Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 47, Number 47, November 20, 2020

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL Joe Biden Has a ‘Transfusion Team,’ and Wall Street Is Ecstatic

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 47, Number 47, November 20, 2020

- I. ‘Regime Change’ by London and Wall Street

- City of London’s Regime Change: The ‘Green Horizon’ Finance Summit by Marcia Merry Baker and Richard Freeman

- II. Trump Fights a Military-Intelligence Coup

- KIRK WIEBE AND HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE The 2020 Election—An Intelligence War with High Stakes for the World

- Trump Moves Forcefully AgainstThe Military-Industrial Complex by Mike Billington

- Mexico’s President Stops Stampede To Recognize Biden by Gretchen Small

- Bolivians Reverse Ukraine-Style Coup, Look to the Future with Hope by Cynthia Rush

- Trump Crash Program Brings COVID Vaccines; Some Dems Prefer Dying for Biden by David Shavin

- III. Lyndon LaRouche Sized Up Biden

- The Deeper Grounds for Philosophical Doubts Respecting the Existence of ‘Joe Biden’ by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1987)

- IV. Build the World Land-Bridge!

- Can Iraq Be a Center of Development Rather Than Conflict? Interview with Hussein Askary

Never Trumpers’ ‘Great Reset’

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

Editor-in-Chief: Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Co-Editors: Marcia Merry Baker, Michael Billington, Stephanie Ezrol, Paul Gallagher

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.

EDITORIAL

Joe Biden Has a ‘Transfusion Team,’

and Wall Street Is Ecstatic

WEF

HRH Charles, Prince of Wales

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

Nov. 9—A world conclave of champion people-eaters, united by the objectives of taxing carbon, eliminating fossil fuels, and reducing the human population, began a gala “Green Horizon Summit” today under the leadership of HRH Charles, Prince of Wales; British central bankers Mark Carney and Andrew Bailey; and Wall Street-London billionaire Sir Mike Bloomberg. So lavishly did Bloomberg’s money overflow the campaigns of Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats this year, that this three-day City of London summit can mark the formation of the “Biden Transfusion Team.”

And Wall Street went wild with enthusiasm, accelerating the market’s recent rise by roughly 1,000 points Monday, as Biden again spoke publicly of a “dark winter” with COVID shutdowns, traders saw visions of more quantitative easing following from the Federal Reserve. The market has risen more than 2,000 points since the media began claiming that Biden was getting elected President.

This summit, sponsored and hosted by the City of London, the square-mile conclave of medieval banking guilds under the lord high Bank of England (BOE), is the most elaborate central bankers’ festival thus far in “the Great Reset.” This is the latest name, made up by the World Economic Forum and IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, for what Prince Charles and his pal Mark Carney have been pushing for a decade: Having a combine of central banks and the other biggest private banks enforce the sacrifice of economies and people to “save the planet.” Claiming that sovereign governments are now exhausted and broken by the COVID pandemic and its shutdowns, they are casting central bank dictatorship and forced divestment from advanced energy and agriculture, as “green finance,” or “the Great Reset,” or even—for the “deplorables” of the working classes—”Build Back Better” after the pandemic.

At the Green Horizon Summit

Speaking on just the first day of the “Green Horizon Summit” were Prince Charles; Mark Carney; Carney’s successor at the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey; Larry Fink of BlackRock; David Blood of the Blood and Gore hedge fund with Al Gore; European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde; Georgieva from the IMF; UN Secretary-General António Guterres; several British ministers; Dame Elizabeth Corley of the Impact Investing Institute; Christiana Figueres, Global Optimism, former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from 2010 to 2016—i.e., the Paris Agreement; and Dr. Ma Jun, Member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China, who has some explaining to do as to why he’s still part of this sacrifice and depopulation cabal. Ma has been the third man with Carney and Bloomberg in the leading task forces of central bank “green finance” since 2014.

Chief “Davos man” Klaus Schwab keynotes Tuesday; Bloomberg Wednesday.

The central bank cabal took aim at both private finance and government debt. Prince Charles’ bosom pal Carney—now the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, who also has Financial Stability Board and World Economic Forum positions—announced a private finance “initiative” to “make every finance decision take climate change into account.” The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, said the UK is building a “green sovereign yield curve” so that every sovereign bond would pay a higher rate if not for economic sacrifice or “green technology” purposes; Sunak said large companies and financial services must report their impact on climate by 2025, and the central banks and BlackRock would do it for them as well, according to Carney and Bloomberg’s Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.

And on and on: Banks will now get “climate stress tests,” said BOE governor Bailey; Georgieva enthused that “To win the fight against climate change, we also must harness the power of the financial sector.” ECB president Lagarde declaimed that “The economic challenges of the climate transition are phenomenal,” but undoubtedly these challenges are for other people’s economic circumstances, not her own. They loved taxing carbon. And they loved Joe Biden. Mike Bloomberg’s special advisor, Mary Shapiro, former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said the difference Biden would make “for climate” would be “extraordinary” and that a Biden Administration would “only be a positive for the future of financial reporting on climate risk.”

There is only one major national leader who has stood firmly and publicly between his nation’s economy, and this juggernaut of central bankers and Wall Street-City of London billionaires. They coerce governments and companies to sacrifice industries, modern technologies, and populations, “for the planet,” while they build the new green bubble, the “Great Reset.” That one leader is President Donald Trump. It hasn’t only been Sir Mike Bloomberg among this collection of elite bloodsuckers who has been sworn to take Trump down. It’s the whole “Biden Transfusion Team” of them. If you don’t look forward to a 14th-century future of windmills and dirt farming without livestock, hope that Trump wins his battle against election theft, and work for it.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 47, Number 47, November 20, 2020

Cover This Week

Left: CC/Arnaud Bouissou; right: Agência Brasil/Ricardo Stuckert/PR

“Let them eat themselves.”

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

THE NEVER-TRUMPERS’ ‘GREAT RESET’

2 EDITORIAL

Joe Biden Has a ‘Transfusion Team’ and Wall Street is Ecstatic

I. ‘REGIME CHANGE’ BY LONDON AND WALL STREET

5 City of London’s Regime Change:

The ‘Green Horizon’ Finance Summit

by Marcia Merry Baker and Richard Freeman

II. TRUMP FIGHTS A MILITARY-INTELLIGENCE COUP

8 KIRK WIEBE AND HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

The 2020 Election—An Intelligence War with High Stakes for the World

15 Trump Moves Forcefully Against the Military-Industrial Complex

by Mike Billington

17 Mexico’s President Stops Stampede to Recognize Biden

by Gretchen Small

20 Bolivians Reverse Ukraine-Style Coup, Look to the Future with Hope

by Cynthia Rush

23 Trump Crash Program Brings COVID Vaccines; Some Dems Prefer Dying for Biden

by David Shavin

III. LYNDON LAROUCHE SIZED UP BIDEN

27 The Deeper Grounds for Philosophical Doubts Respecting the Existence of ‘Joe Biden’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

September 28, 1987

IV. BUILD THE WORLD LAND-BRIDGE!

37 Can Iraq Be a Center of Development Rather Than Conflict?

Interview with Hussein Askary

Correction: To correct EIR’s article, “Beethoven’s 2020 Vision for World Harmony Celebrated,” (EIR January 3, 2020, pp. 30–33), the editors wish to state that the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture is an independent nonprofit organization which presented the December 16, 2019 concert at Stern Auditorium/Perelman Stage of Carnegie Hall, New York City, titled “Beethoven 250, Celebrated!”. The Schiller Institute’s New York City Chorus was invited to participate in the celebration, and it opened the concert with a performance of Brahms’ Nänie.

Note to the Reader: Part 1 of David Shavin’s article, “Think Like Beethoven: Fidelio, Lafayette and LaRouche—or the Big Elephant in the Room,” appeared in our November 12 issue. Part 2 will appear in our November 27 issue.

I. ‘Regime Change’ by London and Wall Street

City of London’s Regime Change: The ‘Green Horizon’ Finance Summit

by Marcia Merry Baker and Richard Freeman

WEF

Among the luminaries speaking at the Green Horizon Summit were (middle row, left to right): Mark Carney, UN Envoy for Climate Action and Finance (former Governor of the Bank of England); HRH Charles, Prince of Wales; and Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York City. Their goal: net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

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

Nov. 14—A slew of the planet’s most prominent bankers, billionaires, and hangers-on met November 9-11 in London and on-line for the conference, “Green Horizon Summit—The Priority Role of Finance.” The event, hosted by the City of London Corporation, which is the core square mile of the financial neo-British Empire, was co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Green Finance Institute, itself funded by the City of London Corp., the British Treasury, and other UK government ministries. The conference was the latest and most extravagant yet of the “Great Reset” initiative to remake the world economy post-pandemic. This vainglorious project, effectively a plan to seize huge amounts of wealth from nations and their citizens worldwide, was launched in June by the WEF, and by the British crown, represented personally by His Royal Highness Charles, Prince of Wales.

This week’s gathering, and the power-grab process underlying it, signify a regime-change operation underway by the City of London and Wall Street, to displace governments and take over what should be nations’ sovereign authority over their economic and financial systems.

Among the more than 100 luminaries on the roster were Mark Carney, currently UN Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, and former Bank of England Governor (2013-2020); the heads of the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of England; top officials from major banks and finance companies, e.g. BlackRock and KPMG, and others. UN Secretary-General António Guterres spoke. A host of the usual green ghoul personalities participated, from Prince Charles, to Sir Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates. There were 10 sessions over three days.

WEF

This chart from the Green Horizon Summit plots a pathway to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. If allowed to succeed, this “Great Reset” will deindustrialize the world economy and massively reduce the human population.

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

The explicitly stated message, conveyed in various ways by the different speakers, is that carbon emissions must be reduced to net zero by 2050, and well on the way to that by 2030, or life on Earth will perish. Therefore, the transition must be thorough and fast to end fossil fuels and transform, i.e., downgrade, all other aspects of the economic base of existence accordingly. The method to do this, given that governments may be too slow, is to use “finance” to enforce the green transition. This means to selectively withhold credit to, and heavily tax, taboo emitters such as coal plants, cows, and too many people. Instead there must be measures to induce and coerce funds to go into approved “green” investments—solar and wind energy, plant-based diets, etc.

Mark Carney is a lead activist in this process, and spoke about it, along with Sir Michael Bloomberg and the many others. They were the ones, after the 2015 Paris Accord on Climate Change, who set in motion a network of new, and ramped-up agencies and initiatives with major central banks and huge private banks of London and Wall Street at their center. Their purpose was to set standards and rules to penalize investments and activities proscribed by Wall Street and the City of London, and to demand governments support whatever the green bankers wanted instead, from windmills, to ending meat-eating. (See the September 2019 EIR Special Report, ‘CO_2 Reduction’ Is a Mass Murder Policy Designed by Wall Street and the City of London.)

The unstated message at this conference, and all along, especially since 2015, is twofold: big bucks can be made off a new Green Bubble, which Wall Street and the City of London need to continue their existence, given that their system is at the blow-out stage, after years of casino banking, not productive investment. And the second, and touchy part of the usually unspoken message, is that there are too many people on the planet anyway, and getting rid of a lot of them through downgrading their means of existence, is desirable.

In terms of these goals, this week’s conference is part of two overlapping campaigns. It figures in the countdown to the November 2021 COP26 world conference in Glasgow. Mark Carney is the official COP26 Finance Adviser on this to Prime Minister Boris Johnson. (For a thorough profile of Mark Carney, see Paul Gallagher’s EIR article, “Mark Carney: The Prince (Charles) of Central Bankers.) And on a parallel track, the Green Horizon finance event is part of the series of conferences on various themes—energy, transportation, agriculture, health care and more—of the Great Reset initiative launched June 3, by HRH Charles and the World Economic Forum.

The Prince: Pandemic a ‘Great Opportunity’

An especially odious point was made at the launch of the Great Reset June 3, stressed by Charles, a co-sponsor with the WEF, who said that the pandemic has provided a great “opportunity” for zero carbon emissions. Since the economy is suffering, when it is built back, it can be green. Then this week he said:

The current pandemic has brought unimaginable devastation to people’s lives, livelihoods, and national economies. At the same time, the green recovery represents an unprecedented opportunity to rethink and reset the ways in which we live and do business. I have long believed we need a shift in our economic mode, that places nature and the world’s transition to net zero [emissions] at the heart of how we operate, prioritizing the pursuit of the sustainable … growth in the decades to come.

Charles unveiled a ten-point action plan, which he calls his “Marshall Plan,” revolving around carbon pricing, carbon taxes, carbon market exchanges, shutting down fossil fuels, and establishing large-scale green financing in hundreds of trillions of dollars. (The “Marshall Plan” tag is apt for the British; unlike other European countries, they used their Marshall Plan aid after World War II solely to pay their otherwise unpayable debt. Now they are trying to do it again on a far vaster scale, over the opposition of the American President Trump.)

The Prince said that the need is to “proactively mobilize investment in sustainable infrastructure with a focus on carving out a global asset class for sustainable project financing to unlock capital currently invested elsewhere.” How many are ready to have their capital “unlocked” by this thief? Charles and his City of London allies have built up to this green fascism over five decades. Now, they have accelerated.

WEF CEO Klaus Schwab speaks in the same language as Charles about the pandemic being a benefit for a green economy to come. Schwab, as stated on the WEF website for its “COVID Action Platform,” says, “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, re-imagine, and reset our world.” On the last day of the Green Horizon Summit, KPMG official Michael Hayes said that COVID-19 has been, “nothing more than a dress rehearsal for climate change,” so it is time to act fast.

Speaking at the opening of the Summit, Carney stressed the commercial benefits of “going green.” This theme is carried through in two reports released this month. The first is by Carney, in his official capacity for the UN and as Prime Minister Johnson’s Finance Adviser for COP26. Titled, “Building a Private Finance System for Net Zero,” the 30-page document has as its premise, that financial networks are to rule the world, so investors—including governments, must comply with the green terms that are being set for them now.

A second report out this month, titled, “Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets,” results from an effort led by Mark Carney, involving the Institute of International Finance, McKinsey Management, and Bloomberg Philanthropies. The 100-page document focusses on how to cadge businesses to participate in green markets, which, states the report, have to increase 15 times over by 2030.

Chairman of the Taskforce, Bill Winters, CEO of Standard Chartered Group, spoke at the Green Horizon Summit on how the current compliance of business in decarbonization is too small, and not “consistently credible.” So, he says, the proposed “voluntary carbon market fills that gap.” HRH Charles did his part for this drive by setting up the Sustainable Markets Initiative in September 2019, in league with the World Economic Forum.

Her Majesty’s Civil Servants Perform

Certain notable green finance events occurred in Britain during the time of the conference. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak told the Commons on November 9 that in 2021 the UK will issue its first green gilt—a government bond that will be floated on the financial markets, whose funding will go to carbon-reducing projects. He also announced his government’s commitment to phase in mandatory green rules. Sunak, who also addressed the summit the same day, said, “We’ve announced the UK’s intention to mandate climate disclosures by large companies and financial institutes across our economy by 2025 … [making Britain] the first G20 country to do so.” Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey told the conference that the UK government’s goal is “supportive of the transition to a net-zero economy. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, we took far-reaching action to make the financial system more resilient against crises—COVID is the first real test of those changes.”

