Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 48, Number 1, January 18, 2021

- Cover

- Masthead

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 48, Number 1, January 1, 2021

- I. As LaRouche Said, We Say Again: Sovereign Nations Develop Together

- Who We Are

- Statement of Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Former U.S. Surgeon General, on Behalf of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites

- Act in the Spirit of FDR, or Face the Worst Genocide in History by Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane, Leader of LaRouche South Africa

- Providing the Leadership the American People Will Need by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (2000)

- II. Change in China

- The Chinese Economic Model by Dr. Yan Wang

- CHINA’S 14TH FIVE YEAR PLAN Science-Driver and Culture—Not Money—Ignite Progress by Richard A. Black, Schiller Institute Representative at the UN

- Planning Without Numbers, But with Quality and Structure by Ulf Sandmark, President of the Schiller Institute in Sweden

- China and the United States: Rivalry, Confrontation, or Cooperation by Marcelo Muñoz

- China’s Meritocracy-Based Democracy by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- III. Imperial Shadow Over U.S. Election

- Exonerate LaRouche! Assange, Snowden Pardons Can Expose 2016-2020 Russiagate Hoax

- President Trump on Massive Election Fraud

- The British Empire’s Digital Dictatorship: Censorship and Mass Social Control by David Christie

- IV. Archives on World War II

- The Truth Behind the Start of World War II by Carl Osgood

As LaRouche Said, We Say Again:

Sovereign Nations Develop Together

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.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 48, Number 1, January 1, 2021

Cover This Week

White House

President Donald Trump with President Xi Jinping at the 25th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Da Nang, Vietnam, November 11, 2017.

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

AS LAROUCHE SAID, WE SAY AGAIN: SOVEREIGN NATIONS DEVELOP TOGETHER

I. AS LAROUCHE SAID, WE SAY AGAIN: SOVEREIGN NATIONS DEVELOP TOGETHER

3 Who We Are

by The LaRouche Organization

7 Statement of Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Former U.S. Surgeon General, on Behalf of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites

9 Act in the Spirit of FDR, or Face the Worst Genocide in History

by Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane

10 Providing the Leadership the American People Will Need

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

June 22, 2000

II. CHANGE IN CHINA

14 The Chinese Economic Model

Dr. Yan Wang

19 CHINA’S 14TH FIVE YEAR PLAN

Science-Driver and Culture—Not Money—Ignite Progress

by Richard A. Black

26 Planning Without Numbers, But with Quality and Structure

by Ulf Sandmark

28 China and the United States: Rivalry, Confrontation, or Cooperation

by Marcelo Muños

30 On China’s Meritocracy-Based Democracy

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

III. IMPERIAL SHADOW OVER U.S. ELECTION

32 Exonerate LaRouche! Assange, Snowden Pardons Can Expose 2016-2020 Russiagate Hoax

36 Statement on Massive Election Fraud

by President Donald J. Trump

39 The British Empire’s Digital Dictatorship: Censorship and Mass Social Control

by David Christie

IV. ARCHIVES ON WORLD WAR II

43 The Truth Behind the Start of World War II

by Carl Osgood

I. As LaRouche Said, We Say Again:

Sovereign Nations Develop Together

Who We Are

The following statement was released with the founding of the new website, The LaRouche Organization.com, on December 23, 2020.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche, Jr.

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

The sole purpose of The LaRouche Organization (TLO) is the dissemination of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche and the spread of his life’s work, his analytical and scientific method of thinking, with the intention of realizing the solutions he offered to the many crises now facing mankind.

Lyndon LaRouche (1922–2019) famously identified the fateful act by President Richard Nixon on August 15, 1971 to end the Bretton Woods system by replacing the fixed exchange rates with floating rates and decoupling the dollar from a gold standard as a course of action that would inevitably lead to a systemic collapse of the financial system, a new fascism and ultimately the danger of war. From 1973 onward he also identified that the impact of the monetary policy and its related austerity policy on the so-called developing countries—namely by lowering the immune system of many generations in several continents—would bring about the danger of the reemergence of old diseases and the emergence of new ones, such as pandemics. The present condition of the hopelessly bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system (which since 2008 has only been kept going by enormous amounts of “quantitative easing” by the central banks), the reality of the Covid-19 pandemic, the imminent danger of new pandemics, and a famine of “Biblical dimensions” threatening 270 million lives in the coming year, have proven LaRouche’s prognoses to have been absolutely on the mark.

John Trumbull

Alexander Hamilton

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

TLO therefore sees it as its task to work toward implementation of the remedies, both domestically and internationally, which LaRouche advocated when he was alive, a mission which has now been taken up by his widow and closest political associate for half a century, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The U.S. must go back to the American System of economics, as it was developed by Alexander Hamilton, by fostering the physical economy for the benefit of the common good. It was this tradition, continued by Henry Clay, Friedrich List, Mathew and Henry C. Carey and revived by Franklin D. Roosevelt and his policy of the New Deal, which enabled the U.S. to overcome the Great Depression.

TLO will emphatically promote the idea to which LaRouche devoted his entire life, namely that the U.S., together with other industrial nations, will act to overcome the underdevelopment and poverty of the so-called developing sector with the aid of advanced technologies. This economic policy is in accordance with FDR’s original intention for the Bretton Woods System to increase the living standards of all human beings on the planet as the only viable precondition for enduring peace—a policy which was never realized due to Roosevelt’s untimely death.

In this spirit we say: The new name for peace is development!

Many Americans have distanced themselves of late from this central tenet of LaRouche’s outlook and methodology, dismissing such international matters until “after the more important battle inside the U.S. is won.” But that fight, including the raging battle over the defense of the U.S. Constitution and the Presidency, can never be won other than in the way prescribed by LaRouche: by an international battle to defeat an international enemy, with the United States playing a leading role based on “the better angels of our nature.”

That is who we are.

George Peter Alexander Healy

John Quincy Adams

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

The United States must participate in the creation of a new paradigm in international relations, based on the perfect sovereignty of all nations and the principle of acceptance of differences in social systems, working jointly to bring about the common good of all mankind. A precedent for this approach in foreign policy is the principle of John Quincy Adams: “But she [the U.S.] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” The U.S. should, however, seek partnership with other major powers, such as Russia, China, India and others to overcome the danger of empires of all sorts, today centered in the British Empire.

Today’s problems are so great, that they can be solved only by close cooperation between, especially, the two largest economies in the world: China and the United States. China’s Belt and Road Initiative remains an open offer to cooperate with all nations, which the U.S. should promptly accept.

Willibrord Joseph Mähler

Ludwig van Beethoven

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

In this effort to aim the foreign policy of the U.S. to contribute in the creation of a new, more beautiful era of mankind, TLO is entirely inspired by the intellectual work of LaRouche of the last fifty years of his life as well as his vision of Earth’s next fifty years, which envisions the future of the human species, not from its present capacity, but from the standpoint of the potential of the future, which includes the unleashing of the creative potential of every single individual on the planet. This must involve the best possible development of the nations of Africa, Asia and Ibero-America, as well as those parts of the U.S. and Europe, which have not yet been able to realize their potential through industrialization and the development of modern agriculture. This requires the cooperation of all major industrial powers, premised on a revival of the best classical cultural traditions of each. Lyndon LaRouche was adamant that it will be the beauty of the classical music like that of Ludwig van Beethoven and the elevated image of man of the great poets like William Shakespeare and Friedrich Schiller that will get mankind out of this present deep civilizational crisis.

The principles which LaRouche laid out in his “Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.” in 1984 as a platform for cooperation for the common implementation of the SDI still are valid today. He says in Article 1 of that document titled “General conditions for peace”:

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

EIRNS

Lyndon LaRouche speaking on the Kra Canal at an October 1983 conference in Bangkok, Thailand, sponsored jointly by EIR, the Fusion Energy Foundation, and the Thai Ministry of Communications.

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

The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as “developing nations.” Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modem colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace on this planet.

Insofar as the United States, Russia, China, India and other nations acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and all, those powers—and others that will join them—are bound to that degree and in that way by a common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to fostering durable peace among those powers.

Increasing the productive powers of labor requires relatively high rates of investment in technologically progressive forms of capital goods in all spheres of production. There are three general categories of scientific and technological progress on which mankind must rely into the period to come:

creative commons

A fusion torus.

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

1. Very high energy flux density, controlled thermonuclear plasmas, typified by development of “commercial” fusion energy production, the emerging, principal source of energy for mankind, both on Earth and in the exploration and colonization of nearby space,

NASA/Atlantis shuttle crew member

The International Space Station against the backdrop of Earth.

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

2. The international cooperation for space exploration and colonization among the presently spacefaring nations as well as the inclusion of other nations who want to participate in discovering the secrets of our universe as well as terraforming the Moon, Mars, and other planets in the future, and

3. The research and application into biophysics and study of the principle of life as such.

The Covid-19 pandemic and already-threatening new pandemics have made clear that there is no local or regional safety from disease: every nation must have a modern health system. In participating in the creation of such systems, including the necessary infrastructure, the U.S. can begin to supply increasing amounts of high-technology capital goods to the developing nations and in this way foster increased rates of turnover in our own most advanced capital-goods sectors of production.

Leaving aside the question of the profit accruing to the U.S. from such exports, as a by-product of such increased rates of turnover, the rate of improvement of technology is increased in such a qualitative way, that the U.S. economy will be rebuilt completely. All of the categories mentioned above will in effect pay for themselves, since the credit provided by returning to a Hamiltonian credit system will finance future production, which will increase the productivity of the entire economy at full employment. It is the characteristic of the American System of economy that the tax revenue of this increased production is always larger than the initial credit provided for the investment due to the additional physical economic and technological value thus created.

All of this requires the immediate bankruptcy reorganization of the trans-Atlantic financial system, with its nearly $2 quadrillion speculative bubble, which the City of London and Wall Street are trying to preserve and defend, even at the cost of billions of human lives. (See Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws).

The United States will only have a bright future, when we return to upholding the principles of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The character of the U.S. must be that of a republic, not a junior partner of the same empire against which it fought and won the War of Independence. It is high time that the U.S. return to be a force for good in the world and become again a beacon of hope and a temple of liberty. By rallying around the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, that proud tradition will experience a renaissance which will inspire the whole world to join a truly human future civilization.

Email info@larouchelegacyfoundation.org for inquiries about international orders.

For orders within the U.S.A., go to larouchelegacyfoundation.org

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

Statement of Dr. Joycelyn Elders,

Former U.S. Surgeon General, on Behalf of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites

[This statement was released on Christmas Eve, Dec. 24. The Committee, initiated in July 2020 by a call from Helga Zepp-LaRouche of the Schiller Institute, involves many medical professionals, educators and retired U.S. military officers.]

Schiller Institute

Dr. Joycelyn Elders

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

As the year 2020 draws to a close, let us fervently hope and diligently work, that the new year will bring about a great transformation for the health and well-being of all humanity.

This year has seen a sea of troubles, starting with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has already killed over 1.7 million people worldwide; which has exacerbated a famine crisis in large parts of the world and which according to World Food Program director David Beasley, now threatens the lives of 270 million people; which has created mass unemployment and increasingly desperate conditions throughout the globe.

The COVID pandemic is not under control. We are now seeing new and more infectious strains of the coronavirus, as in Great Britain, which is creating economic chaos. This catastrophic situation can be remedied, but it requires the urgent mobilization of the population, including emphatically implementation of public health measures, that have proven to be effective in containing the virus. We cannot simply wait for the vaccines to be administered. This emergency requires that nations work together to accomplish these solutions. Pandemics don’t discriminate. Any nation, any region, any group of people not treated in the course of this pandemic will come back to harm us.

Wikimedia Commons

Enforce public health measures.

CC/Christian Emmer

Get vaccinated.

Creative Commons

Conduct mass testing.

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

The following measures should be undertaken by national, regional and local governments. Community organizations, universities, medical institutions, religious groups, and others can begin to implement aspects of this immediately. This will spur broader action and save lives in the interim.

Public health measures should be strictly adhered to and enforced. These measures were recently reiterated by Surgeon-General Dr. Jerome Adams, appearing on Sunday’s “Face the Nation” December 20th: “We need to wash our hands, wear a mask, watch our distances, keep our household gatherings small.”

Get vaccinated. While this cannot be a mandatory requirement and is not without legitimate questions and concerns, it is highly recommended, as the best option, at present, to beat the COVID pandemic.

Rapidly recruit, train and employ thousands of young people to work as community health care workers to educate people regarding the public health measures cited above and to overcome “vaccine hesitancy and fear,” and where viable to assist medical personnel with vaccine administration.

Conduct mass testing, especially in areas of vulnerable populations, i.e., the elderly, the impoverished, and “hot spots,” etc. This should be done with a rapid test, so that people get results immediately. This testing should be done regularly, once per month, until the area has 65-70% vaccinated population. Testing sites should be established in areas where the vulnerable populations live, i.e. neighborhood churches, supermarket parking lots, etc. Mobile medical/clinic vehicles should be utilized wherever possible to reach out-of-the-way areas.

Isolate and quarantine infected individuals. A safe, secure environment should be provided where people can recover and receive good food and medical treatment, while doing so.

Begin public protocols immediately on promising prophylactic treatments, including Alpha-interferon and Vitamin D-3 supplements. These promising treatments and their results have generally been unreported. This may also address and build trust among the medically underserved communities, who have in many cases legitimate concerns about their general health conditions, independent of COVID-19.

Get everything moving as rapidly and on as large a scale as possible. What would it take to get everyone in the U.S. and in most of the world vaccinated and COVID-free by Independence Day, July 4, 2021? In this regard the expertise of the U.S. military including the National Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers, should be utilized.

It is often said that hindsight is 20/20. Let the year 2020 be remembered as the year the population woke up, realized our past mistakes, and changed, in order to create a better and healthier world for all mankind.

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

Act in the Spirit of FDR, or

Face the Worst Genocide in History

by Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane, Leader of LaRouche South Africa

Dec. 13—For nearly three score years the greatest man of the last century, the American physical economist Lyndon LaRouche, warned that unless the neo-Malthusian policies of the London-directed global financial oligarchy were reversed, there would be unleashed on this planet a genocide hundreds of times worse than any in history. His warnings, and those of his wife and Schiller Institute founder Helga LaRouche, fell on deaf and indifferent ears.

That genocide has now been unleashed with the global pandemic and the murderous scourge of starvation. Death stalks this planet, but nowhere more acutely than on my continent of Africa, where hundreds of millions face near-term death.

There is no debating this. This is fact; unless there is a global mobilization to meet these crises, hundreds of millions of Africans are as good as dead right now.

The policies of enforced under-development and rampant poverty leave the continent without the infrastructure to fight these killers. The intervention must come from the outside, and it must come now. This is also not debatable. This is fact.

Africa does not need sympathy or kind words. It needs help and bold action. It needs it right now. This is not debatable; it is fact.

We need action directed by the most powerful institution for the good that man has ever created—the American presidency. The President of the United States can mobilize the full resources of his great nation to get to the people in Africa the supplies necessary to fight the virus and the food to feed the hungry and starving. He can use the American military to help and direct this effort. And he can mobilize other world leaders.

There comes a time when words must turn into action, when retreat from responsibility is not an option. Such is this time.

I recall a time past when a bold American President summoned his nation into action to defend his people and humanity. Hear the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, speaking to us across time:

It has been brought home to us that the only effective guide for safety in this most worldly of worlds, the greatest guide of all, is moral principle.

In the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith, hope, and charity ... for charity, literally translated, means love, the love that understands, that does not merely share the wealth of the giver, but in true sympathy and wisdom, helps men to help themselves.

Governments can err. Presidents often make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold blooded and the sins of the warm hearted on different scales.

Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.

There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations, much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.

So, too, do we gathered here in a virtual world around the globe. We cannot turn away or turn a deaf ear to an entire continent. We must not fail them. We must face and meet our destiny.

June 22, 2000

Providing the Leadership the American People Will Need

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editor’s Note: EIR first published this testimony by Mr. LaRouche in Vol. 27, No. 27, July 7, 2000, pp 58-61.

Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche presented the following videotaped testimony to the Ad Hoc Democratic Party Platform hearings, held in Washington, D.C. on June 22, 2000.

