germany the most—next to the existentialists, and he helped to create them; and that we have to go to a principle, a Platonic principle of truth, instead.

Now, let’s take some cases on the social side, of the kind of poison which destroys society. Let’s take the “little green men” theory; which is what most economists teach, what every free-market person teaches: It’s their independent opinion, as stupidity of their independent opinion.

What’s its basis? Well, it’s based largely on empiricism, in modern times. Take the empiricism of Hobbes. But, the more famous one, the more relevant for our concern here, is not Hobbes, but rather people like John Locke—a real potential fascist; he’s called a liberal—that’s why liberals sometimes turn into fascists, like Hjalmar Schacht; Quesnay, the physiocrat; Adam Smith, Bernard Mandeville, and other creatures of the British East India Company, such as Jeremy Bentham. These people’s theory is all based on the theory, that the universe is actually controlled by little green men, operating under the floorboards of reality. And these fellows, with their invisible hands, are fixing the throw of the dice, to make some people wealthy and powerful, and others destitute and miserable. And, that’s the theory. It’s the theory of free trade! There’s nothing to it, but that. This is what Mandeville said; it’s what Locke said; it’s what Adam Smith taught; this is what Quesnay taught—look what it did for France.

But, people believe. “You have to believe in free trade. Are you against freedom?”

“Freedom of who—the little green man, under the floorboards, with the invisible hands?”

Then, people say, “Well, you have to go by opinion.” Well, I know most of the opinion, that is expressed in most parts of the world, on most subjects, is idiotic.

Now, if the majority of opinion is one kind of idiocy or another, why should I base myself on opinion, instead of truth? What we have to base ourselves on, is what? What does truth boil down to?

EIRNS/Christopher Lewis

LaRouche speaks with young organizers at Bad Schwalbach. “A youth movement, which is able to convey a sense of truth.... That is a powerful force. We’ve never had a youth movement, in modern times, of that type. I simply said, ‘Let’s have it. Why not?’ ”

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

Reason vs. Sense-Perception

Now, let me get a little bit tough—I’ve done this before, but on this question, it’s crucial, to understand my point. Mankind is different than any other type of living creature. Mankind is the only creature capable of reason. And, how does mankind reason? Mankind realizes, that his senses fool him.The person, who says, “I believe in sense-perception,” is a fool. He’s behaving like a monkey—like the case of the Malaysian monkey, who ended up on the farmer’s dinner table. Malaysian monkey. The Malaysian farmer was clever, when he wanted to eat monkey for dinner: So he would take a flask, an earthen flask, or another flask. And he would put a nut, which the monkey would like, in the flask. He would tie a rope around the neck of the flask, and leave it there. The monkey would come along, find the nut, put the paw in, grab the nut—but then, the monkey couldn’t get nut in his hand out of the flask, while holding the nut. And, since the monkey wouldn’t give up the nut, the farmer would come along, and catch the monkey, nut and all, and take them home for dinner! Not a guest, but on the table. Not at the table, but on the table!

Animals are like that. Animals have animal insight, but they couldn’t solve the monkey-trap problem. And, every hunter can tell you that—every professional hunter, skilled hunter. How do you hunt an animal? Not by chasing it. You hunt an animal, by knowing how the animal functions. You know where the animal is going to be, and you’re there, waiting for it, with the appropriate arrangements. And, that’s how you get the animal. Every animal can be taken by that way, and all too many human beings are taken that way, because they choose to behave like animals!

The difference is, the animal responds to sense-perception as reality. When human beings enter into relations with animals (as Helga has with her pet dog), the relationship between a human being and the animal pet, changes the character of the animal, because it is now coupled with human behavior, and will respond to sense-perception under the influence of human behavior, and will behave unlike an animal of the same species in nature. But, generally, animals operate simply on the basis of sense-perception, and what appears to be their genetic predetermination.

Human beings, on the other hand, know that sense-perception is a fraud. Or you come to know it. They realize, that what your senses show you, is not the real universe outside the skin. What the senses show you, is the reaction of a certain part of your biological processes, called “sense-perceptions,” to the stimulus, provided, usually, by the outside world. Therefore, you will never see the outside world of your senses. What you have to do, is you have to solve the problem, of discovering what actually is out there, that causes the effect. And, how can you control what is out there, to change the effect? Only human beings, as a species, can do that. Animals can’t.

What man discovers, for example, is principles we call “physical principles”: principles of the universe, which are not visible. You can never smell a principle (I hope not!); you can never see one; never taste it; never touch it. A principle is something which the mind recognizes—not the senses. It recognizes it, by understanding what is wrong with the senses, and then, learns how to use that principle to operate on the universe, the unseen universe, to cause the unseen universe to change, in a way which is desired, by a sense-perceiving individual.

These discoveries, principles, are universal physical principles. The falseness of the idea of principle, is typified by a Cartesian or Euclidean geometry. You can learn something from these geometries, but don’t take them on good faith—especially a Cartesian geometry. There are no a priori definitions, axioms, or postulates, in the real world, which are valid in the real world.