Thus, what the City of London Corporation’s Green Horizon Summit said in its title, “The Priority Role of Finance,” it meant. The event was a conclave on how sovereign governments must be made subservient to the new “green finance” control networks. This is the meaning of the Great Reset: The Great Regime Change. The Summit was closed by William Russell, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, who blithely promised that there will be more details to come on the necessary post-pandemic, green “transition” to COP26. Carney menacingly warned that, “leaders and laggers on the road to Glasgow” will be under watch.

II. Trump Fights a Military-Intelligence Coup

KIRK WIEBE AND HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

The 2020 Election—An Intelligence War with High Stakes for the World

Vote Fraud and Intelligence Warfare

This is the edited transcription of opening remarks made by J. Kirk Wiebe to the Friedrich Schiller Birthday Celebration Broadcast, hosted by the Schiller Institute on November 10, 2020. A video of the entire program is available here. Subheads have been added.

Schiller Institute

J. Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst at the National Security Agency.

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

Kirk Wiebe: We are at a decision point, and also a Constitutional crisis in these United States, and as Helga Zepp-LaRouche and others of the LaRouche PAC have noted in the past, what happens in the United States, here, now, in this moment, as we sort through the corruption that has been launched on our elections process, this will determine where we are headed, within a few short months. A President is to be sworn in on January 20.

Just so that you get an understanding of the greater picture in how this could possibly unfold, (1) the first is, the President’s team discovers so much corruption on a scale sufficient to change the election result that you’ve all seen, in favor of Trump, and then the states will be ordered to do everything from recounts to audits. A recount is just, go back, re-total the vote, and send it in. Unfortunately, that’s not good enough. It will uncover some fraud, but it will not uncover all of it.

And so, an audit is something more detailed. You actually have to go back to the ballot, and determine if the ballot was legally cast. In the United States, most states mandate that the election totals be completed on November 3. In our case, because of COVID, some judges in lower courts have taken it upon themselves to extend the counting period past November 3. In some cases, ruling that additional 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 days could be added. Some of those were disputed by the Trump Administration, and they were cancelled; but in others they were allowed to proceed.

Now, what you need to understand is, judges do not control the election process. The U.S. Constitution puts that in the hands of the state legislatures. They decide on how the voting process is going to be conducted, and they set the rules. So the Trump Administration is going to challenge any ruling where this counting was extended beyond November 3, and they will likely have to go to the Supreme Court, where the belief is, that Trump will get a favorable ruling. Then the question is: What’s the remedy? Do all votes that were postmarked after November 3, or, that came in late and back-postmarked to November 3, if that can be determined, will those be thrown out? And are they of such volume that it would change the election?

LBJ Library/Jay Godwin

James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence.

FBI

James Comey, former Director of the FBI.

CIA

John Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

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

Fraud, Fraud, and More Fraud

There are other avenues that are being pursued. You may have heard of the Scorecard and Hammer, a computer-based, software-based method of cheating, wherein, the reports that are being reported to the state level, that contain the count of the vote, is changed as its being transmitted over the internet. That’s not really new technology, changing things in real time as they go over the internet; that technology’s been around, around 15 years, maybe even 20 years.

So, it’s nothing new. It’s just that the application of it against our national election process and against the American people is what’s new, and absolutely illegal!

In any case, what I want to do before I get too into the different types of fraud, I’d like to give you just a little quick background about this Hammer and Scorecard. First of all, this whole cheating going on before us is not one means of cheating. There are four or five involved, and I’ll talk about those a little bit more in a minute. But the one that everyone’s hearing about, besides mail-in ballots and ballot-stuffing, is this Hammer and Scorecard. That technology is really not new. That technology’s been around probably about 14 years or so, I would say. But it was designed as a tool, a weapon to be used in the war against terror, and that was the purpose, originally.

But in February 2009, and the names we hear associated with this activity, this illegal activity, are James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence; he’s been former CIA director. He actually teamed up with John Brennan, head of CIA, who wasn’t initially head of CIA in 2009, but was in the high levels of intelligence, to make a copy of the Hammer and Scorecard capability, and use it in a clandestine, hidden way in a valid, U.S. government facility, on the Eastern Shore of Chesapeake Bay, in the state of Maryland, at a location called Fort Washington, Maryland. And there is a secret compartmented facility at that location.

Now, it is said to have operated there. When the whistleblower on the Hammer and Scorecard came forth—his name is Dennis Montgomery—when he saw this happen, and he developed this technology, he couldn’t live with himself and he attempted to blow the whistle. People didn’t want him to blow the whistle. People in high positions of power during the Obama Administration, wanted to squelch, or stop Montgomery from getting his word out. And that worked, for a long time. And one of the steps that they used, was to put Montgomery under a gag order, and that even predates the time that Brennan and Clapper took the technology illegally, to use it for illegal purposes.

Courtesy of Kirk Wiebe

Hammer and Scorecard: This schematic shows how the Hammer supercomputer, working together with a PC having the Scorecard application, controls switches on the internet and alters data within transmission packets according to an algorithm, without being detected.

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

He was put under the State Secrets Act, so that Dennis could never talk about the hardware and software capabilities he had built. So, Dennis, you have to understand, is under the threat of prosecution if he violates the classification, the classified information access documents he has signed, and also the one from the State Secrets Act. People say, “Why didn’t he come forth sooner?” He was gagged. And when he finally does come forth, in 2015, he goes to the FBI and gives them 47 hard drives full of evidence. Comey, James Comey is the head of the FBI at that time, and nothing happens! Nothing happens!

And so Montgomery tries to use different means to get this made known to good people, people who believe in the law, in government, but he couldn’t do it, and he had to be careful about what he said because of the legal threat sitting on top of him. Well, so in an effort to break this story loose, we were contacted by a journalist and she befriended Dennis Montgomery, and managed to ask him to provide evidence. When I saw Sidney Powell get on American television and talk about the Hammer and the Scorecard, and how it corrupts an election, I put 1+1 or 2+2 together in my mind and I’m fairly certainly that she must have ended up getting in touch with Dennis Montgomery. And thank God that is so!

How Hammer and Scorecard Works

Let me explain to you, a very short explanation of how the Hammer and this software called Scorecard works: The Hammer part of this two-part system is what opens doors on the internet. It controls switches on the internet. Everything on the internet goes through a switch and it’s routed according to the address of the data you’re sending down the internet, whether it’s you sending an email, a congressman sending a Word document—all data are packetized, put into little pieces of information, and they all have addresses. They’re like little bugs going down the internet.

And if you only open one or two pieces, you actually can’t do that. Your system, your computer will say it’s a corrupt file or there’s data missing, and won’t know what to do with it. So all the parts of an email, all the packets of a Word document must arrive, not necessarily exactly at the same point in time, but within a period of time, and your computer knows how many packets there are, and when the last one arrived. So once they’ve all arrived, it will show up in your email queue, as an email with Word document, or whatever, and you can click on it and read it. And that’s the way the internet works.

Guess what? When the election process is reporting votes, they do the same thing: They take numbers, put them in a document of some type, some format, could be an Excel spreadsheet—it’s up to the various states—and they send them to the state level to be part of the final total, for that state. Now, when that report is sent over the internet from the counting machines, and you need to know, [that] the counting machine, at least, of all the voting process, is connected to the internet for this reporting purpose; that’s why it is connected to the internet.

But it’s not secured internet. And so, a device, a program can come in—and I’m going to give you this metaphor, this illustration of what’s happening: Imagine you are driving down a major highway. It may be I-95 in the United States, over here in the East Coast, a very famous route for going north and south; it may be the German Autobahn, it may be some other, but I’m talking about a modern highway with multiple lanes of traffic going both directions.

That’s the internet, because, really, traffic, these little packets go both directions. Some are going out, some are coming in, and being transmitted all over the world, accordingly to their addresses, that I just mentioned. And the switches know the addressing scheme, so they are the gatekeepers that open a lane there, close a lane there, open one there; and everything gets—it’s amazing, but it’s not rocket science. It’s logical and it’s understandable; it’s actually quite simple.

So, here’s what happens: The Hammer opens up the switches and routes, for the Scorecard portion. So your car is driving down the internet. Think of that [car] as a packet of information and your part of a voting total report. So you’ve got some numbers or parts of numbers in your packet, and the other 300 packets behind you, they also have numbers. So the Scorecard reaches out, grabs your car/packet, opens the door, takes that data out, an algorithm computes the difference between Trump and Biden, for example, or a senator and some other senator of opposing parties; and as long as the differential between the two is 3% or less of the total, the Scorecard will take votes away from Trump, put them in the Biden column, and debit the Trump. So there’s not really more total votes, at that point, but they’re switched, from Trump to Biden. The door is shut, the car is put back into the network, in this case, we’re talking packets, and sent on its way!

Now, what I just told you about, happens in microseconds, so that no one is waiting. They don’t even notice it! We all know that when you send an email to someone, it doesn’t arrive in one second. It takes 10, 20, 30 seconds, because of the switching an email has to go through as it makes its journey down the internet through these switches.

So, no one knows the better. The vote total is changed on the fly, and this is happening in multiple states across this nation! And so, it’s one of the other methods of cheating.

Dominion Systems Fraud

Now, you have heard about the Dominion, the Dominion problem. That’s a different issue. That’s software on a voting machine—not a counting machine, a voting machine. And so, it simply points out that software can be hacked and changed in a voting machine to do nefarious, wrongful, illegal things, like changing votes for somebody else. Oh, you didn’t vote for Trump, you voted for Biden, and that’s how your ballot gets counted! And so, that’s what that particular problem is.

Dominion is used in numerous states, many, many states in these United States, and the Michigan example, where Dominion took away 6,000 votes from Trump and gave it to Biden—people right now are investigating, if that same 6,000 votes or some thousands of votes, if that issue—that’s not a “glitch,” that’s a programmed-in software—if that happened in other states, on a large scale. And if so, you can imagine, there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of votes, when you multiply 6,000 across numerous states, hundreds if not thousands of voting machines, throughout all the counties and precincts that make up our electoral structure.

Another version of cheating is happening, and that’s where the counting machine, that—remember, we talked about reporting the data and the Scorecard grabs it over the internet; there’s also a capability that Dennis Montgomery has told me about, where false logons were put into the counting machines. He used the number 5,000—5,000 logons; he didn’t say 5,000 machines, but it could have been 5,000 machines; or 200, I don’t know that number. I’m just telling you, false logon credentials were embedded in these systems, such that a remote user, through a computer via the internet, could log in to that counting machine, and change the total, before it gets reported.

So you may have cases where counting machines were changed already, reported up, along the internet, and the Hammer/Scorecard grabs it, and puts another delta, changes it yet again, and adds even more votes.

All right, so if this is beginning to boggle your mind a little bit—don’t feel alone—to keep all this straight.

Traditional Ballot-Stuffing

And there’s also ballot-stuffing; now, that’s really where you simply send out a bunch of ballots and people illegally fill them out, whether they’re not registered properly, or legal to vote in a voting precinct in a state; and just falsely fill them out, put them in boxes, and take them to the Post Office. We already have an example, again in Michigan, where a video camera caught a car drive up, unload three boxes of ballots, give them to somebody inside the Post Office, and drove off. So we have evidence that people in the Post Office were part of this conspiracy to throw this election.

And those people would then take those ballots, and they might even falsely postmark them to make sure they say “3 November,” if you’re in a state that must count them on 3 November; or at least wipe out the postmark so that no one could argue what it was. Because once you separate a ballot from the envelope, there’s no way to know whether something was in on time, 3 November, or post-3 November. Once you separate that, and mix all the ballots up, it becomes a nightmare, where you really have to dig deeper into the registration rolls to resolve whether a ballot was legal or not.

CGTN

Traditional locations where vote fraud can take place: the polling place, the mail-in drop-box, and in the counting of ballots.

CC/Rob Pegoraro

CGTN

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

False Registrations and Multiple Voting

And finally, there is the issue of false registrations. We have registration books that are kept; people are supposed to register to vote as legal, as legal residents of the area in which they vote. Those rolls are outdated. About 25% of them change every year, because people move! We’re a mobile society. People uproot, whether they get a new job, they want to be closer to the kids, and those records are not updated as religiously, as continuously, as they should be. And so, people may be voting twice, once in their new state, once in their old state. Most people don’t do that on purpose. But those who do it, are doing it on purpose—they know they’re registered twice, or whatever.

I hope this gives you a flavor for the breadth of the corruption. I am not privy on a day-to-day basis of what’s being discovered, so like you, I must get my news about this from the news, and not all news media are covering it, so if you do not have access to a reliable source, I’m hoping you will turn your attention and your sourcing to LaRouche PAC, because LaRouche—I know!—with every bone in my body, that LaRouche stands for the truth. And my God, in this day and age, that alone is golden. It’s very difficult to find truthful sources of information.

Sovereignty and Vote Fraud

This is the edited transcription of opening remarks made by Helga Zepp-LaRouche to the Friedrich Schiller Birthday Celebration Broadcast, hosted by the Schiller Institute on November 10, 2020. A video of the entire program is available here.

Schiller Institute

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I was the most shocked last week, when I watched some of the U.S. major TV stations, when Trump gave a press conference, and you could see how the heads of some of the TV stations interrupted the President of the United States by saying, “We don’t agree with what he’s saying; he is now putting forward fake news, and therefore we overrule the speech of the President of the United States.” And that came from several TV stations! This is a scandal so big, that if it had happened in any kind of banana republic, it would be an outrage, because it would still be a violation of the sovereignty of that country. But that this is happening to supposedly the most powerful man in the most powerful country on the planet, I think that fact alone should wake people up, that what we are looking at here is dictatorship: It’s the danger of complete loss of freedom.

I find it equally revealing, that immediately after Biden was declared by the media to be the winner—not by the Electoral College, but by the media—all the Atlanticists in Europe and elsewhere, said, “Oh, let us immediately congratulate Biden. It’s so good that the whole old system is back.” This was the view of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and German Bundestag President Norbert Röttgen, all dyed-in-the-wool Atlanticists.

C-SPAN

President Donald Trump

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

But the so-called autocratic governments said, “No, we have to wait for what the legal and democratic process in the United States will result in, and we will not congratulate Biden until that has been established.” And this was said by such “autocrats” as Putin, the Chinese government, the President of Mexico, of Bolivia—so, maybe the narrative concerning who is for democracy and transparency is not exactly what people are supposed to believe.

There Is a Limit to the Tyrant’s Power

We have reached historically a point of absolute decision. If you think about what is in the American Declaration of Independence, I think we are exactly at that moment. I just want to read you one sentence from that Declaration:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

That is the principle on which the United States was based as a young republic, and this is also an idea which was used by Friedrich Schiller, whose birthday we celebrate today, and that’s why I’m quoting it also, because he is the Poet of Freedom and he has written so many things which were really strategic studies of how to deal with such situations as we are experiencing now. He wrote a drama in which he referenced very clearly this fight of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. This was his very celebrated and popular drama—popular around the world—Wilhelm Tell; which takes place in Switzerland, and which posed to the Swiss people, will they accept the tyranny of the Habsburgs, or will they shed that tyranny?

Friedrich Schiller’s drama, Wilhelm Tell, poses the question: Will a people accept a tyranny, or shed it? Here (top), men swear the famous Rütli Oath to “seize their eternal rights” and defend their country against a tyrant’s power. Below: Friedrich Schiller.

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

If you compare the famous Rütli Oath to the Declaration of Independence, you can actually see how the same ideas inspired Schiller, as he writes there:

No, there is a limit to the tyrant’s power,

When the oppressed can find no justice,

When the burden grows unbearable—he reaches

With hopeful courage up unto the heavens

And seizes hither his eternal rights,

Which hang above, inalienable

And indestructible as stars themselves.