We face a situation now, which is roughly comparable to the situation when President Franklin Roosevelt was running for office in 1932. Contrary to wishful delusions about the economy, this economy is finished. It can go in one of three ways: We could have had, since 1997, as I warned, a collapse of the type where the stock market collapses by 50% or more—suddenly—a deflationary collapse, chain-reaction collapse. But then, in October of 1998, there was a change in policy to try to avoid a financial chain-reaction collapse, by hyperinflating the world monetary and financial systems, as a way of trying to postpone, if not prevent, a coming financial collapse—that’s the second financial alternative, and that’s the one we face right now.

The third alternative, is that governments, including the government of the United States, the President of the United States, personally, most notably, must intervene to call a conference, an international monetary conference, to reorganize what is actually a bankrupt international financial and monetary system.

Now, in the recent period, in the most desperate period—where [Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers and [Federal Reserve Chairman] Alan Greenspan have been attempting to postpone what they know to be, or should know to be, is an inevitable financial crash—we’ve entered a hyperinflationary phase, somewhat comparable to Germany in mid-1923. When the thing will blow out, or when it might blow out, is not yet certain; but the threat of the blowout is present and growing. And that threat is a problem we’re going to have to deal with—now.

The alternative, as I said, is to form a new monetary conference, call a number of nations together, and put the present system into bankruptcy reorganization, and start all over again, in effect, the way we did with Roosevelt, when he was first inaugurated in 1933. We’re going to have to go through that.

We have been—we must admit it, we must face reality: The population of the United States, or at least those in the top 20% of income brackets, and others, have been about as crazy, or more crazy than Americans in the late 1920s or early 1930s. We had a big financial bubble then, which resulted in the stock market crash of 1929. We’re headed for a bigger crash now. We had a crash, not only because the bankers were crooked, as they always have been—our Wall Street banker-types are not exactly too moral—but, because they’re worse today, and there are more people, a larger percentage of the population are involved in this euphoric belief in an ever-ongoing prosperity under this so-called new form. And we’re crazy. Therefore, we’re going to have to go back and change our ways.

What’s Required Is a Shock, and Leadership

We’re not likely to change our ways until a great shock hits. Well, I tell you, the shock is coming. So, the chance to change is now. But, you’re going to have to realize, that we as a nation have been crazy. What we’ve been doing in financial policy, in economic policy over 30 years, has been crazy, and has been getting crazier by the decade. We’re now at the limit: Either we reorganize the system, and become sensible, or we’re headed for something beyond belief.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Democratic Party Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. with supporters. “Contrary to wishful delusions about the economy,” LaRouche told the Ad Hoc Platform Hearings, “this economy is finished.”

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

I think, that with a shock, many Americans will wake up. What’s required, however, in a shock like this, is leadership, the way that Franklin Roosevelt provided leadership in 1932-1933. Without that kind of leadership, after a shock, the American people will still be crazy. People recover from these kinds of situations only when shocks bring them to their senses, number one; and number two, when they have the leadership which inspires in them, the confidence to undertake rebuilding—and that’s what we need now. That should be the function of the Democratic Party’s Platform formation and the Convention—admittedly, a radical change from the trends in the party leadership right now. But that change must come, otherwise, you’re going to be saying, “President George Bush.” And that won’t be pleasant.

So, there are several areas we have to cover. One area of the Platform, primarily, is the reorganization of the monetary system. That means we’re going to have to cancel all the funny-money games and go back to a strict, hard-core, hard-commodity program. That is, we’re going to have to rebuild our industries, we’re going to have to invest in capital goods, in technology—forget this so-called “New Economy”; it’s dead, it’s already as good as dead. We’re going to have to go back to the old ways. We’re going to have to make a number of social changes, as well as economic changes. Among the economic changes, of course, is rebuilding our infrastructure. We’re going to have probably about 10% of the population from the upper-income brackets, along with others, who are going to be out of jobs very soon. That is, people in the top half of the top income brackets, they’re going to be losing their jobs, most of them. We’re going to have to provide mass employment. The driver for increasing the level of employment, will have to be basic economic infrastructure: water systems, power systems, transportation systems, sanitation systems.

Education and Health Care

We’re going to have to also rebuild the physical and other infrastructure of our education system, and our health-care system, both of which are essentially breaking down. For example, reports are now, that half of the pupils reaching the eighth grade in the United States are illiterate. Now, that’s not a problem just of money; that’s a problem of bad teachers and bad teacher policies in the educational system. Yes, we need more money. We need more teachers. But we also have to have teachers who are committed to teaching—not what too many are doing today.

But, we have to build the infrastructural system.

We have a worse problem in health care, relatively speaking. In health care, we’re losing, and have lost, a great bit of our institutional infrastructure, particularly over the past 25 years, since the repeal of the old Hill-Burton law, and its replacement by the so-called HMO law. This change has resulted in a disaster in health care. It’s not just a matter of who’s going to pay. That’s not the issue. The issue is, if you don’t have the hospitals, if you don’t have the physicians, if you don’t have the emergency clinics, if you don’t have the other physical infrastructure, where physicians assemble to perform various kinds of medical services, apart from their private offices, you don’t have medical care.

So, the main concern of the United States today, as before, in the postwar period, should be to build up our institutional capacity for delivering medical care as needed by the population, rather than anything else. If we provide the number of physicians, support the number of physicians, and so forth, who are needed, to work with these institutions, we can do as we were doing quite successfully, under the old Hill-Burton system. Go back to it, but we have to rebuild much plant; we’ve lost hospitals, we’ve lost facilities.

The Threat of Infectious Diseases

We have also, at the same time—as President Clinton has admitted and emphasized—we have a global infectious disease threat, which is hitting largely in places like Africa, but which is also a threat to the United States and its people, already. That is, the basis for this report by the CIA, which the President used to declare this emergency, is the fact that two U.S. agents, travelling in strange parts of the world, could pick up, in the course of their travel, a disease from Africa, which was previously unknown, virtually, in Europe or the United States, and arrive at their destination in the United States, or Europe, dying from this disease, like Ebola, or other kinds of new fevers.

On top of that, as the report emphasized, we have an increase, through the failure of our antibiotic program—that the antibiotic program, and health-care program, as presently administered, is actually increasing the incidence of resistant strains of old epidemic diseases like tuberculosis. Therefore, we have to have a lot of emphasis on research to develop new technologies, as well as the support system for dealing with these kinds of diseases.

We have, in addition to that, all kinds of problems: We have urban problems; we have housing problems; we have social problems and mental-health problems, which are a by-product of this situation. And therefore, we’ve got to address these things.

The ‘New Violence’

We also have another problem that I’ve addressed recently, together with others: It’s a threat in the United States which I’ve called, “New Violence”; that is, violence is old, but the form of violence we’re undergoing now, in Europe and the United States, is different, is a new form, not what we’ve experienced before. What’s happened is, through the spread of military and other types of Nintendo games, such as Pokémon, our children in the highly suggestible age groups of three to eight, nine, and so forth, have been subjected to conditioning by these kinds of games. And these kinds of games produce a quasi-psychosis, where these children are doing violence to each other. Not just with guns, but look at the kinds of death that are proposed in Pokémon. Look at the way people are killed in the Pokémon stories. These ways are spreading.

Not only that, we have it in the police departments. From our military and police departments, we’ve gone to a Nintendo style of military training, of shoot-and-kill—point, shoot, and kill. As a result, we’ve produced people who, on instinct, can empty their weapons, rather accurately, at a bunch of targets. And we’ve had these cases of police shootings, violence. For example, the famous case in New York City, where several police, four in total, unloaded 41 bullets into the body of an unarmed man [Amadou Diallo], before finding out who he was. This is typical. Our military are being trained in these ways.

As a result of this kind of thing, the spread on television, through Nintendo-style games, and related methods, we have brought into the United States, as we saw at Columbine , a new kind of violence—a new motivation, new mental mechanisms for violence—into the United States. It is not guns. Remember, no gun, ever of its own volition, shot anyone. But the man who had it, did the shooting. To understand the problem of violence, don’t look at weapons. Look at the mind of the individual. It is the mind of the individual that does the killing. And that’s where you’ve got to go.

So, we have to clean this up. We have to clean up our entertainment system. Some people say this is a matter of free speech. It’s not a matter of free speech. If you’re taking children, putting them before a television set, every day, hour on hour, playing with these Nintendo-style games, hour on hour, they’re being trained to kill on instinct. This is not a matter of free will. They’re being conditioned. They’re being literally brainwashed. People in our military are being brainwashed in similar ways. And some of our police teams are being brainwashed in similar ways. This is the kind of things that the violence is producing.

It is not only in these departments; it’s in our mass media, our television, our electronic games, and similar kinds of things. If this continues, we’re not going to have a society worth living in. And don’t say this is a matter of free speech. This is the same thing with drugs and other things. It’s not a matter of free speech and free choice. If you have a society which is afflicted with these kinds of habits, that society will destroy itself. And the decision you have to make, is whether you’re going to condone our society’s destroying itself. Or whether you’re going to say, this kind of thing is not to be encouraged in our country.

So, those are the kinds of problems we face.

The ‘General Welfare Clause’

Otherwise, we face a more general problem. The difference, essentially, between the stock market or financial market lunacies of the 1920s, and again today, is that people no longer believe in the principle upon which this nation was founded. You can find that principle stated in various ways. It’s stated in the first three paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It’s also stated in the Preamble of our Constitution. Sometimes it’s called the “General Welfare Clause.” The principle on which our government was founded, our republic was founded, the principle which we contrasted to feudal society, and similar kinds of oligarchical society, is that, the government has no authority, no moral authority, except as it is officially committed to defend the general welfare of all of the population and their posterity.

That means that the economic policies, must be policies which promote the general welfare; that means, which promote the standard of living; which promote the security; which promote the health-care system; which promote the national defense, of course; which promote good education; which promote good opportunities; which promote upgrades in the conditions of life of our citizens at work, and elsewhere. These are the primary responsibilities of government.

Now today, we’ve gone to a different system. It’s called the John Locke system: The right of property. The argument is, that anything which makes money is good. And therefore, if we have owners of property, they have a right to their profit, they have a right to profit, even as it is being made now in the Internet area. Just pure speculation, the kind of speculation which is destroying our economy and destroying the world. So, the fact that people condone this, think this is right, think that shareholder values are primary, the corruption of the majority of the members of the Supreme Court—as Roosevelt faced back then in the 1930s—these are the problems. And as long as we as a people, believe you have to go along with public opinion, as expressed by our major news media; have to go along with the idea of shareholder value, you have to submit to that—as long as you accept that, you’re bringing it on yourself. You’re bringing doom on yourself just the same way that the so-called popular opinion, the vox populi of the pagan Roman Empire, sent the Latin Roman Empire to its doom. We’re headed in that direction.

We’ve often made that kind of mistake in our national past. Fortunately, in our past, we have corrected that mistake—again, and again, and again. We must now correct that mistake once more. We must say that shareholder value, the kind of free trade and related policies that we’ve imposed upon ourselves, are lunacy and they have to stop.

What you should do is look at what the hearings were, before the Congress and elsewhere, when Roosevelt became President, Franklin Roosevelt. Look at the investigations that were conducted against Wall Street and others at that time. Look at the laws that were passed to prevent this foolishness from continuing. Those laws helped us. They carried us through most of the years up to recent decades. In recent decades, especially since the Carter Administration, we have been destroying those very laws, which the Roosevelt era put into place to protect us from the insanity that led us into the Great Depression of the 1930s. Today, the same kind of insanity prevails. It is supported by popular opinion. It’s supported by leaders of the Democratic Party and their leading candidates. It’s wrong. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. You don’t go along to get along. You go along with this, and you go down.

So, to sum up, first of all, we have the worst financial crisis in modern history. We shan’t survive it, unless we come to our senses. If we come to our senses, we can. We need programs to deal with it, programs which do have precedents, and we need leadership, leadership typified in the past by people like Abraham Lincoln and President Franklin Roosevelt. With that combination, we can survive. With that combination of leadership, we will fix up our infrastructure, go back to high levels of productive employment, restore our health-care systems, restore our power systems, restore our transportation systems, restore our education system, and get some good old-fashioned clean morality into our nation.

Under those conditions, we can survive. That, I think, is the gut of the platform which the Democratic Party must shape during this coming period.

II. Change in China

The Chinese Economic Model

by Dr. Yan Wang

Schiller Institute

Dr. Yan Wang

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

Dr. Yan Wang is a nonresident senior research fellow at the Global Development Policy Center, Boston University. She served as a Senior Economist and Team Leader at the World Bank, Research Coordinator for the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee and the China Study Group, on China-Africa development cooperation. She taught at the George Washington University, and served as a senior consultant at the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the UN Development Program, and the UN Industrial Development Organization. Twice she received the SUN Yefang Award in Economics, the highest award in economics in China. Her most recent publication, which she will discuss, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2017. We present her edited remarks as delivered on Panel 2 of the December 12-13 Schiller Institute Conference. Subheads have been added.

I would like to thank the Schiller Institute for inviting me. It’s a great pleasure and honor to speak and share my research results.

Let me start with a story of my youth. I grew up in China during the Cultural Revolution. I was sent to the countryside when I was 15 years old. I witnessed the poor living conditions in northeast China, without running water, without electricity, without a toilet.

As you know, China started reforms in the late 1970s, early ’80s. It was motivated by the strong desire to catch up with the industrial world, but we found it very difficult.

Today’s presentation is primarily based on my book co-authored with Prof. Justin Lin, Going Beyond Aid.

As you can see in Figure 1, in the 1980s, China’s per capita income, measured by PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) dollars, was very low, even lower than that of Africa. China’s income per capita was one-half that of African countries. After 40 years of rapid growth, China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty, and the economy has grown into the second largest economy in the world. The per-capita income has been quite low, currently at $10,000 per capita. Like Africa, China used to be trapped in poverty, for centuries. So Chinese leaders have a strong desire to catch up.

Figure 1

Why is Catching Up So Difficult? Development Since the 1950s

Maddison Project Database, version 2018.

Fig 1a: Major economies, Real GDP per Capita in 2011 US$, Multiple Benchmarks

Fig 1b: Africa and China Real GDP per Capita in 2011 US$, Multiple Benchmarks

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

Figure 2

Total North-South Official Development Allocation to Developing Countries, 1960-2017

Source: based on data from OECD DAC, Airflow.data. Accessed in May 2019.

Note: Aid includes grants, “soft” loans (where the gift element is at least 25% of the total) and the provision of technical assistance. Only aid to those countries listed in the OECD list of developing countries counts as ODA.

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

But why did China start development cooperation? In part because traditional north-south development cooperation, or aid, has not been effective. After $4 trillion had been spent in development aid since the 1960s, you can see in Figure 2 that a lot of countries are stuck in a poverty trap, and their economies are stagnating.

Development Cooperation Based on Ren

So, China’s development cooperation is based on a tradition from Confucianism ren. Ren means humanity, benevolence, altruism, and empathy. We also believe that teaching fishing is better than giving fish. So, based on China’s own development experience, we can combine trade, aid, and investment to help African countries. Through trade, aid and investment, China can utilize its comparative advantages in three aspects. China has a comparative advantage in building infrastructure: hydropower, highways, and railways, and with lower costs, thanks to the low-cost engineers and economies of scale. Second, China has comparative advantage in 45 out of 97 subsectors in trading of goods. Third, emerging Asian economies like China have high savings rates and patient capital. What is patient capital? Patient capital is long-term capital with longer than 10 years maturity, and invested in a country’s development.

The Chinese lending history to Africa tells an important story. China started loan cooperation and aid in the 1960s and ’70s. The famous TAZARA (Tanzania-Zambia) Railway was completed in 1974. China has sent many medical teams and doctors to African countries over many years. And after 2000, Chinese banks started to issue loans to Africa for infrastructure development.

The sectoral distribution of Chinese investment in Africa is 33% invested in transport; 33% invested in energy, including electricity generation, power grids and so forth; 2% invested in agriculture; and the same invested in technology.

Some famous African projects implemented by China are the Mombasa-Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya; the Maputo Bay Bridge in Mozambique; and the Wanbao rice farm in Gaza province, Mozambique. These have all been quite beneficial to African countries.

Chinese leaders proposed in 2013 the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The objective is to enhance connectivity across countries through wide consultation, joint construction, and shared benefits.

