This article appears in the May 21, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
[Print version of this article]
PANEL 2
The Method of the Coincidence of Opposites:
Only a United Worldwide Health Effort, Without Sanctions, Can Reverse a Worldwide Pandemic
Moderator’s Opening Remarks
Dennis Speed moderated the second panel of the May 8 conference. He augmented his remarks with two videos excerpts. The first was from the co-founder of the Schiller Institute, the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche, being an excerpt from the 1999 documentary, “Storm Over Asia.” The second was from retired Rear Adm. (ret.) Marc Pelaez, who served as Chief of Naval Research in 1993-96, and as Executive Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) from 1990-93.
Dennis Speed (Moderator): It’s our estimate that the world will never go back to the way it was before. There will be no return to normal. That is an impossibility. Rather, the world must go forward to something new and better. In this panel, we propose to speak about a method of thinking and action that will allow the world to do that.
Now, if you were with us for our first panel, which was titled, “The March of Folly: Can Mankind Still Extinguish the Now-Lit Fuse of Thermonuclear War?” you know something about the danger that we face. But in order however, to ensure that those of you that may be viewing right now for the first time, today, also have a sense of this, we’re going to play two observations concerning the question of the danger of war, and how wars come on, and then what kind of decisions are made. Adm. Pelaez, whom you will hear after Mr. LaRouche, spoke to us about the character of the decision to go to thermonuclear war.
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr (video): If Russia is pushed to the wall, where it decides to disintegrate willfully, or fight back, the likely thing is, it will fight back. It will use the weapons it has. It does not have the weapons to win a war, but it has the weapons sufficient to impose a powerful, deadly deterrent on the nations behind the mercenary forces which are presently attacking it. There lies the danger.
Unfortunately, most people in the United States are living under the delusion, that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the combined military power of the United States and its British Commonwealth allies—including Australia, New Zealand and so forth, countries that are really under the British Queen personally, as the United Kingdom is—believe that these forces, Anglo-American forces, are so powerful, that they can ignore the United Nations Security Council, and conduct wars on their own, with impunity.
Most Americans tend to believe that; and believe they don’t have to worry about foreign wars. They don’t have to worry about terrible things happening in Africa or South America, or Eurasia generally. “It won’t come here,” just as many Americans said before Pearl Harbor about the war then ongoing in Europe.
In reality, it can come here. I’m not predicting that it will; I’m saying the likelihood—the danger—exists. And as long as the present policies of our government continue, especially the policies of the right-wing Stone Age faction inside the Congress, the right-wing policies of Vice President Al Gore, and of Madeleine Albright, a Brzezinski associate. As long as these policies on the United States’ part continue, the danger of war is growing.
It’s not immediate, not tomorrow, and not the day after tomorrow. But wars come on like that: you get to a point of no return, there’s still no war. Then, somewhere down the line, maybe a couple of years later, the war actually breaks out. And war is breaking out all over the world war now.
Rear Adm. Marc Pelaez (video): The military, the leadership in the military, always wants to be prepared for whatever is necessary, to defend our country and our interests. But we’re not—we’re not people that want war. War is a last resort. And when you asked me about nuclear submarines, for instance, I commanded an attack submarine. I was executive officer on a ballistic missile submarine during the Cold War. And it was the philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction, and surety of it that kept us safe, in some respects. But it was the worst nightmare if you ever had to do it. Would I have launched if I had to? Yes. Because without credibility there is no deterrence, right? On the other hand, you know one nuclear submarine—that nuclear submarine with all its capability, at the time could take out every major city east of the Mississippi, in the U.S.: one submarine.
You also knew that if you ever did take those actions, there was nothing to come home to. So, you had to be ready. You had to be credible. You never wanted to have to exercise it.
Moderator: We cannot, as a human species, out of a lack of morality, allow this to occur. We must advise a new method to reverse this potential end of civilization. We refer to this method, which is not entirely new, as the method of the “coincidence of opposites.” To discuss this, and begin this second panel, it’s my honor to introduce to you, the founder and chairman of the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