The primal state of nature reappears

Where man stands opposite his fellow man.

As a last resort, when not another means

Is of avail, the sword is given him,

The highest of all goods we may defend from violence,

Thus stand we before our country,

Thus stand we before our wives, and before our children.

Now, obviously, Schiller was very, very careful with the last scene of that drama, to make sure that people would not draw out of the play, the right to commit terrorism or violence—he’s very, very careful. So if you read this drama, which I want to encourage you to do, please read the last scene, because there have been performances where it was left out, and then people took that as an encouragement of violence in the streets, which is explicitly not meant by Schiller.

But otherwise, I think the idea of the Declaration of Independence, that a point has been reached, where there is enough that this must end; and the idea of Friedrich Schiller, that “No, there is a limit to the tyrant’s power,” is the message which everybody should carry in themselves in the next period.

We need an international mobilization, because the outcome of this fight is not just an American question: As Kirk Wiebe, Dennis Speed, and James Jatras all said earlier, if this fight is lost, I think the whole world will be under a dictatorship, and further, I also think the Biden team, if Biden becomes President, stands for war. The more patriotic forces in Europe have said so. Willy Wimmer is one of them, but also thinking people from the right and from the left have clearly said that the confrontation against Russia and China, the expansion of NATO into the Indo-Pacific, and the encirclement of Russia and China which has been going on with Bush and Cheney and Obama before, would probably really bring us to a catastrophe.

So everything is at stake, and therefore, we should take the words of the Declaration of Independence and Friedrich Schiller to heart.

Trump Moves Forcefully Against

The Military-Industrial Complex

by Mike Billington

DoD/Marvin Lynchard

Christopher Miller, newly appointed by President Trump as Acting Secretary of Defense, hosts a bilateral meeting with Lithuanian Minister of National Defense Raimundas Karoblis at the Pentagon, November 13, 2020.

White House/Tia Dufour

Christopher Miller

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

Nov. 13—President Trump took decisive action this week against the danger coming from the top brass at the Pentagon, firing Secretary of Defense Mark Esper—a close ally of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo since their days in a religious sect at West Point—and replacing him with the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Christopher Miller. Three of Esper’s top allies at the Pentagon—the Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, and the latter’s Chief of Staff, resigned, apparently in protest over Esper’s dismissal. Trump has now acted on his September 8 statement that the top brass at the Pentagon don’t like him, because they “want to do nothing but fight wars, so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else, stay happy.”

Readers of EIR will recall that Col. Richard Black (USA ret.), former chief of the Army Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon, speaking at the September 5 international conference of the Schiller Institute, addressed the serious threat of a military coup that was in preparation against President Donald Trump.

Colonel Black reported the outrageous open letter, published in Defense One, by two retired lieutenant colonels calling for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, to prepare to escort President Donald Trump from the White House by force. He reported that several retired generals had denounced President Trump’s (totally lawful) intention to invoke the Insurrection Act to put down the anarchist riots and arson then taking place on the streets of major U.S. cities.

Colonel Black added:

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, Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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 video of this presentation has been viewed over a half million times around the world.

Secretary Esper did not follow Colonel Black’s warning concerning his duty to the nation. He not only did not reprimand those generals who attacked the Commander in Chief, but joined them in opining falsely that Trump did not have the right to invoke the Insurrection Act under the then current circumstances.

When Trump called for getting American troops home from Afghanistan by Christmas, Esper disobeyed the command from his Commander-in-Chief and said publicly that it would not happen—just as generals earlier had repeatedly refused Trump’s order to get out of Syria.

White House/Tia Dufour

President Donald Trump moved forcefully to assert control over the military-industrial complex.

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

On November 11, Pompeo’s outgoing Special Representative for Syria Engagement, James Jeffrey, bragged to the same Defense One magazine that the State Department had repeatedly lied to the President about the situation in Syria:

We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there. … When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [President Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times.

Most importantly, President Trump and his new Acting Secretary of Defense, Christopher Miller, immediately hired excellent replacements for the resigning officials:

• Anthony Tata as Acting Secretary of Defense for Policy, whom Trump had nominated for the same post earlier, but withdrew the nomination when the Senate complained that Tata had called President Obama a “terrorist” for his support for al Qaeda against Qadaffi and Assad, as Gen Michael Flynn had revealed earlier.

• Kash Patel as Chief of Staff to Miller, who had worked closely with Rep. Devin Nunes to expose the fraud behind the Russiagate coup attempt against President Trump.

• Ezra Cohen-Watnick as Acting Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, who had worked for Gen. Flynn and also worked with Rep. Nunes against the Russiagate fraud.

CC/BMG-2048

Colonel Douglas Macgregor, USA (ret.), the new Senior Advisor to Christopher Miller.

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

• Col. Douglas Macgregor (USA ret.) has been appointed Senior Advisor to Acting Secretary of Defense Miller, sending panic through the ranks of the Republican and Democratic war mongers who started the “endless wars,” as Trump calls them. Macgregor has been for decades one of the most outspoken opponents of the regime-change wars, and has strongly supported Trump’s efforts to get out of them post haste.

Now that Trump has moved forcefully to assert control over the military, he is free to pull out of Afghanistan and Syria; stop any moves toward a military coup; get the documents declassified that show the treasonous actions by British and American intelligence in the Russiagate coup attempt; deploy the military to distribute the COVID vaccine within the United States; possibly deploy the military, including the Army Corps of Engineers, to aid his close friend David Beasley, Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme, in an emergency campaign to get food and medicine to the millions of Africans facing starvation. Such a move, which has been promoted by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and Chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, would quickly unite the world behind his leadership.

Mexico’s President Stops Stampede To Recognize Biden

by Gretchen Small

Government of Mexico

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, President of Mexico.

“What is this … in the country of freedoms, of the free press, all of a sudden they censor the President? That is no small thing. That had not been seen, the media censoring.”

—Mexican President López Obrador

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

Nov. 14—When the U.S. media usurped U.S. law and declared Biden-Harris the victors of the U.S. election, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador informed reporters that Mexico would not congratulate Joe Biden or Donald Trump as the winner “until the electoral process is over…. We want to wait until the election in the United States is legally settled.”

López Obrador (often called AMLO) argues that it is not Mexico’s place to decide for U.S. citizens who won their election, while vote tallies are being challenged in U.S. courts. Such “pile-ons” of international “recognitions” were used against AMLO’s own presidential bid in 2006, while he and his supporters were mobilizing against the flagrant vote fraud used to impose his opponent, Felipe Calderón, in the Presidency.

Despite threats that if Joe Biden should become the next U.S. President, Mexico will face “reprisals” for this defense of United States’ sovereignty by López Obrador, he has refused to yield, as a matter of principle. In response to the threats, he instructed Mexican officials to not even accept calls from the Biden transition team, because it has not been legally certified as the next government.

AMLO, almost uniquely among world leaders, has dared to speak out publicly against the monstrous threat to the sovereignty of all nations represented by this Establishment stampede to use the media as a weapon to impose a Biden victory. Speaking to reporters on November 9, the Mexican President warned in particular of the implications of the media censoring Donald Trump’s November 5 address to the nation.

What is this… in the country of freedoms, of the free press, all of a sudden they censor the President? That is no small thing. That had not been seen, the media censoring. I am talking about the United States, because in Mexico, we are already used to how they censor us, we don’t exist, this is nothing new. But in the United States what happened is unique, in the internet or in social media networks and then the big news media…. And the freedoms? ...

We all have the right to speak out. There is a classic phrase … “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” … There are times in which it is necessary to go back to the beginning, to return to the past, because that temptation to silence, to censor, should be driven away.

López Obrador has been clear that his government will work with whomever finally wins the U.S. Presidential election, and fully expects that relations will be friendly. At the same time, it is clear there is no love lost between Mexican nationalists and the Democratic Party of Obama-Biden. AMLO has gone out of his way more than once since the election to warn Biden and his team that should they win, his government will not tolerate the flagrant violation of Mexican sovereignty carried out by the Obama-Biden government’s covert “Fast and Furious” operation, which channeled top-grade military weapons to the drug cartels operating in Mexico.

Left: Government of Mexico; right: UN

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (left) says no to “recognizing” a U.S. election winner until it is certified; he himself was defrauded of the Mexican Presidency in 2006 in favor of Felipe Calderón (right).

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

While Mexico’s Establishment media and ancien regime politicians are outraged that López Obrador dares speak of the great battle taking place in the United States, many of his supporters are closely and enthusiastically following the ins and outs of President Trump’s battle to expose the clear vote fraud used against his country. Large social media programs associated with the AMLO camp are discussing the vote fraud as a continuation of the “coup” against President Trump and as a threat to Mexico.

Several have turned to the LaRouche movement for an evaluation of the strategic terms of this battle. Notably, EIR’s Mexico City correspondent, Gerardo Castilleja, has become a regular on Mexico’s Sin Censura YouTube program which broadcasts from Chicago.

Given that the international media have censored in great part what the Mexican President has actually said, EIR publishes here excerpts of his remarks.

AMLO was asked to further explain his position in his November 9 daily morning press conference:

I want to inform the people of Mexico that the position of the government which I represent on the elections in the United States is to wait for the U.S. authorities responsible for the electoral process to decide on the winner of the Presidency. ...

I have the power and at the same time the obligation to conform to the very clear Constitutional mandate as to foreign policy. Article 89 of our Constitution, Subsection 10a, establishes that foreign policy must be guided by the principles of non-intervention and the self-determination of people. … We cannot get involved in the politics of other nations. …

Why this position? Because we do not want there to be foreign interference in our affairs. Mexico is an independent, free and sovereign country.

This business of our passing judgement, is as if we were electoral judges, when our Constitution establishes that we should be respectful and not intervene until the Americans resolve their affairs. … They are going to finish the state counting, and if there are challenges, there are legal authorities which are going to decide. It could come to—I’m not saying this is going to happen—but the [Supreme] Court could resolve this; it did that at one point. So, is the electoral matter already over? Are there no challenges pending? ...

A journalist asked AMLO if his government feared a Democratic victory, citing his statements on different occasions that more Mexican migrants were deported under Obama.

No. … Should it be decided that Mr. Biden won, there won’t be any problem, because we have already defined a policy of respect. What is the case, is that we would not allow the introduction of weapons which President Calderón [2006-2012] allowed under the “Fast and Furious” secret operation.

But I am sure that they are not even going to dare to propose that to me should Mr. Biden be given the victory. So there is not going to be any problem.

The following day, a Mexican journalist cited reports that the Biden team had requested that AMLO’s government accept a phone call to start coordinating future relations, even if it had not yet formally recognized his victory. López Obrador recommended the bullying stop.

We have already clarified this matter sufficiently, and there is confusion—or people do not want to understand. … We cannot recognize in any way a government that is not yet legally and legitimately constituted. …

We are not against or in favor of anyone. Simply: we will wait for their processes to finish. … There are more than 140 million voters, one part voted for one party; another part voted for another. Where do we come off becoming the judge? Who authorized us to do that, to go and get involved in an internal process? We have to respect the citizens of other countries. …

If we don’t recognize them, there are going to be reprisals? No, there is no reason for reprisals, because we are sticking to our policy of principles. … Moreover, we are not a colony. We’re a free, independent, sovereign country. The Mexican government is not a patsy for any foreign government.

Schiller Institute International Online Conference

December 12-13

Save the Date and Register Today!

The World after the U.S. Election:

Creating a World Based on Reason

The unprecedented battle over the recent U.S. election is not only a domestic American event, but an event of the highest international strategic importance. The world must understand: This battle is the choice between World War III or peace. The two days of dialogue and deliberation will include these panel discussions:

Panel I. “Hang Together, or Hang Separately”: Free and Sovereign Republics, or Digital Dictatorship?

Panel II. Escaping the Danger of World War III: A Strategic Order Based on the Common Aims of Mankind.

Panel III. Overcoming the World Health Crisis and the Hunger Pandemic: Thinking on the Level of the Coincidentia Oppositorum.

Panel IV. A Human Future for Youth: A Beethoven-Driven Renaissance of Classical Culture.

Bolivians Reverse Ukraine-Style Coup,

Look to the Future with Hope

by Cynthia Rush

Cancillería Ecuador/Fernanda LeMarie

Bolivian President Evo Morales arrives in Quito, Ecuador for a visit, in 2013. On November 11, 2019, he fled in secret from a foreign-orchestrated “color revolution.” He has just returned with fanfare to Bolivia after ten months as a political refugee in Argentina.

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

Nov. 15—On November 9, 2020, the northern Argentine town of La Quiaca, on the border with Bolivia, was the site of an emotional binational ceremony in which Argentine President Alberto Fernández bid farewell to Evo Morales, the former Bolivian president who was happily returning home. Morales had been ousted in a November 11, 2019 foreign-orchestrated, Ukraine-style “color revolution” and had lived as a refugee in Argentina for the past ten months, following a brief stay in Mexico in November and December 2019. Following the stunning electoral victory of Luis Arce and David Choquehuanca in Bolivia’s October 18 presidential elections, which put Morales’s Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party back into power with 55.10% of the vote, Morales could now return to his native country after a year of forced exile.

UNCTAD

Louis Arce, President of Bolivia.

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

As Fernández accompanied Morales across the international bridge that connects La Quiaca with the Bolivian town of Villazón, amidst cheers and the waving of Argentine and Bolivian flags, he told the crowd, “We are here today to ensure that Evo returns to the home from which he should never have left.” A visibly moved Morales expressed his eternal gratitude to Fernández for having saved his life from the coup perpetrators who had intended to kill him, and for welcoming him to Argentina “so I didn’t feel abandoned.”

He recalled that when he had taken refuge in the Bolivian jungle after the coup, prior to being rescued by a Mexican Air Force plane, he had received phone calls from Fernández—at that time Argentina’s president-elect—and Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard, assuring him of their support. This, Morales said, reflected the regional solidarity of the Patria Grande—Ibero-America’s “Great Fatherland.” Even presidents who didn’t necessarily support him, such as Paraguay’s Abdo Benítez, assisted with logistics so that Morales could safely leave the country for Mexico.

‘Patria Grande’ and Beyond

It was that Patria Grande—particularly the alliance between Alberto Fernández and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or AMLO as he is known—that came together to save Morales’s life in 2019. It is mobilized today to ensure that the MAS victory can begin the process of reversing a coup that was supposed to be permanent. Both leaders acted on the basis of defending Bolivia’s sovereignty and the broader principle that no nation has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation.

Mexican Presidency

Alberto Fernández, President of Argentina (left), and Andrés Manual López Obrador, President of Mexico, came together to save the life of Evo Morales in 2019, and are mobilized today to reverse the damage done by the coup then.

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

AMLO has repeatedly pointed out that this is one of the fundamental tenets of Mexico’s foreign policy, recently insisting that that is the reason he has refused to be stampeded into recognizing a Biden-Harris victory while no one is actually certified as the winner according to U.S. law (see “Mexico’s President Stops Stampede to Recognize Biden” in this issue). AMLO also had no qualms about referring to Morales’s ouster as “a coup,” much to the distaste of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who insisted that the “authoritarian dictator” Morales had deserved to be removed. Neither AMLO nor Fernández ever recognized Jeanine Añez, the right-wing religious fanatic who was installed by Pompeo et al. to replace Morales.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who had worked closely with Morales to transform Bolivia’s economy during Morales’s 2006-2019 presidency, have already stated their intention of working with President Arce and Vice President David Choquehuanca to resume strategic development projects that Añez had canceled. Both presidents had denounced the coup against Morales, calling it a gross violation of national sovereignty.