Figure 3

Outward Foreign Direct Investment Flows from BRICS Countries: 2000-2018

Source: UNCTAD Data.

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

China has also invested in foreign direct investment (FDI) in African countries. Figure 3 shows that China leads the BRICS countries in terms of outward foreign direct investment, the peak being achieved in 2016, with $196 billion of investment. In recent years, it has been declining.

It is often asked, how many jobs has China created? There was a study by Ernst & Young (EY) which shows that China implemented 259 projects in Africa, during this period. The number of projects is lower; however, the number of jobs created is higher than any of the countries above, including U.S., France, and United Kingdom. In total, 137,000 jobs were created between 2014 and 2018.

Looking into the future: is the financial gap being reduced? The answer is no. Long-term capital is actually declining. We think that development finance will need to go beyond aid, beyond official development assistance, known as ODA, to combine trade, aid, and investment. Financing will come less from official development aid, and more from “other financial flows,” (OOF), including OOF-like loans and equity investment. Developing countries’ share of global investment overtook that of high-income countries in 2015. However, there is a still a shortage of long-term capital. Global foreign direct investment (FDI) has declined.

Photos courtesy of Dr. Wang

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

Prof. Justin Lin and I think we need to expand the definitions of development financing and have expanded the definition to four layers of financing. The core layer is official development assistance (ODA), as defined by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). The second layer is other official flows (OOF), including export buyer’s credit. And the third layer is OOF-like loans, including blended loan financing provided by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the CDB (Caribbean Development Bank), the EXIM Bank (Export-Import Bank of the United States) and other development banks, such as the World Bank. And the fourth layer is OOF-like investments provided by funds, including sovereign wealth funds. This includes the China-Africa Development Fund, the Silk Road Fund, the United Kingdom’s CDC [Colonial/Commonwealth Development Corporation], and the newly established U.S. DFC, Development Finance Corporation. So this definition is broader and more inclusive.

BRIX

Development corridors of the Belt and Road Initiative.

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

Debt Sustainability

The last issue is regarding debt sustainability. We consider that the IMF-used debt/GDP is a narrow and misleading measure. This ratio does not distinguish what sort of debt is used, whether it’s domestic or foreign, whether it’s U.S. dollar-denominated or domestic currency-denominated. Secondly, we look at how debt was used—to finance consumption, meaning pensions and salaries, or finance investment? Of course, the results are different. Third: Will GDP be affected in the long term, as GDP is in the denominator? So, if GDP growth increases after long-term investments, the [ratio] will be reduced. Our view is that one must look at both sides of the balance sheet of the governments, including assets and liabilities. It is public sector net worth that matters.

The IMF study in 2018, “Managing Public Wealth,” (see Figure 4), looked at both assets and liabilities of governments, and it concludes that “public sector net worth matters”—the black dots in the chart. In this chart, the red bars represent liabilities, the blue bars represent non-financial assets, and the black dots represent net worth. As you can see, the U.S.A. is in the middle, with just a little bit, barely any net worth. China is on the right-hand side, third. China has the largest net worth of public sector, the third highest net worth among these countries.

So, is there a “debt trap”? There is no empirical evidence to support the so-called debt trap diplomacy [accusations]. Essentially, infrastructure such as hydropower and power grids; and roads, ports, and bridges, are assets of the public sector that are used to create jobs and generate revenues. The Chinese state sectors are holders of patient capital. There is no evidence [of] “asset seizures.” There is no evidence [that] there is a debt trap. Instead, China has shown considerable forbearance and flexibility in dealing with debt.

It is important to look at the restructuring of Chinese debt by outcome and year. Before the 2008 financial crisis, there were several rounds of debt write-offs; China cancelled debt for African countries. However, after the 2008 financial crisis, there were fewer and fewer incidents of debt write-offs, but rather more rescheduling and refinancing. According to this study, there are more possibilities of rescheduling and refinancing.

Figure 4

IMF 2018 Study ‘Managing Public Wealth’ Shows Public Sector Net Worth (the black dots), Matters

Source: IMF October 2018 Fiscal Monitor “Managing Public Wealth”

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

Crisis and Opportunity

I would like to conclude by using the Chinese word weiji, which means crisis and opportunity. The current pandemic crisis may lead to a more polarized and fragmented world economy. But there are opportunities for regional trade and integration, such as the BRI and the EU (European Union), the 16+1 regional grouping, and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), and the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) for Asia. We believe that more trade and integration will lead to a more peaceful world. We presented evidence for South-South development cooperation by utilizing the comparative advantage of each partner, which is good for industrialization, structural transformation, and beneficial to both sides. China is continuing to learn to become a better partner. Regarding the debt crisis or debt sustainability, we argue that net worth of the government matters and China is a provider of public assets.

There are several restructuring proposals [which] deal with the debt issue. First, we support multilateralism, and we support the proposal for the IMF to issue more Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), as Special Drawing Rights are counter-cyclical and unconditional. Second, we support the role of MDBs (multilateral development banks), including the World Bank, ADB (Asian Development Bank), and AIIB (the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) for more emergency liquidity loans. Third, we support the function of bilateral donors to utilize tailored solutions in debt-distressed countries. Fourth, there is a proposal for debt-for-climate swaps, but all these are to be discussed. In general, for developing countries, it is important to know what the government owns—meaning assets—and what government owes,—meaning liability; and these countries should enhance their capacity for managing assets to generate jobs and revenues.

Thank you very much. Let me stop here, and I would like to answer questions during the Q&A session.

CHINA’S 14TH FIVE YEAR PLAN

Science-Driver and Culture—

Not Money—Ignite Progress

by Richard A. Black, Schiller Institute Representative at the UN

CGTN

Xi Jinping speaking to a CPC Central Committee symposium with non-Party members, December 11, 2020.

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

Dec. 25—China’s recently published 14th Five Year Plan (2021-2025) represents a further qualitative advance in thinking in its approach to developing the labor power of its population. This emerging approach has been developing since at least 2016, when a shift was begun away from an emphasis on national and regional GDP targets, as those metrics are defined by the monetarist bastions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), etc., towards metrics based on rates of development of physical-economic parameters.

Those economic parameters include progress in the building of advanced, hard infrastructure, in the investment in frontier science—Moon and Mars colonization, thermonuclear fusion research, quantum computing—and in major investment in the more intangible area of “aesthetic education and fine arts,” to develop among youth what President Xi Jinping calls, “a more beautiful mind.” This approach has been central to China’s success, as of November 2020, in eliminating all extreme poverty among its population of 1.4 billion people.

American scientist and stateman Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1922-2019) has emphasized, in his widely circulated major writings since the 1960s, the fallacy of using the money values of standard GDP figures—which are inherently fraudulent—for economic planning purposes. As LaRouche has emphasized, “It is only the mind, whose approach to the economy is physical, rather than financial accounting practices, which is capable of understanding, and accounting for the relative values generated by economic processes.” (See LaRouche’s textbook on elementary mathematical economics, So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? and also Ulf Sandmark’s article, “Planning Without Numbers, but with Quality and Structure,” in this issue of EIR.)

Alfred T. Palmer

NASA

Three “economic miracles” in the West: The TVA, the “Arsenal of Democracy,” and the Apollo Moon landing. Shown above: Workers check a turbine shaft in the TVA’s Watts Bar Dam in 1942; below: assembly line for bombers in Fort Worth during World War II; and the first walk on the Moon, in 1969.

U.S. Air Force

NASA

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

The shift in economic approach which we see in China’s new Five Year Plan expresses an affinity with LaRouche’s economic science. Think of the past “economic miracles” in the West: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the building of the “Arsenal of Democracy” before World War II, or President John Kennedy’s astounding Apollo Moon landing. Not surprisingly, China happily reports that its economists have closely studied these models of successful physical economic planning. China’s current chief trade negotiator, the brilliant Vice Premier Liu He, has written scholarly papers analyzing Roosevelt’s approach to economy.

CGTN

China’s vast investment in new rail and road construction has linked isolated, poor regions with the prosperous cities and industrial zones, contributing to the lifting of 800 million from abject poverty. Shown: a recently-launched, high-speed electric freight train.

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

China Eliminates Extreme Poverty

Among 1.4 Billion People

On December 3, China’s President, Xi Jinping, told a meeting of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China (CPC):

Since the 18th CPC National Congress [in 2012], the CPC Central Committee has put poverty alleviation in a more prominent position, adopted significant measures with originality and specialty, and fought the largest and most vigorous battle in human history against poverty.

In a stunning achievement for all mankind, China has now lifted 850 million of its people—over the last 40 years—out of extreme poverty. Such poverty within its borders has been eliminated! As recently as 2013, one in every three counties in China was labeled as poverty-stricken. This month, the last nine Chinese counties—all in the mountainous province of Guizhou—made it over the threshold out of extreme poverty. The government has continually revised that threshold to include not only income, but also health care, compulsory education, shelter, and other basic human needs. The average annual net income of formerly impoverished people in those last 9 counties has risen to 11,487 yuan ($1.00 = 6.54 yuan), well above the 4,000-yuan national poverty line set this year.

At the December 3 leadership meeting, several of the measures taken to realize this achievement were reviewed, such as sending more than 2 million public poverty-alleviation officials from the cities out to the poor villages for 1- to 3-year posts, where, for example, they introduced both new agricultural technologies to boost the capital intensity and output of agricultural production, and a vast number of new crop varieties. The vast investment in new railroad and road construction has linked isolated, poor regions with the prosperous cities and industrial zones, allowing their products and services to reach a broader market, and to benefit from the greater ease of bringing in capital goods.

China Daily reported that in order to meet the pre-set 2020 government deadline for the complete elimination of poverty—

Last year, the Chinese government considerably ramped up financial support, allocating 91 billion yuan of poverty alleviation funds for 2019. The Chinese Development Bank pledged 400 billion yuan to fund poverty alleviation projects.

It is in the context of this unparalleled unfolding achievement that on November 9, China detailed the outlines of its 14th Five Year Plan at a two-hour diplomatic briefing given by officials of the International Department of the CPC. The Plan’s announcement also occurred as the American, David Beasley, Executive Director of the Nobel Prize-winning UN World Food Program (WFP), has said that already, this year, seven million people worldwide have died of famine, and that 270 million more are slated to die of famine over the next twelve months if sufficient new aid is not mobilized by the world community. So the question is posed: Will the community of nations mobilize the resources to halt this famine, today, in the same spirit that China has carried out a sustained victory over extreme poverty for 850 million people?

Thus, China’s 14th Five Year Plan is being launched in the wake of her historic victory over poverty; yet, this is occurring within today’s world economy, devastated by both the global COVID-19 pandemic and decades of International Monetary Fund (IMF) neo-liberal austerity, ruthlessly forced onto the entire former colonial sector, including Africa.

CASTC

CASTC

The Chang’e-5 is a leading vector of China’s commitment to frontier science as described in its 14th Five Year Plan. Shown: an artist’s concept (top), and its T1 Earth atmosphere re-entry module.

Chinese Academy of Sciences

The nature of the transformation of China’s people through science, technology, and innovation is unprecedented in human history. Shown: China’s HL-2M Tokamak reactor, its largest and most advanced fusion experimental research device, located in Chengdu, Sichuan Province.

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

Conceptual Outline of

China’s 14th Five Year Plan

Many would be shocked if they were to read the transcript of the CPC’s International Department’s November 9 briefing on the new Five Year Plan (2021-2025) and the Long Range Objectives for Year 2035 adopted at the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee, which was held from October 26 to 29 in Beijing. (See the video.)

What is outlined is an economic plan driven by fundamental breakthroughs in physical science. American economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche has long advised friends in China that the key to its development lay in its advances in fundamental science, in the rapid building-up of its hard and soft infrastructure, and in the development of its labor force to a high skill level. LaRouche has proven that, uniquely, rising rates of energy-density for production and living standards, a “science-driver” approach to the economy taken as a whole, and the laying down of the most advanced nuclear power and transport infrastructure are, each and all, absolute requirements for an advancing physical economy. These methods are elucidated in China’s 14th Five Year Plan.

The focus of the plan is the technological advancement of the physical economy of China. No overall GDP targets are given. No regional GDP targets are given. There is barely a mention of China’s official national policy of reducing CO_2 emissions by 60% by 2035, while the currently fashionable “Green Economy” false dogma is redefined in Confucian terms: “Green” means that the ecology of Man must be in Harmony with Nature as a whole.

Plans are described for an “energy revolution” and for a new approach to development, what is called “a new development Paradigm.” The speakers were explicit that China will not import any foreign development model, nor do they intend to export China’s development model to any other nation. One shift in emphasis is that under President Xi’s direction, the Five Year Plan is only outlined within a broader economic advance by the year 2035 and by 2050, the latter being just beyond the centenary of the founding of the new China.

While these methods of development have been followed by other nations, including the United States, given China’s population of 1.4 billion, the scale and therefore the nature of that population’s transformation through science, technology, and innovation “is unprecedented in human history.” In other words, the leadership is conscious of the fact that the scale of their success takes on the nature of a new discovery.

During the November 9 briefing on the 14th Five Year Plan by the Minister for International Development, Song Tao, and others, Colombia’s Ambassador to China, Luis Diego Monsalve, observed that the plan had “fewer quantitative indicators,” than had previous plans, and asked: “Without specific growth targets, how can other countries be confident on China’s development prospects?”

The answer by Xin Xiangyang, Deputy Director of the Academy of Marxism, at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, acknowledged that:

China in the past had a lot of quantitative indicators for both economic and social development. Now, China has transitioned into high-quality development and is focusing on optimizing the structure of the economy so that people will focus more on the outcome of development and quality.… If we read between the lines, we can see the numbers and quantities.

Deputy Director Xin explained that:

[The objective] to become a leading innovative country means to become among the top three in the world. Innovation will take a higher share. A culturally strong country implies a “culture industry” of 10% of GDP.

This, in itself, will be quite a shock to Western observers!

CGTN

“The Chinese leadership defines the creation of value in an economy by innovation in science combined with an upshifting of the cultural and aesthetic sense of the population.” Shown is a Beijing Music Festival concert in the Forbidden City.

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

The Question of Aesthetical Education

The Chinese term translated as “culture industry” (wen hua chan ye,   ), refers to cultural productions—written literature, films, music—and cultural services—education in the arts, museums, concert halls, libraries—conceived of as a means to improve people’s quality of life and to elevate their aesthetical sense. The culture industry will propel economic growth!

To plan to invest 10% of China’s GDP into upshifting the culture of the general population is nothing less than astounding. In 2018, President Xi Jinping underscored the importance of aesthetic education in his response to a letter from eight senior professors from the Central Academy of Fine Arts (CAFA) in Beijing, including from the 99-year-old Prof. Zhou Lingzhao. In praising the work of the professors, Xi called for more efforts in education to shape, in the country’s youth, “a more beautiful mind,” so that young people would be able to “deliver masterpieces of art to the world.” Implying the importance of the classical priniples of traditional Chinese painting and music, Xi urged the senior professors to “abide by the laws of aesthetics and carry forward the Chinese spirit of aesthetic education.”

Central in the national discussion today of the role of aesthetics in China are the contributions of Confucius (551 B.C. – 479 B.C.). Dr. Yu Zhou, professor at the Shanghai Institute of technology, recently wrote in the Journal of Educational Theory and Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, October 2020:

Confucius ... combined artistic activities with the cultivation of people who meet his social ideals from the perspective of music education practice, emphasizing: “Rise in poetry, stand in courtesy, and succeed in music.” Starting from the ideological and artistic quality of music, he takes “goodness” and “beauty” as the basic criteria for music evaluation and derives the “perfect and perfect aesthetic” evaluation standard. Confucius also attached great importance to music education, and proposes 6 lessons for study, “ceremony, music, archery, horse-drawn carriage, reading and math.” Among them, “music” is the second.

When one couples this renewed emphasis on “the culture industry” and aesthetical education with the decision, discussed by Dr. Xin, to focus the overall economy on scientific innovation as an explicitly stated “major strategic choice,” you begin to see a breakthrough. Thus, we can see how the Chinese leadership defines the creation of value in an economy: innovation in science combined with an upshifting of the cultural and aesthetic sense of the population.Thus, the apparently paradoxical answer to the Colombian ambassador’s question about a lack of “numbers.”

