Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 47, Number 37, September 11, 2020

- Cover

- Masthead

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 47, Number 37, September 11, 2020

- I. Why a P-5 Summit Is Urgently Needed Now

- Schiller Institute Labor Day Conference Opening Remarks by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. and Dennis Speed

- America’s Challenge to the British Oligarchy by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

- Helga Zepp-LaRouche Strategic Impasse: End of History, Or Common Aims of Mankind?

- ‘Peace Is More Important Than Disarmament’ Establishing Trust Is Essential to Reach a New Nuclear Arms Agreement Andrey Kortunov

- Edward Lozansky Which Way for America: World Hegemon or Partner for Win-Win Cooperation?

- Martin Sieff 100 Seconds to Midnight: Taking Seriously the Threat of Nuclear War

- James Jatras America’s Fading Chance for Global Balance

- Panel 1: First Discussion Session

- Marco Zanni Why the EU Superstate Project Is Doomed to Fail

- Colonel Richard H. Black (USA ret.) Do We Risk A Military Coup?

- SEPT. 11, 2001 TO RUSSIAGATE 2015-2020 Why Veteran Intelligence Professionals Demand Shutdown of the Illegal Surveillance State Dialogue with Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe

- Panel 1: Second Discussion Session

- II. Organizing for Victory

- How Abraham Lincoln Created the Republican Party by Robert Ingraham

- SITREP U.S.A., PART II Antifa: Back to the Future, 1967-68— A Counterintelligence Primer for Further Investigation and Action by Barbara Boyd

- Aide-Memoire ON COMMAND IN WAR-FIGHTING The Principle of the Strategic Flank by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1997)

Conference:

Sovereign Nations Must Unite

To Stop the British War Drive,

Create a New Paradigm for Mankind

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: Elke Fimmen

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: Rainer Apel

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 37, September 11, 2020

Cover This Week

Schiller Institute

Six of the Panel 1 speakers at the Schiller Institute’s conference, “Sovereign Nations Must Unite To Stop the British War Drive, Create a New Paradigm for Mankind.” Clockwise from upper left: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Col. Richard H. Black (ret.), Dr. Edward Lozansky, Marco Zanni, James Jatras, and Andrey Kortunov.

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

SOVEREIGN NATIONS MUST UNITE

TO STOP THE BRITISH WAR DRIVE, CREATE A NEW PARADIGM

FOR MANKIND

I. WHY A P-5 SUMMIT IS URGENTLY NEEDED NOW

Schiller Institute Conference on the Internet

September 5-6, 2020

War Drive Toward Armageddon or a New Paradigm Among Sovereign Nations United by the Common Aims of Mankind?

PANEL 1

Overcoming Geopolitics: Why a P-5 Summit is Urgently Needed Now

3 Opening Remarks

by Lyndon LaRouche and Dennis Speed

4 America’s Challenge to the British Oligarchy

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

6 Strategic Impasse: End of History, or Common Aims of Mankind?

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

12 PEACE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN DISARMAMENT

Establishing Trust Is Essential To Reach a New Nuclear Arms Agreement

by Andrey Kortunov

14 Which Way for America: World Hegemon or Partner for Win-Win Cooperation

by Edward Lozansky

18 100 Seconds to Midnight: Taking Seriously the Threat of Nuclear War

by Martin Sieff

19 America’s Fading Chance for Global Balance

by James Jatras

21 First Discussion Session

26 Why the EU Superstate Project Is Doomed to Fail

by Marco Zanni

28 Do We Risk A Military Coup?

by Col. Richard Black (USA ret.)

31 SEPT. 11, 2001 TO RUSSIAGATE 2015-2020

Why Veteran Intelligence Professionals Demand Shutdown of the Illegal Surveillance State

Dialogue with Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe

34 Second Discussion Session

II. ORGANIZING FOR VICTORY

43 How Abraham Lincoln Created the Republican Party

by Robert Ingraham

50 SITREP U.S.A., PART II

Antifa: Back to the Future, 1967-68 —A Counterintelligence Primer for Further Investigation and Action

by Barbara Boyd

62 Aide-Memoire

ON COMMAND IN WAR-FIGHTING

The Principle of the Strategic Flank

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

December 31, 1997

I. Why a P-5 Summit Is Urgently Needed Now

Schiller Institute Labor Day Conference

War Drive Towards Armageddon or a

New Paradigm Among Sovereign Nations United by the Common Aims of Mankind?

September 5-6, 2020

PANEL 1

Overcoming Geopolitics: Why a P-5 Summit Is

Urgently Needed Now

Opening Remarks by Dennis Speed

Note: We present here the edited transcripts of the first four panels of the Schiller Institute conference. Reports on the remainder of the conference will be published in future issues. The videos of the conference are available here.

Dennis Speed: We want to dedicate this conference to two founding members of the Schiller Institute who recently passed away, Ted Andromidas and Phil Rubinstein. These two individuals, earlier than the founding of the Schiller Institute, gave almost their entire adult lives to a cause that we are going to be discussing in great detail today.

We know that many people joining us today have recently lost loved ones in the past months because of the pandemic. This conference is also dedicated to them, and to the veterans of the Great War of 1937-1945, sometimes called World War II, and to all of the precious lives we have lost. The war that began in China, spread throughout Europe and Asia, and finally throughout the entire world, ending on September 2, 1945. Others sought to extend that war after that date in a new form—a nuclear form. And in part, we are convened here today to ensure that such a holocaust does not occur.

Franklin Roosevelt said in 1936:

It has been brought home to us that the only effective guide for the safety of this most-worldly of worlds, the greatest guide of all, is moral principle. We do not see Faith, Hope, and Charity as unattainable ideals, but we use them as stout support of a nation fighting the fight for freedom in a modern civilization. We seek not merely to make government a mechanical implement, but to give it the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity.

By what means do we avoid that kind of destruction, which has happened, particularly in the last century, so often? To what purpose could we look at history—our past—to conceive how to make our future determine our present?

We go to a clip from Lyndon LaRouche, a founder of this organization and one of the greatest economists in the world, who passed away on February 12, 2019. We will hear him speaking at a Schiller Institute conference exactly 20 years ago on Labor Day.

America’s Challenge to the British Oligarchy

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

This is the edited transcription of an excerpt from Mr. LaRouche’s speech keynoting the September 2, 2000 annual Labor Day weekend conference of the International Caucus of Labor Committees and the Schiller Institute, “Storm Over Asia, Take Two: I Told You So, and Now It Is Happening.” The video for this excerpt opened Panel 1 of the Schiller Institute conference on September 5.

Schiller Institute

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., delivering the keynote address to the Labor Day Schiller Institute Conference, September 2, 2000.

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

The British Empire, the British monarchy, was created by a rentier-financier interest which consolidated its power over the English monarchy with the accession of George I, as the first King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. From that time on, the establishment of an independent republic in North America, became the central interest and cause of all of the patriotic, republican-minded people in Europe. As a result of this, European forces—in France, especially France, in Germany, Italy, England, and so forth—united to help make the United States’ independence a success. The United States became an independent republic, only because of European direction and support for this cause.

The intent of the Europeans, up until the French Revolution, and even at the beginning of the French Revolution, was that France would become the second nation-state, modelled as a state upon the policies of the United States, as expressed by the Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution.

The Jacobin Terror of 1789—that is, from the 14th of July 1789, until the beheading of Robespierre and Saint-Just five years later—demoralized Europe, and isolated the United States, which no longer had friends in Europe, or significant nation-state friends. And, thus, the United States was isolated.

The United States recovered from this isolation, with the victory of the United States, under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, over a British puppet, the Confederacy, an institution which, like the French Jacobin Terror, had been orchestrated from London.

Specifically, in the case of the Jacobin Terror: The Jacobin Terror was organized in France, under the direction of the first head of the British Foreign Office’s Secret Intelligence Service, the Secret Committee, by Jeremy Bentham. And, all of the leaders of the five years of the French Terror, the Jacobin Terror in France, were all operating under the personal direction of the head of the British Foreign Office intelligence service: Jeremy Bentham. The purpose was to destroy the chief ally of the United States—France, at that time—to prevent it from coming back as what it had been before. And, so forth.

After the War of 1812, the chief effort from Britain, was to destroy the United States—from within. To this purpose, traitors in the United States, centered in Wall Street, and similar locations, organized what became known as the Confederate conspiracy. You had President Andy Jackson, who was a traitor. So was President Polk—a traitor. Both great Democratic—these are the founders of the Democratic Party. Martin Van Buren was the puppet-master in charge of the traitor, Andy Jackson. Polk was a British agent. President Pierce, another “good Democrat,” was a British agent. President Buchanan was a British agent. These are the people who, with Polk’s initiative, organized and prepared the military conspiracy, which became known as the Confederacy.

The United States’ war against the Confederacy, was a war to defend, not only the United States, not only the Constitution, not only to eliminate the slavery institution: It was a war, to defend upon this planet, the right of a republic to exist, free of the domination of the British Empire and the British monarchy.

That was the great world cause, the cause of all humanity, for which the greatest war ever fought by the United States, the Civil War, was fought. Led by Lincoln. The defeat of the Confederacy, was a defeat of the British Empire, a change in the strategic situation, and the bringing back to European civilization of the hope, of a form of society, free of control by the kind of oligarchy, which, then and now, has been represented, worldwide, chiefly by the British monarchy, and by the bankers, the financiers of the City of London, and by the British Empire.

The British Empire always was, and remains to this day, the chief enemy of all civilization, and of the United States, in particular.

So therefore, the power of the United States, achieved through the victory of Lincoln over the Confederacy, and over the British, became the chief thing which the British were determined to eliminate, going first at the admirers of the United States by organizing what became World War I. The United States became a patsy in that, a tool, an instrument, of the British Empire in World War I.

Why the British Hated Roosevelt

Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, changed that. Franklin Roosevelt was a patriot, of a patriotic family tradition, who moved to restore the United States, step by step, toward what it had become. Roosevelt became the indispensable ally of the British for their survival, against Hitler (the Hitler the British put into power in the first place).

But, Roosevelt was the greatest threat to the British Empire, once the war had been won. Unfortunately, at that point, he was dead. And Truman was a stooge. Because, what was Roosevelt’s policy? Why did the British wish to be rid of Roosevelt? Why did the British spend the past period, since the death of Roosevelt, trying, among other things, to destroy the United States, the way we are half-destroyed today?

Why? What’s the issue? What underlies this whole history leading up to this so-called “Kursk incident” near-brush with thermonuclear war, which occurred on the period of Aug. 12, through 13 and 14?

What’s the problem?

The point is, Roosevelt’s policy, was that, once the war had ended—World War II—once the Nazis had been defeated, that the policy of the United States was, that the power of the United States would be to break up all relics of the Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French empires. And, to cause to come forth in the place of the former victims of colonialism, of British imperialism—because all of these empires were run by the British, at that time: The Portuguese were stooges for the British; the Dutch were stooges for the British; the French were stooges for the British. Roosevelt was going to crush it all, and to use the power of the United States, at the end of the war, to bring this about. And where former colonies had existed, there were to be independent republics established.

And, the United States, as Roosevelt laid this out to Churchill at Casablanca, for the case of Africa: The United States would use its technology and power, not only to bring about the freedom, of the victims of British imperialism, but also to give these countries—the newly freed countries—the means to stand on their own feet economically, with U.S. cooperation in infrastructure and technology.

In other words, what Roosevelt intended, was that the former victims, or the victims of British imperialism, would have the same benefits, which the United States brought to western continental Europe, to western Europe, with programs, such as the original IMF, the original Bretton Woods agreement, and with the Marshall Plan, later.

Therefore, that would have meant the end of the British Empire, would have meant the end of the power of the London fakirs and of the Wall Street gang, as well, who are simply part of the allies of the British financier oligarchy. It would have meant the end of the British monarchy, and everything it stood for. And, a world consistent with the intentions of the Founders of the United States as a republic; a world consistent with the intentions for which Abraham Lincoln had led the nation in defeat of the Confederacy.

Thus, the first thing to understand, if you’re going to make sense of the modern world, of the past three centuries of history, and longer: You have to understand that the fundamental issue, since the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the fundamental, strategic issue on this planet, has been two policies: The policy of the British Empire against the policy embedded in the Declaration of Independence and in the Federal Constitution, especially the Preamble.

That’s the issue.

Any other interpretation of history, or major events, is nonsense. And that’s what people are going to have to learn.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Strategic Impasse: End of History,

Or Common Aims of Mankind?

Schiller Institute

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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

This is the edited transcription of the Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote presentation to the Schiller Institute conference on September 5. She is the founder and President of the Schiller Institute. Subheads have been added.

I’m greeting you wherever you may be around the globe, and let me—in this very, very dangerous moment of history—tell you about the purpose of this conference. If humanity is to overcome the present existing threat to our existence, this conference, and the mobilization of networks all over the world that are in contact with us, must catalyze the crucial interventions to pull the world back from the edge of the abyss; the abyss of nuclear war and with that—and this is not an exaggeration—the possible annihilation of the human species!

The purpose of this conference of the Schiller Institute is to propose concepts and solutions for this present unprecedented crisis. We have, like never before, a combination of an out-of-control pandemic, a famine, the greatest economic crisis since the end of World War II, a pending financial collapse, and most deadly, the danger of a new World War, and last but not least, a deep cultural crisis. Because of the enormity of these interconnected crises, there cannot be a solution for each of these problems separately, or just addressing a partial aspect. What is needed is a completely new paradigm, a solution on a higher level than that on which all these crises erupted. We have to jump to a new level of thinking; something that Nikolaus of Cusa called the Coincidentia Oppositorum, the Coincidence of Opposites.

Why are we at the brink of war, and why could this present confrontation become very quickly a new world war? The short answer is, because the British Empire would rather risk the annihilation of the human species, than allow the empire to be replaced by a system of sovereign republics. Ever since President Trump won the election in 2016 to their surprise, there has been a relentless coup attempt instigated by MI6 in collusion with the intelligence apparatus of the Obama administration: Russiagate, about which we will hear more from Bill Binney; a fraudulent impeachment effort; and an ongoing insurrection, by what Trump himself called the Military Industrial Complex and the “Deep” State Department, including violence in the streets.

Not only had Trump in 2016 promised he would restore the relationship with Russia, against which the entire Russiagate was designed, but from the standpoint of the British Empire, his Presidency was an accident, which never should have been allowed to happen. Just consider, what you just heard in the video clip from Lyndon LaRouche, which still is true for today. The fundamental strategic issue today is that there are essentially two policies in fundamental opposition: One is that of the British Empire, and the other is associated with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution.

The Fundamental Conflict

The entire history of the so-called Western world and beyond of the last 250 years has to be seen from the perspective of that fundamental conflict. The British Empire never reconciled with the loss of their most precious colony. They tried to win it back in the War of 1812, and the Civil War, where Great Britain was openly allied with the Confederacy. After they realized that they could not win America back militarily, they decided to subvert the American Establishment to get them to adopt the model of the British Empire, from the British Round Table and the Fabian Society, to H.G. Wells and his “Open Conspiracy,” and the teaching of William Yandell Elliott, the mentor of a whole stable of anglophiles from Kissinger, to Samuel Huntington, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

With the administrations of the Bushes and Obama—Clinton was at least aware of the problem—the British takeover of American politics had finally succeeded. The Project of a New American Century, PNAC, was the answer of that Establishment to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and was supposed to finally realize the utopia of Bertrand Russell for a world empire, a unipolar world, where subsequently all resisting governments were to be eliminated through color revolution, regime change, interventionist wars, or outright assassinations as in the case of Qaddafi.

So here was Trump, who wanted to repair the relationship with Russia, end the endless wars, bring the U.S. troops back home, and, in the beginning of his term, even spoke of his friendship with President Xi Jinping.

There is also another expression of the same attempt to establish a unipolar world. Increasingly over the last years and months, there has been an acceleration of geopolitical confrontation against Russia and China, aimed at isolating Russia, containing China, regime change against Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping, complete economic decoupling from Russian and China, and in complete defiance of the strategic realities, to force the world back under the control of the unipolar “rules-based” order run under the control of the Anglo-American special relationship.

The latest aspect of this is the operation around the supposed poisoning of Navalny, with the chemical nerve agent Novichok, famous from the Skripal case, which was supposedly documented by a special lab of the Bundeswehr, in consultation with the British lab in Porton Down, Salisbury, which played a very strange role in the Skripal affair. The scientists behind the development of Novichok, Leonid Rink and Vladimir Uglev, basically said that if Novichok had been used, Navalny would be dead, and all the people in contact with him would have been contaminated. So, it is completely ridiculous. If Putin had wanted Navalny dead, why would he allow the plane to land in Omsk? Why not use the time in the hospital there to kill him? Why not disallow the bringing of him into Germany?

A very dubious role in this was played in this by the Cinema for Peace Foundation, which paid for a special team of doctors, and hired a costly chartered plane for several days. If you look in the international committee of that foundation, you find Gary Gasparov, David de Rothschild, the Klitschko brothers, Joschka Fischer, and others. Now [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel, for some reason, immediately moved this case up to the level of the EU and NATO. Notorious hawks like Norbert Röttgen, like an angry snarling dog let off the chain, immediately demanded: Now let’s cancel Nord Stream 2.

So, if you look at the cui bono of this case, it’s clearly not Putin. It’s clearly on side of those who want the economic decoupling from Russia and China. Decouple Russia, and hit Germany at the same time.

Heightened International Tension

In recent weeks, there was an acceleration of military flight incidents turning almost into accidents, which are an expression of the heightened international tension. A few examples of many:

A U.S. military plane entered airspace in northern China when the PLA had a drill with live ammunition. The Chinese reacted by sending two missiles from two different locations into the South China Sea. Related to a NATO exercise going on simultaneously in all NATO member countries, B-52 bombers flying over the Baltic Sea were sharply intercepted by two Russian Su-27 fighters. Also, there was the intercept of an RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft over the Black Sea. Also, a Russian MiG-31 fighter of the Northern Fleet was scrambled to intercept a Norwegian Air Force P-3C Orion maritime patrol plane over the Barents Sea. Russia has reported a dozen such events in one month.

Some of these intercepts were at extremely close range. If human error were committed, it could trigger immediately a major escalation. People should reflect on the fact that if world peace depends at this point on the flight skill of a pilot, we are in deep trouble.

Remember, all of this is taking place with the enemy image of Russia and China being painted in ever more sinister colors every day, turning the reality of a color revolution and a Nazi coup instigated by Obama, Joe Biden, and Victoria Nuland against Ukraine upside down into a narrative of “Russia changing the borders by force in Crimea”; Putin poisoning his opponents; China being responsible for the spread of coronavirus pandemic and the economic damage caused by the lockdowns; the Chinese being behind the riots in U.S. cities.

Where is all of this coming from?

The Economic Development Plans of

Xi and LaRouche

In September 2013, President Xi Jinping announced in Kazakhstan, the New Silk Road policy, which would quickly become the largest infrastructure program in history.

The Schiller Institute immediately afterwards published a 360-page report, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, an update of our economic platform for the preceding 40 years: how to overcome poverty and underdevelopment in the developing countries. We were extremely excited, because there was a great affinity between policy of Xi Jinping and life work of my late husband Lyndon LaRouche and our movement, who already in 1975 had proposed to replace the IMF with the International Development Bank, the idea to have a real development policy of the developing countries.

LaRouche, already in 1973, commissioned a biological taskforce to investigate how the IMF conditionalities, by lowering the living standards of entire generations over a long period of time, would invite the danger of the reemergence of old and new diseases like the present pandemic.

He developed the Oasis Plan in 1975. We worked out a first Africa development plan in 1976. We worked on a plan to develop Latin America with [Mexican President] López Portillo in 1982. A 40-year development plan to develop India. The Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, which was a concept to overcome the military blocs of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and to use the associated science driver for a gigantic technology transfer to the developing sector. Between the 1988 “Productive Triangle Paris-Berlin-Vienna” and in 1991 the “Eurasian Land-Bridge,” these were the many versions of the LaRouche recovery program, including his various U.S. Presidential campaign programs for the recovery of the United States.

Lyndon LaRouche’s conception of physical economy has the idea that the only source of wealth is the creativity of individual. The discovery of new universal physical principles applied as scientific and technological progress in the productive process, leading to an increase of productivity of labor power and the productive capacities, which requires a continuous increase in population, a greater division of labor, an increase of relative potential population-density, in correlation to higher and higher energy-flux densities.

Such a conception of the economy obviously pertains to the image of man. It sees mankind as the only so far known creative species in the universe. Human creativity is the most powerful geological force in the anti-entropically developing universe. It is that force which accelerates that development in an anti-entropic way.

With Xi Jinping’s New Silk Road, the economic power of second largest economy is now in affinity with this idea, to overcome the under-development of developing sector. Also, it is reconnecting the fight to the intention of FDR—what the old Bretton Woods System would have become, had Roosevelt not died at the wrong time: the idea that peace in the world at large is only possible if the living standard of all human beings is increased.

This was the issue between Roosevelt and Churchill; to make the American System available to the entire world, versus the British colonial system for the defense of the privileges of the upper classes at the expense of the majority of the population, both the British subjects, as well as those subjugated by the colonies.

It was absolutely amazing: Soon was developed the largest infrastructure program in history, ever. With an enormous speed of development, soon you had six major economic corridors, train connections, dams, bridges, industrial parks. At the beginning of 2017, there were more than 130 bilateral and regional transport agreements, 365 international road routes, 4200 direct flights connecting China with 43 Belt and Road countries, and 39 China-Europe freight train routes. In April 2017, there was the visit of Xi to Mar-a-Lago, and in May 2017, the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, which I had the good fortune to attend. I could experience what had happened, how the world had changed and was inspired by the spirit of the New Silk Road.

What that spirit signified, was the concrete perspective of the developing countries for the first time to overcome underdevelopment. There was the possibility to overcome geopolitics, by putting a win-win cooperation among sovereign nation-states on the table. China intending explicitly not to replace the U.S. as a hegemon, but respect for the different social system of the other, non-interference in the internal affairs. A vision of the one humanity, and Xi Jinping’s conception of a community for the shared future of humanity.

In the meantime, there were repeated offers by China, to open the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to everybody; to have a win-win cooperation. To the United States, they repeatedly offered a great-power relationship. There was really never an answer to that. In November 2017, Trump visited Beijing for what the Chinese called a “state visit-plus,” offering complete insight into the 5,000-year history of China. President Trump at that point talked many times about “my friend, President Xi Jinping.”

The Empire Strikes Back

All of this happened, and there was as good as zero coverage of the New Silk Road in the mainstream media for over four years! But behind that wall of silence, the military-industrial complex was in total preparation for a complete geopolitical backlash. What evolved was a ferocious counterattack of the forces of the British Empire not to allow the “post-World War II international order”—i.e., the perpetuation of the colonial, Malthusian control over the developing sector, and its principles and “rules of the road”—to be undermined by Russia and China, by offering them access to industrial and scientific development such as nuclear energy, infrastructure, or even leap-frogging to the most advanced technologies by joining the Space Silk Road.

In December 2017, there was the publication of the “U.S. National Security Strategy” (NSS) under the guidance of H.R. McMaster, the Acting National Security Advisor at that time, which for the first time, in a very sharp way, defined Russia and China as geopolitical rivals; saying:

China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interest, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.

The NSS doctrine demanded a rethinking of the policies of the previous two decades. This refers to accepting China in WTO, and the Fukuyama declaration of the “end of history” by thinking that by integrating Russia and China into the Western institutions, they would eventually adopt the liberal model of economics and Western democracy. Instead, China developed a model much closer to the original American System, namely a highly dirigist policy with Chinese characteristics. But at the same time, reviving the 5,000-year history of China. It was the assumption of the NSS doctrine that “Their inclusion would turn them into benign actors and trustworthy partners. For the most part, this premise turned out to be false,” they conclude.

The offer of the BRI to developing countries and even those EU members whose economic development had been suppressed by the EU Commission—such as the Eastern and Southern European countries—to participate in the BRI projects was regarded as “creating divisions among ourselves, our allies, and our partners.” All of this would erode U.S. advantages, therefore the task of the U.S. would be to “ensure that U.S. military superiority endures.”

Russia and China were seen as a much more severe threat to the U.S. than global terrorism. They “are developing advanced weapons and capabilities that could threaten our critical infrastructure and our command and control infrastructure.” China and Russia are called “revisionist powers,” claiming that China would attempt to displace the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor.

And Russia—what a crime—“seeks to restore its great power status, (after Yeltsin had successfully colluded with the Western oligarchy to turn the Soviet Union into a Third World raw material producing and exporting country, and which had been insulted by Obama as being just a “regional power”). They accuse Russia of trying to re-establish “spheres of influence near its borders,” because they wanted to expand NATO up to the borders of Russia. This was regarded as a nuisance.

In short: “They are contesting our geopolitical advantages and are trying to change the international order in their favor.” Therefore, the document concludes, the U.S. and its allies must retain military overmatch, convince the adversary “that we can and will defeat them—not just punish them, if they attack the U.S.”

Dangerous Changes in Military Doctrines

Only a month later, on January 19, 2018, the Pentagon announced the National Defense Strategy—a document which is still classified—then under the leadership of Secretary of Defense James Mattis. It claims:

It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model, gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic and security decisions.

The document stresses the need to build military readiness for “a more lethal joint force,” prioritizing preparedness for war, deterring aggression in three key regions—the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East—modernizing key capabilities, including nuclear forces, warfighting capabilities in space, cyber-space, command and control, and intelligence systems, missile defense, etc.

In February 2018, followed the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), continuing the Obama administration’s nuclear modernization of all three legs of the “triad,” adding “supplements,” which include the deployment of low-yield nuclear warheads, which they claim will not reduce the nuclear threshold—but everybody knows they do—but just asserts it will raise that threshold, equipping a small number of Trident submarines with such low-yield warheads, and also includes nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missiles.

With the release of these doctrines, there was also a shift suddenly in all major trans-Atlantic thinktanks, which had ignored the BRI for four years. Now, they all adopted the line that China is becoming the strategic rival.

In February 2018, the German thinktank MERICS put out a study called “Authoritarian Advance,” in line with U.S. thinktanks, which pushed the line that China is an authoritarian country; the Silk Road is just a debt trap; and that the social credit system is spying on its own population. This has been escalated to the present potentiated McCarthyism against Chinese students, professors, media, and diplomats in the United States.