A Failed Model

Advocates of British geopolitical doctrine who orchestrated the 2019 coup are scratching their heads, trying to explain what went wrong. While a compliant military faction had been the public face of that coup, it was actually organized by the “powerful” international Project Democracy apparatus and affiliated NGOs which had successfully carried out similar actions in other countries—most recently the neo-Nazi “Maidan” coup in Ukraine in 2014. Yet the unelected Jeanine Añez they installed in Morales’s place turned out to be a dismal failure—seen skulking away from the presidential palace in embarrassment right after the October 18 election, not showing her face in public after that, while likely facing prosecution for the heinous crimes she and her cronies have committed against the Bolivian people.

Mike Pompeo—who had gushed support for Añez, just as he did for Venezuela’s phony tinpot “president” Juan Guaidó—issued a tight-lipped message to Arce on October 19, congratulating him for winning a “clean” election.

Bolivia’s “Maidan” model enforced its cruel policies with police and military brutality, political persecution of opponents, including former MAS government officials, massacres of the MAS’s indigenous supporters, and vicious austerity. But it failed to break the population’s support for and loyalty to Evo Morales and to Arce, who as finance minister from 2006 to 2017, oversaw the policies of industrialization, directed credit and the application of advanced science and technology which were the hallmarks of the “Bolivian miracle.” This is lawful—just as it is lawful that Morales was welcomed home as a hero by hundreds of thousands of Bolivians from around the country, as he arrived in his traditional home base of Chimoré on November 11.

CGTN

Crowds welcome Evo Morales’s return to Bolivia, November 9, 2020.

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

Morales Supported for His Economic Success

As EIR documented in its August 16, 2019 article, “Bolivia Sets its Sights on Fusion Energy and Eliminating Poverty!,” Morales and Arce transformed Bolivia from one of the most impoverished nations in Ibero-America on a par with Honduras in 2005, to a vibrant industrializing economy in 2019. Between 2005 and 2019, the MAS government cut poverty from 38.2% to 15%, achieved a steady 4.3% annual growth rate and greatly expanded jobs and economic opportunity for poorer sectors of the population. The renationalization of Bolivia’s oil and gas deposits in 2006 opened up vast areas for development and industrialization.

Morales worked closely with Russia and China, including joining the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and also promoted nuclear energy. He even discussed developing fusion power, always anxious to inspire youth to aspire to goals they were often told were unattainable because of their “Indian” heritage. Russia’s Rusatom Overseas began building a state-of-the-art Nuclear Technology Research and Development Center in the city of El Alto in 2019, and China worked on developing the large Mutún iron ore deposits near the Brazilian border.

As Morales told President Putin during a July 2019 visit to Moscow, “a people with a thousand years of history, with advanced technology is invincible,” in a proud reference to Bolivia’s ancient civilization. “We nationalized, we industrialized, we’ve grown as never before in history, and now is the moment for a great technological leap with the nuclear research center.” He expressed pleasure that Bolivians had become a “sovereign and dignified people.”

With good reason, Morales frequently charged that the coup against him was against “our model” of economic development and industrialization. He has now called on the Bolivian people to protect this model under Arce, and to provide “physical and political protection” to the new President, warning that there are right-wing forces in the country who will seek to destabilize his government.

comunicación.gob.bo

An artist’s rendition of a state-of-the-art Nuclear Technology Research and Development Center currently under construction in El Alto, Bolivia by Russia’s Rusatom Overseas.

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

A Hopeful Future

President Arce has vowed to continue industrializing Bolivia and has announced that he intends to work closely with China and Russia, and “go back to the things we were doing together,” prior to the coup, Sputnik News reported October 26. Expressing a desire to meet with President Putin as soon as possible, Arce listed a number of “strategic projects” on which Russia and Bolivia can collaborate, including building a bi-oceanic rail corridor “to unite the Atlantic to the Pacific through Bolivia.” Morales had energetically organized for that project for many years, as Arce noted, but it was dropped altogether after he was ousted. Several other industrialization projects are also on Arce’s agenda.

In his inauguration speech December 8, Arce admitted that rebuilding the nation’s economy won’t be easy, because its “central contents have been mutilated” by the de facto government. In one year, many of the achievements of the Morales government have been erased, he said, leaving behind an additional foreign debt of $4.2 billion, an 11.1% drop in GDP, a soaring fiscal deficit, and vast sectors of the population left to fend for themselves in poverty. This is the worst crisis Bolivia has faced in forty years, he announced.

Nonetheless, he said, “On this November 8, 2020 we begin a new phase of our history. … It won’t be hatred that drives our actions, but rather a passion for justice.” After outlining priority areas that must be addressed to rebuild the economy, he vowed that “our government will be oriented to the present and the future.” Bolivia will work to create a multipolar world, promoting South-South cooperation, and working through such organizations as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), of which Mexico is currently the president pro tem. Said Arce, “We shall raise the banner of a diplomacy of nations on behalf of life and a world without walls. We must put an end to everything that prevents us from being considered equals, as brothers and sisters.”

Trump Crash Program Brings COVID Vaccines;

Some Dems Prefer Dying for Biden

by David Shavin

U.S. Army/Jason W. Edwards

A biomedical laboratory technician.

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

Nov. 14—John Kennedy posed to the nation that we should have a crash program to get to the Moon—and the bottom line in his case to the country was: We should go because, as with the highest mountain, it is there. It “will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills …” And the population enjoyed having the better angel of their nature addressed. It has been a long time, and a twisted path, since the United States has had a successful crash program and enjoyed a good outcome.

By the time this article goes to print, a remarkably successful vaccine against the COVID-19 virus should be at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awaiting approval, one showing an excellent efficacy of over 90%, and also having compelling indications of safety. (A really good flu vaccine rarely exceeds 60% efficacy.) With any luck, a second vaccine will show up there five to ten days later. Both are messenger-RNA (mRNA) vaccines, one by Pfizer/BioNTech, the other by Moderna. Twenty million elderly and at-risk Americans will get first access to the vaccines during the month of December. Families throughout the country won’t find a better Christmas gift. They are the result of a crash program launched last Spring, entitled Operation Warp Speed (OWS).

OWS involved the government stepping in and identifying three avenues of attack, with three different types of COVID vaccines (mRNA, Replication-defective live-vector, and recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein). Then two top vaccine candidates were picked in each of those three categories. They were picked from amongst dozens and dozens of rival vaccine proposals, based upon a pre-set, top-down government-dictated list of standards and measurements—so that the various candidates could be efficiently compared, apples-to-apples. (Typically, the pharmaceutical companies run their clinical trials on their own designs, and then the FDA can approve the result or not.)

The six winners were awarded with massive contracts for tens and hundreds of millions of vaccines to be purchased. Manufacturing capacity was expanded massively, long before any of the vaccines were accredited. Further, physical production of millions of vaccine doses was pushed, even if the possibility of a failed candidate meant wastage—because it was more important not to waste time or lives.

In the Spring of 2020, the best estimations for a successful vaccine put it at least a year into the future. The goal on May 15 was set for the end of 2020.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Breaks Out

Along the way, some calculating souls figured out that there was a danger that good news from a successful vaccine might work in President Trump’s favor—and the priority must be to delay such a development until after the November 3 election. Congressional Democrats argued that the very fact that this was a crash program meant that the speed of the endeavor made it unsafe, so that we must have a slow crash program! Candidate Biden issued a campaign statement warning against any pressure from Trump to change FDA procedures—and made his own political demand, in the same statement, that the FDA must change its procedures, so as to slow things down. Kamala Harris stated that a vaccine “from Trump” should not be trusted, and she would not take it. In effect, Democratic leaders began to encourage the “anti-vaxxer movement” on the issue of a COVID vaccine.

FDA/Michael J. Ermarth

Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

On September 3, when Pfizer announced that 23,000 volunteers were already in its Phase 3 trial, and that no safety issues had arisen so far, the possibility (threat, as leading Democrats saw it) that Pfizer could deliver a vaccine for the last half of October became real. Around the third week of September, Dr. Peter Marks, the lead official at the FDA in charge of making a decision on the approval or denial of a new vaccine, created a new FDA guidance—whereby a two-month further study was to be required on the trial volunteers, after their second and final dose—ostensibly to monitor longer-term effects.

Dr. Marks knew, or should have known, that the delay would result in over 20,000 extra deaths—simply amongst those in the long-term care facilities, where the first vaccines were scheduled to go. Marks was supposed to be, under the terms of an Emergency Use Authorization, balancing scientific concerns with the risks of not addressing the actual emergency, with lives directly on the line. He turned his back on the latter.

The White House intervened to stop the promulgation of the FDA guidance. Then, on Monday, October 5, Marks asserted that it made no difference, as he had already communicated to the vaccine developers that he simply wouldn’t approve any vaccine that didn’t take the extra two months—whether it was official or not. The White House submitted to the ultimatum and extracted a compromise that the safety study would only apply to half of the vaccinated—“only” pushing back the vaccine’s arrival by 4-6 weeks. In so doing, they saved over 10,000 lives from Marks’ highjacking while giving up any chance of the vaccine’s deployment in October.

Marks’ ally, Dr. Eric Topol, messaged his collaborators on October 10: “We were on a path for a vaccine emergency authorization before Nov. 3rd. Thanks to the FDA, Trump’s plan was disrupted. That won’t happen.” This was a classic case showing that Trump Derangement Syndrome kills.

WEF/Sikarin Thanachaiary

Dr. Albert Bourla, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer, the biopharmaceutical company.

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

On Monday, November 9, Pfizer was able to announce the results of its first analytical review, described by Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla as a “great day for science and humanity!” That same day, the New York Times, even though it was safely beyond election day, still went out of its way to claim that the vaccine success had nothing to do with OWS—apparently because nothing good could come out of a Trump White House. Pfizer issued a disclaimer that day, stating that, of course, it was part of OWS, including a $1.95 billion contract signed in July for 100 million doses of the vaccine. The Times had, with reckless disregard, taken a Pfizer Vice-President’s words—about Pfizer bearing all of the research and development costs on itself—out of context. Pfizer’s correction got scarce notice in the media.

Meanwhile, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had his own meltdown over the good news. Appearing on George Stephanopoulos’ “Good Morning America,” Cuomo was asked about the just-announced success of the Pfizer vaccine. He went off. “It’s good news, bad news, George. The good news is that the Pfizer tests look good and we’ll have a vaccine shortly. The bad news is that it’s about two months before Joe Biden takes over and that means this [present] administration is going to be implementing a vaccine plan …” Cuomo goes on to claim that the OWS’s distribution is “going to be slow ... [Y]ou have two months and we can’t let this vaccination plan go forward the way the Trump Administration is designing it. Biden can’t undo it two months later ... I’ve been talking to governors across the nation about that—how can we shape the Trump Administration vaccine plan to fix it or stop it before it does damage.”

governor.ny.gov

Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, supported delays in the approval and distribution of a COVID vaccine, so that it could not be deployed until after the November 3 election, hoping to deny Trump any credit for its deployment.

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

Cuomo, it seems, had not caused enough deaths by ordering that elderly patients with COVID infections be sent back into elderly care facilities in New York.

This, from a governor who supported delays in the approval process, and even now will not accept the FDA’s approval of the vaccine until after his state carries out its own health studies. His new-found concern for speeding things up is heart-warming. But he’s organizing governors to go into a revolt—even to stop the distribution plan for two months. One is hard-pressed to find a more overt case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

DIA

General Gustave Perna, Chief Operating Officer of Operation Warp Speed.

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

In reality, OWS’ logistical plan for the deployment of vaccines was developed by General Gustave Perna, a veteran of logistical planning for the U.S. military, which is unmatched in this regard. He constantly emphasizes that “This is about saving lives” and stresses that he’s been able to get the private sector—including CVS, Walgreens, FedEx, UPS, and McKesson (a medical delivery company) to be “thinking differently,” beyond usual business concerns. He has worked out with both CVS and Walgreens to have trained staff travel to elderly care facilities and provide the vaccines free of charge to both residents and staff. OWS has been working with each state to co-ordinate and fine-tune local arrangements. The Centers for Disease Control develops the priority list for the vaccine with the elderly, the at-risk, medical personnel, and first responders up at the top.

There are about 80 million Americans likely to be prioritized. The leaders of Operation Warp Speed have said, right up to this point, that the vulnerable elderly can be vaccinated before the end of December, and front-line personnel in January and possibly February.

The Vaccines

The Pfizer vaccine doses present logistical challenges, as they require cryogenic storage at –94 degrees Fahrenheit. Both CVS and Walgreens have been equipped with special freezers to handle this, and many hospitals already are so equipped. Corning Glass has produced massive amounts of specialized, pharmaceutical-quality glass containers for this vaccine. Pfizer has developed a packaging system, which it calls “pizza boxes,” which itself will preserve the low temperature for 10-14 days—at which point dry ice can be added to extend the time. At any point, the vaccine doses can be put into a regular refrigerator’s freezer section and used for another five days.

Moderna’s vaccine—next in line—and the other four vaccine candidates can all be stored in a regular freezer. As one or more of them get approved, their already-produced doses can be immediately added into the supply line, but there will be a ramping up of production to cover hundreds of millions. Most Americans’ opportunity will come no earlier than March or April, when there will be massive amounts of data already on the various safety records.

In addition, those vaccines needing less cold-storage logistics and requiring only one injection, can be shipped abroad for COVID vaccination campaigns in other nations.

The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines employ a new technology that uses the genetic code (mRNA) for the coronavirus’ spike protein—the part required to make it so infectious. The mRNA, which is a manufactured facsimile of the genetic-code template for manufacturing the spike protein, is encapsulated in very small lipid particles and is injected into the subject. This mRNA enters the subject’s cells, which respond by using it to produce, not the virus, but only its spike protein, which then stimulates an immune reaction. The body acquires the immunity without the virus ever being present. Both companies are presenting data analysis, last week and this week, showing how well the vaccine actually protects against infection.

Vaccine Efficacy

The trick in the Phase 3 trials is, with a small sample of actual COVID-19 infections, to discover that significantly more of those infections occurred amongst the placebo, not the actually vaccinated, population. That at least 85 of Pfizer’s 94 new infections were in the placebo group—out of around 39,000 volunteers already analyzed—showed a remarkably good disparity. Moderna evidently has at least 53 infections to analyze in the data they will shortly submit.

In Pfizer’s case, such a dramatic case by October 8 that the vaccine is effective, suggests the company could have shown a clear and statistically significant separation between vaccinated and non-vaccinated volunteers weeks earlier. If 94 cases were in the October 8 study, how many of those cases were known a month earlier? Remember that thousands of volunteers were enrolling in the Pfizer trial in late July and all during August, receiving their first injections then and their seconds all during September. Even half, or 47 cases, with anything like the 9:1 ratio eventually displayed, would have made a clear case for issuing an Emergency Use Authorization, accompanied by a temporary advisory, that the vaccine was for the long-term care facilities—where one-third of the COVID deaths were occurring.

On November 13, in the Rose Garden and under a beautiful “Indian summer” sky, President Trump convened a presentation by the OWS crash program team on America’s mobilization in the war against COVID-19. He pointedly referenced that he’d been receiving calls from many leaders of other countries, congratulating him upon the announcement of the Pfizer vaccine’s high efficacy. He rather politely called the New York Times’ embarrassing effort to present Pfizer’s vaccine as not connected with OWS, an “unfortunate misrepresentation.” Then he took the gloves off and put New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in his place.

