Article Search

The Schiller Institute’s two-day international conference just concluded March 21 achieved a number of breakthroughs which no other organization is capable of having done, which are extraordinarily important in this crisis of pandemic, spreading hunger and military and social conflict. Two were most obvious. High-ranking representatives of Russia and China gave important presentations on the second, “strategic” panel of the conference, on a weekend in which tensions among the three superpowers spiked up, with the Russian Ambassador recalled from Washington and the public confrontation U.S.-China meeting of top officials in Alaska. These representatives understand that the Schiller Institute’s activists in the United States and Europe who organized the meeting are a unique cultural and political force for peace and development. And on the third panel Sunday morning, a decorated U.S. Marine combat veteran, former Virginia State Senator and conservative Republican, Col. Richard Black (ret.), was bold and brave enough to denounce the war policies of the United States and NATO in Southwest Asia, especially Syria, and demand, “This has to stop!”On that third panel representatives of the popular governments of Yemen, Syria and Iraq were able to speak directly to Americans, Europeans and to young people in Ibero-America—something which was a first for numerous of the several thousand people who watched the conference online. A way was presented in detail—the North American Belt and Road Initiative—for the United States and China to cooperate for the economic advantage of both, in aiding high-technology development of the nations of Mexico, Central and South America. Two of this unique conference’s sessions, taken together, completely exposed and debunked the so-called Green New Deal as both scientifically fraudulent and economically destructive, in a way comprehensible to professionals and laymen alike. Princeton physicist Dr. William Happer, formerly on the National Security Council in 2018-19, discredited the case against carbon dioxide itself as a substance supposedly dangerous to the planet. And Richard Freeman of EIR showed the British Royal Family origin and steering of the Green New Deal as a torpedo aimed to destroy industrial civilization. Perhaps most important, the Committee on the Coincidence of Oppositions came forward at this conference, a collaboration of leading medical professionals from minority communities, and American farm leaders, and veteran military officers, dedicated to seeing modern healthcare systems in every nation to fight the pandemic, to training youth Health Corps, and to doubling food production to fight the famine that is spreading. This Committee, the idea of Helga Zepp-LaRouche and former U.S. Surgeon-General Joycelyn Elders, is itself unique in the social force “of opposites” it is creating. The same conference was able, in its opening session devoted to “a new cultural Renaissance,” to convey the necessity of Classical poetry and music to political leaders and citizens who are going to solve these problems. The basic solutions to this crisis of economic collapse and debt explosion remain as Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have said: Glass-Steagall breakup of the megabanks; a “New Bretton Woods” international credit system; national bank credit institutions in every nation, crash programs at the space and fusion frontiers. But as Helga LaRouche pointed out as the conference ended, “Populations have become numbed” by misfortune, prejudice, disease, social conflict and a degenerated popular culture—all of these issues have also to be taken on, and the grave danger of the Great Reset and Green New Deal fully understood. Next we will publish a mass-circulation pamphlet form of EIR’s Special Report, “The Great Leap Backward: LaRouche Exposes the Green New Deal.” Conferences on these subjects will continue. How quickly, may depend on you. Find the times to watch this one in full, at the link here. The Schiller Institute does not have enough activist forces to hold the range of such events which it could command. We need those who have seen this conference, to join with Helga LaRouche.

