Article Search

As Presidents Biden and Putin spoke for nearly an hour by phone Thursday, with war-hawks throughout the NATO countries’ governments and think-tanks demanding complete NATO encirclement of Russia, the problem these two leaders should be talking about was expressed in a news headline: “With famine looming over Afghanistan, millions struggle for every meal.” (NBC News, Dec. 30). What does it profit the United States if it gain the encirclement of Russia and China with bases and missiles, and completely lose its soul by letting hundreds of millions die of starvation and pandemic? The sanest experts are warning: Even as you reach for that encirclement and impossible military superiority, you are likely triggering a war which will go nuclear and destroy civilization!Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche has repeated again on Dec. 29 in addressing a commemorative event: President Biden should accept the draft treaty proposed by President Putin and agree that Ukraine, on Russia’s border and part of it for centuries, will not join NATO. Long-time CIA analyst and founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Ray McGovern, agreed. And on “The Critical Hour” radio broadcast Dec. 27, McGovern brought out that no media or officials are mentioning that 10,000 of the Russian troops who had moved closer to Ukraine in November have now been withdrawn back away from it, and called this a critical part of a negotiation that should be leading to a resolution of the standoff in January. Danish Russia expert Jens Joergen Nielsen, in an interview with EIR today, said he would tell Biden, “It is wise for you to engage with Putin, because the alternative is war.” And retired German Bundeswehr Inspector General Harald Kujat, on radio today, said the security of the NATO nations will be improved if Ukraine is not admitted. But this is not merely a discussion of “strategy,” but of the common aims of humanity, for which the United States was a powerful and leading force. In 1988 Lyndon LaRouche, after five years of “strategic” crisis in which he had forecast the dissolution of the Soviet Union while others forecast it would invade Western Europe, went to Berlin and publicly proposed a “Food for Peace” solution, in which the Western nations would develop the agriculture of Poland so that it could feed itself, and the Soviet Union would accept the unification of Germany. No one else thought these possible, but they occurred then; and promises were made to Mikhail Gorbachev that unified Germany would be the last NATO state; promises then broken by NATO to lead to today’s U.S.-Russia standoff. LaRouche widened his proposals in a “Food for Peace” conference in Chicago in December 1988—“Who will give us this day our daily bread?,” he asked on behalf of hundreds of millions, just weeks before he was imprisoned. Now, a modern healthcare system must be built in Afghanistan; its financial reserves released from U.S. sanctions; and food aid and food production made possible. President Putin proposed this as well, during the current negotiations with the Biden Administration, on Dec. 23. This is a matter for American, Russian, and Chinese collaboration for the common welfare of mankind, or millions will starve in the post-war destruction of that country. Therefore, accept the non-alignment of Ukraine. Take the path out of this potentially thermonuclear standoff into collaboration against pandemic and famine; on to the exploration and colonization of space; on to the development of nuclear power and fusion energy technologies. Those should be the missions of great powers, not to encircle and intimidate each other until the irreversible, unsurvivable war breaks out.

The pace of intensifying U.S.-Russia tension over Ukraine increased over this past weekend, so that what seemed within hope of stabilization two weeks ago when Presidents Biden and Putin video-conferenced, now looks more and more like a countdown toward war in Europe involving the nuclear superpowers.A senior White House official, quite possibly National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, told CNN on Dec. 19, Sunday, that there is only a “four-week window” to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. “What we have been doing is very calculated,” the official said. “But we only have about a four-week window from now.” The official said U.S. planned sanctions “would be overwhelming, immediate and inflict significant costs on the Russian economy and their financial system.” The next day, Dec. 20, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told journalists that the Biden Administration had not responded to President Putin’s on Dec. 15 proposed treaties on arms control, according to the EurAsian Times news site. They included the assurance that Ukraine would not join NATO and that further forward deployments of U.S. and NATO forces and missile systems toward Russia’s borders would stop. "‘No, they [the Americans] have not responded yet," said Ryabkov; “we are waiting, we will see what they answer. So far, we have seen only all sorts of public statements.” Among those public statements was a NATO general’s plan for U.S. troops’ forward deployment to Bulgaria and Romania, to NATO bases at the Black Sea. And both Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko and Arms Control Negotiator Konstantin Gavrilov ominously referred to “Russia’s military-technical and military means” as the only alternative to a negotiation on Russia’s treaty proposals. Ukraine’s own government continued, in the person of Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba talking to the Washington Post Dec. 19, to demand more “military means” and troops from the United States and the U.K., and to demand that the United States spell out publicly the “overwhelming and immediate” damage that the U.S. Treasury is preparing to do to the Russian economy and financial system, and do it with London whether the continental European allies agree or not. In October 1962 it was the U.S. southern border that was being approached, closely, by Soviet soldiers and missiles in Cuba, which threatened a devastating first strike. Today, it is the relentless march of NATO closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Sixty years ago President John F. Kennedy said, “Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island.” And, he said, that this, “in an area well-known to have a special and historical relationship to the U.S., is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country.” [emphasis added] Moreover, in 1962 U.S. military chiefs were demanding an invasion of Cuba to destroy missile and other forces, and President Kennedy was holding them back, with difficulty. Had Kennedy and Khrushchev not reached a negotiated resolution to the Cuban Missiles Crisis, what was likely to have happened? Hundreds of millions of people around the world were terrified of an imminent nuclear war. How were President Kennedy’s demands—that the Soviet Union remove, and never again try to place nuclear-capable missiles and aircraft virtually on the U.S. border, and “in an area [with] a special and historical relationship to the U.S.”—different from President Putin’s agreement proposed on Dec. 7 to President Biden, that the United States ensure that Ukraine would not join NATO and thereby have U.S. and NATO forces and missiles of various types placed right on Russia’s border? And “in an area with a special and historical relationship” to Russia, in fact for centuries part of it. Here is the difference: Kennedy and Khrushchev both wanted a solution, and not one in which the other President and nation were humiliated, or crushed by “overwhelming, immediate” national damage! That is what must be negotiated between Presidents Biden and Putin now, putting to the side the war-hawks—some of whom are clinically insane, to publicly propose a nuclear first strike on Russia as Sen. Roger Wicker did on Dec. 7. But it must and can happen if citizens now stand up to demand it, and remain optimistic that these two nations can block the ominous path of escalation and superpower war. Let them spend their efforts instead in providing food, healthcare and reconstruction to Afghanistan. Listen to Kenney’s Oct. 22, 1962 address here.

Whoever thought that U.S.-Russia tension, and the threat of war between the superpowers, would diminish naturally with the Dec. 7 videoconference summit between Presidents Biden and Putin, hoped in vain. Despite remarks by President Biden himself, the extreme belligerence of Secretary of State Blinken and British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss at the G7 ministerial meeting Dec. 10, and their refusal to step back regarding Ukraine joining NATO, have combined with a wild nuclear bombardment threat by Senate Armed Forces Committee second ranking Republican member Roger Wicker, to keep the crisis just as intense, and even to raise its pre-war-like temperature. The inevitable Russian response came today.No citizen can assume that war will be averted except with the strength of his or her own efforts in the direction pointed by Schiller Institute Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s article-length statement over the past weekend, which cites former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s sharp call for sanity on Twitter. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned today, Dec. 13, that Russia would be forced to deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe in response to its conviction that NATO will do the same in Ukraine after placing “ABM” missile launchers in Poland and Romania. “It will be a confrontation, this will be the next round, the appearance of such resources on our side,” he told RIA Novosti news agency. Ryabkov said Russia would do this if NATO continued refusing to engage with it to prevent that escalation. He cited “indirect indications” that NATO was closing in on re-deploying intermediate range nukes for the first time since the 1980s—including NATO’s restoring last month the 56th Artillery Command which operated nuclear-capable Pershing missiles during the Cold War. And Russian President Putin told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson today, according to Reuters, that NATO was directly threatening Russia with potential war by expanding military activity in Ukraine.

