MAKE ALL NATIONS GREAT AGAIN

Taking the Fight to the Enemy

by Susan Kokinda

[Print version of this editorial]

Nov. 24—George Washington did not fight the Revolutionary War to win battles. He fought to win a war for independence. A proper analysis of the midterm elections does not measure seats won or lost. It measures whether the President and the American people are better equipped to win today’s war, the war to free the world from the modern-day British Empire.

Most Trump partisans approached the midterm elections from a defensive standpoint: to defend the President’s party in the Senate and the House. President Trump approached it from a different standpoint: to create the conditions in which he could more effectively govern, as evidenced by his overture to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, to work on issues of bipartisan concern, such as trade and infrastructure, and by his immediate post-election focus on international relations.

LaRouche PAC’s approach was from a higher standpoint: to reshape the midterm election fight around the real fault line in the world, the line between the globalist policies of the British imperial system and the policies embedded in respect for national sovereignty and a commitment to economic development. Now that fight takes the form of Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s revival of her husband’s call for a New Bretton Woods monetary system. It is crucial that the American people, especially Trump’s highly mobilized base, come to discover that such a policy is the only policy for victory.

Battle Lines: National Sovereignty vs. Empire

LaRouche PAC’s “Campaign to Secure the Future,” issued August 16, called on American citizens and political candidates to defend President Trump from the British-spawned “Russia-gate” assault, to support his efforts to work with Russia and China, and to support him to embrace Lyndon LaRouche’s economic principles. It sought to create a level of dialogue throughout the country, in which the candidates and the President could fight the real fight. That statement circulated broadly at many of the extraordinary Trump rallies, at other political events, and on social media.

Few candidates took up that challenge. Instead, most ran traditional partisan campaigns.[fn_1]

But President Trump increasingly brought two elements of LaRouche PAC’s “Campaign to Secure the Future” to the fore. In scores of rallies in which he personally spoke to hundreds of thousands of people, he addressed the importance of dialogue with Russia and China and the good working relationships that he has established with President Xi Jinping and President Putin. (Perhaps someone could highlight those passages and share them with Vice President Pence.)

President Trump is an organizer, and clearly used those rallies to organize and educate his supporters. LaRouche PAC organizers found a great deal of support for working with Russia and President Putin among the crowds attending the Trump rallies. At a July rally in Ohio, a couple of self-described “good-old-boys” found themselves the focus of international media attention when they made and wore t-shirts that proclaimed, “I’d rather be Russian than Democrat.”

While the President’s enemies have been on the warpath against Russia and Trump’s desire to work with Putin since Trump’s election, a new focus of media hysteria emerged during the last months prior to the midterms. On September 25, President Trump addressed the UN General Assembly, and delivered one of the most profound defenses of national sovereignty that an American president has given since the close of World War II:

Each of us here today is the emissary of a distinct culture, a rich history, and a people bound together by ties of memory, tradition, and the values that make our homelands like nowhere else on Earth.

That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination. [emphasis added]

I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship.

We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return. . . . Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.

Following that speech, President Trump took this theme of national sovereignty to his political base. As he did in his UN speech, he made clear that nationalism is the opposite of global control and domination. But to the British Empire and its news whores, nationalism means “national socialism” or “white nationalism” or “anti-Semitism.” The President was once again the subject of attacks as a fascist or racist.

This was put on the international stage at the Paris World War I Armistice commemoration on November 11, when French President Emmanuel Macron placed the blame for that war on “nationalism,” and directly attacked President Trump on that score. Not only did Macron force the cancellation of the previously arranged Trump-Putin meeting at the event, but he also called for the creation of a European army to counter the threat from the United States, Russia and China. The British had trained Mr. Macron well to defend the Empire. (Several days later, Macron’s finance minister asserted that Europe must indeed become an “Empire.”)

Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche pointed to the “lost opportunity” of that event, which should instead have reminded the world that it was the British Empire, by its pitting sovereign nations against each other on the geopolitical chessboard, which was the cause of that and subsequent 20th century wars.

