Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 47, Number 49, December 4, 2020

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL The Post-Pandemic World Order: The Image of Man Is the Key by Helga Zepp-LaRouch

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 47, Number 49, December 4, 2020

- I. Truth in Elections

- Schiller Institute International Investigative Commission on Truth in Elections November 28, 2020 INTRODUCTION Commission Hearing on Massive U.S. Election Fraud by Dennis Small

- Harley Schlanger

- Leah Hoopes

- Sen. Mario Scavello

- William Binney

- Dialogue Prof. Marino Elsevyf and Col. Richard Black (USA ret.)

- Daniel Marmolejo and Harley Schlanger

- Closing Comments of Witnesses, Experts, and International Jurists Leah Hoopes

- Bennie Smith

- David Meiswinkle

- Juan Francisco Soto

- Dr. Simón Levy

- Prof. Marino Elsevyf

- II. Africa: Development Before Debt

- TO REPLENISH LAKE CHAD Italy’s Prodi Puts Transaqua Back on the International Agenda by Claudio Celani

- AFRICA’S MOST CRUCIAL MOMENT Discourse on the Debt, 33 Years On by P.D. Lawton

- III. Think Like Beethoven

- Think Like Beethoven: Fidelio, Lafayette and LaRouche— Or the Big Elephant in the Room (conclusion) by David Shavin

- IV. LaRouches Release Development Virus on World

- HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE New Green Fascism, or New Paradigm for Mankind?

- LAROUCHE IN RHODES A Four-Power Agreement Can Create A New World Credit System (2009)

International

Investigative Commission on

Truth in Elections

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

The Post-Pandemic World Order:

The Image of Man Is the Key

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Nov. 28—Although the mainstream media are outdoing one another in presenting Joe Biden and his projected cabinet of super-hawks as the next U.S. Presidential administration, and President Trump as a populist monster babbling on about vote fraud, those same media may be in for an unpleasant surprise. The sworn statements of eyewitnesses, documenting various aspects of vote fraud in the “swing” states, represent legal evidence. Pennsylvania State representatives and senators have just announced their intention to make use of their constitutional right to appoint electors to the Electoral College.

There are manifold possibilities that the proof of electronic vote fraud via Dominion and Smartmatic voting machines can be produced on time, and that this evidence will suffice to reverse the results of the election. Should that happen, the world will be on the verge of a dam bursting, such that literally not one stone will be left standing: Most of the current assumptions about the political realities in the transatlantic world will be swept away. Presumably, the next two weeks leading to the decision of the Electoral College on the confirmation of the next President of the United States, will see many aspects of the vote fraud brought to light, in spite of the attempted censorship.

Related to this issue, but touching on the deeper causes of the current civilizational crisis, President Putin noted in his address to the recent annual meeting of the Valdai Club, that we are living in an era of obvious international shocks and crises. As the reason for this crisis, he cited the paradox that mankind, on the one hand, has reached a high level of technological and socio-economic development, but is facing, on the other, an erosion of moral values and reference points, and the feeling that existence no longer makes sense, or that the purpose of mankind on this planet Earth has been lost.

This crisis, Putin went on, cannot be settled through diplomatic negotiations or even a large international conference, but requires a complete revision of our priorities and goals. And this must begin with every single individual, he explained, every community, and every state, and only then can a global configuration emerge. The starting point for such a transformation, he stated, could be the Covid pandemic.

Indeed, the response to the pandemic takes us to the heart of the problem. The relative success of Asia and the failure of the West to bring COVID-19 under control are so obvious that even mainstream German newspapers like the Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Die Zeit are now talking about Europe’s arrogance and stubbornness, which has prevented Europe from learning the lesson from the methods used in several Asian countries to eradicate the pandemic, rather than simply trying half-heartedly to contain it. The result of these two different approaches has been an extremely low level of new infection and death in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and South Korea, while the pandemic in Europe and the United States threatens to reach exponential growth rates in several countries and completely overwhelm medical capacities. What’s the difference?

From the very beginning, President Xi Jinping made clear that the Chinese government’s absolute priority was to save every single life, and that it was especially important to protect the elderly and all those most at risk. After rigorous measures taken at the outset, such as mass testing, contact tracing, isolation, and quarantines in Wuhan and Hubei province, it was possible to bring the pandemic under control. Then, at every new eruption, such as in Beijing and Tsingtao, measures were rapidly taken to find and isolate individuals who had been exposed to COVID, thanks to testing and efficient digital contact tracing, and thus stop the spread of the virus.

In Asia overall, where the populations already had the experience of fighting outbreaks of the SARS and MERS viruses, there was neither the irrational refusal to wear face masks, nor the western distrust of using cell phone contact-tracing apps, although western governments had deliberately ignored the total surveillance carried out by the NSA and GCHQ. In the meantime, the economic growth rate in China was back up to 4.9% in the fourth quarter and people returned to their normal social life.

In a similar way, Russia prioritized the preservation of lives as the key value of the country’s culture and spiritual tradition. Referencing the dramatic demographic losses suffered by Russia in the 20th Century, President Putin stressed in Valdai that it was indispensable to fight for every single person and for the future of every Russian family. He also emphasized that an essential traditional feature of Russian culture is to give the utmost priority to the protection of human life.

The Crux of the Matter

This brings us to the crux of the matter: The supposed contradiction between saving human lives and the “interests of the economy” has long since led to an erosion of values that, at least in the past, used to be associated with Christianity, which was based on the sanctity of human life. Decades before the Coronavirus, when healthcare systems were being privatized, the scale of values was shifted to financial profit-making. That is the main reason why Europe and the U.S. were so catastrophically caught off guard by the outbreak of the pandemic.

The lack of masks, protective gear, and intensive care beds at the outset of the pandemic, and the dramatic shortage still today of nursing staff are the result of this false set of priorities. New reports are being released almost every day about how the Swedish model, so loudly praised by some, which was based on achieving herd immunity, cost an enormous number of elderly people in old age homes their lives. Rather than receiving expensive treatments, they were simply given palliative care and left to die. As SPD health expert Karl Lauterbach put it: “Crudely speaking, many elderly people are sacrificed there so that the cafes don’t have to shut down.”

It is no less scandalous when in Switzerland, one of the richest countries in the world, the predictable shortages in medical care have led to an open discussion of triage. In Italy, the horrible images from Bergamo, where the coffins were piled up in the streets last spring and finally had to be carted away by the Army, were evidently not sufficient to ensure that appropriate preparations were made for the perfectly foreseeable second wave. As a result, physicians in Milan now protest that the decisions they are being forced to take are both clinically and ethically unacceptable.

On February 26, the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe handed down a landmark ruling stating that the 2015 ban on commercially assisted suicide was a violation of the nation’s Fundamental Law [Constitution]. Since the right to a self-determined death is guaranteed, the Court argued, people must be allowed to make use of offers from third parties to do so.

In this spirit, the ARD television channel broadcast the film Gott [God] on November 23 as an interactive TV show, based on the play by Ferdinand von Schirach, which portrays a healthy, 78-year-old man who, after the death of his wife, no longer wants to live and seeks medically assisted suicide. In light of the pandemic and the resulting grave risks for the elderly and the sick, this attempt, in the form of a staged fictional event, designed to dispel the historical reservations (due to the fact that the Nazis had systematically exterminated “worthless lives”) must be seen as an unprecedentedly cynical propaganda stunt. And it was successful: after the event, 70.8 percent of the TV viewers said they were for the right to assisted suicide.

As a reminder: at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, Dr. Leo Alexander, a medical advisor to the prosecution, warned of the utilitarian thinking behind euthanasia. He stated that it began with a quite subtle shift in the attitude of physicians concerning the costs of treating some patients, who then quickly became categorized as “unworthy lives.” To follow this slippery slope once again, in the conditions of such a massively escalating economic and financial crisis, can only be described in Germany as historical amnesia.

We are right now in the midst of tectonic changes in the strategic situation, at a time when what is really at stake is war or peace, and when above all the dramatic developments in the United States cannot be understood, unless one regards them as an expression of an existential battle between the old, declining paradigm of the unipolar world and a new paradigm, aimed at creating a new world order that will allow the long-term survival of the human species.

The revision of the priorities and aims of society, evoked by Putin, should become the foundation of this new paradigm, and must begin with an image of man which considers human life sacrosanct. If one wishes to depict this as a competition between the values of China and Russia on the one side, and those of the West on the other, we would do well to revive our Christian, humanist tradition if we are to avoid losing the competition in disgrace.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 47, Number 49, December 4, 2020

Cover This Week

Schiller Institute

Some of the participants in the hearing of the Schiller Institute Commission on Truth in Elections. Clockwise from upper left: William Binney, Leah Hoopes, Col. Richard Black (ret.), David Meiswinkle, Prof. Marino Elsevyf, and Sen. Mario Scavello.

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

Schiller Institute International Investigative Commission on Truth in Elections

2 EDITORIAL

The Post-Pandemic World Order: The Image of Man Is the Key

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

I. TRUTH IN ELECTIONS

Schiller Institute International Investigative Commission on

Truth in Elections

November 28, 2020

5 INTRODUCTION

Commission Hearing on Massive U.S. Election Fraud

by Dennis Small

Expert Testimony

6 Harley Schlanger

11 Leah Hoopes

12 Sen. Mario Scavello

13 William Binney

Dialogue

13 Prof. Marino Elsevyf and Col. Richard Black (USA ret.)

14 Daniel Marmolejo and Harley Schlanger

Closing Comments of Witnesses, Experts and International Jurists

15 Leah Hoopes

16 Bennie Smith

16 David Meiswinkle

17 Juan Francisco Soto

18 Dr. Simón Levy

19 Prof. Marino Elsevyf

II. AFRICA: DEVELOPMENT BEFORE DEBT

TO REPLENISH LAKE CHAD

20 Italy’s Prodi Puts Transaqua Back on the International Agenda

by Claudio Celani

24 AFRICA’S MOST CRUCIAL MOMENT

Discourse on the Debt, 33 Years On

by P.D. Lawton

III. THINK LIKE BEETHOVEN

28 Think Like Beethoven: Fidelio, Lafayette and LaRouche—

Or the Big Elephant in the Room (conclusion)

by David Shavin

IV. LAROUCHES RELEASE A DEVELOPMENT VIRUS ON THE WORLD

41 HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

New Green Fascism, or New Paradigm for Mankind?

47 LAROUCHE IN RHODES

A Four-Power Agreement Can Create a New World Credit System

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

October 10, 2009

I. Truth in Elections

SCHILLER INSTITUTE

International Investigative Commission on

Truth in Elections

November 28, 2020, Noon to 3:45 PM

The full video of the Commission meeting is available here.

Schiller Institute Commission

Hearing on Massive U.S. Election Fraud

by Dennis Small

Nov. 28—The Schiller Institute today convened an International Investigative Commission on Truth in Elections, consisting of a panel of jurists from the U.S., Mexico, Dominican Republic, and Argentina. Expert testimony before the Commission was presented by National Security Agency whistleblower and former technical director William Binney; LaRouche associate Harley Schlanger of the Schiller Institute; former chief of the Army Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General at the Pentagon, Col. Richard Black (ret.); Pennsylvania State Senator Mario Scavello; Shelby County, Tennessee Election Commissioner Bennie Smith; and Pennsylvania GOP Committeewoman, Leah Hoopes.

The hearings were conducted with simultaneous interpretation in Spanish, and have been broadcast live over YouTube to thousands of listeners in the United States and abroad. Select media were also present and were able to ask questions.

The call to convene the hearing stated:

The ongoing electoral process in the United States is a matter of great international attention and concern. This is not a partisan issue. Some of the participants are, in their own political views, pro-Trump; some are anti-Trump. But what brings them together is a far greater issue: a concern over the universal importance of truth in elections, and the need to hold the United States to the same high standard as its own Constitution demands. The reports will address both irregularities in that electoral process as well as cyber capabilities that are known to exist and which have been used in foreign countries in recent years, and which may have been used inside the United States for the first time in 2020.

The hearings did just that, as the reader will see in the excerpts presented below. In addition to the direct testimony provided by the witnesses, detailed documentation was made available from the Michigan and Georgia court filings by Attorney Sidney Powell. The witnesses were questioned at length by the panel of four international jurists:

• Marino Elsevyf (Dominican Republic): professor of Constitutional and Criminal Law at the University of Santo Domingo, with 41 years of experience as a practicing attorney; member of the 1995 Martin Luther King International Tribunal

• Dr. Simón Levy (Mexico): Doctor of Law from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM); former Under-Secretary of Tourism of Mexico (2018-2019); Master of Laws Degree from Renmin University in China

• Juan Francisco Soto (Argentina): Constitutional attorney; former professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Buenos Aires; legal counsel to Yacyreá Binational Entity (Paraguayan-Argentinian Yacyretá Dam)

• David Meiswinkle (United States): Criminal defense attorney in the state of New Jersey, where he overturned a primary election based on vote fraud; U.S. Army veteran and former police officer.

A Rapporteur from the panel of jurists is now preparing a report summarizing the hearing and the panel’s findings, which will be made public shortly and presented before an international audience at the December 12-13 Schiller Institute conference, “The World after the U.S. Election: Creating A World Based on Reason.” Readers can register here for that conference.

Moderator Jason Ross of the Schiller Institute concluded the nearly four hours of powerful presentations as follows:

On the massive evidence of vote fraud in the November 3 election, in terms of the outcome of this hearing we had today, we have heard all manner of testimony about the context in which this election took place, a context involving threats of a military coup, of years of lies about Russiagate creating a climate of hostility against the results of the last election, the 2016 election, and we’ve gotten some idea of the broader world context that all of this occurs in.

To understand that an outcome of an election is something that we can trust and accept, even if it doesn’t go the way we want, well, that demands transparency. And we’ve heard so many ways that that transparency simply did not exist, it was made impossible, and the potentials for fraud were engendered by that.

Regarding the legal suits, I encourage everybody: Read the filings. If you think, “where’s the evidence?” There’s plenty of it. You can go ahead and read those Georgia and Michigan filings—unless Facebook or Twitter has blocked links to them again. You can see the affidavits, the evidence that’s been submitted with them, you can have a look at it, yourself. We’ve linked it all on the Schiller Institute website. (See both the full Hearing and the links here.)

If you live in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, for example, you can get in touch with your state legislators and urge them to consider whether it’s appropriate for them to use their legislative power to redefine the appointment of electors in this election.

So, really, who benefits from having such non-transparent elections? What would be the goal in creating a system where, here we are, fifty years after putting a man on the Moon, and we can’t run an election that offers results that can be accepted and trusted and believed by so many people in the United States?

I encourage you, personally, to investigate this, look through the evidence, and take appropriate actions based on what you come to discover. And that’s certainly what we’ll be doing.

Harley Schlanger

Harley Schlanger

Mr. Schlanger is a long-time collaborator of Lyndon LaRouche, and spoke here as a representative of the Schiller Institute.

Schiller Institute

Harley Schlanger

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

I’m going to give an overview. I hope you will conclude from the picture that I present, that there was large-scale fraud in the 2020 election. Contrary to the media claim that it’s baseless to say that there’s fraud, that there’s no evidence of fraud, there is a basis, as you will see. In fact, the attempt to dismiss charges without an investigation, is part of the fraud. With the widespread irregularities, the anomalies that Bill Binney has pointed out, to dismiss it by saying, “Well that’s just an election, and we have to move on, and Trump should walk away and concede gracefully,” is not just a fraud in an election, but an assault on the Constitution and on the American voter.

Significant evidence has already been provided, and I think all of you received links to some exhibits: The Sidney Powell Michigan filing, which is I think 75 pages. The Michigan affidavits. The Georgia filing, which is 104 pages. And the dossier of Smartmatic’s Lord Malloch-Brown. Smartmatic is one of the firms that is most significant in the tabulation of the vote totals. I will point out that we’re facing a problem with censorship in that Sidney Powell’s Twitter account was prevented, people were prevented from retweeting her file for a period of time. It was then later lifted, but this is what we’re facing in the United States today with the merger of big tech with the military-industrial complex, which I’ll get to in a moment.

Motivation, Opportunity, and Capability to Commit Large-Scale Election Fraud Against President Trump

I’m going to start with the context for this. As a backdrop to the assertion that there was fraud, you have to look at the fact that there are die-hard opponents to Donald Trump who carried out a four-year campaign to discredit his election in 2016. When they say that Trump is not accepting the result of the votes in 2020, when did Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, and others ever accept Trump’s victory in 2016? The charges against Trump from 2016 are actually baseless and without evidence, despite their constant repetition.

I’m going to show you that these forces, these die-hard anti-Trumpers had a motivation to commit fraud, they had the opportunity to commit fraud, and they also had the capability to commit fraud.

In discussing the anti-Trump networks, let me just identify to whom I’m referring. We’re talking about networks of British intelligence who are involved in the operation in Russiagate, who have a very close eye on the United States. This includes British intelligence, the monarchy, GCHQ—which is the NSA equivalent in England—MI6, and the City of London. Their position was laid bare in December of 2018 in a House of Lords report which said that Trump cannot be allowed to get a second term, because that would be the end of the “special relationship.” So, they had a vested interest in defeating Donald Trump.

Secondly, the Obama intelligence team, whose fingerprints and activities are all over Russiagate, and all over this election. This includes the CIA, including John Brennan, who was its former Director, and Gina Haspel, one of his protéegés, who is now its head and who is refusing to let documents be released. The Director of National Intelligence [James] Clapper; the FBI; the permanent bureaucracy in the Justice Department. All of them are part of this anti-Trump network which possesses the motivation, the opportunity, and the capability to run a fraud.

We’re also talking about the Republican “Never Trumpers,” the Bush network. And their involvement consistently in trying to undermine President Trump. Then, the broader term of the “military-industrial complex,” which includes Wall Street and the related corporate cartels—including the media cartel—and also now, big tech and social media.

What’s the motivation? What’s the hostility to Trump? This is the network which launched and continues to insist on carrying out the endless wars that President Trump promised to end. The regime changes, which not only are they carrying out all over the world, but now this fraud represents regime change in the United States. It’s an anti-Russian policy, anti-China, but it’s designed to keep Trump and Russian President Putin from ever working together.

Secondly, they’re pushing global financial restructuring. Why? Because the system is collapsing. It wasn’t saved after 2008; in fact, the instability was increased by the build-up of debt. This is also the network which is pushing the anti-science, Green New Deal globally; which will lead to global starvation, the lack of energy and food production, expansion of disease and pandemics. This is a network which has been committed to policies that will allow that to increase as a danger.