In the incoming German government there are two 'Green' Party ministers—Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Economics and Energy Minister Robert Habeck—who epitomize a grave threat also emanating from others in governments across the trans-Atlantic nations. With one hand they are anti-carbon climate extremists, who demand sacrifice of the economy—reliable power, heat, livestock growing, farming, industry and all—to "the planet"; with the other, they demand war preparations and diplomatic and military confrontations with Russia and China, two of the major nations that refuse to sacrifice their economies to "the planet." At a much higher level than these two new ministers, among the financial oligarchy whose centers are the City of London and Wall Street, there are the likes of British central banker and now UN envoy for Climate Action and Finance Mark Carney, who organizes bankers publicly to order companies—"Get out of fossil fuels and carbon or disappear." Carney's close "Green Deal" colleagues and friends are Prince Charles, Sir Michael Bloomberg and like billionaires, for whom President Joe Biden spoke at the "FLOP26" so-called climate summit in Glasgow, when he said that China's President Xi and Russia's Putin "would have to answer to the world for not showing up" at that summit. Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, along with the elites of the Atlantic Council, Chatham House/Royal Institute of International Affairs, focus their confrontations and provocations on the claim that Russia's about to invade Ukraine, and China is about to attack Taiwan. But the more and more obvious failure of the "Green New Deal" and the threat of energy hyperinflation and financial crisis, makes them take blaming adversaries for that failure to its extreme—which may bring on war. As former Army Colonel and former Virginia State Senator Richard Black warned yesterday, either of these confrontations could become nuclear war. Just at this crisis point, a Nov. 30-dated report from the New York Federal Reserve Bank began to acknowledge that the very strategy associated with banker Carney and Prince Charles—"shifting the trillions" of investment funds out of all carbon-related industries and into a green finance wave, or bubble—is hastening the global banking crisis they are afraid of. The report, "How Bad Are Weather Disasters for Banks?" found that these disasters are not bad for larger banks at all, to put it mildly. But more seriously for the Carney-Bloomberg "shift the trillions" cabal, the report concluded that "our findings suggest that potential transition risks from climate change warrant more attention than physical disaster risks." We emphasize "transition risks" because "the fundamental transition" has become the underhand for Green New Deal among Prince Charles/Carney forces. Here is Charles at Glasgow: "What is needed is a vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector. With trillions at its disposal ... it offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition." Now the International Energy Agency, a creation of the Davos World Economic Forum, has upped its already economically absurd "forecast" of global additions to electric power capacity in the next five years, to say that 95% of it will be wind, solar and biomass electricity. Back in 2018 the London Guardian, writing about then- Bank of England Governor Carney, observed that "climate risk" for many companies was the risk that Carney's carbon-disclosure bank committees would go after those companies and force them to go green or face disinvestment or bankruptcy. Now, the New York Fed admits "banks could face outsized losses" from the "transition to a low-carbon economy"—in other words, from the Green New Deal. These findings are summed up in a Dec. 2 op-ed by Michael Shellenberger, "The Real Threat To Banks Isn't From Climate Change: It's From Bankers," featuring Mark Carney on its cover photo. That is exactly the direction from which a banking crisis and financial crash are now coming. For a decade, central banks have been printing money to inflate away the vast "everything bubble" of primarily corporate debt since the 2008 crash. It didn't work until the addition of the Green New Deal, the drive to "shift the trillions" to unreliable and anti-productive zero-carbon technologies, which are unleashing hyperinflation and chaos. So the financial elite and political leaders driven by them want to distract with anger, hatred, in some cases even hysteria against the adversaries, Russia and especially China, which continue to push for economic development in underdeveloped countries as well as at home, and which stiffen resistance in the developing world to "climate colonialism." Now, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said today, we go to a Putin-Biden videoconference "summit" tomorrow midway between peace and war, "that gives you an idea how close we are actually to a brushfire which could go all the way up to nuclear war." Insisting on development in the countries which have suffered the worst crimes from the war party—she is focused on Afghanistan—is the way to fight that threat.

National political leaders across much of the world are making, and being solicited by their media combines to make, alarmist statements and to spread panic about a new variant of the COVID virus, about which scientists know very, very little thus far. Not one of those leaders, at least not those of the so-called “advanced” economies, has yet found the honesty to acknowledge the truth that the emergence of dramatically altered variants confirms. The failure of these “economically advanced” nations to spread vaccines, modern health facilities and public health capacities as rapidly as possible throughout the underdeveloped countries, was humanly negligent, morally indifferent and deadly foolish. It invites the virus, circulating freely among the billions of unvaccinated, to create new forms and again threaten the entire world with death and economic destruction.A few, like former British Prime, and currently WHO Ambassador for Global Health Financing Minister Gordon Brown, have stated this truth in clear terms since Nov. 26 when the “Omicron” variant of COVID was identified. But governments in Europe, in particular, have preferred to spread panic about some new “African threat,” or “force of nature,” to hide the specter of their own negligence in dealing with this world pandemic for nearly two years. They do not know, at this point, that this particular, Omicron variant is capable of threatening such a new COVID world pandemic. But they spread panic by suggesting that it is. They are led—as in “Green Deal” fakery—by clownish British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has banned travel from 10 African nations (so far), and said, “Our scientists are learning more hour by hour, and it does appear that Omicron spreads very rapidly, and can be spread between people who are double vaccinated. There is also a very extensive mutation which means it diverges quite significantly from previous configurations of the virus, and as result, it might—at least in part—reduce the protection of our vaccines.” Thus Boris, embellishing his Black Africa scare, invents what “his scientists” do not, in fact, know at this point—the South African Medical Association chair has made that clear—and in doing so, he gives false ammunition to anti-vaccination agitators around the world. The European CDC and others join him. What national governments do know, they will not acknowledge, although an honest acknowledgement of it even now, could change everything for the better. They have flip-flopped and posed before their own populations, as Boris Johnson has, on how much vaccination is “enough,” on “herd immunity” nonsense, on hospital capacities and staffing needs, on masking mandates; and ignored the need to protect the entire world against a global pandemic like this one. And if they do not admit that now and reverse their negligence, a COVID variant to truly panic about, will arrive. The sane worldwide collaboration of virologists to provide accurate and responsible public health advice to populations about the COVID pandemic, called for by former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders for the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, is really urgently needed now. Being circulated by the Schiller Institute, Dr. Elders’ statement says, "I am calling upon virologists and medical experts throughout the globe to undertake an international, coordinated and integrated educational campaign to establish a sane approach to deal with this and potentially future pandemics…. “• What is public health and how must we join forces to implement tried and tested basic public health measures, including sanitation, clean water and nutritious food, and the provision of preventive and ameliorative medicines, including vaccines, essential to defeating this pandemic? “• What is the comparative efficacy of the various vaccines and other measures now deployed in different nations and regions in preventing serious illness and death? “• How do we provide adequate numbers of hospitals, health facilities and medical personnel in every nation, including the systematic recruitment of youth community health workers to assist now, as the pandemic is brought under control?…. “What the world now requires, to address the ensemble of diseases we could be facing, is the establishment of a modern healthcare system in every nation, including food, clean and safe water, electricity, decent housing, sanitation, roads and other infrastructure.” We can add here, that it is just as certain, that the sanctions which deprive Afghanistan of currency, remittances, electricity and functioning hospitals since August 15 guarantee the immiseration and death by starvation this winter, as well as another wave of desperate migration. Here also, the Schiller Institute’s alternative, having the United States and others release Afghanistan’s national reserves to its government, and integrating it into the Belt and Road Initiative for economic development, is clear and urgent.

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated 58 years ago today. It is a national and human tragedy that since JFK was killed, the United States, in six decades, has not embarked on any scientific crash program to achieve any fundamentally new frontier of technology, beyond those already underway under his Presidency. Those were the human exploration of Earth-Moon space; the investigation of bio-medical properties of nuclear isotopes; the expansion of revolutionary TVA water control systems to new Western dams with the intention to build the North American Water and Power Alliance “great project.”The first of these three was allowed to atrophy; the last of the three was allowed to die with President Kennedy and its other movers, his brother Robert F. Kennedy and Sen. Frank Moss. As Lyndon LaRouche and his movement have never stopped explaining, the next frontiers for crash programs are dominated by fusion power, super-hot plasma technologies for industry, and nuclear propulsion for space travel. We will never go beyond the Earth-Moon system without it. And developing the Earth-Moon system and then going beyond it, with nuclear and fusion propulsion for really rapid space travel, will be the “driver” for the scientific and technological breakthroughs of this century. For years cynics have said, “Fusion power is always 30 years away.” No! Any fundamental technological breakthrough has always been 30 years away, because we have had “leaders” who’d rather fight small wars and sleep on any real technological progress. The laser-industrial revolution promised in the 1970s already? Didn’t happen. Our Strategic Defense Initiative? Never got funded. Magnetic levitation rail corridors? Not here. You’ll find them in China. Computer controlled five-axle machine tools? Fast cargo systems between ports and rail? Didn’t try for them. Hypersonic vehicles? We slept on it for a decade or so. And now small modular nuclear reactors are the latest technological breakthrough to stay always “10-20 years away.” On behalf of a great deal of mankind, American and European leaders have been snoring the loud sleep of technological inertia for decades. But it has been clear all along that the most important frontier for science, for higher education, for the capacities of the human species, is fusion energy. Now the U.S. Congress has been told, on Nov. 17, that in August, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory—almost as a secondary by-product to their military program—approached achievement of a “burning” or self-sustaining fusion plasma, where the energy produced by the fusion process would exceed that required to ignite it. Joel Dejean, an engineer and a LaRouche Independent candidate for Congress in Houston, commented on the hearing: “What happened in August is that they achieved, with an input energy of 1.9 megajoules … the output energy from the fusion that occurred was 1.3 megajoules, or 70% of breakeven. And during the time when the tablet was contained by its inertia, and when the fusion was occurring between the deuterium and tritium, which are isotopes of hydrogen, that experiment generated over 10 quadrillion watts of power, in that few hundredths of a nanosecond. Now, this is a significant breakthrough, and they’re proceeding with upgrades in the experiments, to actually get to breakeven, where you get more power out than you put into the experiment.” But as Dr. Tammy Ma, a plasma physicist at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility, made clear in her testimony before the House Energy Subcommittee hearing, its near-achievement of laser fusion breakeven came in the course of its ongoing scientific research into the performance of nuclear warheads. She explained that the Livermore National Lab has no development program for inertial confinement fusion energy, the technology where the breakthrough was seen! Other reports are that the scientific work itself might soon have been shut down, had it not made this surprising leap forward in fusion research—a wake-up call, an opportunity to be seized! In fact the entire nation has no fusion program with serious national funds, 41 years after Congress claimed it was going to fund such a breakthrough-oriented program in the Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Act of 1980. More young students are getting motivated to work on fusion energy. But they have to look to small private companies, with proprietary funding, whose work is so proprietary it’s almost classified, although there appear to be some breakthroughs being achieved there as well. This must be changed. Wake up! Fusion can be achieved! Our scientific understanding of the basic energetic process of the universe can be revolutionized through the combination of crash programs for fusion and NASA’s Moon-Mars mission. Lyndon LaRouche put down this urgent revolution as one of his “four economic laws to save the nation” in a June 8, 2014 policy paper. And that is what it must be.