As the year 2022 opened marking economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche’s 100th birthday, the heads of state and government of the five nuclear weapons states, which are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council, consulted as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has insisted they must do, and issued a declaration, for the first time, that “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” (see the Declaration in Documentation). The words were used by Presidents Biden and Putin following their Dec. 7, 2021 video conference; and this declaration will now sit over the U.S.-Russian-NATO negotiations on the Ukraine crisis Jan. 10-13.But the fundamental reason for optimism here is not so much the words of this declaration as that the five powers’ leaders acted together against global war. Helga Zepp-LaRouche had publicly called on them to do exactly two years ago—Jan. 3, 2020, in the dangerous period after the assassination of the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani—and has urged it on them many times since. On Jan. 15, 2020, two weeks after Helga LaRouche’s first call, Russian President Putin called for a P5 heads-of-state summit to deal with problems of peace, security, and terrorism—and he, too, has repeated that proposal several times since; and his spokesman emphasized today that it is still necessary after this “nuclear war never” declaration. Already by early March 2020, Helga LaRouche had identified the COVID pandemic—demanding a modern healthcare system be built in every country—as the new requirement for such a major-power summit. This must be done on an emergency basis in Afghanistan, along with food aid and power supply guarantees to save millions of lives. It is the start of, through physical-economic development, the real name for peace; and it points to a new international credit system like FDR’s Bretton Woods, in place of the crash-prone casino we have now. These are the missions uniquely reachable through what Lyndon LaRouche called “the four-power agreement” of America, Russia, China and India. That makes today’s “P5” declaration significant beyond its words. The declaration was posted simultaneously at roughly 11:00 a.m. U.S. Eastern Time on all five Presidents’/Prime Ministers’ websites. “We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” the statement says. “As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war. We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.” This rebukes those mad war-hawks like Sen. Roger Wicker who have been raising the “option” of a nuclear first strike on Russia over Ukraine. The five signers also reaffirm the importance of addressing nuclear threats, as well as their commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its obligation “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.” They “reaffirm that none of our nuclear weapons are targeted at each other or at any other State.” They also declared: “We intend to continue seeking bilateral and multilateral diplomatic approaches to avoid military confrontations, strengthen stability and predictability, increase mutual understanding and confidence, and prevent an arms race that would benefit none and endanger all. We are resolved to pursue constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns.” Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, “We hope that, in the current difficult conditions of international security, the approval of such a political statement will help reduce the level of international tensions.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasized that Moscow still considered a summit between the world’s major nuclear powers to be “necessary.” China’s Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu was quoted by the official Xinhua that the pledge “will help increase mutual trust and replace competition among major powers with coordination and cooperation.” But it is only a step that these nations’ leaders must be kept to. The trans-Atlantic banking and financial system is headed for hyperinflation and crash. What the world absolutely needs is a major-power negotiation process which involves at least India as well, to launch a new international credit system capable of funding real economic development, “TVA-like” thorough development of poorer regions, advanced nuclear power development, technological progress led by space science and fusion power crash programs. The guide and planner of this process, and the world’s leading fighter for it, was Lyndon LaRouche. This begins LaRouche’s year.

The President of Bolivia stated on May 15 that only a global common effort can effectively fight the COVID-19 pandemic. His statement indicates what most national leaders must recognize: that international collaboration between developed nations, with the express aim of preventing mass death in the developing nations is urgently necessary. But limited as President Arce’s declaration is essentially to a global vaccination effort, it leaves the only solution to the ongoing waves of pandemic deaths still not mentioned, let alone launched. That is the arduous project of building, as rapidly as humanly possible, a modern system of hospitals, clinics, and trained public health workforces in every nation on Earth. The vast majority of nations now don’t have such a modern health system and are devastated, both in human lives and economic destruction, by this pandemic.The Schiller Institute’s Committee for the Coincidence of Oppositions, initiated in 2020 by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and former U.S. Surgeon-General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, urges and demands this project be launched now, and that the Global Health Summit in Rome May 21 discuss it and call for it. Such an undertaking must begin with a summit of major powers, such as the UN Security Council P5 heads of state and government summit repeatedly proposed by Russian President Putin. We must “stop the next pandemic,” yes, but the “next pandemic” is COVID2021, still spreading out its wave of deaths, and COVID2022. Nations with advanced disease monitoring and treatment capabilities and workforces can save their populations. Consider: The United States in the very serious 1957 influenza pandemic took no unusual mitigation measures, not even extensive vaccination—yet had only half the number of deaths per population as the rest of the world at that time. Why? Because it had built up its then-modern hospital/clinic system to 6.5 beds per 1,000 population all over the country. Today it has shut them down, and has only 2.7 beds/1,000 people. Why is the necessity to build hospitals and labs, train healthcare workforces, recruit youth, train public health monitors in every country not being discussed? Decades of neglect have driven the very idea out of public discussion of the pandemic. The Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites is determined to reverse this. Helga Zepp-LaRouche said on May 15: "We need a huge effort, in as many countries as possible, to organize to be published our Committee’s ‘Global Health Security’ statement. In Asia, Africa, Ibero-America, they know that our program is what they need. We should organize a steamroller to get massive circulation in publications, in blogs, through social media, etc. “We should have a team of people from the Task Force this week doing nothing but brainstorming how to get the statement published—and immediately organizing to do so. We should do this in all countries where we have members. We should contact former Health Ministers, and former members of governments generally, and many who have made positive statements about our proposals and initiatives. “We have a major problem internationally,” she said "a mismatch between the quality of our conferences and much of our published material, and, on the other hand, the numbers of people who are really listening and watching…. We have top speakers from governments and institutions who are grateful to speak on our platform, giving them access and visibility that is crucial, and not otherwise available. We open up potentials as on the Rogue Money platform for the [May 8 Schiller Institute] Conference. But the outreach is not adequate. “We need the biggest mobilization with our world health system statement. Anyone who has been open to our ideas…. We should get 20-50 publications of the statement in the coming days.”