One month later, on March 1, President Putin announced new nuclear weapons systems, the Avangard hypersonic vehicle missile complex, the Kinzhal air-launched hypersonic missile, a new intercontinental missile of 20 times the speed of sound, with excellent maneuverability, which therefore could out-maneuver all existing air defense and missile defense systems and render them obsolete; including nuclear-powered cruise missiles, fast drone submarines, and laser weapons.

So, in the two-and-a-half years since, the Department of Defense has undergone a total reorganization according to the doctrines mentioned. They added an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine which now includes one or more missiles armed with W76-3 low-yield thermonuclear warheads, and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers flying within the range of Russian and Chinese air defenses. A U.S. Space Command was established, and a U.S. Space Force created. The space doctrine makes clear that the aim is American dominance in space, to prevent China from defining new rules in space. The new commander of U.S. Space Force, Army General James Dickinson, said in a recent speech:

Sure, we will try to avoid conflict, but to be absolutely clear, if deterrence fails, our order is clear. We will win. I will concentrate to develop, foster, and accept a culture of space warfare.

All of these changes in military doctrine occurred in close coordination with the British. Several weeks after the NPR was released, the UK Armed Forces Minister, Mark Lancaster, was in Washington, underlining that the policies of NSS, NDS, NPR were also the policies of the British government; that the two programs were closely aligned, with a strong emphasis on modernization of all of these forces.

So in addition to Pence, who made the first major anti-China speech according to these ideas in 2018, it was Bolton—who Trump correctly said if he had not kicked him out, there would have been the sixth World War already—[FBI Director] Christopher Wray, [National Security Advisor Robert] O’Brien, [Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter] Navarro, [Attorney General William] Barr, and especially [Secretary of State Michael] Pompeo, have been spearheading the campaign against China.

Pompeo, who, in July of this year in London meeting with British circles that had initiated the Russiagate story and the coup against Trump, put out a tweet that it’s “Great to be back in London to reaffirm the Special Relationship we share with our closest ally.” So, Pompeo openly put himself in good company with Henry Kissinger, who had made these infamous remarks on May 10, 1982 at Chatham House:

As National Security Advisor, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department.

Are We Sleepwalking into World War III?

So if we look at all of this military posturing and build-up, including the recent Pentagon’s 2020 China Military Power Report, which portrays China’s military power completely out of proportion, as compared to the U.S. focus on the Asia pivot policy, in place since the Obama administration, and the ring of 400-plus military bases the U.S. has built around China, and the recent efforts by NATO to extend its global policy into the Indo-Pacific, are we sleepwalking into World War III?

Yes and no.

No, because some of the military strategists obviously have the illusion that there is such a thing as a winnable regional nuclear war, against which Russia has warned again and again and designed its own military doctrine in such a way to destroy that option for any thinking opponent. This was reiterated on June 2nd of this year when Russia again published the conditions under which it would be forced to go to a first nuclear strike policy.

Yes, sleepwalking, because as Lyndon LaRouche wrote in the paper in which he discussed the methods of the British manipulation of the population in the whole world, The Toynbee Factor in British Grand Strategy:

In a properly ordered republic, [and we don’t have a properly ordered republic right now] as the forces around Benjamin Franklin and George Washington understood this point correctly, the greatest single source of potential danger to the republic is the very sort of estrangement of the citizen from rational comprehension of national policy issues which prevails in the United States today. This, as we shall shortly demonstrate, impinges directly upon the Toynbee syndrome.

Now that is, indeed, the biggest problem: That we are on the verge of World War III; something which could be triggered at any moment, and for which the military doctrines are based completely on illusions of winning a possible regional nuclear war. And that war, once you use nuclear weapons, could be stopped; which I think everybody who has concerned themselves with the writings of such people as Ted Postol, clearly can see that once you use the first nuclear weapons, it will be the entire arsenal which will be used. It is that estrangement of the average citizen not being aware of it, not caring about it, which makes them so extremely susceptible to the synchronized propaganda campaigns of Russiagate, and now about China as the systemic adversary, and the international simultaneous demonization of Trump, Putin, and Xi, alike.

What Is To Be Done?

We have to wake people up to the imminent danger of annihilation. And we have to mobilize around the world for the summit of the Presidents of the Permanent Five of the UN Security Council to absolutely take place this month. These Presidents and Prime Ministers must go back to where Franklin D. Roosevelt—whom they all referenced positively in the past—was unable to realize his intention with the original Bretton Woods. They must declare their intention to end the casino economy, establish a global Glass-Steagall Act, establish a New Bretton Woods credit system to provide long-term low-interest credit to restart the economies in the industrialized countries, and provide credit for a serious industrialization program for the developing countries. Which obviously must start with the building of a modern health system in every single country on the planet, so that this and future pandemics can be defeated.

The studies the Schiller Institute developed, on how “The New Silk Road becomes the World Land Bridge,” in combination with a crash program for the realization of fusion power and the international cooperation in the colonizing of the Moon and Mars, as President Trump has emphasized in his Artemis program, can establish the new economic platform, where all nations can benefit from a higher productivity of the economy.

The real wealth which will be generated by such leaps and by several orders of magnitude [increase] in productivity, will compensate very quickly for the alleged losses caused by an ending of the sales of ever more armaments. But unlike the latter, it will increase the real wealth of society, instead of imposing the kind of primitive accumulation on the physical economy caused by the military build-up.

Once there is a general agreement to replace geopolitical confrontation with win-win economic cooperation for the common good of mankind, the basis for a new security architecture exists. President Trump has reiterated repeatedly, that he regards a new nuclear arms pact with Russia as the biggest problem in the world to be solved. The summit therefore should announce the intention to prolong the New Start Treaty, as well as confirm once again the principle of the inadmissibility of nuclear war.

The world is clearly at a crossroads, and it is up to these five leaders to make sure that the choice will not be an impasse which leads to the actual end of history.

Embrace Not the Worst, but the

Best of All Great Cultures

We have to add another dimension. We must reject the degenerate popular culture, which all empires have always used to dumb the population down and to control them by degrading their impulses, just as the Romans did by having the masses gather to watch the killing in the circuses and become complicit in the decision as to whether the gladiators should live or die. And we must draw our conclusions from the fact, that Biden revealed the depravity of his own counterculture, by trying to make himself more attractive in cooperating with such “stars” as Cardi B, whose video WAP [Wet-Ass Pussy] reveals the image of man that the oligarchy is more than happy for the population to have, because a population so degraded will never challenge their power.

If mankind is to escape the looming catastrophe, all great cultures of the world need to bring forth their best traditions, the loftiest ideas of their philosophers and poets, the most ennobling compositions of their composers, the most beautiful works of art in painting, sculpture, and architecture. We should all be inspired by the treasures humanity has produced so far, and start to think like patriots and world citizens as a unity. Not only on the planet Earth, but as members of the same species, soon living together in a village on the Moon and a city on Mars. The five leaders of the summit soon to be held, must have the courage to project a magnificent vision of the future of the human species, of the millions of geniuses yet to be born, which they have to protect by creating a New Paradigm in international relations. And they must think and act on the level of the Coincidentia Oppositorum, the Coincidence of Opposites.

‘Peace Is More Important Than Disarmament’

Establishing Trust Is Essential to Reach a New

Nuclear Arms Agreement

Andrey Kortunov

This is the edited transcription of Mr. Kortunov’s presentation to the Schiller Institute conference on September 5. He is the Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council in Moscow. Subheads have been added.

Schiller Institute

Andrey Kortunov

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I’d like to say that I’m very grateful to the Schiller Institute for having a chance to be here, and to participate in this. I’m sure it is very intellectually gratifying and a very important discussion. Of course, the topic is very timely, the composition of speakers is very impressive. And I’d like to make my modest contribution to the discussion that will follow.

The title of the conference is about the P-5 [the permanent five members of the UN Security Council]; why a P-5 summit meeting is badly need now. Let me remind everybody that the P-5 emerged 75 years ago, primarily in order to maintain the world order and global security. It’s not about development, it’s not so much about public health, it’s not about migrations. It’s about global security. Seventy-five years ago, the founders of the United Nations gave five countries special rights, namely veto power in the Security Council, but also special responsibilities to maintain global order and to keep the peace in the world.

Now, how would we assess the performance of the P-5 group now? I would say that in my humble opinion, it’s not a failure. Because the P-5 group was able to avoid a nuclear war; humankind is still here. But it’s clearly not an A, it’s not a B, and I would say that it’s not a C either. In my opinion, it’s probably a D–. If we look around, we will come to the conclusion that the world, unfortunately, is not yet any safer. There are many conflicts in the Middle East, in North Africa, in East Asia, in Latin America. Unfortunately, the P-5 cannot agree on how they’re going to handle these problems. The arms race is on, with acceleration. We see international terrorism. But above all, we see a very clear decay of the system of international security and arms control that the United States and the Soviet Union, and finally the Russian Federation, nourished and cultivated for more than half a century.

Problems Encountered

So, I would like to limit my presentation to two topics. The first one is about the problems that we encounter. This is definitely the bad news. But also, the second topic is about what can be done under these current circumstances, and how the P-5 group can change the situation.

So, let me start with the first statement. I think that today it is clear that the old arms control mechanism that existed between Moscow and Washington is almost gone. And probably the damage inflicted upon this regime is already beyond repair. Indeed, this whole decay of the arms control regime started about 20 years ago, when the United States decided to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. This step by Washington was taken with a lot of sadness and suspicion in Moscow. But the system survived this step, primarily because the general political background between Moscow and Washington at that point was quite positive. However, 17 years later, the United States withdrew from another very important arms control treaty, that was the INF Treaty.

Again, I don’t want to blame the United States for this decision. I think Russia should also take a part of the responsibility, because it didn’t fight for the preservation of this treaty as it probably should have. It didn’t realize the sensitivity of the alleged violations of the treaty for the United States.

But now we are getting to the third stage in this downwards spiral of the destruction of arms control, which is of course, the future of the new START agreement [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty]. We all hope that the new START agreement can still be rescued; we all hope that there is still time to extend this agreement. We know that there are consultations between Russia and the United States on this issue, but of course, the chances are getting smaller and smaller. Many experts, both in the United States and Russia, believe that the treaty cannot be saved; and even if it is saved, it’s not likely to start a new chapter in the relations between the two countries, but it is likely to end the old chapter.

So, this is the problem. What will happen if the traditional arms control model is gone? I think that the first victim of this unfortunate development will be the relations between the United States and the Russian Federation, because arms control used to be the cornerstone of this bilateral relationship. That was exactly what made this relationship so special and so important. Without this cornerstone, I think the relationship will fall apart in many other ways, but definitely the United States and Russia will not be the only ones to suffer from the demise of the Strategic Arms Control.

We cannot separate the bilateral dimension of arms control from the multilateral damage. It is very easy to predict a negative chain reaction, which will have very grave repercussions for the international stability at large. This year, we are supposed to have the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] review conference. It was postponed until 2021, but even now we’re not sure this conference will be successful. I think we have reasons to be skeptical about the outcome of this conference, and maybe it will be the last NPT review conference in history.

Unfortunately, we have not moved ahead on either the North Korean nuclear issue, or on the nuclear problems of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Proliferation is potentially there, and it is becoming more and more difficult to stop these two countries from making another push towards acquiring more of a nuclear arsenal.

What Is Possible?

Of course, if you look at a multilateral agreement like, for example, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Agreement, it is also under question. Unfortunately, the United States has never ratified this important treaty, but for the time being, the United States abides by the provisions of this treaty. Will it last for a long time? No one knows. So, the repercussions will be serious, and I think that definitely this is something which we all should be concerned about, and we should try to do something about.

Now, what can we do? Many people argue that we should replace the old model of the bilateral U.S.-Russia arms control with a new one, with a multilateral arms control arrangement. That should engage China, that should probably engage other nuclear powers as well.

I think that generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with this approach, but it will be a very difficult transition. It will be like moving from driving a car, to driving a Boeing 747; a very difficult and very complicated transition. Maybe a different equation of international stability. It will take many years, even if the political will is there. So, I don’t think we can easily replace the bilateral model with a multilateral one.

On top of that, it would be very difficult to imagine that right now we can have a kind of legally binding agreement between Russia and the United States. The trust is not there, and frankly, I cannot imagine any arms control agreement with Mr. Putin which the U.S. Congress will be ready to ratify. Especially because the Congress is split; the Republicans and Democrats have very different visions of how the United States should proceed on arms control.

So, what should we do? Let me just give you a couple of ideas which in my opinion can help all of us to change the current negative trend in the international stability, and something that the P-5 group should pay certain attention to.

First of all, I think we should keep in mind that peace is more important than disarmament. Of course, all of us would prefer being in a non-nuclear world. All of us would prefer to get rid of nuclear weapons. But first of all, we should avoid a nuclear war. And that means that we should enhance communication lines between nuclear powers. We should promote military-to-military contacts which are dormant right now. We should promote interaction between experts and politicians. We should have more redlines; we should exchange information on nuclear posture and nuclear doctrines and nuclear deployments. We should engage in de-alerting in the use of combat readiness to avoid inadvertent escalation, to avoid nuclear conflict that might be result of human error or a technical miscalculation, or a misinterpretation of the intentions of the opponents. I think this is something which I would call “soft arms control” or “arms management.” It might be a kind of security guarantee that we will cut down the risk of an inadvertent escalation and confrontation.

A Solution From All of Us

Second, we should keep in mind that in this new world, quality becomes more important than quantity. A new arms race is not going to be about numbers of warheads, about numbers of delivery means. It will be about technological breakthroughs. It’s going to be about space weapons, about cyber and artificial intelligence. It will be about a prompt strike capacities. It will be about autonomous lethal systems. We have to control not only numbers; we have to control technological progress in the military field. No one really knows how to do that; no one has any kind of ideal solution for the problem. But it doesn’t mean that we should sit on our hands and wait for someone to do it for us. Indeed, I think this is where not just governments, but also experts and the private sector can play an important role.

On top of that, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the real challenge in the future might come not so much from state actors, but rather from non-state actors. You can deter the Iraq state; you can deter Iran or North Korea. But you cannot deter a terrorist group; you cannot deter irresponsible non-state actors that would like to make their case. That means that we need to have much more cooperation than we have right now on preventing nuclear terrorism. This is an emerging danger which is not properly addressed at this stage.

Finally, let me end here. Let me say that in my humble opinion, governments are going to be as bad and as irresponsible as they are allowed to be by the public. Arms control is not on top of the agendas of political leaders today, and it will not get back to these agendas unless there is a constant pressure from civil society groups, from engaged media, from thinktanks, and from opinion leaders. It’s important to bring arms control back to the top of political agendas. Right now people are more concerned about how to limit the number of plastic bags, rather than about how to limit the number of warheads. I don’t want to sound condescending. Of course we have to limit proliferation of plastic bags, but we should not forget about the nuclear danger. It is still with us, and the situation is getting worse; it is not getting any better. Thank you.

Edward Lozansky

Which Way for America: World Hegemon or

Partner for Win-Win Cooperation?

This is the edited transcription of the pre-recorded remarks by Mr. Lozansky, as prepared, for the Schiller Institute conference on September 5. He is the President of American University in Moscow and Professor, Moscow State University and the National Research Nuclear University. Subheads have been added.

Schiller Institute

Edward Lozansky

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

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak at such an important event. I’m now on the Volga River, in the middle of Russia. For those who don’t know Russian geography, it’s like the Mississippi in the United States. I’m on a river cruise, and really enjoying the scenery.

But, also, I’m worried. I’m worried about what’s going on in the United States. Actually, I’m waiting for my plane to go, because our plane keeps cancelling, because of this COVID-19. And my recent flight was cancelled just a few days ago, so I’m still waiting.

Anyway, the theme of today’s talk is “Which Way for America? World Hegemon or Partner for Win-Win Cooperation.” And I think this is something that is the subject for the conference. And we’ve been waiting for elections, and when I say “we,” I am now a U.S. citizen. I used to be a Soviet citizen, but I came to the United States a long time ago, in 1977, so it’s 40 years. So, I think I still have my accent, but I am American, and I plan to vote. And I know for whom, although I’m not very happy with all the candidates, and I’ll try to explain you why.

Decisions that will affect not only just America, but the lives of countless people across the world, because America is so powerful. It’s really the most powerful nation on Earth. So whatever happens in our country will affect many other people.

And some experts believe that this election is not just about American politics, but maybe we’re talking about a new international world order; some say, even existential questions of war and peace that will be decided.

So, we hear now in the media that many such experts try to rush their opinions, in the hope of somehow influencing the results. But frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, I don’t see too much difference in the position of establishment Democrats or Republicans.

I have to say, immediately, that I am Republican, I voted for every Republican candidate from Ronald Reagan on, and of course, I voted for Trump. But right now, what we see is that most Democrats and Republicans, they still want America to be the leader—remember, the title of my talk is “Global Leader, Hegemon or Win-Win?” But I see there is not too much difference.

The only difference I see is because sometimes, maybe Republicans see that China is the bigger threat than Russia, but Democrats think that Russia is a bigger threat; but still, most really want to keep U.S. hegemony—“keep,” although there is some doubt that this hegemony still exists.

Sleepwalking into a Thermonuclear Holocaust

Now, Democrats, really, they use Trump’s 2016 statement about ending wars started by George W. Bush and Obama, as a sign that he is a Putin agent, and therefore he’s not interested in U.S. hegemony. Biden, on the other hand, he will restore pre-Trump status quo. How, frankly, though it’s true that Trump hasn’t started a new war, he didn’t finish a single one, either, always trying to prove that he’s much tougher on Russia than Biden, which is probably true. He has to prove that, otherwise he will be repeatedly accused of being a Russian agent.

But, although it’s also true that most of the anti-Russian sanctions have been pushed by Congress, Trump had really made his share as well, and I think he has to take at least some responsibility.

According to over 100 top U.S. geopolitical experts, in the recently published article in Politico—among them are really such great people whom I admire as U.S. Secretary [of State] George Shultz under Reagan, Pentagon head William Perry, Sen. Sam Nunn, so we’re talking about a bipartisan group; two U.S. ambassadors whom I know personally, Tom Pickering and Jon Huntsman—they are talking that we are sleepwalking into nuclear catastrophe. So, it’s not just some journalist or some publicity seekers: We’re talking about very serious people.

And, Don Trump is our President, so under his watch, we are actually sleepwalking into nuclear catastrophe.

The FDR-Willkie Plan

Now, at the same time, what does this restoration of the status quo under Biden that many people are pushing, and some of them, like for example, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, a very influential think tank. They are pushing for Biden. So what does that mean? Well, we know that during the previous, what we called status quo administrations of George W. Bush and Obama, they are talking about the same wars that Trump wanted to stop, and the result of those wars, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, millions of refugees, trillions of dollars wasted, and is it in America’s and the world’s best interest?

And there’s another way, and I think this is what the theme of this conference is, and here, I want to quote another professor from Brown University: His name is Samuel Zipp. He wrote an article, in Foreign Policy magazine. It’s titled “The Postwar Global Order That Never Was.” He reminds us that it was FDR and former Republican Party leader Wendell Willkie’s idea to reorganize this world political and financial system with the efforts of U.S.A., U.S.S.R. and China. This was back, we’re talking about 1944-45. Unfortunately, we know that FDR didn’t live long enough to implement these ideas. But now what we see is that communist U.S.S.R. was replaced by capitalist Russia, so I think this makes this job now much easier to do.

And so, to conclude, we see the upcoming 75th UN General Assembly session, and this idea—I think it was first suggested by President Putin—to have this meeting of the major powers, nuclear powers, the permanent members of the UN Security Council—or at least, maybe, we can start with three members, like U.S. and Russia and China, and maybe then expand it to a kind of G5—and talk about the same ideas that FDR and Willkie were discussing. And maybe this is something that would be very beneficial, contrary to what a Biden presidency would do. Trump can take the credit for that, because he will save the world from a nuclear holocaust.

Of course, I can’t speak for China; it’s not really my area of expertise, but I can assure you that Russia is really ready for a serious conversation—actually, it was Putin’s idea.

But I just mention very briefly my experience, because during the Gorbachev and Yeltsin days, we used what we called “people’s diplomacy,” and I personally was carrying messages from Gorbachev and Yeltsin directly to President George Bush and Vice President Quayle, during all four years of their term in the White House. This was done with the help of Paul Weyrich. For those who don’t know, he was a founder of Heritage Foundation. Weyrich was very influential. He had direct access to both Bush and Quayle. And I would pass messages to Paul, and Paul would pass messages to Bush. And both Gorbachev and Yeltsin practically were begging, not just for partnership with United States, they were talking about strategic partnership and even alliance. Even under Gorbachev, under Soviet Union, communist Soviet Union, wanted to be America’s ally—can you believe it? But Yeltsin, already it was Russia, non-communist, had the same.

The Bush-Obama Years Led to the Brink

Now, I didn’t carry any message for Putin, but I didn’t have to, because Putin himself told this to Bush, that he wanted Russia to be American ally, and he proved it, not just with words, but with deeds. We know that in the year 2000, Russia under Putin did more for American operations in Afghanistan than all other NATO members combined. And I remember, because every year until recently, we had an event on Capitol Hill called “World Russia Forum,” and every member of Congress—we had Senators and Members of Congress who were praising Putin, saying, finally, we have our man. So, when we’re talking about a strategic partnership, alliance, of course, it’s great. And this was our dream that Russia, non-communist Russia and United States, allies.

Now, George W. Bush was not very grateful for this help and what was his response? His response was that he abrogated the ABM Treaty, invaded Iraq; he promoted color revolutions on post-Soviet space; and most terrible mistake, NATO expansion, it was virtually following Bill Clinton, who did the same. But, Bush added Ukraine and Georgia as a goal to be involved into NATO. And this was a red line that Moscow could not allow to be crossed.

Now, with Obama, we had continuous NATO expansion, Libya devastation, and, which is terrible for Russia, it was United States under Obama which backed the coup in Ukraine.

So, as a result, we are here, on the brink of World War III, and this is not just my opinion: It is the opinion of really top Americans—this letter in Politico was signed by over one hundred experts, top experts. I already mentioned some names. You can easily find the article on the Politico website, and see all those hundred names.

What President Trump Can Do

But Trump has a chance. He has a chance, if he listens to the speeches at this conference, and he does what smart people, who are assembled here, advise. And he might get another four years, because I think the majority of American people are also not very happy that we are sleepwalking into nuclear catastrophe. So maybe they will forget about differences in some political stuff, and they probably want to make sure that we are safe, that the security of the United States is preserved. So he might get a chance to get a Nobel Peace Prize, win elections, and most importantly he will save America and mankind from Armageddon.

Courtesy of Dr. Edward Lozansky

American General Bruce McClintock (left) and Russian Cosmonaut Alexey Leonov, meeting at the Elbe River Memorial.

Courtesy of Dr. Edward Lozansky

Plaque at the Elbe River Memorial.

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

Mr. Lozansky closed his prepared video with a set of slides to show how “Russia really likes America,” including statues of famous Americans in downtown Moscow. He described:

• The Elbe River memorial, where Soviet and American troops met on April 25, 1945, in the city of Torgau. The American military attaché, Gen. Bruce McClintock, is on the left, and on the right is the Russian cosmonaut, Alexey Leonov, who flew on the Soyuz-Apollo famous space flight.

• The Friendship Tree planted by the U.S. Embassy officials and Russian activists next to the Elbe River memorial. The translation [of the sign] is “Friendship Tree of Peoples of Russia and United States.”

• The American poet Walt Whitman on the campus of Moscow State University.

• The statue of President Lincoln next to Russian Tsar Alexander II, next to this Elbe River memorial. “The Lincoln statue in Moscow is safe. It’s safe in the downtown, and people come and they put flowers, and Lincoln is very respected in Moscow.”

• The statue of Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev, showing Susan Massie, the famous American writer, unveiling the sculpture, and the sculptor, Aleksandr Burganov.

He closed saying:

I am finishing my short presentation with those symbols that Russia people really want to be not, as they say, being friends with America; they want to be partners, they want to be allies, but it’s now up to America. And I hope that it will be President Trump who will somehow implement our hopes.

Courtesy of Dr. Edward Lozansky

Statue of Walt Whitman in Moscow.

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

Courtesy of Dr. Edward Lozansky

Statue of Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev in Moscow.

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

Courtesy of Dr. Edward Lozansky

Statue of Lincoln and Alexander II in Moscow.

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

Martin Sieff

100 Seconds to Midnight:

Taking Seriously the Threat of Nuclear War

This is the edited transcription of the prerecorded remarks by Mr. Sieff to the Schiller Institute conference on September 5. He is Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, UPI; and Senior Fellow, American University in Moscow.

Schiller Institute

Martin Sieff

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

We are 100 seconds to midnight. That is how close the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set the dangers of thermonuclear war. We are going to get a lot closer. The 100 seconds to midnight warning was announced on January 23rd this year. Yet, I doubt today whether five of the one hundred sitting United States Senators from both parties know that fact, or take it seriously for a second. It is this astonishing ignorance, a psychological mechanism of willful ignorance and denial, that Sigmund Freud himself would be hard put to explain; that is our greatest danger.

As I speak, the United States and NATO push ahead with the reckless, all-too-consistent policy of driving east and south to encircle Russia with states whose legitimate, long-standing governments are being toppled, and are being replaced by non-democratic, at best chaotic, regimes from giant Ukraine to tiny Georgia; Belarus may be next. And NATO regularly carries out full-scale military exercises unabashedly aimed against Russia, with such reassuring titles as “Anaconda.” What is an anaconda? It is a colossal, 20-30-foot-long fearful snake in the Amazon jungle that first encircles its prey, then crushes and devours it, often still alive. This, then, is a strategic message we have been sending to Russia, one of the two most powerful nuclear powers on our planet. Russia has responded. The development of hypersonic weapons that the West cannot yet match is one last tolling of Thomas Jefferson’s fire bell in the night.

A second, and most grave development is the shifting of Russian strategic forces to a potential first strike posture. The Russians do not seek to conquer the West or the world, but they are truly fearful that the West is determined to conquer them. And every message that flows out of the Republican and Democratic national leaderships alike, and Congress and think tanks, is consistent with this message. We should not, therefore, be surprised that the Russians have responded as they have. The Russians’ Sputnik News Agency noted this past Wednesday, “Recently, episodes of aircraft interception over the Baltic, the Black, and the Bering Seas have become more frequent. On 31st August,” the Sputnik report continues, “three Russian SU-27 fighters were scrambled as three U.S. B-52 strategic bombers approached the Russian state border over the neutral waters of the Baltic Sea. The bombers were accompanied until they changed course and moved away from the Russian border. On 1st September, a Russian Northern Fleet MIG-31 was scrambled to accompany a Norwegian P3C Orion reconnaissance aircraft.”