In the brilliant Sunday Nov. 14 morning panel—“There Are No Limits to Growth in the Universe”—of the Schiller Institute’s just-concluded conference, half a dozen leading physicists and climatologists defied the supposed “scientific consensus.” They demonstrated that changes in Earth’s climate result from solar and galactic cycle changes; that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide do not cause these changes; that warming is largely beneficial; and that mankind meets such changes by adaptation through new infrastructure such as sea gates and flood-control systems. These scientists courageously discredited, as completely unscientific, the Malthusian “global climate change summit” just concluded in Glasgow, and now aptly called “FLOP26.” How could anyone believe that the bankers, billionaires and royals at Glasgow cared anything about “global warming”? They repeated exactly what their Malthusian predecessors declared 50 years ago, who had never heard of “global warming” and had no idea the Earth’s temperature was headed in any direction! They demanded lower living standards, shorter lives, fewer human beings. At the Bucharest UN World Population Conference in 1974, the top Malthusians there—David Rockefeller, Club of Rome chief Aurelio Peccei, and UN official Lester Brown had never heard the golden voice of Al Gore on CO₂, or global warming. And yet, they made the same statements about reducing human living standards and human population—especially in underdeveloped nations—as the top Malthusians at Glasgow, Prince Charles, Klaus Schwab, Mark Carney, Sir Mike Bloomberg, et al. And Peccei’s Club of Rome had published, with vast funds, the book Limits to Growth in 1972, to claim that human population was overburdening the Earth’s resources and had to be reduced. Aurelio Peccei in Bucharest: “But the basic fact remains that this phenomenal multiplication of human beings is a runaway occurrence of such magnitude that incalculable strains and tensions will be injected into a system already dangerously prone to crises. Man will wipe out the wilderness…. The availability of cheap, plentiful energy—nuclear or otherwise—in the hands of an immature mass society is more likely to propel it toward disaster than any energy shortfall.” Klaus Schwab today: Infrastructure development to lengthen and improve life in developing countries “reveals the central conundrum of the combat against climate change. The same force that helps people escape from poverty and lead a decent life is the one that is destroying the livability of our planet for future generations. The emissions that lead to climate change are not just the result of a selfish generation of industrialists or Western baby boomers. They are the consequence of the desire to create a better future for oneself.” Aurelio Peccei in Limits to Growth and in Bucharest, without today’s buzzwords “climate” and “emissions,” yet “knew” that too many human beings, living too fully and well, used resources and interfered with the accumulation of great fortunes by banks and billionaires in the form of huge bubbles of debt. So he claimed these growing human populations would “ruin the planet.” That Rockefeller-funded colonialist spawn of Malthus, just like today’s billionaire-funded head of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, sadly concluded that “Third World” people should not be born, or had to die earlier. Lyndon LaRouche, his future wife Helga Zepp, and his movement declared political war on Peccei et al. in 1972, for resurrecting “Hjalmar Schacht’s fascism”—Hitler’s central banker and economics minister—which would have worked and starved millions to death with or without cyanide gas. Today the British-led Malthusian geopoliticians of the City of London and Wall Street don’t even bother to cite the fraud of “anthropogenic climate change” when they decide that millions of Afghans must die this winter because the Taliban government cannot be allowed to use Afghanistan’s reserve funds; that millions of Haitians must die because no plan of economic and scientific development for Haiti is possible—when the Schiller Institute has already designed and won support for a very powerful one! Having held this extremely influential conference, with YouTube’s attempt to keep it off the Internet having been defeated, Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared that the Schiller Institute must now “go full speed ahead” with its initiatives to force release of the Afghan funds; to build Haiti up “from charcoal to fusion energy”; to get at least the United States, China and Russia collaborating and ensure a modern healthcare system capable of fighting pandemics in every country on Earth. Every life must be valued: “Mankind Must Be the Immortal Species.”

Two paths are before the world, in particular the trans-Atlantic world of North America and Europe, which thought that it had conquered and “ended history” 30 years ago, and instead has become dominated now by London- and Wall Street-centered financial oligarchies, and fallen behind.When the Berlin Wall came down, Lyndon and Helga LaRouche set out a path of rapid Eurasian economic development by building new platforms of infrastructure, initiated by Lyndon LaRouche’s Poland agricultural development-for-peace proposal of 1988, delivered in a press conference in Berlin, later televised in his Presidential campaign. But since the bombing and fighting in the Balkans began, the British-directed path of the United States and Europe has been expanding NATO and fighting wars in less developed countries for three decades. This, while the path of development, economic and industrial, has been ignored and abandoned even in the “advanced” nations, denied to the rest. Withdrawing from those wars now, one by one, slowly, does not undo their devastation of the countries where they have been fought. Those devastating wars and neglect of economic progress have set, now, nearly 300 million migrants wandering the world in a deadly global pandemic, large numbers of them living in poverty in camps and moving tent cities; and a tiny fraction of them, at the Polish border in Belarus, have become the focus of European sanctions and actions against Belarus and Russia which are threatening war again. The same migrants, arriving at Italy’s coast, are taken in every day at European Union orders! That is geopolitical madness, born of economic stagnation outside of military industries, born of technological stagnation and anti-scientific ideology, born of no new human productivity for many decades. Over these two days, Nov. 13 and 14, the Schiller Institute’s international conference is presenting the path of development and potential, resulting peace: the economic reconstruction of the destroyed nations Afghanistan and Haiti by cooperation of the great powers America, Russia, and China; the building of modern health systems in every nation to fight pandemics; the rebuilding of our physical economic powers informed by Lyndon LaRouche’s principles; the development of individual human creativity. The conference is titled, “All Moral Resources of Humanity Have To Be Called Up: Mankind Must Be the Immortal Species!” This conference’s two days of full discussion of this work agenda, by officials, scientists, other leading experts from all over Eurasia, North America, and the developing nations, is being conducted and broadcast on the Internet for the benefit of national leaderships and to move them to cooperative development for peace. Listen to Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s concept on what is possible in Afghanistan in her conference invitation. Let’s set the right stage for the Monday videoconference of Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, so that it can be something other than a tense standoff. We need to hear the end of the shameful claims blasted out of the Glasgow climate summit for the last two weeks, that mankind is pollution upon the Earth. Those hypocritical royals, billionaires and bankers led by Prince Charles will sacrifice much of the human population to the lifestyles of a feudal oligarchy if we don’t stop them. Glasgow stank with the pessimism about humanity, bred of 50 years’ constant deindustrialization and sidelining of scientific and technological advance. Let’s clear the atmosphere of it. Join and spread the Schiller Institute conference!

It is clear from the remarks of Prince Charles’s central banker Mark Carney, Sir Michael Bloomberg, and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink at the Glasgow “Suicide Summit” called COP26, that they have a) great financial momentum in organizing the worldwide 1% to cut off new fossil fuel investment, and b) a great problem—the “green finance” investments are failures.New, greenfield investment in fossil fuel energy for power and heat has essentially stopped worldwide, outside of two great Asian national powers. A horrifying 90% of all new electric power capacity additions in the world in 2020-21 were wind and solar power installations, according to the heavily biased International Energy Agency. But this worldwide anti-productivity energy transition, together with its inseparable companion, trillions in money-printing by major central banks, has unleashed disastrous power failures from Texas to Northern Europe to the Indian Subcontinent and even to China, and triggered waves of hyperinflation. Faced with this failure, the biggest honchos of the global Green New Deal promised a “war-like” mobilization, in Prince Charles’s words. This mobilization, he and Mark Carney made clear, is of the 1%—what they are pleased to call “the private sector” but is really the trans-Atlantic world’s biggest banks, money-managers, and billionaires—to cut off fossil fuel heat and power, nitrogen fertilizer, carbonized steel, cement and construction materials, and industrialization from the billions of the 99%, and greatly reduce their numbers. The director of the British government’s Green Finance Institute, Rhian-Mari Thomas, informed Bloomberg News Green, “This is the finance COP”; and the political leaders there are all imploring the “private sector”—i.e., London and Wall Street—to take over. Carney, in his presentation Nov. 3, said that $130 trillion in investment capital has been promised, under certain rules to ensure cut-off of new fossil fuel investments, including by 35 of the 50 biggest banks in the world. Carney signed the banks up to his and Sir Michael’s Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). All the big City of London, Wall Street, and Frankfurt banks have joined GFANZ. Results? Sure. About 90% of all electric power additions in the world in 2020-21 have been wind parks and solar farms. Disasters, not profits, have followed. The Prince of Wales’s one-percenters have two problems. The first is that those 35 megabanks in GFANZ do not include any Asian giants, from China, Japan, India, or South Korea; nor, of course, any Russian financial institutions. Like their governments, these banks refuse to commit to Carney. China, in an extraordinary blast in the Global Times CCP paper today, accused Indian leader Narendra Modi of betraying the poor of India by making any kind of zero-carbon pledges at Glasgow. That made it crystal clear where China stands: Economic development and fighting poverty, not “climate,” come first. And secondly, the new “green finance” investments look good only on glossy paper. Already on Nov. 2 at Glasgow, Fink said that “deploying that capital is going to be far harder than securing the commitments. On Nov. 3, Carney acknowledged it:”There needs to be some—only some, limited—financing for a transition," Carney said—meaning a transition by energy companies from fossil fuels to so-called renewable power sources, battery storage schemes, green farming schemes, etc. “And there have been problems with the transition.” And again today, when Carney claimed in his speech that the pot behind him had $130 trillion in it: “The money is here—but that money needs net zero-aligned projects.” Carney told Bloomberg News in a Nov. 1 interview that the banks in GFANZ want “a wholesale rewiring of the global financial system so that every financial decision takes climate into account.” Dreams of Schachtian control as in the Nazi economy of the 1930s. That takes the power of central bankers. And Carney has that, in the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System. What he doesn’t have, is new technologies for “green finance” that are productive, energy-dense, reliable, and which alert populations will tolerate. And he doesn’t have real banks! Instead he has immense “zombie banks” which are loaded by their central banks with trillions in deposits, speculate with half of them, and don’t lend the other half. The best way to make the wheels fall entirely off Prince Charles’s and Mark Carney’s $130 trillion green finance mobilization to try to hurry us to our deaths, is to break up those banks with Glass-Steagall Acts in every major nation.