On the question of “the numbers” describing growth in the economy, Dr. Xin did describe the recent success of building “a moderately prosperous society”: It has meant a current per-capita average income of over US$10,000. The objective of China becoming a “medium-income developed country” by 2035 will then translate into a per-capita income of US$20,000. He describes the planned doubling of China’s GDP by 2035 as “a giant step.”

A Shift to Qualitative Indicators: A Decade in the Making

As I described in an article, “China-U.S. Trade Relations in 2020—After the Phase I Trade Agreement: Decoupling or Development?” in EIR Vol. 47, No. 8, February 21, 2020, pp. 57-64, the shift in China away from the highly worshipped GDP indices of the IMF, WTO, and other such institutions began over a decade ago. Economist Tian Yun, director of the Macroeconomics Research Center’s China Society, an affiliate of the National Development and Reform Commission, revealed at the end of 2017:

There could be some major systemic changes in how the government prioritizes economic policies.... China has long been talking about pursuing high-quality, sustainable economic growth, but has made little economic progress because local governments continue to focus primarily on GDP. I think we could see some real economic shifts in 2018 to change that. For example, the central government might come up with new economic indicators to gauge economic development.

Even earlier, in 2007, the Wall Street Journal and other Western financial media were shocked as they reported the story that Premier Li Keqiang, while he was provincial leader in Liaoning Province, had rejected official GDP figures for his economic planning purposes. He reportedly called those GDP figures “man-made,” that is, made up. Instead, Li innovated. He devised a set of physical economic indicators in his Liaoning Province, which included rates of change in (1) electricity consumption, (2) rail cargo volume, and (3) new bank loans issued.

So rattled were the monetarist bastions, such as Bloomberg News and The Economist—upon learning of the success of Li’s system—that they quickly devised their own computer imitation of Li’s method, calling it “the Li Keqiang Index.” When they threw current economic numbers simultaneously into their old GDP models and into “the Li Keqiang Index,” Li’s method of economic forecasting consistently out-performed their old GDP model! It is not known if Premier Li ever sued those Western media for theft of intellectual property.

Chinese State Council

Li Keqiang, Premier of the State Council, visiting a Samsung Electronics semiconductor plant in Xi’an, Shaanxi Province.

PCOO/Karl Norman Alonzo

Song Tao, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee.

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

The Drafting of the Five Year Plan

The elaborate drafting process of the new Five Year Plan was described by Yin Yanlin, Vice Minister of the General Office of the Financial and Economic Affairs Commission. The Plan is the product of many months of deliberation and feed-back from throughout the nation. The Political Department held over a dozen symposia on various aspects of the Plan, having invited speakers from all walks of life: scientists, entrepreneurs, teachers, etc. This year, for the first time, the public was also invited to come up with proposals. Over one million proposals from the public were delivered to the Department, beyond the ones received from within the government. This is how democracy works in China.

In addition, President Xi Jinping travels regularly to all parts of the country for direct on-site readings of the conditions of the population—particularly in the rural regions. This has provided direction in each step of the planning process of setting the goals for 2035 and 2050.

The coming introduction of a basic medical insurance system for 1.3 billion people and a social security system for one billion people will be two further steps to improve the living standard and productivity of the population.

Current U.S. Response: China’s Prosperity Is a Casus Belli

The official U.S. response to China’s current and projected economic plans must be honestly characterized as clinically insane. For instance, U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI), John Ratcliffe, wrote an opinion piece in the December 3, 2020 edition of The Wall Street Journal titled, “China Is National Security Threat No. 1—Resisting Beijing’s Attempt to Reshape and Dominate the World Is the Challenge of our Generation.” This declaration follows many months of a police-state-like McCarthyite campaign—coming from all the leading sections of the U.S. Executive and Legislative branches—defining China as a malignant enemy. Thousands of visiting Chinese students and scientific researchers from all academic fields have been expelled, while Chinese and Chinese-American scientists have been arrested on bogus charges of spying. DNI Ratcliffe writes in his Wall Street Journal commentary:

If I could communicate one thing to the American people from this unique vantage point, it is that the People’s Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today, and the greatest threat to democracy and freedom world-wide since World War II.

The intelligence is clear: Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily and technologically. Many of China’s major public initiatives and prominent companies offer only a layer of camouflage to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party.

I call its approach of economic espionage “rob, replicate and replace.” China robs U.S. companies of their intellectual property, replicates the technology, and then replaces the U.S. firms in the global marketplace.

One might simply argue that this evidence-free fabrication is simply a racist rehash of the cries of “the Yellow Peril!” seen at times in past U.S. history. Never mind the fact that for no less than 2,000 years—from approximately 600 B.C. to A.D. 1400—China’s breakthroughs in metallurgy, astronomy, agriculture, navigation, ship building and the fine arts, just to name a few areas, dwarfed any economic and scientific activity in the West. (See the article, “The Science and Technology that Ancient China Taught the West,” by Robert Trout and Michael Billington, in EIR, Vol. 47, No. 41, October 9, 2020, pp. 32-41.)

No, what we are witnessing coming from many in the Western elites—from the City of London and NATO to both of the political parties in the U.S.—is a horrified realization that, in terms of their economic trajectories, China is taking off like a rocket while the West has been drowning itself in a putrid sea of monetarist speculation, demonization of nuclear and space science, and a suicidal ideological soup of “green” finance and zero growth.

Add to this “logic” the push from within the Pentagon and the leading British Empire think tanks to deploy new “small nuclear weapons”—which, according to their theories, make World War both “thinkable” and winnable”—and you have the implied war cry to fight China militarily, now, before it becomes, soon, an economic equal to the United States. In other words, we are witnessing a deployment to trigger the World War III that would end human civilization on Earth.

Scientific Progress:

The Common Aim of Mankind

American statesman and scientist Lyndon LaRouche has long documented that it is uniquely a “science-driver” which produces success in a national economy. In fact, LaRouche’s widow, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, scholar and the president of the Schiller Institute, is today a frequent expert commentator in Asia, giving currency to these conceptions. She is often sought out by leading circles in China to lecture at think tank events, at strategic policy conferences, and in the media. The affinity of LaRouche’s economic discoveries—concerning the connection between human creativity and progress in national economy—to China’s current approach to economic progress may help readers in the West to understand “what’s behind” China’s economic planning. The following is taken from a 2005 paper by LaRouche, “On the Noëtic Principle: Vernadsky and Dirichlet’s Principle”:

In reality, contrary to the Olympian Zeus, man and woman made in the image of the Creator, are naturally creative. Scientific progress based upon the realized effects of the endless discovery and command over universal physical principles is the essential nature of mankind, the essential nature of the Noösphere. So, as evolution of species of life drives the Earth to higher states of existence, above the abiotic, so the characteristic form of successful action by society is the increase of man’s power over the planet, per capita and per square kilometer of the planet’s surface. This creative activity, which modern society has recognized in the benefits of scientific and technological progress, is essentially anti-entropic.

This brings us to a crucial point in the relevant argument. Since the characteristic activity which defines the existence and persistence of the Noösphere is universal anti-entropy, the characteristic feature of every action within the Noösphere is its relative anti-entropy. The essential part of what is being exchanged within the economic process as a whole is the relative anti-entropy expressed by the way in which the generation, circulation, and consumption of products is organized.

How has China been able to completely eliminate extreme poverty in a population of 1.4 billion people, a population made up of no less than 56 different ethnic and language groups? How has China been able to establish a presence on the Moon with an industrial plan to mine fuel there for the frontier energy source, fusion energy? Why do thousands of China’s young people flood new concert halls today to hear the music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven? Why does China’s economy include the building of modern railroads, factories, and science universities in Africa and elsewhere in the famine-struck former colonial sector? Clues to the answers to these questions are revealed in the recent outline of China’s 14th Five Year Plan. They reside in an understanding of the common aims of mankind.

—richardblack1776@gmail.com

Planning Without Numbers,

But with Quality and Structure

by Ulf Sandmark, President of the Schiller Institute in Sweden

Dec. 26—The Chinese Five Year Planning method of lining up a set of physical targets, is a planning system that has elements close to the ideas of the late American physical economist, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., who invented the world’s most successful economic forecasting and planning model. LaRouche always denounced the linear thinking of bookkeepers which has dominated planning systems throughout history. Instead, he analyzed the economy for each period as a self-subsisting whole, identifying the crucial characteristics for growth in physical-economic terms. In this way, LaRouche superseded a linear metric in earlier development conceptions, projecting the economy based on the higher technological efficiency levels being discovered and implemented, and the cultural aspects of society.

LaRouche’s “boundary conditions” are not any kind of planning objectives. The concept (like others of LaRouche) is based on fluid dynamics. (Fluids = gases and liquids) The example LaRouche often used was the shockwave encountered in flight at higher and higher speeds. Familiar designs of aircraft were such that the plane would disintegrate when that shockwave was encountered. This called for new geometries for the aircraft. One could identify other boundary conditions, such as a lower bound for the survival for most forms of life in terms of temperature. Thus a boundary condition is not a goal. It is a boundary imposed by nature. LaRouche famously transferred this concept to the realm of economics. Population of an area must grow to a certain density before the lower bound is reached for a continuous rate of technical innovation.

NASA

Just as the shockwaves encountered in flight (the “sound barrier”) called for new geometries in aircraft, a human population must grow to a certain density before a continuous rate of technological innovation can be achieved. Shown: shock waves generated by an X-15 model being tested in the NASA/Langley Research Center’s Supersonic Pressure Tunnel in 1962.

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

When using fewer numbers, planning relies more on qualitative objectives to guide a nation, especially for those parts of society necessary for a productive economy, but whose effects are not quantifiable. LaRouche’s economic planning recognizes “boundary conditions.” One such qualitative boundary condition, is the cited objective for advancing the cultural development of the population. Yet, any quantitative calculation of such an effect on production would be misleading.

Similarly, the objective of emphasizing innovation can only be incorporated into the plan with the knowledge of boundary conditions, which must be superseded, with a certain share of total production, or labor power, allocated to investments in science, research, and development. In calculating the effect of innovation with all its nonlinear effects, using quantifications based on the geometry of the former period, rapidly becomes irrelevant and is accordingly always wrong.

To be able to more rigorously guide qualitative decisions for innovation and technological improvements, LaRouche introduced the concept of “increasing energy-flux density,” signifying man’s relationship to nature, making discoveries that allow us to increase our productive powers and create new resources. This is in keeping with evolution in nature, with the evolution of more efficient forms of life, increasing the total efficiency of the biosphere, as discovered by the Russian geobiophysicist Vladimir Vernadsky.

In a planning system for “high-quality development,” it is absolutely correct, as Secretary Xin Xiangyang said at the briefing discussed in “China’s 14th Five Year Plan: Science-Driver and Culture—Not Money—Ignite Progress,” by Richard Black, in this issue of EIR, to “focus on optimizing structure” in what could be called harmonic or beautiful relations. Here, the Chinese planning for National Economic and Social Development is on track with LaRouche’s most advanced economic forecasting and planning system.

Total Economy

EIR

The vertical bars on the left represent the total population of households; total physical goods output is on the right. V is the portion of total physical-goods output required by productive households, including goods and infrastructure. C the total of capital goods/infrastructure required for producing physical goods. C+V is the energy of the system, consumed by operatives and industry in one economic cycle. S is surplus productive output beyond C+V. From S, must be deducted D, the overhead cost of supporting productive households. D includes medical personnel, teachers, administration, etc. Unconsumed physical output is free energy, S′/V, which must grow over time in quantity and quality. As V grows, the ratio C/V, capital intensity, must also grow—providing technological and productive power in and over nature. As C/V grows, the ratio S/(C+V), productivity, must also grow. As capital intensity grows, non-wasteful overhead expenses, D/(C+V), will grow, due to the longer periods of education required for more skilled work.

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

Relative Potential Population-Density

As with Li Keqiang’s physical-economic indicators, LaRouche limited his analysis to physical goods production rather than the usual GDP monetary valuations of all economic activities. He considered this most relevant as all economic activities, innovation, and culture prove their value in the advancement of physical goods production. Summarily, the LaRouche system can be described as analyzing the economy as a single physical-energy process, in which the energy of the system is measured in: (1) labor power in physical goods production, (2) machines and improvements of nature (infrastructure, land cultivation). The net surplus production is the free energy of the total economy available for investments for the next productive cycle. The ultimate objective is to increase the net surplus in relation to (1) and (2) more rapidly than in the previous cycles, which is the correlative of increasing the ratio of the free energy to the energy of the system.

In order to create the conditions for the future increase of this function, a political choice has to be made on how to invest the net surplus in labor, machinery, infrastructure, science, education, and cultural affairs, as well as other not directly productive, but necessary, activities.

This function makes it possible to compare the economic performance between the cycles, to discover the optimal (most beautiful) structure for improving the outcome of the economy and what LaRouche calls relative potential population density. Each cycle is quantified solely from its own internal geometry rather than any previous technological level.

It is the innovative changes that create mathematical discontinuities which make any linear projection erroneous. To handle that, LaRouche employed the metrics of Bernard Riemann, Professor of Mathematics in Göttingen, Germany (1826-1866), so that the different cycles could be analyzed independently as Riemannian manifolds. The economic model is thus called the LaRouche-Riemann model. (See Chapter 3 in the economic textbook by Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? A Text on Elementary Mathematical Economics. A digital copy of the book may be purchased here.)

—ulf.sandmark@nysol.se

China and the United States: Rivalry, Confrontation, or Cooperation

by Marcelo Muñoz

Marcelo Muñoz is the founder and president of Cátedra China. This is the edited text of the English translation of his remarks delivered in Spanish on Panel 2 of the December 12-13 Schiller Institute Conference. Subheads have been added.

Sketch by Lt. White, Royal Marines, 1843

Today, the United States has a choice to make in its relations with China: It can either try to subdue the rising power, as the British Empire did in the mid-19th century, or work with China on an equal footing for shared progress. Shown, the British capture of Ting-hai (Dinghai), on the island of Chusan (Zhoushan), China in the First Opium War, July 5, 1840.

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

Two empires. The United States, which emerged as such at the beginning of the 20th century, and China, which after being the world’s leading power for two thousand years, sank in the middle of the 19th century and has been re-emerging since the end of the 20th century, and is today the second world power.

Two empires, representing two different worlds, very different, that have been meeting or confronting each other over the last two centuries.

Not the United States, but the British Empire, its white, Protestant and Anglo-Saxon counterpart, confronted China in 1840 with the “opium wars” to impose “free trade” in opium and occupy and colonially subdue much of its territory by force, to the point of eliminating China’s role in the international community.

The United States did intervene in China beginning in the second half of the 20th century, in the Chinese civil war that lasted 20 years, supporting the nationalist party against the communist party with economic support, credits, weapons, military advisers, and political support. The nationalist leader was the dictator Chang Kai-Shek. His wife Soon Mai Ling, of recognized beauty, a good public speaker and his brother-in-law, a financier, who channeled American economic aid—part of it diverted to his own fortune—led the nationalist lobby: she, traveling all over America, creating nuclei of political and economic support, at the time when McCarthyism was fashionable.

Mao’s victory surprised the world and the United States, which was occupied in World War II on the European front, in which Roosevelt got the United States involved, and on the Asian front, in which Japanese supremacist militarism, an ally of Nazism, had militarily occupied much of Asia and China. Chang Kai-shek with what was left of his army took refuge in Taiwan and established a secessionist government in 1949, which, for the United States, was an “unsinkable aircraft carrier,” in the words of Douglas MacArthur, by then viceroy of Japan and strategist against Chinese communism.

And that is what Taiwan has remained—a bulwark against China, with the economic, military. and political support of the United States, to maintain China’s territorial division, contrary to United Nations resolutions accepted by the international community and by the United States itself, resolutions that recognize only one China and Taiwan as part of China.

We start from this historical introduction, because history, well understood, is “life’s teacher” and, in this case, rivalry, confrontation, or cooperation between the United States and China cannot be understood without having analyzed in some detail the relationship between these two countries, two Empires, Chinese and Western, over the last two centuries.

The domination of the British Empire over much of the world, from the middle of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, coincides, and was, to a large extent, the cause of the collapse of the Chinese Empire until its disappearance.

The emergence of the American Empire and its power joined other Western countries, after the Second World War, to organize the international community according to its values and rules, politically, economically, commercially, and so on, through the Bretton Woods agreement, and later by the Washington Consensus, through institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, international courts, etc.