Look at who they’re bringing in if Joe Biden is certified as President. The same network. The people behind Russiagate and the Ukrainegate impeachment. The ones who have the technical capabilities to commit fraud, and which are poised, if they do come in with Biden, to storm into Washington to take us back to the good old days that the American voter rejected in 2016. This is the crowd that established the post-Cold War order; a unipolar world run by the City of London and Wall Street, through agencies such as the International Monetary Fund. The U.S. military was the chosen power to enforce this. That’s what the “special relationship” is; the U.S. military imposing the global bankers’ dictatorship of London and Wall Street.

Donald Trump represented an existential threat to that. We need to recognize the system is bankrupt and the potential financial system of sovereign nation-states centered around Russia, China, and the United States in an alliance, is something that they feared Trump was trying to pull together. That’s why he was such a threat.

As for the opportunity, let me just call your attention to two things. One of them is the sabotage of an effort in 2017 by Donald Trump to actually ensure security in the voting system. If you buy into the line that the Russians were hacking into the system and trying to elect Trump because of their hostility to Hillary Clinton, then shouldn’t you have some way of assuring that we have a more secure system? Trump, on May 11, 2017, issued an Executive Order to create a Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. This was sabotaged by the very people we’re talking about, because they said that if you try to have voter security, that’s really just an excuse to have voter suppression; to disqualify voters, to intimidate voters.

At the same they were successfully sabotaging Trump’s initiative, they were putting out the story that there were 21 states whose electoral records were hacked by the Russians. This was the Department of Homeland Security that said Russian hackers had targetted 21 states. The Washington Post admitted that these cyberattacks were unsuccessful, but said that you have to project integrity, or belief in the integrity of the system, while expressing concerns about future threats. You have to have a balance there. What did they mean by that? They meant you have to stop Donald Trump. This was the same network that was responsible for what Bill mentioned—the fake polls that were a run-up to the election and the attempt to give Joe Biden a pass in his election campaign.

One other aspect of this is something called Red Mirage. I won’t go into the details, but Michael Bloomberg, who spent over $100 million to defeat Trump, set up a data system firm called Hawkfish. Its purpose was to create a credible story that Trump will be ahead on election eve, but when the mail-in votes come in, Biden will win. But you have to watch out, because Trump is going to use the Red Mirage of the early voting to proclaim a victory and refuse to leave. So, this was part of the whole set-up for the vote fraud. Keep in mind, the media is key to this.

As to the capability, you just heard from Bill Binney about the capability that exists through the cyber systems. We’ve seen this since Edward Snowden came out and exposed the moves towards using these technologies to set up a surveillance state, which is not only to watch you, but to control and manipulate you. What Sidney Powell in her filings presented, was an argument that these technologies can shift the votes or switch votes out of sight instantly, and probably get away with it.

Smartmatic and Dominion

Vote Mis-Counting Machines

One of the cases that she brought up is the case of Smartmatic, and I’m just going to review this very briefly. You have EIR’s lengthy article, “Lord Malloch-Brown: Another British Crown Coup Maker Behind U.S. Vote Fraud,” that goes through this. But here you have what should be seen as a blatant conflict of interest.

First of all, if you’re concerned about foreign influence on U.S. elections, why have a company whose CEO and one of the top board members is a member of the British Privy Council, a long-time ally and probably supporter of George Soros, who’s been involved in all the anti-sovereignty activities of George Soros, who has a record that he brags about of interfering in election campaigns? Doesn’t that seem to set up some red flags? In particular, the fact that he was a promoter, a coordinator, a liaison between the Privy Council and Barack Obama in 2007-8. He was oriented toward an Obama-Biden administration. This is the man whose company was involved in counting the votes in a number of states. Smartmatic was banned in Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Austria, the United Kingdom and the Philippines from counting votes. The Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden did a study where they said, we have found security gaps making it possible to totally change the result of an election. I believe it was the U.K. investigation that said, “This is a fraud-prone system.”

We have it from Lord Malloch-Brown himself. He was involved in the Philippines, where Smartmatic was used. In a 2015 interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer, he said that he issued a fraudulent exit poll in favor of Corazon Aquino, which then became the basis of a regime change operation that put her in power. He said about former President Ferdinand Marcos:

Marcos never recovered from that. It’s a very exciting experience to watch. I’ve done an awful lot of campaigns since, but I still say I learned my whole business on the Cory Aquino campaign.

So, an open admission that he engaged in fraudulent election practices. Then we have the statement of the Smartmatic CEO in 2017; this is Antonio Mugica, who is a Venezuelan who made this statement when he was asked about charges that they tampered with the Constituent Assembly election that kept Hugo Chavez in power. He admitted the votes “were tampered with and manipulated”; this is his admission in 2017. He said, “For the system to work, there must be people auditing the system.” They didn’t have poll-watchers in Venezuela, and that affected 1 million votes. Keep that in mind when we get to the specific charges from Sidney Powell about the refusal, which Bill has already mentioned, to allow poll-watchers in the contested, so-called “battleground” states in the 2020 election.

Finally, I’ll just mention very briefly the role of the Department of Homeland Security in setting up a cybersecurity operation under Christopher Krebs, who is a former security official from Microsoft. Again, big tech. The committee he set up included Smartmatic, and Dominion—the other voting machine company that’s under investigation for involvement in the fraud. According to an article in Bloomberg News in November 2018, “Private equity controls the gatekeepers of American democracy.” They write that there are three companies, including Smartmatic, which dominate the U.S. voting machine industry, and that they are all controlled by obscure private equity companies that operate in secret.

If you think about this, what we’ve seen so far is that you had the motivation, opportunity, and capability to commit fraud in the hands of a very small group of people tied to intelligence networks, very wealthy groupings of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood. So the question is, what do they do? We know there were irregularities and anomalies, some of which had been pointed out so far.

Old Fashioned Ballot Stuffing

So, what Sidney Powell identified in the first track is what she called “old-fashioned ballot stuffing,” the standard fraud that’s visible. She and Giuliani have put together at least 400 sworn affidavits from people who saw some aspect of this fraud; the standard fraud including counting ballots from the absentee voters whose signatures weren’t checked, they weren’t delivered properly, they were delivered late. They were added after the polls closed.

Sidney Powell cited a study by a team that was headed by President Trump’s former data security advisor in 2016. They said they ran major analyses of voters who had moved out of state, but still voted in the state they had left, which is illegal; voters who registered to vote using a post office box rather than a residential address as required; voters who requested a mail-in ballot and sent it in, only for it to not be counted; voters who didn’t request a mail-in ballot, and didn’t receive one, but discovered that a vote had been cast in their name; as well as research on people who voted more than once, and those listed in the death index. By the way, Joe Biden swept the dead vote, probably 100%; not surprising.

The numbers of voters they identified with these issues, this team of data analysts, was 1.25 million. Here’s what they found in three states; I’ll just reference the three states.

• Georgia: there were 138,221 voters who had issues such as the ones I just identified—different addresses, not requesting ballots, requesting ballots and not receiving them, but found out they had voted and so on. 138,000+. Biden technically leads in Georgia by 12,670 votes. So, that needs to be investigated.

• Wisconsin: 26673 votes with these issues. Biden allegedly won Wisconsin by 20,000 votes. Again, this has to be investigated.

• Arizona: almost 20,000 votes fitting this category of issues, and Biden won by 10,457.

So, in Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona alone, you have enough to overturn the results based on a full investigation of this. Again, irregularities and anomalies.

Let me just bring up a somewhat humorous aside here on this question of anomalies. The comment by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she was asked, “How come the Democrats lost House seats and yet defeated Trump? How do you explain that?” She said, “Well, the fact is that President Trump, to his credit, turned out a big vote.” He turned out a big vote for Biden? Even from the dizzy Nancy Pelosi, that’s pretty wild.

We also have reports of large batches of ballots that were received after the shutdown, the pause in counting, of which the reports are of 100% for Biden; not a single vote for Trump. Again, 400 affidavits that are included, some of them are included in the filings by Sidney Powell.

On the refusal to allow access to poll watchers, they have examples from Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In Georgia, what happened in the largest area—Fulton County, which is Atlanta—a water pipe broke. They emptied the vote counting area, except for three or six, depending on different accounts, election officials who remained and counted while all of the poll watchers were removed. This is something that they have video of; that people were removed. There’s video footage in Pennsylvania of people being physically removed from the area where poll watchers were supposed to be. And in Michigan, where they put cardboard boxes up on the glass windows so the poll watchers couldn’t see in.

You also have a very significant case coming up in Georgia, where the Secretary of State violated the law passed by the legislature, which required signature verification. This is a primary aspect of election law. The Secretary of State has no right to change these things.

A Constitutional Remedy in State Legislatures

By the federal Constitution, these are laws that are set by the state legislatures. The same thing is at the center of the Pennsylvania fight. As Jason Ross mentioned at the beginning, there is a motion to have a vote in the House and Senate of Pennsylvania on Monday, November 30, to overturn the award and certification of the Biden electors, based on the many examples of fraud which were presented at a hearing at Gettysburg November 25.

But one of the issues that comes up is that the legislature had set the law on the deadline as to when votes had to be in to be counted. That was changed at the last minute by the Secretary of State, who has no right to do that. And so, once again, we see changes that were made by local Democratic officials that violate the Constitution and the laws that were set by various state legislatures.

We’ll see what happens with this hearing on Monday, but this is something that the Trump campaign is saying will also be investigated, or they’re going to have a similar hearing in Arizona, and I think Nevada—I’m not sure of the other state.

But now, the second track that Sidney Powell looked at, and as I said, this is what we just went through as standard aspects of fraud. Well, the harder question is cyber-theft.

Now, first of all, you can start with the fact that there were repeated warnings about the Smartmatic system, including from Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. In Georgia, even Stacey Abrams, the darling of the liberals there, had warned about moving to the Dominion system, which was the other system. When you’re talking about Dominion and Smartmatic, you’re talking about the machines that are used in counting most of the votes in the country.

Dominion equipment was used in the battleground or the states that would determine the Electoral College margin. These are North Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. Altogether there were 28 states that used the Dominion equipment, and they were used in states that had 40% of the U.S. voters, as well as some of the largest counties, like Maricopa County in Arizona, Clark County in Nevada, 47 counties in Michigan in which there were a number of irregularities.

In Georgia, there was a so-called “glitch,” in Morgan and Spaulding Counties due to an upload the night before, which is highly unusual; in Michigan, there was one county in which a swing of 6,000 votes from Trump to Biden was caught by an observant election worker, and the votes were returned to Trump—were there other counties like that? In Gwinnett County, Georgia, which is a suburb of Atlanta, they found 4,000 votes that were lost due to a bad data card. So you have a number of these kinds of cases.

But then you have what Sidney Powell put together, is expert testimony on the ability to manipulate the counting, using cyber techniques. Dr. Andrew Apple from Princeton claimed that in looking at the Dominion machine, he was able to hack it in seven minutes, using a screwdriver. There’s also another expert, Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia, who reported that—and he’s someone who has long experience in the intelligence community, and this goes to the question, I believe, that one of the panelists just asked—he said, “intelligence has developed tools to infiltrate foreign voting systems,” and Dominion is vulnerable to such data manipulation.

So you have experts, including Bill Binney, now, who have testified to this as a danger. There’s also testimony on back doors that exist—openings to the internet—which would allow someone to come in and hack these systems. We also have the real anomaly of 130,000 votes in Michigan, which came in, all for Biden. These expert analyses all are part of Sidney Powell’s case. This is just a sampling of what’s documented in her case. Yet, the media refuse to report it, except to say it’s “baseless.”

Dealing with Cyber Fraud

Now on dealing with cyber fraud, there’s a request to impound all the Dominion Voting Systems machines that were used. I would ask Bill Binney if he could comment on whether a back-door switch which would allow votes to be traced, if that’s something that can be discovered through impounding a machine?

Ultimately, as Roger Stone told me the other day—and Roger, as you probably know, is an expert on elections and election activity—in his view Sidney Powell has compiled overwhelming evidence that fraudulent cyber activity took place. But—and this is a big “but”—he said the proof lies in the files of the CIA and the National Security Agency, and should be investigated by the FBI. The files must be opened.

Associates of Lyndon LaRouche, such as myself, are familiar with 45 years of dealing with fraudulent elections. This goes back to the attacks on Lyndon LaRouche in New Hampshire in 1980, where his vote never appeared, even though we had more signed affidavits in a number of precincts than they gave him actual votes! We actually did an investigation in 1976, into the Carter-Ford race, and found that in Ohio, Gerald Ford probably won, which would have made him President—but he decided not to fight the case.

What we’re dealing with here is a battle for fair elections, the full accounting of all legal votes, and the exclusion of illegal votes. Those with the capacity to commit fraud are accustomed to acting in the dark; that’s why they’re sometimes called the “deep state” or the “shadow government.” But this is a crime so large, that its full exposure would shake up politics worldwide, precisely because these are techniques that have been used by U.S. agencies in other countries, and now they’re being deployed against the American people.

This is not to be allowed or tolerated. If it’s allowed to stand, we, in the United States will not be allowed, or not be enabled to refer to ourselves any more as a republic, because we will have betrayed the very principles of our republic and our nation. And that’s why the full transparency is needed, and not just in the voting, but should be extended to what I identified at the beginning, the lead-up to this, in the four years of the regime-change coup that was being conducted against Donald Trump, which they think they finally succeeded in, by fixing the vote on November 3. That’s my report.

Leah Hoopes

Leah Hoopes is a GOP Committeewoman in Bethel Township, Pennsylvania.

Schiller Institute

Leah Hoopes

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

Hi, it’s an honor to be here. I was actually quite shocked to be asked to be on this panel, so thank you very much for having me. This by no means has been an easy thing. I’ve been inundated with phone calls about getting my story out. And quite honestly, my safety is at risk when I talk about these things, which is a very sad place to think about, that that’s where we are in the United States of America, that I have to fear for my safety to talk about the truth.

Just a quick, brief history: I became a committeewoman; I also started a watch-dog group and became involved with the Thomas More Society. We’re just an unincorporated association of concerned citizens who have been paying attention to our newly elected, completely Democratic County Council and Election Board.

From the start of Election Day, at 7 a.m., it was a disgrace—it really was. We had issues with our scanners from the very beginning. One of our scanners didn’t work at all; the other one, it would take four or five times for a ballot to go through. We couldn’t get ahold of our county to rectify the situation, for hours, and then by the time someone came in, it was the voting machine warehouse supervisor, who also happens to be a Bernie Sanders delegate, who is a complete radical, came in, did not rectify the situation, and just told us that the ballots and their bar codes were deformed. An hour goes by and they bring in about 500 more—a stack of new ballots.

That was just the beginning. There was complete confusion. We had our Pennsylvania Supreme Court making election law and extending it for three days; it just caused mass confusion for a very long time.

As to what I saw at the counting center, I had, I guess you would say, recruited some ex-military people to become poll-watchers, and specifically one gentleman who had also testified at the Pennsylvania Senate hearing. He is a data forensic scientist and he was a Naval commander, very experienced in fraud. Once he got to the counting center on Election Night, he called me and said: There is a back room in which there is no observation, and nobody was allowed back there; there was much resistance from the people that were there. When he called me, I had contacted the Thomas More Society in order for us to get a lawyer down there. And what ended up happening was, we got an injunction, and it took about two and a half days to actually get into that back room. Once we got back there—the injunction was actually a joke, to be quite honest, because it allowed five minutes every two hours. We were set 20 feet back; you couldn’t even see a physical ballot. It was like, they were giving crumbs to the peasants. It was atrocious.

What I did see that day, just to give a bit of positivity, is that Republicans and Democrat observers, we were all in agreement that there was something wrong with the fact that we were not allowed back into that room, where pre-canvassing was transpiring. By the time we finally got back there, Greg had gotten into another room; it was a sealed-off room where they were keeping the ballots, and this was two days after Election Night. So, what he had seen was anywhere between, I think it was like 50-70,000 ballots that were unopened, despite that the count had already happened.

There’s a multitude of other issues that had transpired, between missing logs, that they were trying to fill in information two weeks after the election happened; you had V-drives that were missing from the scanners that they were trying to collect; you had absent chain of custody; there was zero transparency, resistance. And then to top it all off, the Attorney General Josh Shapiro sent two special agents to Greg’s house, to my house, and to other observers, completely unannounced, in the middle of the day, it was quite concerning. I didn’t know if I was being investigated as the criminal, or for someone who had already signed an affidavit into what I had witnessed. It was quite intimidating.

Hopefully that kind of clears things up for everybody. It’s been insane, to say the least. I’m quite disgusted at what I witnessed.

Jason Ross: Thank you. And you were one of the people who testified at the hearing in Gettysburg on Wednesday, is that right?

Hoopes: Yes. It was actually quite an honor. This is very surreal to me, all that’s transpiring. But as I said in my testimony, it’s not about party, it’s about my country. And I quoted Rush Limbaugh, and how he speaks about “where are the grassroots efforts?” and I feel like this is a movement and it’s not going to be stopped because the republic is—we’re angry, and we want to fight for our country. And you have to fight for what is right. And that’s why I stepped up and that’s why I’m speaking up, and that’s the only way we’re going to get this done. We’re screaming from the rooftops that we’re angry and it’s going to get to the point where we’re going to force them to do something.

Sen. Mario Scavello

Mr. Scavello is a State Senator from Pennsylvania’s 40th Senate District. Earlier he served for more than a decade in the House of Representatives for the 177th Legislative District. He is the Chair of the State Senate Banking and Insurance Committee, serves on many other committees, and is one of the co-sponsors of the Joint Resolution that has been introduced into the State Senate and State House to take back control of the appointment of Electors.

Schiller Institute

Sen. Mario Scavello

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

I’m glad to be here. By the way, Leah Hoope’s spot on, what she said. We had numerous testifiers and it was really an eye-opener. But you know, when she said voting machines, I think it’s so important to realize, because this thing was planned: How does a governor decertify every voting machine in the state, and force these machines on every county? When the counties balked about it, what ended up happening was, they didn’t want to pay for them; so, then the governor comes to us, and we said, we don’t have a problem with those machines. So it took—he had to basically borrow money from an account to pay for the machines. And these are machines that in some—and he said that machines had to give a receipt; well, I know many machines, especially in the Southeast, when you vote you get a receipt for exactly what you voted for. These machines don’t give you a receipt!

Just start there, and then, on the day after the election, a statewide official and a U.S. Senator, say—the morning after the election—that Biden won. Now, they must have a crystal ball or something, because there was nothing, there was no way, there was like a 7-, 8-point difference going into it that Trump was up.