Despite the constant media hype and pressure to conform, the world will little note the arguments among all the power brokers and “influencers” at the ongoing G20 and climate summits, about whether they’re succeeding or failing in their evil and incomprehensible objective of sacrificing the human species to “the planet.”We will rather be stirred by the real and urgent need to save human lives, and to better lives, in the crises those summiteers create, but refuse to discuss! The city in Romania, Timosoara, which has had all electric power cut off because it could not pay carbon taxes to the EU, must get it back. Most people facing this Winter amid a hyperinflation of costs of energy and shelter will not be moved by what the global temperature will be in 80 years, but by whether we can save and improve the lives of the least of us, now. The G20 summit, fixated on “climate change” and lacking the critical input of the Chinese and Russian presidents, undertook no action to change the desperately urgent situation of the people of Afghanistan—punished because the war there did not end satisfactorily to NATO. The huge but failing two-week Glasgow Climate Summit will not even discuss Afghanistan, or Haiti, though their collapses are dangers to the world as well as threatening the loss of human lives in the millions. What will move people most are powerful ideas about what can be done to redeem our immortal species, what forceful and creative actions can be taken “not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Such is Schiller Institute president Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s “Operation Ibn Sina,” to catalyze the action to rebuild Afghanistan, by identifying it with its native son who was the world’s leading medical authority for centuries—when today, nearly all its hospitals have closed in destitution. Such is the Schiller Institute design for economic development of Haiti, at last, after two centuries of neglect and worse. And such is the New Bretton Woods plan inherited from Lyndon LaRouche, for the United States, Russia, China and India to end this hyperinflationary breakdown by launching a new international credit system based on FDR’s design. It can begin by setting long-term, nation-to-nation agreements on trade in the key energy commodities, bypassing the criminal speculation on “spot markets.” These ideas are as beautiful as space travel, as a breakthrough to fusion energy for the world. Those who grasp them have to organize all-out for them now, as a general inflationary breakdown is threatening and millions of people are perishing from famines and pandemics. The center of the mobilization for them now is the Schiller Institute’s international conference Nov. 13-14, “All Moral Resources of Humanity Have To Be Called Up: Mankind Must Become the Immortal Species.” Registration here.

In the late 1990s Lyndon LaRouche drew a picture of the coming death of the American and European productive economies in the crash he saw coming. LaRouche called his instructive graphic “The Triple Curve—a typical collapse function.”The Triple Curve shows the case in which productive economic activity—industry, infrastructure building, agriculture, mining, construction—is declining at a worsening pace; the total volume of debt burdening the economy is growing at an increasing pace; and the money supply is also growing at an increasing pace to keep the debt liquid. That nation or region will go into physical-economic collapse unless financial reorganization policies are forcefully introduced and quickly backed by credit for economic development. And when the money supply is artificially increased more rapidly even than the debt itself—at that “crossover point” a financial crash is looming. In mid-2007 LaRouche publicly announced that that crash was unstoppable except by a complete reversal of financial and economic policy, and it came in late 2008. Observe the path of inflation in commodities since then. Take a representative sample of 20 major international commodities: oil, coal, natural gas in Europe, natural gas in the United States; soft red wheat, hard red wheat, rice, beef, chicken, shrimp; lumber, rock phosphate, rubber, aluminum, tin, lead, nickel, copper, zinc, iron ore. During the five-year period from July 2000 to July 2005, almost all these commodities rose in price by between 50% and 100% on the way into the 2007-08 crash. The crash itself deflated the great majority of them, along with the prices of financial assets (stocks, bonds, other securities, derivatives), which collapsed. For a decade, the major central banks intervened on a scale never seen before that time, with tens of trillions of dollars to “support” financial assets, vowing that by doing this, they would also restore inflation and economic growth. The value of financial assets of all kinds grew steadily, during some of that time explosively, and global billionaires sprouted like mushrooms after a storm. But from July 2010 to July 2019, the prices of all of the commodities above (with the sole exception of beef) declined, by anywhere from a few percent to 70%. But at the August 2019 central bankers conference in Wyoming, Mark Carney and a gang of central bankers and executives at BlackRock, Inc. determined to push “regime change” and take central bank control over government spending and private sector investment flows in order to launch a dramatic shift into “green finance,” sometimes called the Great Reset. QE5 started on Oct. 4, 2019. The COVID pandemic then cut off production across the world. The Federal Reserve and ECB in March 2020 launched a completely unprecedented pace of QE of more than $250 billion/month between them. The so-called “Green New Deal” was driven forward, which—it is now very clear—reduced productivity, cut production of all fossil fuels, and spread energy chaos. In a “Fed-Treasury partnership” brokered by BlackRock, Inc. the U.S. Treasury borrowed $5 trillion in “COVID relief” funds in a year through the CARES Act and the American Rescue Act, to drive private sector spending. “Trillions were shifted” toward the new green finance bubble. The worldwide collapse of production and productivity, since very early in 2020, continues: Look at the American productive economy: Since 2019 it has shrunk by 500,000 productive jobs, 5.5 million overall jobs, and lost 3% of industrial production. The American workforce itself has shrunk by 5 million since 2019. With that going on, the $14 trillion Fed-plus-Treasury-plus-European Central Bank money-printing policy meant that the Triple Curve collapse function would now end in a combination of an economic breakdown and an explosion of inflation. And in fact, in just the two years between July 2019 and July 2021, all 20 of the above commodities’ prices rapidly inflated: the agricultural commodities by 20-25%; the rest by far more, up to 250% in two years. Most of these inflated in the range of 20-50% in those two years. In the energy commodities, the inflation has accelerated further from July until this present end of October. This is the hyperinflationary process described by LaRouche’s ’Triple Curve" collapse function. During that earlier period LaRouche also named the actions which must be taken to stop such a spiral and start recovery. Long-term, state-to-state contracts for energy commodities, freezing out speculators in “paper gas,” “paper oil,” etc. What LaRouche insisted on in 2001, when oil first rose above $100/barrel, Russian President Putin demands now for natural gas supplies. Glass-Steagall reorganization of banking, breaking up megabanks speculating with deposits. “Hamiltonian” national banks in every nation, to participate in the credit for projects of new infrastructure, as pioneered anew by China with the Belt and Road Initiative. Funding of development with the most advanced energy-dense technologies, and of crash programs in fusion energy development and space exploration. Rapid increase of food production, to double it worldwide, and building of new health systems—obviously, the focus immediately falls on Afghanistan, Haiti, and other nations where economic life has collapsed. This outlook is the subject of the Schiller Institute’s Nov. 13-14 international conference, “Mankind Must Be the Immortal Species,” for which registration is here.

The chances for Joe Biden’s administration to legislate a Green New Deal and take it to the Hallowe’en Summit of COP26 are now essentially zero, as even the Democrats’ in Congress have resisted—or generated resistance by their climate extremism, as the case may be. So Biden has turned, again, to executive orders and regulations, this time to try to show them off in Glasgow. This is because the Clean Energy Performance Program, core of Biden’s Green New Deal, appears to be firmly opposed by at least Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). That would have required all utilities generating/selling electricity, to increase their share of “renewable,” or interruptible power by at least 4% every year. It would make adding any more reliable form of baseline power a very difficult proposition for almost any utility.Following the Oct. 15 all-of-government executive order in the form of a “Fact Sheet” from the White House, on Oct. 21 the Financial Services Oversight Council issued a report to its member regulators telling them to crack down on bank investments and security issuances connected to fossil fuel exploration and power generation. The FSOC report/directive was issued on the same day that the mighty climate warrior of the banking world, Mark Carney, attempted, in an interview with CNBC, to definitively declare trillions of dollars of oil, coal and gas assets “stranded”—barred from exploitation—around the world. Said Carney: "We have … too many hydrocarbons, enormous stranded assets, whether it’s in coal, three-quarters of coal, half of gas, roughly the same of oil, we have too many fossil fuels. [emphasis added] The FSOC is not an advisory body. Chaired by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, it is the council created by the Dodd-Frank Act of the 15 major U.S. financial, securities, and insurance regulators—the Treasury, the Office of Controller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, CFTC, SEC, etc. Its “report,” and this is its first report in 12 years’ existence, is actually a directive by the Treasury to the regulators, which will lead to regulations being issued to banks and other financial firms. MarketWatch quoted one enthusiastic financial Greenie: “To unlock that Dodd-Frank power, we need to establish climate as a systemic risk. On this the FSOC was unequivocal — it is a threat to the financial system and all agencies in the FSOC, including the Fed, agreed. That unlocks regulatory power. That’s a big deal.” And MarketWatch itself overstated Biden’s case: “At minimum, a closer alliance presented in the report for diagnosing and reporting climate-change risk for financial markets may help President Biden’s standing at the pivotal UN climate-change talks (COP26) that kick off in Glasgow in a little more than a week.” But tremendous damage could be done. Consider: The first regulation expected, imminently, is an SEC rule requiring that companies included their “climate risk exposure” in their earnings reports. These reports, usually issued quarterly, have become crucial to companies, and if they have to tell investors that their quarterly results are achieved by taking on media-hated “environmental risk,” they believe their stocks and bonds will be shellacked—it’s already happened to the major oil companies. This is only one indication of the gouging of carbon-related investment these 15 regulators can do under Treasury orders.