Now, this point was made by Kästner; also in the case of Gauss; it was made emphatically by Riemann, in the opening of his famous habilitation dissertation. There are no abstract a priori principles in the universe.The only principles we know, are those which are discovered, as valid universal principles: These are physical principles. They are physically efficient principles, because by operating on them, we can produce changes, which otherwise could not occur. And therefore, all we know, the only geometry that is true, is the geometry, which is based on discovered, valid, universal principles. Any other geometry is false. Any other principles are false.

In the case of mankind, this is the basis for real, or “physical” economy, as opposed to the garbage I referred to up here on these charts.

How does mankind, do what? How does mankind increase the relative potential population-density of the human species, as an act of will? If man were a higher ape, then under the conditions which existed on this planet during the recent 2 million years, or the glacial cycle that we know, the total population of these apes called “men,” would never have exceeded several million individuals. We now have over 6 billion living on this planet. We can support 25 billion, with comfort, if we would apply the technology that we have. And there’s no limit to what we can do beyond that.

Therefore, it is by man’s will, the creative will, the power to discover and apply universal principles, that mankind is able to change his relationship to the universe, to improve the condition of mankind, and to increase man’s power in the universe.

Therefore, in physical economy, that is the principle of physical economy. This means, therefore, a certain kind of education as standard; it means conditions of life, in which these mental powers of the young individual are fostered; it means the opportunities of work, in which these mental powers can be called into play. It means the transmission of knowledge, of these principles, which means rediscovery of these principles. And, that we encourage. We now have a situation, on this planet, in which, if we go with a science-driver approach to the planet, using these kinds of principles, we can create a new condition of mankind on the planet.

It Takes a Generation

To summarize up my points, now, sum up the following way: These improvements, which we generate as mankind, are never less than the work of a generation. The fundamental capital investment, is the investment the society, including the family, make, in developing a newborn baby into a mature adult, capable of functioning economically, or otherwise. Today, in modern society, that’s about 25 years. In other words, to provide the kind of education, and nurture, which will ensure that a person comes out of education, as a qualified young professional, is an investment of society for about 25 years, a quarter of a century, today. Therefore, the first policy of society should be that. That’s your first level of capital investment.

The second thing (there are several levels of capital investment), is basic economic infrastructure: making the desert bloom; improved water management; increased forestation—more water, more power. These are things, which also are capital investments, which require time: To build a large water system, will take the period of a generation or longer, to develop it fully. To build a power plant, would probably take four years—a good power plant; three years, if we’re lucky. These things require capital investments. The cost of these things have to be averaged out over a number of years—half a generation, or a full generation: a major power system; a major transportation system, is an investment in a generation’s time. These are capital investments: We must put the effort in, to get a quarter-century benefit, or longer, out of it.

So, physical capital, is what’s important. The level and quality of education, are what’s important. The level of health care is important: disease control; public sanitation; these things are urgent.

And, otherwise, to get out into space, and explore the Solar System, to find out what’s out there, so we can discover more principles, which we can use, on Earth, for man. That’s our purpose. There’s what economy must do.

Therefore, we have to have a managed system of management of economy. Now, where does the private sector come in? Most of the basic needs of society, involve public expenditure by infrastructure, by some agency, which is responsible for all of the infrastructure, for all population, not a private enterprise. An aggregation of private enterprises could never do that. Then, why do we have private enterprises? Ahh! Because of the individual! Because, the creative power of the individual, is what we want! Therefore, we encourage people, to engage in ventures, which will be useful, in which they can innovate, and make their innovations effective, to increase the productive powers of labor, and benefit to society as a whole.

Therefore, we protect, as states—we protect these kinds of investments, these kinds of enterprises. To improve, to enable individuals to make a contribution: In Germany, people are proud of the Mittelstand. This is the high-tech Mittelstand, in Germany, which is very essential to the success of Germany, as an economy which is allowed to be successful. So therefore, we want that! We want initiative; we want individual initiative. Our conception of man, is based on the creative power, which is unique to the sovereignty of the individual mind. Therefore, we should be a society, which is promoting the development of sovereign, individual minds, and of cooperation among sovereign individual minds.

Therefore, public and private economy are part of the same process. They’re not against one another: Without infrastructure, you can’t have a private firm; without water, you can’t have a firm; without power, you can’t have a firm; without public sanitation, you can’t have health. And so forth. So, these are the kinds of the ideas, we have to shift to.

We have such a system designed, in the United States: It’s called the “American System of Political Economy,” as opposed to the failed system of Europe. The failed system of Europe, is the so-called “parliamentary” system, which worked on the basis of co-habitation with the so-called “independent” central banking system.