The other piece is, how does—when Philly finishes, basically when Pittsburgh started? They held off until—Pittsburgh held off until Philly had their numbers, and if you really look at down-ballots, this is the first time since 1956, that the Republicans won the Treasury and won the Auditor General’s race—1956! So, if Biden wins, and the Attorney General wins, by pretty close, about the same margins, what happened to the down-ballot? Were those ballots just two people then put in? I’m assuming that must have happened.

And, then how do we get more ballots returned than sent out? That’s the real scary one! How do we get more ballots returned than sent out?

You know, I’m with Doug, and I think we need to get to the bottom of this. And this is just, you know, starting with those machines, you knew there was a problem. Why?—and I believe some other states did the same thing—there was a Democratic governors’ meeting, about a handful, they met with the Speaker of the House and a couple others, out West somewhere, Las Vegas, I’m not sure, over a year ago. And I believe this is where all this started. I hope at some point the FBI, the CIA, somebody needs to investigate this, because they just don’t do everything together, which they have here. And my governor’s been spending a lot of time in Delaware, prior to Biden winning, and now he continues to spend more time in Delaware, ’cause we don’t see him in the state. I have a Wolf-watch on my Facebook: “Where is the governor? He’s not in the capital.”

I’ll gladly take any questions if you have any.

Attorney David Meiswinkle asked Senator Scavello whether these new machines were being used for the first time in this election. Senator Scavello replied that they were.

William Binney

Mr. Binney is former Technical Director at the National Security Agency.

Schiller Institute

William Binney

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

I think we’re at the most serious crisis point in our country since our Civil War. We’ve never faced such a level of corruption and subversion of our processes as a republic! If we don’t address this and hold people accountable who have been involved in this, and actually do something about it—I looked to Barr and Durham to do it, and they seem to be failing it!—this is only going to get worse and we’re going to lose our republic, totally! I mean, we’re sliding down that path to totalitarianism. I saw this starting in 2001, and it’s only gotten worse since then. So, America, we’ve got to stand up and oppose it! Period.

Dialogue

Question of jurist Marino Elsevyf, professor of Constitutional and Criminal Law at the University of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, to Col. Richard Black (USA ret.), who had provided expert testimony, and his response. Col. Black is a former chief of the Army Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General at the Pentagon.

Both photos: Schiller Institute

Left: Prof. Marino Elsevyf; right: Col. Richard Black

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

Marino Elsevyf: Col. Black, at this moment, the “deep state,” which Lyndon LaRouche used to refer to as the “international synarchy”—interests that are above nation states—since they have tried in the past to carry out a coup d’état in the United States, and they’ve tried to do that in the middle of a pandemic, do you anticipate an American Autumn like the Arab Spring, where in the middle of all this crisis—the murders, violence, and burnings which are occurring across the U.S.—are we perhaps facing that kind of a crisis?

And secondly, do you not believe that the strategy of the mass media that are supporting the international synarchy—their line that there is no proof of fraud—that this could be made to backfire? There is the issue of Smartmatic and Dominion, the issue of “fractional accounting,” the ethical violations which occurred as documented by Sidney Powell.

Col. Richard Black: One thing that has happened in the background, through all of this, has been that we have evolved, over several years, basically since Trump went into office, into a censorship state. We often criticize other nations—China, for example—and we say, “Well, look, they’re censoring their equivalent of Twitter, and their social media, and so forth,” and yet, if you watch what has happened here over several years, the social media have become quite draconian, and there are many very responsible internet news outlets that have simply been shut down. …

So, we’ve seen this transition over time, where Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, all of these have tightened, and tightened, and tightened the screws. I did some videos, very factual, not inflammatory in any way, but they dealt with the situation in Syria. And someone went back to refer to one—it was four years ago; it’s not as though people are looking at them every day—and he discovered that they have deleted it. They just censored it, not because it’s false, but because it’s true! And because it does not meet the narrative of the Central Intelligence Agency.

You have this purging of history. History has to be eliminated. You see the same thing with the riots going on, the tearing down of statues. They started with Confederate statues—they were the easy target. Then they went to Christopher Columbus; they started tearing him down.

There was one of the Gang of Four Democrat female congresswomen, the very radical group headed by AOC, and the one said, we need to tear down that statue of the Catholic priest who voluntarily joined a leper colony, knowing that he would be infected with leprosy, knowing that his digits would fall from his body, that he would die this horrific death; and yet, he did it voluntarily so he could serve the needs of that community and he could preach the Gospel.

And so, basically it is anyone who stands for decency and honor and civilization, we’re going to destroy it.

This is the same thing I saw when I was in Syria, and I went to Palmyra, this wonderful city, this historic city. And ISIS had gone in and they had destroyed and burned and looted all of the historic monuments, some of these went back 4,000 years before the birth of Christ!

Anywhere that you see revolutionaries, you’re going to see an attempt to purge records of civilized activities. And we’re seeing that in this country.

Now, I will say that, going back to the idea of “American Autumn,” I think that we’re not quite to the point where they can pull off an Arab Spring type thing in the United States. There’s a little too much resistance, a little too much left of our cultural architecture that has not yet been dismantled and destroyed. But they’re making progress all the time, and if they’re allowed to continue, particularly if they should prevail in this election and can go on, they will eventually try to simply disassemble the country, and its culture completely. There is a communist, a Bolshevik underpinning to the whole thing. It has the whiff of the French Revolution and that type of thing, and that is ultimately where they are headed.

Question of journalist Daniel Marmolejo (Mexico), and the response of Harley Schlanger of the Schiller Institute, who had provided expert testimony.

Daniel Marmolejo, Mexican YouTube host [excerpts, via translator]: Hello, I’d like to greet everyone who is participating in this extremely important event, which allows us to analyze the elections in the country which has tried to take democracy to the whole world. What happened in the United States is something that we lived through in Mexico in 2006, to some degree, because we had a spurious President who took the country into one of the biggest, terrible internal conflicts. There was a redoubling of violence and a whole series of relations with the Deep State in the United States, with the military-industrial complex, and with the international drug trade.

Recently, we have received in Mexico the return of a very important military man from the last government, General Cienfuegos, who they say is connected to organized crime, and most surely with the U.S. Deep State. He has the same charges against him as Genaro García Luna, who is a personal friend of the spurious government of Felipe Calderón.

Based on the evidence which has been presented here, the parallel is really very similar, separated only by a few years. What concerns me greatly are the statements which Colonel Black has made here regarding a military grouping in the United States that could possibly carry out a coup d’état. Different leaders, such as President Evo Morales in Bolivia, have quipped that, if there isn’t the danger of a coup, it’s because there is no U.S. embassy in the United States!

I would also like to express my solidarity, and that of the people of Mexico, with Leah Hoopes, and for the situation she is having to endure.

What I would like to know is if, within the American population, there is to be found something along the lines of universal truth, and if the justice system in the United States could be an example not only for the United States, but for the world. Will they be able to actually look into all of the details to make sure that this is a legally viable election; and to make sure that they would not have a spurious President as we did in Mexico?

This is directed to anyone of the panelists who would like to respond.

Harley Schlanger: That is a very important point. I think it’s interesting that the Mexican President has withheld the endorsement of Joe Biden, or the recognition of Joe Biden, because of what he faced in 2006 with vote fraud. The question that you are posing to us is really, how do you restore the tradition of the American System, of the American republic, at a point when the direction of the country is spiraling into a worse and worse economic crisis, a social crisis, and the group that’s trying to come to power through this vote fraud is committed to expanding the wars around the world, expanding the financial fraud, the outsourcing, the collapse of industry.

It is a moment where everyone has to take a very deep reflection as to what we’ve been tolerating from governments. And the stealing of the right to vote, the right to have your vote count, is one of the important things. It’s considered one of the sacred things about the United States, but this has not been addressed.

That’s why what I just spoke about a few moments ago is the direction we have to go in. We have to have a full and open reckoning with what’s been done to the country. This could have been done beginning four years ago, had there not been so much obstruction from the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Bush networks, the media. President Trump ran head up against the so-called “Deep State.”

It’s not really a Deep State; it’s what Mrs. LaRouche refers to as the British Empire. This is what Lyndon LaRouche always identified as the enemy, where an oligarchy attempts to impose itself on the institutions of self-government. In particular today, that means destroying sovereign institutions.

What we just heard from the Senator from Pennsylvania is quite interesting, because the idea that the people will take back their government, acting through their local elected representatives, can restore confidence. Most people in the United States have no confidence that we’ll get honesty from the Congress. But we do know there are people, the whistleblowers like Bill Binney and others, there are good people in this country that have to step forward and fight this. It’s not a question of waiting to see what’s going to happen next week in the court. People have to be mobilizing, and by mobilizing, I mean get out the truth. The truth is not limited to the vote fraud fight; it’s the question of how we’ve given up our rights for self-government to the extent that we’ve stood back and allowed this to happen.

The Bush administration was a murderous administration. Obama was worse. What we’re seeing so far from Biden, if he’s allowed in, it will be even worse, at a point when the whole world is careening towards a systemic collapse. So, what we’re discussing here is not some abstract question of legal judgments or academic concerns, but something that should touch every single person who’s hearing this and mobilize for an outcome which includes the cleaning up of this gang of criminals that has taken over the United States.

Closing Comments of Witnesses, Experts, and International Jurists

Leah Hoopes

I would like to say, since I’m given the opportunity, I think it’s important, especially now, for events like this to happen as often as possible, and to be able to push out this message, and for more people to step up. This is actually very refreshing, to have these conversations and listen to everybody, because the truth is being suppressed.

I’m very fearful that at this point in our country that the propaganda has taken over, and that you have a bunch of Americans who are very comfortable in their ignorance, who are afraid to speak up, or they just don’t understand what their freedoms are; they don’t feel they have a right to speak up, or whatever it may be. But I truly feel, just at this point, we’re on the precipice of a revolution, and I’m happy to be on the right side of that, and I’m hopeful that this message that you guys have today really gets pushed out as much as possible, because it’s super important. It’s not happening enough; it really isn’t.

I truly feel bad for the upcoming generation, who are just completely lost and are being indoctrinated by these left-wing institutions. Something as simple as public education. Only 31 states have a one-year requirement for civics; ten states have half a year requirement, and nine states have no requirement whatsoever. How do you know that you’re losing your freedoms, if you’re not educated as to what they are? I think there are so many angles that we really need to attack this, and it’s not going to come down from our legislation, it’s going to come down from the people.

Thank you for letting me ramble. But this has been more than refreshing to speak to all of you and feel like I’m normal. And what I’m seeing is not a theory: It’s very real. I’m excited for what’s coming up—anxious and excited. Thank you again. And I just say, God bless America, and to everybody else across the world on this panel, thank you for the support: It means a lot. Thank you.

Bennie Smith

Schiller Institute

Bennie Smith

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

Thank you for having me. At heart, I’m a voter; second, I’m an election commissioner, I’m a Democrat, an election commissioner who takes my oath very seriously.

We have to get back to policing our republic. And if I would just say it best as a voter, what I value most is the post-mortem. When a candidate loses, they have to reassess, they have to figure out what happened, what they didn’t do right, who they didn’t reach, and they retool and they come back and they offer a better solution to, which would be me, the voter, at the end.

But if we can’t pursue authenticable results, then we don’t know if someone actually won or lost, and there can be no post-mortem, and the process can’t get any better; we can’t get any better solutions. They say, if banks compete, you win, but if we don’t know who our competitors are, and they don’t know if they lost or not, then they can never retool. And that’s going to end up being something very destabilizing in the region, and it’s a destructive process when we don’t allow those people to know that they have pursued—you know, you can respect somebody you lost to. But the thing we see now, is it’s a large unknown, and that’s problematic, that’s destructive to the republic.

I’m not trying to get a Republican seated or unseated: I’m trying to preserve the republic. And I think that’s what we should get back to. I think that’s something that’s barely germane in a lot of these topics; there’s a lot of partisan posturing, but this should be the most nonpartisan piece of the electoral process.

David Meiswinkle

Schiller Institute

David Meiswinkle

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

I want to thank the Schiller Institute and all the people that are here. It’s quite an honor. I’m holding in my hand what the last speaker was just referencing, the United States Constitution. Behind me is the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. I think that they are quite formidable; they give us all inspiration and strength. We’re all here because we are basically at the fork in the road. As a New York Yankees catcher used to say, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” And so, we’re there, whether we take it one way or the other way.

Now, I’ve seen the presentations, the hearings in Pennsylvania, and as I mentioned before, they were inspirational in the sense of people feeling connected to the Constitution, into the roots, which is very important. There was important evidence being discussed. I have read Sidney Powell’s complaint in Georgia. She speaks about lots of evidence, all kinds of evidence, in reference to Smartmatic and Dominion, and to the mail-in ballots, how they were counted, etc.

What’s important, is that we realize that the evidence we have before us senses an impropriety; it’s an appearance of impropriety. It says nothing until we get into a court, and we can examine it as evidence. The complaints don’t list the attachments, or you can’t really go into them, but there seems to be certainly a lot there. If you can overturn the election, in just one state, I think it would have a momentous carryover into the other states.

What we’re looking at here, is systematic. As Mr. Schlanger said, it’s really a criminal conspiracy. Especially in those swing states, it seems to be the same pattern repeating itself, over and over and over and over, again. Now, if these brave individuals can get this into the courts, and get it into the public, that would be sensational.

What we’re seeing, too, and I’d like to look at various contexts in which we exist and, again, we all bring our own backgrounds into it, to me this is really a global assault on the United States, the national sovereignty; we’ve seen it throughout the world. There was the Arab Spring. They’re trying to repeat it in this country; it seems that way. There’s a pushback now. We’ve seen it in Pennsylvania and other states—a pushback. People are going back to their roots—going back to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, what this society was built on. We were built on overcoming and throwing out oppression, and at that time we were ruled by the British Empire.

So I guess to sum it up, there’s a lot of evidence, or a lot of appearance of fraud, without a doubt. As I said, an appearance of impropriety throughout all the states that were questionable; it seems to be a pattern, and it has to be investigated. It may take a while. We’ve not gone down this path before, so we don’t know what to expect. There’s both sides drawn; we probably all know people, good friends of ours, that are basically taking another position.

When the media is examined, I think we’ll find, as Harley Schlanger said, a very biased media—it’s almost a weaponized media. It’s weaponized to undermine the fabric of America, unfortunately. So, by stretching this out a bit, it draws a line for all of us to see, so people who were never activated at one time, or involved, they will tend now, to become more sensitized. In order to keep a republic, people have to be educated, and they have to be vigilant, and because of these different hearings, and because people in the states are coming to the forefront, they’re going to make other people vigilant.

Again, thank you for conducting this program, and thank you for inviting me to be on it.

Juan Francisco Soto

Mr. Soto spoke in Spanish. The following are excerpts, via an interpreter, of his closing remarks.

Schiller Institute

Juan Francisco Soto

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

First of all, I would like to thank the Schiller Institute. It’s really an honor to participate with this excellent institution that stands for the greatest constitutional principles of the United States.

The answer to this crisis is to be found in the American institutions themselves, which have spread around the world as a model for democracy, and which has its own rules in the Constitution of the United States. …

The American Constitution fortunately provides for the Supreme Court of the United States; and to be able to get to the Supreme Court, you have to go through various lower courts, up through the appellate process. That is where the “deep state” has tried to deny the natural rights of citizens. …

For example, the case of Lyndon LaRouche, who has not been exonerated, and the role of Robert Mueller, who is a questionable character, who played a role in the LaRouche case and also the failed impeachment of Donald Trump.

And now this culminates in massive fraud. There is enormous evidence. What we don’t have are judges! And since you don’t have judges and you have a lot of evidence, you have to find answers in the Constitution itself. What does the U.S. Constitution tell us? That the states themselves play the central role in selecting the President. So voters and taxpayers should demand that all the legislatures of the states investigate ... the role of Smartmatic and Dominion voting machines, and the channeling of votes to Biden. … The taxpayers, after all, are responsible for paying for these multinational private companies that count the votes.

This has to be done to ensure due process. If this can’t be achieved in the federal courts, then there should be due process in the legislatures of each and every one of the states, based on the Constitution of the United States. …

These brave fighters, such as Leah Hoopes and the other people who are exercising their civil rights, are trying to expand the knowledge among citizens about the Constitution. The legislatures must ensure due process: there’s plenty of evidence; what is lacking are judges. But there are legislatures.

Dr. Simón Levy

The following are excerpts from Dr. Levy’s closing comments.

Schiller Institute

Dr. Simón Levy

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

Congratulations to the Schiller Institute for this extraordinary exercise and opportunity to share extremely important information and feedback, including with people from different nations.

I would like to share my own experience as a California resident. I received my ballot one month ago from the USPS. It was extraordinarily easy to go and deliver my ballot. I went to the local spot and delivered it. In Mexico, we have a national authority which first checks to confirm the identity of the person who is voting. In California, it was extraordinarily easy to deliver the ballot, even if it was signed or not. …

Regarding the comments by journalist Daniel Marmolejo: In Mexico, we did have a situation with President López Obrador who ran in 2006 and there was a very small 0.56% difference between him and Felipe Calderón. We had a lot of evidence that we had a very bad situation and corruption in different institutions in Mexico. …

In the U.S., Biden had 6 million more votes than Trump. He won, or it seems he will get, 306 Electoral College votes. Even if we consider all the recounts in the closest states, I don’t think they will change the initial outcome.

We also have an unprecedented reality in the U.S. We have a pandemic situation that, of course, affects the way that American voters delivered their ballots. Second, there is an extraordinary amount of proof, of evidence, that the mass media and different stakeholders conducted, or manipulated, the behavior of the American voters. … There is also an enormous disparity in the way that American voters sent their ballots through the USPS.

Considering this, and considering all the information that we have heard over the last two hours, I can state that there were delays, and that there is an extraordinary amount of evidence of irregularities, of manipulation of people’s behavior. But this is not sufficient to label the entire election as a fraud. …

I cannot understand this, especially in the U.S.A.; there is no way this should happen. It’s extraordinarily dangerous that the mass media are trying to be the deciding authority in electoral terms, and that there is no confidence in the institutions. It’s extremely dangerous. The Electoral College and the electoral authorities in the U.S. should regulate the way, the power, and the behavior of the mass media. I think it is not a good precedent for the U.S. for the mass media to behave as if they were the electoral authority …

I believe there is a crisis in the democratic system in the U.S., so I encourage you to continue with these kinds of exercises, to bring more evidence to light … This hearing is an example of how we can build consciousness of the critical situation in the U.S.