For a decade after the 2008 global financial crash, the major central banks wrung their hands that they could not "stimulate inflation" anywhere near 2%. Now since their "regime change" decision at the August 2019 Jackson Hole, Wyoming bankers' conference, they have shocked even themselves by setting loose an inflationary storm which has, as it has blown across the world, dramatically increased inequality, unemployment and poverty in the developing countries. London and Wall Street have blamed this on the COVID pandemic to try to motivate a "Great Reset," the so-called Green New Deal. But they have caused it, since the September 2019 "repo crisis," by taking the vast oceans of new electronic reserves the central banks have created for them and turning them into pure speculation. If an accounting published today by the Visual Capitalist blog, based on bank statistics (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/distribution-of-global-wealth-chart/), is accurate, it is a veritable picture of central bank hyperinflation. It finds that total, worldwide household wealth fell during 2020, but by mid-2021 it was 7.5% {higher} than mid-2019, at about $420 trillion total, or up about $30 trillion from 2019. That $30 trillion is right in the ballpark of the estimated total "QE," the money-printing by major central banks in the trans-Atlantic region, Japan, Korea, and the large-scale new government borrowing for "COVID relief" by the United States Treasury. $22 trillion of that $30 trillion newly-printed wealth is in North American and European households—if you can call trusts and tax shelters "households"—the rest in China and Asia. In India household wealth in the same period {fell} by $600 billion; in South America by $1.2 trillion. A full 45% of that global "household" wealth is now owned by the 1.1% of wealthiest "households." The "wealth" grew where the central banks created massive new reserves and the big banks converted them into speculative loans, not elsewhere. That concentrated wealth is the effect of a hyperinflationary central bank money-printing policy; but it would not be setting off storms of inflation without the simultaneous absence of productive investment, new productive employment, in the "advanced" economies, and indeed the {destruction} of economic productivity by "the great leap backward," the Green New Deal. {EIR}'s warning report of February 2021, called {The Great Leap Backward}, fully described what has happened since. {EIR}'s has warned since mid-2020 about the return of "Schachtian" fascist economics, which combines massive money issuance with technological regression and cannibalization of labor. The warnings were based on those of Lyndon LaRouche 50 years ago. In fact, we should think of "the Great Inflation" of the 1970s, as LaRouche alone described it {in August 1971}. Then the highly productive economic relationships of the Bretton Woods monetary system were destroyed by Nixon's forced blunder removing the dollar from its gold reserve, and were replaced by massive international speculation. The eurodollars and petrodollars of that new global debt speculation were created by the City of London banks themselves, then joined by Wall Street! And the printing of these dollars of international debt was arranged to be backed by the revenues of oil producers—as if magically, there followed hyperinflation of oil and other fossil fuel prices. LaRouche explained years later, "Now, that meant that the dollar was now in jeopardy. Then, you had the oil crisis of the 1970s. Now, there was no shortage of oil, except an artificial one. Every tanker in the world was sitting off the U.S. coast ready to deliver oil, and couldn't get it delivered.... "Before that event, the spot market, based in Amsterdam, had been a very minor part of the world petroleum marketing. Now, suddenly, the British—who are the key factors in this thing—made a new arrangement with the King of Saudi Arabia. And the organization, which is called today the BAE, was set up as a Saudi-British secret intelligence-military operation. So... there was out of this, an agreement under which the Saudis did a corrupt operation with the British intelligence services, using the spot market. So vast amounts of unrecorded money and profits were deposited to the British BAE and related services.... "The effect of this was to make the dollar, which was still being used, no longer really a U.S. dollar internationally. It became an Anglo-American dollar, a 'petrodollar.'" That explanation was given to an audience in Rome in July 2008. A year earlier LaRouche had already told an international webcast on July 25, 2007, that the collapse of the post-Bretton Woods financial system could not be stopped or postponed; it was imminent—as became obvious to all in September 2008.

The policy of U.S. and European governments since the September 2019 “repo crisis” and the March 2020 spread of the COVID pandemic has been dictated by the biggest central banks and by City of London, Wall Street and Frankfurt banks and investment funds. It has been to combine hyperinflationary money-printing for those banks and new government debt for “pandemic relief” programs; with incentives and pressure for the “shift of trillions” into a “green finance” wind and solar investment bubble. Despite economic collapse and large-scale unemployment, it has excluded investment in new productive infrastructure and productive employment, while applying the label “infrastructure” only to replacing reliable nuclear and fossil fuel power technologies with unreliable throwback “renewables.”This “net-zero carbon” policy is fundamentally Malthusian. After two years pushed “from the top,” it is now triggering physical-economic breakdowns in just those economies needed to provide capital goods to rebuild the shattered economies of Afghanistan after war and Haiti after neglect and natural catastrophe. The European economies have been hit this summer and early fall by a doubling of the price of natural gas, which is still rising fast despite increasing purchases from Russia’s Gazprom. It passed $26/million Btu at Amsterdam Sept. 27, rising another 11% for the day. The spiking price is shutting down supplies of CO₂ which slaughterhouses and food processors need, among others; and shutting down fertilizer plants. The natural gas price in Asia (from LNG) is even higher. In the U.K., the natural gas price has quadrupled in 2021. The retail suppliers of power and energy are shutting down. Wholesale and retail gasoline/petrol stations are shutting down; BP, for example, acknowledged that 370 of its 1,200 sites in Britain were closed because they were out of fuel over this weekend. Britain and some other European countries which have closed down coal power plants are now trying to reopen them. But the price of coal—ordered stranded, “left in the ground” and forgotten by the green financiers led by Mark Carney and Sir Mike Bloomberg—has risen by 65-100% in Europe and Asia this year. Thus China, whose industrial production and exports have been growing rapidly, has suddenly had to order electric power shutoffs to electricity-intensive businesses in aluminum, chemical fibers, textiles, etc; and this week, to households as well. In the United States, nationwide freight transportation is breaking down. Well over 100 container ships, from the large to the huge, have now been waiting off the West Coast ports for up to a month, unable to unload. Once finally in port, turn-around time for one of these ships now averages six days. The third stage of blockage is in the railyards around the ports, where the average storage time for containers unloaded from the ships ranges from 6-16 days depending on the port. This is usually just the delay before a short-distance rail transport to a “railhead” or warehousing center for truck loading, since the great majority of freight still moves long distance by truck. Because of frenetic money printing of the Federal Reserve and borrowing by the Treasury, consumer goods either produced or final-assembled in China have been bought in huge quantities by Americans, whose disposable income has actually risen during an economic collapse. This has overloaded the inadequate rail and port infrastructure to cause these breakdowns, which in turn have caused shortages of everything from lumber to auto parts to machine tools to consumer goods, and thus further inflation. Bloomberg on Sept. 26 quoted a Hapag-Lloyd shipping executive that this breakdown condition will last “at least through the end of the year.” The international shortage of semiconductor chips is projected to last at least until the end of next year, 2022, and is still worsening. The clearest sign is that U.S. new car sales have dropped from recent normal of 16-17 million/year, to 12 million projected in 2021 due to the lack of new cars to sell, and sharp inflation in price of used cars. The hyperinflationary pressures and shortages will continue, and worsen, until enough citizens in these “advanced” nations wake up to the truth that “green” policies are rushing toward a Malthusian reduction of the human population. The solution, refused for so long, is new missions for productive employment, infrastructural and economic development of underdeveloped nations. Afghanistan must be rebuilt; Haiti must urgently be developed. That is the Schiller Institute’s strategy.

The statement of Sept. 5 by Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche, “Can ‘The West’ Learn? What Afghanistan Needs Now!” has gotten wide circulation and support. It lays out that the United States, having withdrawn its troops from Afghanistan at last, has the opportunity and the responsibility to cooperate in rebuilding its crushed economy. This is how to really end perpetual wars: The United States, China, and Russia cooperate in bringing economic development, along with other nations in Asia.But a terrible decision made by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Aug. 15, and not reversed since, tries to make Afghanistan a basket case instead, a failed state, by seizing all its national financial assets. For the past six weeks Yellen’s Treasury has been holding colonial dominion over Afghanistan like a British colonial currency board administrator in Africa, Asia or South America. This is preventing Afghanistan’s few financial resources from being used in developing the nation in cooperation with its Central Asian neighbors. According to Ajmal Ahmady, the Ghani government’s head of Afghanistan’s central bank (the Da Afghanistan Bank, DAB) at the time the Taliban took over Kabul, Afghanistan had approximately $7 billion in assets at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. These consisted of $3.1 billion in U.S. bills and bonds, $2.4 billion in World Bank Reserve assets, $1.2 billion in gold, and $300 million in cash. Afghanistan also had $1.5 billion in other assets, according to Ahmady’s tweet on Aug. 21, held in “other international accounts” (apparently private banks in New York and London). Ahmady also said that Afghanistan was “reliant on obtaining physical shipments of cash every few weeks” from the New York Fed, in order to have any currency in the country for the population to use. So New York banks led by the Fed also had complete colonial financial control of “our” government in Afghanistan, before the Taliban takeover. No surprise, then, when NATO forces withdrew, that Afghans showed they did think of it as their government, and abandoned it. But Yellen’s brutal decision made the country’s subjection even worse—freezing the funds. Already on Aug. 17 it was reported in the Washington Post that on Aug. 15, as the Taliban forces approached Kabul, “The Biden Administration froze Afghan government reserves held in U.S. bank accounts…. The decision was made by Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen and officials in the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control…. An administration official said in a statement, ‘Any Central Bank assets the Afghan government have in the United States will not be made available to the Taliban.’” However: These were not assets of the Taliban; they are assets of the nation of Afghanistan. And the assets of this nation were held in banks in New York, with the U.S. government having unilateral authority for disposition of them. That is colonialism; it is wrong; Americans should not tolerate it. The same thing is true of the oil revenues of Iraq up to this time; they are deposited in the New York Federal Reserve Bank until used. Where NATO could not win or end its wars, the Treasury is trying to exercise colonial domination by financial seizure. Afghanistan’s neighbors agree: Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told the press he would say, at the UN General Assembly: “I think freezing the assets is not helping the situation. I would strongly urge the powers that be that they should revisit that policy and think of an unfreeze.” Reuters headlined Sept. 17, “Unfreeze Afghan Assets Abroad, Neighbor Uzbekistan Says.” Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev said at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization heads of state/government summit on Sept. 17: “Considering the humanitarian situation, we propose looking into the possibility of lifting the freeze on Afghanistan’s accounts in foreign banks.” The Biden Administration must give up colonialism and join in economic development. Janet Yellen must abandon her usurped power as a colonial administrator. Both the assets of the Afghan nation, and the oil revenues of the Iraqi nation, must be ceded back to those sovereign nations. President Franklin Roosevelt already made this commitment to the then-colonies of the European empires, in the Atlantic Charter and the UN Charter. And it is the “American System” method to follow through with high-technology industrial development.

