Article Search

Feb. 8—We begin by providing a short report, otherwise unavailable to Americans, of what went on in the six- hour discussions that occurred several days ago between Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Emmanuel Macron of France. It should be noted that simultaneously with these discussions, President Joe Biden was meeting with Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany. Prior to their respective meetings with the United States and Russia, Scholz and Macron had spoken on the phone, and they also spoke on the phone immediately after those meetings had concluded. Macron then went to Ukraine to meet with President Zelensky, and was to return to Germany to consult with Chancellor Scholz after that meeting.President Putin: "I am deeply grateful to Mr President for discussing these matters in Moscow today. I believe that these security matters concern not only Russia but also Europe and the world as a whole. “Look, our proposals include not only NATO’s expansion, which we oppose, but also a second point: the non-deployment of offensive systems near our borders. If everyone wants peace, tranquility, well-being and confidence, what is bad about not deploying offensive weapons near our borders? Can anyone tell me what is bad about this? “If NATO is a peaceful organization, what is bad about returning its infrastructure to the level of 1997, when the NATO-Russia Act was signed? This would create conditions for building up confidence and security. Is this bad? “We can let the open-door pledge be, even though the issue remains on the agenda. It is a key priority for us, and I have explained why. We talked about this for six hours. “Tomorrow, President Macron will fly to Kiev. We have agreed that he will at least put forth his action plan regarding this. I am deeply grateful to him for giving so much attention to this and that he is trying to find a solution to this matter of great importance to all of us.” President Macron:… "I think that it is first of all France’s responsibility to have the strongest possible relationship with Russia. We are two great European nations and great world powers. We are two permanent members of the UN Security Council. “Bilateral relations are of great importance for us, firstly, to have them develop, and to have common decisions on acute international issues. We are trying to do so on the Iranian issue and attempting to find a point of contact on Libya and other matters. We do have disagreements but we still find compromise. This is obvious to me. “Secondly, I think that President Putin and I agree that Russia is a European country. Those who can see Europe should be able to work with Russia and find ways to build the future in Europe and with Europeans. Is it easy? No, but Europe was also created through difficult initiatives that had immediate effects. So, yes, we do have difficulties but we must not give up. “Finally, this is France’s mission, it is its role. During these six months we are presiding in the European Union. Our role is to make the voice of the European Union heard and take into account a variety of complex circumstances in communication with such neighbors as Russia, which plays a decisive role in our security, and listen to all Europeans as well. I have been doing this over the past days. Being here I am trying to be the person who can make a contribution to finding this proper way. “I have a simple conviction. Do we increase our collective capability for making peace without our contacts with Russia? No, we do not. Who do we leave this role for? For others. “We do have disagreements. We realize that. Sometimes we fail to move forward and it is the result of such disagreements. However, we are trying to find compromises. I consider it to be my responsibility. Our task is to make sure that these compromises protect the interests of our partners and allies. This is why in the coming days and weeks we must start this difficult work, find new decisions in order to protect these guarantees while still protecting our basic principles and our neighborly relations, because our geography will not change. This is why we carry on.” Serious negotiations and diplomacy have been underway involving a day-to-day dialogue among the heads of state of Germany, France, Russia, and United States, as well as Ukraine, not only to prevent the potential outbreak of war, intended or unintended, but also, in the words of Macron, to “jointly show the will to work on security guarantees and to build a new security and stability order in Europe.” That fact has been suppressed from the consciousness of the American and European citizenry, in favor of media sideshows aptly characterized by Russian spokesman Maria Zhakarova as “psychedelic phobias.” In that vein, “The Ned Price Experience” was once again called out on Monday by reporter Matt Lee, this time supported by a colleague. State Department spokesman Ned Price attempted to falsify his exchange last week with reporter Lee, who had simply asked Price for any evidence to corroborate his “State Department-approved” assertion that Russia had manufactured a “false flag” video depicting an attack by Ukraine on Russia, including using “crisis actors” a la Alex Jones. In Monday’s exchange, in which Price again refused to provide any evidence whatsoever, Lee again asked, “Do you have anything more that you can say to back up the claim than you did— than you had to say last week? That’s all.” Price: “Beyond what we told you last week …in pretty detailed terms about the Russian plans … We don’t have anything further to offer on that.” Second reporter: “Then you’re saying the proof that you’re correct is that nothing is actually going to happen? Is that what you’re saying? … because you putting this out there will have stopped the Russians from doing it, correct?” While the practice of State Department-Speak (StateSpeak) has been previously satirized over decades by authors like Joseph Heller and Kurt Vonnegut, the Ned Price and other responses on Ukraine are now more like the dialogue in “Waiting For Godot—” self-assured opaqueness, unassailable by reason, but internally consistent and therefore “obvious” to the speaker alone. Whatever NATO’s objections to reality, however, last week’s Russia-China agreement underscores a reality that was extensively discussed by Lyndon LaRouche exactly 40 years ago in his “A Fifty Year Development Program for the Pacific Ocean Basin”: the center of gravity of human civilization has shifted to Africa, Asia, and the Indian subcontinent, the homes of more than five billion of the nearly eight billion people on the planet. NATO’s strained “sphere of influence” discussions with respect to China and Russia are the equivalent of using Ptolemy’s discredited epicycles to draw more and more elaborate “revisionings” of an “old, mad, dying imperial world” that is being decisively transcended through investments in advanced power, space, and production systems applied to mining, manufacturing, and agriculture, creating a whole new world platform—and the people who will produce and benefit from this transformation. Those who don’t intend to miss out on Earth’s next fifty years of progress, are “making it clear with their feet” which side of the future they intend to be on. The State Department’s hapless flailing, while it should be derided, must also be taken seriously; it serves to mask the actual foreign policy practice of the United States, its “Iago-like” controller Great Britain, and that of other equally guilty participants, in the ongoing death-by-starvation- and-depraved indifference in Afghanistan and Yemen, most spectacularly, and in the use of sanctions against vulnerable states throughout the world. Attention was called to this in the Monday United Nations Security Council session, in the Open Debate on “General issues relating to sanctions: preventing their humanitarian and unintended consequences.” Unlike Cambodia 1975-79, the world cannot pretend to not know what is happening there. The United States cannot pretend to not be responsible. The individual citizens, armed with social media and other forms of communication, cannot claim that they are powerless or voiceless to stop one of the cruelest forms of murder, starvation. Dante’s Count Ugolino could at least claim that he ate his children out of extreme hunger. Today, we are as Count Ugolino, with respect to our consumption of the lives of perhaps a million or more children in Afghanistan, either because we defend the genocidal policies now under way, or because we fail to overturn them. The Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) and the Schiller Institute (SI) will be convening a seminar on Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 4 PM Moscow time/2 PM CET/8 AM EST on the topic, “The Humanitarian Crisis in Afghanistan: Toward a Long-term Solution.” Join us and help implement the Institute’s Operation Ibn Sina, not only to save Afghanistan, but to, by that means, save the soul of trans-Atlantic civilization.