I believe that Mexico and the U.S. need to strengthen their ties, both with the personal relationship between President Trump and President López Obrador, but also to build a common agenda of North America. China, as all of you know, has a worldwide strategy with the Belt and Road Initiative of Xi Jinping. So I encourage the Schiller Institute and all interested parties, to interact and create a greater common agenda that goes beyond the personal relationship between the two presidents, and make that into an institutional agenda.

Prof. Marino Elsevyf

Prof. Elsevyf spoke in Spanish. The following are excerpts from his closing comments, via interpreter.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you here today, with people who are so courageous and so qualified.

The United States has an opportunity in this crisis to move forward. … We have to preserve the law governing electoral rights and the role of the Constitution in the electoral process. We have to preserve the institutions of the United States, and we have to tell the world of the danger facing the democratic institutions of the country whose American System has been a model of growth, of the dignity of man, of the idea that all human beings are equal before the Creator. This is what Lyndon LaRouche spoke about: the cognitive powers that all human beings have, to transform the world. This must be brought forth and made functional again in the United States, to move forward democratically and preserve the institutions.

The legal battle that the lawyers have before them clearly addresses a certain principle, and that is that fraud corrupts everything. If there was electoral manipulation, if the voting machines of Smartmatic and Dominion were used to commit fraud in the U.S. elections, the perpetrators must be punished under law. If “fractional” methods were used, and that can be proven before a court of law, there have to be consequences.

This is contrary to the democratic spirit of the Founding Fathers of the United States. As Lyndon LaRouche wrote in January 14, 2000 about the founding of the United States, in a document called “The Issue of America’s Manifest Destiny for Today,” the United States must rid itself of Britain’s imperialist approach, and instead understand that all human beings are created equal.

Watch the videos and sign the Petition to Exonerate LaRouche

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

II. Africa: Development Before Debt

TO REPLENISH LAKE CHAD

Italy’s Prodi Puts Transaqua

Back on the International Agenda

by Claudio Celani

CC/Francesco Pierantoni

Romano Prodi, former Prime Minister of Italy, former President of the European Commission, and former UN Special Envoy for the Sahel.

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

Nov. 23—At this time when the world’s nations have not yet adequately responded to the call for help launched by the World Food Program (WFP) to avoid mass starvation in the developing sector, the issue of Transaqua has again come into focus as the durable solution to famine, terrorism, and emigration in Central Africa. On November 13, Romano Prodi, the former EU Commission President and former UN Special Envoy for the Sahel, launched a strong call for the EU, the UN, the African Union (AU), and China to join hands in financing and building this giant infrastructure platform, that can be the locomotive of agro-industrial development for the entire African continent.

Transaqua—also called the Transaqua Inter Basin Water Transfer Scheme—is a project that dates back to the mid-1970s, when engineers from the Italian company Bonifica witnessed the drying up of Lake Chad and came out with the idea of refilling the lake by transferring water from the Congo Basin, where immense quantities of water were simply wasted into the Atlantic Ocean, unused.

EIRNS/Julien Lemaitre

Dr. Marcello Vichi speaks at a Schiller Institute Conference, “Rescuing Civilization from the Brink,” in Rüsselsheim, Germany, July 2, 2011.

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

By building dams along some of the right-bank tributaries of the River Congo and connecting these reservoirs with canals, the Bonifica engineers, under the direction of Dr. Marcello Vichi, calculated that with only 5% of the water that goes into the River Congo, it was possible to transfer up to 100 billion cubic meters of water per year into Lake Chad. These tributaries are at high altitude, so that water in this dam and canal system can travel across the Central African Republic-Chad watershed by means of gravity alone. See Figure 1.

Figure 1

The Transaqua Project, as Proposed by Bonifica

EIR

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

Besides refilling the gradually disappearing lake, the infrastructure would provide a 2400 km waterway that would boost trade from the southern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), close to the Great Lakes region, up to Bangui, capital of the Central African Republic, and down to Lake Chad. The numerous dams would provide plenty of electricity and irrigation capability for 7 million hectares of farmland, providing the platform for developing agro-industrial activities.

After many decades of oblivion and thanks to efforts by EIR and the Schiller Institute, Transaqua received a new impulse in February 2018, when the plan was adopted at the International Conference on Lake Chad in Abuja, and the Italian government pledged to fund part of the feasibility study.

Since then, however, the momentum has slowed down. After Abdullah Sanusi, P.E., left at the end of his mandate as Executive Secretary of the Lake Chad Basin Commission in 2018, no significant impulse has come from that institution, which brings together the five riparian member states around the lake—Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, and the Central African Republic.

On the Italian side, with the exception of an amendment drafted by Sen. Tony Iwobi—who managed to include initial funding for the feasibility study in the Italian government budget for 2021—a political shift in the government has led to a change in ministerial personnel, and the tender for the study has been left up in the air. The Covid-19 pandemic has overwhelmed an unprepared and incompetent government.

Prodi Not for Colonial Songs about Africa

Now, a seminar organized by the Turin Center for African Studies on November 9-13, “Water Diplomacy and the Culture of Sustainability: The Lake Chad Basin,” has put Transaqua back on the list of strategic priorities. Speaking at the final roundtable, Prodi said the project cannot wait any longer: “Please, don’t come with environmental objections, the former EU chief said. “Don’t sing the song that human intervention can damage the environment: In this case, we help nature to recover a situation of internal balance, to the advantage of African peoples—an internal balance that has been lost.”

Prodi’s reference to pseudo-environmental objections to Transaqua is important, because one of the main sources for those objections has been that very EU Commission that Prodi has chaired in the past, whose structure and ideology Prodi knows very well.

Back in 2013, the EU Commission rejected Transaqua, ostensibly with environmental motivations. Answering a query by European Parliament member Cristiana Muscardini, EU Development Commissioner Andris Piebalgs stated that “Preliminary feasibility studies... indicate that the project would involve major environmental risks.” (See “EU Rejects Transaqua Water-Transfer Project for Africa,” posted October 2, 2013 on the LaRouche Irish Brigade website.)

And in the Turin roundtable, Francesca Di Mauro, head of the Central and Southern Africa desk of the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, almost had a fit over Transaqua, saying “It is a bit of a chimera; it is too expensive, too many countries must reach agreement,” etc.

(A quick glance at her Twitter account shows that she is a fanatic for the “Great Reset” of Prince Charles and the World Economic Forum, who rejoices at economic damage done by the COVID-19 lockdowns. She writes: “Temporary lower CO_2 emissions during C-19 lockdowns says Nature paper; –17% by April compared to 2019, half from lower surface transport. But impact on 2020 could only be –4% to –7% ... only a Global Green Recovery can influence future emissions paths.”)

Opposition to Transaqua has also been fed by former European colonial powers which still have political control over some governments in the region. Notably, the government of Canada, on behalf of the British Commonwealth and of French government institutions, has recently funded a paper, “Soft Power, Discourse Coalitions, and the Proposed Interbasin Water Transfer Between Lake Chad and the Congo River,” which claims that Transaqua is an imperialist scheme pushed by the government of Italy, China, and the Schiller Institute.

The paper was competently rebutted by an October 18 posting on African Agenda, “Green Power, Political Pessimism and Opposition to the Development of the African Interior with Transaqua,” by P.D. Lawton, who noticed that most of the time, African opposition to Transaqua comes from African Diaspora figures, used by the British and European oligarchy in operations of regime change on the African Continent.

UNDP/Lamine Bal

Representatives gather for a UN-sponsored international conference on the Lake Chad Region in Berlin, September 3-4, 2018.

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

‘Something To Do Together with China’

Rejecting such phony objections, Prodi stated:

What we must do, in my view, is a strong action of healthy lobbying, a call on Europe, the African Union, the United Nations, China, to carry forward this project. Be aware that the Lake Chad Basin covers one eightieth of the entire African continent. This is enough to understand its importance. And it affects the poorest, most disgraced and left-behind area.

Since such a large project as Transaqua involves political, financial, technological, and security aspects, it needs strong political leadership and economic power. Thus, the EU, UNO, and OAU—

should try to involve China, because [some] reports connect Lake Chad with the Silk Road. What is the political problem of the Silk Road? It has been a Chinese thing. We must find something to do together with China.

The video of Prodi’s presentation, in Italian with English subtitles, can be viewed here.

The day before, on November 12, the seminar had featured engineer Andrea Mangano, a veteran of the Bonifica team that had developed the original Transaqua idea in the 1970s. In an interview format entitled “Lake Chad and Infrastructure: Challenges and Ideas,” he presented the updated version of the project—similar to what Mangano himself and other Bonifica officials have presented at Schiller Institute and EIR events in recent years.

Starvation Warnings from WFP’s Beasley

Recently the UN World Food Program’s Executive Director, David Beasley, warned that the Central Sahel region faces one of the world’s fastest-growing humanitarian crises. This is the region most affected by the deterioration of living conditions due to the drying out of Lake Chad, conditions that have offered grounds for recruiting young people to the terrorist Boko Haram. Terrorism has added to economic devastation and caused huge migration waves in the region.

More than 13 million people now require urgent humanitarian assistance, five million more than estimated at the beginning of 2020, Beasley said, characterizing their plight as “marching toward starvation.”

In October, Beasley travelled in several nations in the region, together with the development ministers of Germany and Denmark, to solicit not only emergency aid, but also long-term investments in infrastructure. On October 9, Beasley was in Niger when he got the news that the World Food Program had been awarded the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize. He said to reporters that day:

The fact that I was in the Sahel when we received the announcement is really a message from above, that “Hey, world. With all the things going on around the world today, please don’t forget about the people in the Sahel! Please don’t forget about the people that are struggling and dying from starvation.”

EIRNS

Left to right: Mohammed Bila (Lake Chad Basin Commission), Andrea Mangano, Marcello Vichi, and Claudio Celani (EIR), discussing plans for Transaqua in the Rome Bonifica office, summer 2015.

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

Transaqua is exactly the infrastructure that could stabilize the entire region. You don’t need to wait until the first dam is built and water starts to come through the Chari River to Lake Chad from the Congo basin: The many jobs created by the project will immediately start to stabilize the region in terms of providing incomes for thousands of families.

Unfortunately, the October 20 donors’ conference organized by Denmark, Germany, the EU, and the UN in Copenhagen, took the restricted view of humanitarian intervention. Some $1.7 billion dollars were pledged for emergency aid—and this is of course welcome— but it failed to address the root of the problem and adopt long-term solutions.

Mr. Prodi’s words must be followed by deeds, so that the “healthy lobbying effort” in favor of Transaqua is successful in bringing together the international coalition to build Transaqua.

Visit store.larouchepub.com

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

AFRICA’S MOST CRUCIAL MOMENT

Discourse on the Debt, 33 Years On

by P.D. Lawton

Lawton is a writer and researcher on African affairs who grew up in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Subheads and embedded links to sources have been added.

Nov. 15—Today, Africa stands at the crossroads. This is the last opportunity for the continent’s leadership to decide the fate of 1.3 billion people.

This is the most crucial moment in Africa’s history. The choice on one hand, is to continue following IMF diktat and agree to a future of economic policy that benefits the banks of Wall Street and the City of London. For that choice there is a bribe which is called the Green Finance Package.

Kenya Accepts the Green Finance Package

Kenya, sadly, has become the first to accept the UN Green Finance Package, which was received by Kenya’s Central Bank this week. It has chosen to appease the Paris Club and protect its credit rating.

By accepting the Green Bribe, Kenya is committing to a worse than zero-growth policy. The Green New Deal will not fund fossil-fuel or nuclear energy. Without reliable, cheap energy, it is impossible to power development and industrialize an economy. Renewables cannot run a steel mill. Hydropower has its physical limits in terms of recurrence of droughts and transmission distance, and it is not a possibility without considerable water volume.

Does Kenya want to continue relying on tourism and agriculture, a green economy? How will that eliminate poverty?

The Green New Deal puts emphasis on digital infrastructure. What is the point in having network coverage when there is no modern road, rail, bridge, or port along which to transport your goods?

The alternative is the only choice that will end poverty and propel African economies into a prosperous future. That choice is to re-invest historical debt into the physical economy.

GCIS

“Ignore the misleading headlines that malign our relationship with China by mischaracterizing our economic cooperation to mean colonialism.” Edgar Lungu, President of Zambia, shown on a state visit to South Africa, in Pretoria, December 8, 2016.

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

Zambia Defaults on International Debt

This week Zambia became the first African state to default on its international debt since the start of the COVID pandemic.

Zambia’s debt situation is being politicized in ugly attempts at discrediting President Lungu`s progressive economic policy and strong friendship with China. The politicization is also aimed at China, which is still being blamed for creating debt traps and debt-book diplomacy even though this kind of anti-China propaganda has now itself been discredited.

Over the last few years, Zambia has had the foresight to invest heavily in physical infrastructure. This has been largely financed by China’s Development Bank as part of the Belt and Road Initiative.

Zambia’s appeal this week to the Eurobond holders for deferment of payment has been rejected. In contrast, China has already annulled a number of loans to African governments, including Zambia, and deferred payment on others since COVID-19 triggered further economic difficulty. Some Chinese loans will become interest free. In 2018, at the historic Forum for China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Beijing, Zambia secured a $30 million interest-free loan and a $30 million grant from China.

cc/Thatlowdownwoman

Over the last ten years, Zambia has invested heavily in physical infrastructure. Shown, a cement factory in Zambia.

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

Ongoing attacks on President Lungu’s government have come from foreign-funded anti-China campaigns. The President has responded to critics and said:

I implore you to ignore the misleading headlines that seek to malign our relationship with China by mischaracterizing our economic cooperation to mean colonialism.

Leading Zambian economist and head of Zambia’s Private Sector Development Association, Yosuf Dodia, said that Chinese investment should be seen as an opportunity, not a burden: “Zambia has been dominated by the West for 100 years … and we are seeing poverty all over the continent.”

IMF Conditionalities vs. Chinese Credit

That is the general consensus of African governments who defend the Chinese model. Compared to other creditors (like the IMF), Chinese banks offer far better terms. The interest is in some cases non-existent or else at very low rates. There are lengthy grace periods before payments commence and much longer re-payment periods. And unlike Western banks, the Chinese banks are lending—extending credit for the express purposes of uplifting the standard of living of African nations.

China’s Exim Bank is extending credit for infrastructure mega-projects, for development of goods and services. That’s exactly what a bank is supposed to exist for—the extension of credit for projects that will create progress and the upliftment of a nation`s standard of living. And it is exactly what the City of London-Wall Street banking empire does not do.

Drawing by Larrybzh

Thomas Sankara, President of Burkina Faso, 1983-1987, called on Africa’s leaders to renounce the continent’s debt.

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

Renounce the Immoral Debt!

It is 33 years since Thomas Sankara, president of Burkina Faso, called upon Africa’s leadership to renounce the continent’s debt. In a speech given on July 29,1987 at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Addis Ababa, he said this:

We think that debt must be seen from the standpoint of its origins. Debt’s origins come from colonialism’s origins. Those who lend us money are those who colonized us before. They are those who used to manage our states and economies. Colonizers are those who indebted Africa through their brothers and cousins who were the lenders. We are strangers to this debt. Therefore we cannot pay for it. Debt is neo-colonialism in which the colonizers transform themselves into “technical assistants.” In fact it is better to say, “technical assassins.”

They present us with financing, with financial backers, as if someone`s backing could create development! We have been advised to go to these recommended lenders. We have been proposed with nice financial set-ups. We have been indebted for 50, 60 years and more. That means we have been led to compromise our people for 50 years and more.

Under its current form, the debt is a formula for controlled imperialism; debt is a cleverly managed re-conquest of Africa aiming at subjugating its growth and development through foreign rules. Thus each one of us becomes the financial slave, that is to say—a true slave to those who were treacherous enough to put money in our countries with obligations for us to repay. We are told to repay, but it is not a moral issue. It is not about this so-called honor of repaying or not!

Debt servicing and restrictive loans for poor countries, in these current times, is more than immoral!

In an October 20, 2020 press release, “IMF Paves Way for New Era of Austerity Post-Covid-19,” Oxfam International reports on a new Oxfam analysis according to which:

84% of the International Monetary Fund’s Covid-19 loans encourage, and in some cases require, poor countries hard hit by the economic fallout from the pandemic to adopt more tough austerity measures in the aftermath of the health crisis.

The new analysis finds that 76 out of the 90 IMF loans negotiated with 81 countries since March 2020—when the pandemic was declared—push for belt-tightening that could result in deep cuts to public healthcare systems and pension schemes, wage freezes and cuts for public sector workers such as doctors, nurses and teachers, and unemployment benefits, like sick pay.

Africa’s debt to the IMF is a creation of a neo-liberal economic system of so-called Free Trade that has deliberately withheld industrialization from African economies. The debt should have been renounced in 1987. But it wasn’t. Instead Thomas Sankara was assassinated for what he said.

Today the situation has changed. Africa’s debt burden to the IMF remains immoral. Debt servicing across the continent has taken precedence over health, over food to the hungry, over education, over everything that matters. If debt is to be seen from the standpoint of its origins, then we need to look at debt which has its origins in the Belt and Road Initiative. That is debt owed to China since the beginning of the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013 to construct infrastructure and build economic corridors.

The G20 announced its Debt Service Suspension Initiative in April this year. This is a non-binding agreement, but pressure is being put on China to join the Paris Club of creditors.

This initiative is an attack on China. The intention is to derail the Belt and Road Initiative. China, which only accounts for 17% of Africa’s debt, is not liable to pay for the decades of the IMF`s economic assassination.

The African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) will not create prosperity without massive infrastructure development. Without transport networks, AfCFTA is like a body without arteries and veins.

Nta.ng

Manufacturing and processing of goods on African soil is a priority in Nigeria. Shown, the Escravos Tank Farm at the Escravos Terminal, a crude oil and LPG export facility.

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

‘Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Infrastructure’

Aliko Dangote of the Dangote Group and financer of a major Nigerian oil refinery has said that infrastructure is more important right now than any trade agreements, and that manufacturing and processing of goods on African soil has to become a priority, but for that, infrastructure once again takes precedence.

Lawrence Freeman, an Africa analyst, explains the importance of infrastructure:

What African nations most desperately need, and which will have the greatest impact on their economies, is infrastructure, infrastructure, and more infrastructure. It is not hyperbole to state that the lack of infrastructure is responsible for millions of deaths on the continent. The dearth of on-grid energy, arguably the most crucial component of an industrialized-manufacturing society, is preventing African nations from attaining the levels of economic growth required to sustain their populations.