Why did we get into a 20 years’ war in Afghanistan? The British Prime Minister told us the United States had to. Tony Blair came to Chicago two years before that war started, and said the United States has to “protect” people from undemocratic governments London doesn’t like, by taking those governments out. The term “regime change” was born.Clinton agreed? Did anybody say no? Lyndon LaRouche did. He called it restoring the British Empire with U.S. forces. Nine months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. LaRouche warned a major terror attack was coming in the United States to push the country into “emergency government,” and into war. That was Jan. 3, 2001. But the 9/11 attacks were launched from Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden. Didn’t everybody agree on that? LaRouche knew better. He said on radio, as those attacks were ongoing, that some other force, not Osama bin Laden, “let down the American security screen” and punctured it to make those attacks possible. Again—to push the country into “emergency government” and set it up for endless war. Does anybody agree with that? All the families of the victims of 9/11 gradually got the evidence that a foreign government—the Saudi Kingdom—helped take down that security screen for the hijackers. The 20 years’ commemoration of 9/11 is coming up, and those families wrote to President Biden: “Don’t show up! unless you declassify the FBI report on these Saudi operations first.” He may do it. And LaRouche said the Saudis would not have done that without a wink from the British. So what did we do in Afghanistan? Pushed out the Taliban government the U.K. wanted gone. Blair again. He told his Parliament it was “for the protection of our [British] people and our way of life, including confidence in our economy”; and he told “W” Bush it would be just “a short-lived exercise.” The “Blair Doctrine,” the regime-change war policy, is the failure here. And he was found by a Commission of Inquiry to have faked WMD intelligence about Iraq. But the U.K.’s top military institute is still inviting Blair to speak on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. So Biden pulled American forces out. For doing that, the former British commander in Afghanistan, a Lt. Col. Richard Kemp (ret.), demanded that the American President be, not just impeached—court-martialed as a traitor. You can read what he and Blair and other hysterical British officials said, below. Biden a traitor to what? To “Global Britain,” they said. Watch out for Tuesday’s G7 meeting, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is chairing it. The British say: They will push the United States to stay and expand in Afghanistan. And they want Biden out.What’s wrong with them? This “Global Britain, and London world financial center, all depends on American muscle being directed by British brains. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche says, without U.S. muscle, "Global Britain" is just a pea-brain. Then the United States should get out? More than that. This is the chance to throw the table over and reconstruct instead of bombing, and instead of sending U.S. troops there to confrontations with China and Russia. Let engineers go in and build in that whole region, invest in developing it. Every country in that region agrees that Afghanistan, now, is where the United States and the other great powers could finally start to cooperate in new infrastructure projects and exports of capital goods and machinery. By flipping the war script that way, maybe the United States could get finally get some justice, for what the British banks did to poor Richard Nixon and the U.S. dollar 50 years ago, on Aug. 15, 1971.

The unhinged explosion recorded in the Sunday Times of London by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair against U.S. President Joe Biden, over American forces’ withdrawal from 20 years’ war in Afghanistan, has underlined just what an opportunity Afghanistan represents, to replace poisonous British geopolitics with economic development and peace. Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasizes that we owe this to humanity, which needs the development cooperation of major powers which could be launched in and around Afghanistan. That country stands in economic relation to its region and to South Asia, as America’s Deep South did to the United States as a whole before Franklin Roosevelt’s Tennessee Valley Authority transformed it.But Blair’s outburst reminds us, we owe it as well to America’s history of struggle against the British Empire and its centuries of exploitation of nations as its colonies and Commonwealth “partners.” Tony Blair began America’s era of endless “regime change” wars with his 1999 speech to the Chicago Council of World Affairs. He declared the Treaty of Westphalia principle dead, and demanded a new era of NATO war against developing nations for the “right to protect” (as in the “protection” the mafia once offered on the streets of Chicago and many other cities). Blair’s foreign intelligence service MI6 hoked up the dodgy dossiers of phony “intelligence” which launched George W. Bush’s Iraq War, as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had “stiffened the spine” of Bush’s father for his Desert Storm. London needs American NATO muscle to run the world financially from London, frequent economic crashes and all. Geopolitics, the doctrine that one country’s or alliances interests are always pursued by screwing others, is British doctrine. And so Blair bellowed to the Times about America’s “imbecilic political slogan about ending ‘the forever wars,’” which he feared would relegate “Global Britain” to “the second division.” His tuneless shrieking was accompanied by a chorus of other British notables, named and unnamed by the newspaper. We have just passed the 50th anniversary of Aug. 15, 1971, when the U.K. government, the Bank of England and the City of London banks forced a fatal decision by Richard Nixon which shaped all of economic and human history for the worse since then. That was the ending of the dollar’s link to its gold reserve basis. It was the replacement of Franklin Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods monetary system with floating-exchange-rate system which set off a half-century of more and more unhindered pure speculation, more and more frequent financial crashes of debt bubbles fostered by central banks. Working people around the world earn 12% less of economic output as a result; but London has re-emerged as the world’s financial center. The end of Bretton Woods produced “Britain’s Second Empire” as proven in the documentary of that name. On that 50th anniversary we celebrated the contributions of the late statesman Lyndon LaRouche with an international conference. He was the only economist in the world who both forecast, in the 1960s, the British-engineered breakup of Bretton Woods, and stood against it when it happened, forecasting eventual economic depression collapse and pandemics as its result. But we also intend to reverse it, bringing about the launch of a New Bretton Woods credit system geared to capital goods exports from the major technological powers to the underdeveloped nations, for the great projects of economic development which are the precondition for peace. Afghanistan’s Ambassador to China Javid Ahmad Qaem told Global Times July 16 “The only place where they could really cooperate, and at least there could be a starting point to cooperate between these rivals, if I can call them that, is Afghanistan,”—referring to China, the United States and India, but could have included Russia. If this opportunity for development and peace is taken, that New Bretton Woods credit system is in sight.

Contrary to President Joe Biden’s self-justification today—“Our mission has never been nation-building” in Afghanistan—there is no conceivable reason for the military and military engineering forces of a major nation to stay in an underdeveloped country for such a long period of time unless they are on a mission to help build that nation, help it industrialize with the infrastructure for sustained economic development. What did the United States military forces under General MacArthur do for a decade and a half in Japan after World War II, if not to at least assist in relaunching the modern industrialization of that country after the disaster of war? What about assistance in South Korea’s building itself as an industrial power after war?Those times are long past when the United States was almost unique in being capable of providing such assistance. Now it must be done in cooperation with the other major economic and technological powers; and an Eurasian effort is already underway, China’s Belt and Road Initiative with projects in scores of countries. And the United States, until now, clearly has not been in Afghanistan to help build up a nation. The U.S. withdrawal is not the defeat of a campaign “for democracy,” which the NATO occupation never was. No, it is an opportunity which must be taken, with whatever government has popular backing, to foster the building of power, modern healthcare, water systems, transportation corridors—“TVA”-type development—in a country whose collapsed economy holds back the connectivity and development of an entire region. The Schiller Institute, led by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, organized a day-long conference just two weeks ago on exactly this subject, “Afghanistan: A Turning Point in History after the Failed Regime-Change Era,” with panels of real experts and representatives of other Asian nations who knew the country. The best of it was previewed in a special offprint report from Executive Intelligence Review, “Will Afghanistan Trigger a Paradigm Change?” The Schiller Institute will now be bringing many of the same experts and representatives back together to update their discussion of economic development in light of the new circumstances. One of them, Hussein Askary, today said on his Twitter feed, “It is fully possible to reach peace and stability in Afghanistan by integrating it into the Belt and Road Initiative. The regional and global context today is different from 1994” when the Taliban had previously taken power. This is already very much the approach that China and the Central Asian nations around Afghanistan are taking, and the approach Russia will take. The British may wax hysterical, as some of their Tory Parliament leaders did today, about sending Her Majesty’s very colonialist forces back into Afghanistan on their own to put things back in order! The British UN Ambassador may lament, as he did in today’s UN Security Council special session, that “what is happening in Afghanistan is a tragedy.” Shaken European ambassadors from the Irish to the Dane may have echoed him, but they are all clinging, sadly, to the beaten remains of a geopolitical policy of British origin which has been a disaster to the United States and the world. It is a good thing that the policy of regime-change wars is ending. It is that policy only which has failed, and it was never in the interest of the United States. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche stressed today, what is in American interest is to “join hands and go for reconstruction.” The NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan is a situation full of opportunity to do just that. The Schiller Institute’s July 31 conference on peace through development in the Central Asian region is now the vehicle for a drive to organize that development through joint offers by nations capable of exporting high-technology capital goods and substituting Afghanistan’s opium traffic. And the Institute will now update that vehicle for the greater opportunity which now exists.