Trump said that, while politics had been kept out of the OWS achievement, the New York state governor was an exception. The governor objected to the vaccine deployment because it was associated with Trump. Therefore, Trump announced that vaccines will shortly go to 49 states, but, unfortunately, nothing to New York. He explained they won’t send precious vaccine doses where politicians have decided to leave them undeployed. “The Governor will let us know when he’s ready. I hope he doesn’t run this as badly as he did the nursing homes.”

Dr. Moncef Slaoui, the medical head of OWS, sounded like a proud and happy father when he characterized the Pfizer success as the first real proof that they had bet on the right horses back in the Spring. And the beautiful sky overhead suggested that God would be happy if the nation might regain its moorings and sense of mission for the world, should they get re-addicted to that characteristically American talent for crash programs.

III. Lyndon LaRouche Sized Up Biden

September 28, 1987

The Deeper Grounds for Philosophical Doubts Respecting the Existence of ‘Joe Biden’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

This is Part 1 of a paper by Lyndon H. LaRouche that analyzes the character of Joe Biden—written 33 years ago. It is even more crucial today than it was in 1987. It was originally published by the LaRouche Democratic Campaign (LDC), candidate Lyndon LaRouche’s campaign committee for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President.

White House

Senator Joe Biden in 1987. “Wit begs philosophical doubts that he exists.”

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

This month, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) declassified some aspects of my technical assistance and relationships to our government during the 1976-1984 period. This permits me, now, to expose the falseness of rumors and wild speculations spread by many journalists and publications; I am able to make clearer my exact role in connection with what became known as the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative or “SDI”: nothing I did confidentially as a patriotic citizen’s aid to his government, differed from what I was advocating publicly during the same period of time.

So, on the CNN “Larry King Show” of Friday, September 18, and at a Boston press conference of Tuesday, September 22, 1987, I disclosed the bare facts of my back-channel discussions with Moscow, at the request of our government, over the period January 1982 through mid-April 1983, a discussion featuring what was later named the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). I have also disclosed the fact that my refusal to assist the Contra operation is key to understanding fully the 1983 rupture in my earlier, closer relations with the Reagan Administration.

This disclosure, of one of the biggest such stories leaked by anyone during the recent period, had a double purpose.

It was a test, of how far the major news-media coverage would go in limiting its coverage of me to concocted fantasies distributed by the Department of Justice. Some news media did violate the prosecutor’s guidelines for coverage of me.

EIRNS

LaRouche disclosed his back-channel discussions with Moscow, concerning what came to be called the Strategic Defense Initiative, on CNN’s Larry King Show of September 22, 1987.

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

More important, my campaign for the U.S. Democratic presidential nomination was not helped by the news media’s false rumors about my confidential activities. Now, I was free to discuss openly matters bearing upon the nature of the present strategic crisis, and to make clearer why experience has caused me to adopt the various policies which I have put forward variously in support or opposition to the policies of the Carter and Reagan administrations.

The subject I treat in this report, is currently at the center of my differences with the U.S. intelligence community, the issue of method which has separated my own strategic thinking from that of the majority of “think tanks” and related institutions. To make the issue more accessible to the intelligent layman, I start with the most important lesson to be learned from Senator Biden’s ouster from the 1988 presidential campaign.

Charles Monnet

“The political classifications of ‘right,’ ‘left,’ and ‘center’ are fictions mystically attributed to the seating arrangements in France’s National Assembly of 1789-1793.” Shown, the National Assembly meeting on August 4, 1789.

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

Left, Right & Center

Near the close of this year’s major-league baseball season, plagiarist “Joe Biden,” stepped up to score two fouls followed by a wildly swinging third strike, and was then thrown out of the 1988 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. So much of Senator Biden is now attributed to be a carbon copy of other persons, that a humorist might be forced to speculate whether or not “Joe Biden” were merely a computer-synthesized laser-hologram, pieced together out of entries taken from Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.

Wit begs thus philosophical doubts that “Senator Joe Biden” actually exists; his birth certificate is probably genuine, but his public personality is an empty shell of borrowed rhetoric. Biden tried to rally the Democratic Party’s “McGovernite left” around his candidacy. His qualification for appealing to so diverse an aggregation of “new agers,” was his effort to say nothing which might offend any faction within that collection; this he accomplished by saying nothing which was not plagiarized bits of tested rhetoric, thus gaining adherents’ applause for saying really nothing at all.

However, Biden merely made most painfully obvious what is equally true of all my recent and present competitors for the Democratic nomination. They are all “four-flushers.” This is true not only of those who attempt to capture the support of the “McGovernite left”; the same is true of those who propose to establish themselves as symbolic leaders of the Philosophical “right” or “liberal center.” Not all politicians are “four-flushers,” but all who adopt the posture of attempting to symbolize the “left,” “right,” or “center” tend to be as devoid of personality as former candidate Biden.

This flaw common to the three varieties of ideologues has its origin in the fact, that the “left,” “right,” and “center” themselves do not exist except as ideological phantasms. To become merely a symbol of an ideology, is to become emptier than the ideology one purports to espouse. Hence, the “Peter Schlimihl”-like quality of a Biden and of the other candidates who walk an analogous pathway.

If history were still taught in our schools, it would be remembered that the political classifications of “right,” “left,” and “center” are fictions mystically attributed to the seating arrangements in France’s National Assembly of the 1789-1793 interval. If we judge political currents by the effects of their mind-sets upon the life of nations, the attempt to explain the main features of European (and American) history in those terms, is often almost as much an absurdity as it would be to classify politicians as being either hobgoblins (“right”), fairies (“left”), or gnomes (“centrists”).

Children at play might pretend that they are either hobgoblins, fairies, or gnomes. As many people pretend childishly that they are political adherents of the “left,” “right,” or “center,” that mere pretense is the reality of these popularized catch-words.

If I meet a man who declares with impassioned sincerity that he is a three-legged stool, the fact that he asserts himself to be a three-legged stool obliges me to reach certain conclusions about his mental state. If that man were to say, “If you do not agree that I am a three-legged stool, I will kill you,” we would take his assertion seriously. “Left,” “right,” and “center” are mythological concoctions, like elves and fairies; but, the popular belief in them exists efficiently as political behaviorisms, sometimes very dangerous ones.

Left: C-SPAN; right: White House

While the putative liberal Lloyd Cutler (left) supported the nomination of right-winger Robert Bork (right) to the Supreme Court, both reject the constitutional principle of natural law, that values must be the fruit of some intelligible action of reasoning.

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

Real-World Consequences of Fantasy

Biden brought this broader problem to our television screens in the hearings on the subject of Robert H. Bork’s nomination to be confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court. In that congressional soap-opera, the synthetic “Biden,” and some others, professed themselves so to be “leftish” opponents of the putative “right-winger” Bork. In the midst of this, the putative liberal, Mr. Lloyd Cutler, advanced himself to defend putative right-winger Bork. There were some dark looks in Mr. Cutler’s direction; the American left imagined that it had found in Mr. Cutler its ideological “Benedict Arnold.”

Mr. Cutler was betraying nothing but the same U.S. Constitution he has continued, over years, to demand be ripped up by a new constitutional convention. In defending Judge Bork, Mr. Cutler showed that he understands, as most of the putative left and news media do not, that there was never any deep difference between his own brand of liberalism and the putatively rightist views of nominee Bork.

Political differences between Cutler and Bork exist, but they are very shallow ones. On the surface, Mr. Cutler often espouses one arbitrary choice of ideological values, while Mr. Bork wears a different ideological veneer. Mr. Cutler, unlike the naive “leftists,” is astute enough to recognize that he and Bork have common ground in the fact that their choices of ideological values, while differing in patina, have a more profound, underlying likeness, that of being equally arbitrary, irrational.

Friedrich Carl von Savigny, in an 1855 painting by Franz Krüger.

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

Both reject the constitutional principle of natural law, that values must be the fruit of some intelligible act of reasoning. To the student of the history of philosophy of law, both gentlemen are consistent and faithful followers of such British empiricists and German Romantics as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Marx’s Berlin professor of law, Karl Friedrich Savigny.

It is relevant that Savigny was the author of both Karl Marx’s dogma of “historical materialism” and of the populist (Volksgeist) law of Hitler’s Nazi Reich. Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Hume, Smith, Bentham, the “materialist Enlightenment” followers of René Descartes, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and Karl Savigny are widely accepted by, and equally consistent with views of most ideologues variously self-esteemed as “left,” “center,” and “right.”

What all share in common is hostility to those principles of western European Judeo-Christian natural law upon which the U.S. Declaration of Independence and 1787-1789 Constitution were directly premised. “Left,” “right,” and “center” philosophies of law allow no room for the principles of law upon which the United States was founded. If a “left- winger,” “right-winger,” or pragmatic liberal of the “center” were to be rigorously consistent, he must imply that the United States had never existed: all three dogmas insist that no modern policy has ever existed which is not to be classified as either “left,” “right,” or “center.”

In the Senate proceedings, Robert H. Bork is considered for confirmation as Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in a circumstance in which neither the nominee nor his ideological opponents accept the intent of the U.S. Constitution. Only a Boccaccio, a Rabelais, or a Johnathan Swift could capture for the popular imagination the essence of such a frivolous debate in the Senate and the major news-media.

The same issue, of “left,” “right,” and “center,” arises usually in news-media libels against me. Although I have been called ritually a “political extremist” only since August 1986, and that because of my hostility to the AIDS virus, over a dozen years it has become the habit of news media to argue that I am either or both “left” and “right,” and therefore a man of allegedly mysterious philosophical convictions.

I have often been challenged, as many citizens have observed this in radio and television interviews with me over the recent years, “Is Lyndon LaRouche really ‘left’ or ‘right’?” I reject both appellations, explaining that my views are traditionally American Whig. The interviewer then usually expresses anger, insisting that in politics everyone is either “left,” “right,” or “center.” “Who is Lyndon LaRouche,” he insists, “to say differently?” In the political lexicon of my interviewer, the Federalists and the Whig Party of Clay, Carey, and Lincoln never existed.

CC/wanblee

“In truth, ‘left,’ ‘right,’ and ‘center’ are of the same nature as maskings. All who sally into politics as ‘leftist,’ ‘right-wing,’ or ‘center’ political figures are acting out a fantasy life; those citizens who vote for candidates on the basis of perceiving them to be ‘left,’ ‘right,’ or ‘center,’ are also acting out a fantasy.

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

It is the ancient custom of the degenerated families of Venice, to go forth at night, masked, in the company of armed bands of homicidal delinquents, and either to murder or to play pranks of kindred colors. In truth, “left,” “right,” and “center” are of the same nature as such maskings. Instead of attending to real issues in real-life circumstances, the nightly marauder, the Venetian bravo, acts out a fantasy life. So do all who sally into politics as “leftist,” “right-wing,” or “center” political figures; those citizens who vote for candidates on the basis of perceiving them to be “left,” “right,” or “center,” are also acting out a fantasy.

A homicidal psychopath has murdered some members of a family, and holds the remainder terrified hostages in some room. That psychopath is acting out a fantasy born of some unhappy childhood relationship. His victims, as they are in real life, are not real for him; they are symbolic figures, part of some obscene fantasy-world within his deranged mind. Yet, his killing of them is real enough.

Such is the analogy for all who govern their real-world actions by the fantasy of “right,” “left,” and “center.” Such is the nature of the combined non-existence and reality of shaping political behavior by the mythological belief in the existence of “right,” “left,” and “center.”

Linear & Non-Linear Analysis

The set of the person’s mind guides his practice. So, if his mind is steeped in fantasy, his actions taken under the influence of that fantasy are actions with effects upon the real world. The credulous citizen, who believes stubbornly in the existence of “left,” “right,” and “center,” is, in that degree, analogous to a paranoid with a bloody axe; although his belief may be absurd, his acts under the influence of that delusion affect the real world.

In real life, it is not sufficient to know that your next-door neighbor, or a neighboring government might be seized occasionally by insane fits. Your life might depend upon being able to foresee the circumstances under which those fits occur, and to foresee the kinds of behavior which that neighbor is likely to manifest in that unfortunate condition. A fantasy, just because it is a denial of the real world, never explains why or how it changes the real world in a real way.

To understand the real-world mechanisms which ideology clothes in delusion, we must go behind the mask of fantasy. So, we can forecast the way the fantasy-life and real world interact. As a political strategic analyst, I must not only forecast the behavior of Soviet and other agencies, under various, alternative sets of circumstances. I must also recommend courses of actions for influencing Soviet behavior. To accomplish this, I must emphasize attention to features of the Soviet mind-set which the fantasy-ridden Soviet mind itself refuses to acknowledge as existing.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

LaRouche addresses a Beam Weapons Conference in Washington, D.C. on April 13, 1983.

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

It was on this basis, for example, that I proposed a new strategic doctrine, of which the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is an essential feature.

The role of ideology is analogous to the relationship between the puppet and the puppet-master, or between the beliefs known to some fictional character in a classical tragedy and the higher level of knowledge in the mind of the author composing that drama. The character in the tragedy acts as his partially deluded convictions compel him to act, just as the puppet-strings control the actions of the puppet. It is because the tragic figure clings to some delusion, when that delusion is guiding him to real-world disaster, that the tragic figure is destroyed.

To understand my professional work in political analysis, one must discard as nonsense the explanations of classical tragedy offered over recent decades by most academic authorities on Shakespeare’s plays. One must examine the classic dramas of ancient Aeschylus, Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Shakespeare, Lessing, and Schiller, from the vantage-point of Friedrich Schiller’s writings on the principles of composition of classical tragedy.

Linearity in Literature—And in War

Now decades ago, I attended a house party given by my playwright neighbor, with a number of his famous and less famous fellow-professionals. My host was then preparing a CBS-TV special on the subject of computers, and he wished my special expertise in this area. So, the relevant discussion went as a party chit-chat does.

I replied to my host’s query, that a large computer system could be programmed to write soap-operas or similar sorts of low-grade fiction, for example. Since MIT’s RLE [Research Laboratory of Electronics] was assisting CBS-TV in this project, I suggested that Professor Marvin Minsky’s task-force, working on so-called “artificial intelligence,” could carry out the kind of demonstration needed to illustrate my point.

A heated discussion of several hours’ duration erupted, with Paddy Chayefsky leading the criticism of my theses. It was a good discussion, I thought, almost a Socratic dialogue. At the end, most seemed convinced that my point was sound, although nearly all disliked it the more for that reason. To them, my argument seemed, like the famous line in O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh: “Hickey, you took the life out of the booze.” I seemed to debunk the modern writers’ profession.

Months later, my host told me that the demonstration I had suggested would be a featured part of the CBS-TV special, done in collaboration with MIT’s RLE center. I was amused to see that two of my philosophical adversaries, Marvin Minsky and Professor Noam Chomsky, had followed my outline.

My point to those at the party had been, that all popular fiction, including most of what passed as serious television, motion-picture, and stage drama, involved nothing which could not be accomplished, in principle, by a sufficiently powerful digital-computer system. I explained that all digital-computer systems were capable of nothing but linear systems of representation for the sufficient reason that they were digital computers.

Yet, popular fictional entertainments never reach above a fairly banal level of linearity; hence, it is implicitly possible to expand the idea of a “Plotto” mechanical device as a sophisticated computer package, and to perfect that package up to the point of generating something of as good a quality as most fictional TV entertainments.