Hysterical, always unsubstantiated claims that Russia is interfering in our domestic election cycle could not be more misplaced. In 1996, the Clinton administration proudly and openly boasted of decisively swinging the Russian Presidential election to re-elect Boris Yeltsin, a drunken, corrupt, incompetent under whose leadership untold millions of Russian people died of hardship in an economic depression far, far worse than our own Great Depression, and that lasted as long. I know, I was repeatedly there for long periods as a foreign correspondent; I saw it with my own eyes. The Russians remember this. They are determined not to let it happen again. They are determined not to let their country be dismembered. Yet the U.S. body politic, its policy-shaping institutions, and media remain locked on their mad, suicidal course of needless confrontation and childish, fake macho bullying and posturing towards Russia. It is time they woke up.

May this most welcome and urgently needed conference serve as that vital wake-up call.

James Jatras

America’s Fading Chance for Global Balance

This is the edited transcription of the opening remarks by Mr. Jatras to the Schiller Institute conference on September 5. Subheads have been added.

Schiller Institute

James Jatras

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

I am a retired U.S. diplomat and a former policy advisor to the U.S. Senate Republican leadership. I am honored to be invited today, to speak to this Schiller Institute conference on the kind of future we can expect internationally, and we shall be striving for, in light of the very, very dangerous situation the world and our country now find itself in. I’d like to thank the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche organizations, in particular, Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, for inviting me to participate, along with my good friends Edward Lozansky, Martin Sieff, and many other distinguished speakers.

I don’t think it’s necessarily appropriate for us to get too partisan in a gathering like this, but I do think it is appropriate to note that our country is facing a watershed election in November. And of course, they tell us every time that this is the most important election of our lifetimes, and maybe each one is, but I think very few people can be unaware of the stakes that are presented to us in November.

Biden and Trump

On the one hand, we have somebody like Joe Biden, who has been in favor of every war that this country has gotten involved in, especially in the post-Cold War period, during the many, many decades that he was in the U.S. Senate, and then later as Vice President, where he played an instrumental role, by the way, in the attack on Libya. During the 1990s, when he was a Senator, and I was working at the Senate there at the time, he was one of the primary militants on the Democratic side in our involvement in the Balkans wars. And then, of course, was a strong proponent of the 2003 war against Iraq, under the Bush Administration, where he, along with Hillary Clinton were instrumental in whipping Democratic votes in support of that misguided effort.

On the other hand, we have President Donald Trump, who in 2016 ran on a platform of ending the endless wars, in which we have intruded ourselves during these decades, and also getting along with Russia, getting along with China, to serve the interests of the American people first, in a constructive global order, rather than this mindless and ultimately suicidal quest for global domination—what Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan back in 1996 called “benevolent global hegemony”: The idea that it is the mission, the duty, the right of the United States, as the hyper-power, as the unipolar power, to impose its will on the rest of the globe.

That, unfortunately, is still the stark choice that is presented to us today, despite the fact that, by and large, Donald Trump has not followed through on his promises.

Now, I am not one of these people who says, “Oh, he was a fake, he was just carrying water for the same interests as everybody else. It was a scam.” I think in his heart of hearts, and even with regard to much of what he says, he wants to follow through with the promises that he said he wanted to.

A Great Power Summit

For example, the suggestion has been made by Ed [Lozansky] and me, and many others, that it is imperative for President Trump to sit down with President Putin of Russia, President Xi of China, and maybe Prime Minister Modi of India, to come up with a stable global order, an understanding among the major powers, about how we can move forward constructively, toward a more positive future for the rest of mankind, rather than continue to go down the road of confrontation, that in the end can only lead to a conflict, the consequences of which are literally incalculable.

So, I would hope he would use the upcoming opportunity of the UN General Assembly to meet with his Russian and Chinese and Indian counterparts; if not then, to try to schedule a summit as soon as possible, if, after—at least in my opinion, hopefully—he does win this election, and there’s some promise for the future, then.

I think, when we look at the failure of his administration [to do what] he promised us—and I think this is something that Bill Binney has done some absolutely tremendous work on—that part of that explanation has been that this full-court press from the deep state and its corporate sponsors, to make sure that no such rapprochement can occur between the United States and Russia and China, and of course, the heart and center of that was this lie about Russian meddling, Russian collusion, that Russia stole emails from the DNC server—and aside from the fact that nobody disputes that what was shown in those emails is true; about how the Democratic National Committee did put a thumb on the scale to ensure that Hillary would be the nominee, rather than Bernie Sanders—nobody even disputes that.

I don’t know how people necessarily object to true information, which is being made available to the public about how corrupt at least one of the parties is (although, frankly, I don’t think the other one is much better), information that it is indisputable—as Mr. Binney has shown—that there was no hack! There was no outside stealing of DNC emails; these were downloaded at speeds that would have been impossible from the outside, and the files must have been taken down by somebody inside the DNC, who was a leaker. It was not an outside download from some hostile, foreign source.

Nonetheless, and I know there are people on my side of things who will say, “Well, this has all been debunked now, Russiagate has been completed undermined.”

We now live in a fact-free society, in a clown world, where facts don’t really matter any more. The facts, as Mr. Binney and others have adduced them, have been available for a couple of years now, and nobody cares! The media still keep repeating the same lies, the band plays on, the Democrats make the same accusations, and, indeed, most of the Republicans stand by the same accusations of so-called “Russian meddling.”

When all is said and done, the sad fact is, is that Mr. Trump is not really in control of the apparatus of his own government, that the same actors, the same policy, the same constant push for global domination against two other major powers—Russia and China—continues.

Eurasian Integration is Good

We have the effort to take Iran off the table, as another country that is independent of U.S. policy and is committed to Eurasian integration.

Rather than trying to undermine Eurasian integration, through these means, through these endless threats of war, and sanctions, and subversions—I would add to that, by the way, the cranking up of what appears to me a jihad in Xinjiang on behalf of the Uighurs here; yes, I’m sure there are some things that the Chinese are doing, that are rather unpleasant, but the Chinese are very serious about their security, and if anybody’s going to be aiding a kind of jihad movement there, the Chinese are going to react to that very sharply. None of this serves the American interest.

To my mind Eurasian integration would be a good thing. The completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline would be a good thing. And the only question for us as Americans should be: “Why aren’t we doing the same thing?” Why aren’t we building our own Belt and Road Initiatives, here in the Western Hemisphere? Why are we not connecting that up with the Eurasian grid, through the Bering Strait as Lyndon LaRouche suggested decades ago?

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

So, I think there is much very positive that President Trump would have to discuss with his Russian and Chinese and Indian counterparts. I hope that the political stars can align, so that he is able to do that, and actually move along constructively on an agenda like that.

And I fear, unfortunately, if the election goes the other way and we have Mr. Biden and Kamala Harris—really more Kamala Harris than Biden, I think, running things; and the likes of Nicholas Burns at the State Department and Evelyn Farkas at the Pentagon—which my sources tell me is a “done deal” if Mr. Biden and Senator Harris win—we’re looking at an unavoidable path toward a major world conflagration.

So, the stakes could not be higher, and I think the organizers of this conference have put together at least a hope for a more constructive and peaceful agenda for the world.

Panel 1: First Discussion Session

The follow is an edited transcript of the first of two discussion sessions during Panel 1 of the Schiller Institute Conference on September 5.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I first of all want to thank all the speakers for their very valuable contributions. But let me ask Mr. Kortunov one question, because you mentioned that the P-5 mechanism is not to discuss social, economic and other issues, but is only concerned with strategic stability.

Now, it is my understanding that you cannot really separate these questions, because the whole effort, what we are trying to do, is to establish a common economic interest; like if you would integrate the Eurasian Economic Union, the EU, the New Silk Road, and get the United States to cooperate in agreements of the Belt and Road Initiative to develop the reconstruction of the Southwest Asia countries which have been destroyed by interventionist wars; by developing Africa. It is my conviction that only if you establish a common economic interest, that you have the basis for going to durable strategic agreements. Would you be so kind as to comment on that?

Alexey Kortunov: Thank you for the question. First of all, I completely agree with you about the link between security and development. I think it is really a phenomenon of the 21st century, which is not properly appreciated in the world. You cannot have development unless you have security, but you cannot have stable security if you ignore development. And I think one of the problems that we encounter right now is that we have very different constituencies of bureaucrats and decision-makers in charge of these two portfolios, and they have to be merged.

For example, if you take the situation in West Asia that you mentioned, that implies we need the Security Council of the United Nations to work hand-in-hand with other institutions or with other institutions specifically G20, especially now, since G20 is headed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so there is a potential synergy here.

However, when I spoke about the limitations of the P-5, I was thinking about a possible reaction from other members of the United Nations, if the P-5 tried to monopolize the development agenda. I’m sure that we would see many critics saying that “nobody really authorized you to handle development, you are extending your portfolio unnecessarily.” And right now, as you know, probably better than I do, many countries are not happy about special rights that P-5 members enjoy. They believe that the veto power is abused and misused, and to extend this agenda of the P-5 beyond the narrowly defined security measures would be a kind of reward for a not-so-great job that the P-5 has performed so far.

So, I’m with you, but I think we should be cautious not to create another elitist club, that could claim some kind of special rights in the development agenda. We do have the post-millennium development agenda in the United Nations; we have other decisions. We have institutions like the G20 and G7 and the BRICS, so I think that these should be interlocking rather than “inter-bloc-ing” institutions, working together with each other.

Let me also make a small comment to what I have heard from other participants. Of course, this conference is primarily about the United States; of course, the United States is in trouble right now, as a country; and of course, all of us—Russia, China, the rest of the world—all of us need a strong United States, because there are many questions and many problems in the world, which cannot be possibly resolved without an active U.S. participation. So I think that smart politicians, all over the place, believe that a strong United States is much better for the rest of us, than a weak United States.

But let me add to that, that you spoke about the disarray in the U.S. politics, about problems in the U.S. foreign policy, but let me say that the rest of the world, to this or that extent, goes through the same set of problems. I’m talking about Russia, I’m talking about China; I go to Beijing from time to time, and at some points it seems as confused as Americans are. So, there are no good guys and bad guys in this world. There is a new set of challenges, and all of us, so far, have failed to find answers to these challenges. It’s not just about the inability of the U.S. political leadership. The problem is more general and more universal, unfortunately.

Jim Jatras: I was struck when Mr. Kortunov was speaking, regarding arms control agreements between United States and Russia, and I guess I tend to view such agreements as kind of like the rule of law for people who are naturally law-abiding: If you have the good will to act properly, the laws themselves, the rules, the agreements don’t really matter all that much. They’ll fall in place. And if you don’t have that, if your desire is simply to seek a unilateral advantage and ultimately destroy the other party, well, then all the agreements in the world won’t make any difference.

And unfortunately, one of the things I think we fail to deal with, when we look at the American establishment is how deeply ingrained is the notion that we are the “masters of the universe,” that other countries are legitimate only insofar as we say they’re legitimate. And that ultimately, the response to any obstreperous country is sanctions, threats, and regime change.

And I am not at all joking—and it would be a very bad joke, indeed—when I point out, from the mentality of people who run policy in Washington, the only possible outcome for Russia, and for that matter, for China, is regime change, to change the governments in those countries, to implant a puppet-government of the sort we had in Moscow in the 1990s, and maybe, in most favorable circumstances, to break those countries up, to break up China the way the Soviet Union was, to break up Russia further.

And you say, this is madness, how could anybody think in these terms? I’m not sure how many of them necessarily think through the consequences of their views; but if you look at the way they have a completely illegitimate attitude toward any power that does not take its tutelage from Washington, that is the only logical conclusion.

As far as the P-5 goes, look, I’m a big supporter of the—I’m not thrilled with the UN as an institution—but with the Security Council as something that approximates a concert of powers, where the major powers can try to avoid various collisions; this was a mechanism that was lacking in the League of Nations. I think that the Security Council is really the only valuable part of the United Nations systems. But, let’s face it: There’s really no P-5: They’re a P-3. The other two powers, Britain and France, at least in grand strategic terms, military terms, are essentially puppets of the United States. Maybe politically that’s not necessarily true with respect to Britain, but in terms of who’s on which side and which are truly independent actors, China and Russia are, the other two powers are not.

So it really comes down to the big three. I just don’t see where the change is going to come in American policy. I’d like to see that Donald Trump can jump us off this treadwheel, but so far, he hasn’t, and given the kind of chaos we can expect in America if he wins—and where I think the current disorders will go into hyper-drive—I’m not sure what the prospects are for things getting much better.

Two questions for Mrs. LaRouche, from China Daily, U.S.A.: Could you comment on China’s commitment to multilateralism? Some experts have argued that China’s leading role in establishing a multilateral institution, such as the BRI [Belt and Road Initiative], has raised fears that the government aims to topple the world order. Could you address that? Secondly, could you comment on China’s progress toward meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goals?

Zepp-LaRouche: If you say that China wants to replace the unipolar world in which the United States is the hegemon, then I would say, yes, China is trying to change that. But is that a realistic proposition, to keep a unipolar world? I think not.

The world is changing. I have said many times that China is a country of 1.4 billion people which, since the reforms and opening-up of Deng Xiaoping, has set on a course of innovation, lifted 850 million people out of poverty, of its own country, and now has, with the BRI, offered that that model be replicated by other countries, according to their own wishes and standards.

What China has offered is a new system of international relationships. I have talked to enough people from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and also Europe, to know that people who believe in the national sovereignty of their own countries all agree that China is not trying to replace the United States as a hegemon. I think if you look at the history of China, they have also not had a tradition of proselytizing; for example, they’re not trying to convince other people to adopt the Chinese culture, the Chinese philosophy. So I think that China is offering an alternative system, but it is something which would be very, very much in the interest of everybody, including the United States.

As my late husband stressed in the videoclip and what I tried to say in my remarks, is that there are these traditions in the United States, when America was following the American System. Part of that was, for example, the foreign policy of John Quincy Adams, which had exactly the same approach, to have an alliance of perfectly sovereign nation-states.

Now, what we want is that the United States goes back to its own tradition of being a republic, and not being subverted by the British model of running the world as an empire. And that is the big controversy inside the United States.

So, I think that China is not trying to topple the world order, but I think China very clearly has offered a different model, one which is much more in cohesion with the original intention of America as a republic, and one should also remember that it was Benjamin Franklin, who was a total enthusiast about the Confucian philosophy. And there are many, many more common cultural ideas: One is the American System of economy, which is right now followed by China much more; for example, the German economist Friedrich List, who was one of the key authors to make the difference between the American and the British model, he is one of the most read economic authors in China.

One should really see the positive aspect about what China is offering, and not think it is a threat. And I think these different military doctrines, which I mentioned in my remarks, have a wrong picture of what China means in terms of a potential relationship with the United States. And I think that that needs to be discussed, and I think President Trump has the clear potential to go back to his initial relationship with President Xi Jinping as his “good friend.” I know people in China are very doubtful about that, but I think that that is the only way how we will get out of this crisis.

Concerning your second question: I think the intention of China to eliminate poverty in China in 2020, despite the pandemic, is on a good track. I think that the quick recovery of China, after the two months of being hit very intensively by the coronavirus, is also a very promising element for the whole world economy to come out of this crisis. If you look at the statistics, China has been the only country which could go back to an economic growth rate—much less than before, I think it’s only about 2 or 3%, so it’s much less, but it’s the only one which has a positive growth rate.

So rather than looking at China as an adversary, it would be in the absolute interest of the United States, of Europe, to cooperate and use the Chinese economy as it was used before, as an engine. Because if you want to reach the 2020 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, it does require the coordinated effort of all industrial capacities of the world, because the problems are so big, that only if all the countries work together, do we have a chance to come out of this as a human species.

Martin Sieff: Let me add a couple of points of agreement with previous speakers. It seems to me, the good news is we have a constructive consensus among all [on] what the speakers contributed here so far, about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. I think the wisdom of the Founding Fathers of the United Nations in creating the Security Council—in many respects at the insistence of Russian diplomats at the time—as it was done, is precisely that the Security Council cannot be used in its current format, as a platform or attack mode to destabilize the internal relations of countries.

Unfortunately, in the United States, we have a mindset, that is now so pervasive, assured by top Republican as well as Democratic leaders, that countries can be instinctively delegitimatized, regardless of international law, and regardless of the mechanisms of the Security Council, if we disapprove of the way they are conducting business. This is an enormously dangerous and reckless situation.

Secondly, I would fully agree with all the observations, in fact, of my dear friend Jim Jatras: The key one here is, that we are looking at a de facto P-3. Britain really has become Earth-Strip 1. It has fulfilled for the last 40 years, certainly since the time of Mrs. Thatcher, its full destiny that George Orwell recognized in his book, 1984, as being the offshore aircraft carrier of the Eurasian land-mass for Oceania, the island land-mass which is run and governed by the United States. And that’s all Britain is. If you see British foreign secretaries, defense secretaries, even prime ministers coming to Washington, what is quite extraordinary is how eagerly and abjectly they are looking for the latest fashionable trend, and delusional slogan, that is in fashion within the Beltway, that they can eagerly attach themselves to. There is no sense of existential pride, or intellectual independence left whatsoever. And this has to be understood in dealing with London.

The last point I’d make is that, in the bizarre way Washington goes, our current Secretary of State actually tried to ratchet down, at least marginally, tensions with Russia in his speech in the Nixon Library recently. But he did so, so ineptly and so incrementally, that it could make no difference at all, and he did so in the context of vowing publicly, in a keynote speech that U.S. priority policy was not to destabilize the government of China! This is what Mr. Pompeo said in his Nixon Library speech—I’m not putting words into his mouth. You don’t want to make up this kind of thing. No sane person would be capable of imagining it! And yet, that is what the Secretary of State of the United States said—and President Trump’s Secretary of State. He now ineptly imagines he can play Russia off against China. Of course, there is an absurdity to this.

And, my last point is, this fits into a wise point Dr. Kortunov rightly made at the beginning: You do not simply go overnight from a war stand against a nation, into close relations with a nation. It takes time, it takes the building of trust. Otto von Bismarck took ten years developing relations with Russian leaders, especially the future Tsar Alexander II. Abraham Lincoln wrote long and many letters, warmly reciprocated to him, from Tsar Alexander. The key strategic relationships between Germany, Russia, and the United States which proved so beneficial in the mid-19th century, were based on long, careful preparation—as was President Nixon’s approach with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to China in 1972. It took years for them to reach that point.

You cannot just switch off hostility to Russia, even if they were serious about it. And they would have to take actions to do so. I would simply end here by saying, we need to educate both our foreign policy leaders and the Congress in the realities of survival in a nuclear world, and the realities of diplomacy. They are now totally ignorant of it!

Question for Mr. Kortunov from Hugo López. He asks: “Mr. Kortunov, what do you think about the proposal of President Ronald Reagan and Lyndon LaRouche of a Strategic Defense System (SDI), of laser devices and other physical principles, supported by mainly the United States and Russia, which would allow the joint elimination of nuclear weapons for war, and facilitate the safe permanence of nuclear weapons only for defense against meteorites, comets and other dangers from space?”

Kortunov: Let me say that some 25 years ago, I was marginally engaged in attempts to save the ABM Treaty, and we had many conversations in Washington, including conversations with the U.S. military about how we can amend the Treaty so the United States would feel comfortable about it, and would not need to withdraw. And one of the ideas that we entertained—and I think there was some kind of positive attitude within the Beltway, at least at that stage—is that we should probably try to do something jointly, something that would allow the two countries—maybe not only the two countries, but also other players—to engage in some global missile security, missile protection system which would be targetted against potential rogue states, or against terrorists.

Unfortunately, that didn’t work quite well, because even then, even 25 years ago, the United States was still suspicious of Russia’s intentions, and there was no appetite for sharing sensitive technologies, not to mention dual key decision-making.

Of course, right now, the situation is different. It has got much more complicated, and I don’t think such a proposal would be even discussed in any serious way in Washington, today.

However, what I think is probably doable, we could start with something more modest: For example, if all of us are concerned about potential missile efforts by North Korea, and all nations in East Asia are building their missile defense systems, including Japan and South Korea and China and Russia and the United States, why don’t we coordinate these efforts? And gradually, we can probably build enough trust, to move from coordination to cooperation. Ultimately, I think the future—again, it might sound very idealistic at this particular juncture—but I think that the future is in internationalization of nuclear weapons, both offensive and defensive. Major nations should reconsider their concept of national sovereignty. And that will be not an easy task.

It will be difficult, it will be protested, there is a lot of resistance to that, not only in the United States, but in many other countries, including Russia; but that does not mean we should not stand up to face this challenge. Thank you.

Question for Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “Considering the list of advanced weapons you outlined, including maneuverable nuclear-powered hypersonic missiles and other terrifying weapons systems, what would be gained by a nuclear war, considering the massive destruction, at best, and more likely the possibility of the end of civilization as we know it? What is the rationalization that makes thinking a nuclear war can be won? Why do people think that’s even possible?”

Zepp-LaRouche: From a rational standpoint, the answer is there is absolutely nothing to be gained. But if you think in terms of why, for example, Russia was always saying that there is, in terms of the American missile defense system, there is a limit where they cannot allow stage 3 and 4 to be accomplished, because that basically would change the strategic balance, so that Russia was no longer able to defend itself. Including the bases in Romania and Poland, which are going in this direction.

The warnings of Russia, that it is a complete illusion that a regional, limited nuclear war can be won, is exactly the problem. There is the danger of miscalculation. And you know, people have these war scenarios, which, in large part are based on the same kind of war games and systems analysis scenarios which simply are not in reality. What would happen if you were to actually start a regional conflict? That’s why Russia reiterated on June 2nd, that if they see the Russian territorial integrity threatened, that there are conditions, thinkable, where even if they would be only attacked with conventional weapons, they would have to resort to a first nuclear strike, or a first use of nuclear weapons. And then you are in the entire Armageddon, which we are warning against.

Let me just come back to one other point, which Mr. Kortunov had mentioned earlier, that the P-5 countries should not appear to walk over the interests of other countries, or take too much authority. And also what Mr. Sieff said earlier.

I think previous examples, that it takes long years, like Nixon and Kissinger to build trust with China, or the other examples mentioned, this is not really the situation right now. Look at the unprecedented combination of crises we have right now, the pandemic, which is far from being over; look at the infection rates in India, for example, which are almost 80,000/day! The famine now threatening Africa, where the World Food Program was saying that if this is not reversed by increasing the agricultural production worldwide, we soon will have a death rate of 300,000 people a day, dying of hunger! And I could continue—the effects of the lockdowns, the unemployment, the unbelievable combination of crises does require that the leading countries of the world take responsibility.

If these five leaders would basically come out of this meeting, or use the meeting to say that they are taking the interests of mankind as a whole, that they are proposing to end an unjust system which did not allow the development of the developing countries, that they reconnect to what the intention of Franklin D. Roosevelt was with Bretton Woods system, by increasing the living standard of every single person on the planet, because that is the basis for peace: If they would argue this case, I think the whole world would support them!

As a matter of fact, we have a whole movement of the Schiller Institute which we organized in previous conferences and which we intend to expand, of increasing the chorus of voices of people who are actually demanding that the P-5, or the Big Four—Russia, China, India, and the United States—but right now the P-5 is the only concrete proposal on the agenda—they must address these issues. Where should the solution come from, if not from the most powerful countries in the world?

If these five leaders would formulate a program which would address the interests of everybody—this is the concept of the coincidence of opposites that if you solve all the problems of the whole world at the same time, by establishing a just new world economic order, allowing for the development of every country on this planet, then, you can find the consensus of all countries. And that is actually what we are trying to accomplish with this conference.

Marco Zanni

Why the EU Superstate Project Is Doomed to Fail

This is the edited transcription of the pre-recorded remarks by Mr. Zanni to the Schiller Institute conference on September 5. He is Chairman of the Identity and Democracy Faction of the European Parliament. Subheads have been added.

Schiller Institute

Marco Zanni

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

Hello, everyone, and thank you very much to the Schiller Institute for giving me the opportunity to address such an important conference and such an important audience. Clearly, we are living in rather unique times right now, in the sense that the difficulties that the European Union had already been experiencing before the COVID-19 crisis, with this pandemic, much has been added to that makes things even more complicated and more harmful.

Today, I will try to give my perspectives as a member of the European Parliament, and also as an Italian politician on what was happening before the pandemic, and especially after the 2008 financial crisis, which affected the entire world. And to look at how the pandemic is shaping the world and what we will need to restore prosperity, growth, and multilateralism in the world.

I will start from the European perspective. The European Union (EU), and especially the Eurozone, after the 2008 economic and financial crisis—which developed into a sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone—has not been able to fully recover from that crisis. The Eurozone countries had been struggling to recover the levels of economic activity that we had enjoyed before 2008. In trying to do this, we relied on bad rules—that is, the austerity that affected the level of economic activities, especially the level of investment in the European Union in infrastructure, which investment is at historical lows in modern times now in European countries. And we relied on the power of a not-fully central, central bank, the ECB [European Central Bank], which was unfortunately the only game in town. The ECB, with its monetary policies, extraordinary and non-commercial monetary policies, is trying to save the whole European Union apparatus and its wrong economic and development models.

So, we were, as I said already, experiencing slowing economic growth, historically low investment especially in infrastructure, historically low levels of economic activities and industrial activities in some countries. Very tough times in trying to fill the gap with other developing countries in the world, regarding, for example, investment in new technologies; in artificial intelligence, in fin-tech [financial technology], in new technologies that could help in developing the world. The pandemic added to this difficulty in January 2020.

We all experienced a huge drop in GDP, in our economic activities, as did the whole world, due to the COVID-19 crisis. We are today struggling to understand how we can recover from the huge hit that we experienced and are still experiencing. Now the challenge is how to exploit this situation, this crisis in order to deeply review the problematic economic and development models on which modern economies were based, and on which modern economies relied during the past 20 years.

How Shall We Transform Our Multilateral Institutions?

How can we shape the multilateral institutions that were created to support this system, in order to make them more suitable for the real economy, for people, and for a safe path of growth and wellness for our people and our countries? This is not easy, because those models disrupted our economies and created divergences. We need to rely on policies that strengthen the stability of our countries, and the concept of national sovereignty.

Let’s look at what was wrong with our economic and development models, at what the pandemic added to our difficulties, at the crisis of multilateralism based on speculative finance, based on speculative trade, and not on the real economy. Let us look at a new way of development, which should not depend on speculative-finance based multilateralism, banks, derivatives, and on the divergences between poor and rich people, but rather on a multilateralism based on the concept of sovereign nations.