The reaction of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to the latest report of the UN’s climate panel is an outburst against the economies and livelihoods of most of the nations in the world, an attempt to issue orders to these nations, which is no part of the UN’s authority and cannot be tolerated. This official, who is elected to seek reconciliation of nations and non-interference in their internal affairs, has instead handed down the brutal orders of financial elites and governments of a few advanced nations, as mandatory for all the rest, especially the developing nations for whom these orders impose economic backwardness, deaths and population reduction.“This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels before they destroy our planet,” ordered Guterres today. “Countries should also end all new fossil fuel exploration and production, and shift fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy”—thus he demands nuclear power investments be banned as well. “As today’s report makes clear, there is no time for delay and no room for excuses,” pronounces this Secretary General, apparently, of BlackRock, Inc., the Davos billionaires and Prince Charles. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report itself, the rushed work of some 200 climatologists studying other scientists’ studies, makes some astonishing claims. All warming for 2,000 years and more is asserted to have occurred since the World War I period—a “hockey stick curve” already discredited 15 years ago. All this warming is emphatically claimed to be caused by human activity alone with fossil fuels; no natural factor plays any role. Because the warming is associated with higher atmospheric CO₂ levels, it is caused by those levels. And the climate change is “irreversible” and will breach the 1.5° Celsius rise in temperatures above the 1850 level, so long dreaded by the IPCC and all greenies, already by 2030 no matter what nations do. Just three or four years after that, the planet, in Guterres’ rant, will have been “destroyed” unless fossil fuel energy production and industrial use has been eliminated in every country, including the developing nations for which this will mean the end of development hopes and the threat of depopulation. This report is an attempt by the City of London-Wall Street-Davos forces and certain central bankers to beat down the opposition to a great economic leap backward—especially the opposition of China and India who feel responsible to defend the development needs of many other nations, but also the opposition of economic organizations and local all over the United States. They have to beat down that opposition to the “great leap backwards” before their COP26 environment summit in Glasgow. And it is far from clear that Wall Street, London and the royals and billionaires have the ability to do it. The Schiller Institute of Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been holding international conferences with scientists who really know something about energy, physical economy and the climate. Those scientists know that new and improved economic infrastructure is the way to respond to changes in climate and weather. They understand, as Prof. Augustinus Berkhout of Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) expresses it, that humanity should be preparing for an optimistic future with nuclear power and advanced nuclear technologies, not for depopulation and despair. Economic development is a right of nations and populations, and the unique way to peace. The Schiller Institute intends to defeat this Davos Green Deal for which the UN’s Guterres tried to drive so arrogantly out of his lane today. It would be a fitting next step to carry forward Lyndon LaRouche’s 50-year battle against the financial oligarchy and for great projects of development.

Commentaries by university and financial economists are appearing on the approaching 50th anniversary of the August 15, 1971, “Nixon Shock”, the end of the post-War gold reserve Bretton Woods system which has produced half a century of industrial decline, speculative riot, gigantic debt bubbles and crashes, steadily worsening real wages and living conditions, collapsing public health capacities and now a deadly global pandemic.The commentators have little conception of what happened on that Aug. 15 aside from listing Nixon’s tariff, wage and price controls, dollar devaluation and attacks on “speculators”. They won’t see what it has done to U.S. and European economies and to prospects of development for Asian, African, and South American nations; they certainly could not have understood what was happening at the time. The extraordinary economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche could see both, at that time and for several years before Nixon was pushed into his bumbling role in “the shock”. In these commentaries there is no mention of the crucial role of actions by Harold Wilson’s British government and the Bank of England, which hammered away at FDR’s Bretton Woods system until they pushed Nixon and his incompetent team of Arthur Burns, George Shultz, and James Baker III into bringing it down. Wilson tried and failed to get Parliament to devalue the pound in 1966. Then, having imposed severe austerity measures, in 1967 his government again recommended a 15% pound devaluation, and Parliament devalued it by 14% in November without coordination with other major nations through Bretton Woods procedures. In the same period the Bank of England twice opened a “gold window” at which British financial firms could trade in their dollars for gold and make claims on the U.S. Treasury. It was those London actions on the basis of which LaRouche made his unique forecasts starting in 1967, that Bretton Woods would be broken up by “about the end of the decade”. The 50-year commentaries harp on the claim that “the dollar has maintained its primacy” since and despite the Nixon shock, due to markets’ and financial forces’ ability to create dollar obligations themselves! One in Project Syndicate, by a Princeton economist, is most blatant: “Private financial markets’ power to generate money—U.S. dollars—made the greenback even more central.” LaRouche said in “Trade Without Currencies” in 2000 that the U.S. dollar in the 1945-66 period was the world’s reserve based on high U.S. labor productivity and strong capacity for capital goods exports; this in turn was the basis for the relative success of the Bretton Woods arrangements. After that point, he said, the strength of the dollar as reserve currency had steadily declined, making a new international credit system urgent; by 2000 he had for years called for a new Bretton Woods whose objective was credit for “great projects” in developing nations. In the history of Lyndon LaRouche’s immortal contributions to economic science and human progress, that date in 1971 has an important place. By his unique ability to forecast, several years earlier, the “shock” end of the gold-reserve dollar—recognized then even by average American citizens as a major and ominous change—LaRouche set himself apart for the force of his ideas, from other economists and political leaders. Already in 1967, seeing what was coming, LaRouche proposed in a mass-circulation pamphlet a new policy of Third World development through credit to fund capital goods exports, as the higher objective for the growing anti-Vietnam War movement. Within a decade he had won the Non-Aligned Nations to an International Development Bank to begin to restore Bretton Woods as FDR had intended the role of the World Bank in developing sector projects of new infrastructure development. And within that decade he had attracted powerful Wall Street and London enemies who concocted wild slanders and formed a “Get-LaRouche Task Force” to see him prosecuted and imprisoned. Looking forward 50 years from that 1971 event which had proven his method of physical economics, LaRouche was able to see the coming alternatives in the post-Bretton Woods world: Increasingly unbridled speculation ruling over collapsing industries, the imposition of what he called “Schachtian fascism” in economic policy, depression and a potential biological holocaust of pandemics; or, a new international order of credit for capital goods export and development. Fifty years later LaRouche’s conception of a new Bretton Woods, or a Malthusian depopulation disguised as the “Green New Deal”, are the choices now. The LaRouche Legacy Foundation’s 50-year anniversary conference Aug. 14, 2021, will present LaRouche’s method of thinking in action. “So, Are You Finally Willing To Learn Economics?” Register here.

The Schiller Institute’s July 24 conference of scientists and technologists, “There Is No ‘Climate Emergency’—Apply the Science and Economics of Development To Stop Blackouts and Death,” threw down the gauntlet to the so-called Green New Deal being imposed by big finance on the governments of the world without the consent of their governed. The conference made clear the actual answer of competent scientists, engineers, meteorologists to the threat of extreme weather events: Build better infrastructure and maintain it! Build seawall and water management and storage infrastructure against storms and floods; build river basin development and water transfer infrastructure to cope with droughts; build reliable electric power infrastructure, especially nuclear, to make economies work for human life.The World Economic Forum financial elite and their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) intend the opposite—letting heat, cold, flood, drought, disease, hunger reduce human life to “save the planet”. The International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a report for the global climate summit of governments in Glasgow in November. It claimed all countries’ measures already taken to reduce carbon emissions were nothing compared to what the planet demands: Four and a half times more carbon must be cut out of power production, heating, steelmaking, etc., etc. The IPCC “scientists group” met today to start “finalizing” five carbon-cutting scenarios for nations at the Glasgow Nov. 1-12 meeting. The IPCC claims its computer models can precisely forecast climate and weather changes by 2030 for each scenario, and by region of the world, so as to put pressure directly on individual continents and countries. The former U.K. government’s COP26 Regional Ambassador to Sub-Saharan Africa from March to October 2020 Paul Arkwright made just such a direct and public demand on Nigeria (where he had previously been British High Commissioner, aka ambassador). Nigeria is the largest Black African nation by population, one which has a great deal of oil and natural gas and wants nuclear power and development. Cut out much, much more of that carbon, said Arkwright. In the United States capital investment in the energy industries is collapsing, reported Standard and Poor’s. There is crushing pressure from Wall Street and City of London banks, BlackRock and other huge fund managers. All the capital investment is going into wind and solar parks instead. But Kansas State Sen. Mike Thompson, a 40-year meteorologist and TV weatherman, showed this at the Schiller Institute conference: At the worst of the “polar vortex” deep freeze in February 2021, all that wind and solar power disappeared, forcing fossil fuels and nuclear to fill in the 98% of electricity generation! If those fossil fuel and nuclear plants hadn’t been there, Kansans would have frozen to death; Texans did, that same week. But the plan of the Green New Deal is that the fossil fuel and nuclear plants won’t be there—not in the Midwest or Europe, not in African countries which don’t even have nuclear plants yet, not in Southeast Asia. The IPCC, the “green” financial elite intend the Green New Deal to reduce the population of the world that way. The Schiller Institute, even as it organizes such forces around common interests worldwide, understands that to beat this genocidal policy the powers which resist it—China, Russia and the United States at least—must cooperate in funding real technological development, great infrastructure projects, worldwide. Despite the tremendous tensions, even danger of war among those nations, that cooperation could be launched “suddenly,” in Afghanistan. They are all responsible and obligated there. They all have strong interests against opium traffic and terrorism. They have all been involved there, including the United States which once, after World War II, worked to transfer the Tennessee Valley Authority development miracle into the Helmand River Valley. That is the Schiller Institute’s next conference, this Saturday: “Afghanistan: A Turning Point in History.” Here is the announcement to send out now to your contacts, and register.