Left: CC/Seth Woodworth; right: ABr/Marcello Casal Jr

In a demonstration on CBS-TV, Marvin Minsky (left) and Noam Chomsky (right) fulfilled LaRouche’s outline, showing that a large computer system could write soap-operas and similar banal entertainments.

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

I defined a three-level set of programming specifications needed to accomplish this. The Minsky-Chomsky demonstration by CBS-TV carried this through, more or less adequately, I thought, up through the first level of such specifications.

I added an additional point at the party. Classical drama could not be simulated in that same way. Fine art’s drama is based on what we know as Socratic method, the same method demonstrated by all of Plato’s dialogues. The “plot” of any Socratic dialogue is intrinsically “non-linear,” and therefore could not be simulated by any digital-computer system, no matter how powerful. My consoling proposition to the professionals was that the truly human creative element could be introduced to drama only through emphasis upon the non-linear features central to classical tragedy.

From my side, this discussion was the reflection of what had been, then, a dozen years of my work on the possibility of an intelligible representation of the higher functions of the human mind, those functions most easily illustrated by the cases of genuine scientific and technological discovery. My original discoveries in this field had been centered originally in economic science, on the cause-effect relationship between scientific-technological progress and rates of increase of the physical productivity of labor. As I have summarized this in my book The Power of Reason: 1988, my work in economic science overlapped and paralleled my investigations into the same, non-linear principles of classical aesthetics.

The discussion at that party was one among a number of related discussions held on related matters during the 1958-1960 interval, varied discussions which, in aggregate, led into my later, frequent disputes on methods of strategic analysis during the past ten years.

The Classical Military Tradition

Among the most serious strata of professionals within our intelligence community at large, there is a marked difference in approach separating most civilian professionals from the best military professionals. Typically, my approach tends to coincide with that of military professionals in the classical military tradition, and to conflict with the typically linear “scenarios” of the civilian professionals. The issue is the same as that which I reviewed with Paddy Chayefsky et al. during the party.

The linear scenario-writer begins with what he or she assumes to be the stereotyped “belief-structure” of key players in a situation. “Left,” “right,” and “center” are exemplary of such stereotypes. Then, following a procedure much like that which California think-tank computer-specialist Kenneth Colby derived from the work of Minsky and Chomsky, the scenario writer attempts to predict strategic behavior by RAND Corporation computer runs modelled upon methods for solutions to simultaneous linear inequalities.

My contrary approach emphasizes built-in non-linearities of all interactions occurring in the vicinity of critical shifts in the “geometry” of a strategic or analogous situation. In classical military thinking, this attention to non-linearities is analogous to the principle of the strategic “flank.”

The principle of the flank, as seen in the victories of Alexander the Great, are applications of the same method of thinking as employed as “Socratic dialogue” by Plato.

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

Whether the military professional recognizes this fact or not, the principle of the flank, as treated in von Schlieffen’s famous study of Hannibal’s victory at Cannae, as seen in the victories of Alexander the Great and Frederick the Great, are applications of the same method of thinking employed as “Socratic dialogue” by Plato. General MacArthur’s brilliant strategy in the Pacific, in contrast to the relative linearity of the Anglo-American operations in Africa and Europe, illustrates the point.

Brute Force Conceals Errors in Method

A leading German veteran of World War II joked about his gratitude to Field Marshal Montgomery, on account of the latter’s inability to grasp the principle of flanking. While U.S. commanders were vastly better than bloody set-piece warriors such as Montgomery or Haig, the U.S. military’s lack of manifest capacity for tactical and strategic improvisation he had found astonishing.

USNA

General Douglas MacArthur’s brilliant strategy in the Pacific was in contrast to the relative linearity of the Anglo-American operations in Africa and Europe.

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

Patton improvised, of course, but did so on the verge of insubordination. Only MacArthur’s Pacific campaign belongs in the history of the world’s great commanders, and MacArthur was ousted early during the Korean War as a man whose ideas of victory did not fit into the linear landscape of post-war “crisis management.”

Fortunately, despite the exemplary abuse of Patton and MacArthur, we have still senior military figures in the classical tradition, who, given their heads, would not repeat the disastrous decisions made under the direction of the past forty years’ diplomats and scenario-writers.

I am an economist and statesman, not a military figure; but successful strategy is at least eighty percent culture, economics, and politics, leaving no more than twenty percent of the total exertion to lethal action. What I have learned from the study of 2,500 years of history, shows me that the correct form of classical military thinking converges upon results which reflect and are essentially identical with the strategic thinking of the greatest statesmen.

The problem has been, that on the surface of events, it might appear that linear-scenario methods have succeeded on most occasions.

During most of the post-war period, the shaping of U.S. strategic policy has been spoiled by what appeared to be repeated successes achieved by a defective method. As long as our post-war Anglo-American establishment seemed to represent overwhelming economic and other power on this planet, it was possible to force events to conform to the prescription of think-tank sorts of scenarios. The Anglo-Americans could designate the players, orchestrate coups bringing the chosen players to power, while the other players were each forced to play their part to the effect which the scenario-writers had prescribed.

When Apparent Success Means Self-Destruction

The ruling decision-makers, for example, could say to our institutions: “Overthrow that government, and replace it with the following list of players, according to the following scenario.” That became policy. The institutions carried out the policy pretty much according to the planned scenario. Despite the unsettling experience of the long war in Indo-China, it seemed to be the general rule that this sort of implementing policy-decisions by scenario worked. The scenario, so situated, became the accepted method.

The analogy is the case of the end-game “brilliancy” in chess. In all such chess cases, one player has established a mastery of the middle-game position of which the opponent and many onlookers are not adequately aware. The end-game then becomes a devastating victory, such that the winning player “slaughters” the hapless opponent’s forces in a stunningly “brilliant” way. In much of post-war Anglo-American practice, the preponderance of brute force in the hands of the Anglo-Americans represented an advantage analogous to such a powerful middle-game position. Under those conditions, scenarios often succeeded, with what seemed to be stunning “end-game brilliancies.”

I have long recognized the intrinsic fallacies in these apparent series of brilliancies, and have insisted that our policy-shapers pay attention to the existence of circumstances under which such scenario-plays must lead to crushing defeats.

Since I have been committed all of my adult life, especially the recent twenty years, to a strategic policy of economic development of developing sectors of the planet, a key to the strengthening of western civilization, I have been pitted against the prevailing policy of the Anglo-American establishment on this point, especially since the introduction of the “post-industrialization” policy, under President Johnson, now twenty years ago. Thus, I have been in the position of acting from a standpoint of enormous inferiority of means relative to the opposing forces at the disposal of our establishment. Sometimes, the very survival of my friends and allies has depended upon my understanding the crucial weaknesses in the method of thinking of that establishment.

So, I have understood the establishment’s follies of method better, by my playing so the part of its “black hat” opponent in the real-life global game.

In the real world, all processes which appear to be adequately explained in a linear way, under some conditions, must inevitably reach a kind of limit. At this limit, or “boundary condition,” the process is pushed into a region of qualitative change, a point at which previously successful linear tactics fail. The process then becomes clearly “non-linear.” It always was; but at such points this fact becomes predominant.

The essence of my strategy and tactics has been “nonlinear” in the same sense I described the flaws of linearity to Paddy Chayefsky et al. This was natural to me, in the sense that all of my intellectual and related development has been associated with mastery of non-linear problems, in economics, in culture, in politics, and, during more recent years, in grand strategy.

The tragic flaw inherent in the Anglo-American establishment, is that the material power at its disposal was created and maintained by those cultural processes we associate with capital-intensive investment in a continuing process of scientific and technological progress. Yet, both respecting the post-war developing sector, and, over twenty years, also inside the OECD nations, the policy toward which that establishment has directed the use of that appropriated power, has been the destruction of principled commitment of the West as a whole to the continuation of such capital-intensive investment in scientific and technological progress.

Sooner or later, the direct contradiction between the establishment’s source of power and the tendency of its policy toward destroying that source of power, must become evident. At such points, the linear methods which had once seemed so successful must break down. Then, only non-linear approaches succeed.

Thus, even the Bolshevik dynasty’s Russian empire, with all the cultural and other flaws tending to prevent its material and related progress, has been able to overtake the OECD nations in strategic potential, and is now threatening to surpass us, and move on toward world-wide imperial rule during the decade or so ahead.

CIA

“CIA Director William Casey turned against me and my friends, not because we criticized his folly-ridden Iran, Contra, and Philippines policy, but because our opposition threatened to become operationally effective.”

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

When Familiar Methods No Longer Work

Take as example the case of former CIA Director William Casey’s role in directing the U.S. coup which brought Mrs. Corazon Aquino to the presidency in the Philippines. The intelligence establishment had the power over the news media and Congress to set this coup into motion, to cause most in the United States to believe things about the Philippines which were outright lies. Having sold this pack of lies to the Congress and others, the establishment had sufficient control over key players within the Philippine military to bring off the 1986 coup. Now, more and more recognize that that coup was a strategic disaster, which has placed control of a Philippines now threatened with dismemberment, into the hands of Moscow. Now, one hears in Washington, “Gee whiz, fellas, I guess we made a little mistake,” from many of the same crowd which played a leading part in the earlier coup.

Because of the opposition to that coup and to the Contra operation by me and my friends, Casey et al. acted to throw my friends and me to our enemies within the intelligence community, not to destroy us, but “to teach them a lesson.” It is now clear that my friends and I were the patriots, and Casey et al. was playing the strategic fool.

Dino Bartomucci

“Had President Ferdinand Marcos heeded our advice, he would not have been overthrown.” Shown is President Marcos of the Philippines with U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz in Washington in 1982.

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

Casey turned against us, not because we criticized his folly-ridden Iran, Contra, and Philippines policy, but because our opposition threatened to become operationally effective. Had President Ferdinand Marcos heeded our advice, he would not have been overthrown, and the United States would not be threatened with a global strategic disaster in the Philippines today. Yet, although many in the U.S. intelligence community would admit those to be the facts now, they have not learned the most important lesson: that our method was the correct one, and their method was inherently a source of disasters.

Read the spy-novels produced by leading veterans of the British and U.S. intelligence establishments. Philosophically and historically, they are sensationalist, Hollywood-style trash. The world does not work that way, except as overwhelming brute force might create the appearance it does; no really sophisticated intelligence operations in history ever unfold in that way. Really important operations unfold over generations, and are mastered only by men and women who think on the scale of generations, who are able to foresee that in a time of crisis, continuing adherence to the “time-tested” lessons of experience is a road to assured disaster.

Over the post-war period to date, the successful looting of the developing sector, aggravated by the successful imposition of neo-Malthusian cultural and economic agendas, has not only destroyed the relatively overwhelming, earlier post-war superiority of the OECD nations’ civilization. It has fostered the emergence of mass-based forces of a “new dark age,” as typified by Khomeini’s regime in Iran, or the Sendero Luminoso narco-terrorist operations in Peru. That is the lesson of Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua. It is the cumulative effect of year-by-year policy-operations on the molding of economy and culture, which determines the way in which the forces of history are reshaped: Old forces, once predominant, wither, and new ones come to the fore. This occurs usually over the span of generations.

So, over extended periods, it may appear that one set of superior brute forces, acting by a certain method, was able to rule the world more or less successfully. Yet, by ruling so, they successfully destroyed the resources upon which their power to rule was premised, in fact. This brought about a qualitative change in the configuration of forces. So, the method which has seemed to work so well for so long, produced a pattern of disastrous defeats.

That cumulative pattern, culminating in a non-linear shift, so described, is typical of all great compositions in classical tragedy since Aeschylus.

In the period of crises so cumulatively brought into being, all of the familiar habits of statecraft show themselves to be not only misguided, but worse than futile. So, the United States has come to be situated during the course of the recent ten years of my persisting quarrel, over the issue of method, with the majority of the factions of the U.S. Intelligence community.

Non-Linear Analysis: Do It or Die

In a period of crisis so defined, all of the important factors to be considered are non-linear in the most immediate way. In history, such periods are the periods of wars and kindred crises. It is therefore to such periods that the classical military tradition was specifically attuned. All classical military science is attuned to those specific times of crisis in which all ordinary habits of statecraft break down, in which the fate of nations depends upon the combined cultural, economic, political, and lethal forces, interacting in a non-linear way.

In this latter circumstance, effective policy and leadership are those explicitly focused upon the non-linear considerations. Such is the situation today.

Socratic method, as exemplified by Plato’s dialogues, differs from the intrinsic linearity of logical formalism, in that its focus is upon the uncovering of and replacing of faulty assumptions underlying habituated ways of thinking. Using schoolbook Euclidean geometry as an example, what Socratic method accomplishes, is the elimination of hallowed but false axioms of policy-shaping, and replacing those axioms with correct choices of underlying assumptions. In modern mathematical physics, that is Riemannian physics of the non-linear domain. That is my method.

My increasingly important function, within the U.S. and among nations—our allies or other friends—has been to elaborate strategic analyses and options representing appropriate sorts of non-linear alternatives to the scenario-dominated policy-thinking of the think-tanks and kindred institutions. For excellent reasons, I shall not identify publicly some of those recommendations which have had a useful impact on aspects of our nation’s strategic policy-thinking, except to indicate that my 1982 design for what became known as the SDI is a key example of this.

This is the reason I have sought the presidency four times. In 1976, my objective was propagandistic, to bring the connection between global economic development and the strategic crises into a single focus, and to use the presidential campaign as a way of forcing this to the attention of policy-influencing circles as well as citizens. In 1980, 1984, and now, my candidacy for the Democratic nomination has been in dead seriousness, rather than the limited purpose of the 1976 campaign. No other leading figure in our public life so far is disposed to face both the reality of the worsening crises before us, or to attack these crises in the only way they can be mastered, non-linearly.

Now, this is a matter of do or die for the United States. The combination of the looming financial crisis, the worsening state of our economy, the worsening strategic crisis, and the AIDS pandemic, is a package of crises which must be mastered by my choice of method, or not mastered at all. Among other visible and possible candidates, of both parties, even those I like personally, none would ever be able “to cut the mustard.” They seem pathetic candidates not because some of them would not be passable candidates under different, relatively more linear circumstances, but because the reality of the situation is way beyond their grasp, emotionally and intellectually. They are all linear thinkers, hopeless mediocrities for the kinds of tasks now confronting us.

The matter of “left,” “right,” and “center” must be examined in these historical terms of reference.

The second half of this paper will appear in our next issue.

IV. Build the World Land-Bridge!

Can Iraq Be a Center of Development Rather Than Conflict?

This is the edited transcript of an interview with Hussein Askary, conducted by Matthew Ogden and Jason Ross, November 12, 2020. A video of the interview is available.

EIRNS/Ulf Sandmark

Hussein Askary, speaking at a Schiller Institute conference in Bad Soden, Germany, November 17, 2019. He is holding his Arabic translation of EIR’s Special Report, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.

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

Matthew Ogden: I’m very happy to have the opportunity to appear today with Mr. Jason Ross, who is the Science Advisor to the Schiller Institute, and also Mr. Hussein Askary, who is the Southwest Asia editor for Executive Intelligence Review and also an activist with the Schiller Institute. Jason and Hussein both collaborated in November 2017 on the publication of a definitive report, Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa, a blueprint for the reconstruction of Southwest Asia and Africa by means of the extension of the New Silk Road policy, and Hussein has translated into Arabic the definitive 2014 book-length report, titled The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, published by Executive Intelligence Review. (Volume II of that report, published by the Schiller Institute, is available here.)