No political leader or force in the United States or Europe is any longer challenging the biggest banks in the world, which have been unbelievably enriched during this pandemic by the central banks, while millions have died and hundreds of millions have lost their work and their subsistence. President Trump called their CEOs “Wall Street geniuses.” The European Union has the likes of Morgan and BlackRock plan its alleged “recovery programs.” The World Economic Forum club of finance billionaires, who gather with the British royals at Davos, have put themselves in charge of the supposedly all-important global “Green New Deal” and have been seizing control of government spending policies from governments. In the U.S. Congress, the erstwhile anti-megabank champions like Sen. Elizabeth Warren no longer dare to mention the Glass-Steagall principle of bank separation when the biggest banksters sit in hearings before them.“At our upcoming conference it is very, very urgent that we resume the fight for Glass-Steagall Act. There are clear signs of a hyperinflationary blowout,” declared Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche today in discussion with activists all over the United States and Canada. It is those banks, bulked up to incredible size by the Federal Reserve during this economic and human crisis, who are driving that hyperinflation now threatening us. The four largest U.S. banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup—now have half of all deposits in the banking system: $7.5 trillion of $15 trillion—but have made only $4 trillion in loans! The seven biggest have three-quarters of all the assets, $13 trillion out of $17.5 trillion. These are giant engines of speculation. Since 1999 when Glass-Steagall was eliminated they can speculate on anything from oil tankers to stock and bond indices; and their speculation with the Fed’s flood of money printing—while no productive employment or investments are created—is driving the rising tide of inflation. The worst danger is the power these banks now wield, above all in imposing the global technological great leap backward of the Green New Deal. It will send advanced economies into chaos and subject developing countries to genocidal population reduction by denying electric power, mechanized agriculture, modern medical delivery. But it promises a huge new bubble of “green finance” to those banks by the looting power of high energy prices and carbon taxes. We already have seen BlackRock and associated Wall Street and City of London investment firms forcing the shutdown of coal and oil power, from the United States to South Africa to the Philippines, by cutting off investment. Only today another consortium of six of the biggest global banks combined to force “decarbonization” on the steel industry. The OECD’s think-tank on “green transformations” projects world steel production to drop by more than half over this century. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has named the only sane response. These giant banks must be thoroughly broken up, both to choke off the fuel for the engines of speculation and to break their immense political power. How can we allow new classes of deca-billionaires to accumulate hundreds of thousands of times more wealth than working homeowners, and millions of times more than the couple of billion people in the world who have no regular work or healthcare after a year of pandemic? Glass-Steagall must be brought back, only one of what Lyndon LaRouche called the “Four new Laws To Save the Nation” when he laid them down on June 8, 2014. National banks for productive credit are necessary in every country; and the productivity investments of that credit should be paced by science-driver programs of space exploration and fusion power/plasma technology development. The Schiller Institute’s June 26-27 international conference, featuring experts on both economic and physical sciences, will be a turning point in getting the world back to economic development.

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.