In October, seven African parliaments called for the continent’s debt to be annulled. The Speaker of the Nigerian House of Representatives, Rep. Femi Gbajabiamila, has initiated the Conference of Speakers and Heads of African Parliaments (CoSAP), which is the body that is launching the African debt write-off campaign. The seven countries represented are Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa. Algeria, Morocco, Côte d’Ivoire, and Cape Verde have also expressed their desire to join.

CGTN

Prof. Aaron Oquaye, Speaker of Parliament in Ghana.

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

Professor Aaron Oquaye, Ghana’s Speaker of Parliament, recently gave an interview with CGTN in which he called for “a New Paradigm”:

A New Paradigm cannot take place under the present world [economic] arrangement. [Debt servicing was a game of] “robbing Peter, to pay Paul,” [creating a never ending] cycle of poverty, misery and disease. Debt cancellation is a matter of liberating us.

In other words, it is a final end to colonialism. Oquaye continued:

In order, even, to maximize our raw resources, we need a new world economic order. How do we balance processing? For example, taking our foods, vegetables and also fruits, processing them in competition against foreign cheap products? No country, ever, in this world, you know, got economic self-dependency by allowing cheap competition.

Professor Oquaye is not advocating a totally isolationist policy, but a policy against the utterly unfair advantage of the mega-corporations that have been the only beneficiaries of the financial elite’s “globalism.”

Africa’s leaders must unite to demand that all debt which has been accrued for anything except constructing infrastructure, which includes health care and water sanitation, will no longer be paid. Payments will instead be re-invested in the physical economy for the benefit of all.

The Dangerous Fraud of the ‘Great Reset’

Building the physical economy of Central Africa must begin with international financing of the Transaqua project. Construction of the world`s largest engineering project will require a change of heart, will, and motivation from the privately owned central banks. In fact, it will require that the banking order be replaced by a new Bretton Woods system which extends credit for mankind, not for money. Those that gave Africa economic assassins want to fool us again with their phony version of a New Bretton Woods, under their Great Reset, which is worse than a zero-growth policy. In terms of Africa, it is to kill the African Dream.

Stop greening the debt, stop politicizing the debt. Review the debt and, where applicable, re-invest into the physical economy.

III. Think Like Beethoven

Think Like Beethoven: Fidelio, Lafayette and LaRouche—

or, the Big Elephant in the Room

by David Shavin

In memory of Donald Phau

Prelude—Introduction—And the Composition in Four Movements:

I. The Story of the Lafayettes

II. The British Role—Whether ‘Pizarro’ Is William Pitt

III. Through Beethoven’s Eyes

IV. Fidelio—Beethoven’s Secular Mass for Humanity

Part I of this article was published in the November 13 issue of EIR. This week, we present the final parts, II, III, and IV.

II.

PITT/PIZARRO: THE BRITISH FOCUS UPON ELIMINATING LAFAYETTE

Or, “Wee see the very man who wanted to crush England … & I am sure he will meet with his reward.”

This section comprises four scenes, presented more or less chronologically, with the first two building to the testimonies of Lafayette’s wife Adrienne and the British Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger. They exemplify what was at stake for the British Empire in the imprisonment of Lafayette, Pitt’s role, and why the Queen was feeling so sure about Lafayette’s reward.

A. George III, Pitt and Grenville Preferred Scuttling the 1794 Peace Negotiations Rather Than Have Lafayette Released

Lafayette’s collaborator, Mathieu Dumas, attempted a peace negotiation in 1794, contingent only upon the good faith gesture of releasing Lafayette. Earlier, Dumas himself, as Lafayette, had been caught in between the feudalists and the Jacobin insanity. In August 1792, Dumas was the head of the Military Committee of the French Assembly, when Danton and Marat launched their bloody coup against the French Constitution. He spoke up in defense of Lafayette’s intervention and was promptly assaulted, twice, by mobs outside the Assembly. (On a third assault, 48-hours later, the frenzied mob succeeded in murdering an unfortunate man whose name, Delmas, was mistaken for Dumas.) Despite all this, Dumas, working with Lazare Carnot, kept to his job that August of organizing the fortifications to defend Paris.

Danton escalated by having Dumas’ papers seized and sealed in preparation for a legal pretense to destroy him. However, Dumas simply challenged Danton’s Committee of General Security to lift the seal and read his true sentiments. He then offered the Assembly the Cross of Cincinnatus that he had been awarded for services in the American Revolution. A week later came the September Massacres, a search of Dumas’s home, and the beginning of two years of living underground. He ended up in Switzerland, under the secret protection of another “Fayettist,” the French ambassador, François-Marie Barthélemy—the same man who would work with Carnot in 1797 to free Lafayette.[fn_29]

Left: Louise Adélaïde Desnos, 1842

Lafayette’s collaborator, General Guillaume-Mathieu, Comte Dumas (left), attempted to negotiate peace between France and the British/Austrian Coalition, contingent on the good faith gesture of the release of Lafayette. The French Ambassador, François-Marie, Marquis de Barthélemy (above), provided Dumas with secret protection from the Jacobins.

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

In Switzerland, Dumas proposed peace negotiations with the British/Austrian Coalition, based upon the realities of the situation. He proposed that the Coalition lacked the resources to defeat France outright, and the use of force to restore the monarchy was only serving to prop up the Jacobins. Hence, the Coalition should establish a truce, which would allow moderates, both republicans and royalists, to emerge and defeat the Jacobins. Then they could govern together under the Constitution. However, he added, those royalists who only wanted their feudal rights restored really had nothing to offer; so they simply should no longer be propped up. The release of Lafayette would be a mark of good faith to open the negotiations.

On October 3, 1794, Lord William Grenville, the British Foreign Secretary, marked Dumas’ plan “for the perusal of Mr. Pitt” and reported to George III the next day on their deliberations. The king told them to choose “some very wary men to go to Switzerland.” The Foreign Office sent William Wickham, but they bound him with Grenville’s orders to profile the French and to agree to nothing but the old order, and forbid a constitution:

The Constitution of 1789-90 has always been considered as vicious and destructive. … No approbation can therefore be expressed from hence of any Government founded on that basis. … The restoration of the monarchy … must necessarily imply the recall of the Princes and the vesting of powers meant to be left to the king. …[fn_30]

Dumas told Wickham that the freeing of the Olmütz prisoners was a matter of simple justice and key to their estimation of the British intentions. At the next meeting, with Wickham still bound to Grenville’s instructions, it become clear to Dumas what their intentions were—and he ended the meetings. Wickham was upset that his profiling operation had come to an abrupt end. Weeks later, Grenville’s Swiss ambassador reported that Wickham had concluded it was all simply a fabrication “by the friends of Lafayette, who have no other motive than that of engaging the British Cabinet in a negotiation … for the recovery of his liberty.” [fn_31] What Dumas proposed as a simple act of good faith was already a deal-killer for the British—so they continued a doomed war for three more years.

B. Liancourt and Washington on the British Hatred of Lafayette’s Americanism

Angelica Church sent Lafayette’s friend, François Liancourt, to Alexander Hamilton in America. He would travel the country extensively for Lafayette. On his return to Philadelphia, his exchange with Washington was most clear.[fn_32] He wrote that when Mrs. Lafayette—

implored of [the Emperor] her husband’s liberation, [the] Emperor answered to her, his own hands were tied up on that Subject, and Mr. de Lafs. liberation being out of his own power. You know the Emperor’s ministers [undoubtedly led by Thugut], less reserved a little than their master had been, did pronounce to her that, if His Imp. Maj. should be to grant Mr. de Laf.’s liberation, or even if the watch upon him to prevent his escape were less rigourous, the Emperor should then become an object of difference to his own ally, the King of England: and you have, Sir, unquestionably concluded, with all of those who are acquainted with those [authenticated] answers, that, the part of Lafy.’s conduct by which his fetters have been forged, & are now daily riveted, is not his participation in the French revolution, but only his participation in the American revolution, his unbounded devotion to the cause of liberty & independence of the United States. That is the very real crime never to be forgotten by the King of England, and on account of which only Lafayette is plunged in a dungeon.

Gilbert Stuart, 1795

George Washington: “With respect to Mr. Lafayette, I may, without troubling you with the details, venture to affirm that [I will work] to effect his liberation.”

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

He also provided Washington with letters from both of the Lafayettes. Liancourt explained that he had travelled to almost all the states, had Adrienne’s letter published, and had found great “friendship and interest” in the Lafayettes’ case. Lafayette’s letter to Washington, shorter, and evidently written in his own blood, pointed to his role in the American Revolution as the key to the hatred:

… but if my own Liberty should be too difficult matter to obtain, my friends must … direct all efforts to my two fellows’ deliverance [that of fellow prisoners, Pusy and Latour-Maubourg]—for, so great as may be my esteem & tender affection to them, I permit me to say, they are not hated so deeply as I am myself, they having took part in only one revolution. …

In response, on August 8, 1796, Washington addressed the covert nature of his operations, given the fevered interventionism of the Jacobin faction in the French government:

Mr de Liancourt must be too well acquainted with the history of governments; with the insidious ways of the world; & with the suspicions and jealousies of its rulers; not to acknowledge that men in responsible situations cannot, like those in private life, be governed solely by the dictates of their own inclinations, or by such motives as can only affect themselves. … [I]n spite of all the circumspection with which my conduct has been marked towards the gentlemen of your nation, who have left France under circumstances which have rendered them obnoxious to the governing power of it, the countenance said to be given to them, is alledged as a cause of discontent in the Directory of France against the government of the U. States. … With respect to Mr La Fayette I may, without troubling you with the details, venture to affirm that whatever private friendship could require, or public duty would allow, has been, & will continue to be essayed by me to effect his liberation, the difficulty in accomplishing of which has, no doubt, proceeded in a great measure from the cause you have mentioned. …

Washington ends by asking Liancourt to treat this as a private letter. He simply thought that Liancourt deserved an explanation, so that “the appearance of mystery” in Washington’s actions might be removed.

C. Adrienne: Pitt is ‘Lafayette’s Principal Enemy’

Both Lafayettes maintained, throughout the five years, that King George III, and particularly his minister, William Pitt, ran the imprisonment and merciless treatment of the two; and that the reason was that the voice and example of the American Revolution had to be kept out of France—that, and blind vengeance. Most of the evidence comes not from his hand, but from hers, as it was easier for Adrienne to write and smuggle letters out. But it is known that she was speaking for both of them.

Left: Joseph-Désiré Court, 1834; right: Adélaïde Labille-Guiard

Lafayette and his wife Adrienne. Adrienne: “Mr. Pitt, who [has] adopted a position of personal antagonism to France, is twice over the personal enemy of [Lafayette].”

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

One letter by Adrienne is cited in Donald Phau’s 1978 article, “Fidelio: Beethoven’s Celebration of the American Revolution.” It was on the occasion of yet another delay in their release, during their last summer in the dungeon. Written on July 18, 1797, it cited Pitt, even more than Vienna, as detesting Lafayette:

Yet not only are we still here, but we have redoubled evidence of ill-will. With the exception of Mr. Pitt, who, having adopted a position of personal antagonism to France, is twice over the personal enemy of Gilbert [Lafayette’s given name], there is no Court in Europe which detests him so cordially as does that of Vienna.

However, as we shall see, that was only the last of several prison communications that she wrote on Pitt.

Earlier, on October 12, 1795, Adrienne had met with Emperor Franz II, confronting him with the choice of freeing her husband or putting her in the dungeon with him. She reported his response: “… as for his liberty, that would be impossible—my hands are tied; it is a complicated affair.” On May 10, 1796, she described to Victor de Latour-Maubourg (the younger brother of their fellow prisoner, Charles de Latour-Maubourg) that Pitt was in control, whereas the emperor “did not appear to be any more than a little fool whom I think is neither good nor bad.”

That same day, she wrote to her Aunt, the countess of Tesse (Adrienne Catherine de Noailles), that the King of Prussia and the Emperor point at each other, but “Mr. Pitt has said to Parliament that he has nothing to do with the matter, and, during that time, the three prisoners were turned over to the Court of Vienna, whom Mr. Pitt was taking into his pay.” Pitt was financing Austria to maintain the land war against France. [fn_33]

However, Adrienne, in writing on May 22, 1796 to Dr. Bollmann, provided the most explicit description:

It is quite certain that, notwithstanding the hatred of all the other governments, the cabinets of Vienna and London are the only ones that can persecute us here. You know that the court of Vienna, in addition to its hereditary aversion for every species of liberty, has a particular antipathy for Lafayette. … [However, the] conduct observed towards the three prisoners, towards you and ourselves, does not depend on the disposition of that court [Franz II], but the malevolent action appears concentrated in the internal cabinet [Thugut]; and I might hope for some advantages, were not that party itself, as the letters from Vienna state, in the servile dependence of England. In that quarter is Lafayette’s principal enemy to be found: Pitt and he have long formed a judgment of each other; and that minister, who is no less perverse in his means of execution than in his views, has every kind of superiority over the governments under his direction. …

You will not be tranquillized by a recent and secret information, of the truth of which you can entertain no doubt … M. Thugut, the prime minister, and wholly devoted to Pitt, no later than a fortnight ago, represented Lafayette as dangerous to the public tranquility of Europe. …

I know not what instructions you may have brought from the United States. … It is true that England, considered either as a power or as a banker, would always be the stronger [than Austria], and to force her to relax her hold, she must be pressed at home. There at least public opinion is of some weight, and as our object should be not to caress or persuade Mr. Pitt, but to make him feel more personal inconvenience from Lafayette’s detention than from his liberation, no means must be neglected of exciting public opinion against him in that respect.

Thomas Gainsborough

William Pitt, the Younger, lectured the House of Commons: “The detention of Lafayette, considered as a question of political relations, is not one which does at all come within [your] cognizance.”

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

Pitt’s ‘Personal Inconvenience’ and

Bald-Faced Denial

Bollmann did report back to John and Angelica Church in London. Indeed, they did not neglect the route of “exciting public opinion,” and, consequently, Pitt was pressed to make his most explicit and bald-faced public comments on the Lafayette imprisonment in December 1796. Previously, Fox’s Whig faction, with whom the Churches were working, had brought the matter to the Parliament in 1792 and again in March 1794—eliciting such denials from Pitt as, Lafayette’s “fate was never at the disposal of this country. …”

But on December 16, 1796, Fox’s close collaborator, Richard Fitzpatrick, spoke before the House of Commons, now able to explicitly cite Adrienne’s 1795 meeting with Franz II. He quoted Franz II: “With respect to his liberty, it is a complicated affair, upon which my hands are bound.” Hence, Fitzpatrick concluded: “La Fayette is not the prisoner of the Emperor.” So, by whom are the Emperor’s hands tied, “unless by his allies”? Hence, England is dishonored. Fitzpatrick’s motion called for the King “to intercede with the court of Vienna … for the deliverance of those unfortunate persons” who had been illegally detained for over four years.

In previous years, Pitt had insisted that it was a matter solely of their Prussian and Austrian allies, and that Britain, on principle, doesn’t interfere with such sovereign decisions. But now, he abandoned such nice lies and lunged flight-forward at the Parliament’s audacity:

The House [of Commons] are in possession of no facts which authorize them to take any decided step on the occasion: there is nothing to satisfy them, that the detention of La Fayette is a circumstance at all to be influenced by their authority, or connected with any exertion of their power. However their humanity may be interested, considered as a question of political relations, it is not one which does at all come within their cognizance. …

That is, you in the Commons lack both the facts and the standing. But, if you had such, Pitt continued, “… by what inference can it be concluded that the king of Great Britain is either implicated in the motive, or a party to the engagement?” Goodness! by what inference? What about, to begin with, the inference that Lafayette was key to the French contribution to turning the world upside-down on the British Empire at Yorktown? Might a motive have arisen thereby?

But now, Pitt goes from the ludicrous to the solemn:

As to the question of any such engagement, I now declare in the most public, solemn, and explicit manner, that I know of no obligation expressed, implied, or understood, by his majesty, as at all connected with the transaction. I know of no communication that has passed on the subject between the courts of London and Vienna. No opinion has been asked from this country, nor has any reason been afforded to believe that it is a question on which we could have any influence to decide. It is a transaction in which his majesty has not had the smallest participation, and with respect to which he can have no right to interfere.

It is hard to make this stuff up. Would it not be poetic justice to put such a character on stage?[fn_34]

‘Not Had the Smallest Participation’

Otherwise, Pitt reported to George III that very evening of the events, including that the War Minister, William Windham, had called upon the House of Commons to “rejoice,—to see such men [as Lafayette] drink deep of the cup of calamity which they had prepared for the lips of others.” The retired Edmund Burke bothered himself to send to the Commons his thoughts: Fox’s remarks about “this poor puppy de La Fayette … [were] indecent, unparliamentary, unpolitick.” Lord Chancellor Loughborough seconded Burke, “… this Fayettism ought to be driven out of the House with indignation and scorn.”

George III was proud of the motion’s defeat, noting to Pitt the next day:

Besides the very objectionable conduct of that gentleman towards this country, which would be reason enough for not appearing in his favour, I cannot see any right this or any country has to meddle with the Executive Administration of any foreign one. [fn_35]

Four days later, Gouverneur Morris wrote from Vienna[fn_36] to Lord Grenville:

I mentioned to M. de Thugut the situation of Monsieur de la Fayette. … He told me that if England would ask for him, they would readily give him up; and the King might, if he pleased, let him loose in London.

Months later, this impertinent offer from their sovereign ally, Austria, still bothered the King, who wrote to Grenville on April 4, 1797:

I forgot to answer you last week on the subject of La Fayette—You mentioned it to me [first, back in December] immediately after the debate in the H of C and I said I was perfectly sure that it was not understood at Vienna that we had anything to do with that business. There I conceived (and still remain of the same opinion) that the matter ought to rest.

Was Vienna really confused as to whether Britain was involved? Indeed, that was never in question. King George III means that not only does Austria have no right to free him without “our” consent, but they also have no right to let it be known that Britain’s consent is needed. George III then ordered Grenville to continue to not respond to Austria, as responding would suggest that there was an injustice that the two allies might have needed to address.

Must one assume that the confidence of his wife, Queen Charlotte, expressed years earlier in the first days after Lafayette’s flight and illegal seizure—“Wee see the very man who wanted to crush England … & I am sure he will meet with his reward”—was the random comment of a bystander, lacking any indication of a motive or a capability?

III.