China Emerges

China ended up very much in second place in this power structure, and outside it, except for its position in the United Nations Security Council. China, in that period, had no weight in the international community, being the 120th power in terms of GDP; moreover, it was marginalized by the West for being a communist country.

But since 1978, China began to emerge, to become the second world power, even though the power structures of the international community, dominated by the United States, have not allowed China to have its due place in those structures of international power. This is a great imbalance that the United States is trying in every way to make permanent, above all, with its strategy of “containing” China, of preventing or stopping its emergence. Hence the trade wars with tariffs; technological warfare, with the fight against Huawei and its 5G; political war with the interference of the United States in Chinese sovereign affairs, such as Hong Kong’s statutes, the recognition of Taiwan as part of the Chinese territory according to the United Nations, etc.

In a word, China has returned to its position as a first-rate world power, as it was for two thousand years, and the United States, the new power that emerged in the 20th century, won’t let it in, it does not accept it. This is not a problem that has arisen with the Trump Administration. It has been a problem with all previous Administrations, and it will continue to be, I am afraid, with the Biden Administration, although the appearance may be softened.

What is the way out of this new situation: rivalry, confrontation, or cooperation?

I do not agree with Graham T. Allison’s thesis, as brilliant as it is Anglo-Saxon, of the Thucydides trap, that is, the confrontation between the United States and China as a way out. I have very solid reasons to think that.

In the first place, China does not want confrontation, because that would go against its entire Confucian philosophy, which promotes harmony—a synthesis between opposites. In international politics, these principles mean respect for the autonomy of countries, non-interference in their internal affairs, and negotiation in order to reach agreements.

Second, China does not aspire to be a superpower, which its leaders constantly declare in international forums. The Chinese dream is not individual triumph over others—not on a personal level, nor in terms of a country. Confucian philosophy—again the voice of philosophy—defends the recognition of the individual in society, and views national or international society as the coordinator of the collective good. China, therefore, only demands recognition of its reality and that its due position in the world and in the international community be accepted.

This Confucian philosophy excludes, in principle, rivalry and confrontation, which are justified only in legitimate self-defense. Chinese dynasties were overthrown, at various times in its millennial history, for their inefficiency in defending the collective good.

The Way Forward

For China, then, for all these reasons, the only acceptable policy to solve the existing problem in relation to the United States, the only valid strategy is that of cooperation, through dialogue. And this strategy obviously requires that both powers accept the reality of the other on an equal footing, renouncing all pedestals of superiority, whether ethnic, ideological, political, or economic.

But cooperation and dialogue need to find, previously, points of rapprochement based on the differences between two countries that belong to two different worlds. These are points of possible rapprochement or dialogue that can be found, once again, calling upon philosophy to find them, ideologically, politically, and economically. We will not reach agreements based on coincidences, but on divergences, on differences between these two worlds and by the possibilities of rapprochement, understanding or complementarity.

Ideologically, the differences are great. The United States, and the West in general, base their principles on a deistic philosophy, with references to God even in their money, the dollar, and subject to precepts and norms that issue from the divinity. Confucian philosophy is non-deistic and is subject only to norms that issue from society organized in the polis. On this ideological terrain, the differences between these two worlds can only be resolved through mutual respect for the other’s philosophy. With a possible added value for global governance that they both pursue. In this globalized world the majority of the most serious conflicts are related to different religions and the diverse way of understanding or practicing them. China can contribute to this global governance its philosophy of respect for the absolute sovereignty of the individual in society, as the ethical basis of all civilizations.

Politically, the differences are also great, between democracy and meritocracy, or between the various concepts of human rights. But dialogue will always be the great instrument of rapprochement. There can be a great consensus on social and economic human rights, even a healthy competition to fulfill them better. For example, this year China met the goal of eradicating extreme poverty. Regarding political rights, there is a great divergence, but with a wide field open for dialogue, if any superiority complex and attempts to impose on the other one’s own way of understanding them is eliminated.

Economically, the differences are due, to a large extent, to prejudices or stereotypes. On the part of the United States, McCarthyite and visceral anti-communism still prevails to a large extent, ignoring the fact that China is an advanced capitalist society, with its own socialist structures and with very positive results. On the Chinese side, its rejection of economic neoliberalism does not exclude the possibility of dialogue and discussion.

If the relationship between China and the United States is based on these philosophical principles, the risk of confrontation is eliminated. This is my thesis, and I look forward to discussing it with you. Thank you.

China’s Meritocracy-Based Democracy

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Mrs. LaRouche responded to a question about China from a conference participant from Chile during Panel 2 of the December 12-13 Schiller Institute Conference.

Question: I had a discussion with my friends about how China successfully controlled the COVID-19 pandemic there. Some of my friends believe that China’s success is due to its authoritarianism, or because they say that people follow health regulations out of fear of the Chinese dictatorship. I tried to tell them that it is difficult to apply the concept of dictatorship to China, because it is a concept that makes sense in the West, and China has 2,500 years of continuous Confucian civilization.

I also spoke to my friends about China’s success in pulling 800 million people out of poverty. These discussions always come up when I try to talk about China. How can China’s success in controlling the pandemic and defeating poverty be adequately explained, at the same time understanding that China has a political control system centralized in a single party?

Zepp-LaRouche: There is a complete misunderstanding about parties. First of all, I don’t think parties as such are a good thing. George Washington, when he left office, warned that people should not give too much credence to the interests of the parties, because they would tend to lobby for specific interests, and not for the common good and the country. When my late husband had his 90th birthday, we had a beautiful outdoor party for him, and he made a speech where he called on people to outgrow the concept of party for very similar reasons.

I think the party system in China is not like the Western party system in which you have particular interests—either that of industry or trade unions or finance capital or the like. In China they have a meritocracy. This goes back, way, way back to the Chinese imperial system of examinations. When I was in Nanjing last year, I went to a beautiful museum about the imperial examinations. This is a long tradition in which people had to undergo an enormous battery of tests, and demonstrate moral qualifications, before entering a career in political life. For example, Xi Jinping was the Governor of three different provinces before he became a national leader. People in China have to qualify by their merits, and that is, I think, a much better system.

I find there is real democracy within their system. Given the proceedings of the present election, I would say there may be more democracy in China right now than in the United States. I know that this is a very controversial statement, but I think it’s truthful.

Mr. Muñoz, who has joined us today, made a very important point in another meeting we had a couple of months ago. He said that the first thing to recognize about China is that it has a very different culture than ours in Europe and the United States. This is not to say that we cannot communicate and have a good dialogue, but if you do not start to study the very different history, the different culture, the different poetry, painting, and especially philosophy and history, you won’t do justice to any country, and for sure not to China.

If you take that path, you learn something, and you learn something not only about China, but also about yourself. And you discover how good it is that the planet is full of different cultures, because each one contributes something to the universal richness of all of mankind.

The first thing to tell people is that they have to start to think that it’s like discovering a different planet. It’s like discovering a completely different language, a different geometry. If you want to enter poetry in another language, maybe the grammar is completely different. It’s very difficult to translate Chinese poems into English because the grammar is completely different. So therefore, you can’t apply the same means. These things are important.

It is almost in the genes of the Chinese people, in my view, that the common good is above the individual interest. This goes back to Confucius, and it is really one of the biggest differences. People in the West sometimes think that’s a disadvantage, but frankly, in a crisis like this pandemic, you can see that people quite naturally say, “OK, I wear a mask, because that is for the protection of my neighbor as well as protecting myself.”

It has never been an issue that this has to be dictated or imposed, because the people there recognize immediately that it makes sense. There are now scientific studies that say that the rate of infection of people wearing masks is something like 46% lower than for those who don’t wear a mask. So, that already makes the point that it is pretty stupid not to wear a mask. You put yourself at risk, and you certainly might suffer lasting effects if you’re unlucky and get infected with COVID-19.

Confucius argues that no family can have a lucky life if the state suffers. Now in Europe, in the United States, some would say, “Oh, I have my individualistic rights, and then I’ll care about the state much later.” But in a crisis like this, you can see that that system does not function as well as the other one.

So, I would say people should be a little bit curious, a little bit more humble. Be curious; try to find out—the world is so rich. If you have prejudices about everything, you lose access to what you could find out.

Buy The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge from the LaRouche Publications Store

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

III. Imperial Shadow Over U.S. Election

Exonerate LaRouche! Assange, Snowden Pardons Can Expose 2016-2020 Russiagate Hoax

Left: CC/Ordercrazy; right: Creative Commons

By pardoning Julian Assange (left) and Edward Snowden (right), President Trump can free them to expose the ongoing criminal conspiracy against the U.S. Presidency.

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

Dec. 18—The possibility that President Donald Trump may pardon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, now being slowly killed in a London prison—especially in the aftermath of the recent resignation of Attorney General William Barr—has raised a number of tantalizing questions:

Will the Russiagate “computer hack that never was,” so central to the present Assange incarceration and torture, finally be brought to light if he is released from prison? Will the criminal conspiracy against the U.S. Presidency that involved “Five Eyes” intelligence agencies, and City of London/Wall Street financial interests, be exposed, through the declassification and release of all documents essential to revealing the Russiagate hoax? Will these documents include relevant portions of the tens of thousands of pages Ty Clevenger has learned that the FBI has just acknowledged to exist in their files that are relevant to his request in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit regarding information on Seth Rich? Will we perhaps finally see the release of these and other documents through the firings and/or resignations of CIA Director Gina Haspel and FBI Director Christopher Wray, following William Barr?

Swift, unexpected and unorthodox action by the President could now be the only way to reveal the true nature, and reverse the present outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. By allowing justice, through such actions, to provide a platform for Edward Snowden, an ailing Assange, National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney and others, to reveal how the surveillance state has nearly mortally wounded the American electoral process, just as it has manipulated and fixed elections throughout the planet for decades—regardless of where the chips may fall—Donald Trump could yet be inaugurated President in January 2021.

If the truth of the campaigns of 2016 and 2020 were finally told to the American people, whoever does that will have earned their undying support. And that truthful explanation will instantly reveal the bloody face of the Obama-Bush Administrations joined at the hip through their advocacy of war as the primary tool of diplomacy.

Clockwise, from top left: GCHQ © Crown Copyright 2016; Public domain; Wikipedia Commons; UK Government

Clockwise, from top left: Robert Hannigan, former Director, GCHQ.; Sir Richard Billing Dearlove, KCMG, OBE.; Stefan Halper; Sir Kim Darroch, former UK Ambassador to the USA.

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

British Intelligence, Not Russia or China,

Is the ‘Foreign Actor’

Have you noticed that, if one names China or Russia, many are quick to simply accept the idea of foreign intervention in the U.S. elections, but whenever the well-documented involvement of British intelligence in interfering in the United States elections and presidency in the past five years is brought up, “conspiracy theory” is the term used to reject that analysis? The names of British nationals Christopher Steele, Robert Hannigan, Sir Richard Dearlove, Sir Kim Darroch, and the American Stefan Halper—all of them attached directly to GCHQ, MI6, or the British Foreign Service—are only those operatives so far known to have directly fomented either the “Russia, Russia, Russia” story, or the “China, China, China” story. There may be many more.

Yet “it’s really hard for me to see how Great Britain is involved” is still used as an excuse by most not to face what has actually been going on. Ignoring the truth, however, becomes impossible when looking at the case of Julian Assange. Assange is being killed before our eyes in a British prison in order that the Russia fiction be preserved. How is this done?

U.S. Marshals/CC/Shane T. McCoy

The recently resigned Attorney General William Barr. To his immediate right is FBI Director Christopher Wray.

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

On February 20 this year, the Guardian newspaper printed the headline: “Donald Trump ‘offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack.’ ” Most media would be instantaneously discredited as hoaxsters, and reluctantly ever believed again, once Assange, along with knowledgeable others, were allowed to speak publicly about Russiagate. The cui bono—who benefits—from Assange’s silence, is the conspirators that originated, carried out, and hid the plot against the American Presidency—British, American and otherwise. As journalist Viktor Dedaj stated at the December 12 Schiller Institute Conference panel, “Hang Together or Hang Separately: Free and Sovereign Republics, or Digital Dictatorship”:

When Julian Assange was finally removed from the Embassy in violation of international law and even the Ecuadorian constitution, it only took a quarter of an hour for the British judge, first to insult him and then to sentence him to 50 weeks in prison for violating what? His ‘conditions of probation.’… But he [was] not just … sentenced to 50 weeks, but to 50 weeks in a high security prison. We will see that this is the only case to my knowledge in Great Britain, that a journalist, accused of nothing, in preventive detention, is locked up in a high security prison…. We saw a trial that almost took place behind closed doors, refusing by name the presence of about 50 NGOs, where 90 journalists had been accredited….

Edward Snowden, it should be remembered, was aided in 2013 by Julian Assange in his successful escape from Hong Kong. Snowden was then marooned in Moscow when his passport was revoked, thus making it impossible for him to travel further. National Security Agency whistleblower Kirk Wiebe has observed that, far from being a traitor, as many have asserted, Snowden may have been forced to act in an illegal way in order to preserve his sworn oath to the Constitution of the United States.

LPAC-TV

Kirk Wiebe

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

Snowden’s actions occurred several years after Wiebe, along with William Binney and Ed Loomis, and later joined by House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark, had used “the approved channels and procedures” to report wrongdoing following their resignations from the NSA in 2001, only to be raided at gunpoint by the FBI and nearly railroaded and sent to prison by the Department of Justice in 2007.

President Trump’s recent indication that he might look to pardon Snowden, after Trump had years earlier even stated that Snowden deserved death, has deeply worried intelligence insiders, Republican and Democrat. These “deep staters” above all else want to draw attention away from the ugly truth. The systemic overthrow of governments, including through the manipulation and fixing of elections by members of the “Five Eyes” secret government arrangement, is standard operating procedure for what is called in the American intelligence world “Project Democracy,” first widely revealed to the American public by Lyndon LaRouche and Executive Intelligence Review in the April 1987 Special Report, “Project Democracy: The Parallel Government Behind the Iran-Contra Affair.”

How Project Democracy’s Campaign

Against Lyndon LaRouche Destroyed American Elections

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

The past is prologue. To understand how it came to pass that American intelligence agencies, acting in collusion with a British foreign power that no one cares to name, committed fraud against both the 2020 and 2016 elections, it is necessary to understand the use of Executive Order 12333 and other 1980s Presidential directives to reorganize and centralize many intelligence functions in the Office of the Vice President. (To understand the implications of this, think “Dick Cheney.”) E.O. 12333 and various other orders hastened the privatization of military and intelligence functions. Companies, sometimes referred to as quasi non-governmental organizations (“quangos”), infested daily American life—and then came the internet, developed originally for military use and afterwards illegally deployed for universal surveillance through criminal applications of programs originally designed to defend the United States, such as Bill Binney’s ThinThread program.

Studying the case of Lyndon LaRouche, and his 1984–1989 legal lynching, is the single most efficient means by which today’s American electorate can begin to understand the true nature of the grand crime against the Presidency presently being committed, a crime that will require, for its correction, LaRouche’s exoneration, as well as justice for Assange and Snowden.

In fact, whether Julian Assange is successfully kept alive and released from prison in the next weeks, or whether Edward Snowden is soon allowed to return home and assist in the process of cleaning out the “secret government” that has run the United States, is intimately tied to whether Lyndon LaRouche, economist, statesman, and Presidential candidate, is finally exonerated. Though LaRouche died on February 12, 2019, his exoneration now plays an even greater role in rectifying the destruction of the American Presidential system that has gone on for over a half-century.

The October 6, 1986 attempted assassination of LaRouche, and his subsequent prosecution, conviction and imprisonment, was not an attack on a “maverick political extremist,” as it was portrayed by literally thousands of printed and electronic media stories at the time. It was, because of LaRouche’s use of his Presidential campaigns to change the direction of the policies of the Reagan and other presidencies, that destroying him meant, in reality, a violent, near lethal assault on the American Presidential system. It was the same Presidential system that came under violent attack with the November 22, 1963 murder of President John F. Kennedy, the April-June 1968 double assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, and the March 1981 near-assassination of Ronald Reagan.