Feb. 14—The Biden Administration, with a very bad misjudgment of the real condition of Afghanistan after 20 years of NATO’s war there, made a rushed pull-out and then moved to seize all the country’s cash and punish its people with no food, medical care or shelter in the dead of winter. It never even told America’s NATO “allies” what it was doing. It’s leaving a country destroyed.Can the Biden White House now be allowed to make an even worse disaster in Europe—even a nuclear disaster—in a crisis, the “Ukraine crisis,” which could set off a war to destroy humanity itself? The more and more angry and aggressive bluffing of Russia by the Biden Administration over Ukraine has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have ever been since October 1962, when the whole world was terrified by the Cuban Missiles Crisis. One possibility is that Biden and his dubious national security team is looking for a victory to sell at home, by telling us Russia will invade Ukraine next week, tomorrow, any minute … and then when Russia does not invade, telling us Biden’s threat of crushing economic punishment stopped Putin. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this was the “elaborate charade” yesterday on Twitter. Former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock put out the idea in a column today, writing for the American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her own way, hinted at it Sunday on “ABC This Week”: “If we were not threatening the sanctions and the rest, it would guarantee that Putin would invade…. So, if Russia doesn’t invade, it’s not that he never intended to. It’s just that the sanctions worked.” But we cannot rest on hope that this is political fakery. The Biden White House is punishing Afghanistan incompetently, but with a vengeance. It wants to punish Russia and destroy its economy. Senior White House officials said it in a background press briefing Jan. 25: The goal is “hit Putin’s strategic ambitions to industrialize his economy quite hard…. Undercut Putin’s aspirations to exert influence on the world stage.” The officials vowed, “we’re talking about denying to Russia downstream products that are critical to its own ambitions to develop high-tech capabilities in aerospace and defense, lasers and sensors, maritime, AI, robotics, quantum, etc. … And so, as we build this effort with our allies and partners, we’re willing to work with any country in order to deny Russia an input that it needs to diversify its economy.” With that goal, Biden’s team—which had “everything under control” in Afghanistan—is daring Russian President Putin to go to war. It is squeezing Ukraine’s President Zelensky so hard that he feels compelled to contradict every Russian invasion forecast that London and Washington make. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in her widely read analysis Feb. 6, said “We Are 100 Seconds to Midnight on the Doomsday Clock: We Need a New Security Architecture.” Two European bankers put out a call for France to block Ukraine’s entry to NATO and leave the NATO strategic command, now, anything to stop the march toward war. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz went to Ukraine today to say, “The issue of [Ukraine’s] membership in the alliance [NATO] is not on the agenda,” so Russia should stop worrying about it. But the NATO weaponry America is pouring into Ukraine and around it is unprecedented: Ukraine’s Defense Minister admits it now has far more anti-tank missiles than Russian tank targets. We all need to mobilize ourselves, not to “watch and wait,” as most were scared into doing in October 1962. There is no John F. Kennedy here to solve this. The solution is to compel more breaks toward negotiation, and to attack the cause, the threat of hyperinflationary collapse which the Biden Administration and Federal Reserve have done so much to bring on themselves and us. Our next D-Day is Saturday, Feb. 19, the Schiller Institute’s all-day conference with the message of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Feb. 6 article: We need a new security architecture, one based on economic recovery and development. Register for the conference and organize others.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

The din of war in the trans-Atlantic media, the drumbeat of “Russian attack and invasion,” has now reached a crescendo. Can there still be some Leonard Bernstein of London who will raise the orchestra of the intelligence services to a still louder pitch, until American and European publics actually believe that a Russian military invasion of Ukraine is underway? Will some stiff-necked journalists continue to demand actual evidence?On Feb. 5 the Financial Times took the podium, with “U.S. Believes Russia Plans Nuclear Exercise To Warn West over Ukraine.” It declared with the London media’s usual evidence-freedom that “U.S. military and intelligence officials believe Russia is planning a major nuclear weapons exercise this month as a warning to NATO not to intervene if President Vladimir Putin decides to invade.” This nuclear weapons exercise should be in September, the FT decides, but the bully Putin is going to hold it in February or March instead to intimidate NATO when the invasion goes ahead. The invasion that, according to NBC on Sunday, Biden Administration officials believe is coming “any day now.” “Russia generally holds its annual nuclear exercises—which involve testing intercontinental ballistic missiles from land, sea and air—in the fall,” wrote the FT. “But the U.S. believes Putin has decided to hold them earlier this year as a show of strength in the event that he orders his military to further invade Ukraine” probably in “mid-February to the end of March.” Then a somewhat unintelligible—perhaps crazy—analyst from the Hudson Institute is quoted, of this hypothesized February nuclear exercise, “It would be an incredibly provocative and foreboding message if they did that simultaneously with an invasion of Ukraine.” What the FT presented as its war scoop—similar to Bloomberg News’ short-lived headline, “Russia Invades Ukraine,” on Feb. 4—actually was already apparently stated to the Congress Feb. 3 in closed-door, classified testimony by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and DNI Avril Haines, and then leaked to Fleet Street. What about the fact that the United States right now is holding nuclear weapons exercises, called Global Lightning 2022, which exercises are intended to simulate an extended nuclear war, with first strikes—nuclear and conventional—retaliatory second strikes, responses to those strikes, and on, with more and more of the nuclear arsenals being fired? Nothing such inconveniently directed threat matters, facing the “Russia is invading Ukraine” drumbeat. But it does matter to its real target, the human race. Helga Zepp-LaRouche in a new article said of Global Lightning, “This nuclear war plan includes not only nuclear weapons but various other lethal systems such as missile defense systems, directed energy weapons such as electromagnetic pulse weapons and lasers, cyberattacks, and Space Force attacks from space. Who would be able to survive such a prolonged nuclear war?” There are some signs of motion toward a solution: French President Emmanuel Macron’s negotiation with Russian President Vladimir Putin gave signs of immediate, possibly productive follow-up from both sides. But the real solution can only be found in the direction Zepp-LaRouche indicated. The financial system is an immense mass of unpayable debts preparing to crash again, worse than in 2008, and the City of London and Wall Street can survive it only if they beat down Russia and/or China before it crashes, distracting millions in the process from perceiving the failing monetarist system. A new paradigm of economic as well as moral and cultural relations among the great powers is the antidote both to the coming financial crash, and to the resort to unsurvivable war. A New Bretton Woods credit system is urgently needed which can save Afghanistan and other war-destroyed nations, and build modern healthcare systems in every country to save people from pandemics.