THROUGH BEETHOVEN’S EYES

Any sentient republican of the 1790s would have been familiar with some of the above story. However, Beethoven was that and more—a passionate republican who kept abreast of newspapers, politics, and coffee-house discussions. One example, at this period in his life, is his attendance at the music evenings of Dr. Johann Zizius, a professor of political science in Vienna. (Also, coincidentally, Zizius had studied at Olmütz just prior to Lafayette’s imprisonment there.) How much does one have to ignore, in order to pretend that Beethoven chose Bouilly’s text because it was merely about an anonymous woman who saved her husband from an unjust official, with no allusion to the Lafayettes?

There is a multiply-connected and demonstrable history of Beethoven’s interest—after the horrors of the Jacobins—in the remaining republican faction, Lafayette’s faction, winning Napoleon away from an oligarchical reaction, during the years 1798-1804. This is concentrated in 1803, when Beethoven decided both to move to Paris and to choose Bouilly’s text. His thinking about his Eroica Symphony and his Leonore opera coheres rather closely with his 1803 decision to relocate to Paris in about a year-and-a-half, and his 1804 decision to stay in Vienna.

Christian Hornemann, 1803

“A passionate republican, Ludwig van Beethoven transformed Jean-Nicolas Bouilly’s Lenore text into a cultural revolution like the world had never seen.”

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

Early in 1798, in the months after Lafayette was finally freed, Beethoven was a frequent visitor of the French Ambassador to Vienna, Jean Bernadotte, a friend of Lafayette.[fn_37] It has long been thought that it was Bernadotte who suggested to Beethoven that he create a Bonaparte Symphony. In their discussions on the affairs in France and on Beethoven’s music, discussions nowhere recorded, it is hard to believe that the subject of Bernadotte’s close friend Lafayette had not arisen.[fn_38]

In Vienna, Bernadotte hosted the violinist Rodolphe Kreutzer, who played duets with Beethoven. One known occasion was in April 1798 at Prince Lobkowitz’s palace. Beethoven’s description of their time together appeared later, in a note to his publisher, Simrock, sent on September 4, 1804, on the occasion of the publication of his Kreutzer Sonata:

… I will send you at once a little note for Kreutzer and you will be so kind as to enclose it when you send him a copy. … This Kreutzer is a dear, kind fellow who, during his [1798] stay in Vienna, gave me a great deal of pleasure. I prefer his modesty and natural behavior to all the exterior without the interior which is characteristic of most virtuosi. …”

Of note, Kreutzer was also a proven opponent of the Jacobins; and it is even rather likely that Kreutzer had actually attended the February 1798 premiere of Bouilly’s Leonore, ou l’amour conjugal a few weeks, or even a few days, before meeting with Beethoven.

The composer of the music for that first Leonore was one Pierre Gaveaux, who was already famous in 1795 Paris for his popular, anti-Jacobin song, Le reveil du people (The people’s awakening). Following upon Gaveaux by a few months, Kreutzer had composed the music for another anti-Jacobin work, Le Brigand. Kreutzer and Gaveaux were fellow composers in this political fight—hence, the increased likelihood of Kreutzer attending the Bouilly/Gaveaux premiere of their Leonore that February 1798, shortly before leaving for Vienna and Beethoven. And even if Kreutzer’s departure for Vienna was prior to the premiere, he certainly would have been aware of, and interested in, Gaveaux’s Leonore opera. Not only the subject of Lafayette, but also, specifically, the Bouilly libretto was a very natural common interest for Kreutzer and Beethoven. This would certainly explain an awareness by, and interest of, Beethoven in this particular libretto as early as 1798.

Lacking such considerations, and having no better idea, musicologists tend to suggest that Beethoven must have latched on to the libretto because he had heard that Ferdinando Paer or Simon Mayr were setting it to music. But this is rather silly, as they know that Beethoven had Bouilly’s text from Sonnleithner no later than December 1803—that is, he was working on the opera prior to any news about the plans of Paer or Mayr.

Earlier in 1803, Beethoven had signed a contract with Emmanuel Schikaneder and his Theater an der Wien to compose an opera, Vesta’s Fire. Schikaneder, less than a dozen years earlier, had produced and starred in Mozart’s opera, The Magic Flute. (In both operas, Mozart and Beethoven, with Pamina and Leonore, create the paradigm of a woman’s role in changing history.) Beethoven was slow on proceeding with Schikaneder’s libretto—in part because he was concentrating on his Bonaparte Symphony. By no later than November 1803, he had discontinued any work on Vesta’s Fire—though, happily, we owe to his work on it, the music Beethoven used for the opening of the incomparable “O namenlose Freude.” Before the year was over, he had arranged for his collaborator, Joseph Sonnleithner, to provide him a German libretto from Bouilly’s French.

Wikipedia

Both a student and patron of Beethoven, Archduke Rudolph, the Archbishop of Olmütz, as portrayed by Johann Baptist von Lampi.

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

Also in 1803, and of some note, Beethoven began his long relationship with a new student, the 15-year-old Archduke Rudolph. Rudolph was only a child when his older brother, Emperor Franz II, had held Lafayette in prison. However, Franz and the family had resented the assaults upon his reputation during the Lafayette controversy, and Rudolph may have been a fascinating source for Beethoven. Rudolph did not view Beethoven as most aristocrats viewed their music teachers. He fully appreciated Beethoven’s informality, as witness a telling anecdote provided by another of Beethoven’s students in 1803, Ferdinand Ries:

Etiquette and all that is connected with it was never known to Beethoven, nor was he ever willing to learn it. For this reason he often caused great embarrassment in the household of the Archduke Rudolph when he first went to him. An attempt was made by force to teach him to have regard for certain things. But this was intolerable to him. … Finally one day when, as he expressed it, he was being tutored [als man ihn, wie er es nannte, hofmeisterte], he angrily forced his way to the Archduke and flatly declared that while he had the greatest reverence for his person, he could not trouble himself to observe all the regulations which were daily forced upon him. The Archduke laughed good-naturedly and commanded that Beethoven be permitted to go his own gait undisturbed—it was his nature and could not be altered.

Rudolph would not be constrained by formalities with his new music teacher. Beethoven and the Emperor’s brother collaborated for over two decades on a mutually respectful basis, culminating in Beethoven’s creation of the unique and masterful Missa Solemnis for Rudolph’s appointment as Archbishop. (Ironically, Rudolph was appointed the Archbishop of Olmütz—where Lafayette had been imprisoned a generation earlier.) As Beethoven began working with Bouilly’s text, he had direct access to Franz’s brother, Rudolph.

However, most underappreciated is that, in the summer of 1803, Beethoven decided that he would leave Vienna and move to Paris! His student Ries wrote on August 6: “Beethoven will stay here at most for another year and a half. He is then going to Paris, which makes me extraordinarily sorrowful.” That same day, Beethoven had received, as a present from France, an Erard piano. (Beethoven’s brother, Joseph, reported that the piano had an inscription indicating that the piano was a gift from the city of Paris.) His Paris plan may well have been behind his dissatisfaction with Schickaneder’s libretto, and his adoption of Bouilly’s. First, Beethoven planned a three-month visit to Paris for that winter. In December, Beethoven turned down 400 ducats for his Bonaparte Symphony with the explanation, again, from Ries: “He now doesn’t want to sell it and will reserve it for his journey [to Paris].”

Evidently, Beethoven’s planned trip was to be from January to April 1804, as Beethoven tells Sonnleithner in January, that he should finish “the poetical part of the libretto” (the parts to be treated as arias) by April, when he is to return to Vienna. It remains to be fully determined exactly what individuals were pushing for Beethoven to move to Paris, but it is clear that, with his Bonaparte Symphony, he planned an intervention upon Napoleon, in collaboration with the remaining republicans (e.g., Lafayette, Lazare Carnot).

It is not known exactly what prevented this trip,[fn_39] but in the early Spring of 1804, Beethoven had a fair copy of his symphony handed over to the French embassy in Vienna, for transmission to Paris. The French ambassador to Vienna at that time, Jean-Baptiste de Nompère de Champagny, had been, in 1781, a midshipman in the Comte de Grasse’s fleet, penning in the British at Yorktown, Virginia, where Lafayette and Hamilton were leading the final charges against the trapped British army. Further, in 1793, Champagny had also been imprisoned by the Jacobins and, like Adrienne Lafayette, barely escaped the guillotine.[fn_41] It makes sense that Campagny would be an ally in an intervention into Paris. It is not known how or when the fair copy was actually transmitted, but if it reached Napoleon, it appears that it was too late for the poor soul.[fn_42]

In May 1804, Napoleon was, by his own solemn proclamation, declared the Emperor of France. Ries famously described Beethoven’s reaction upon hearing the news, forecasting that Napoleon would simply become a tyrant. Later, when the Eroica Symphony was published in 1806, Beethoven added the description: “Composed to celebrate the memory of a great man.”

A great man, rising to the occasion of a critical turning point for society, a punctum saliens, is indeed a most efficient solution. However, such was no longer an option for Beethoven. He turned his passion and focus toward his opera, and the necessity to develop the universal, agapic quality embedded in the capacity of any human being to love, a requirement for the sustained development of a republican form of government.

IV.

BEETHOVEN’S SECULAR MASS

FOR HUMANITY

Beethoven’s sustained passion transformed Bouilly’s Leonore text into a cultural revolution like the world had never seen. France, and Europe, would not be saved by a hero riding in on a horse. Rather, beyond the Eroica, Beethoven fashioned a direct appeal to the population to rise above their sullen rage, their abiding littleness, and to match the depth and greatness of their hearts and souls to the problem at hand. It was a hard-won truth, but it addressed what Schiller had diagnosed as the problem of the French Revolution in his famous epigram: “A great moment in history had found a little people.”

According to his sketchbooks, Beethoven did most of the work on the opera in the three months after he had ripped out the title page of his Bonaparte Symphony, May-August 1804.[fn_43] However, all of the sketches were not completed until June 1805. Rehearsals began in the late summer, but on September 30, two weeks prior to the scheduled premiere, Pergen’s Imperial Court police censor banned the opera. The next day, Sonnleithner consulted with the State Councillor, Philipp von Stahl, and submitted a petition the following day that emphasized:

(a) “the plot takes place in the 16th-century, thus there could be no underlying relationship” with 1805 Austria;

(b) “the evil-minded governor” was an underling gone out of control, who had been brought to justice by a wise ruler; and

(c) the Empress, Maria Theresa of Naples, was interested in the project.

This last point was probably Sonnleithner’s strongest card against the censor’s attempt. Since Beethoven’s Creatures of Prometheus[fn_44] had been performed for the Empress back in 1801, one can assume that she appreciated his work, and that Sonnleithner had some basis for invoking her name. He also made clear that the premiere was chosen for her Namensfest, October 15. Negotiations ensued and the opera was allowed, largely intact. However, the 1805 French invasion of Austria caused disarray that October, and the opera did not premiere until November 20, a week after Vienna had been captured. The Empress never witnessed Beethoven’s opera, having fled a week earlier … to Olmütz.

Finally, to the opera.

While Bouilly wrote a compelling libretto, it was no secular mass. For example, when the evil Pizare is defeated, the chorus/population cries out, “Vengeance! Vengeance!” Or, when Leonore and Florestan request the Minister not to chain Pizare in a dungeon for two years as punishment, an “eye for an eye,” the Minister insists upon the law. However, in the Beethoven/Sonnleithner libretto, there is no vengeance, and the Minister is human. He knows that the King will be happy enough that Leonore and Florestan are out of the prison. The Minister knows to avoid the heat of the moment, and that he should deliberate as to what to do with Pizarro. These are obvious explicit variations. But the telling difference is what Beethoven does musically.

Agnes Janet-Lang

A scene from Fidelio, Act III: Leonore confronts the evil Pizarro.

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

Beethoven’s Grasp of Schiller’s Moral Theatre

We will simply identify four elements.

We open with how evil sings. In the Bouilly/Gaveaux Leonore, the personification of evil, Pizare, never sings. His is a speaking part. By contrast, listen to Pizarro’s opening outburst, in his infamous aria, “Ha, Welch’ ein Augenblick”—and ask, how did such evil get into the world? Ask further, whether it was possible to step around such a problem, or whether it was an evil that had to be confronted? Pizarro lunges at the audience:

Revenge I’ll take on him,

Your fate is calling you!

I shall probe his heart,

Oh joy, oh great delight!

And,

In his final hour,

The steel deep in his wound,

To shout into his ears:

Triumph! Victory is mine!

And Pizarro is no less evil when, in his “Er sterbe!” he comes to plunge in the knife:

He dies—But first he shall be told

Who’ll tear to pieces his proud heart.

The dark veil of revenge be torn.

Is there such sadistic evil afoot, evil deprived of all human joy but for the perverse joy of causing pain and suffering? Or, in one translation, are there those whose greed and hatred of life have gotten so out of control, that they would gladly take down the world rather than admit to a Ponzi scheme?

Second, consider the ineluctably intertwined fates of the four voices of the beatific canonic “Mir ist so wunderbar.” It is a new scene that Beethoven introduced into the libretto. Three common souls sing in canon with a fourth—and that fourth holds the intention of making history. The three decent souls sing variously of domestic happiness, of one’s intended being infatuated with another, and of the need for hearts to be harmonized in marriage. However, Leonore, whose husband is unjustly imprisoned, with no hope in sight, has history thrust upon her. She, in some agony, sings of the nameless pain (“O namenloser Pein”). That the four sing the same canonic material, certainly puts into contrast her unique role and appears incongruous. Yet, as it is a canon, it promises that there is some strange underlying bond in the fates of the four.

Both the “Augenblick” (sudden moment) of evil Pizarro and the “O namenloser Pein” of Leonore become the focal points of a rather miraculous double-transformation, as the opera comes to its triumphant end. The “Augenblick” idea—here, such an ugly one—Beethoven will wholly invert into a sublime “twinkling of the eye”! And, the transformation of Leonore’s nameless pain to the nameless joy (“O namenloser Freude”) is the key to the opera, the work of a decent soul rising to the call of history, to whatever level is necessary to defeat evil.

Third, Beethoven’s overlooked scene from a mass is first prepared by the evocative, hopeful, and yet unfulfilled scene of the “Prisoner’s Chorus.” It presents the audience with a mass of wretched political prisoners, finally given a breath of fresh air and sunlight—which evokes the small light of their inner humanity, not yet crushed. A more touching, inspiring, universal, and yet bittersweet scene is hard to imagine.

With this added to the audience’s expanding emotional development, they hear Leonore’s vow, down in the dungeon where Pizarro will shortly arrive to murder the prisoner:

Ah! Whoever the unhappy one may be,

No weapon shall smite him!

No, no: this feeble hand, I hope,

Will restore him to this liberty.

Leonore has not yet been able to determine whether the prisoner for whom she is digging a grave is indeed her own husband. In a gut-wrenching situation, her agapē spills out to this poor man, even if a total stranger to her. That is, her initial courageous decision, to intervene to save her beloved husband, has brought her to an agapic moment for all mankind. The man regains consciousness, and Leonore finds that it is indeed her dear Florestan. He is too weak to recognize the guard as his wife, but he receives bread and wine from her—in what he thinks is his final act on Earth.

Deutsche Gramophone

The great German conductor, Wilhelm Furtwängler: “Beethoven makes us feel a ‘nostalgia of liberty’ that moves us to tears.”

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

Wilhelm Furtwängler, three years after the gut-wrenching Nazi assault upon German civilization, put it this way:

Certainly, Fidelio is not an opera in the sense we are used to, nor is Beethoven a musician for the theater, or a dramaturgist. He is quite a bit more, a whole musician, and beyond that, a saint and a visionary. That which disturbs us is not a material effect, nor the fact of the “imprisonment”; any film could create the same effect. No, it is the music, it is Beethoven himself. It is this “nostalgia of liberty” he feels, or better, makes us feel, this is what moves us to tears. His Fidelio has more of the Mass than of the Opera to it; the sentiments it expresses come from the sphere of the sacred, and preach a “religion of humanity” which we never found so beautiful or necessary as we do today [1948], after all we have lived through. Herein lies the singular power of this unique opera. …

Fourth, the unrivalled finale. As Leonore releases Florestan from his chains before the whole gathering, the music stretches poignancy itself, so that time almost stops. The chains fall, and “Augenblick”—a glorious moment. Hearing Leonore sing a sublime “Augenblick” is transformative in its own sake, done in the twinkling of an eye; and doubly so, when the audience’s memory of Pizarro’s “Augenblick” is jerked out of that previous emotional space into the present, sublime one.

This launches a celebratory conclusion. Beethoven amplifies Schiller’s treatment of the same subject:

He who a loving wife has won

May join our jubilation!

No praise too great for she

Who is her husband’s savior.

The first two lines—“Wer ein holdes Weib errungen, / Stimm’ in unserm Jubel ein!”—are a direct quote from Schiller’s poem, “An die Freude.”[fn_45] There, Schiller invites anyone who has ever made a friend or attained a wife, or even held one soul close, to join in the universal choir of mankind.

Moritz von Schwind, 1870

A scene from Fidelio, Act I: The four souls who here sing: “Mir ist so wunderbar,” are later transformed and united by Leonore’s historic act.

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

Beethoven first has the same three common souls that, two hours earlier, sang the “Mir ist so wunderbar”—then, confused and disunited, but with such poignancy—now join with the governor, Don Fernando, their voices united in jubilation. They add two lines to the Schiller text, “No praise too great for she / Who is her husband’s savior.” (“Nie wird es zu hoch besungen,/ Retterin des Gatten sein”). The four have been transformed and united by Leonore’s historic action. (The musically indicated promise of the “Mir ist so wunderbar” canon of a higher unity is lawfully and surprisingly fulfilled.) And this triggers a reverberation of the verse through the whole chorus—and, of course, the audience.

It is one thing to have a wife who loves her husband, but this has now been raised to the matter of the power of the love being the actual salvation of the husband. Agapic love, or the Creator’s love of all mankind, is what is hinted at in every true human love, but too little realized. Mankind actually fashions history as it enlarges its capacity for such true love. What makes history, it turns out, is in every one of us. And so, a republic is a work of art, one that requires the development of the sovereignty of the citizen.

These four unique moments are not offered as some sort of proof. For that, one must listen to the powerful and tender genius of Beethoven’s musical treatment. Rather, they are offered simply to promote an insight as to what Beethoven brought to the table, after the hopes of the extension of the American Revolution had been crushed in Europe—with Act I, the two-headed monster of Jacobins and feudal oligarchs, followed by Act II, the savior-turned-beast-man. Beethoven stared into the face of what appeared as insatiable evil, took the painful reality into himself, and fashioned a powerful and beautiful cultural weapon, capable of introducing a population to its own humanity.