Hussein has been working directly with both leaders and ordinary citizens across the Arab-speaking world and Southwest Asia generally, tirelessly trying to educate political leaders there and citizens in the principles of Lyndon LaRouche’s economics. He has set up an Arabic-speaking school for Lyndon LaRouche’s economics online, with broad participation, and he has focussed recently on the application of the policies of our first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, Hamiltonian economic policies including national credit, directed toward the reconstruction of these war-ravaged regions. These nations have been destroyed by decades of war, and remain flashpoints.

We’ve seen an extraordinary breakthrough in this fight just over the last few days, as Hussein will tell us more about shortly, where Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, Iraq’s Prime Minister, sent out a tweet saying, “There is no alternative to the China-Iraq agreement.” We’ll get the full implications and background to that from Hussein in a moment, including his personal involvement in bringing this policy shift around. I know he has profound interest, and this is very personal for him, being as he is, a native Iraqi.

And I can say, for myself, as an American, this is a topic in which I have profound interest in, first of all, because this is the application of the Hamiltonian economic policies which built the United States, and made us into a strong, independent republic; but also because I see this as the only exit from the policy of perpetual war, endless war, perpetrated by the Bush and Obama administrations. The United States has a profound interest at this moment, in the full participation and support in this collaboration to bring the New Silk Road policy into Southwest Asia and Northern Africa, and I think this is a topic which is profoundly important for all thinking Americans, and global citizens at this moment.

So before we bring on Hussein, I would like to invite Jason to just give us a little bit of a broader outline on the current global situation, so that we can then come in from above, and focus on the significance of this breakthrough in Southwest Asia this week.

Jason Ross: The situation that we face and that Hussein’s going to be discussing in terms of a breakthrough’s potential, it’s one of a fight between two paradigms over the last decades. The trans-Atlantic economic system has become increasingly based, not on physical economy, not on science and technology in the broadest sense of expanding the frontiers of science through space and through nuclear fusion—this sort of thing—instead it’s focussed on increasing financialization of the economy, in speculation, on maintaining an oligarchical control over the economy, through increasing the ability of finance to direct it, while reducing the potential for physical growth that’s required for human wellbeing and for human development.

A new paradigm has been taking the world by storm, especially over the past couple of decades, with the meteoric growth of China, which has pulled almost the entirety of its impoverished population out of poverty and is on its path, as it has planned, toward achieving a good standard of living for everybody, to become a medium-income country in the world, and then beyond, to become a first-tier player in science, technology and economic growth.

China has exported both its know-how and the economic approach that it took through the world, with its Belt and Road Initiative. And this parallels very well with the Schiller Institute’s New Silk Road proposal for a World Land-Bridge, to move for the development of inland areas, of continents, of countries, through the development of a dense and high-capacity, high-technology infrastructure platform.

In contrast to these developments, a virtual summit called the Green Horizon Summit—co-sponsored by the City of London, the Green Finance Institute and the World Economic Forum—has just concluded on “Green Finance,” where funds for recovery from COVID, where the idea of the future, is that all projects need to be “green.”

According to their agenda, carbon-pricing, green industries, etc., need to be factored into every investment decision. The effect that this would have, if allowed to dominate world development trends and world finance, would be to prevent development by insisting on low-energy power sources, such as windmills and solar, at the exclusion of both coal and natural gas, and nuclear power, which is the real energy source of the future as we continue to work towards the breakthrough of having nuclear fusion.

So the contrast between this sort of green, dead-end outlook, and the outlook of physical economic growth that characterized the economic growth of the United States under Hamilton, and as somewhat recently, under President Franklin Roosevelt, whose New Deal unlocked the productivity of the American nation in large part through direct investments in large-scale infrastructure platforms. So it’s exciting for me, as a citizen of the world, as a human being, to see this potential being unlocked in more and more places around the world, and the opportunity to adhere to this new paradigm, and break away from the disgusting, deadly green one that characterized the disastrous Bush and Obama administrations, and would characterize a Biden administration were he to come into office. So it’s excellent to have the alternative to that.

Hussein Askary: It’s a very important moment, of course, in history, and also in the history of your nation, and Iraq, my native country, but also the rest of the world. There’s enormous turmoil, as I understand in your own country, but also we have problems around the world; we also have the pandemic going on; we have a hunger catastrophe around the world, and also potential threat of a war between the major powers, the United States, China, and Russia.

These are not disconnected issues. As Lyndon LaRouche has taught us, in order to be able to understand a specific strategic or economic problem, like when using Google Earth, you look for a certain area, but then you zoom out of that area and look at the whole globe. And then you look back into the history of the humankind, or at least the recent history of humankind, and then you look into the future: Where do you want to go? Where should we be going? And in that sense, all these three or four elements, you have to keep them all in one form in your mind when you discuss these specific issues.

I joined the Schiller Institute and I’ve been an associate of Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-

LaRouche for 25 years. My fascination with the New Silk Road started already in 1995-96, when the Executive Intelligence Review, which I started working for then, published the first ever comprehensive study of the New Silk Road. People popularly call it the New Silk Road; Lyndon LaRouche called it the Eurasian Land-Bridge, to connect Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Since then, I have been obsessed with the idea of building the New Silk Road. Working with the Schiller Institute in my region of West Asia and Africa, I have worked with governments, organizations, and experts discussing these great design projects as a means to have peace through economic development.

Chongyang Institute of Renmin University and Caijing Magazine

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

We have produced several reports, the first published by EIR called The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, I translated into Arabic. In 2017, the Schiller Institute published the special report Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa: A Vision of an Economic Renaissance, co-authored by Jason and myself.

We aren’t looking at West Asia or Africa, or any part of the world as separate. This is the vision Lyndon LaRouche and his associates and experts, like Hal Cooper, who passed away this year, had, of bringing all nations together around a unique, uniting concept: economic development, prosperity, scientific-technological progress, and cultural dialogue. This is the essence of what people call the “New Silk Road.” (See Figure 1.) When Chinese President Xi Jinping first presented the Belt and Road to the public, he called it the Economic Belt of the New Silk Road. He did not say the “trade route” of the New Silk Road, because people are fixated on the question of trade along the Silk Road, whether it’s the land Silk Road, “the Belt,” or the Maritime Silk Road on the sea, which is called, “the Road.”

FIGURE 1

Six Belt and Road Transportation Corridors

BRIX

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

Yes, trade will benefit greatly from the building of this infrastructure, but what is important is the economic development it will generate. LaRouche said that all the transport lines you see in our publications extending across the continents should be considered as development corridors, which are 100-150 km wide with railway, highways, water canals, and oil and gas pipelines; and then you have power lines, you build industrial, agro-industrial centers and urban centers around them, so the human and raw materials of large sections of the planet that are, for example, landlocked, they will come to fruition, they will be utilized for the benefit of all nations.

So this is the idea which we have been developing.

One of the best representations of the development corridor concept is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC. It is not one road that brings goods from China to the Arabian Sea. It is a complete development corridor, with highways, railways, water dams, power plants, agricultural projects, industrial projects, and so on and so forth. So, Pakistan’s economic potential and productivity is raised, while China can benefit from that, both by employing its companies, and also opening a trade route to the rest of the world. It’s strategically important.

The region where I have been most active in promoting LaRouche’s ideas, including the idea of joining the New Silk Road, is what is called the Middle East. Really, it is called West Asia; there is nothing called the Middle East, except in the media. And also in parts of Africa.

Iraq, my native country, is a strategic crossroads, In recent months, joining the New Silk Road and working with China, has become a major issue.

The problem was that people had little knowledge about the Silk Road, in general, what it is, and how China works in implementing that project with nations around the world. So in that sense, we in the Schiller Institute have been 20 years ahead of everyone, in studying, defining and advising countries, and explaining it for people. The Maritime Silk Road not only goes to the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean, but reaches into the Persian Gulf, which is one of the most important trade areas with China and East Asia because of the oil and gas. Almost 80-90% of oil and gas produced in the Gulf, which is 40% of the global total oil and gas trade, goes to East Asia. It does not go to the United States and Europe as some people think. Mostly, China, Japan, South Korea, India and so on.

What is fascinating in this sense, is that it can reach Iraq in the city of Basra and then, from there, join the Economic Belt of the Silk Road, the land-based economic belt, and extend that into the Mediterranean.

FIGURE 2

The Five Seas Region

Source: Project Phoenix—Aleppo: The Eternal City

Syria is the crossroads for the continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa in the World Land-Bridge.

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

Matthew and I and others have worked on the reconstruction of Syria. See Figure 2, the Five Seas map. This concept of the Five Seas—the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea surrounding the area—can also become corridors for trade among Asia, Africa, and Europe. Iraq and Syria, and Iran and Turkey, are positioned to be a hub for this. And as you can see in Figure 2, we extended this concept from Basra in southern Iraq, along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to Syria and then to the Mediterranean.

FIGURE 3

Satellite View of Al Faw Peninsula

CC/UNEP

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

A big fight has been going on in an area in southern Iraq: It’s called the Al Faw Peninsula, which has become a battleground for the whole global New Silk Road strategy, or the New Paradigm. The Al Faw Peninsula is Iraq’s only outlet to the oceans. Squeezed between Iran and Kuwait, it is an accumulation of sedimentary silt, brought by the rivers to the Gulf. This area is historically Iraq. When the British created the borders between Iraq and Kuwait, a British colony, they made the Kuwaiti border reach all the way to Um Qasr, the red dot on the west of the map, shown in Figure 3, Iraq’s only major port. You can see what this does to Iraq: It makes it a landlocked country, and this has been a strategic problem for many Iraqi governments historically.

So, the idea was to build a major port in the southern tip of the Al Faw Peninsula. This has been an old project, but due to all the wars, the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), the First Gulf War (1990-1991), then the invasion of Iraq (2003), until now, that has been almost impossible. Al Faw is also emotionally very important for Iraqis, because in the last years of the Iran-Iraq War, tens of thousands of Iraqi young men died in trench warfare with Iran, to keep control of this peninsula. It was a completely meaningless war, but that was part of a global strategy, which the Iraqi leadership foolishly adhered to.

FIGURE 4

Al Faw Grand Port

Technital

An artist’s rendition of Al Faw Grand Port.

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

Figure 4 is an artist’s depiction of a satellite view of how port Al Faw will look. The idea is to build a deep-water port to global standards, to allow major container ships to dock and unload their containers and products, and use Iraq as a corridor for trade; but also this is important for Iraq’s own development.

The invasion of Iraq brought an economic disaster; there was pressure on the Iraqi government to start implementing this project. But due to turning Iraq into a complete rentier economy, after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the Bush-Cheney and British alliance, Iraq was only selling oil and buying 95% of all its needs from abroad. So Iraq was not producing food, not producing any industrial goods, or anything else. Everything was bought by oil money. That arrangement of course, is not sustainable.

So there was a necessity to build this port. The government had a capital budget for investment, so they started with certain small projects, for example building the breakwater, these two long arms you see in the picture. The eastern one to the right was built by a Greek company; the western one was built by the Korean company, Daewoo. These countries are allies with the United States in its geopolitical constellation. The project never materialized. Last month, the manager of the Korean company committed suicide, because the Iraqi government never had money to finance the port itself! We don’t know what his reasons were, but the whole project has become a disaster, and this whole area is just simply sand at the moment.

In this context, it is very important that certain things happen now to revive the project, which I will come to later, and to make this part of an effort to turn Iraq into a pivot in the whole east-west/north-south Silk Road routes. Doing that will enhance the global image of the New Silk Road, positioning Iraq in the larger picture, but also saving the Iraqi economy and giving the Iraqi people a decent living standard.

After many, many years—since 1991—Iraq has been subject to horrible sanctions after the First Gulf War; but after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iraq was almost destroyed. All the infrastructure in Iraq was destroyed and we have two generations who have not had any real education. We don’t have agriculture, we don’t have industry, and even electricity is not restored—imagine that after 17 years of U.S.-British control of Iraq, we don’t even have enough electricity in the country.

Iraq can become an important part in achieving peace in the world, by bringing the major powers together to work for a good cause.

Ogden: That this must succeed is profoundly in the interests of every nation on the planet, including the United States. This area is obviously the crossroads of civilization: This is the bridge between Asia, Europe, and Africa, and it’s for that reason that it’s been such a target for destabilization for so many generations.

The Eurasian Land-Bridge idea of Helga and Lyndon LaRouche was built on a philosophical axiomatic approach of how mankind can work together, which they called the “dialogue of civilizations,” in direct counter-distinction to the idea of a “clash of civilizations.” The “win-win” form of cooperation expressed by Xi Jinping is obviously in the interests of all nations. And the geopolitical outlook expressed by John Bolton and Mike Pompeo that China is an adversary, that this is a new Cold War, will only lead us down the road to further destruction and further perpetual war.

So, this port project on the Al Faw Peninsula is an extraordinarily important way out. As you just said, it’s a crime. You told me at one point that it had been years since you had been back to Iraq, but it is still—whole areas of the country still have destroyed infrastructure and no electricity; when the neocons said “We’re going to bomb you back to the stone age,” that really, literally, was what has happened to whole areas of the country.

In January, when I spoke with you last, we discussed the potential for a breakthrough on some of this China-Iraq collaboration and these credit mechanisms. It was very interesting that this is a very Hamiltonian kind of idea. At that point there were some breakthroughs that were happening—but, all of a sudden, there was a total destabilization of the country, what you had characterized as a “color revolution,” and the entire perspective just disintegrated. And it’s very encouraging that, with the new government and its new prime minister, that cooperation is now coming back to the forefront. I think it’s the pressure of historical events which is making it clear that this is so necessary. Maybe you can tell us how it got derailed over the course of this preceding year.

Askary: The Iraq War was a disaster for all parties. Since 2003, the United States has spent $1 trillion on the war and the consequences of the war, from taxpayers’ money. Forty billion of that money, which was allocated to the Defense Department, is not accounted for! Nobody knows where it disappeared to. Even the Congress has not been able to figure out where that money has gone. So there are all kinds of dirty operations.

CGTN

Haider al-Abadi, Prime Minister of Iraq, meeting with Xi Jinping, President of China. Beijing, September 23, 2019.

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

Iraq itself spent $1 trillion of oil money since then, without building a single real infrastructure project: that’s really a tragedy. In 2015, Iraq and China signed the Belt and Road memorandum of understanding, during Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s government. And in May 2018, Iraq signed what is called now the “Oil for Reconstruction Agreement,” which is a fantastic agreement based on what I and my colleague, EIR Economics Editor Paul Gallagher, describe as a Hamiltonian credit method, which I’ll come to.

But this was not activated either! People in Iraq say there’s pressure from other geopolitical parties, especially the United States, and probably the UK and other European countries, not to implement these agreements with China.

In September 2019 however, under enormous pressure due to the high unemployment, the social unrest, and poverty, the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, who had been in power for just one year, went to China with a huge delegation, and signed a number of memoranda of understanding, but also a special financial appendix to the Oil for Reconstruction Agreement, which then activated the agreement.

The Agreement creates a special reconstruction fund, using the money from 100,000 barrels per day of Iraqi oil, which Iraq already sells to China. Iraq sells 1 million barrels a day, almost, to China, but the Chinese side will take the money from 100,000 barrels and put it in a special reconstruction fund in a Chinese bank. When Iraq has accumulated $1.5 billion in that fund, the China Export & Credit Insurance Corporation, Sinosure, will add $8.5 billion, bringing the fund’s capital to $10 billion.