Central banking systems are parasites: They are collections of financier agencies, of financiers, who gather together like a slime-mold, to control what’s called the central banking system, to exert control over the state. And, whenever these things get into trouble, as now—or as in Europe in the 1920s, 1930s—the tendency is, that the financial forces, which are represented by the slime-mold—the central banking system—will act to destroy what is called “parliamentary government,” for a dictatorship, in order to save the interest and power—not the money, but the power—of the financier class.

And, that’s what Hitler was.

Who Controls George Bush?

Now, let’s take today’s situation, to bring it up to date: People are trying to explain what George Bush is doing, or what he is. Well, George Bush is nothing. Period. I don’t think he even knows who he is, or what. He reacts. He’s a reacter. He’s an unreformed drunk—he doesn’t drink any more, but he’s an unreformed drunk, and that’s not a good combination. He wants to drink—and he forces himself not to. Maybe the best thing to do, is get him drunk! All right. But, he doesn’t control this. George Bush is not the author of this problem. He hasn’t got the brains, to author such a problem. He is only reacting. He’s a reacter. Not an actor, a reacter.

Now, who’s controlling George Bush? Well, you have Cheney and Rumsfeld. They’re obvious. What’s behind them? What’s behind them, is a very interesting phenomenon: This fellow from Germany, Leo Strauss, from up north of here in Marburg, educated as part of the Marburg School of Social Science Studies, under the direction of Ernst Cassirer. He was given an international career by the Carl Schmitt, who designed the law, under which Hitler came to power in Germany—and Carl Schmitt was a fascist: a real, hardcore Nazi.

This Leo Strauss was also an admirer of Nietzsche. He was very close to the entire Frankfurt School, especially to Martin Heidegger, the fascist. But, he had a problem—he was Jewish. And, you had a number of people in Germany, including the Frankfurt School generally, who are all fascists: They were all followers of Nietzsche, or similar kinds of people of this existentialist school, which Nietzsche exemplifies. As did Hitler—same school; the same type. But, being Jewish, they couldn’t qualify for Nazi Party leadership, even though their fascism was absolutely pure! As extreme as Hitler! They sent them to the United States.

NARA

Carl Schmitt (left), the legal apologist for the Nazis’ seizure of power, also promoted the career of Leo Strauss, godfather of today’s American chicken-hawks. Schmitt was arrested for the Nuremberg Tribunal, shown here with Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht in the dock, but was never prosecuted.

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

So, Leo Strauss, prompted by Carl Schmitt, was sent by the Rockefellers to the United States, and then, was picked up by Bertrand Russell, of the Russell-Hutchins collaboration. And Robert Hutchins, at the University of Chicago, installed Leo Strauss, as professor of Satanism, at that school. The entirety of the core of the fascist gang, associated intimately with the Vice President Cheney, behind this war, are all students or under students of Strauss. So, when you touch Leo Strauss, you’re touching the core of a group of lackeys, not financiers—lackeys—like lackeys of a corrupt, feudal court. These lackeys are loose, controlling the state, with financial backing. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a part of the same thing: financed and controlled from the United States, by big money, which is behind the same lackeys.

Now, are these guys the cause of the war? No. They’re only lackeys. Israel, for example: If Israel, under Sharon, continues its present course, Israel will be destroyed. If Israel goes to war in the Middle East, Israel will be destroyed, like a hand grenade, which has been thrown: When it reaches its destination, it explodes. It does the job, and then it fragments—it doesn’t exist anymore.

So, is Israel behind this? No. Israel is a hand grenade being thrown at the Arab world. So, Israel is not behind this. George Bush hasn’t got the brains to be behind it. Who’s behind it? The people I referred to, in January 2001: the independent central-banking-system crowd, the slime-mold. The financier interests. The same type of financier interests: descendants of the same interests that were behind the Hitler project, when the head of the Bank of England, backed by Harriman money, and by the grandfather of the present President of the United States, moved the money to refinance the Nazi Party, and the pressure to bring Hitler to power, on January 30, 1933: This is what is happening now.

Again, there are two parts to it: One, we have the tragedy. We have degenerated so far, as a European civilization, that we have allowed ourselves to come to this point. Secondly, as in many tragedies, we’ve come to the point where the sublime is available. We have, in the developing unity in Europe, against this fascist push, coming out of the United States, in particular; and the aspirations of Asia, to defend itself for security and common benefit; and the cooperation between western Europe and Asia, on long-term technology sharing, as a basis for the recovery of the economies of these regions, and for the prosperity of the future. This is the positive line.

What is required, as I’ve said, is the initiative leadership, of action, to put the potential into motion, and give the world a clear sense, that this positive alternative, of cooperation among a group of perfectly, respectively sovereign nation-states, is prepared to act, to solve the great economic and social problems of this planet. That, intersecting the public opinion that is opposed to the war, can make that public opinion effective, and mobilize the forces within and outside government, which will crush this fascist process in motion.

This means leadership—not public opinion, not popular opinion, but leadership. And, leadership means one thing: It means people, who, like Jeanne d’Arc, are willing to put their lives on the line, to get the job done.