Beethoven’s Gift

Donald Phau, simply and gracefully, observed what should have been obvious to anyone who is aware of the size of an elephant. What Adrienne Lafayette accomplished in real life provoked a unique work of art in Beethoven’s Leonore opera. In retrospect, the only difficulty is the amount of work it takes to avoid the obvious.

But, consider: Such stunningly myopic cases are all around us: Vast financial Ponzi bubbles do pop. Or, when physical resources are diverted from proper sanitation and nutrition, viruses tend to grow and mutate. Or, Lyndon LaRouche really did analyze the stresses that would dismantle the gold-reserve system in 1971, that if unaddressed would express itself as global pandemics; and, though with no governmental position, both established an “Ecological Holocaust Taskforce” in 1974 to investigate the dynamics involved in leaving underdeveloped parts of the world in such an exposed condition, and testified to Congress on the work.[fn_46]

Or, on a positive note, the American Revolution was not a geopolitical alternative to the British Empire, set up to compete in money-making skills; but, rather, a republic, established upon a principled basis, that required the constant upgrading of the talents of its citizens. “General welfare” actually means something, including human beings having the upper hand over viruses.

The problem, of course, is not actually recognizing an elephant to be an elephant—but what comes with the recognition that one is in an unusual situation where the solution is not immediately obvious. The courage to first take in the breadth and depth of the actual situation, and the will to mobilize one’s human capacities to solve problems, some of which may never have been solved before in all human history, are key to the ability to think like Beethoven. They were key to Beethoven’s struggle to fashion a cultural weapon with an unprecedented power to strengthen the human heart and mind.

Should there be, today, any inability to recognize what Helga LaRouche has identified as the triple pandemic—the viral, the financial derivative, and the deep-seated cultural cynicism of Malthusianism, which whispers “This is Mother Nature’s way of culling the human herd”—then perhaps this is a pretty big (elephantine) marker of our present insufficiency.

However, we need not be routed. There should be no cause for panic. Perhaps a decent present for the birthday boy would involve taking him seriously. After all, he had the good grace to gift us his Fidelio—a gift with the power to move us from inexpressible pain to inexpressible joy.

[fn_29] To protect his wife from having their estate seized while he was underground, Dumas offered her the cover of a divorce. During this time he also composed a play, described as “a double intrigue of politics and love,” which opened with the 1791 overthrow of the Constitution. The playwright, Beaumarchais, was a friend, so it is possible he benefitted from the latter’s advice. [back to text for fn_29]

[fn_30] In the Wickham Papers, Volume I., Count Trophime de Lally-Tolendal, at the center of the pro-Constitution monarchists, reported that Grenville was “struck with fear concerning the influence that M. de Lafayette, once set at liberty, could have in the contemporary struggles in which Europe was engaged.” [back to text for fn_30]

[fn_31] The singular nature of the Lafayette case arose again in 1795, when the Austrians dearly wanted to retrieve Marie Antoinette’s daughter from France. Austria offered to trade the Beurnonville group of eight—radicals who had supported both the overthrow and the execution of the French king—in preference to Lafayette. He remarked that these “arbitrary governments … must really detest the honest friends of liberty more than the Robespierres, Marats, and all the others who have soiled its name.” [back to text for fn_31]

[fn_32] Dated July 25, 1796. Some minor elements (e.g., punctuation, capitalization) have been simplified and standardized. (Liancourt had made his own translation from French to English, explaining that he avoided a professional’s smoother translation so as to limit any leaks.) [back to text for fn_32]

[fn_33] Otherwise, Lafayette himself is referenced cursing Pitt on June 18, 1796. And on various other occasions, Lafayette wrote that Pitt is “our principal enemy,” “our common adversary,” and the “prime minister of ‘anti-liberty’ ” (respectively 1/21/96, 7/5/96, and 10/20/96). [back to text for fn_33]

[fn_34] So, what of Donald Phau’s suggested identification of Pitt as Bouilly’s “Pizare” and Beethoven’s “Pizarro”? It is hard to hear it otherwise. One could argue it was a coincidence, but what would one conclude, e.g., seeing an evil character named “Hitlaro” in a play in 1946? [back to text for fn_34]

[fn_35] Jared Sparks recorded, on a visit in 1828, that Lafayette well remembered that Pitt had refused when asked to intervene against his imprisonment, saying “the feelings of the King were so strongly against him that no hope could be entertained of his sanctioning any measures in his favor.” [back to text for fn_35]

[fn_36] While in Vienna, Morris also attended the Midnight Mass at St. Stephen’s Cathedral. Morris noted in his diary, simply: “The musick was good.” Mozart’s funeral service had been performed there at St. Stephen’s five years earlier. [back to text for fn_36]

[fn_37] Both Bernadotte and Lafayette were leading French Generals, active at the beginning of the Revolution. James Monroe, in writing of his 1804 meeting with Lafayette, described Bernadotte and Lafayette as “intimately acquainted with each other.” [back to text for fn_37]

[fn_38] Napoleon appointed Bernadotte his ambassador to the United States in 1803. [back to text for fn_38]

[fn_39] Shortly after Beethoven told Sonnleithner, in January 1804, to go into high gear on the Leonore libretto, Schikaneder’s theater was bought by Peter von Braun, who promptly dumped Sonnleithner. This takeover might have reflected some larger brawl, contributing to Beethoven’s staying in Vienna that winter. (Later, in 1805, in the production of Leonore, the Baron would prove a hindrance to Beethoven on several occasions, including cheating him on the proceeds and denying him access to his own score of the work.) But the unraveling situation in Paris, around Napoleon, could also account for it all. [back to text for fn_39]

[fn_41] While in Vienna, Champagny worked closely with Vienna’s foreign minister, Cobenzl—himself an early and important supporter of Mozart, and one who had aided Adrienne Lafayette in 1795. Champagny returned to Paris in August 1804, became the Minister of the Interior, organized the 1806 Exposition des produits de l’industrie francaise, and completed several public works projects—a good argument that he might have benefitted from the Eroica! [back to text for fn_41]

[fn_42] Otherwise, the second movement of the Eroica gained its own fame from the Franklin Roosevelt funeral and the spontaneous performance for John Kennedy by the Boston Symphony on November 22, 1963. Lesser known is its performance in 1847 for Felix Mendelssohn’s funeral. [back to text for fn_42]

[fn_43] Theodore Albrecht’s work on the Beethoven sketchbook called “Mendelssohn 15.” [back to text for fn_43]

[fn_44] The program notes for the 1801 performance opens with: “This allegorical ballet is based on the myth of Prometheus. The Greek philosophers, who knew of him, elucidate the story in the following manner—they depict Prometheus as a lofty spirit who, finding the human beings of his time in a state of ignorance, refined them through art and knowledge and gave them laws of right conduct.” Beethoven took the theme from his “Finale” for use in the fourth movement of his Eroica Symphony (and for his Eroica Variations). [back to text for fn_44]

[fn_45] Schiller’s last verse begins with: “Rescue from the tyrant’s fetters, / Mercy to the villain e’en, / Hope within the dying hours, / Pardon at the guillotine!” It is hard to imagine that the Lafayette case was not also on his mind. [back to text for fn_45]

[fn_46] See the May 7, 1985 issue of Executive Intelligence Review for LaRouche’s “The Role of Economic Science in Projecting Pandemics.” [back to text for fn_46]

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

Schiller Institute International Online Conference

December 12-13

The World after the U.S. Election:

Creating a World Based on Reason

Save the Date and Register Today!

Now is the time for humanity to cleanse itself of the fatal disease of oligarchical geopolitics and face head on the urgent challenges confronting all of our nations.

• We can, and must, face the absolutely urgent need to turn back the growing famine of “biblical dimensions”—as described by David Beasley, the former Republican Governor of South Carolina and Executive Director of the UN’s World Food Programme—to save 30 million people from starvation.

• Each sovereign nation needs its own modern health system, with sufficient medical personnel and facilities, if we are to stop the once-again escalating loss of life from the COVID-19 pandemic and future such pandemics.

• And we need to finally overcome the perpetual underdevelopment of the so-called “developing world,” to eliminate the breeding grounds for hunger, disease, drug trafficking, and terrorism.

The Schiller Institute conference will be a forum for a full dialogue on Lyndon LaRouche’s concept of a new economic platform, using his economic principles, which provide the pathway to solutions through science-driver efforts led by the realization of thermonuclear fusion and international cooperation in space. The moral resources to make such changes require a renaissance of the best of every nation’s classical culture and a dialogue of these cultures.

These are the subjects that will be discussed by outstanding experts from around the world.

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

IV. LaRouches Release Development Virus on World

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

New Green Fascism, or

New Paradigm for Mankind?

On November 21, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and Chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, addressed the world on the extreme danger that we are falling into a new fascism, which is centered on the replacement of sovereign governments by central banks and universal mega-banks to impose a global “Green Finance,” cutting off credit to fossil-fuel and nuclear technologies, and the industries and agriculture dependent on those fuels, under the fraudulent claim of anthropogenic global warming. This is the edited transcript of her presentation. The full broadcast is available here.

WEF/swiss-image.ch/Jolanda Flubacher

Left: WEF; right: UN/Rick Bajomas

In the forefront of the Great Reset. Clockwise from top left: Mark Carney, Christine Lagarde, Michael Bloomberg, and Prince Charles.

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

We are only 75 years away from the end of World War II. At that time, people said, “Never again!” to fascism. Under the horrible experience of World War II, of the terrible victimization of so many people around the world by this war, people meant it. They really wanted to establish principles and an economic and political order so that this would never happen again.

The Great Reset

I hate to tell you, but we are now in front of the danger of the immediate implementation of something which would amount to global fascism, or at least fascism in the Western world, if you say that countries which are allied with China and Russia are not quite so exposed to this. But the major central banks of the so-called Western world are plotting, and it’s already a done deal. What they want to do is, by the beginning of 2021, in January, just a few weeks away, they want to come out with the Great Reset and the Green New Deal, and the digitalization of the currencies by central banks.

This scheme has been promoted for some time, but especially since June of this year. There was a series of conferences sponsored mostly by Prince Charles, the IMF, by the former head of the Bank of England Mark Carney, Michael Bloomberg, and the relatively new head of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva. What they have been saying is that the Great Reset is supposed to restart the economy after the coronavirus pandemic is over, and supposedly relaunch the economy. However, what they want to do—and they’re already in the process of implementing it—is that the central banks will make sure, including exerting control over the major banks, that absolutely no investment is allowed any more to take place which is not Green.

They want to eliminate everything which has to do with fossil fuels, anything with the idea of non-Green investment, meaning normal investments in industry, in agriculture, in infrastructure. And they want to replace it using something they call the “taxonomy” [an EU-sponsored classification of technologies in terms of “sustainability,” or green-ness], for which each firm has to calculate its CO_2 footprint, so to speak, and then it would only get investment if it fulfilled the absolute, strict criteria of “Green technology,” of carbon zero, of going into solar and into wind and related industries.

Now, that would completely destroy any industrial nation, because if you try to change the energy-flux density of the production process of an industrial nation, like the United States or the European countries, or Japan, and you force it to go only into Green alternative energies, the energy-flux density of those technologies is so low that you absolutely cannot maintain modern industrial nations.

And since most of these forces are also opposed to nuclear fission—they want to reduce it, for example, even in France, which was a relatively strong fission-based economy, but they’re moving out of that now—and naturally, they’re not doing what Lyndon LaRouche has prescribed throughout his whole life, namely, to go for a crash program for thermonuclear fusion. Because once you have thermonuclear fusion, you have energy security for many, many years to come; and you have raw materials security, because with the fusion torch technology, you can take any garbage, any waste—not only nuclear waste, but any waste—and separate out the isotopes and make new raw materials. So these are the vanguard areas which they’re not pushing.

The Green New Deal means a complete destruction of real industry. However, naturally, they would open the sluices of the central banks to issue much more liquidity than they have done since 2008. Remember that in 2008, there was a systemic crisis, which was again absolutely predicted and prognosed by Lyndon LaRouche. But rather than addressing the root causes of why we were at a point of systemic crisis in 2008, the central banks just printed money like crazy—quantitative easing, zero interest rate, negative interest rates—and that has been going on ever since. But now, the whole system is so much more indebted than it was in 2008, that they know perfectly well this debt will never be paid back.

So the idea is, how do you get rid of this debt? Well, you digitalize the currencies, and you sell that to the population by saying, “this makes your account safe, there is a danger of a financial crash, but if you agree to this digitalization, then we can distribute helicopter money directly to your account, and it will protect you.”

What that would do, other than directing an enormous amount of new liquidity into the Green economy, creating a new bubble in Green technology, which will destroy the real economy, but it will also absolutely create incredible gains for the speculators and the mega-rich—the billionaires and millionaires—but it will be at the expense of the normal middle class and the poorer parts of the population. Because this will create inflation: That is the old trick, how do you get rid of debt? Government debt, corporate debt, the general indebtedness of the system? Well, if you have a motion towards inflation, that debt becomes cheaper, and eventually you can pay it back.

Now, that’s essentially what happened in Germany in 1923 with the great inflation: At a certain point you had hyperinflation, and that destroyed the entire life’s work of the population. And they did “reset”—at that point it was relatively easy, because this happened only in one country—but this time, it is global.

The Great Reset, therefore, is forcing all banks to only issue credit to Green investment. This is already going on. Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank have already written letters to their clients, that they can only get credit if they invest in Green.

The life’s work of the German people was destroyed by hyperinflation in 1923. The Great (green) Reset will burden the entire world with a mountain of debt, and no industrial production. Shown, German children playing with virtually worthless stacks of inflated currency in 1923.

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

Digitalization of Currency

Now, it also will mean the digitalization of the currency, and that will have several purposes. It will increase the total surveillance. What we know from Edward Snowden, and people like [former NSA experts and whistleblowers] William Binney and Kirk Wiebe, about the NSA surveillance apparatus, which is already collecting data on everything that people do electronically, together with the British GCHQ, the equivalent of NSA. They are already surveilling everything in these incredibly large depots, collecting data on the whole world population. They can pull out anything they want at any given moment. They are not fighting against terrorism, but they’re using it for the surveillance apparatus. If you add to that digital currencies, then every economic activity you are doing, everything you buy, everything you invest in, all your economic activities, will equally be traceable.

The decision for that has already been made. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said as much; all the central banks have all the plans ready. It’s supposed to go into effect by January.

Now, in the second phase of this, they want to phase out cash, meaning, banknotes, coins, and similar instruments of so-called cash money. The pretext for that, again, is that it will eliminate money-laundering and such things, but it’s already in the cards, that if you still insist on using cash—because you don’t like them to know everything you are doing, that you like to eat certain chocolates and you don’t want them to know that—well, then you become a suspect, immediately, because maybe you have something to hide. So, you can already see how this will go into a complete surveillance of every activity.

MSC/Mueller

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

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

And naturally, all of this is a bubble, because the Green investment will reduce productivity, tremendously. John Schellnhuber, who was the head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, even many years ago talked about the “Great Transformation” of the world economy with decarbonization—and this is what they’re doing now. At the time, he said that with Green technology the population potential for the planet to be maintained by that much lower energy-flux density production is about one billion people. And that is about right! Because you cannot bring back the energy-flux density to levels before the industrial revolution, without going back to the population densities of that time!

So this is a depopulation policy, and naturally, if you go Green, you can absolutely not address the urgent problems of the developing countries, which are right now not only faced with COVID-19, but they’re also faced with a famine of “biblical dimensions,” as World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley has stressed many times in the recent weeks and months. You cannot do the industrialization of Africa, of Latin America, of Asia: It would mean imposing alternative technologies on the developing countries. In this crisis, this will mean mass deaths! And that is exactly what they would like to see, because they are Malthusians.

That is why we say this is a fascist policy. It’s a policy aimed at the depopulation of the world, and it is very, very dangerous. Because if you look at the present chaos in the United States, but also in Europe, you have similar revolts in the streets, which have slightly different characteristics—but if you increase the unemployment,— people already have no trust in their governments. This is why Trump gets so many votes—the people vote for Trump because they have lost all confidence in Wall Street, and the same goes for the Brexit in London, in the City of London; but also on the Continent of Europe, and in many other countries of the world.

Left: CC/Olaf Kosinsky; right: Needphoto.com

German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer wants to send a lone German Navy frigate into the South China Sea to confront China’s “aggression.”

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

The Crisis Is Huge

So, we have a huge crisis! The danger is, if you go ahead with these neo-Malthusian, monetarist schemes, defrauding the mass of the population, people will go out into the streets. People will realize that their livelihood is being taken away, and you will have mass chaos. And it is absolutely the concern of anybody who thinks these things through, that out of this chaos will come war—especially if you look at the bellicose posturing of NATO and certain politicians of the trans-Atlantic system, like the German Defense Minister AKK [Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer], who wants to send a German Navy frigate into the South China Sea to combat China. One frigate, that will really do it! This is just insane. Many of these policies are completely crazy and unworkable—but they’re very, very dangerous.

Naturally, they promise—Mark Carney has said, this Green investment, that’s the greatest opportunity of the whole period. They call the Green Deal the “new gold,” where the rich will make a super-profit. But the majority of the population will be impoverished, and it will absolutely not function.

There is a remedy: The remedy was defined by Lyndon LaRouche, already many years ago. The first step is a global Glass-Steagall separation of the banks. With this scheme of the central banks which I just described, they want to eliminate savings and loans banks, they don’t want to have savings and loans banks and smaller banks giving credit to normal SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises]—they want to eliminate them! They want to pull together the entire power in the hands of a few big investment banks, and central banks, and all the other banks are supposed to go bankrupt.

Now, Glass-Steagall will do exactly the opposite: It will put the commercial banks, those banks which give credit for craftsmen, for industry, for agriculture, it will put them under state protection; it will separate them from the investment banks; it will no longer allow the investment banks to have access to the savings in the savings banks. And then the investment banks will no longer have access to taxpayer bailout packages: If they can’t get their books in order, they have to close down and declare bankruptcy. If they disappear—no big loss. We do not need this kind of speculation.

The whole discussion to the effect that you need derivatives, is completely not true! All you need is credit to finance production, that is what makes an economy function. And if you look, for example—go back to the writings of such people as Friedrich List, or Henry C. Carey, or Wilhelm von Kardorff, who was the head of the industrial association at the time of Bismarck, and who wrote a beautiful little book called Against the Current!