So, the first thing that we have to do to make our economic development model better, is to restate the centrality of the concept of sovereign nations, because win-win cooperation can be guaranteed only if we recognize the sovereignty of other countries and the fact that sovereign nations are the main pillar of modern democracies. It is not globalization based on speculative finance. It is multilateral cooperation based on sovereign nations.

To do this, we have to reshape the way in which we confronted it in the past years.

We know that in modern economies, the Deep State has tried to prevent the renaissance of sovereign nations, clearly preferring to base everything on a development model of uncontrolled globalization and finance. But that model brought us to a moment of crisis. This uncontrolled financial freedom fed the financial bubbles. In order to avoid the bursting of those financial bubbles, central banks had to step in, feeding even more financial bubbles. So, this system, the system that is supported by the elites around the world, by the Deep State in a lot of developed countries, very much harms the survival of our economies.

We need to stop this. We need to reshape our multilateral institutions. We need to create a new concept of sovereign states. We need to respect that, and we need to reshape our economic development model on a new multilateralism based on sovereign nations.

I think that what will happen in November in the United States will be fundamental to the shaping of the future, and the possibility of transforming our system in the way that I’m talking about.

I think that what Mr. Trump has done in the past has been really amazing. Consider that he was opposed by the U.S. Deep State that doesn’t want peace in the world, doesn’t want a system of multilateral win-win cooperation. So, if Mr. Trump will be able to secure a second mandate, I think that all the tensions that we have seen in the past between the United States, the European Union, China, Russia, will be overcome. And this win-win multilateralism will be finally established.

Bring World Leaders Together

To Craft a New Economic System

I think that this will be the opportunity to bring all the world leaders—U.S., European Union, Russia, China, Japan, developing economies, G-20—around a table to set the pace for a new economic system that is no longer based on speculative finance, no longer based on too-big-to-fail banks, no longer based on derivatives. But is based on policies to advance the real economy, and policies for reducing the gap between the richest people and the poorer people. We have seen this gap increasing in the past 20 years. We need a system that will reduce quickly this gap; a system that will invest deeply in infrastructure and new technologies. We really need this not only in economies that experienced dark times in terms of GDP and in terms of growth, such as my country, Italy, but also in supposedly rich countries like Germany.

The level of infrastructure in Germany is even more problematic than in Italy or other European countries. The same for the United States. We need a system that will create value for our people, our citizens, for our companies, and not just for the bankers. That’s the system that I want. The pandemic gives us the opportunity to reshape, to rethink our economic and development model.

We will be successful in restoring growth, in restoring prosperity to our countries and our people only if we understand that what we did in the past is wrong. Feeding economic and financial bubbles is threatening our system. It is threatening our way of life. We have to switch to a system that is no longer based on speculative finance, but on recognizable sovereign states that cooperate with a sort of win-win cooperation. That’s the way we have to deal with the tremendous crisis that we are living with today.

Thank you very much again to my friends at the Schiller Institute. Thank you very much to your audience, and I hope to see you all soon in person in order to develop better our ideas for a better world of sovereign nations cooperating together.

Colonel Richard H. Black (USA ret.)

Do We Risk A Military Coup?

This is the edited transcription of the opening pre-recorded remarks by Col. Black, as prepared for the Schiller Institute conference on September 5. Subheads have been added.

Schiller Institute

Colonel Richard H. Black (USA ret.)

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

By way of background, let me just say that I’m Col. Richard H. Black (ret.). I was a career Judge Advocate officer and former chief of the Army Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, at the Pentagon. I played a key role in deploying the 7th Infantry Division to quell the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

The Insurrection Act of 1807

Let me give you a little background to start with: The Insurrection Act is among the most fundamental of all federal laws. First enacted in 1807, it has been used repeatedly to carry out government’s most elemental responsibility: that of ensuring domestic tranquility. The Preamble to the Constitution lists the task of ensuring domestic tranquility among the five purposes for which the Constitution of the United States was created. Nothing is more vital than protecting the physical safety of Americans. Military officials are sworn to defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But today, as cities are laid waste by violent mobs, the Defense Department seems reticent to defend America against these brutal domestic enemies.

On June 4th, 2020, the prominent publication, Foreign Policy, published a morning brief entitled, “Generals Denounce Trump’s Protest Crackdown Plan.” The brief critiqued the President’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act, and subtly disparaged its relevance as “a two-century-old law.” But the law empowering the President to quell unrest, using military force, has been invoked 22 times since its first use in 1808. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and George H.W. Bush have each invoked the Insurrection Act to stop riots, enforce desegregation orders, end military disturbances, and quell labor disputes.

The Insurrection Act was last used in 1992, when federal troops, under the command of the U.S. Army’s 7th Infantry Division, effectively quelled a murderous racial upheaval in Los Angeles, following the beating and arrest of Rodney King.

President Donald Trump is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, outranking every general and official in DOD. It is his duty to maintain domestic tranquility; he has both statutory and inherent constitutional authority to do so. Despite that clear imperative, generals and Pentagon officials have recently created doubt whether the military command can still be counted on to respond to lawful orders by the President. It is no longer clear that the defense establishment functions in a safe, responsible manner today.

A Military Takeover in the Making?

Defense One, a military online publication, reported that two retired lieutenant colonels, John Nagl and Paul Yingling, have written an open letter to General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), urging him to employ military force to remove the President of the United States if he does not leave office on January 20, 2021. They wrote: “If Donald Trump refuses to leave office at the expiration of his constitutional term, the United States military must remove him by force, and you must give that order.” It should go without saying that it is impermissible for retired officers to urge a coup to overthrow the government of the United States.

And since President Trump has never hinted that he would not follow the constitutional plan for succession of power, it is doubly disturbing that their call for military insurrection is based on fanciful conjecture of what the President might or might not do under various scenarios.

The idea of a military takeover has been percolating for some time. As early as August 18, 2020, Defense One published an article by Thomas Crosbie, titled, “Six Scenarios for Military Intervention after January 20th.” After discussing six rather implausible scenarios, its author stated:

Coups ... are nasty things, and discussing them in the American context is deeply distasteful. Nevertheless, facing these scenarios may help us understand the real dynamics general and flag officers will be forced to navigate in the coming months.

The author appears to suggest that the generals must begin to contemplate overthrowing the President on or after January 20, 2020, if the situation warrants doing so. Now, that lieutenant colonels’ letter might be dismissed as delusional, however other factors, including its prominent placement in Defense One, suggests that others are acting in concert to undermine the authority of the President as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Military Leaders Denounce the President

The military, quite frankly, is becoming dangerously politicized. In response to President Trump’s threat to use military force to quell urban violence, retired generals and DOD officials savaged the President in a seemingly coordinated fashion. General James Mattis is the former Secretary of Defense, who resigned in 2018, in a successful effort to block the President from withdrawing troops from Syria. On June 3, 2020, he issued a frightening denunciation of the President. After praising the rioters for their “wholesome and unifying demands,” he denounced the President in scathing terms, and he said, “We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.” He added, “We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society.”

What exactly did Mattis mean by saying, “We can unite without him”? General Mattis brushed aside the widespread riots, looting, arson, and murders sweeping America, by saying, “We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers.” During the week of June 7th, 2020, retired General Colin Powell led other retired military leaders in blasting the commander-in-chief. Powell praised other officers who had spoken out against the President in recent days. General Powell echoed General Mattis’ denunciations of the President, saying he agreed that Trump is the first President in his lifetime who is not trying to unite the country.

(As an aside, I would point out that it was Gen. Colin Powell, who famously waved a test tube mimicking sarin gas, deceitfully urging the UN to support the invasion of Iraq. His guile and deception led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the killing of 2 million innocent people.)

The St. John’s Church Incident

Now, the event that triggered General Mattis’ extraordinary denunciation of the President was Trump’s lawful use of National Guard troops to clear the way for him to make a symbolic appearance at St. John’s Episcopal Church across from the White House. The president walked to the church, which had been torched by rioters, and posed with the Bible, demonstrating his commitment to law, to order, and to religious freedom. Many general officers sneered at the President’s actions. They denounced him in a coordinated manner.

In a veiled swipe at the American electorate, retired Marine General John Kelly said, “I think we need to look harder at who we elect.” Retired Marine Corps General John Allen arrogantly claimed, “Donald Trump isn’t religious, he has no need of religion, and doesn’t care about the devout, except insofar as they serve his political needs....” He continued, “The President’s speech was calculated to project his abject and arbitrary power, but he failed to project any of the higher emotions or leadership desperately needed in every quarter of this nation during this dire moment.”

Navy Admiral Mike Mullen said:

It sickened me yesterday to see security personnel, including members of the National Guard, forcibly and violently clear a path through Lafayette Square to accommodate the President’s visit outside St. John’s Church.

Now, look at what the Generals are doing: While they minimize the lawbreaking violence of the demonstrators, they then accuse their own National Guard of being violent when it moved the protesters out of the President’s path, so that he could reach the church.

Air Force General Richard Myers said:

The first thing was just absolute sadness that people aren’t allowed to protest and that, as I understand it, that was a peaceful protest that was disturbed by force, and that’s not right.

Well, perhaps General Myers should have looked a little more closely at what was going on, because arson, the burning of a major historic landmark is not a “peaceful protest.”

William Perry, former defense secretary under Clinton, joined in by saying:

I am outraged at the deplorable behavior of our President and Defense Secretary Esper, threatening to use American military forces to suppress peaceful demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights.

Again, repeatedly we hear this “peaceful demonstrators” applied to these violent rioters.

Finally, on June 5th, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel, former defense secretaries for Barack Obama, joined 87 former defense officials in an open letter published in the Washington Post saying, “We are alarmed at how the President is betraying his oath by threatening to order members of the U.S. military to violate the rights of their fellow Americans.” Of course, President Trump has never threatened to order members of the military to violate anyone’s rights.

Invoke Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

The declarations of these military officials appear calculated to undermine the President’s authority to quell domestic disturbances. By suggesting that invoking the Insurrection Act is illicit, and by downplaying widespread urban terror, these officials have placed their imprimatur on the violent criminal behavior. Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits retired officers from using contemptuous words against the President of the United States. It is difficult to justify legally many of these officers’ comments. In many instances, the contemptuousness toward the President appears to violate criminal law.

Taken together, the coordinated release of scathing remarks by senior officials, coupled with publication of a letter advocating a military coup, suggests a deep sickness within the Pentagon and within our constitutional structure. To my knowledge, neither the Secretary of Defense nor the service chiefs have taken action against the widely publicized talk of military insurrection. General Milley should refer the colonels’ letter to the Legal Counsel for the Joint Chiefs to determine whether its publication violates the UCMJ.

Beyond that, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has an obligation to issue a grave warning against officers, both active and retired, who seek to overthrow the President of the United States using armed force. Those retired officers who have published contemptuous words against the President of the United States should be issued permanent letters of reprimand, cautioning against criminal violations of Article 88, UCMJ. They should be reminded that Article 88 applies to retired officers and that the law was enacted because undermining the authority of the commander-in-chief presents a clear and present danger to the survival of our Republic. The Department of Defense must act resolutely to restore public confidence. Americans deserve assurance that our nation will not be overthrown by a military cabal.

SEPT. 11, 2001 TO RUSSIAGATE 2015-2020

Why Veteran Intelligence Professionals

Demand Shutdown of the Illegal Surveillance State

Dialogue with Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe

This is the edited transcription of the prerecorded dialogue with Mr. Wiebe and Mr. Binney, for the Schiller Institute conference on September 5. Wiebe is a former Senior Analyst, National Security Agency. Binney is the former Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis and Reporting section, National Security Agency.

Schiller Institute

Left: Bill Binney; right: Kirk Wiebe

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

Q: Mr. Wiebe spent over 25 years at NSA [National Security Agency]. Then 9/11 occurred. Could it have been stopped by the ThinThread team?

Kirk Wiebe: For most of my time at NSA from 1975 until we walked out of the building on Halloween Day 2001, I was involved in very interesting work. I used my language [skills], a lot of it doing what we call “transcription,” which is rendering Russian speech into printed Russian or transliterated Russian, for analysis by others. And then, after putting in a good stint in the transcription area, I did some staff work on Five Eyes partnerships, the Five Eyes meaning NSA; Canada, CSE it’s called; GCHQ of United Kingdom; New Zealand; and then Australia. Those are the Five Eyes that have a particularly close partnership on intelligence matters.

Then, after that bit of staff work, I went into collection, data collection and data processing, managing those things for analysts that were studying the Soviet Union, and that opened a whole lot of other channels in terms of experience, collection of data, different types of collection, different types of data, and all the processing requirements to go to the technical capabilities against various kinds of signals.

And then I was selected to move into analysis, and headed up a top-priority requirement that came down from President Reagan, called “National Security Decision Directive #178,” which had to do with strategic relocatable targets, which is really a technology that you use to confuse targetting efforts by an enemy. In other words, rather than having stationary headquarters, you put your headquarters in mobile kinds of vehicles and things of that nature, maybe on a train, maybe on a plane. The whole issue of strategic, relocatable targets, including missiles put on trains and vehicles, was the subject for which I was eventually awarded the second-highest award that NSA confers, the “Meritorious Civilian Service Award”; also received the Director of Central Intelligence’s “Meritorious Unit Award,” recognizing my whole branch at NSA of about 70 people for their work on that topic.

And after that, I went into some other types of staff functions, associated with higher management, and it was about that time that Bill Binney bent my ear and said, “Why don’t you come down to our little research center?” I knew who Bill was, but I didn’t know what he was doing at the time. So, I went down and saw what they were doing, and to me, it was NSA’s future, because they were dealing no longer with channel-switched networks, radiofrequency-based networks, but packet-switched networks, in other words, the internet, TCPIP [Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol]; and what did that mean for NSA’s future in terms of a source of information, its breadth, what were the implications technologically, and so forth.

So, my last assignment was working with Bill on that particular vexing problem. I say “vexing,” because the three issues with the internet are velocity of data—it’s fast, it runs along a wire at the speed of light; the variety of data—a lot of different types of applications and uses; and the volume—huge volume, especially as the internet grew globally, and I’d hate to estimate that there’s probably 60 terabytes generated every minute in global data. So, anyway, that was really fun.

But our solution that we developed, that a lot of people have heard of—it’s called ThinThread—flew in the face of NSA’s intentions to get a big budget from Congress and spend big dollars on the military-industrial complex, and it’s a problem that we solved for a few hundred thousand or at least no more than a million or $2 million, and NSA wanted a $4 billion budget to solve the problem. So our little solution was squashed, in favor of big project mode that failed five years later under the director’s Trailblazer program.

At that point, Bill and I and Ed Loomis walked out of the building on October 31, right after 9/11, because we were heartbroken that our little solution, that was very effective and efficient, had not been put into the fight against terror, and we saw the result. Am I 100 percent sure ThinThread would have prevented 9/11? Yeah. I am. We knew what to target. We knew where the sources were, what we needed to target, and to be honest with you, if you ask Tom Drake, another one of the NSA whistleblowers that came later, he’ll tell you that after we left, he found 9/11 information in NSA’s database that predicted the event. He also told us that an analyst at NSA, a group—not just one, but a small team—already knew that 9/11 was going to happen, and was going to put out a report, but was prevented from doing so by the Director of NSA, Michael V. Hayden. I wish I could tell you why; I have lots of guesses, but that’s a topic for another day.

Q: What was ThinThread?

Wiebe: ThinThread began in a small research organization of about 12 people as an experiment. Whenever you have a technical problem to solve, you get some good people together and you talk about ways to try to attack it, and you have a bunch of failures, and then you begin to succeed in small steps. And so we advanced our understanding of how to go after the internet as a source of intelligence. And like I said, there were three main issues we had to solve: There’s the velocity, the stuff’s moving along a wire in real time; and there’s a lot of variety in it, there’s some text, there’s some speech, there’s some video, there’s some this and that, and different layers of the internet involved, the seven OSI [Open Systems Interconnection] layers—which one of those layers is important for intel, which ones aren’t so much, especially when you have small dollars and you’re trying to make a research breakthrough, where are you going to put those dollars against what’s in the internet?

And then the volume of data is horrendous, so it’s like trying to sip from a firehose: How do you extract data intelligently, and not inundate your database? So, I think what they did in the SIGINT [Signals Intelligence] Automated Research Center, SARC, we called it, was absolutely amazing.

ThinThread was essentially a method of extracting data from the internet in real time—almost real time, there was a slight buffering. And sort it: We couldn’t collect communications of U.S. sources, of U.S. persons, and so we had to understand the addressing system, the IP [Internet Protocol] allocations in order to build a filter that would shunt any data that was not to be surveilled, because of the law and the rights of Americans under the Constitution, but allow other things that were fair game, in other words, all other communications other than U.S., all foreign communications, because that’s NSA’s charter, foreign intelligence.

And then, having collected this data, that’s not enough. So now you’ve got a bunch of data, you have to sort through it, organize it, and connect the dots where you can, so that the greater picture is understood. And so the name ThinThread is a little bit of a misnomer, and if you talk to the developer of ThinThread, Ed Loomis, he’ll tell you it’s a direct misnomer! But because the press have picked up on this name, Bill and others have felt, rather than go through the long explanation of how ThinThread is different from the analytic backend, and there are other names for those programs that Bill developed, he just decided to settle on ThinThread because it was in the public and it wouldn’t lead him down a potentially sensitive path, where systems are still in use and you don’t want the names of them in the public domain.

So, ThinThread is technically just the data grabber, if you will, and the data sorter in terms of what’s legal and what’s not, and, the dictionary lookup, looking for topics in emails and/or attachments that hit a list of key words reflecting interests of analytics. Interesting topics.

And then, putting those filters against this data stream to cull out the stuff worth looking at, and then putting those communications in a connect-the-dots system, so that if José is talking to Dennis, you’ll see the link between their two emails or their two phone calls, or whatever it may be. You need to link things up so that you can understand an activity and see who’s involved in it at any given moment in time.

So that gives you a little bit of the flavor of ThinThread, and it was the initial breakthrough in the ability to take a large chunk—a fairly large, I mean, a reasonably large section of the internet, and exploit it.

Q: Cyber-“personality” Guccifer 2 claimed to have hacked the Democratic National Committee [DNC]. Further, Guccifer 2 is the supposed “Russian link” that proved interference in the 2016 American Presidential elections. Who/what is Guccifer 2?

Bill Binney: The Guccifer data that we looked at, we clearly showed the speeds of the downloads of that data to a thumb drive were possible, but it was not possible to send that data across the internet to Russia or anywhere else outside the United States basically—or even inside the United States to a lot of places. They couldn’t get it because they don’t have these high-speed lines to carry that kind of rate transfer. We proved that. Not only did we show the speeds that were involved, but we also showed you couldn’t do it. We tried to do our transfer from Albania, from the Netherlands, from the UK. The further east we got, the less speed we got; the lower speed. We couldn’t achieve the higher speeds going East, it went down.

But after that, also we looked at the data that Guccifer 2 published, both on the 15th of June, the 5th of July, and the 1st of September. The two files he published on the 1st of September and the 5th of July 2016, if you look at them and only look at the minutes, seconds, and milliseconds, you could shuffle them together like a deck of cards without conflict. That says the guy is playing a game with the data. He did one download, split it into two files, did a range change on the date and a range change on the hour. Because he couldn’t do it on the minutes because it crossed many minutes, and he couldn’t do it on the seconds or milliseconds because there were many of those. So, he could only do a range change on the date and the hour, which is apparently what he did, because those two files merge into one. That said, he was playing with the data.

Then on the 15th of June, he published some articles showing that the files had Russian fingerprints in it. Our affiliates doing the research with us in the UK looked at that data, and found that five of those files they also found in the Podesta email documentation by Wikileaks that was posted, I think, on the 21st of September. That was at least the time they had it. So, the point was, those files that were in the Wikileaks publication didn’t have any Russian fingerprints. So that meant Guccifer 2 inserted those fingerprints.

Then we went back to the [WikiLeaks] Vault 7 material where the Vault 7 material said the program, Marble Framework, was a program that made it look like other countries did the hack, when in fact, the CIA did the hack. Well, they were able to mimic or make it look like the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians, or Arabs did the attack. So, they could attack anybody and leave fingerprints making it look like someone else did it. When you looked at it, that meant to us that Guccifer 2 was using some kind of program, or some kind of process to insert those fingerprints into the data from the DNC. On top of that, in the Vault 7 material, it said there that the Marble Framework program was used one time in 2016. Well, we think we found it. That says to us that all the evidence we’ve been accumulating forensically from the outside, is pointing back at CIA as the origin of Guccifer 2.

So, their entire allegation about you, and the Russians, and everybody has a false premise to start with. So, everything that they introduce as the reason they went after you—and also General [Michael] Flynn—was what I think lawyers call “fruit of the poisoned tree.” They set it up; they manipulated it; they contrived it; and they executed it. You and General Flynn, and they tried to also put us in jail under the Espionage Act, by fabricating evidence against us, too. So, it’s really how can we ever trust the FBI until [Attorney General William] Barr and [U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John] Durham really clean it up?

Q: What does the rise of the “illegal surveillance state” mean for the American people, and the world? What must be done about it?

Binney: We Americans should be really concerned about the bulk acquisition of data by NSA and the “Five Eyes” and the other countries around the world, because what it’s doing is capturing everything that everybody’s doing electronically in the world, and tracking you wherever you are, as you move around, day by day, minute by minute.

Which means they can retroactively analyze anything that you’ve done in the past at least 19 years.

This has been done before. It’s used against people to stop them from doing some things the government doesn’t want, like for example, when Eliot Spitzer went against the bankers on Wall Street, trying to take them to court for defrauding people in the 2007-2008 financial crisis. They used that data to find something against him, to leverage him, and get rid of him.

The point is, that this data, when given to governments, or people in general, sooner or later, the power they have, they use; and they use it against you.

There are ways to fix this. The way to do it is to force them into doing a focussed, disciplined, targetted approach—just like the police do when they are investigating a crime. Here, all they have to do is use deductive, inductive and abductive logic, to look at people who are associated with or known to be bad people for whatever reason [such as] criminal activity, or leaders of countries, or governments, or military, things of that nature, and focus on them and one degree from them, as the basis for the investigation of content, as well as metadata.

But then, you need to look beyond that, to the next degree, as long as you don’t go through a company or a government agency that would expand you into collecting massive numbers of people who aren’t relevant to anything.

By doing this, what it will do, basically this approach would have found virtually all of the terrorist attacks and all of the criminal activity before 9/11, for 9/11, and after 9/11, still it would work.

The problem now is they have so much data—they’re using dictionary select as a way of doing it—word searches, phrase searches, things like that. And when you go through the massive amounts of data they’re collecting, it gets a ton of material dumped on people, they can’t see the threats coming, and they’re dysfunctional at that point.

So, the attacks happen, people die, and then they clean up the mess afterwards, and then go in and look. Once they know who did it, they can look at all the data they’ve compiled on him. That’s a forensics job, not an intelligence job.

So, the idea is if you do that, and you also do things like inductive logic, where you’re looking at people, where they’re visiting sites on the web—are they looking at sites that advocate pedophilia, violence against the West, any kind of criminal activity. Then, that’s an indication that they’re in what I call the “zone of suspicion.” And that’s what people need to investigate, to see if they’re also involved. If they are, then they can develop information to justify a warrant, based on probable cause behavior in the communities in which they are involved. And you can solve this.

This would give privacy to everybody in the United States and around the world. And also create a rich environment for intelligence analysts and the police to look at, to solve problems and prevent attacks.

So, it’s solvable. We can do that. All we have to do is force our government to abide by our Constitution and make them do a focussed, disciplined, professional job.

Panel 1: Second Discussion Session

The following is an edited transcript of the second of two discussion sessions during Panel 1 of the Schiller Institute Conference on September 5.

The panelists were asked to respond to what they had just heard before taking questions from the audience. Moderator Dennis Speed said, “Clearly, the international implications of even discussing militarily removing the President of the United States, one wishes not to really have to ponder too long, but you have to ask a question about that. I’ll just leave it at that, hanging in the air.”

Schiller Institute

Clockwise from upper left: Dennis Speed, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, William Binney, Martin Sieff, James Jatras, and Kirk Wiebe.

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

Martin Sieff: What we’ve heard from the latest speakers, especially from Col. Black, is extremely alarming, and must be taken most seriously. There is a very alarming historical precedent that leaps to mind to me, and that is the steps that were taken under President James Buchanan in 1860, to his everlasting shame, that expedited the secession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. On that occasion, too, there is a parallel with now. We saw open attempt to influence and seduce serving senior officers of the United States Army to follow successionist states and the eventual Confederacy. And large numbers of them did so. And the result was a national catastrophe.

I do think that the alarming scenario that Col. Black has documented, needs to be understood in similar terms. But the media sits on it. There appears to be no way through the conventional media to alert the American people to this imminent danger. And I think it must be taken most seriously.

James Jatras: We hear more and more of various scenarios that may ensue in November, none of which looks particularly appetizing. But one is something along the lines of what we saw in the last Congressional election, particularly in California, in Orange County, where a number of wins were scored for Republicans on election night, and then in subsequent days and weeks flipped over to the Democratic camp, because of absentee and late voting and all these other things that we’re seeing more and more of, especially with mail-in voting, justified supposedly by the virus.

I think there’s a very real danger that we could get to a situation on November 3rd where we think, possibly, we have a winner, possibly it’s Trump, but then it turns out not to be, and we have something like the year 2000 on steroids, where we really don’t have any idea who the real winner is, or possibly even competing inaugurations. That’s when I think we have a real danger, of the kind of unconstitutionality to remove Trump because there is this ambiguous circumstance that has been created, perhaps deliberately created, in order to facilitate that.

It should be of great alarm to everybody, I think, that so much of the resistance to Trump has been generated from inside the bowels of the bureaucracy in the Establishment itself, including the military Establishment, the so-called “steady state” as even its partisans like to describe it. Let’s remember, in line with our earlier discussion today, this is the very Establishment that wants to keep pursuing these very confrontational policies with Russia and China, and to avoid doing the constructive things all of us have been advocating in this discussion.

So, I think we’re facing a real possibility of a showdown of some sort in the fall.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: The danger of a Constitutional crisis come early November is clearly there, also in light of Hillary Clinton saying that Biden should under no circumstances concede. Nancy Pelosi, I think, said similar things. Biden himself also. So, the danger around the ballot controversy is clearly there.