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 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.”

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.”

So many institutions of the U.S. intellectual establishment are now echoing the Schiller Institute and demanding the release of Afghanistan’s aid and reserve funds—15 think-tanks and organizations in a Jan. 8 joint letter to President Biden and others on their own websites—that there is clearly a horrible realization: United States financial and economic sanctions are murdering an innocent people, for insufficient loyalty to NATO occupying forces. Any citizen who thinks this crime is unrelated to the threat of an imminent, much bigger conflict over Ukraine, is mistaking moral posturing for morality.In the U.S.-Russia meetings now going on in Geneva about NATO in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, moral posturing by U.S. diplomats has quickly and completely replaced the personal diplomacy between Presidents Biden and Putin which seemed to give hope of a solution. After the bilateral U.S.-Russia stage of the meetings on Jan. 10, State Department spokesman Ned Price said that the United States would never consider keeping Ukraine out of NATO, “had not intended to reach any agreement” with Russia, and did not even “consider the talks as a negotiation.” He concluded his briefing with a talking points list of Russian “malign activities,” to claim that Russia, and only Russia, had to de-escalate and make concessions, to allow NATO forces and missiles to complete their long advance right to Russia’s borders—while Russian troops must vacate their own western border regions and “return to their permanent bases.” Secretary of State Tony Blinken added, at the same time, a gratuitous attempt to gloat over Russia’s assistance to the government of Kazakhstan to control rioting and attempted insurrection. Unless President Joe Biden intervenes personally again, Russia’s proposed agreements have been bluntly and permanently rejected. This is the equivalent of Nikita Khrushchev having refused ever to consider withdrawing Soviet missiles from America’s southern border in the terrifying Cuban Missiles Crisis of October 1962. At that time, tens of millions of frightened people around the world had already imagined what that refusal would mean. Even if the consequence now is “merely” a conventional conflict in Ukraine, U.S. former chief weapons inspector and military expert Scott Ritter gives an idea why that would not go well for NATO forces. What if the consequence is only the “complete rupture of relations” threatened by Putin and a deep and immediate Cold War. The nation with the world’s most rapidly expanding and technologically advancing economy, and with the greatest anti-poverty and development influence in Africa, South and East Asia, is firmly in partnership with Russia. This is clearly shown once again in the suppression of the apparently failed “color revolution” attempt in Kazakhstan. If the Biden Administration has decided the United States will attack and confront Russia and China together in a new Cold War—opposing them in space, fighting their policies of exporting nuclear power to third countries, demanding they stop using coal for power, attacking China’s Belt and Road and poverty eradication policies, and so on, who will it have in its corner? Why, the British Empire, of course—those green royals and Bojo the Clown and Her Majesty’s forces eager to deploy into Ukraine. What will America have in reserve? No development credit institution; a weak economic recovery from a deep recession; a labor force 3 million workers and 3.5 million jobs down from two years ago; declining real incomes; a Federal Reserve creating economic calamities worldwide, as the IMF warned Jan. 9, trying to stop the inflation it caused. But far worse than any of this is the ongoing strangulation of the people of Afghanistan by U.S. sanctions. It is causing a growing cascade of deaths by starvation, by freezing in homes with no winter fuel, in a nation for which the United States clearly bears responsibility after 20 years’ war and occupation. Murdered for the sin of not sustaining a puppet government when NATO left it. These sanctions are a crime against humanity. With this Afghanistan as its “banner,” nations will instinctively shun an Anglo-American attempt to make the rules for the world. There would be perverse new meaning, as Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche said today, to the phrase “Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires.” This must be prevented, reversed. The policy must be changed to one of development, by Helga LaRouche’s Operation Ibn Sina. The Schiller Institute’s urgent organizing for this objective, will take its next step forward with a webinar on Martin Luther King Day, Monday, Jan. 17.

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.