Lyndon LaRouche (1922–2019), economist and statesman, was for five decades the most controversial figure in American politics. He became a world-class threat through his United States Presidential campaigns. His 1970s denunciation of the genocidal looting policies and predatory lending practices of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Anglo-American financial establishment in general, and his successful organizing of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative in 1982-83, earned him the undying enmity of the “baby doomers” that have now huddled around the multi-trillion-dollar financial scam known as the “Green New Deal.”

Creative Commons/Kevin Dietsch

Then FBI Director Robert Mueller, on March 19, 2013.

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

LaRouche had to be taken out, or at least, down. That attack was coordinated through the privatized intelligence route , including the April 1983 establishment of a “Get LaRouche Task Force” headed up by New York investment advisor John Train of New York, and involving multiple intelligence agencies. Individuals such as London’s favorite Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, also played a central role in initiating fraudulent legal actions that aimed to stop him. LaRouche’s enemies, including Robert Mueller, played a role in the attempt to shut down LaRouche’s Presidential campaigns in both 1984 and 1988.

It is virtually impossible for Americans to understand what is now unfolding concerning the Presidential election without knowing why LaRouche posed such a threat, and what was done to silence him. LaRouche’s enemies are the Malthusians—those who want to see the planet’s population reduced by at least half in the next 30 years—the bankers’ environmental movement. Poor people are very bad for the environment, they say. And the most prominent of environmentalists are now, often, also the world’s biggest bankers. Take, for example, the newly-formed Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism, founded by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, whose leaders claim to represent more than $10.5 trillion in assets under management. Is this a grassroots environmental movement? Is this even an AstroTurf movement? Their plan is to de-carbonize the planet by lessening the number of people presently on it by four, five, or six billion. Famine, pestilence, disease, and war—the “Four Horsemen”—are their preferred way of doing it. And those are the policies that are the immediate future under the new, friendly, enlightened cyber-dictatorship.

Only a vigorous campaign on behalf of justice in all forms—electoral justice, economic justice, defense of the right to know—can save the United States, the trans-Atlantic world, or the world as a whole. These next days before us give us a chance to not merely demand, but secure that justice. Action in these three cases—pardons in the cases of Assange and Snowden, and exoneration for Lyndon LaRouche—are the direct path to securing justice for all citizens throughout the world, and in every country. They are the path to justice for the President of the United States as well. Fiat Justitia ruat caelum—“Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” Now, in these next days, justice given, is justice gained.

To download a leaflet version of this statement from the Schiller Institute website, click here.

President Trump on

Massive Election Fraud

President Donald Trump delivered the following remarks on December 22, 2020. The video of his address to the nation is available here.

White House

President Donald J. Trump: “I am determined to pursue every legal and constitutional option to stop the theft of the 2020 Presidential election.”

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

My fellow Americans,

Today, I want to explain to you why I am so determined to pursue every legal and constitutional option available to stop the theft of the Presidential election.

As President, one of my most solemn duties is to protect the integrity of your sacred right to vote. This year, using the virus as a pretext, Democrat officials in the key swing states illegally violated their own state laws, in order to enable, encourage, and facilitate fraud on a scale never before seen in the history of our country. The truth is, we won the election by a landslide! We won it big.

Today, I’m going to give you the facts that every American needs to know.

Let’s go back to the night of the election. By midnight, we had a commanding lead in the swing states. We won Florida by a record number of votes. We won Ohio by a record number of votes. And likewise, we won Iowa by 8.2%—far different than the false narrative portrayed in the media. We were up by 293,000 votes in Michigan, 112,000 thousand votes in Wisconsin, 356,000 votes in Georgia, and nearly 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania—all swing states.

These numbers were absolutely impossible for Joe Biden to overcome, and the Democrats knew it. And everybody forecasting knew it and understood it well. Our nation’s greatest political professionals were calling to congratulate me on our victory.

Then, suddenly, everything started to disappear; everything started to change. The vote-counting abruptly stopped in multiple states. In the middle of the night, a series of massive and statistically inconceivable vote dumps overturned the results in state after state.

At 6:31 a.m.—very early in the morning—Michigan suddenly reported 147,224 votes—94% for Biden, 6% for Trump.

At 4:42 a.m., Wisconsin reported 143,279 votes, almost all of them for Biden.

A similar massive drop of ballots happened in Georgia at 1:34 a.m. Again, almost all of these votes for Biden.

These gigantic and ridiculously one-sided spikes were miraculously just enough to push Joe Biden into the lead—in all of the key swing states. These glaring anomalies are just the tip of the iceberg. We won 18 of 19 bellwether counties—a record—that have correctly predicted the winner of every Presidential election for the last 40 years.

We also won Ohio, Florida, and Iowa—by historic margins—meaning Biden would be the first candidate since 1960, and only the second candidate in American history, to win the White House while losing all three of those major states. And it wasn’t even close. With Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, the Democrats lost 25 out of 26 toss-up House seats. That’s a record. Democrats were projected to gain 15 seats, and instead, because of my success, and “coat-tails,” as they call them, they lost 14 seats. So, think of that. They were going to win big, and they ended up losing big.

My campaign received more votes than any President in history. Almost 75 million people voted for me. We earned approximately 12 million more votes than we got in 2016—the largest vote increase for an incumbent President ever recorded.

I also received the largest share of non-white voters of any Republican in over 60 years. In fact, we did better with African American and Hispanic voters everywhere in the country, except for a small handful of corrupt Democrat-run cities in key swing states—places notorious for fraud—such as Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia—all run by Democrat machine politicians.

No President has ever lost reelection while making such extraordinary gains across the board. There’s never been anything like it. Yet, despite all of this evidence of a thundering Trump victory, and all of those projections all through the night, they want us to believe that Joe Biden, who seldom left his basement to campaign, somehow received 11.7 million more votes than Barack Obama, and he beat Barack Obama all over the country. It is historically, mathematically, politically, and logically impossible. It did not happen! He did not win! We won, by a landslide.

CC/Douglas W. Jones

CGTN

Four avenues for ballot fraud: Vote switching by Dominion Systems voting machines; hand processing of mail-in ballots without verifying signatures; unsupervised stuffing of illegitimate ballots; and unmanned, unsecured ballot drop boxes.

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

Over the past seven weeks, we have put forth abundant evidence, proving how the Democrats perpetrated this monstrous fraud on the American people, and indeed, the world.

First. We have shown that officials in virtually every key swing state brazenly violated their own state laws in order to change election procedures, eliminate safeguards, promote fraud, and illegally benefit Joe Biden. And legislatures, which have to make the changes, were seldom, if ever, used.

For example, Pennsylvania’s radical Democrat Secretary of State suspended all signature verification requirements, breaking Pennsylvania law—not to mention the big and very illegal ballot drops.

In Michigan, the Secretary of State—a Democrat—illegally flooded the state with absentee ballot applications, even though Michigan law strictly limits the distribution of absentee ballots.

In Wisconsin, the major Democrat cities deployed over 500 unmanned, unsecured, ballot drop boxes that were blatantly illegal, paving the way for unlawful ballot harvesting and tremendous fraud.

In Georgia, the Secretary of State began illegally processing ballots weeks before Election Day. And also destroyed the signature-verification systems, in violation of the law. Many other horrible things were done in Georgia.

These actions, alone, were more than enough to rig the election results for Democrats.

Second. The absentee ballot rejection rates prove that hundreds of thousands of illegitimate ballots were counted in the key states. This was sufficient to change the election results all on its own.

In 2016, 6.4% of mail-in ballots were rejected in Georgia. This year, fewer than a tiny percentage of 1% were rejected. So, you went all the way down—a difference of more than 30 times. The same phenomena occurred in Pennsylvania and other states. They were accepting all of these ballots, many of which were absolutely illegal. In the year in which the number of mail-in ballots was the highest ever, the rejection rate was, magically, the lowest ever. And it wasn’t even close.

The only possible explanation, is that tens of thousands of ballots were unlawfully processed, and counted. Most Americans would be shocked to learn, that in no swing state is there any meaningful attempt to verify citizenship, residency, identity, or eligibility for mail-in ballots. The potential for illegal activity is unlimited. And, that’s what we just experienced.

Third. Hundreds and hundreds of witnesses have come forward to testify, under penalty of perjury, about the cheating and fraud they saw with their own eyes. Witnesses have sworn that they saw poll-workers illegally back-dating thousands of ballots, counting batches of the same ballots many times, and unloading boxes and boxes of ballots, all bearing the same signature—and all for Joe Biden.

Other witnesses have testified to seeing thousands of so-called “pristine ballots,” with no creases of folds—all voting for Biden. When you have no fold, it means it wasn’t mailed; it means it was a fraud. Republican poll-watchers were denied critical access, as hundreds of thousands of votes were counted in Democrat-run cities, in the essential states.

There is even security camera footage from Georgia, that shows officials telling poll-watchers to leave the room, before pulling suitcases of ballots out from under the tables, and continuing to count for hours. The reason they were forced to leave the room, as they said, there was a major water main break. The water main break never happened. There was no water main break. In many cases, Republican poll-watchers were physically removed from rooms.

In addition, there is the deeply troubling matter of Dominion Voting Systems. In just one Michigan county alone, 6,000 votes were switched from Trump to Biden. And the same system was used throughout a majority of the United States. No satisfactory explanation has been offered for why Dominion Systems are able to switch votes with a mere push of a button.

In Arizona, the state senators recently issued a subpoena for a forensic audit of the voting machines. And similar investigations must be conducted in every state using Dominion Systems immediately. In Texas, they don’t allow Dominion Systems to be used.

As I have just laid out, we have unveiled overwhelming evidence of election fraud. None of this should ever have been allowed to happen in the United States of America. It is a travesty of democracy; it’s a shame upon our republic.

In 2016, we caught them by surprise. From that moment, they had four years to work on the scheme to rig the 2020 election. The rigging of the 2020 election was only the final step in the Democrat’s and the media’s years-long effort to overthrow the will of the American people and destroy our movement, by any means possible, any means necessary.

For months and indeed years before the election, the media, the big-tech giants, and the Democrat party were openly colluding to deceive the American public. Earlier this year, it was proven beyond any doubt that Joe Biden’s family received millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party. Yet, the media and tech companies worked together to completely censor this information.

Our country no longer has a free press. It is a press of suppression. It is a press where the truth will never come out. It is the greatest and most shocking scandal, involving a Presidential candidate in modern history. But surveys show that half of those who voted for Joe Biden, have never even heard of the story.

This is not the first and only time that the media and the Biden Campaign flagrantly lied to the American people. They repeatedly insisted that we would not produce a vaccine for the China virus before the middle of next year. And, yet, before the end of this year, we have already authorized two vaccines, with tens of millions of doses of distribution, and hundreds of millions more on their way. This is being talked of as a great medical miracle. In this sense alone, the media and the Democrat party lie to the American people, to try to steal the election.

Also, polls, in order to deter voter turnout, the media had me down in certain polls, by 15, 16, and 17 percent—in states that I won, or came very close to winning. If this egregious fraud is not fully investigated and addressed, the 2020 election will forever be regarded as illegitimate and the most corrupt election in the history of our country.

Americans must be able to have complete faith and confidence in our elections. The fate of our democracy depends upon it. Now is the time for the American people to raise their voices and demand that this injustice be immediately corrected. Our elections must be fair; they must be honest; and they must be transparent. And, they must be 100% free of fraud.

We won this election by a magnificent landslide, and the people of the United States know it. All over, they’re demonstrating; they’re angry; they’re fearful. We cannot allow a completely fraudulent election to stand!

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless America.

The British Empire’s Digital Dictatorship:

Censorship and Mass Social Control

by David Christie

This is the edited transcript of Mr. Christie’s presentation on Panel 1 of the December 12-13 Schiller Institute conference. Subheads have been added.

Schiller Institute

David Christie

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

What I’d like to present here is a report on the ongoing coup d’état against our nation via the ongoing theft of Donald Trump’s reelection and the censorship and social engineering, social media kind of operations that are all part of this ongoing coup d’état.

I think what we should recognize is that this is a color revolution, or at least one form of it, and it has been an ongoing color revolution against our country, but other nations as well, particularly those nations that LaRouche identified that would be critical to break the back of the British Empire, the City of London financial crowd, their branch office in Wall Street, and their tentacles into the banking and cartel structures globally. But those four nations of Russia, China, India, and the United States would be absolutely required to break the back of the British system, and now, of course, their planned Great Reset of a central bankers’ dictatorship via digital currency, the Green genocide program—which is absolutely what it is, it’s just genocide of killing people off through denial of critical energy needs, food production. All that will be covered in the course of this conference.

Color Revolutions: A Form of Warfare

Russia Ministry of Defense

Map from the presentation of Gen. Valery Gerasimov, Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and First Deputy Minister of Defense, Third Moscow Conference on International Security, May 23, 2014.

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

But again, these other nations have been targets of similar color revolution operations that may have their different characters to them. Certainly Hong Kong—we saw what happened there in terms of the street operations, the riots. This is, of course, directed at the leadership of Xi Jinping. The Navalny case against Russia. Then we see the slew of other nations that have worked with these nations around the development of a new system that would move beyond the British system. This is the implementation of the New Silk Road—the Belt and Road Initiative, but as was developed by Lyndon LaRouche and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. That’s a critical means by which we replace the dying, dead and gone British system before they get their Great Reset in.

So, the nations of the Middle East (Southwest Asia), the nations of northern Africa that would be an integral part of the transit routes into Europe and so on; those nations have been targetted all along, with these color revolution operations. Libya, Syria, Egypt, you’ve seen all the different aspects. The other critical nation was Ukraine. That was perhaps one of the most blatant operations. Then, of course, we have the operation in Belarus right now.

These color revolutions I think it is notable, because number one, those nations actually view this as an act of warfare. The 2014 Third Moscow Conference on International Security essentially discussed color revolutions as a form of warfare, not just simply a hodge-podge of media and social media and non-governmental organizations [NGOs] that just somehow magically achieve a regime-change operation, because of the corruption of whatever leadership they’re attempting to overthrow. They actually viewed this as a concerted, coordinated operation that is akin to warfare in terms of regime change.

Censoring Ideas

So, that’s how those nations view it, which we should just keep in mind. President Vladimir Putin spoke about the operations against Trump from this standpoint at a press conference in Moscow in January of 2017, when Trump was being inaugurated and there were violent street demonstrations.

Putin’s references to this are useful; he said,

In my opinion, there are several goals; some are obvious. The first is to undermine the legitimacy of the elected president of the United States. Incidentally, in this connection I would like to note that—whether people who do it want it or not—they greatly damage U.S. interests. It seems that they trained for this in Kiev, and now are ready to organize a “Maidan” in Washington not to let Trump assume office. The second goal is to tie the hands and legs of the newly-elected president related to the implementation of his pre-election campaign’s promises to the American people and the international community.

Joe Biden was the point man. He probably didn’t do a whole lot; others were carrying it out. Putin’s statement on this is relevant. This is what we’re actually dealing with, and again, as I mentioned, these types of color revolution operations are directed against all nations.

A critical component of the color revolutions is the control of information, or really preventing the spread of ideas that are more relevant to this kind of moment. But we’ve seen with the censorship, that’s obviously gone off the rails with the Hunter Biden story, that was, for a lot of Americans, their first eye-opening experience. But now they’re just—any objections to the election theft are just being banned on the internet. This is done through this Section 230; I will read a relevant section of this. Section 230, as Trump is saying, should be repealed; otherwise he will not sign the National Defense Authorization Act, unless there’s a clause to repeal that.

Section 230 is from the 1996 Communication Decency Act, and this gives the so-called sword and shield to these internet platform companies, the big tech, so-called. The shield side is the liability from allowing third party agencies to post and not having to be legally liable for the content. The sword part, there’s sort of an obvious aspect of copyright infringement, sex trafficking, child porn, these different elements that should be cleared off, and they effectively have to do that. But then, what Section 230 and the so-called Good Samaritan clause do is, they go even beyond that to say that “material deemed obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” That is in Section 230; they’re basically saying the First Amendment doesn’t exist as long as it’s all done in so-called good faith.

So, this is one of the key aspects that has given these companies the ability to do what we’re seeing in terms of this mass censorship. But this is all part of the architecture embedded in these things, because they were designed from the very get-go for the large-scale social engineering that we are now seeing, and certainly as part of these color revolution operations.