New York Times Defends Empire

At home, the fake news establishment, led by the failing New York Times, launched its own attack on nationalism with a several-thousand-word defense of George Soros, the poster-boy for globalization. In an October 31 front-page article, “How Vilification of Soros Moved from the Fringes to the Mainstream,” the Times rehashed the argument that anyone who attacks Soros is a fascist and an anti-Semite. (Never mind the fact that Soros, as a teenager in occupied Hungary, worked with the Nazis. In the “black-is-white” world of fake news, that fact is now treated as a slander, despite Soros’ own unapologetic public admission during a 1998 CBS “60 Minutes” interview.)

The most telling part of the article was its identification of Lyndon LaRouche as the originator of the attacks on Soros dating back to the 1980s. The logical construct of anti-globalism-equals-Nazism wouldn’t have been complete without a description of LaRouche as a “fascist” presidential candidate. But in attacking LaRouche, the Times broke its own policy of blacking him out, and implicitly acknowledged LaRouche’s leadership in the fight to protect sovereign nation-states.

But, lurking behind the Times’ acknowledgment of LaRouche’s role in the Soros matter, is the understanding that LaRouche’s call for a New Bretton Woods monetary system, if adopted by the major powers, would establish the principle of national economic sovereignty for the United States and for other nations, and would eliminate the financial power of empire.

The Economics of National Sovereignty

President Trump’s defense of national sovereignty must now expand to this economic component. Without a competent policy to defend a nation’s ability to progress economically, the concept of sovereignty is hollow. The elements of LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods proposal—fixed currency exchange rates, credit and trade mechanisms to foster infrastructure and capital goods formation, cooperation in advances in science and technology, and increases in potential relative population density—are the living principles of true sovereignty.

It was the failure of the Republican campaigns to take up paradigm-changing policies, which led to the erosion of votes in the midterm elections, especially in the Midwest. In Michigan, Democrats swept the state-wide races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General. The Republicans failed to hold on to the two Congressional seats targeted by the Democrats. Even the inspired Senatorial campaign of John James—a Black military veteran who courageously attacked both political parties despite being the Republican nominee—still failed because Jones could not convince enough blue collar, independent, and Black voters that he had a substantive job-creating policy.

In a November 8 analysis, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson addressed this Republican failure:

Republicans also seem to think their economic message is working. They’re very proud of the tax bill they passed in this congress. . . . There’s nothing wrong with tax cuts, but Republican strategists seem to forget that a huge percentage of Americans don’t even pay federal taxes. By definition they don’t care very much about the cuts. For them and for many others, the economy isn’t measured in stock prices and GDP numbers. Their concerns are more tangible: What does gas cost? Can I afford to live in a safe neighborhood? Will I go bankrupt if I get sick? The party that effectively addresses these questions generally wins. Republicans tend to ignore these questions. That’s a big reason they just lost.

The only way those concerns can be addressed is through the creation of well-paying, productive jobs in manufacturing, agriculture, and infrastructure, driven by international cooperation for advances in science and technology. And such jobs can only be created if sovereign nations are freed from the globalist financial system run by the parasites of the City of London and Wall Street.

As this article appears, President Trump will be attending the G-20 Summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He will be meeting privately with Chinese President Xi Jinping, and separately with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Other anti-globalist leaders—such as Indian Prime Minister Modi, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, South Korean President Moon Jae-in, and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte—will also be in attendance. Among those nations, and the many others actively participating in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the potential exists for positive action on a New Bretton Woods.

The combination of Trump’s United States, Xi’s China, Putin’s Russia and Modi’s India is more than sufficient to pull the plug on the British-run global financial system and to pull together the forces to replace it. The political base which President Trump mobilized to defend national sovereignty, must now shift the field of battle and go on the offensive. It must be educated in Lyndon LaRouche’s scientific principles which define national economic sovereignty, and it must rally behind the LaRouche movement’s fight for a New Bretton Woods.

It is time to take the fight to the enemy.

---