The Schiller Institute is preparing a conference at the end of this month with experts who are passionate about Afghanistan’s prospects of becoming, not only a rapidly developing nation, but the pivot of economic development in South Asia, and even the catalyst in a change of relations among the major powers. Our conference will be aimed as a spark, with many nations already meeting in the Central Asian region to discuss next steps after the NATO withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan.The Schiller Institute’s meeting will be held at a true turning point of 21st Century history: The major powers and the regional neighbor countries alike need to eliminate terrorist threats and remove the scourge of Afghan heroin fed by decades of war; and this opens the possibility of development of healthcare and education, transport routes and power and water, with international cooperation in contributing capital goods. As Afghanistan’s ambassador to China, Javid Ahmad Qaem, expressed it in an interview with Global Times July 16, “The only place where they [China, India and the United States] could really cooperate, and at least there could be a starting point to cooperate between these rivals, if I can call them that, is Afghanistan.” The people of the United States and the European NATO members need this development more than Afghanistan does. As NATO forces have done to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya since the 1990s, so have we, in America and Europe, done to ourselves. Our industrial economies and our labor forces have been left to crumble and become impoverished while we trusted the endlessly deployed fighters and their spectacularly expensive equipment to make us “number one” in the world. We admired Wall Street speculating on decaying economic infrastructure until it has fallen apart. Only six months ago the United States electric grid could not keep scores of Americans from dying of cold in long blackouts, while millions of others huddled in misery during a freezing Polar Vortex. This past week Germany’s and Belgium’s flood control infrastructure was washed away in floods which have killed hundreds despite nearly a week of precise warning. America has done nothing for 25 years to counteract a steadily intensifying drought which is threatening to turn the West back into uninhabited desert. “Climate change” hysteria is not a policy to save the planet, but a threat to reduce the human race and push it back centuries in productive capacity. Between now and the meeting on Afghanistan’s development, the Schiller Institute on July 24 holds a combative conference with scientists, engineers and others to defeat the Green New Deal, stop power blackouts and prevent the wholesale shutdown of power supplies and industry. (“There Is No ‘Climate Emergency’—Apply the Science and Economics of Development To Stop Blackouts and Death”) The withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan is no setback if it is taken as an opportunity to make the contributions American technology can make to the progress of developing countries. Instead of tolerating think-tanks’ and Defense Secretaries’ talk about “winning” endless and fruitless wars, we can devote ourselves to the arts of peace against pandemic and famine, and rebuild our own economies into the bargain.

The doublespeak media leaders of the United States, New York Times and CNN for example, made clear yesterday their hope that hundreds of Germans will have died in the natural disaster to make it possible for Green Party co-leader Annalena Baerbock to rally and win the Chancellorship. The Times headline—“Germany Floods: Climate Change Moves to Center of Campaign as Toll Mounts”—is sufficient to give you the idea.The lead article in Neue Solidarität spoke instead to reality: “Gegen die Launen der Mutter Natur, hilfts nur der Ausbau der Infrastruktur!” (The Takedown of Infrastructure Helps the Moods of Mother Nature) That article says: "The worst flood to date in Central Europe, the so-called Magdalene flood in July 1342, occurred long before CO₂ levels rose in the atmosphere. At that time the water was in the cathedrals of Würzburg and Mainz, the cities on the Rhine, Main, Weser and Elbe were overrun by floods, and thousands of people were killed…. “The reconstruction of infrastructure must be used to rebuild the businesses hit by the floods, so that the people in the region can get back their jobs and thus their livelihoods. The goal must be that the people affected should be better off after the reconstruction than before the disaster…. “Whether such natural events, which are always to be expected, turn into catastrophes depends above all on whether people have created the necessary infrastructure in time to enable them to cope with them. We do not need a vague ‘climate protection,’ but rather concrete measures to protect people.” Touring the flood area, Chancellor Angela Merkel fell headlong into a torrent of climate hysteria, featuring the absurd statement, “The German language hardly knows any words for the devastation that has been caused here.” She might have tried Nachlässigkeit, German for “negligence.” The government apparently had meteorological warnings beginning July 12-13 that heavy rains were likely to cause serious flooding in tributaries of the Rhine-Meuse River systems, but the warnings were turned into public service bulletins largely through certain apps rather than all-points alerts. Large numbers of people did not evacuate, despite being in known danger of inundation. Moreover these tributary rivers are, from EIR reports, not dredged or canalized, nor are the dams on them maintained. But to Merkel, the storms’ force “had something to do with climate change. We have to hurry, we have to get faster in the fight against climate change.” So Europeans in the Rhine and Meuse watersheds cannot expect in this government’s “recovery” package, any improvements in the flood-control and water management infrastructure, but only faster bans on energy sources and faster increases in their electric bills. The floods in the Elbe River system in the East of the country in 2002 followed a full week of heavy rains, and were more devastating and much more widespread than these; they spread across Eastern Europe and even into Russia. Perhaps global warming became even more extreme by 2002 than it had been back in 2021, when there were already hardly any German words to describe it? The situation is exactly the same in the North American West, where a gradually intensifying drought condition has been known to be developing for 25 years, with no action ever initiated to build “great projects” of water transfer infrastructure from wet regions of the continent, nor to build power plants capable of desalination along the surrounding oceans and seas of water. Instead, “global warming” (now “climate change”) is pronounced the reason that nothing can be done but sacrifice to “save the planet.” Helga Zepp-LaRouche, federal chairwoman of the Civil Rights Movement Solidarity party in Germany, said that the European Union’s so-called climate-change recovery package “could only have been devised by people who have no interest in people, who do not care about the development of the developing sector, but who want to continue the colonialist system.” Mark Carney, the UN’s Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and former Governor of the Bank of England, proposed buying CO₂ emission rights from developing countries — provided that they renounce economic development and the expansion of agriculture. There is already an agreement between Norway and Gabon, in which Gabon has committed itself to forgoing economic development of its rainforests — which cover 90% of the country’s area. For this they will get a ridiculous €150 million over ten years! Said Zepp-LaRouche: “I find that absolutely disgusting and I hope that the legitimate will of the majority of people in the world will prevail instead, to claim their right to development.”

To quote a Chinese professor’s acerbic and brutally accurate observation, just before the G7 heads of state and government met at a resort in an impoverished area of Great Britain: “Far from confronting China, these Western leaders are only in confrontation with reality, and with the interests of the American people and the people of the world at large.” Trying to impose an insane new financial bubble called “Green New Deal,” based on deindustrializing advanced economies and making developing nations unsurvivable, the leaders of the trans-Atlantic democracies are too worried about bailing out their own banking systems to offer anything of value to the rest of the world. And as for the “rules” of their “rules-based order,” the same observer aptly said, “The time when a small group of countries can impose the rules on others, is past.”A counter-Belt and Road Initiative from the G7? The ugly April speech by the Brits’ top “green” banker Mark Carney to African leaders, in which he told them to give up land, resource and industry development to get “carbon offset” cash payments from the likes of Microsoft, looks like all there is. The heads of state and government, in their summit just concluded, renewed a pledge made in 2009, and several times since, without result, to “spend $100 billion a year to help poorer countries cut carbon emissions.” Specifically, the G7 said they pledged to “mobilize $100 billion/year from public and private sources, through to 2025.” None of the seven “leading” nations promised anything specific, just as they have not during the past 12 years. This does not look at all like an “alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative” so much spoken of by the seven rather economically desperate heads of state and government. Unless the “private sources” refers to tech and other giants like Microsoft, maliciously buying their way out of carbon emissions for executive jets and the like, by paying cash to take developing nations’ land and resources out of development. Moreover, along with this new “green finance” bubble is coming rising and spiking inflation, especially in food, which is plaguing much of the world. Home and vehicle prices in the United States are rising at 15-20 annual rates. The European Construction Industry Federation warns of frightening rates of increase in iron, steel bars, tar, construction materials for concrete and wood structures “threatening recovery after the pandemic.” The entire developing sector is struck hard by price increases across all categories of food, which the UN Food and Agriculture Organization says have averaged +38% over the past year. China repeatedly warns the United States Federal Reserve that its money-printing, and the European Central Bank’s (each now ten times their size after the Great Financial Crisis), are unleashing a dangerous worldwide inflation. A cartoon in China’s Global Times, a Da Vinci knockoff of “The Last Supper,” called “The Last G7,” shows an American bald eagle at the center of the table reassuring its “disciples” with a printing press that takes in toilet paper and spews out dollars. Confrontation with China and Russia by the “green” new order (now Build Back Better World instead of “Great Reset”) may start war that will escalate and destroy much of humanity, or set off a hyperinflation. It cannot defy physical-economic reality. The unique starting point which can lead both to recovery and to gradually increasing great-power cooperation, is the common mission of building a modern healthcare and public health system in every nation in the world. The “next pandemic” may be COVID-22, and the vaccines now vaguely being promised to the world sometime that year, may have been defeated by the virus by then. There must be hospital, clinic and lab building everywhere, providing the power, freshwater, housing, and training of recruits throughout the developing nations particularly. Everything for this new paradigm is being continuously worked out and created through the conferences of the Schiller Institute: The next, two-day international conference is June 26-27. It’s what we do there, that the world may remember.