Think, what can possibly be done to derail something which could really get us into an incredible danger—where what Sen. Black said is not excluded, it seems to me—apart from what we were discussing earlier of the P5 changing the dynamic by replacing the geopolitical confrontation with a win-win cooperation, at least as a declaration of intent?

The other, second, major thing which I think could be done to change this present course of action, would be for Attorney General Barr to finally publish the results of the different investigations, including the Durham investigation. The big elephant in the room is the fact that it was British Intelligence, including the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, the Christopher Steele story, the whole collusion by parts of the intelligence apparatus in the United States with British Intelligence, that were involved in a coup attempt against President Trump.

If that were to be published before the election, that would clear the way and reestablish the United States as a Republic.

So, my question to the other panelists is: What do you think, from your area of expertise, what can be done to further that, to get Barr to publish these things, because I think that would really put the cat among the mice.

Col. Richard Black: I’m not sure that I’m prepared to exactly answer Helga’s question, but let me say what’s unfolding right now: The military has taken a very concerted view that they’re diminishing the President’s ability to use the Insurrection Act to maintain order. They’re also preparing for a possible military coup, to take action to physically remove the President, if they dislike the way that things occur after January 20th.

What gets to be problematic, is that several Democrat states have instituted this mail-in voting. The problem with mail-in voting, it has a long-storied history of misuse and failure and fraud.

Back when Lyndon Johnson was first running for U.S. Senate, he had lost the race, a couple of weeks went by, and suddenly, from one of his areas, they emerged with something that was called “Magic Box 13.” Back then, all the ballots were hand-written. When the Republicans went to federal court, the judge looked at and saw that every single ballot was written in the same handwriting, using the same pen, so it was obviously illegitimate. He threw them all out.

The Democrats then went to Abe Fortas on the Supreme Court, who was friendly to their cause. He blocked the whole thing, and as a consequence, Lyndon Johnson became the Senator from Texas, and eventually rose on to cause tremendous bloodshed in Vietnam, and so forth.

So, there is a long history of voter fraud. We know what happened with the JFK vs. Nixon election, the first election, how Mayor Daley came in. He brought in a bunch of fake votes that tipped the election.

This is not a new thing. What I envision happening is that Trump might very well win a very sweeping victory on November 3rd, but Hillary Clinton is saying [to Biden]: “Don’t accept that; don’t concede, because we can take these ballots that are being distributed by the tens of thousands and we can create as many votes as you need to win.”

I don’t know what we do. This is extraordinarily dangerous. It’s never happened before. It will be an example of clear fraud that I think should be fairly obvious to the public. It’s going to be a dangerous time that we’re going to pass through. I think it’s just important that the people be informed of what’s about to happen.

The fact that it’s being backed up by potential military force and the ability to implement a violent coup—I should say, maybe not “violent”—a forceful coup is potentially a very genuine threat to the future of the constitutional experiment and the Republic of the United States.

Kirk Wiebe: We have to replace the existing system; I don’t mean in terms of government process. I’m talking about the terrible state of the election software, hardware, the voting machines, the way the systems count votes, the way they report votes, that whole process, from voter registration, and cleanup and validation of those who have the legal right to vote, right on through the tallying and the reporting—it’s a mess! It’s a mess, because it’s not under the purview of the federal government to fix all that. The Constitution was written to keep the power of voting within the various states. We have 50 secretaries of state responsible for the election processes within their states. How do you get 50 people together in a room, or their representatives, and say, “Let’s reinvent the voting process to provide security, validation of those voting, and the count.” And let’s not stick it on the internet in a stupid way, where people can play with it, hack into it.

Bill and I sent letters to all 50 secretaries of state, about a month ago, saying, we can help you fix your voting process. We didn’t get one response. Not one! In fact, I would tell you, Bill and I have been thinking for over a year and a half on ways to improve—not the whole system, because even with a year and half’s notice, there’s a lot of work to be done across 50 states. But there are a few prudent things we could have done. We could have helped a few key states, battleground states, verify their registration rolls, using database comparisons, and straighten that out.

But we could find no one willing to fund or take on this project. And we found no way to communicate with anyone at the federal level who might help grease the skids politically and/or financially. We know the Senate threw money at the states! I think recently $200 million, now that’s not a lot of money, but it should be a good amount to do something effective. It didn’t do anything for 2020.

So, we got a problem, Houston. It begins in the 50 states, and we need a willing, well-intentioned group of people to get into a room and do what most people do: Figure it out and move forward, or we’re going to be right back in this problem in 2024.

Bill Binney: No, I just agree with everything that Kirk said. I was very disappointed in the lack of response on our proposal to the secretaries of state of all the 50 states. It just says that whatever they’re doing, they don’t appear to be serious about it. I mean, they seem to be in a hodge-podge. It’s hard to understand how anybody, unless you control the devices or the software running the devices, it’s hard to understand how anybody could influence the election, other than being able to act through that hardware or through the software. In other words, is there some implant in it to make the outcome a certain way. Other than that, I don’t see anybody being able to hack anything in an election in our country! ’Cause there’s 50 different versions and they’re all doing different things.

From New York: “For the past 30 years, any time regime change in the form of color revolution, the modern form of Western hybrid warfare otherwise, is undertaken to remove a sovereign leader of a country it is under the guise of ‘democracy’.

“The legitimate leader is invariably replaced by an Anglo neoliberal proxy, who invariably leads the country into poverty, drug dependence, destruction of real, existing physical economy, and pessimism, bringing increased death, demoralization, and destruction.

“Given this outcome, borne out dozens of times in the preceding decades, I have the following questions:

“(a) How exactly is a color revolution organized in a targetted country?

“(b) What factors mark a targetted country for regime change by this Anglo-British axis?

“(c) Given the resulting and intended destruction and enslavement of nations through these means, how is it not obvious to everyone on the globe that these warfare tactics are being deployed? How does a nation best fight back?

“This is relevant to what is now unfolding in Belarus, and the actions long attempted versus Russia and China, and in the United States, right now.”

Jatras: The methodology is well set out in Gene Sharp’s book—I can’t remember the exact title, but it has all of the mechanisms involved in terms of mobilizing people on the street, making it look as though it’s the police that are responding with violence, rather than the so-called “protesters.” You create a “narrative” with it, which is then picked up, seamlessly, by all the world media and by the governments that are behind the regime change plan. And of course, there will always be local abuses, there’ll be things wrong in these societies that are used as pretexts and slogans in order to justify the regime change. You add to that the kind of threats that’ll be used against the target government, that they’ll be held responsible for various crimes, there’ll be sanctions imposed on the country.

There is a methodology to this which, as the questioner points out, is well known. And it tends to work very well.

How does the country protect themselves from that? To start with, get all these NGOs—if you’re a foreign country, I’m not talking about here in the United States—get all of these NGOs out of your country. At least the Russians have done that; I don’t think the Chinese allow them, because these are simply breeding mechanisms for the eventual regime-change operation.

A question for Martin Sieff from Gerald from Oakland, California: “Can you discuss the Sir Kim Darroch affair? While many think that the British are also-rans who have no say in things anymore, Sir Kim Darroch and others did not agree with that. They actively sought to control President Trump and the United States, by ‘flooding the zone’—that’s this term that Darroch used—through media and personal influences over President Trump. Darroch was directly involved in the attempt at regime change against the nation that was hosting him as an ambassador. Finally, even though he was unceremoniously booted out of the U.S., he got a raise back home and was made a member of the House of Lords. Today he is being interviewed in the British press attacking Boris Johnson and Trump, showing that he has not a whiff of shame about what he did. In fact, he’s still at it. So why do you downplay the British Establishment role in the world?”

Sieff: I don’t deny the British Establishment role in the world—I am, after all, Irish. Having said that, I have been in Washington for 33 years, and your friend in Oakland has not. And what I have repeatedly seen during that period of time, as I said before, is, the British are eager to get onboard, they certainly are—the City of London is an enthusiastic part of this neoliberal, global consensus. The British people have suffered as much as the American people have from the catastrophic results of unlimited free trade, and unregulated borders. They’re equal victims of this. But, when one looks at the British Establishment, you do not see the American establishment eager to ape the British Establishment. You do see the British political establishment, and I still see it to this day, and this is an increasing process—

Margaret Thatcher was often independent of Ronald Reagan, though they treated each other with great respect. She was the one who told Reagan—and I have access to the people who were privy to this information at the time—that Gorbachev was “a man we could do business with, to conduct arms control treaties, and end states of tension in the Cold War.” She was also very angry at Reagan and showed it openly, when Reagan invaded Granada. The British had consternation, when one of Reagan’s most influential cabinet members and a close influence on him, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick supported Argentina against Britain in the Falklands War [Malvinas War].

So the relationship between Britain and the United States, (a) is not seamless, and (b) existentially, the British Establishment and policymakers feel vastly more dependent on the United States, than is the case the other way around! What I will add to this is, the British Establishment—and clearly, it’s now really the intelligence establishment, very much so—expected [Hillary] Clinton to win, was totally onboard with the American Deep State in 2016, would be totally onboard here. But clearly, we see Prime Minister Boris Johnson is not totally onboard with them and is not regarded as fully trustworthy by them!

So we have a subtle, complex picture here. But the role of the British Establishment as players in this is very clear! And the one point I will add here is, they’re often at a tactical level, criminally incompetent, which I suppose in some respects is a sign of encouragement. Because if you look at the Steele dossier, which was used so lively and for so long as a supposed threat to discredit President Trump, it’s childish. It’s infantile! A 12-year-old child could not put together a more unconvincing or amateurish piece of work—and yet, Steele, who put it together was the head of the Russia section of the British intelligence service, a position of enormous sensitivity and responsibility for at least six years! This is the kind of people they have running things. In a sense, there is hope, if you see what I mean! Because incompetence creates vulnerabilities.

So I do not look upon the British Establishment as godlike, and I do not look upon them as telling the American establishment, from a position of Olympian superiority, what to do! That is simply not what we have systematically seen and observed and continue to see.

Zepp-LaRouche: I think that the problem of who wags the tail and who is the dog—I think if you look at the long history of British imperial history, in Africa, in the Middle East, in India, against China, there is no question that the British have a vast experience which they bring into play all the time. And you look at where certain campaigns originate, like for example, the campaign against China being responsible for the spread of the virus, it clearly comes from the former heads of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove and John Sawers.

And I think that apart from that you can trace down where certain operations started, which many times was with the British, including the White Helmets operations, the false flag operations, getting President Trump to even send an attack [on Syria] in the middle of a summit with President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. All these things come really from British origin.

But apart from that, the thing to also consider is that the real British role is not just that it starts in Great Britain, but that the coup which was accomplished is to win the American establishment over to go with the British Empire as a model. I think that is really the way to look at it. So when we say “British,” it is not necessarily always the physical British, it is a concept. The British Empire is not the British people—I agree. The British subjects are very poor, they have terrible food, they eat blood pudding and similar things [laughter], it’s really the method. It’s the Empire, it’s the control of the financial system. The model of the central banks, the investment banks, the hedge funds, insurance companies, controlling the financial system, that is the British model, as compared to the Hamiltonian American model.

So I think we should really look at the British question as a concept, and whoever has sold out their soul to it is part of it.

Col. Black: Yes, I wanted to go back just a little to the question about these color revolutions and how they are executed. The color revolutions typically will begin—there’ll be a planning process that precedes them, but then afterwards there’s often pressure to release various terrorists, very dangerous elements in the prisons, as kind of a “show of good will.” We saw this in Libya, where Qaddafi’s government was asked to do a show of good faith; they released a number of Muslim Brotherhood terrorists in Benghazi, and then, of course, the CIA uses that to put together an uprising.

And once the uprising begins and civil servants are being killed and so forth, then snipers are used to begin to fire—first they’ll kill a protester, then they’ll kill a police officer, back and forth; before long, each side thinks that the other is shooting at them. And at that point, the world media loads on and says that the legitimate government is without control, they’re causing all this violence. And eventually they bring pressure.

In Libya, for example, when the time came that the central government said, OK, we’re going to send a fairly modest military force, we’re going to crack down, we’re going to stop the execution of civil servants, then you had people within the Senate—John McCain was one of them, you had John Kerry on the other hand, and they were saying, “OK, we’ve got to go in, we’ve got to stop this. We’ll do a no-fly zone.” And under the pretext of that they commenced a massive bombing that destroyed hospitals, government centers, transportation networks, water centers, electricity generation—destroyed everything. And at that point, they managed to raise up an army that eventually overthrew the country.

We see this same general scenario used over and over again, where you start—there’s always discontent in every country. There’s discontent here, and in Britain, everywhere you can name. But you start with those. You add to them these criminal elements that can be used as your street army, and then, by funnelling money through the CIA and some of these billionaires who are interested, and they fund them, and it grows from there. So the color revolution has been used as a model repeatedly.

And the fear is, and the concern is, that a color revolution may be coming here to the United States. This is something that I am very deeply concerned about, as a retired officer myself.

Question: “Mr. Kortunov raised the importance of U.S.-Russian collaboration, regarding nuclear terrorism. We know the Russians sent information to the United States, before the Boston bomber, and the Russians recently thanked the U.S. for intelligence regarding potential attacks in Russia—I think that was around New Year. However, former Secretary of Defense William Perry in his William J. Perry Project raised the danger of nuclear terrorism in the midst of social chaos. Dr. Perry’s project produced the film called Bill Perry’s Nuclear Nightmare.

“Do you think the current chaos in cities in the United States and the call to take down the police, who tend to be the first line of defense against terrorism might create conditions for such attacks?”

Additionally, there are several questions, not asked of anyone in particular, asking: “What can be done about this by people in the targetted nations, and otherwise?”

Col. Black: Well, for one thing, people have got to come out in support of the police. If you want to know what to do, put up a sign in the back of your car that says, “Stop the looting, stop the arson, stop the murders. Support your local police.” Or something like that. Let me give you a very concrete example of something that an ordinary citizen can do. Drive out in the morning traffic with it. You’ll get some honks of agreement, you’ll get some people flipping you the bird, but you’re going to survive. Nobody’s going to kill you unless you happen to be going through Chicago, or some other violent place.

But take action! I run into people who are afraid, I mean, really good people, and they’re afraid to do something. And we’re not to the point yet, where you have to be seriously afraid that something is going to happen, unless you get caught up in one of the BLM-Antifa revolutionary lootings and burning. Most people can drive a car out in traffic, and it gets people’s attention, if you put something in the back of your window that says I’m against all of this urban violence; people take note. They say, “Yeah.” People are really starting to think about this.

I’m just giving you one very practical example, but political movements result when individuals think of something they can do. Maybe they can send out a mass email, who knows? But politics is kind of a free market type of thing: You think of something you can do; you go out and you take action. And between now and November, we better start doing a lot of individual action to making things happen on our own.

Zepp-LaRouche: That is a very difficult question to answer, because obviously the whole issue of nonproliferation is very crucial, and therefore the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in 2015 with Iran] is being supported still by practically everybody except the United States and Dominican Republic, because the worry is, if it’s cancelled, then Iran has no incentive than to go back to building nuclear weapons. And the same in a certain sense is true for North Korea, and you heard what Dr. Kortunov said.

This is all the more important as a reason why the United States, Russia, China, must cooperate on the real dangers, which is terrorism, nuclear terrorism being one aspect of it. And that is why the military doctrines are really questionable in putting Russia and China as the biggest threat, when it is those countries with which there should be collaboration on all kinds of threats, terrorism, the drug epidemic, and anything of that sort. So I think the collaboration of these major countries on these issues is what needs to be put on the agenda all the more urgently.

For Col. Black: “The information you provided about the prohibition in Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, of even retired military officers undermining the authority of the President may come as a surprise to many, myself included. Has it been necessary to prosecute under those code provisions, or are we facing an unprecedented situation? What tools, legal and otherwise, do we have in stopping a possible military coup? How does the Insurrection Act classify domestic terrorism, and how does the Uniform Code of Military Justice shape the response of the U.S. officer corps?”

Col. Black: Your listener was surprised that Article 88 applied to retired officers. Every officer, when he does out-process to retire, is informed about the meaning and effect of Article 88. There’s nothing that prevents a retired officer from getting together with a group of friends and saying, “I think that such and such is the worst thing in the world. Personally, I think he’s a dog.” He can do that. The problem is when you publicly use contemptuous words towards the President. You can criticize policies; you can be very harsh. You can say, “I really oppose this particular policy or this action.” It’s when you use contemptuous words against the President. If you say, “He’s a jerk,” that’s a contemptuous word. And you have some gray areas, but I think it’s pretty clear that some of these officers have gone over the board.

The reason it’s so important for retired officers, is that you take these retired three- and four-star officers, they really remain an integral part of the military establishment, for many years after their retirement. That’s the story on Article 88.

The other question was how does the Insurrection Act define domestic terrorism? I’m not aware of the term “domestic terrorism” being actually used in the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act is a broad grant of authority from Congress to the President to recognize his ability to put down insurrections, uprisings, and that sort of thing. Typically, it’s triggered by a request from the governor of a state, who says, “Hey look, I got a problem.”

This happened in 1992 in California, with the L.A. riots that had gone on for a long time, with tremendous bloodshed and destruction. The governor requested and then the President activated and sent the troops in. But I don’t know that the term “domestic terrorism” is in there—I could be wrong, there may have been an amendment, I’m not aware of—but I don’t think that that term is actually used in the Insurrection Act.

Kirk Wiebe: My response deals with the issue of rogue nuclear weapons, under the umbrella of terrorist activity, and my comment is this: With the imminent demise of the Soviet Union, there was a lot of concern here in the U.S. and in the Department of Defense, of which both Bill and I were a part of at the time, about the disposition of Soviet nuclear weapons and what would happen under the autonomous rule of the various republics making up the Soviet Union. And there was a lot of concern.

If there’s anything, any government keeps good track of, it’s what it owns and possesses in terms of nuclear weapons. So the accounting for them is probably among the best of anything they do, probably better than counting their own population. Because, precisely because of the danger nuclear weapons pose. Our concern was, what about the breakup of the Soviet Union? What’s going to happen?

I don’t have a good feel for what really happened, but my sense is, there was a pretty good accounting between us and the Russians on the disposition of nuclear weapons. So my sense is any nuclear weapon in rogue hands is worrisome, but I don’t think that issue is widespread in terms of the greater picture.

For Mr. Jatras and Mr. Sieff: “Could any of the panelists say something about the recent Serbia/Kosovo agreements in coordination with President Trump, as a template for future cooperation among other countries, emphasizing economic development to resolve problems?”

Jatras: Very briefly, this little deal between Serbia and Kosovo is not a template for anything. This is just a brainchild of Richard Grenell, the outgoing ambassador to Germany, who was looking for a kind of a poor man’s Camp David photo op, for Trump to say, “Here’s this great diplomatic achievement.” This really doesn’t amount to anything except further kicking the can down the road on what the status is of this pseudo-state Kosovo, that was established by—let’s be honest—NATO aggression in 1999. What the future brings is not going to be changed very much by this agreement, one way or the other. It’s another little feather in the cap of Israel to have two more embassies, one of which doesn’t actually represent a country, move to Jerusalem. Other than that, it’s meaningless.

Sieff: I differ from Jim on important marginal aspects of this, and fully agree with him on all the key points. It’s a vanity move to make the administration look good. From what I can tell, and I’ve been looking at it quite closely, none of the U.S. officials who are pushing this have any real knowledge of the region, whatsoever, of its history, of its culture. Many of them are probably totally ignorant of the NATO bombing campaign that artificially created Kosova in the first place. Even the Prime Minister and the President of Kosova and Serbia were pretty much at daggers drawn through the whole—it’s a farce. It’s an amusing farce if you look at it closely, but it cannot be taken, as Jim said, to be a template for anything.

For Mr. Binney: “Operation Mockingbird, a program that the CIA began in the early years of the Cold War, attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. What role do intelligence services play in today’s so-called mainstream media?”

Binney: As far as the role of intel in media, I would simply say, go back to Director of CIA Gates when he said, I think in 1983, he said, “We have started to infiltrate the media and you’ll know we’ve succeeded in doing that once everything that’s believed by the public in the United States is false.”

And I would also point out, if you simply look at the people who came from intel, like Clapper and Brennan and so on, who are now populating the commentators on the media! It’s the mainstream media that’s picking these people up. So what that really tells me, that their whole objective of infiltrating the media, getting them to say what they want, what the bureaucrats in government want, they’ve succeeded, they’ve done it. We’ve had it. We are in that state now.

A question about the possible fuller realization of Mrs. LaRouche’s proposal for cultural elevation and exchange as a crucial aspect of turning our nations from the course of confrontation to a partnership in reaching for the stars.

Zepp-LaRouche: I think this is really the most important question of all, because it is my absolute conviction, that all policies, no matter what they are, flow out of the image of man that the people have. If you have a degraded image of man, or you think that only some people are belonging to an elite, or others are like cattle who can be diminished, like the Helots in Sparta, or the slaves in Rome, then that image of man dictates every aspect of your policy.

So therefore, I think that we absolutely need, in combination of this P-5 or four major powers summit, no matter which, but we need a summit—what has to be included, absolutely, is a Renaissance of classical culture. This is very important, and I mentioned this already, but I know a lot of Afro-Americans think she is a great star, this Cardi B. But for me, this is the absolute incarnation of slavery, of accepting a degraded state of mind, and what we need instead, and I know people are very peculiar about their taste in music, but we are in the Year of Beethoven [250 years since his birth], and if you compare that kind of music with the absolutely elevating, ennobling spirit of Beethoven and many other classical composers, it should be so obvious that if mankind does not elevate itself now out of this present condition, by going back to the greatest traditions of each culture, I don’t think we will make it.

On the other side, this great culture is absolutely available, and we will hear tomorrow a beautiful performance of that music, and I would like people to reflect that I absolutely think that we will not solve this problem if we don’t change the way people think. And I agree with Friedrich Schiller, and that’s why the Schiller Institute is named after him, that it does require great classical art to effect the aesthetical education, the moral ennoblement of people. And I can tell you, if you look at the present contemporary people, if we do not improve them morally, if we do nothing, we have a chance no better than a snowflake in Hell, to come out of this crisis. So the question of a cultural renaissance is the absolute precondition to solve all these crises.

“Greeting you from Venezuela. Congratulations for your excellent conference. We are under terrible economic sanction attack by the U.S. government, and I wonder what we can do to avoid these economic sanctions and break the chains to set us free. We want respect for our nation and political decisions. What do you think we can do for success in this global economy?”

Zepp-LaRouche: There are certain things which really should be outlawed under conditions of pandemic. One of them is sanctions, because it is clear that sanctions deprive the country which is being hit, especially those taking care of the urgent medical questions to protect the population. I mean: Sanctions should just stop while the pandemic is going on, as a principle, and those who are imposing it, like the U.S. Congress which is quite expansive with it, they should also just know that all this discussion about human rights and democracy is becoming quite hollow around the world, and people recognize that there is a double standard of those who are using it.

Otherwise, I think what I said earlier in my remarks that the crisis we face is so fundamentally all-inclusive, that I think that the principle of the coincidence of opposites, what Nicholas of Cusa developed in the 15th century as a new method of thinking, of thinking that the one is of a higher quality than the many, and that you have to think about the interest of mankind first, before you think about any particular problem. We cannot hope to solve all these different individual problems at the same time, because we are in a systemic collapse. We are seeing the end of an epoch and therefore you have to design some completely new paradigm, and then the relations among the major powers, U.S., Russia, China and others, if that is being put on a really human basis, then such questions as sanctions are like the derivative, which will disappear.

So I can only reiterate that if you want to solve any particular problem, help to solve the big one, because if we do not move humanity as a whole into a new paradigm, I’m afraid that all of the problems which were discussed today, may actually spin out of control, and we will end up in a complete chaos of civilization.

II. Organizing for Victory

How Abraham Lincoln Created

The Republican Party

by Robert Ingraham

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche on his 90th birthday: “The two-party system is dead.” Round Hill, Virginia, September 9, 2012.

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

Sept. 3—In 2012, on the occasion of his 90th birthday, Lyndon LaRouche delivered a talk, wherein he stated his view that the “two-party system is dead.” How to interpret that pronouncement?—then delivered near the conclusion of Barack Obama’s first term, and now today amidst the violence of a fascist insurrection in the United States and the escalating coup attempt to remove Donald Trump from the Presidency.

Although many Democrats still refuse to accept the truth, between 2009 and 2012 Barack Obama had continued, in toto, the strategic and economic policies of his predecessor George W. Bush. To be fair to Obama, this presidential subservience to the diktats of London and Wall Street did not begin in 2009. From 1989 through to 2017—under George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama—any substantive differences between the Democratic and Republican parties—in the White House and in Congress—disappeared, particularly after the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton.

What emerged in those years was a consensus among the elites of both parties around two axiomatic priorities. Primary was absolute fealty to a neo-liberal financial and economic policy, including the outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing and the “financialization” of the economy. This resulted in the disappearance of millions of American manufacturing jobs, the elimination of critical R&D and machine tool capabilities and the explosion of financial speculation, culminating in the financial collapse of 2008. At the same time, a policy of military adventurism was launched, including the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the expansion of NATO, British/U.S.-sponsored imperial regime-change operations, and continuing through to Obama’s relentless drone strikes and his “Asia Pivot.” Most of this was aimed at the military encirclement of Russia, later to include China. This financial/military consensus, which destroyed the lives of tens of millions both within and outside the United States, continued to the end of the Obama presidency, and as LaRouche identified, this signaled the end of the two-party system as it had existed in the post-World War II era.

Then came the election of 2016. During this past four years we have witnessed the efforts of Donald Trump to overturn this consensus: to free the United States from the grip of supra-national institutions, end the policy of regime-change warfare, rebuild the manufacturing and industrial capabilities of the nation and relaunch America’s manned space program. This has pitted Trump against entrenched political interests in both the Democratic and Republican parties. It has also made him the hated target of the London/Wall Street elite, and—as has been extensively documented by EIR and LaRouche PAC—a conspiracy to destroy Trump’s Presidency and remove him from office was undertaken even before he was sworn in as President.

White House/Shealah Craighead

President Donald Trump at the United States Military Academy at West Point, viewing a statue of Douglas MacArthur, June 13, 2020.