Social Network Psychological Warfare

I just want to give a brief background on the field of social network analysis and the people who developed this, called the International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA).

I wrote a paper, published in EIR, titled “INSNA: ‘Handmaidens of British Colonialism’.” The expression, “handmaidens of colonialism,” comes from Professor Henrika Kuklick, who identified sociologists and anthropologists operating in colonial Africa as the handmaidens of their colonial masters. That they were sent there to profile and identify how the social networks and tribal structures worked, or emerging countries, or nationalist movements that were developing. That this material by these sociologists and anthropologists was fed back to the British Foreign Office and Colonial Office, and the relevant colonial agencies in other countries in order to suppress and subvert and make sure that the colonial policy could continue—the diamond mines and the gold mines and so forth could keep lining the pockets of the British imperial networks.

Three notables of Sociometry, a nexus of media, polling, public relations, and opinion research: pollster George Gallup of the Gallup Organization; Frank Stanton of CBS; and sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld.

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

The reason that’s relevant is that the handmaidens of colonialism that she referred to, was a particular agency, the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute in Zambia—Northern Rhodesia at the time, I believe. This was in the 1930s or ’40s, I don’t know when it went out of business; maybe it’s still around in some form or another. Actually, I know it’s around the social network analysis grouping. Members of the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, like J.A. Barnes, J.C. Mitchell were founders of the social network analysis grouping that I mentioned.

The other relevant point is that these were the intellectual forefathers of this social network analysis crew that developed the tools to exploit social networks, particularly applied to social media, although they have a much broader perspective on social networking in general than just social media.

The other relevant grouping that developed into social network analysis was the group called Sociometry, headed up by Jacob Moreno. Moreno’s sociograms—at least he’s credited with developing them—were part of these profiling operations. You identify the nodes, the people, the connections between them, what that social network looked like as a mathematical model. Today, they have 3-D models that are very vast and capable of figuring out who’s talking to whom, who are the big idea generators, and so on.

Some newspaper headlines on the 1938 radio broadcast, “War of the Worlds,” a psychological warfare experiment conducted by the Princeton Radio Research Project.

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

Sociometry is relevant to look at because they were kind of a nexus point of media, polling, public relations, opinion research, all these different elements. Other notable members of Sociometry included John Dewey and some of the Tavistock crowd—Kurt Lewin, Margaret Mead, Paul Lazarsfeld. And then on the media side was Frank Stanton of CBS, and there was Gallup of Gallup Polls. Lazarsfeld, Frank Stanton, and Gallup were part of the Princeton Radio Research Project. If people remember the “War of the Worlds,” that was broadcast out of this grouping. They had polling operations; there were ways they set up things so viewers could sit home with a dial and have their likes and dislikes during different shows—soap operas and things like that. So, this is kind of the first push at the kind of integration of media, polling, public relations, etc.

That at least will give you a sense of some of the background of some of this social network analysis grouping—where they came from, what direction they were going in. Now, of course, it should be fairly obvious to everybody that they’re profiling people.

Rhodes-Livingstone Institute.

WikiMedia Commons/Martin Grandjean

Sociograms, used in social network analysis, reduce human social relations to node-and-connection 3-D mathematical matrices.

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

The Mind as a Digital Construct

The other aspect of this is just on the digital construct in general. Just to be aware of this: They viewed the human mind and social relations in terms of the very notion of digital concepts. Of zeroes and ones, of electrical impulses on and off—which is how you create programs. That this was similar to a human existence. We were just passive beings who said yes or no, like or dislike. Seek pleasure, avoid pain—a very animalistic view of human society. But this is how they actually game and create what’s called the Reesian choice, named for John Rawlings Rees of Tavistock. That is, I think, relevant to consider, that when you sit there and do the like or dislike, or send or not send, you’re effectively agreeing to the terms of what the program was that was given to you.

The reason I reference that, is that what is required at this kind of a moment is to say, no, we’re not accepting the terms of these Reesian choices. We’re going to go to the higher poetic conceptions that give the actually competent ideas to deal with the unfolding crisis that we see globally. Certainly, that is the method of Nicholas of Cusa, the Coincidence of Opposites that Helga has been emphatic that we get that kind of dialogue going. That ultimately is the kind of antidote to this sort of large-scale behavior modification, social engineering, that we see from these heirs of Tavistock and these other kinds of agencies.

The critical thing that they developed was the idea of group dynamics—that that was far more effective than the individual brainwashing methods of electroshock therapy, or drugs, or whatever. Group dynamics said, “Don’t you just want to be accepted and be part of the herd?”

So, maybe just to have a sense of that battlefield,— but the higher ideas, the higher poetic conceptions of the Coincidence of Opposites are absolutely required to get people to think outside of what they’ve been programmed with. So, I’ll leave it there, and take up whatever questions people may have in the Q&A period. Thank you.

IV. Archives on World War II

The Truth Behind

The Start of World War II

by Carl Osgood

kremlin.ru

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia.

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

Dec. 24—We revisit here Russian President’s Vladimir Putin’s report on June 19, on the roots of World War II, which was directly addressed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche in a June 24 statement, “Putin’s Discussion of the Second World War Can Prevent World War III!” and add to that a review of 75 pages of documentation published in the relevant volumes of the U.S. State Department’s official Foreign Relations of the United States, as well as additional documentation from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, which demonstrates that the American intelligence community at that time agreed with Putin’s view. Putin’s document is available in English in the article on the origins of World War II, published in the American journal The National Interest. He presented his analysis of the causes of that horrendous disaster for mankind, with his own call for urgent measures today to prevent the current crisis from ending in the same disaster—which, in the age of thermonuclear weapons, could end civilization as we know it.

In doing so, Putin documented, through Soviet and other archives from that era, that it was particularly the failure of British and Polish leaders, abetted by the failures of the allies in general, to confront Adolf Hitler’s ambitions in Eastern Europe, not the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 23, 1939, that set Europe on the path towards war.

Today’s Polish political elites, as well as NATO-aligned political leaders in other countries, erupted in howls of protest, insisting that what Putin argued was not true, that Hitler and Stalin together were responsible for the start of World War II, that only Hitler and Stalin were responsible for making Poland the first victim of the war through the 1939 division of Poland.

American diplomats had understood in 1937-38 that anti-Semitic violence and government legal actions, akin to those of Germany, were a huge problem in Poland, and reported that reality back to Washington. American diplomats also understood that Czechoslovakia was key to Hitler’s plans for occupying Eastern Europe, and that Poland stood in the way of defending Czechoslovakia’s sovereignty, because Warsaw was also eyeing a piece of that country’s territory. These same diplomats also knew that Neville Chamberlain’s British government planned to sell out Czechoslovakia to Hitler months before it happened, demonstrating that there would be no anti-Hitler coalition. All of this documentation has been available for decades, but it is ignored by those revisionists of today, some of whom have even posited that the U.S. and the UK alone defeated Hitler, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the war was fought within the Soviet Union, and 27 million Soviet citizens died in defeating the Nazi scourge.

Putin wrote:

The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler’s machine of destruction. The Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance of creating an anti-Hitler coalition. Despite—I will say it again—the double dealing on the part of the Western countries.

Bundesarchiv

German troops entering Brno, Czechoslovakia, March 1939.

Bundesarchiv

Adolf Hitler salutes German troops entering Poland, September 1939.

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

Never Again

Putin’s concern is that there are signs today that the world could blunder into war yet again:

The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of the Second World War. Even the most insurmountable contradictions—geopolitical, ideological, economic—do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so.

Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence, to the social, economic, and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.

It is a duty of ours—all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victorious powers in the Second World War—to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together.

In this regard, Putin reiterated his call for a five-power summit among Russia, China, the U.S., the UK, and France, which would discuss the issues of preserving peace to include not only security matters and arms control but also to take up the situation in the global economy, particularly with respect to the coronavirus pandemic.

European Parliament Resolution Blames Hitler and Stalin

The direct trigger that led to Putin’s article was a resolution voted up in the European Parliament (EP) on September 19, 2019, which put equal responsibility for the start of World War II on Hitler’s Germany and the Soviet Union, as if it began with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed one week before the Nazi invasion of Poland:

Whereas 80 years ago on 23 August 1939, the communist Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed a Treaty of Non-Aggression, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, dividing Europe and the territories of independent states between the two totalitarian regimes and grouping them into spheres of interest, which paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War.

It immediately followed this saying:

As a direct consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, followed by the Nazi-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty of 28 September 1939, the Polish Republic was invaded first by Hitler and two weeks later by Stalin—which stripped the country of its independence and was an unprecedented tragedy for the Polish people.

Later in the resolution, the European Parliament maintains:

Russia remains the greatest victim of communist totalitarianism and that its development into a democratic state will be impeded as long as the government, the political elite and political propaganda continue to whitewash communist crimes and glorify the Soviet totalitarian regime; [The EP] calls, therefore, on Russian society to come to terms with its tragic past.

[The EP is therefore] deeply concerned about the efforts of the current Russian leadership to distort historical facts and whitewash crimes committed by the Soviet totalitarian regime and considers them a dangerous component of the information war waged against democratic Europe that aims to divide Europe, and therefore calls on the Commission to decisively counteract these efforts.

NARA

Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov signs the German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship in Moscow, September 28, 1939. Among those behind him are co-signer Joachim von Ribbentrop, Germany’s Minister of Foreign Affairs; Soviet Premier, Joseph Stalin; and Alexey Shkvarzev, Soviet Ambassador to Germany.

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

Putin, during a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) heads of state summit on December 20, 2019, told the assembled heads of state that he was “surprised” and “somewhat hurt” by the EP resolution. The EP reference to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, he said, begged the question:

Was this the only document signed by one of the European countries, back then the Soviet Union, with Nazi Germany? It turns out that this is not at all the case.

Putin then proceeded to list a series of agreements European powers signed with Nazi Germany from 1934 on, beginning with the Declaration on the Non-use of Force between Germany and Poland, followed by the Anglo-German maritime agreement of 1935, the joint Anglo-German declaration of Chamberlain and Hitler signed on September 30, 1938, and several others involving France, Lithuania, and Latvia. Putin wrote:

Thus, the Treaty between the Soviet Union and Germany was the last in a line of treaties signed by European countries that seemed to be interested in maintaining peace in Europe.

The roots of World War II were in fact planted by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the treaty that ended World War I. Shown: The Signing of the Treaty of Peace at Versailles, 28 June 1919, by Joseph Finnemore.

Henri Manuel

Edouard Daladier, Prime Minister of France (1933, 1934, 1938-40).

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

Geopolitics Is Fatal

But, as any competent historian will do, Putin stressed that the roots of World War II were in fact planted by the Versailles Treaty of 1919, the treaty that ended World War I.

Later in his remarks, Putin highlighted the role that Poland played in the pre-war geopolitical maneuvering in Eastern Europe, particularly with respect to Czechoslovakia, using documents from the Soviet archives. He referred to a conversation with French President Edouard Daladier, as recorded in one of these documents, in which Daladier said he saw no reason in a Franco-Polish alliance and the sacrifices that France was making as part of it. Putin said:

So, what does this mean? It means the Soviet Union was ready to help Czechoslovakia, which Nazi Germany was going to rob. But the agreement between the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia stated that the Soviet Union would do this only if France fulfilled its obligations to Czechoslovakia. France linked its aid to Czechoslovakia to support from Poland. But Poland refused to provide it.

The next document that Putin referred to, reported that as Germany was laying claim to parts of Czechoslovakia,

[Poland] also laid claim to their part of the “prey” during the partitioning of Czechoslovak territory and demanded that a certain part of Czechoslovakia be transferred to them. Moreover, they were ready to use force. They formed a special military group called “Silesia,” which included three infantry divisions, a cavalry brigade, and other units.

Polish Political Elites Freak Out

Not surprisingly, the response from the Polish government to Putin’s remarks to the CIS Summit—and his follow-up remarks to the Russian Defense Ministry Board a few days later—was one of complete hysteria. In a statement issued on December 21, the Polish Foreign Ministry wrote:

We are concerned and disbelieving to note the statements made by representatives of the Russian Federation authorities, including President Vladimir Putin, about the causes and course of the Second World War. They allude to the propaganda messages of the Stalin’s totalitarian era, already condemned even by a Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

The statement went on to detail what it said were crimes committed against Poland by the Soviet Union both before and after the German invasion, including, among others, an August 1937 order by the People’s Commissar for Internal Affairs by which “111,000 Poles, Soviet citizens, were murdered and several dozen thousand were deported or arrested (as part of the so-called Polish Operation of the NKVD),” and the massacres of 22,000 Poles in the Katyn Forest and other locations.

The day after Putin’s speech to the Defense Ministry Board, the Polish Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian Ambassador in Warsaw, Sergey Andreyev, to lodge a complaint. Polish Radio, citing PAP (the Polish Press Agency), reported that Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Marcin Przydacz said that the Polish authorities “voiced strong opposition” after top Russian officials, “including, in particular, President Vladimir Putin, and the chairman of the State Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin,” made a series of “historical insinuations” in recent days.

Przydacz was quoted as saying that some recent claims by top Russian officials were “based on the propaganda of a totalitarian state” and showed “that the Stalinist narrative is consciously and aggressively trying to enter Russian historical imagination.” Przydacz also said that attempts to falsify history “are the best proof that international efforts are still very much needed to clearly condemn not only Nazi but also Soviet totalitarianism,” the PAP news agency reported.

Left: Government of Poland; right: CC/Olaf Kosinsky

Left: Marcin Przydacz, Deputy Foreign Minister of Poland; right: Mateusz Morawiecki, Prime Minister of Poland.

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

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki issued his own statement on December 29, accusing Putin of lying repeatedly about Poland and that one motivation for him to do so is to distract attention from Russia’s own failures under his leadership. In the course of his statement, Morawiecki gave his own timeline of events, mainly incidents of collaboration between Hitler and Stalin that he said proved that Poland was the victim of joint criminal action by two totalitarian states. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, he said, was not a non-aggression pact, but rather “a political and military alliance, dividing Europe into two spheres of influence—along the line formed by three Polish rivers: the Narew, Vistula, and San,” an alliance that was deepened by further such agreements and crimes against Poland arranged between two “friends,” Hitler and Stalin:

Without Stalin’s complicity in the partition of Poland, and without the natural resources that Stalin supplied to Hitler, the Nazi German crime machine would not have taken control of Europe. Stalin was engaged in criminal activities in the east, subduing one country after another, and developing a network of camps that the Russian Alexander Solzhenitsyn called “the Gulag Archipelago.”

The crimes of Stalin, Morawiecki continued, began well before the war, including the Ukrainian famine in the early 1930s and the purges of the later 1930s. Historians, Morawiecki said, estimate that 20-30 million people in the U.S.S.R. died as a result of Stalin’s crimes:

Communist leaders, Joseph Stalin in the first place, are responsible for all these crimes. Eighty years after World War II started, attempts are made to rehabilitate Stalin for political goals of today’s President of Russia. These attempts must be met with strong opposition from every person who has at least basic knowledge about the history of the 20th century.

The British Madam Protests Too Much

The Poles were joined in similar freakouts from the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) and Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). The BBC, in an analysis that was picked up in the Polish press, claimed that the reason why Putin was angered by accusations “against a country that does not exist anymore” was because—

The U.S.S.R.’s victory in World War Two is one of the most venerated pillars of state ideology, and more than 70 years on it is still celebrated with much fanfare and bombast every year. It is also a key way for President Putin to legitimize himself and his expansionist foreign policy as a successor to the Soviet empire. So, the Kremlin sees any criticism of what is known in Russia as the Great Victory as an attack on itself.

The Polish news site PolandIn, following the same British logic, argued:

[Putin’s deflection of criticism on to Poland] is an attempt to push back on the accusation of carving up Poland in 1939 and a repetition of Soviet propaganda that the action was merely for the protection of civilian population and a tactical move to slow Hitler down in his conquest of Europe, so that the U.S.S.R. could prepare for the inevitable war with Germany.

UK Ministry of Information

UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain announced “peace with honor” on his return to Britain, after he and French Prime Minister Daladier signed the Munich Agreement sacrificing Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler on September 30, 1938.