Iraq does not have to have $10 billion; it’s enough to reach a critical mass of money into that account ($1.5 billion), and then China adds the remaining 85% of the $10 billion. The Chinese and Iraqi sides will discuss what kind of infrastructure projects will be built, including ports, railways, roads, schools, hospitals, housing, water management systems—and it’s a full-set agreement, as I described with the Pakistan agreement. But in this sense, Iraq will be able to start the reconstruction process without even having money in the budget, so to speak.

It is not necessary to go through all the details here, since I have explained it in an Executive Intelligence Review article, “A Solution Is Possible: Iran, Iraq and the World in this Moment of Crisis,” in January. The Iraqi fund was activated in September 2019; in October the first money went into the fund. By January 2020, Iraq had already amassed $1.5 billion in that fund, and the Chinese were supposed to add their $8.5 billion and start the work.

Office of Ali Khamenei

Qasem Soleimani (above, and center of photo below), Iranian Major General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, worked alongside U.S. forces to rid Iraq and Syria of ISIS.

Courtesy photo

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

As soon as Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi returned from Beijing, due to the frustration in the Iraqi population with the economic and social conditions, especially among youth, we had massive demonstrations. Fueled by outside groups—everybody has theories about who financed them—the demonstrations went from peaceful into extremely violent in October-November and into December 2019. At that point, a third force came into the situation, shooting demonstrators and police, which is a typical intelligence operation. Amid all this disturbance, on January 3, 2020, the United States decided to assassinate Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who was in Iraq. Assassinated with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, the head of the Iraqi “Shi’a militia,” the Popular Mobilization Forces.

The only thing we hear from the United States, is that Qassem Soleimani was leading the Quds Force, which was killing American soldiers. But what they leave out, is actually that, since ISIS had almost overrun Iraq, Soleimani, the Quds Force, the Shi’a militia, the Kurdish militia, and others, were working side by side with U.S. forces to free Iraq from ISIS. That part is left out.

The real story is that the assassination of Soleimani and al-Muhandis made it impossible for the sitting Iraqi government, which had signed the agreement with China, to stay in power. So that was the final nail in the coffin of that government. Adil Abdul-Mahdi had to resign. An interim government came into power, under Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, who is still the Prime Minister.

But the new government did not continue with the China agreement; it didn’t build infrastructure; it did not continue the policy of the previous government. And, with the COVID pandemic coming in and the collapse of the oil prices on which Iraq depends totally for supplying food and most simple things for the population, Iraqi society has entered into a new spiral of despair. That was almost the end of the China-Iraq agreement.

Ogden: Over the last few days, you’ve been interviewed on some prominent media channels in Iraq and have participated in many useful dialogues there. People there are looking to you, not only for leadership, but have seen the policies you and the Schiller Institute have laid out, now being adopted, or potentially adopted by leading government forces.

What is the background to your involvement, and what have you been doing in terms of Iraq, the broader region, the presentation for the reconstruction of Syria, and elsewhere? And beyond this port deal, what are the broader development projects that can grow out of it, for the reconstruction and the development of Iraq as a whole?

Askary: I mentioned the Al Faw port project, because this had become the battle cry for Iraqi society. In September, I was contacted by a Facebook group created by young people in southern Iraq, mostly in the city of Basra, where the port was supposed to be built. That Facebook group has now grown to 270,000–280,000 members. They expressed to me their frustration with the government for not building the port, but also told me that there are all kinds of theories about how important this port is. The group is called “The Assembly of Iraqi Honorable Citizens for Building the Grand Faw Project and Connecting It to the New Silk Road.” It rejects the rail connection to Kuwait and Iran—that’s another story, which I’m not going to go into.

They told me they really need somebody to explain the New Silk Road, and to explain how the China-Iraq agreement can play a role in both building the port and reviving the Iraqi economy.

So, I started giving classes almost twice a week on the New Silk Road, the Belt and Road, and how it started. But also on our background: the history of the Silk Road that was started by Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche. I displayed our reports, and I even made them available for free to those thousands of youth, and many more in Arab countries. I decided to put the Special Report I had translated into Arabic on the Silk Road, on the Arabic-language LaRouche School of Physical Economics website, so people can download it for free.

Many people have told me that my classes offer “the most scientific and objective view of the whole story” about the New Silk Road and the port and why it’s important for Iraq’s reconstruction; I have also managed to provide a clear picture of what the agreement with China means, and why this idea of a credit system, rather than a monetary system is key in this whole process.

These lessons, which I have on my YouTube channel or the LaRouche School YouTube channel, started spreading in the social media around the country, to the extent that people among my relatives started contacting me, saying “We have seen you somewhere on the social media.”

Enormous pressure has been building up, and new groups have come into being propelling me into the realm of the “big” media in Iraq, which is the satellite channel. I was interviewed just last week by two popular Iraqi channels. They just say, “Look, we want you to explain for us this New Silk Road and the Oil for Reconstruction Agreement, because it was a confidential agreement that the Iraqi government really failed to explain its importance to the Iraqi people, and that’s why the government was overthrown.”

I happen to have insight into that agreement. Because of my involvement in this entire period, I could explain in detail why this agreement is so important, especially the credit aspect of it, and what kind of projects should be built. I was also able to explain to the Iraqi people, from these popular TV channels, not only the Silk Road, but also Lyndon LaRouche’s concept of the development corridor. I think it was the first time that the Iraqi people had ever heard the name “Alexander Hamilton.” I explained for them how this concept emerged from the work of Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary of the United States, and how the United States had used this historically, that Franklin Roosevelt used a similar method, and so on. And I compared it to the Chinese agreement.

CC/Mustafa Nader Mondalawy

Iraqi flags began to fill Baghdad’s Tahrir Square at the beginning of the massive demonstrations, in October 2019.

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

My presentations created shockwaves throughout the country. People who otherwise had had a sense that this was a positive thing, now have a scientific, economic argument to present to the parliament and to the government. I was even contacted by Members of Parliament in Iraq, who told me that there is a big discussion inside the Parliament about the China-Iraq Agreement. They are frustrated with the government for not activating it; pressure is building.

Two days ago, the people in power started to notice that this is turning into a popular movement. People started organizing small demonstrations and gatherings, especially the tribal forces in Iraq, who got much more power when the structure of the Iraqi state dissolved. People have reorganized themselves in tribal structures. It’s not optimal, it’s not a good idea, but that’s the only thing the citizens can refer to—their tribe, their sect, and so on. So we had these manifestations of people coming out with Iraqi and Chinese flags and signs saying, “The government has to reactivate the China-Iraq Agreement.”

The government has sensed there might be a new revolt brewing under the surface, and the pressure in the parliament is growing, so they have taken notice.

Last week, something very special happened. The Iraqi Parliament voted to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). This is very, very, very late, because all the countries in the region have already joined. Worldwide, 103 countries have joined the AIIB; only Iraq in the region was not in. So as a sign of this pressure, the Iraqi Parliament voted to join the AIIB.

Two days ago, Al-Kadhimi tweeted that there is no alternative to the Chinese agreement. Khalid Najim, the Iraqi Minister of Planning, has now declared in a TV interview that over the next few days, we will see the activation of the China-Iraq Agreement, and we will have discussions with Chinese agencies and companies on the projects that should be planned.

Now, I know personally from my engagement in Iraq, and also from previous times with my consulting company, that there are very active discussions with both Chinese and international companies to relaunch the Faw port agreement. The Iraqi Transport Ministry wants all nations to come and discuss this, and make bids on building the port—so American, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, German, all kinds of companies, are invited to discuss and present their bids on how they see the most effective way of building the port, but also other, auxiliary projects.

Courtesy of Hussein Askary

Askary meets with Iraq’s Deputy Agriculture Minister. At right, Deputy Agriculture Minister Dr. Mahdi Al-Qaisi and senior ministry advisors. From left: Hussein Askary, Professor Cai, and Dr. Mutlag.

Courtesy of Hussein Askary

Askary meets with Iraq’s Minister of Water Resources. From right, Dr. Jamal Al-Adeli (Minister of Water Resources of Iraq), Hussein Askary (CEO of Swedhydro and Schiller Institute member), Professor Cai Mantang (scientific advisor of Elion Resources Group, China), and Dr. Nihad Mutlag (professor of biology and environmental science at Koufa University, Iraq).

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

The Iraqi government—and also this was my advice to the Iraqi government—is not going East or going West. They have to be open to everyone. The United States’ role in Iraq is very, very important for good and for bad. It has been bad so far, but they can get the American policy to shift into a positive direction by calling on the United States to collaborate with China to make sure that these projects are built, because this is the only way Iraq can be stable, and that terrorism will not emerge again. This is my advice in all my presentations and even my TV interviews, because people throw shit at the United States—which you can understand: the United States role in Iraq has been destructive!—but even though that is the general sense, I tell people, “Look, we can’t solve the problem by creating a new unipolar world, because that would lead us to world war. We need to become an example of a nation where both East and West get together and work together.”

Is the United States going to do that, are the British going to do that? That will be proven from the kind of offers they make to the Iraqi government to build infrastructure, build agriculture—so whoever comes with a good offer to Iraq, they should take it, and they should be open to everyone, not only to China.

Ross: This is something that should be open to everybody. A lot of times, these finance-type discussions turn into situations of the Chinese approach versus the World Bank or the United States. Although that is sort of the way things stand right now, it shouldn’t be. Take the continent of Africa for example. comparing the investment in that continent by let’s say, the British, or the Americans, or Europeans generally, with the investments made by China: The Chinese investments are much more in infrastructure and manufacturing, and the West in mining.

Does that mean that China is the only useful investor in Africa? No. Does it mean that African countries like the fact that many times the best data are Chinese, and that China is becoming in some ways the go-to contractor for rail and other projects? Well, they’d like to have choices. And there’s plenty of good that the United States can contribute through engineering and project management and other things. There’s a lot of capabilities there.

It’s unfortunately a terrible and local decision by the trans-Atlantic countries and power structures to refrain from engaging in useful and productive ventures. China sees opportunity in Southwest Asia, in Africa, and it takes those opportunities. It’s building markets, it’s developing its skills at being an international contractor and setting up businesses overseas. Chinese businesses are getting a lot of experience out of this. It’s a good thing for them; it’s a good thing for countries that they’re investing in. Everybody benefits from these kinds of productive investments and projects.

Consider the incredible attacks against Donald Trump in the United States. Even when he was candidate Trump, he had a couple of very simple messages that, in particular, got people angry: “A good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.” And, “A good relationship with China is a good thing, not a bad thing.” Against his presidency there has been a nonstop onslaught of years of attacks, of the bogus Russiagate hoax, and of attempts to put him in an anti-China position. Unfortunately, with the coronavirus, the anti-China pressure has succeeded to a certain degree.

With the danger of military conflicts escalating, and the withholding of financing for infrastructure development, it really all comes together: “What direction will the world take?” As the British financial empire—which still exists—made very clear in this multi-day, virtual “Green Horizon Summit” for green finance festivities, its vision is of a world of green debt, of financialization of the economy.

There’s so much growth to achieve in the world; there are so many projects that are going to be physically productive; there are so many new technologies to implement to improve the productive powers of labor for people in areas all around the world, that neglecting to take these opportunities will be both stupid and deadly.

My vision for the world is not one where people of good will end up taking China’s side against the U.S. when it comes to productive projects, but one where China, the United States, Russia, India, other major players are more on the same page as cooperating partners—also competitors—but from a standpoint of increasing investment in productivity and the immense benefits that that will bring.

Askary: You mentioned the case of Africa. I think there are two questions here in the fight for the policies of the major powers. First, What is the policy? And second, To whose benefit is it? China is not the biggest investor in Africa. It’s the United States, Britain, and France. But, if you analyze what these countries invest in, the United States, Britain, and France invest solely in extraction. Extracting raw materials from Africa! And in financial services.

The African economies are not involved in any of the supply chains of the oil, the metals, and so on which are extracted from Africa. Who is benefitting from that? It’s not the American, or French, or British people—it’s the City of London and the major conglomerates. I saw recently that 50 British companies listed on the London Stock Exchange in the City of London, own $1 trillion in raw material deposits in Africa. These are just a few companies, but they control the raw materials of Africa!

China also has investments in oil, metals, everywhere in the world. But they balance the payment by giving Africans infrastructure, so the African economies can start becoming part of the supply chain, and can improve the living conditions of their populations. They can use part of these raw materials inside their countries, to improve living conditions, but also become producers for the world. Some countries are starting to become like that. For example, Ethiopia and Egypt produce things in China-built factories for other African countries and for Europe. That’s the difference in the two attitudes toward investment.

When Obama became President, Susan Rice, who Joe Biden said might be his next Secretary of State—hopefully not!—played a key role in destroying Libya and Syria, and creating havoc in other African states. She met with African ambassadors when Obama became President and made this famous statement: ”We do not do infrastructure.” Under Obama, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which is supposed to lend money to American companies working in Africa (among other places), was shut down, in principle; so it stopped financing. There was no investment of the EXIM Bank into Africa under Obama. The Congress also played a role—because they are not interested in that!

Obama himself went to South Africa a few months after Xi Jinping had been there. Xi Jinping told African leaders, “Africa is perfectly positioned to become industrial powers, as we became. You have all the potential to become industrial powers.” What did Obama tell the African youth? He said: “Here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over.” So forget about development.

That’s the difference in the attitude, which is the problem no matter who is in power. This has to be resolved, because nations now are taking power into their own hands. They see the difference between the two models. They might start nationalizing British, French, and American projects in Africa, oil and gas companies, because they are not benefitting their people.

Djibouti, which is a tiny country in Africa, but very strategically positioned, hosts military bases of seven world powers—so they could overthrow the government any day. Just recently, Djibouti decided suddenly to repossess the major container port then under contract with Dubai World Port, a huge international conglomerate, run by the British, but it’s registered in Dubai, and with Arab money. The Djibouti government told them, “Look, you cannot have this port for 25 years. You signed an agreement with a corrupt government before. We are taking it away from you.” So, Dubai World Port went to London to an arbitration court, and the British arbitration court ruled against the Djibouti government: “You have to return the port to Dubai World Port.” What did Djibouti say to the British court? “You can take that decision and shove it—wherever you want. This is our port; you are out of here.”

So this tiny country, Djibouti, can decide that the British Empire and its Arab allies are not important! They are saying, in effect, “Our sovereignty is more important, because we have a responsibility to our people, not to the City of London. And if we don’t do that, our people will rise up against us.”

This is also what’s going on in Iraq, now. The best choice for them is to say, “We’re a sovereign nation: We decide to take over our economy, we decide our economic policy, and we are open to working with everyone.”

Ogden: Thank you so much, Hussein. Going all the way back to Lyndon LaRouche’s idea behind the Oasis Plan—the economic development program for peace between Israel and Palestine—LaRouche’s thinking was always from the perspective that development is the new name for peace. The 20th century was dominated by world wars and endless wars, and Lyndon LaRouche’s intervention was always from the standpoint that sustainable peace can only be achieved through shared economic development. I think that’s what you’re expressing here, with this program. That obviously is also the perspective behind the win-win paradigm of the World Land-Bridge, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

As Jason said, we’re in the midst of an all-out battle for the soul of the United States, and for the future of U.S. policy right now. The American people would do well to see this approach as being in the interest of our nation, of the entire world. It really is the road out of the hell that has been created from decades of endless war and the prevention of economic development and access to progress and creativity for all people.

It’s very good news that Alexander Hamilton’s policies are now being introduced to more nations and more peoples. The world will surely be a better place when we can achieve Hamiltonian economics for the entire globe.

Thank you both very much for joining me. I’m honored to be able to share this broadcast with you, and I look forward to speaking with you soon.