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

Witness the support given by Democratic Party honchos and the mainstream media to the fascist insurrection in cities across the nation. Witness the open support for Joe Biden by the Bush family and their lackeys such as Colin Powell. Witness the hatred against Trump displayed by failed Republican Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and the now-deceased Sen. John McCain. Witness the current faction within both the Republican and Democratic parties determined to sabotage the President’s efforts to negotiate peaceful relations with both Russia and China. This is a cross-party coalition determined to terminate the Trump Presidency and return to the “consensus” of 1989-2017, only now with a heavy dose of Green Malthusianism and more aggressive actions against Russia and China.

Turn now to Trump’s June 13, 2020 speech at West Point, to his July 3, 2020 speech at Mt. Rushmore, and to the proceedings of the recently concluded “working class” Republican National Convention. What Donald Trump has initiated, through his own personal efforts, is a battle to create a new political coalition across America, to transform and re-create the Republican Party around new, or—better stated—old principles; to expunge the influence of the Washington Consensus and create a mass-based party committed to saving the nation. In some ways, this bears a striking resemblance to Franklin Roosevelt’s creation of a “new” Democratic Party in 1932, but for Trump, the model is not FDR but Abraham Lincoln. Consider Trump’s words at Mt. Rushmore:

Our Founders launched not only a revolution in government, but a revolution in the pursuit of justice, equality, liberty, and prosperity. No nation has done more to advance the human condition than the United States of America. And no people have done more to promote human progress than the citizens of our great nation.

It was all made possible by the courage of 56 patriots who gathered in Philadelphia two hundred and forty-four years ago and signed the Declaration of Independence. They enshrined a divine truth that changed the world forever when they said: “… all men are created equal.”

These immortal words set in motion the unstoppable march of freedom. Our Founders boldly declared that we are all endowed with the same divine rights—given [to] us by our Creator in Heaven. And that which God has given us, we will allow no one, ever, to take away—ever.

Seventeen seventy-six represented the culmination of thousands of years of western civilization and the triumph not only of spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason.

Cynics might scoff at these remarks, offering derogatory insults against both Trump and America, but the theme which Trump developed at Mt. Rushmore is precisely the basis on which Abraham Lincoln organized the Republican Party between 1856 and 1860. Precisely the basis. That is the subject of this report.

The Collapse of the Old Order

On May 30, 1854 President Franklin Pierce signed into law the Stephen Douglas-sponsored “Kansas-Nebraska Bill.” This legislation repealed the 1820 “Missouri Compromise” and introduced the new doctrine of “Popular Sovereignty,” whereby all U.S. territories, between the borders of Mexico and Canada and from the Mississippi to the Pacific would now be open to slavery. With this action, the Whig Party, already on its last legs, disintegrated and vanished; but the Democratic Party also fissured and fractured, as the implications of the new doctrine became clear. The political “consensus” and established party allegiances of the previous 20 years were overthrown. To make this explicit, consider the following statistics:

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

1853 (33rd)

1855 (34th)

Dems

157

82

Whigs

71

0

Free Soil

4

0

American (Know-Nothing)

0

51

Independents

2

0

Opposition (no party)

0

100

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

The 1855 “Opposition” Congressmen included former Whigs, disaffected Democrats, Free Soilers, abolitionists and others, all now operating independent of any organized political party. They were not unified; they held different—sometimes diametrically opposite—views on a number of issues, but all recognized the threat to the nation that had now been unleashed.

When news of the adoption of the Kansas-Nebraska Act reached Illinois, as Abraham Lincoln later reported, “We were thunderstruck and stunned.”

During the early months of 1854 efforts were made in several locations, including Ripon, Wisconsin and Jackson, Michigan to organize a new “Republican” party. The meetings were small and composed, almost exclusively, of abolitionists from the old Liberty Party and the Free Soil movement. This was a start but not nearly sufficient for the challenge ahead.

Photo by Mathew Brady

Stephen A. Douglas sponsored the Kansas-Nebraska Act, opening all U.S. territories to slavery.

Photo by Brady-Handy studio

Cassius Clay called for unity to “hurl down the gigantic evil” of slavery.

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

In the summer of 1854, the Kentucky abolitionist Cassius Clay delivered a speech at Springfield, Illinois. Abraham Lincoln was in attendance. Clay called for “an organization of men, of whatever politics, of Free Soilers, Whigs and Democrats, who should bury past animosities, and unite in hurling down the gigantic evil which threatened even their own unity.”

Later that year, on October 3rd, at the state fair in Springfield, Stephen Douglas gave a long speech in defense of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Lincoln was put forward by members of the audience to deliver the response. There is no record of his remarks, but according to an eyewitness report:

The effect of the Springfield speech upon his hearers was wonderful. Herndon, his partner, says: “The house was as still as death. Lincoln’s whole heart was in the subject. He quivered with feeling and emotion.” Loud and long continued applause greeted his telling points. At the conclusion, every person who had heard Lincoln felt that the speech was unanswerable.

Thus began Lincoln’s 1854 campaign for the U.S. Senate and his leadership in creating what would become the Republican Party. He followed Douglas to Peoria. There Douglas spoke for three hours in the afternoon, and Lincoln again followed in the evening and spoke for three hours also. Here, as in Springfield, he carried the audience with him. In his Peoria speech, Lincoln asserted:

Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature, opposition to it in his love of justice. These principles are in eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise—repeal all compromises—repeal the Declaration of Independence—repeal all past history, you still cannot repeal human nature. It still will be out of the abundance of man’s heart that he will declare slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his mouth he will continue to speak.

Lincoln followed Douglas all over the state, attending his rallies, intervening, challenging him and giving speeches of his own. Lincoln’s friend and biographer, Isaac Arnold, later stated that:

[Between 1854 and 1856, Lincoln] plead the cause of liberty, not only the freedom of four millions of slaves, but the fate and perpetuity of the Union and the republic hung on the result. His speeches were great battles fought and won.... Whole counties were sometimes revolutionized by one of his great arguments.

Following Lincoln’s October Springfield speech, his friend Owen Lovejoy, together with Ichabod Codding (both abolitionists and Congregational ministers) organized the first meeting of the Republican Party of Illinois, but at this time Lincoln would not yet openly affiliate with them, considering their membership too narrow.

Photo by Mathew Brady

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, who backed Lincoln for President in 1860.

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

In February 1855 the state legislature met to choose the new Senator. Lincoln led in the voting, but stood no chance of achieving a majority. He then directed his supporters to back Lyman Trumbell, an anti-Douglas Democrat, in order to block the election of Douglas’ protégé James Shields. Trumbell was elected, and two years into his term he switched his party affiliation to Republican. In 1860 he backed Lincoln for President, and in 1865 he authored the 13th Amendment, freeing the slaves.

Creating the New

By 1856-1857 the nation was in a severe economic recession. At the same time, the murderous attempt to force Kansas into the Union as a slave state was underway, as armed gangs were sent across the border from Missouri to kill and drive out settlers who opposed slavery. The Know-Nothing movement emerged, organized itself as the American Party, and began to win elections. Although the movement is known today primarily for its opposition to immigration and Catholicism, the Know-Nothing appeal was actually based largely on economic issues. When they took control of the Massachusetts legislature in 1855, they passed a series of laws which opposed slavery, expanded the rights of women, regulated industry and railroads, expanded funding for public schools and local libraries, and improved the status of working people.

Yet the Know-Nothings could never be more than a minority party, much as the radical abolitionists.

On the 29th of May 1856, a convention of the people of Illinois who were opposed to the extension of slavery met at Bloomington, for the purpose of organizing a new political party. In attendance were Whigs, Democrats, Know-Nothings, Free Soilers, members of the old Liberty Party, as well as large numbers of Germans, Swedes, Norwegians and Irish. After hours of deliberation, the convention seemed hopelessly divided, with sharply conflicting opinions, and a Resolutions Committee, which was assigned to come up with a set of principles for the new party, was deadlocked. In desperation, delegates sent for Lincoln to address the convention.

In his speech, Lincoln stated that the only way the delegates might find unity was to base themselves on the principles of the Declaration of Independence and hostility to the extension of slavery. This would define the principled foundation for the new party. Lincoln proposed:

Let us, in building our new party, let us make our corner-stone the Declaration of Independence;—let us build on this rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against us.

Later, in reporting on Lincoln’s speech, one of the delegates wrote:

Never was an audience more completely electrified by human eloquence. Again and again, during the delivery, the audience sprang to their feet, and by long-continued cheers, expressed how deeply the speaker had roused them.

Photo by Calvin Jackson

Abraham Lincoln, on October 1, 1858.

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

Following Lincoln’s speech, the Convention adopted the following:

Resolved, That we hold, in accordance with the opinions and practices of all the great statesmen of all parties for the first sixty years of the administration of the government, that, under the Constitution, Congress possesses full power to prohibit slavery in the territories; and that while we will maintain all constitutional rights of the South, we also hold that justice, humanity, the principles of freedom, as expressed in our Declaration of Independence and our National Constitution, and the purity and perpetuity of our government require that that power should be exerted, to prevent the extension of slavery into territories heretofore free.

Lincoln continued to travel and to speak, both in Illinois and in neighboring states. At the first national Republican Convention, held at Philadelphia in June 1856, Lincoln finished second in the balloting for Vice-President, receiving 110 votes. The declaration of principles adopted at the convention was substantially the same as that adopted only weeks earlier at the Bloomington, Illinois meeting.

Battling for Victory

On March 6, 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision, denying citizenship to all black Americans and implicitly threatening the north with the spread of slavery nation-wide. The ruling was promptly endorsed by Stephen Douglas. In Illinois, Lincoln delivered the official Republican reply, and by the end of the year, he began to mount his second campaign for the U.S. Senate, this time against Douglas himself. In June 1858, the Illinois Republican state convention met at Springfield, and unanimously nominated Lincoln as their candidate for Senator. Accepting the nomination, Lincoln stated:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved,—I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new—North as well as South....

Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this, under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now, now when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail—if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.

Painting by Robert Marshall Root

Abraham Lincoln debates Stephen Douglas in Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858, in a campaign for U.S. Senate. He reduced the issue of the election to its most essential moral imperative: “Is slavery wrong?”

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

Throughout 1858, everywhere that Douglas went, Lincoln followed him, either giving a speech after Douglas, or the following day. After several weeks of this Douglas gave in and accepted Lincoln’s proposal for a series of seven debates,—the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Altogether, it was six weeks of intense campaigning, with Lincoln giving 63 speeches and traveling over 4,000 miles by train, boat and carriage. In the official debates, Lincoln started slow, but by the sixth and seventh debates, he was in complete control. At the final debate, in Alton, he reduced the issue of the election to its most essential moral imperative:

Is slavery wrong? That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles right and wrong—throughout the world. They are two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says: “You work, and toil, and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation, and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men, as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

Because the Democrats still controlled the Illinois legislature (which at that time chose the state’s U.S. Senators), Lincoln narrowly lost the election, but the eyes of the nation were on Illinois, and Lincoln was immediately propelled into the ranks of leading contenders for the 1860 Presidential nomination. By 1858, many of the leading Democrats of Illinois,—men who had opposed his Senate campaign in 1854 like Norman Judd, Jon Palmer and Lyman Trumbell—were all Republicans and backing Lincoln.

In 1859 Lincoln published the Lincoln-Douglas Debates—“Political Debates Between Hon. Abraham Lincoln and Hon. Stephen Douglas, in the Celebrated Campaign of 1858, in Illinois”—and this sold briskly throughout the nation. That same year, he campaigned for Republican candidates in Ohio and Indiana, giving speeches in Dayton, Columbus, Hamilton, Cincinnati and Indianapolis. Newspapers, including the Lacon Gazette (Illinois), Sandusky Commercial Register (Ohio), Olney Times (Illinois), Rockford Republican (Illinois), and Reading Journal (Pennsylvania), issued the first calls endorsing Lincoln for the Presidency. In February 1860, Lincoln accepted the invitation from Henry Ward Beecher to speak in New York. The speech was printed in four New York newspapers and then reprinted as a pamphlet. Then Lincoln spoke in Concord, Manchester, Dover and Exeter, Rhode Island and Connecticut, speaking in a different city every day for two weeks. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Lesson To Be Drawn

Popularly, the story of Lincoln and the Republican Party is usually presented as the last successful effort to create a “new” political party within the United States. But such statistical analysis misses entirely the crucial point.

By 1854-1858 it had become clear to millions of Americans that the “consensus,”—or “arrangement,” if you prefer that term—that had ruled the nation for more than 20 years had broken down. The policies of the Whig Party now bore very little resemblance to the intention of Alexander Hamilton. The Whigs and northern Democrats had step-by-step acquiesced to the ultimatums of the south for the continued expansion of slavery. The economic crisis of 1856-1859 had hit working families the hardest, both in the cities as well as among family farmers. Women and children were being murdered in cold blood in Kansas. The continued existence of the nation as anything that bore even a faint resemblance to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution was doubtful. And neither of the two parties offered leadership or solutions.

Lincoln, and those who allied with him, built a new party out of the wreckage of the American political scene, recruiting from Democrats and Whigs alike, as well as others who had already abandoned those parties—from farmers and city dwellers, from small businessmen and manufacturers, from Germans and Irish, from Protestant and Catholic. And they did it on principle,—as Lincoln stated in 1856:

Let us make our corner-stone the Declaration of Independence;—let us build on this rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against us.

Yes, it was new, but it was made possible by a return to the founding principles and intention of the nation.

Today more than half of the American population are either not registered to vote, or registered with no party preference. Trust in the two major parties has reached an all-time low. The old constituency organizations, through which people could make their voices heard in the political arena—such as trade unions, farm organizations, churches, and the like—have all declined in influence, as the national parties have become more and more captives of Wall Street and Silicon Valley money. The chimerical “Hope” promised by Obama in 2008 vanished long before he left office.

The American people have been betrayed and abandoned by their political leaders, and they know it.

In Donald Trump’s speeches he talks a lot about American history, and he mentions many different individuals. But he returns again and again to Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps it is no accident that he visited the Lincoln Memorial during the inauguration ceremonies in January 2017. And with Lincoln’s principles to guide him, he is now battling to radically remake, or re-create, the Republican Party.

LoC

Lafayette Hall in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, site of the first Republican convention in 1856.

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

It was Democratic trade-union voters from the rust belt that gave Trump the election in 2016. Today, even the fake polls are forced to admit that his support among black and Hispanic voters is at a record high for a Republican President. Unlike the Democratic Convention which displayed a Monster Mash of failed political cadavers, the Republican Convention presented the testimony of working-class voters from every walk of life. Campaigning for the “Forgotten Man” was not a campaign slogan. Trump is recruiting the former blue collar and ethnic base of the Democratic Party into his movement.

We are in the midst of a convulsive political realignment; yet, we are not observers to these developments. Think of yourself as being present with Lincoln at Springfield in 1854, Bloomington in 1856, or Alton in 1858. Think of yourself as a participant in those events. Think of what your responsibilities would have been in the fight to save the nation. Think of what was at stake then,—and what is at stake today. That is the mindset and dedication required in the weeks ahead.

SITREP U.S.A., PART II

Antifa: Back to the Future, 1967-68 —A Counterintelligence Primer for Further Investigation and Action

by Barbara Boyd

Left to right: Photo by Gustav Adolf Schultze; CC BY-SA 3.0; MSC/Kuhlmann

Left to right: Friedrich Nietzsche; Herbert Marcuse; Nancy Pelosi

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

Sept. 3—As one who as a young student, who entered college in 1968, at that petri dish for the New Left, known as the University of California, Berkeley, the current Jacobin Democratic Party and the ideas permeating their terrorist division, Antifa, are horribly familiar. In fact, in typical baby boomer and British intelligence fashion, nothing has really changed at all, with respect to the nihilistic worldview, violent music, and romance with gang violence, permeating the tracts of Antifa, as well as of its nominal Alt Right and neo-Nazi opponents.

The big names on my political science and English literature reading lists were Herbert Marcuse, Norman O. Brown, George Lukacs, Mikhail Bakunin, Franz Fanon, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sartre, Georges Sorel, and Hermann Hesse. And, like the Democratic leadership of today, the more my professors played with and articulated the ideas of these sick philosophers, the more crazy most of them became—although I don’t recall any of them, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently, labeling the President of the United States an “enemy of the state.” Nor do I recall them, as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo just did, stating that the President of the United States would need an army to protect him should he choose to travel to the State of New York.

One of my professors, a leading political scientist, simply broke down in front of our seminar, manically drawing a Tower of Babel and what he claimed were its appendages, over and over again, on the blackboard.

In studying the rise of fascism during the interwar period in Germany, I was shocked to find out that Hitler was an environmentalist. Around the same time, I first met Lyndon LaRouche’s movement, then factionalizing the New Left. I read a pamphlet LaRouche wrote, “The New Left, Local Control, and Fascism,” and realized that the anarchist-syndicalist views which surrounded me had actually been the bread and butter content of Mussolini’s rise in Italy and the early Nazi movement in Germany. Both left- and right-wing anarcho-syndicalists in Italy and Germany had campaigned for popular support. The elites rewarded the winners with totalitarian control of government for purposes of war.

Believing myself the ultimate anti-fascist, I was actually surrounding myself with fascists.

Needless to say, Cotton Mather, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey, Abraham Lincoln, Edgar Allen Poe, James Fenimore Cooper, William Shakespeare, Gottfried Leibniz, Jonathan Swift, Friedrich List, and Friedrich Schiller, the great authors of the American Revolution and the fight for its further development, were nowhere to be found at Berkeley in 1968.

A Remarkable Precursor to the Present

Lyndon LaRouche’s political movement was a major target of the FBI COINTELPRO operations aimed at beheading and otherwise destroying political organizations in the late 60s and early 70s. Contrary to popular myth, COINTELPRO was not the sole province of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. It was actually run by the British agent and actually fascist poet, James Angleton, at the CIA, and Angleton was, in the words of his biographer, “obsessed” with LaRouche.

LaRouche’s wartime service in Burma and later work in India had shown him the full brutal and murderous face of British imperialism, which he vowed he would eliminate from the Earth. LaRouche, like Angleton, understood that the key to subjugating a nation lies in destroying its culture, erasing its history, eliminating the sense of mission and purpose uniting its people. Angleton recognized that this insight and LaRouche’s genius made him very dangerous, a foe to be eliminated.

In our counterintelligence studies of the entities and groups which were attacking us, by far the most startling discovery for me, was about the violent anarchist gang, known as the Black Mask, or the “Mother Fuckers” (short for “Up Against the Wall, Mother Fucker!”). This violent gang, it turned out, was funded and wholly controlled by the private and very establishment Ford Foundation, led then by McGeorge Bundy, the dean of the U.S. establishment. The Foundation has a long and storied history as a cutout for the CIA.[fn_1]

The credo of Black Mask was the ID format of most terrorist gang formations throughout history, including the Antifa of today. As memorialized by the Jefferson Airplane song, “We Can Be Together,” it was:

We are all outlaws in the eyes of America. In order to survive we steal, cheat, lie, forge, fuck, hide, and deal.... Everything you say we are, we are.... Up Against the Wall, Motherfucker!

The Black Mask began with a violent campaign against Modern Art and New York City’s high “culture” on behalf of futurism, surrealism, and Dada, violently disrupting “cultural events” throughout the city. To quote from their own description of themselves:

From the start they demanded complete identity of theory and practice.... Which at the time left only one force with which they could identify: the post-Watts BLACKS. Only the Blacks’ rejection of everything was as highhanded and demonic as their own ... BLACK MASK and the French Situationists were the only whites at the time who really grasped the revolutionary feeling coming to boil in the U.S. race riots: understood that there was a really positive content to the looting, arson, and tentative gunplay, sensed the real joy and affirmation in what the whole Left shrugged off as complete nihilism.

The group quickly descended into murderous violence, becoming an inspiration for the Weathermen. Run by the ex-convict, Ron Morea, they claimed to have shot at cops from rooftops on the lower East Side and to have dynamited California’s electricity grid, and Berkeley’s water supply. Valerie Solanas, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic associated with Black Mask, wrote the S.C.U.M. manifesto, arguing that patriarchy and men had destroyed the world. This is exactly the same attack on “patriarchy” and the “nuclear family” which Black Lives Matter publishes on its website today.

The initials, S.C.U.M., stand for the “Society for Cutting Up Men” and was widely adopted as a statement of belief by major feminist groups of the time. Solanas took her beliefs further and shot New York modern art icon Andy Warhol, several times—an assassination attempt that Warhol barely survived. She said it was a publicity stunt for a play she wrote.

Later, the white remnants of the Weathermen and this gang would team up with the Black Liberation Army in a murderous rampage aimed, for the most part, at deliberate murders of cops.

And, again, this was all funded and supported by the Ford Foundation, the same Ford Foundation that funds both Black Lives Matter, and Antifa (albeit indirectly) today.

CC/Fibonacci Blue

Many who believe they are acting organically on behalf of necessary social change, become impotent in the face of violent anarchists among them. Here, a protest against police violence in Minneapolis, May 26, 2020.

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

Some Relevant History

Synthetic violent political cults, like Antifa and its nominal Alt Right opponents, have been created and/or fostered by state intelligence agencies in a history which stretches back to the machinations of Lord Shelburne in mobilizing the terrorism which ended the French Revolution. It was a mob-driven bloodbath which decapitated, literally, the French collaborators of the American Revolution. Like today, the mob toppled statues, and tried to purge all past history. Napoleon Bonaparte emerged as an imperial dictator from this “transformation,” launching numerous new imperial wars. You can find this history in EIR’s issue devoted to the “Palmerston Zoo.”

The immediate motivation of our student outrage in 1968, was the genocidal Viet Nam War, which, all of us sincerely believed, was an entirely American-led genocidal disaster. Through the researches of such historians as Derek Leebaert, it is now clear that British strategic planners, led by Malcolm MacDonald, and his salons for foolishly transfixed American military planners in Singapore, along with Anglophiles in the State Department, procured this strategic disaster. Even those of us who thought we were honestly and earnestly protesting had the wrong target.

All of the operations of terrorist formations since those days follow a similar pattern. State intelligence agencies or related private intelligence forces manipulate controlled violent gangs within larger political movements. Those within the larger political movements believe they are acting organically on behalf of necessary social change, changes which are marketed as “just” among all right-thinking people. The protesters who oppose violence, become impotent in the face of the violent anarchists among them. It is like the common tactic of terrorist militias who use civilians as a shield.

And those controlling the terrorist actors, for the most part the international Anglo-Dutch financier imperium, are doing so on behalf of larger geopolitical goals and stratagems, not the causes declared by the terrorists or the demonstrators.

There is one caveat which must be added to this familiar picture. It is that many of the young people in our country today have been literally brainwashed in their schooling to believe, irrationally, in the myth of catastrophic climate change. They have also been brainwashed to believe that America is structurally racist, has been so since 1619 when the first slaves arrived, and that identity is completely determined by your genes. That is why an intellectual war to bring back into currency fundamental ideas of science, classical culture, and the American Revolution, will determine whether the battle for this nation is won or lost.

The coup against Donald Trump, and his steadfast fight against it, have exposed these elites and their appendages as never before, and there is a dawning realization that they are weak, bankrupt, and acting out of desperation. The question is, can we recover the ideas of the American Revolution and take up our national mission again as the City on the Hill? Can we again define our mission as the Puritans’ last great leader, Cotton Mather defined it, as an all-consuming mission to “do good”?

Or, are we stuck with the elites’ definition of the United States, a Spartan-like military force willing to sacrifice entire generations of its youth on behalf of geopolitical aims: chiefly, depopulation and control of resource rich areas of the world, but, if necessary, new wars with both Russia and China?

Are we stuck with the decadent Republican Party elites and political class or can we assist President Trump in rapidly transforming the Party back to the working man’s party of Lincoln? According to Foreign Policy magazine, the Republican Party elites propose that Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo has already been chosen to succeed Donald Trump in leading the Party. If so, Trump’s intentions are down the drain and we are back to the Bush War Party.

Will the insurrectionists win in the 60 days now remaining before the election? Does that not mean some new Civil War as they seek to wipe out their opposition—something they already appear committed to unless the President wins the election by a very, very wide margin with a program which truly inspires the electorate to become greater than itself?

As importantly, will patriots fall into the traps now being set for them, founded on rage and reaction, forgetting that the American Revolution was won by superior ideas, not a superior force of arms, or tolerance of the same anarchism, appealing to racial identity, which impels the Jacobins?

In examining any of these synthetic political formations, like Antifa, the most fundamental question that needs to be asked is the one Lyndon LaRouche asked in every piece he wrote and every time he spoke: Are we, humans, no different than beasts, fallen and evil upon the earth with no redemption? Or, are we, as Christianity and Judaism assert, made in the image of God the Creator and meant through the powers of our minds, to participate fully in changing nature toward higher and higher orders of existence?

Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence fashioned a nation whose institutions were intended to foster individual creativity within a mission to accomplish the “good” for all. Antifa, and similar anarchist formations throughout history, including the anarchist materialism of Ayn Rand and Friedrich von Hayek, stipulate that men and women are but feral beasts, seeking pleasure and tribal affirmation in a tormented natural universe of pain. Both Antifa and its claimed neo-Nazi antagonists cite the anarchist philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche and Georges Sorel as primary philosophical mentors.

Azov News

U.S. neo-Nazis and white supremacists have trained with Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Brigades.

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

Some Very Pressing Questions and Further Specifications

The internet, the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and the war in Syria, mean that this generation of insurgents has a significant militarily trained component, both in street and guerilla warfare and in total information warfare operations shaping public opinion. The internet, and the use of the encrypted applications Signal and Telegram, along with the mastery of both social media recruitment and its use to inflame and enrage, have been significant accelerators of the violence. The internet itself, of course, deliberately fosters alienation and anomie, desensitizing children, many of whom fit the profile, “lonely, adolescent, white male,” for the purpose of committing murder.

Matthew Banta, age 23, who calls himself Antifa Commander Red, was arrested in Green Bay, Wisconsin on August 29, with a flamethrower, as he and others proceeded to a Black Lives Matter demonstration. Banta has a previous charge for pointing a loaded gun at a police officer and assaulting him. According to an August 28 posting in The Post Millennial, Antifa gangsters from Seattle, Washington were arrested in Kenosha as they filled dozens of large gas cans at a service station, their car loaded with illegal fireworks, gas masks, and body armor.

Elements of Antifa, internationally, served with the KPG Kurds force in the Anglo-American effort to dismantle Syria. What does John Brennan know about this? U.S. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists have trained with Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Brigades. ISIS itself formed a battalion fighting against the Ukraine’s rebellious citizens in the Donbass during U.S./British instigated Ukrainian Civil War. What do John Brennan and Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s Ukraine “point man” know about this?