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

FAZ, for its part, tried to excuse the Munich sellout of Czechoslovakia—which wasn’t even mentioned in the EP resolution:

Even though it’s true that the Polish army annexed the [Czechoslovakian] Zaolzie province after the Munich conference ..., the attempt to make Poland the culprit—bearing in mind the scale of crimes committed by Hitler and Stalin—is inadequate and indecent.

FAZ complained that Putin focused only on the Munich agreement rather than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Bundesarkiv

Jewish Ghetto Police guarding a zone divider fence in the Warsaw Ghetto, June 1942.

Lothar Schaack

Józef Beck, Polish Foreign Minister (right), with Nazi leader Hermann Göring in July 1935.

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

Anti-Semitism in Poland in 1938

While the opening of the Soviet archives is of immense importance, the documentary evidence available from U.S. archival sources supports what Putin has reported. The official reports to Washington from the U.S. Ambassador in Warsaw, Anthony Joseph Drexel Biddle, Jr. (of the Philadelphia Biddles—Nicholas Biddle was one of his ancestors) indicate that anti-Semitic activity was a serious problem in Poland. Biddle reported on September 25, 1937 the following:

Wave of anti-Semitic activities of young students and workingmen commenced 3 weeks ago and culminating last Sunday in numerous street beatings and window breaking, occasioning grave anxiety in Jewish circles.

In a more extensive report dated October 7 (but not received in Washington until October 19), Biddle reported:

The establishment by official action of the so-called ghetto in institutions of higher education with the result that Christian and Jewish students are now required to occupy distinctly separate sections in class and lecture rooms. [The decision to create the “ghetto”] was sanctioned, if not actually directed by the Polish Government, and it is quite unthinkable that this action would be reversed, particularly in view of the fact that it has met with almost universal approval in the racially Polish press.

DoS/U.S. Embassy, Oslo, Norway

Anthony J. Drexel Biddle, Jr., U.S. Ambassador to Poland (1937-1943).

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

Biddle reported that leading Jewish circles in Poland were convinced that establishment of the “ghetto” in schools would lead to it being adopted in transportation, theaters, and other areas of activity.

In a later dispatch dated October 20 (and received in Washington on November 2), Biddle reported that Polish authorities were becoming quite sensitive to foreign reactions to the treatment of Jews in Poland:

In several conversations Colonel Beck [Józef Beck, the Foreign Minister] has given me the very definite impression that he was well aware of the force and significance of the reaction abroad to anti-Jewish activities in Poland, and I have readily observed that he is not personally inclined towards anti-Semitism but, in fact, displays, either as a matter of principle or good politics, a spirit of tolerance and helpfulness in his contacts with Jews.

The “solution” that the Polish authorities were looking to was emigration of the Jews, perhaps to areas of Africa and/or Palestine that were controlled by the British Empire.

Biddle also corresponded extensively with President Franklin D. Roosevelt more broadly about Poland and Europe (as did Biddle’s predecessor, John Cudahy, who Biddle replaced on May 4, 1937). In Biddle’s view, Beck’s foreign policy was derived from the views of his late master, Marshal Józef Pilsudski, who had died in 1935. Biddle described Beck as increasingly “the master” of Polish foreign policy since the Polish-Lithuanian crisis who was pursuing a cautious course in foreign affairs. In a report to FDR on April 10, 1938, Biddle wrote:

Colonel Beck is engaged in an effort to make friends with Germany at every possible turn, in a play for time wherein he hopes to strengthen Poland’s defensive position against what Pilsudski anticipated, and now he, Colonel Beck anticipates, an inevitable eventual conflict with Germany.

With the corridor and Danzig questions[fn_1] looming as potential difficulties, Colonel Beck, to my mind, might not be expected to do anything effectively towards establishing his long envisaged neutral zone from the Baltic to the Black Sea,[fn_2] and even perhaps the Aegean, until Britain will have become fully rearmed and France will have set her political house in order, and brought her air force to effective standard, making an Anglo-French front capable and willing to take an effective and active stand in checking Germany’s aspirations for the control of Europe.

Biddle did not expect Beck to take an anti-German position openly, however, writing:

I do not believe Colonel Beck would risk provoking German suspicion and ire by exposing his hand in a long-range scheme, entailing blocking or cutting across Germany’s drive to penetrate the Danubian valley. Colonel Beck may therefore be expected to play for time, and to conduct his foreign policy cautiously and quietly.

Beck, nonetheless, went out of his way to be friendly with Adolph Hitler, as the documents cited by Putin show.

American Diplomats Saw the Munich Sellout Coming

A review of 75 pages of documents published in the 1938 volume of the Foreign Relations of the United States, the U.S. State Department’s official history, titled “Analyses and Reports of the General Political Developments in Europe Affecting the Maintenance of International Order and Preservation of Peace,” shows that American diplomats knew in general Hitler’s intentions towards Czechoslovakia (though how that would be resolved was yet to unfold); that Poland had designs of its own on a portion of that country; about Britain’s policy of appeasement of Germany; and that the Soviet Union was really the only country that might potentially defend Czech sovereignty.

NARA/C.M. Bell

George S. Messersmith, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State (1937-1940).

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

Central to this appears to be the Assistant Secretary of State, a diplomat, George S. Messersmith. In a lengthy memorandum dated February 18, 1938, addressed to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Messersmith pans the notion, apparently current in Europe at the time, that Hitler might actually intend to abide by agreements that he had signed:

I have myself never been able to understand why these illusions should persist when Hitler himself in his book and in the statements which he has made privately and semi-publicly has never left any doubt as to his political practice according to which agreements are valid only as long as he believes they should be kept.

It would seem that recent events should, therefore, convince a certain group in England, which has been fostering such agreements, how utterly futile and fatal is any idea that they may have that they can make lasting and binding agreements with Germany under present conditions. And yet there would seem to be indications that English policy is more than ever orientated in the direction of such agreements.

Messersmith was referring to agreements regarding both Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Public domain

William C. Bullitt, U.S. Ambassador to France (1936-1940).

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

On February 21, 1938, William Bullitt, the U.S. Ambassador in Paris, reported to Hull that the French Foreign Minister, Yvon Delbos, told him:

The British government] had made it clear that Britain would do nothing to prevent the absorption of Austria by Germany. France could not alone attempt to protect Austria. It was clear therefore that Austria within a very limited time would fall into the hands of Germany. It would then be the turn of Czechoslovakia.

Hitler’s Germany would take over Austria in the Anschluss of March 12, 1938.

Bullitt’s report continued:

Delbos showed me a note which he had just received from [UK Prime Minister Neville] Chamberlain in which it was asserted that there would be no change in British policy. He commented that this note was of course valueless. The fact was that England had embarked on a policy of turning over central and eastern Europe to Germany in spite of her obligations under the League of Nations.

On March 2, the American Minister in Prague, Wilbur J. Carr, reported:

[Edvard Beneš, the President of Czechoslovakia,] believes Germany will want to negotiate and he is ready to negotiate within the framework of complete loyalty to England and France who would be informed of every step and the reservation that the negotiations shall not involve intervention in Czechoslovak internal affairs.

Given what Delbos had told Bullitt a little over a week earlier, this seems to have been a forlorn hope.

Hitler Will Not Stop

The following day, Sumner Welles, the Under Secretary of State, reported that the British ambassador in Washington told him that Chamberlain had instructed the British Ambassador in Berlin, Sir Neville Henderson, to seek an audience with Hitler to ascertain two things, the first of which was on Germany’s colonial ambitions and the second: “the precise extent and nature of Germany’s attitude with regard to a permanent Central European appeasement.”

Anthony Biddle, Jr., the U.S. Ambassador to Poland, reported on March 12 that his sources in London and Paris reported that what Henderson reported back to Chamberlain was that what Hitler wanted in Central Europe was “a free hand for Germany in Austria and Sudeten Deutsch [a reference to a German-speaking portion of Czechoslovakia].”

Russia Ministry of Defense

Ivan Maisky, Ambassador of the Soviet Union to the UK (1932-1943).

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

There are many more documents along this vein but two appear to be particularly prescient. On August 17, the American Chargé d’Affaires in London, Herschel Johnson, reported on a conversation he had the night before with Ivan Maisky, the Russian ambassador to the UK, on what he took to be the official Soviet foreign office view of Germany’s objectives in eastern Europe:

The picture he drew is also of interest as part of the background which, provided this account is a sound one, must presumably have great influence on the mind of Hitler in any decision he will have to make regarding the solution of the Czechoslovak question. For, according to this theory, if Hitler loyally accepts a peaceful settlement between the Czechs and the Sudeten Deutsch for a regime which will fully maintain the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia as it now exists, he will have accepted the most serious single impediment to Nazi plans for German expansion in southeastern Europe.

According to Monsieur Maisky the dispute with Czechoslovakia is being used as simply the opening wedge in Germany’s struggle for continental domination. If Hitler succeeds ... in mutilating Czechoslovakia and reducing what is left to a position of political and economic vassalage he will have opened the door to the creation of a solid bloc of states extending to the Black Sea.... He will thereby have gained access to Rumanian oil and the wheat fields of Hungary which will make Germany largely self-sustaining. Furthermore, with Czechoslovakia out of the way the Danubian and Balkan countries will be unable to resist the pressure which Germany will bring to bear upon them.... Maisky said ..., that Hitler envisages the inclusion of Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania, and Bulgaria in a strict customs union with Germany, to be further implemented by military conventions designed to give the German General Staff complete control of their armies.

Maisky believed that Germany would not stop at that, but the question was, would Hitler go east or west. To go east could only be directed at Russia, which Maisky thought was unlikely, at least not for the next 5-10 years by which time he believed that Russia would be ready. Instead, he thought Germany would next turn “to Belgium and Holland, with their rich tropical colonial possessions.” Johnson continued:

Maisky’s idea that Czechoslovakia is the key to the whole situation in Central Europe is of course shared by nearly all commentators. The idea that Maisky was working on however, was that as far as Germany’s future plans are concerned it is not so much a question of whether she attempts to settle the Czechoslovak issue at once by force or whether she accomplishes the same purpose by other means. It is in the accomplishment of the purpose that the danger to the future lies. He was emphatic in expressing his conviction that Hitler should not be allowed to destroy Czechoslovakia and that the time to prevent that destruction was now. At the same time, he said efforts should be made by the western powers within the limit of possibility to lessen the growing burden of dependence on Germany that is now falling on the Danubian countries, none of whom want to be sucked into the German maelstrom.

Listen to the Russians

In a memo a few days later, on August 20, following the receipt of Johnson’s cable, Messersmith wrote to Hull that the Russian view of German intentions should not simply be dismissed:

There might be a tendency to minimize the views expressed in this telegram coming as they do from a Soviet Ambassador. I would like to say that in my opinion I believe that the Soviet Ambassador has given a fairly correct view of what the real German objectives are. I base this opinion on my long experience and considerable personal contact with leaders in the present German Government. The objectives which the Soviet Ambassador has attributed to the present German Government accord with those which I have heard high ranking officers of the German Government express to me directly or by implication from time to time.

Indeed, Messersmith had been U.S. Consul in Berlin from 1930-1934, where he gained notoriety as the diplomat who approved the visa for Albert Einstein to come to the United States.

In 1934, he became Minister to Austria, where he stayed until returning to the State Department in 1937. So he was certainly in a position to know the thinking of the then-present German government:

The emphasis which I believe the Soviet Ambassador places upon the importance of the German objectives in Czechoslovakia is not too great. The first part of the comprehensive German program involves domination of Austria and Czechoslovakia so as to open the way to Rumanian oil, without which Germany cannot make war, as well as free access to the raw materials and agricultural products of Southeastern Europe. The first step in the German program is domination of Southeastern Europe as this is necessary if any further progress is to be made. This is the reason why I consider, and have considered for the last four years, that the German objectives in Czechoslovakia are definite and unalterable. If Germany should accept any solution of the Czechoslovak problem which does not give her domination and control of that country her whole program for expansion in any direction is stopped.

At the end of his report, Messersmith wrote:

I am convinced that Czechoslovakia has for Germany a primary importance and that, if she fails in her objectives there, it means a stoppage of her whole program. As the present regime cannot change any of its objectives without its whole program falling down and as the Czechoslovak objective is among all these the most vital, I see no letup on the pressure on Czechoslovakia and the danger of war over this question constantly present and not to be minimized.

NARA

The Nuremberg Trials—an example of international criminal justice—proved that justice can be achieved based on broad interstate cooperation, consent, and mutual respect. Shown, Nazi leaders in the dock, guarded by American Military Police, at the first Nuremberg trial, November 1945.

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

The Lessons of Nuremberg

November 20, 2020 was the 75th anniversary of the opening of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal which put 20 top Nazis and German military leaders in the dock. On that occasion, a conference convened in Moscow on the lessons to be drawn from the war crimes trials that followed the war, which was addressed by both President Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Putin, Lavrov, and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova all stressed the importance of the Nuremberg Tribunal in preserving the historical record of what actually happened during the war in Europe, as opposed to what Zakharova described as the recent trend of the falsification of history as well as the precedents that the trial set for international law.

Putin told the participants:

I am certain that the forum’s theme matters to you not only from a professional standpoint, but also in terms of the sense of personal responsibility for preserving the historical truth about World War II. You understand the significance of the Nuremberg verdicts, and the norms and principles these trials helped devise for responding to today’s challenges and threats....

The Nuremberg decisions are still relevant today. A month ago, based on those decisions, the Soletsk [district] court in Russia recognized the brutal execution of thousands of peaceful, innocent people near the village of Zhestyanaya Gorka in Novgorod Region as genocide. That was the first such precedent in Russian legal practice.[fn_3]

We constantly refer to the lessons of the Nuremberg Trials; we understand their importance for defending the truths of historical memory, for making a well-founded and solid case against deliberate distortions and falsifications of World War II events, especially the shameless and deceitful attempts to rehabilitate and even glorify Nazi criminals and their accessories.

I will say even more. It is the duty of the entire international community to safeguard the Nuremberg Trials’ decisions, because they concern the principles that underlie the values of the post-war world order and the norms of international law....

Lavrov, in his remarks, stressed the importance of the Nuremberg verdicts for international law:

The Nuremberg Principles formed the basis for the norms covering the most heinous international crimes. The preparation, planning, unleashing, and waging of a war of aggression were qualified as such. The spirit and letter of the legal process became the embodiment of hopes for justice, respect for the value of human life and dignity. On October 24, 1946—exactly one year after the UN Charter entered into force—the first UN Secretary-General, Trygve Lie, spoke in favor of the Nuremberg rulings becoming a permanent part of international law. In December 1946, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a special resolution which confirmed the international legal principles recognized by the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter.

The Nuremberg Trials—an example of international criminal justice—proved that justice can be achieved with a professional approach based on broad interstate cooperation, consent, and mutual respect. Clearly, the Nuremberg Tribunal’s legacy is not limited to law, but has enormous political, moral, and educational value. A strong vaccination against the revival of Nazism in all its forms and manifestations was made 75 years ago. Unfortunately, the immunity to the brown plague that was developed in Nuremberg has seriously worn off in some European countries. Russia will continue to vigorously and consistently oppose any attempts to falsify history, to glorify Nazi criminals and their henchmen, and to oppose the revision of the internationally recognized outcomes of World War II, including the Nuremberg rulings.

[fn_1] The Polish corridor was a strip of territory granted to Poland by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 to give Poland direct access to the Baltic Sea. The same treaty made the German-speaking Danzig a free city under the protection of the League of Nations. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2] The “neutral zone from the Baltic to the Black Sea” that Biddle refers to is the Intermarium project described in the May 16, 2014 issue of EIR (p. 23) as “a projected confederation of nations located between the Baltic, Black, Aegean, and Adriatic seas.” A footnote to it reports that “Churchill worked on Intermarium with Austrian Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi and the latter’s Pan-European Union, which Parvus had aided through his money connections in 1923, the year before his death.” Anglo-Dutch agent Alexander Helphand Parvus was the originator of the “permanent warfare/permanent revolution” doctrine adopted by Leon Trotsky and later resurrected by the American neo-conservatives who populated the George W. Bush Administration of 2001-2009. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3] Russian authorities uncovered a mass grave of at least 2,600 victims of a Nazi massacre in the village of Zhestyanaya Gorka, 380 miles northwest of Moscow. The victims, believed to number 3,700, were killed between 1941 and 1943. [back to text for fn_3]