There are many such books that describe the absolute difference between the American System and the British system, namely, that they differ in what is regarded as the source of wealth.

Left: Josef Kreihuber; right: wikimedia

The principles of nation-builders such as Friedrich List (left) and Wilhelm von Kardorff (right) are being thrown out, in the green fascist frenzy.

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

In the American System, and for that matter, the Friedrich List system, wealth is only created by the creativity of the individual, because it is only the ability of the creative individual to again and again come up with scientific and technological discoveries, then transform these discoveries into technologies; we apply these technologies in the production process, which leads to an increase of the productivity of the labor force, of the productive capacities; it increases the living standard, it increases longevity. And that is why a good state does everything possible to protect the development of the creative powers of its people, because its leaders know that that is the source of wealth. Now, that is the American System.

The British system says, well, we couldn’t care less about the individual, because we have to control trade. We have to make sure we buy cheap raw materials; if possible, exploit the developing countries to take their raw materials; don’t let them develop, because that would be counterproductive. Let them be cheap labor places of production. And then we control the trade and we sell goods at high prices. And as long as we control these trade conditions, and naturally the conditions of the banks, of speculation, the monetarist games—in that way the rich class becomes richer and we couldn’t care less if the poor become poorer. Let’s keep the population as backward as possible, because then our profit margins are the biggest.

So, this is really what is at stake. And therefore, Glass-Steagall is absolutely the first step, because you have to protect the commercial banks, so they can do what their job is, to be industrial bankers! We don’t want investment bankers; we want industrial bankers! A banker is supposed to be the servant of industry; he’s not supposed to be the King! We’re not against the banks: The banks have a useful function. They must provide credit for production, credit for international, long-term cooperation among countries, for long-term infrastructure investment which goes across borders. So, you need banks. But a banker is a servant of industry, and that’s what we have to reinstate.

National Banking

Now, Glass-Steagall is only the first step.

The next step is you have to have national banking, because the power of issuing credit must be under the sovereign control of government. Central banks are not national banks, they are private—the Federal Reserve, for instance, is a private bank—no government controls the European Central Bank or the Bank of England, for that matter. These banks should not be in a position to issue credit—but we need national banks.

In Germany, for example, we had a national bank in the postwar period, in the form of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau—the Credit Institute for Reconstruction—which was modeled on FDR’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation. And the Kreditanstalt could be used. It still exists; now it’s Green, but it can be remodeled and go back to the function it had when it financed the great German economic miracle. In the same way, we should have a nationalized Federal Reserve and a national bank in every country, because that is how you get the economy going again.

Then, among these national banks, you need an agreement for international cooperation for such projects as joint investment in thermonuclear fusion; in biotechnologies; in finding cures for new and old, reemerging diseases, like we have seen right now in the fight to get a COVID-19 vaccine; in international space cooperation. And once these national banks have such agreements, you already have a credit system, an international credit system, a New Bretton Woods system, in which the purpose is to give credit to invest in those kinds of things that increase the living standard of the entire world population. That is what Franklin D. Roosevelt said is the precondition for a stable world order.

So, that is what is available in terms of policies: A crash program for fusion, for space cooperation, for biotechnologies, space medicine, and these are beautiful areas that only cry out to be put into focus in light of the experience we have gone through this year. And that should be put on the agenda immediately!

I think it can be done. It will never be done with Biden. But as long as President Trump is still in office, he could move to do that. And he could even have a summit with the other countries of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council.

President Putin has reiterated many times, he wants to have such a summit, and I think that that would probably be the best thing he could be doing. And if the major governments of the world, like the United States, Russia, China, and all the other countries that would like to cooperate in that, if they would now say, “We are in incredible danger, we are faced with a potential financial collapse: We need a New Bretton Woods system and we will apply it to address the most important challenges of the world, like the world famine, a world health system in every country”—I think the whole world would change, and it could still be done in the middle of this election fight.

So, I think the solution is there, but it needs people who support President Trump, to support him to do that. But I can only say, it’s a defining moment for the entire human species, and if you do something at this point which is in the interest of all of mankind, you can win.

Visit LaRouche Legacy Foundation

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

October 10, 2009

LAROUCHE IN RHODES

A Four-Power Agreement Can Create A New World Credit System

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in the October 23, 2009 issue of EIR, Vol. 36, No. 41, pages 6-10.

In this 2009 speech to the Rhodes Forum, Lyndon LaRouche presents the proposals he made in the 2006-2008 period of economic crisis in the U.S. which, if they had been implemented, would have prevented the 2008 financial breakdown. But he then asserts that there were no policies—even his own earlier proposals—which could save the U.S. from within the U.S. alone. Only a global effort led by what LaRouche calls the “Four Powers”—the U.S., China, Russia and India—had the capacity to replace the broken and bankrupt monetary system centered in the City of London.

LaRouche gave this address to the Seventh Annual Session of the World Public Forum Dialogue of Civilizations (October 8-12, 2009), on the Island of Rhodes in Greece, on October 10, 2009. His remarks are followed by a brief dialogue with the audience.

In view of the brevity of time, I shall confine my remarks to a certain aspect of the problem. On the 25th of July of the year 2007, I delivered a forecast by way of an international webcast, which I conducted at that time. At that point, on that date, I said we were then on the verge of a general crisis of the financial system of the United States. I said it would break out in a matter of days, and it did: Then, what became known as the mortgage crisis—but it was more than a mortgage crisis, it was the beginning of a process which has continued up to the present day, of a general breakdown of the U.S. economy in its present form. It’s a crisis which threatens the entire world. Because if the United States, with its vast debt, collapses, if the debt of the United States, for example, to China, collapses in value to nearly zero, which it can do, this would set forth a chain-reaction throughout the world system, which would be a crisis comparable to what Europe experienced during the 14th Century. This is the most serious.

However, there’s an immediate solution to this problem.

In the first stage, what I proposed was legislation which was campaigned for throughout the states of the United States, for a resolution by state governments, to push through national Congressional legislation, to put the entire mortgage system of the United States into receivership under bankruptcy protection, in which the householders would remain in their homes, and we would, in due course, settle and resolve the mortgage debt.

At the same time, the other action was to put the banking system, the so-called commercial banking system of the United States under protection. We used to have a law called the Glass-Steagall Act, which provided for precisely that kind of action. But we had Larry Summers, who’s not unknown to some people in Russia, known as a thief, I generally believe, who had succeeded in causing the Glass-Steagall Act to be cancelled. So the commercial banking system had been exposed, since that time, to all kinds of speculation, which allowed, earlier, only for investment banking. Which meant that the entire banking system of the United States was being corrupted, and in danger of general bankruptcy.

In the meantime, at the same time, there had been a long-term trend, since actually 1968-1971, of a decline in the U.S. economy, a physical decline in the U.S. economy, which had been ongoing, and had accelerated, especially since the 1987 period.

So now, we no longer had bankruptcy protection of our commercial banking system, and my legislation, which was supported largely through many of the states of the United States, and also through some of the governors of these states, who were leading governors, would have prevented this crisis from going out of control. It would have meant a financial reorganization of many accounts, but they would be done in an orderly fashion under law, not by chaos.

We’re Still in a State of Chaos

What we’ve been in, is a process of chaos, because, instead of resolving this problem, instead of providing social security for people who lived in homes, instead of protecting industries and other places of essential employment, we allowed chaos to reign, under George W. Bush, and now, under Obama. We’re still in a state of chaos.

We have now reached a point, because of certain developments in the meantime, that it is no longer possible to do what I proposed then, back in 2007. Now, we’re in a general crisis, which can bring down, chain-reaction style, the entire planet. Because we have outstanding, a mass of debt, based on financial derivatives, and financial derivatives on financial derivatives, which, if the process of collapse occurs, it will bring down the whole planet, but for a very special reason: Formerly, when we had a system of sovereign nation-states, we would have up to 80% of the requirements of survival within the nation, produced within the nation.

Under the process of globalization, we no longer have that security.

For example, China’s a victim of that. China was offered the opportunity to produce more cheaply, than the cost of producing in the United States, as an arrangement, and China assumed that this arrangement would be stable. But now, recently, with the collapse of the U.S. dollar, with the collapse of the U.S. financial economy, a chain-reaction was created, which China has good reason to wonder if it will be able to withstand this blow, without serious damage.

Therefore, we have two questions here: Not only how to deal with the problem of the economy, but how do we deal with the world economy as well. Because we have to maintain stability among key nations. I have picked out four nations, as absolutely crucial, that they must cooperate, because with their cooperation, and with that of others who join them, it will be possible to undertake the reorganization of the world economy, by eliminating financial derivatives—just cancel them; they’re worthless paper, cancel them. Go back to the honest debt of nations, go to a commercial banking standard, and create new credit to replace the worthless old debt. By creating new credit, and launching physical production programs, in infrastructure and other terms, we could, by agreement among nation-states, prevent a general collapse, and actually launch a program of orderly recovery. And these problems that we now face could be solved.

The problem is, that the world is dominated by financier interests, which are essentially parasitical in character. Our industries, our agriculture, our infrastructure is decaying, worldwide—especially in the Americas, especially in North America, and especially in Western Europe. Western and Central Europe is a disaster area. They no longer have national security, economic security: They’re dominated by the British, entirely, under the British system, which was established in the context of the breakdown of the Soviet Union and East German economy.

At that point, the British succeeded, with the support of [French President François] Mitterrand, and with the support of George H.W. Bush, the President at that time, in imposing upon Germany, and other nations of Western and Central Europe, conditions which are destructive. And the Western European economy is generally bankrupt, today, hopelessly so. It could be reorganized, through bankruptcy reorganization, but presently the whole system of Western and Central Europe is hopelessly bankrupt, as other parts of the world are.

Long-Term Agreements

Therefore, the task, as I defined it, is, if Russia, and the United States, and China, and India, agree, as a group of countries, to initiate and force a reorganization of the world financial and credit system, under those conditions, with long-term agreements, of the same type that Franklin Roosevelt had uttered before his death, in 1944, under key nations, the intention of Roosevelt all these years later, could have been realized, and we could do that, today.

That’s our chance: Either we do that, or we go under. I can assure you, if you think that there’s any possibility that the present system could continue into the coming year, as a system to work with, that there will not be a general, continuing, worsening crisis, at the present time, there will be no economic recovery in any part of the planet, under the present conditions.

EIRNS/Stefan Tolksdorff

In his address to the Rhodes Forum, Lyndon LaRouche outlined his proposal for an alliance among the world’s four great powers—China, Russia, India, and the U.S.A.—to end the global crisis.

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

We’re now headed for a general chain-reaction breakdown crisis, caused by not only this particular financial crisis, but caused by globalization. Because under these conditions, every nation has become so dependent upon other nations, that any disease, of the economy, any breakdown disease of the economy, will bring down all nations of the economy, in chain-reaction form. At what speed, we can’t be sure. But that’s the danger.

So, the issue now is the political decision: Can we have the United States, under an improved Presidency—and it does require improvement—can we have the United States, Russia, China, and India, become a bloc of countries, which each have different characteristics, but if they recognize among themselves, that they have a common interest, they will adapt to each other, and respect each other’s different characteristic. The result of this, will be the elimination of the monetary system of the world that has been dominating European civilization since the Peloponnesian War.

The imperial systems of the world, are not the United Kingdom, for example, but the British system is an imperial system. It’s an imperial system because of its role in an international monetary system. We no longer have nations which control their own money: We have an international monetary system that does control their money. If you control the monetary market, the monetary system, you control the world.

The monetary system is now a disease. We have to put the power over monetary systems, back in the hands of sovereign governments. This must start, with leading governments—a coalition among leading governments, which agree that this is necessary, and will agree to set up a fixed-exchange-rate system, among reorganized, sovereign, national systems of their own currency, their own credit system. These credit systems must be organized in such a way, that, as in the case of China and some other countries, that the remedy for the problems which now exist, are no longer the remedies that we thought would exist, or many thought could exist, a few years ago. We now have to think in terms of generating long-term credit, at interest-rate charges of 1.5 and 2%, because that’s what you require in order to do this kind of thing. China is going to require 50 years of long-term development, to bring itself into the condition it desires to be in. Other countries are in a similar situation. Most of North Asia is in that situation; Russia is also in the same situation.

Therefore, we have to come to a discussion, a moral discussion, of what our objectives are. If we do that, we could survive.

EIRNS/Will Mederski

In the United States, today, we have a true mass strike, LaRouche said. Here, a mass rally in Washington, D.C., Sept. 9, against the failed policies of President Obama and the U.S. Congress, also featuring LaRouche PAC’s famous “Obamastache.”

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

The U.S. Mass Strike

On the concluding point, the Obama Administration: In the United States, we have a kind of phenomenon, now ongoing, which affects about 80% of the population, of a type which was described by a famous lady, Rosa Luxemburg. We now have in the United States, ongoing, since the month of August, something we had also in East Germany, especially in 1989: We have a true mass strike, of the type described by Rosa Luxemburg. Not a general strike, but a mass strike, a mass-strike phenomenon, where the majority of the American people, as representative, had gone out, and had refused to listen to their own members of Congress; have condemned them, and said, “You members of Congress, shut up! We want to talk to you, now, and tell you what to do!” That’s a mass strike, just as happened in East Germany, in 1989, a mass strike of the people standing up, shoulder to shoulder against authority, saying, “You, shut up! We are the people. Wir sind das Volk! We are the people.” And that’s what we’re getting in the United States, now: Eighty percent of the population of the United States have rejected, as this point, the present Obama Administration.

And the Obama Administration will either be transformed and reorganized, in composition, or, we will be in real trouble. Because if the United States is not capable of being reorganized, to do this, I don’t know how we can pull it off. I know that there’s a possibility among major nations, that Japan would cooperate, other nations would cooperate immediately, once this kind of thing were started. But it’s up to the major nations, the four I indicated, who must take the initiative, in combination. If they take the initiative, I know the rest of the world will go along.

EIRNS/Daniel Grasenack-Tente

The mass strike has also erupted again in Europe, as the 20th anniversary of the Leipzig Monday demonstrations was celebrated in Germany, as seen in this photo of a 100,000-person rally in Leipzig, Oct. 2, 2009, with the BüSo banner held high.

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

But we have to understand, we’re different nations, with different cultures, these four, and as others. Therefore, if we can cooperate, despite our differences in characteristics, then we have provided a model, which the rest of the world can accept.

Thank you, very much.

The British Imperial Monetary System

Moderator: Thank you, sir.

Q: Excuse me, I would like to ask you two questions. The first one: Do you really believe in the procedure, if we abolish derivatives—is it possible to abolish derivatives, while preserving the market economy?

LaRouche: Absolutely—.

Q: This is first of all. And the second one: I couldn’t understand your attitude toward Great Britain as dominating power in Europe. Can you [offer] some proof of it?

LaRouche: But first, let’s take the second question first, Great Britain.

The mistake is the assumption, that the British Empire was the empire of the United Kingdom. The British Empire is not the empire of the United—.

Q: It’s over now.

LaRouche: No, the British Empire is actually an international financier interest, a monetarist organization, which is an expression of old Venetian system, which operates through the monetary system of the world.

In other words, the issue here: The world is now run by monetary systems, not by national credit systems. Our view, as the view of the U.S. Constitution, is that we do not want a monetary system running the world. We want sovereign nation-states to have their own credit systems, which is the system of their currency. And as Roosevelt proposed, in 1944, and has been argued otherwise earlier, these nation-states should set agreements, on a fixed-exchange relationship among themselves, for the purpose of being able to guarantee low-interest credit, for international credit, without the inflationary effect of a floating-exchange-rate system.

Therefore, eliminate the monetary system. Use the national currencies of nation-states, sovereign nation-states, to come into a fixed-exchange-rate relationship, which can be adjusted but it should be fixed, so that we do not have inflation in interest-rates’ charges on outstanding loans. Because, our requirement, now, is we have to think in terms of 50 years ahead, of credit expansion, for basic economic infrastructure, in order to get the economy moving again.

So that’s the point of the thing: Is to get agreements among nations, which are dissimilar enough to be representative. If you want a general agreement, you have to have agreement among nations which are dissimilar in characteristic. You get that agreement, and with the terror that’s going to strike this nation, now, with this crisis, it’s possible to make great changes. But it takes big nations, with smaller nations associated with them, who can force through this kind of change globally. It’s our only chance.

The Mars Project

Moderator: Thank you. [In Russian]: Very interesting. Professor Kochetov also wanted to ask Mr. LaRouche about something.

Q: Mr. LaRouche, your very content-rich report [audio break] ...look for some alternative to globalization, or should we expect some nationalist and other counter-movements against globalization? You were talking about the monetary, but what will be the reaction of the economy, for example, the cycles of production, if, indeed, the “alter-globalism” would prevail?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, we have to get back to more emphasis on physical economy, and the development of the minds of peoples, in accord with physical economy. The hallmark for this, is the Mars project. In order for man to meet Mars—the same kind of thing was done with the Moon project, but the Moon project was already, you remember with Kennedy, was a Mars project. The intention was, if we could get to the next planet in the Solar System, we would have developed the technologies needed to solve all problems on Earth. That was the principle.

The idea was, that the Moon would be a base of operations, from which to build the industries to send to Mars, to send the operation to Mars. This involves a relativistic economy, as Einstein defined relativism, in terms of electromagnetism and gravitation, as being the same phenomenon. Because, to get to Mars, means you have to travel about six days, in an accelerated mode, using helium-3 as a fuel, as the driver. And the helium-3 is there, on the Moon, to be taken. So, with a fusion energy process, with a helium-3 mode, mankind can reach the Mars orbit from the Moon orbit, within six days! The question is, how to do that?

Now, if you give man a future to work for, rather than just working from the past, mankind is motivated to develop the scientific and other skills, and develop them enough to do this kind of job. We need a mission-orientation for the next three to four generations, to get this Mars project in place. The purpose is not to get there quickly, now. The purpose is to give our economies a purpose, and the purpose is also to take each nation on this planet, and give every people, and every nation a sense of participation, in this great common interest of mankind, to take care of our own global system.

Therefore, we need to simply take all this derivatives garbage, which is credit upon credit upon credit, beyond imagination! It’s pure thievery and gambling. And gambling debts, when lost, are cancelled. Therefore, we don’t need to pay the gambling debts, called “incentives” and “financial derivatives.”

But we do have to provide a mechanism, where nation-states can generate enough credit, within themselves, to solve these kinds of problems, and go on to reach Mars!