These are some of the genuine questions which need to be asked, urgently, about what the intelligence community, particularly those serving in the Bush and Obama years, and among its private contractors circling the Beltway—the people who actually run the intelligence community—know about the present parade of violent destruction. They know a great deal about just such regime-change operations generally, using just such anarchist troops. They have been mobilized against Trump since the election—many of them were part of the spying operations against the campaign itself.

What role is Silicon Valley playing in all of this? After all, they have funded much of the RESIST coup against Trump and are now engaged in outright censorship of many supporting him. Don’t explicit calls to kill people and commit arson and general bedlam violate the “terms of service” used to censor Trump and his supporters?

Some of their financial angels, like Reid Hoffman and Ron Conway, consider their friends in the Democracy Alliance far too mild. Conway, a longtime left Democrat is generously funding the so-called Lincoln Project, a multi-million-dollar negative ad campaign advertising itself as Republicans opposed to Trump. Hoffman has already been caught funding a false flag internet dirty tricks campaign, which pretended to be Russian, against Roy Moore’s 2018 Alabama senatorial campaign.

How come, when teenagers google certain words, Silicon Valley’s algorithms lead them down a path of increasingly extreme and antisocial views? This was the case with the ultimately psychotic white supremacist Dylan Roof, who, at the grand age of 20, murdered nine black congregants of Mother Emanuel Church in 2015 in Charleston, South Carolina. This already mentally ill young man, diagnosed as schizophrenic, became a killer based on his Google searches.

Bill Binney, a former technical director of the National Security Agency, invented a system, ThinThread, which could, if utilized, actually pinpoint those involved in fomenting the present disorders, both here and abroad, in full compliance with the U.S. Constitution. It was shelved and transformed into something else. Something which was aimed at Donald Trump and his campaign from the NSA’s sister agency, Britain’s GCHQ. Something which works solely for the present elites. Do you really believe that the cryptologists at the NSA can’t make it past the encryptions of Telegram or Signal?

President Trump asked then CIA Director Mike Pompeo to meet with Binney back in November of 2017. Pompeo, a snake on the side of the globalists, heard Binney prove that large elements of the intelligence community were outright lying to this President, and then deep-sixed Binney’s evidence showing there was no Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee resulting in the files released by WikiLeaks. Thus, the necessary investigation which must occur at this point, cannot involve anyone even tangentially implicated in the assault against the President. It should involve a resort precisely to Binney’s Thin Thread to quickly track and arrest those responsible for the violence and the people who are funding them.

But, again, the most important aspect of going to war to save the nation means simultaneously exposing the false and satanic philosophies and decadent culture fostering these movements while conducting a contrary campaign featuring the profound ideas and principles which can actually lift the nation. It means rescuing the present generation of youth through the national mission to explore space, conquer disease and poverty, and to build new cities and a new economic platform. It means rescuing actual American history from the trash bin in which it has been placed. It means a return to teaching classical forms of culture, music, poetry, great works of drama, in our classrooms.

Both Antifa, and the various eco fascist white identity groups who are their deepest alleged foes, are tied directly to the burgeoning, world-wide Extinction Rebellion—the revolt led by high school age students internationally espousing the degeneration of society to feudal modes of existence in order to deal with allegedly pending and catastrophic climate change. The main perpetrators of the ongoing Antifa violence in Portland, the Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front, consists mainly of high school age students.

All of these terrorist youth gangs, steeped in the violent culture of Funk, Heavy Metal, and Gangster Rap, and brainwashed to believe fake climate science and Critical Race Theory (CRT) from a very young age, seek the dismantlement of the nation state and its replacement by communitarian small city states where wealth and status are distributed on the basis of genetic identity. Obviously, this leaves the complex and larger scale functions, like running the economy at large or navigating the boundaries of war and peace, navigating the great social transformations advanced science has on its doorstep, to the oligarchs the small enclaves were supposed to displace.

On August 29, when Patriot’s Prayer member and Trump supporter Aaron Danielson was executed by an Antifa supporter on the streets of Portland, the woman holding the bullhorn said:

And tonight, I just got word that the person who died was a Patriot Prayer Trump person. He was a fucking Nazi! Our community held its own and took out the trash. I am not going to shed any tears over a Nazi.

Left: CC/Pat Arnow right: WEF/swiss-image.ch/Michele Limina

Left: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo; right: Democratic Party megadonor George Soros.

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

The Current Insurrection

The British House of Lords, in its 2018 missive, “UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order,” has declared that under no circumstances will Donald Trump be allowed a second term. Anything and everything will be thrown at this result; the actual hand guiding it all concealed in the crescendo of manufactured events constituting the 24-hour news cycle. Psychological shocks administered to the population, in the present case through political neutralization of the president, political weaponization of a pandemic and economic shutdown, race riots, cancel culture and total censorship of thought, and assassinations (if necessary), are intended to prepare the way for the “re-imagined” world they want to build.

They will try even more shocks. The year 2001, for example, looked to be Antifa’s year for a major terrorist incident. After all, they had been violently attacking, under the banner of Anti-Globalism, most of globalization’s conferences in the U.S. and Europe, beginning here with the Seattle WTO riots in 1999. They were being financed then by the oligarch Teddy Goldsmith, a patron of Prince Charles and an ally in the Prince’s genocidal Malthusian global agenda. Goldsmith turned his idea of “Deep Ecology” into the motivation for terrorist operations on behalf of “Mother Earth” herself. See “Washington Is Oligarchs’ Next Target for Genoa Treatment” in EIR.

Instead, in 2001, we got another British/Saudi/American intelligence sponsored gang, known as Al-Qaeda. With it, the Iraq War, blind religious based terrorism internationally, and the institution of a full-blown surveillance state in the United States following in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the deliberate murder of nearly 3,000 Americans.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said that post-COVID, New York’s “re-imagined” world will be re-imagined by Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, and that ultimate brainwasher, Eric Schmidt, formerly of Google. At Davos, the globalists who seek total control of the future, outline a “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” centered on the application of artificial intelligence to the human body itself. They believe they have already conquered human behavior through their predictive behavioral drivers of mental life.

It is a world in which central bankers will control finance and resources in the “Open” borderless society imagined by the British philosopher Karl Popper, his aging protégé George Soros, and younger oligarchical wackos like Nicolas Berggruen.

As described by Diane Johnstone, in a piece in Consortium News, it is a world “in which borders and nation states dissolve into a kaleidoscopic mix of cultural identities with major decisions taken by financial oligarchs.”

The same type of shock-induced cultural revolution occurred in 1968. The fundamental American belief in scientific and technological progress and the optimism embodied in the generation which fought World War II, stood in the way of the design to wholly reconfigure and deindustrialize the U.S. and other advanced sector economies, maximizing profits for the financial elites. Their plan, begun with the takedown of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, could only be implemented if this fundamental cultural tenet, the optimistic belief and mission for progress, was attacked and smashed.

Donald Trump is seeking to revive that optimism with crash programs to conquer COVID-19, colonize the Moon, and journey to Mars. It is the most powerful weapon in the patriots’ arsenal, along with an actual understanding of the American Revolution and the ideas about the nature of humans and nature which arose from it—an understanding of the history which the mobs have been deployed now, to deliberately erase.

“Creative destruction,” and “purgative violence” were au courant watchwords of the Berkeley rioters in 1968—violence accomplished while pulsating to atonal rock bands, imbibing huge quantities of now freely available psychotropics, and exploring the outer limits of pornographic sexual brutality.

“Feeling,” we learned from the Berkeley’s counterculture, rather than thought, was the essential mode of individual human existence. Genetic identity and equality concerning identity, rather than creativity or intellectual achievement were the pillars of a just society. And, again, that’s really all we heard at the Democratic Party’s recent Convention.

We’re told, now, that the burning and looting the country is presently experiencing are justified forms of “reparations,” although the victims have been disproportionately Black and Hispanic. What was still deemed to be criminal and edgily nihilistic back in 1968, is now decriminalized, mainstream, and routine. Looting, rioting, assault on the police, will get you now a misdemeanor summons in New York City, if that.

And, in Washington, D.C. something that Consortium News called the Transition Integrity Project, is gaming out how to overthrow the United States government should Donald Trump win the election. On September 3rd, the nominal leader of this project, Rosa Brooks, published an opinion piece in the Washington Post instructing Americans to prepare for war should Joe Biden not win the election by a landslide. As reported by Axios, Michael Bloomberg’s millions are now being devoted to a huge vote-fraud-by-mail operation which his company, Hawkfish, claims will reverse the results of the November election after Donald Trump appeared to have won by a significant margin.

As this article is being completed, CBS News published an interview with Mark Zuckerberg, where the Facebook CEO said his platform would not allow anyone to declare an election victory while mail-in votes were still being counted, that any such claims would be treated as “disinformation.”

January of 2017, Backwards and Forwards

Beginning in November of 2016, a dedicated movement was put into place to immediately remove Donald Trump from office. The spying and information warfare operation run directly from Obama’s Oval Office had failed to win the election for Hillary Clinton, a result which had seemed assured.

Those who ran this operation, the information warfare operatives from Ukraine and U.S. intelligence agencies, the FBI, Britain’s MI6 and GCHQ, and the State Department, key Congressmen and Senators, the mainstream news media, were so convinced they would succeed that they were reckless, leaving a neon trail leading right back to them. That trail has been exposed through Congressional and Justice Department investigations, and declassifications which are continuing. The remaining issue is how much light Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham will shine on all of this through their investigation.

For our purposes here, it is sufficient to state that the conspirators had no choice if they were to maintain their own power, but to proceed with a coup, a regime change operation in the United States itself which is well-nigh four years old now. It has ceased to be a regime change operation or a coup; it is now a full-blown insurrection.

They had counted on Hillary Clinton’s victory to cement the managed decline of the United States begun so forcefully under Barack Obama. They had committed crimes on behalf of this goal. If they did not continue their operation, their discovery and demise was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

This part of the current insurrection, call it the D.C. Swamp supplemented by the British, was immediately complemented in early November of 2016 with a campaign apparatus utilizing extant progressive Democratic Party organizations and new ones engineered singularly to remove Trump, like Indivisible.

Under Obama, from 2008 forward, the Democrats always sought to shape and control public opinion through creation of a fully scripted echo chamber, dedicating millions of dollars to exactly this project. WikiLeaks released a document from John Podesta in 2008, describing it. Writing to Democratic Party megadonors George and Jon Soros, Peter and Jonathan Lewis, Herb and Marion Sanders, Steve Bing, and John Sperling, Podesta described creating “grassroots organizing; multi-issue advocacy groups; think tanks; youth outreach; faith communities; micro-targeting outfits; the netroots and blogosphere … to drive the content of politics through a strong ‘echo chamber’ and message delivery system.”

cc/Hungryogrephotos

Willful property destruction in Minneapolis, May 29, 2020.

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

Hundreds of organizations have come into and gone out of existence in years since Podesta’s memo, training thousands in the methods of non-violent protest, and funding selected others in street fighting, riots, arsons, and targeted killing. The primary private funders of this effort have been grouped in the Democracy Alliance of billionaires and millionaires.

Beginning right after the election in November 2016, Move On and other organizations began placing ads on Craigslist and similar outlets promising to pay significant sums for protesters against Trump. At the same time, in December of 2016, a group called Refuse Fascism was formed. It was a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party and was intended to coordinate street violence, including various otherwise longstanding U.S. Antifa operations. The extant Antifa organizations—and they are that, despite anarchist pretensions claiming they are solely “affinity groups”—were particularly centered in the Midwest, including prominently, Minneapolis, the South, and the West Coast, particularly Portland, Seattle, and Oakland.

Refuse Fascism’s leading lights in its initial organizing calls were the aging Maoist Bob Avakian, Obama friend and former Weatherman Bill Ayers, and Cornel West. Avakian and his Revolutionary Communist Party have been studied by the LaRouche movement since the 1970s. It is a terrorist formation heavily penetrated by British intelligence.

The Weathermen, as most know, engaged in a series of bombings in the 1970s with splinters still engaged in violent attacks on police as of the 1981 Brinks robbery. Their writings about how to survive underground and how to foment terror are wildly popular in the anarchist underground today.

Refuse Fascism and Antifa, in the U.S., have been funded by the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ). AFGJ is written up repeatedly as a solidly radical left-wing funding source whose original purpose was to support the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But its donors substantially overlap with the Democracy Alliance and mainstream Democratic Party funders. They include Soros, the Tides Foundation (a conduit for various other “investors” including the Robert Woods Johnson and Ford foundations), the Surdna Foundation, and other lesser billionaire funders.

Since the events in Charlottesville, where Antifa was mainstreamed as a legitimate left organization, its violence ignored or justified, money has poured in and new organizations have sprouted.

Take Minneapolis, for example. In 2017, the Black Visions Collective was formed there. It has received $19 million, much of it in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis cops. The multi-million-dollar haul came from a coordinated Democratic Party fundraising drive featuring Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro, and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Black Visions played and is playing a significant role in the Minneapolis riots.

Refuse Fascism’s 2016 mobilization resulted in the street violence during President Trump’s inauguration. That violence was motivated by the inflammatory and false portrayal of Trump as a new Hitler in a propaganda campaign primarily oriented to labile, well-meaning, but completely uneducated young people.

CC/Lorie Shaull

Triumph of the anarchists: The Lake Street area of Minneapolis, May 28, 2020.

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

Refuse Fascism and their Democratic Party echo chamber absolutely lied about the nature of fascism and the reasons for its actual rise in Europe during the interlude between World War I and II. It was, in actuality, a synthetic political movement, financed by the British Crown, the Banque Worms in France, and fully supported by the Harrimans, their agent Prescott Bush, the Rockefellers, and other Wall Street families, along with the Bank of England. The force behind it was called “the Synarchy” by American intelligence, which kept a file noting its ideological flexibility. That flexibility was even noted in the file name itself: “Synarchy: Nazi-Communist.” EIR reported on this in 2003 in an article by Anton Chaitkin, and another by Lyndon LaRouche.

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

In August of 2017, another round of staged violence occurred at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Following the President’s election, Charlottesville, the city itself, had declared itself the organizing center for the anti-Trump “Resistance” nationally. In Charlottesville, Richard Spencer, the founder of the racist Alt Right, a rich young man sent to elite private schools who was for years a permanent student at the University of Virginia, University of Chicago, and finally Duke University (as a PhD candidate in European history), led a disgusting and completely set up rally allegedly aimed at preserving the statue of Robert E. Lee.

Spencer, aptly described as a “Nazi in pinstripes,” cites Nietzsche and the German Conservative Revolution (including Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger, and Martin Heidegger) along with French New Right theorists Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye, and Julius Evola, Francis Parker Yockey, and Aleksandr Dugin, as his major mentors. He seeks the creation of racially homogeneous entities, such as a transformed European Union, as the answer to inevitable, genetically derived, racial tensions.

Antifa was in Charlottesville in force to protect counter demonstrators from the Alt Right Nazis. Numerous conflicts and fights erupted as police drove the two groups into one another. A protester, Heather Heyer, was killed when James Field, a violence prone 20-year-old psychotic from Ohio, who was mesmerized throughout adolescence by Hitler and video games, drove his car deliberately into the protesters.

When President Trump condemned the Nazis and Antifa and noted that some people in Charlottesville simply showed up to defend the Lee statute, the media and the Democrats went wild: The President was ambivalent or against calling out Nazis and racists, they screamed. Yet, he had condemned racists and Nazis several times in the same remarks as the out of context and altered single quote cited repeatedly since, by Joe Biden and the news media. See Politico.

Today, both Richard Spencer and Bob Avakian have made a big point of endorsing Joe Biden. Are you beginning to understand how this has all worked?

Mark Bray’s Very Tall Tale

Mark Bray, a professor and Antifa advocate, wrote a book, Antifa The Anti-Fascist Handbook, about the history of this actually fascist formation, which was released and reviewed in August of 2017, the same time as Charlottesville was otherwise mainstreaming these thugs.

Since then, Bray’s book has become the staple of every news media account about Antifa. The book is false in almost every respect.

It contains some useful information about what Bray calls the first explicitly Antifa group in the U.S., the Anti-Racist Action group, which emerged from a group of skinheads opposed to Nazi skinheads in Minneapolis in 1987. Both the Nazis and their Antifa opponents were devotees of Funk outlaw culture. They modeled themselves on a British organization of the same name. Bray traces their evolution, which was largely based on their collaboration with the Weatherman-dominated John Brown Anti-Klan Committee. He also notes that Portland’s Rose Antifa formation has been in continuous existence since 2007, consciously modeling itself after European Antifa organizations with exchanges of personnel and internet collaborations.

Kingofthedead

Antifa counter-protesters made sure that a peaceful Patriot Prayer rally in Portland, Oregon on June 30, 2018 turned violent.

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

But Bray assumes, like the propagandists of Refuse Fascism, that fascism is some biological secretion of the nation state, technological progress, and the “authoritarian” personalities which lead national entities, made authoritarian by the leadership position itself. He totally endorses the central premise of Critical Race Theory: racism is in the genetic code of white people, particularly genetically concentrated in white males. All of the institutions and ideals white people salute, such as equality, merit, character, and a “color blind” society, are the actual machinery of structural and institutional racism, it claims.

Bray deliberately ignores publicly available evidence about intelligence community control of recent Neo-Nazi and White Nationalist entities. For example, the World Church of the Creator, which played a huge role in neo-Nazi and white identity movements in the U.S. and Canada in the 1990s, turned out to be a wholly owned entity of the Canadian intelligence services. See “British Commonwealth Secret Services Deploy Neo-Nazism” in EIR.

Examination of the East German Stasi files following the fall of the Berlin Wall demonstrated that almost every neo-Nazi movement in post-World War II Germany had been a product of Stasi operations aimed at destabilizing West Germany and other western states. See “Thirty Years of Collusion Between the ADL and Stasi” in EIR.

Having completely fabricated a Leviathan monster, Bray announces that violence and totalitarian suppression of dissident speech is the only remedy against it. The same “remedy” was proposed by Hebert Marcuse, the former State Department intelligence employee and member of the Frankfurt School, who left his post at State to become the philosopher of the New Left. Marcuse invented the totalitarian “cancel culture” advocated by Bray and rampant in our society today. According to Marcuse, “repressive toleration” is a cultural imperative if society is not to fall into another round of fascism. And, “repressive toleration” means toleration of the ideas of the so-called left liberal elite and cancellation of all opposing viewpoints.

Most important, Bray’s mythical account simply ignores the fact that anarchists from the time of the French Revolution forward have always been used for specific strategic ends by the financiers controlling them. In 1970s Europe, the anarchist gang, the Red Brigades, killed the Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, leading to years of instability in Italy. The Moro family claimed, continually, that Moro’s assassination had been ordered by Henry Kissinger.

Tony Negri, a leader of the Red Brigades, developed the key guiding concepts for the Autonomen political movements in Germany and Italy which were deployed against the continued use of nuclear power in Germany and in numerous other operations destabilizing the German state.

ANSA

The body of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, assassinated by the anarchist gang, the Red Brigades, May 9, 1978.

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

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Margaret Thatcher’s British government launched a full-scale information warfare campaign against the German government of Chancellor Helmut Kohl, centered on the idea that a sovereign and united German nation state would necessarily become a Fourth Reich. The Antifa and Autonomists were deployed to terrorize the population and contributed to the cover for the professional assassination of Alfred Herrhausen, the President of Deutsche Bank and one of Helmut Kohl’s closest advisors. The Maastricht Treaty, creating the disastrous, globalist European Union, followed. See “It Is Time to Name Herrhausen’s Killers” in EIR.

Fascism’s rise also occurred in the midst of extreme popular pessimism, flowing from the total destruction of Europe in World War I and the continued economic devastation dictated by the Versailles Treaty imposed by the British and Wall Street after World War I. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has chronicled the actual dynamics in play better than anyone. See “The Historical Roots of Green Fascism” in EIR.

The Frankfurt School’s Role in

Modern Hybrid Warfare

Instead of revealing the actual forces responsible for World War II, the Institute for Social Research, also known as the Frankfurt School, created a myth as to the causes of fascism. This myth has animated the synthetic “left” and “right” in extremist politics ever since, including Antifa and the Black Lives Matter movement today. It is at the center of Mark Bray’s fraudulent history. Its ideas are also the enemy arsenal which anyone wanting to take this nation back must confront and completely refute. As should have become clear throughout this essay, ideas and culture are what shape history. Superior cultures and superior ideas are what move humanity to higher and higher levels of development.

Initially funded by the fortune of the world’s largest grain trader, Hermann Weil, the Frankfurt School’s leading lights included the British agent Karl Korsch, George Lukacs, the “Communist” proponent of purgative violence and terror, Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno, and the Nazi Martin Heidegger’s lover, Hannah Arendt.

They were neo-Marxists and Freudians, recasting Marx. Their project was originally a joint endeavor of the Communist International and the British Fabian Society. After Hitler’s conquest, the Fabian Society arranged their move to Columbia University in New York under Rockefeller Foundation sponsorship. Following the war, they moved back to Germany again.

They claimed that the “authoritarian personality” (like that displayed, they claimed, by Franklin Roosevelt and most Americans), produced fascism, and that the nation state, the belief in absolute and universal truths, and Judeo-Christian religion were its drivers. Fascism, they argued, was an organic secretion of the state itself and the alienation resulting from the “industrial age” and “technology.”

The police, or other repressive representatives of “authority” are, of course, the enemy.

The Frankfurt School called for an all-out Kulturkampf (cultural struggle), overturning all of the popular assumptions of the nation state system. Their preposterous and satanic myths were foundational to the New Age 1960s counterculture, along with the brainwashing studies of London’s Tavistock Institute, and the control of huge chunks of the western intelligentsia and media by the MI6-CIA Congress for Cultural Freedom.

“Critical theory,” the bizarre method of thinking which denies that there are any universal truths, and claims all events need to be “deconstructed” based on individual subjective experiences of “power relationships,” is based wholly on the original Frankfurt School thinkers and their protégé, Jürgen Habermas. The writings of outright terrorists, like the Italian Red Brigades member Toni Negri, are also significant in its modern incarnations. It is a cult religion which has been used to brainwash now, entire generations of youth, and dominates every university course in the political or social sciences, or in languages and law, today.

go.joebiden.com

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, Democratic Party candidates for President and Vice President.

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

Complementary to “Critical Theory” itself is “Critical Race Theory,” a field begun in law schools in the late 1980s and early 1990s, principally by Derrick Bell, Jr. and Richard Delgado. If you are wondering why lawyers seem to have lost any real idea of the law and are now leading the jihad against the President of the United States, this is a good place to start. Angela Onwuachi-Willig, dean of the Boston University Law School, recently noted, “You’ve got this open generation that grew up exposed to this language in middle school, high school, and certainly in college. It’s not called ‘critical race theory,’ it’s just something you know.”

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is presently being mandated by Human Resources departments throughout the government, including Sandia Labs, NASA, and the FBI. It claims that the European Enlightenment, and other dead white male philosophers promoting the belief in universal truth, have created the “structural” institution of racism. A review of its central tenets reveals that CRT is actually focused on the ideas of the Renaissance, the very ideas that animated America’s Revolution.

As analyzed by John Murawski, “racism is understood” in CRT “not as a smattering of intentional acts of bigotry, but as an entire system that runs on auto-pilot and operates imperceptibly to whites who are punch-drunk on the myths of color blindness and individual self-achievement.” The white beliefs in individualism, objectivity, neutrality, meritocracy, and color blindness are what keeps black people down, the views of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King to the contrary be damned.

Derrick Bell, Jr. wrote various prose stories to illustrate CRT. One of them, The Space Traders, is a story in which white Americans trade black Americans to space aliens in order to pay off the national debt and receive advanced technology such as environmental decontaminants and alternatives to fossil fuels. His story demonstrated that whites act to protect their own white self-interest. Bell explained “[It’s] better [to] risk the unknown in space than face the certainty of racial discrimination here at home.”

Imagine what black space pioneer Catherine Johnson, who, as documented in the movie, Hidden Figures, changed her discriminatory work space and brought astronaut John Glenn safely back to Earth from space, would think about Bell’s dystopian view.

Or, as enunciated by Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention, there is no “vaccine” for structural American racism. There is no economic solution as Dr. King and anyone with a brain knows and believes. Instead, various forms of virtue signaling, the pacification of language to exclude “micro-aggressions,” and an endless stream of reparations, are supposed to mitigate the impact of a permanent cancer which will take generations, and a complete obliteration of the tradition of the European Renaissance and the American Revolution to heal.

This, of course, is a recipe for permanent sectarian and racial conflict, a recipe for an unending internal national devolution. The stakes on November 3rd, could not be higher.

[fn_1]. See Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, The New Press, New York, 2013. [back to text for fn_1]

December 31, 1997

Aide-Memoire

ON COMMAND IN WAR-FIGHTING

The Principle of the Strategic Flank

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

The following, marked “Personal Memorandum,” by Mr. LaRouche, is being published here for the first time.

The Death of Paulus Aemilius at the Battle of Cannae, painted by John Trumbull, 1773.

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

In the present succession of moments of crisis, when the command initiatives of the higher levels of the U.S. Executive are crucial for the future of civilization, it is urgent that the true meaning, rather than the popular misreading of the “principle of the flank” be appreciated, especially among those who must be concerned for the effectiveness of the U.S. Executive’s initiatives in the present domain of strategic financial, monetary, and economic war-fighting.

I believe this aide-memoire will be useful in the right hands.

I have recently reactivated my earlier references to this crucial correction of the usual misreading, as a matter of cautioning our associates against catering to self-deluding preoccupation with the subject of submitting “suggestions,” prospective legislation, and “programs,” for consideration by relevant authorities.

On this account, I have, recently, once more, contrasted the blunders of “young” Moltke in World War I, with the 1792-1793 achievements of Lazare Carnot. I have adopted the emphasis placed by one of our collaborators, upon Frederick the Great’s (Prussia) turning the Austrian command’s attempt at a “classical Cannae” flanking operation into a rout of a nominally superior Austrian force. Here, I prefer to reference a study which I presume may be found, conveniently, in the Library of Congress: Generalfeldmarschall Graf von Schlieffen: Die taktisch-strategischen Aufgaben aus den Jahren 1891-1905, E. S. Mittler u. Sohn, Berlin, 1937. I shall refer to the work of von Schlieffen, but shall develop my argument for the present moments’ strategic situation afresh, as the difference in predicates makes necessary.

The principle to be emphasized, may be summed up: After all else is said and done, the essential strategic flanks are those which the commander of one force correctly detects within the mind of the opposing commander. Thus, the foolish Roman commanders, by concentrating their forces, to form an irresistible “ram,” created a flank against themselves, in the mind of Hannibal. Hannibal’s achievement that day, was not to discover a tactical principle of geometry of force-deployments; Hannibal’s achievement was to recognize the vulnerable flank lodged within self-deluded minds of the over-confident Roman commanders. Even when he possesses overwhelming advantage in forces and firepower, as the Romans did that day, the set-piece warrior (who, like just another bureaucrat, but in military harness, seeks to cover his reputation by sticking to a textbook solution), is, frequently, eminently defeatable by a reasonably well-served, less intellectually constipated, more creative, opposing commander.

Both photos: E. Bieber Studio

Left: Alfred von Schlieffen, in 1906; right: Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, in 1906.

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

The relevance of the Schlieffen case, is, that had the German command not made stubbornly willful, informed violations of the principles of Schlieffen’s plan for a four-nation aggression against Germany (Britain, France, Belgium, Russia), there is no credible doubt on the available record, that Germany would have won World War I during the opening weeks of the clash of arms. The failure to achieve that victory was entirely the result of a fatal command failure in the top echelons of Germany’s political command. Hence, the misconduct conducted by “young” Moltke, admittedly under the pressure of the political command, makes a perfect contrast to Lazare Carnot’s outstanding role as “Organizer of Victory,” at a moment of France’s ostensibly assured imminent defeat and dismemberment by invading armies of virtually all the other powers of Europe.

Thus, I have frequently presented the contrast of “young Moltke” to the case of Carnot’s leadership, to demonstrate the truth, that strategic flanks exist principally in the minds of the opposing individual commanders of the opposing forces, not in the principles of geography as such. The principle of the strategic flank is more of a political principle, than a military principle as such; as such, it applies equally to what we, during the mid-1980s, defined as “irregular warfare.” It applies, with full force, to the current U.S. struggle for survival in the currently escalating, global, systemic, financial-monetary crisis.

Schlieffen, Moltke, and Carnot

With consummate thoroughness, von Schlieffen had prepared what would have been assured early victory by German forces in 1914, had the weak-minded nephew of Britain’s Edward VII, the German Kaiser, not lacked the nerve to stick to the conceptual design underlying “the Schlieffen Plan,” or had “young Moltke” shown the Entschlossenheit to impel the Kaiser to give way to reason.

By playing commander of each and all sides, in turn, during the relevant staff studies (as the referenced text documents this in heavily diagrammed detail), Schlieffen identified the relevant crucial elements of strategic blindness in the minds of the British, French, and Russian command. Had the “Plan” been executed as designed, without the temporizing which actually occurred, the war would have ended by early Autumn, with France defeated, Britain expelled from the continent, and Russia hastening in search of an early and hopefully generous peace at German hands.

The essence of the “Plan” was the exploitation of a potentially exploitable, crucial vulnerability, inhering in the virtually congenital, cultural weakness in the separate and collective mentalities of the respective British, French, and Russian commands—unfortunately, also a fatal disposition inhering in the Kaiser’s own mentality, and, most emphatically, the kindred, stubborn idiocy of that Austro-Hungarian Kaiser, whose paw, like the paw of Czar Nicholas II, was trapped in an Anglo-French Balkans “monkey-trap.” In short, it was the oligarchical legacy of the Vienna Congress’s “Holy Alliance,” which doomed continental Europe to suffer the protracted war and its sequelae.

Had Germany’s republican tradition, which the Schlieffen Plan represented, and upon which Germany’s strategic potential depended, not been subordinated to the idiocy of the three Caesars of Austria, Russia, and Germany, Germany would have ended the war quickly, decisively, as Schlieffen outlined. (Indeed, but for the combined idiocies of the Romanov and Hapsburg “Caesars” of the moment, the guilty party, the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale, could not have forced the war upon Germany. The German Kaiser was the least guilty of all the nominal heads of state in this affair, less guilty, in fact, than the U.S. White House’s disgusting Ku Klux Klan buff, President Woodrow Wilson.)

Lazare Carnot, in a portrait by Louis François Lejeune, 1843.

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

The case of Carnot, which has been addressed by Pierre Beaudry and me, earlier this year, illuminates the same principle with somewhat different points of emphasis.

In the tradition of Scharnhorst, Schlieffen relied upon the well-trained civilian military reserves, which gave the German military forces that depth of strength, the which was greatly, and foolishly underestimated by the British and French warmakers. However, where the operations laid out by the Schlieffen Plan begin with highly trained, well-equipped forces, with relatively excellent logistics, Carnot’s initial problem was the use of virtually untrained recruits and a large ration of military commanders who were, for various reasons, unqualified for their assigned missions. Where the Schlieffen Plan relied upon the level of industrial technology available in the world at the time of outset of war, Carnot transformed the French military forces technologically during the stunningly brief period of his command, introducing the machine-tool design principle into the conduct of warfare for the first time.

Thus, as the Kaiser snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, Carnot snatched victory from the jaws of certain defeat. There are significant differences between Schlieffen’s address to the problem before him, and Carnot’s; yet, underlying both outcomes, is a common strategic principle of the human mind.

Precisely the same class of potential advantage adduced, in one way, by Schlieffen, and, in another form, by Carnot, is to be sought in the minds of the enemies of the U.S.A. in the present global financial-monetary-economic crisis. On the darker side, there is also the looming shadow of threatened defeat, should the wisdom of the combat commander be polluted with failure of nerve, and the all-too-customary, legendary, ultimately suicidal “small compromises,” induced by means of a loss of nerve fomented from within the bureaucratized political processes of the national command, bring our nation to ruin.

For the present case, I have recently identified the most important of the present-day enemies’ implicit strategic vulnerabilities within my “Wells of Doom” article and “Truthfulness versus ‘mere Factualness’.” [See the article, “Truthful, or merely ‘Factual’?.”] However, I think it necessary to draw out here, and underline with great emphasis, some of the underlying historical implications of those treatments, as I proceed to do now.

Strategy & History

The principle of the strategic flank reflects the very essence of the willful role of the individual in the making of history. No individual ever willfully made history, in the meaningful sense of that term, except by expressing the principle of the strategic flank. On that account, we must now interpolate some provocative observations to clarify the meaning of terms.

The relatively rare candid observer of public opinion, shakes his head sadly: The prevalence of a whorish lust for popularity prompts certain romantic idiots to delude themselves, that any sports figure who gains a moment or two of celebrity in the modern entertainment arena, has thereby “made history.” Modern history has been efficient in making and unmaking prominent political figures, but virtually none of them, even the most celebrated, has actually made history in the sense that, for example, President Abraham Lincoln did. With very rare exceptions, such as President Franklin Roosevelt, General Douglas MacArthur, Konrad Adenauer, and, for a moment, President Charles de Gaulle, few among the prominent statesmen of this century who have occupied office during important events, actually “made” the history over which they are credited with presiding. To credit them with “making history,” is like congratulating one of the surviving passengers for the train-wreck from which he is being extricated by emergency crews.

President Franklin Roosevelt demonstrated the principle of the strategic flank in his political leadership. Here, he is addressing the American people in one of his famous “fireside chats” from the White House.

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

Make history? What is history, that it might be made? Could we impart to the creature featured in a dog or horse show, a sense that he or she has made history? Could that winning dog or horse, impart a sense of such a historical event to other members of the same species? History is peculiar to the human species, and pertains to aspects of human behavior for which nothing comparable is to be found among any other perceptible species of existence.

Let us test this conception. “Does the universe have a history?” If so, where do we find this history. Someone might point to the Sun, and say, “What you think you see as the Sun, is something which happened about ninety minutes ago.” Or, broader observations may be made in looking up to a clear night’s sky, where the distance which visible light has travelled, from distant stars and galaxies, is measured in millions, to hundreds of millions of years, or more. Where does “history” exist in this stellar universe? The answer is the same: history, including the history of any species, or of astronomical objects, exists solely within the individual human mind.

There, within the refinement of this area of inquiry, the principle of the strategic flank is situated.

The distinction of the human species, apart from, and above all others, is the developable cognitive processes of the individual human mind, by means of which the individual person variously originates and replicates the act of original, valid discovery of new principles of the universe. By means of adding such discovered, valid principles to the repertoire of human judgment and practice, mankind has increased its potential relative population-density, otherwise described as our species’ per-capita power over the universe which we inhabit.

These principles, so discovered, are called by Plato, et al., “ideas,” and are so distinguished from the inferior class of conceptions which are known either as mere sense-perceptions, or as deductive constructs based upon mere sense-perceptions. The process by means of which changes in the characteristics of the human condition are ordered through such ideas, is the proper significance applicable to the term “history.”

The primary characteristic of history is the increase of mankind’s per-capita power over the universe, as accomplished by means of the discovery, replication, and practice of ideas. By derivation, we include under “history,” those efforts, such as so-called neo-Malthusian practices associated with the tradition of the Roman Emperor Diocletian’s imperial code, which have the effect of tending to prevent, or reverse mankind’s increase of our species’ per-capita power over the universe.

It is within history so defined, that the principle of the strategic flank is situated.

The general class of ideas has two phases. On the one side, there are, 1.) validated physical principles of the universe. On the other side, 2.) validated principles inherent to the processes of individual cognition, by means of which valid principles of the universe are newly discovered, or such discoveries replicated. To situate the principle of the strategic flank, the distinction and the functional interdependency of the two classes of ideas must be considered.

Top left: Portrait by Johann Friedrich Wentzel; top right: Portrait by Christian Albrecht Jensen

Clockwise from top left: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855), Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866).

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

Validated physical principles are expressed as “dimensions” and Leibnizian “universal characteristics” of Riemannian forms of a series of physical-space-time manifolds. First, each addition of a new such “dimension” has two characteristic types of predominant effects: a manifold of “n” degrees is superseded by a manifold of “n+1,” or relatively higher degrees. (A degeneration is treated as an asymmetrical parody of a case of progress, but in reverse.)

Second, as if independent of the simple number of dimensions added, each higher-order Riemannian physical-space-time manifold, has a specific Gauss-Riemann, identifying form of non-constant curvature in the infinitesimally small, the which is the Leibnizian “universal characteristic” of that species of manifold, as Leibniz’s published writings on this subject, during the 1680s and 1690s, defined this principle of non-constant curvature in the infinitesimally small to be the ontological principle (e.g., Monadology) of the infinitesimal, in his calculus.

The principles of cognition are of a higher order of potency than the principles of physics. Although the principle of the strategic flank takes physical principles’ efficiency into account, the primary focus is upon the higher order of principles, those of the domain of cognition as such. On that account a summary review of the pertinent, distinctive characteristics of the cognitive process as such, is required here.

The Social Expression of Cognition

As a matter of summary review. Viewed from the physical economist’s view of the principle of machine-tool design, those cognitive processes engaged for a validated discovery of a new physical principle, are best apprehended for comprehension by representing them in terms of a four-step process, as we have done in other locations. We begin this necessary interpolation with a restatement of that four-step process. The process begins with the recognition of a true ontological paradox within the experimental domain of application of what have been adopted as valid physical principles. The term “ontological paradox” is employed here as the predicament of the character Parmenides’ persisting failures, in Plato’s Parmenides, provides the relevant Classical paradigm for functional definition of the term “ontological paradox.”

For the case of physical principle, we have to consider, on the one side, a presumed ordering of existences within the physical domain, this a belief which is ostensibly required by the relevant experimental evidence. On the other side, we are confronted by the existence of a state in nature, which is implicitly prohibited by that, ostensibly experimentally well-grounded belief; but, this implicitly prohibited state is shown to exist as actuality by ostensibly experimentally well-grounded evidence. The conflict thus implicitly attributable to the domain of the experimental evidence, constitutes an ontological paradox. The crux of the matter is, that no formal solution to such a paradox could be found within the province of existing belief, such as an existing mathematical physics.

The solution to such paradoxes can not be obtained within the domain of any medium of communication. The relevant difficulty, is that modes of communication, which must be, by their nature, a mode of sense-perceptible representations, operate on the basis of sense-perception. (Hence, the very notion of a “statistical information theory” is a pure hoax from the outset.) Although we refer to ideas, which are not themselves objects of sense-perception, by words and phrases, the referents for those words and phrases (in such uses of language) do not refer to sense-perceptible objects, but rather to mental objects, which, although physically efficient principles, have no representable form within the domain of sense-perception. These ideas exist only within the minds of the speaker and hearer, not within the domain accessible to the senses; in communication, we use words and phrases to reference such purely mental objects, objects which have no sensible referents in sense-perception.

The discussion of ideas, therefore, depends absolutely on the ability of the speaker and hearer to be certain that they are referencing approximately identical mental objects, objects which exist only outside the domain of sense-perception, only within the cognitive processes of the human mind.

So, in a class of bright students, confronted with a relevant ontological paradox, a student raises his hand, to announce, “I have an idea!” Thus, if the student is correct, we have passed from Step One of the cognitive process, the rigorous definition of an ontological paradox, into Step Two, the totally internal, sovereign cognitive processes of the individual student, one by one. The process by means of which a valid idea is generated, as a solution to the ontological paradox, is not susceptible of representation in forms accessible to any mode of communication.

However, such ideas lead to proposed representations of the way in which a principled solution for the relevant ontological paradox may be demonstrated. “If my idea is right, then, we could....” That is, we could manipulate nature in a certain way, with the result that nature would show us the efficient presence of a corrective principle corresponding to both a solution for the ontological paradox, and an expression of what the student, who has raised his hand, termed, “My idea.” Thus, in these terms, the efficiency of the idea is representable in sensory terms, even though the process of generating that idea, within Step Two, remains beyond the reach of sensory representation. So, we have representable Step Three.

Finally, we must produce the rigorously defined experimental test of principle, perhaps by a series of successive approximations: Step Four. This process is representable.

Those who have shared the experience of passing through Steps One through Four, including the sovereign experience of Step Two (“in parallel”), now have shared comprehension of an idea which has been demonstrated fully to be an efficient operating principle of the universe, a principle which governs otherwise inexplicable behavior among sense-perceptions. Those who have shared this Four-Step experience successfully—either as original discoverers, or who, as students, replicated the mental experience of the original discoverers—now recognize that discovered idea, that principle, by referencing those communicable terms which we have come to adopt as pointing toward the cognitive experience of the Four-Step generation of a valid principle of nature.

The problems centered in the sensorially invisible act of Step Two, force our attention to a class of problems of a higher order than any heretofore broadly accepted notion of “physical principles” has come to include. How do we coordinate action in terms of Step Two of the respective individual cognition processes of separate individual persons? In other words, how do we effect an efficient form of social relations in terms of ideas as such; how are separate persons enabled to respond in a coordinate, cognitive way, with effective common-action solutions for problems, in the case that no previously established body of agreed belief provides such a common solution?

The solution for this latter problem exists. It is that which has come to be known by what was recently virtually banned from Germany by measures including the so-called “Brandt reforms” in education: Classical humanist education of the type associated with the name of “Humboldt” reforms, or Schiller-Humboldt principles of aesthetical education. The education of the young in any civilized society is based on the same principle central to the “Humboldt Reforms.”

In an effective Classical-humanist education, the students do not learn. Instead of today’s generally imposed educational policies, fortunate students relive the original act of discovery of a valid principle of Classical scientific knowledge, and of Classical art-forms. Thus, instead of merely learning to pass multiple-choice-questionnaire examinations, as trained animals do, these students are human; they know what they are talking about, as most of today’s recently successful secondary and university graduates do not.

The repeated reenactment of the Four-Step process, for geometry, for physical studies, for Classical art-forms (don’t waste, corrupt, and ruin the students’ mind on “popular” rubbish), affords the student in well-managed classes under Classically-trained teachers, an often repeated sharing of the Four-Step cognitive experience. This Classical-humanist mode of repeated experience, is indispensable for the production of quality human adolescents and adults.

Left: Johannes Kepler (1751-1630); right: Gaspard Monge (1746-1818)

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

Obviously, such education can not pick ideas at random as if out of a grab-bag. There is a certain order in humanity’s discovery of relatively valid new principles. This is well illustrated by study of mathematics and mathematical physical science from the vantage-point of the evolution of geometry, from the Archaic Egypt type, through Classical Greece and Hellenistic culture, into the modern non-Euclidean geometries of (actually) Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Leibniz, Monge, Gauss, Riemann, et al. (Gauss’s Disquisitiones Arithmeticae illustrates this point.)

Similarly, we have the emergence of the superior forms of Classical art, by the times of sculptors Scopas and Praxiteles, from the earlier, inferior, archaic forms of Egypt and Greece. Thus, a Classical-humanist education has the form of a student’s reliving the discovery of successive layers of ideas; the student, so educated, becomes a morally superior type of personality, a “world-historical personality,” a person who is a living embodiment, in exemplary degree, of the history of human ideas over spans of millennia. The contrast with the morally inferior popular type of educational product streaming from the Orwellian “support group” brainwashing of today, the post-modernist existentialist type of ahistorically disposed cultural relativist, is to be emphasized.

Society: The Work of ‘Angels’

As I had occasion, once again, to set forth the moral imperative for the person of conscience in these troubled times: The proper function of society, is the production of human ‘angels.’ Some Russian guests at our conference and seminar, in Germany recently, were taken by surprise, but curious, and amused, at such an unfamiliar view of the matter. Restated here, this is a pedagogical view of the human individual which offers the best vantage-point for insight into the principle of the strategic flank.

“I am an angel?” retorts the astonished child.

“You were not told what your mission is. That, you will have to discover for yourself.”

“You mean, like wings?” the child elects to play the game.

“No wings. No special powers except those any human being can develop.”

“Then, what could I do?”

“It is angels just like you who keep the entire human race from being destroyed.”

“What happens to me?”

“You die, like any mere mortal.” “Oh.”

“But, you die happy.”

“Happy?”

“I am not talking about pleasure. For that, you might see the other guy,” gesturing downward, meaningfully.

“Oh.”

“You will be filled with joy, because, if you do your mission, you know you were a real angel, because you were needed. Your life was necessary.”

What can we do for our “little angels” of that sort? We can develop them as “world-historical” personalities, who embody both the work of the past, and the hope of mankind’s future. They come, thus educated, from many generations of education in the past history of ideas, and, also, represent the interests of future humanity, our posterity which can not yet speak for itself, to minister to the present on behalf of humanity as a whole. Thus, in that sense, are they angels.

Right now, the recruiting offices are open around the clock; with the big war looming now, our legions of angels are urgently in need of recruits. Warrior angels make the best strategists, by the way; it is a talent which goes with the profession.

The object of justified warfare is not a mercenary’s way of carrying out whatever orders are issued by those who pay him. The object of justified warfare, is a much higher calling: to win for the interest and sake of future humanity, and to win in a way which serves the proper objectives of future humanity.

Win what?

The goal of classical education is to develop personalities “who embody both the work of the past, and the hope of the future.” Shown, Praxiteles’ sculpture of Hermes and the Infant Dionysos.

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

The characteristic of the good, is development. This features development in the sense associated with an anti-entropic ordering of a series of human scientific and technological progress, as describable by a Riemannian physical-space-time manifold. Yet, there is something not inconsistent with such progress, something which subsumes such progress, but which is qualitatively higher: The ordering of social relations in a way which corresponds to the nature of man as expressed by Step Two of the Four-Step process described. It is improvement of social relations as defined in those terms of reference, which is crucial. This is what is exceptionally well embodied in the designs of our Federal constitutional republic, as supplied by such as Gottfried Leibniz by way of such as Benjamin Franklin, or President Abraham Lincoln:

1. The equality of all persons, and the sacredness of each individual human life, by virtue of nothing different than that developable quality of creative cognition expressed as Step Two of the Four-Step process. There is no distinction among persons because of so-called “racial” or “ethnic” origins—indeed, the term “race” should be banned as disallowed for reference to any human being by any action of government or law otherwise.

2. The right of all persons to participate in development of those cognitive potentials in terms of science and Classical art-forms.

3. The primary obligation of society to govern its affairs to such effect that each person is afforded access to those productive and other roles in society’s life, which are consistent with the nature of the individual by virtue of endowment with that cognitive quality, and which are consistent with the development of that quality in the individual.

4. The duty to free mankind from such wicked relics of mankind’s ignoble past as the reduction of entire peoples or individual persons to the sub-human status of slaves, serfs, or worse, and the degradation of nations by subjugation to such evil relics of a bestialized past as inherently usurious forms of parasites such as landed aristocracies and financier oligarchies.

5. Above all, the precedence of truth and justice based upon truth, both for mankind as a whole, and each person, this at the expense of offense to any opinion, institution, or mere procedure which might tend to bar the way to open utterance of truth, and to prompt and thorough natural justice for its own sake.

Implications

Look at recent developments in the ongoing global financial collapse against the foregoing background.

The refusal of the U.S.A. and others, to commit public resources of nations to “bailing-out” financial creditors of South Korea (and, implicitly, other rapidly upcoming cases), confronted the class of bankers with a Hobson’s choice: roll over the debts, at the price of creditors becoming bankrupt themselves, should the debtor default. In Europe, New York, and Tokyo, the music played a merry tune between Christmas and New Year’s day, and the dancers—however badly—danced, even without the presence of Secretary [of State Madeleine] Albright to lead them in these festivities.

Next week, the presently hegemonic faction in Japan might not choose to dance. That could mean consequences leading toward renaming Japan “East Korea” soon afterward.

And, so on....

How like a classic military flanking situation’s end-game!

As if to indicate, freshly [now, in December 1997], the way in which Gaussian non-constant curvature-in-the-small functions as Kepler-Leibniz characteristica universalis, the South Korea situation contains all of the typical elements of the unfolding global crisis. The strategic flanks of the larger process are reflected in that specific case.

The objectives of financial-crisis warfare feature the following.

First, the resources of the South Korean nation, must be insulated from the threatened insolvency of the banks. Second, the banks must be insulated against the financial distress which speculation has brought upon non-banking corporate interests. Third, the threatened insolvency of virtually every leading corporate interest, must not set off a spiral of increasing industrial unemployment, and therefore the IMF’s cut-back in the real economy must be nullified and otherwise frustrated. Fourth, there can be no solution, as long as speculative financial markets are permitted to set the current prices of national currencies and of related national assets. The pervasive issue posed by the outright lunacy of Michel Camdessus’ (“Cam-Dessous”?) IMF, is the fact, that the IMF proposals drop South Korea’s economy hopelessly below a definable economic break-even-point on import-export trade-accounts.

Nations must produce sufficient hard-commodity exports to cover the costs of their essential hard-community imports. For example, in the South Korea case, where the shift from individual unit housing to high-rise packing-cases has accelerated the degree of import dependence for the nation’s essential food-supplies, the IMF program means galloping hunger, and rapid explosion of industrial unemployment toward and above the critical 1,000,000 mark.

This situation is potentially even much more explosive in Japan, and throughout non-China, East and Southeast Asia. It represents a rather near-term critical strategic threat to China, too. The conditions radiating from this kind of deterioration, into western continental Europe, and touching Ibero-America and the former Soviet bloc, mean a global explosion of incalculable scope, in the near future, probably during 1998, unless this IMF lunacy is crushed now, probably within the month of January. This is end-game time; tolerable alternatives no longer exist.

Thus, viewing this as a survey of the terrain of the battlefield and forces deployed, we should recognize the idiocy of proposing a “program” for this situation. As with the Christmas-New Year’s bankers’ dance, forces will be moved, chiefly, not because they are won over by programmatic arguments, but because they are terrified of the consequences of accepting the conditions forced upon them by unfolding circumstances. The conditions and forces are displayed; the issue is how to play them.

The play must be premised upon an intended end-result, not a programmatic design. The necessary end-result, is to utilize the internal dynamic of the systemic collapse, to orchestrate a series of stimulus-response behaviors, during which the adversaries maneuver themselves, by their own energy, their own perceived vulnerabilities, into the very ultimate positions they wish to avoid. The greatest single advantage of the U.S.A. in this situation, is the rapid emergence of a clear, urgent mutual interest among the U.S.A., China, and a bloc of nations intersecting coincidence with a virtual political war against London, now centered in de facto partnership on this between Iran and Egypt. Under conditions of generalized panic, the correlation of forces and field of battle can be rapidly transformed into one favorable to preemptive action by a group of nations centered around the U.S.A. and China.

What we must end up with is a New Bretton Woods echoing in large degree the anti-Winston Churchill, post-war intent of President Franklin Roosevelt’s American reconstruction of an empire-free world. This would never be brought about by waiting for a democratic choice; it can only be brought about through exploiting the strategic flanking opportunities offered by the ongoing explosion of the worst crisis in more than five centuries of world history.

The governing consideration is the choice of conception of the nature of man, and of man’s relationship to the universe, on whose behalf one fights under crises such as this. Without such a clear image of man, accordingly, I doubt that any nation’s leadership has the ability to lead the way out of this present crisis alive.

In the instances of Aristotle’s enemy, Alexander the Great counselled by the Platonic Academy of Athens, Lazare Carnot, Generals Grant and Sherman, Schlieffen, and General MacArthur’s command in the Pacific, we have examples of the best military leadership. Alexander’s unmatched victory outside Arbela, was a great step forward for humanity, even though those who, like Aristotle, sought his death, ruined much of what might have been, had Alexander not been poisoned. Carnot’s victories were premised upon the commitment to do a great good, not only for France, but for humanity. Sherman, perhaps the greatest master of the flank in modern history, and Grant, were committed to a great good for all humanity.

Schlieffen represented the highest level of civilization in Europe, features integral to his plan for victory over the moral degenerates who ruled Britain and had gained control over France; the root of Germany’s tragedy was the moral degeneration of a Germany corrupted by the decadent influence of theosophy-anthroposophy in the highest ranking political—and, also, military circles.

U.S. Army/AP

Gen. Douglas MacArthur, in his command in the Pacific, was a master of the military flank. Here, he is shown returning to the Philippines, October 20, 1944.

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

MacArthur, who, with Roosevelt’s backing, and that of Australia’s [Prime Minister John] Curtin, won the Pacific War with no credit due to Truman’s two atomic bombs or the useless slaughter of both Americans and Japanese introduced both by some of MacArthur’s political opponents in the Navy command and a corrupt, libelous U.S. mass news media, was a leader of exceptional moral stature, not merely military skills per se.

It is the commitment to good, which must be viewed as an essential resource both of intellect and moral will, in seeking the choice of strategic flanks to be exploited for what must be the oncoming historic victory of the U.S.A. in this present conflict against humanity’s London-centered foes.