At the conclusion of a meeting yesterday with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, President Vladimir Putin reported: “Let me note that we are closely analyzing the written responses received from the U.S. and NATO on January 26. However, it is already clear, and I informed Mr. Prime Minister about it, that the fundamental Russian concerns were ignored.” Those concerns, including stopping the eastern expansion of NATO, and reversing and preventing the deployment of strike weapons near Russian borders, are existential for the Russian state. The United States and NATO, it has now become clear, however, do not have the cooperation of the present Ukrainian government for the “defense of democracy” pretext they wished to present to their own largely clueless, mentally-captive populations as justification for their mad adventure.“The march of folly” we are seeing, despite certain efforts which are exceptions to that march, will get us to war, one way or another, if not today, tomorrow, or the day after. Though more and more organizations and individuals are speaking out, opposition to war is not enough. Something original, outside of the geopolitical domain, firmly rooted in the immediate moment but tied to the long-term best interests of humanity, that will restore the very idea of humanity, must be adopted, universally, and now. Thanks to the collaboration of South African, Chinese, and other epidemiologists, we now know that a new bat coronavirus, NeoCov, is capable, under certain circumstances, of transmitting a MERS-CoV-2 like disease to humans with, potentially, the sort of efficiency seen in the Delta and Omicron versions of coronavirus. This has not happened yet, but the proposal recently made by Xi Jinping at Davos for a worldwide collaboration to overcome the impending mass death of millions through as yet unknown, as well as known lethal pandemics, a danger possibly greater than even that last seen 660 years ago with the bubonic plague, is probably the only way that this could be avoided, if it can be avoided at all, at this time. This proposal needs an inspired response from the morally depraved trans-Atlantic sector. The World Health Platform proposal of Helga Zepp- LaRouche, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, and others, is, and has been available. But a morally degenerate elite that has lost the will or moral fitness to survive would never properly respond to Xi jinping in time, particularly if they have just proven themselves incapable of properly responding to Russia, and the immediate danger of accidentally launching thermonuclear war on the planet as a whole—which is what we have seen so far. Nonetheless, the scientific capability to do this exists, and because of the Operation Ibn Sina proposal of the Schiller institute, with respect to Afghanistan and the world generally, a clear plan to do this exists. So why is this really not happening? In a June 1981 EIR document entitled “The Strategic Significance of the Ecumenical Negotiations,” Lyndon LaRouche identified the reasons for the morally depraved character of the Roman Empire and the Roman Republic . “St. Augustine addressed the practical side of the doctrinal issue in his devastating proof that not only the Roman Empire but the City of Rome before the Empire represented a morally degenerate society. Pre-Imperial Rome, according to the Roman historian Livius, was controlled by the Cult of Apollo, the same cult notorious as Aristotle’s master at Delphi, and known in the Middle East by the names of Marduk and Lucifer. Imperial Rome was a result of control of the Roman cults from Ptolemaic Egypt. These were representatives of the forces which the Apostle St. John’s Apocalypse (Revelations) identifies as the ‘Whore of Babylon.’” While the United States is still the world’s oldest and most successful republic, since the death of Franklin Roosevelt in April 1945, America has been culturally dominated in all aspects of policy-making by the Whore, not of Babylon, but of “Perfidious Albion.” In the last weeks and months, whether at the COP 26 Malthusian “Kill Humanity, Save the Planet” fest, or in the Black Sea military chicken game with the Russian fleet, with the AUKUS (Australia-United Kingdom-United States) adventure, or the present mad gambit against Russia in Ukraine, itself the latest incarnation of the never-ending Christopher Steele/ Sir Richard Dearlove/Robert Hannigan/GCHQ “Russiagate” assault on the American Presidency—the City Of London has been in the driver’s seat of. Britain is now deploying the “junior varsity” of the United States State Department, not only for the greater glory of BAE Systems and such, but for the self-destruction of the United States itself. That’s why the policy pronouncements are both insane, and continuous. Perhaps it was Ukrainian President Zelensky’s one undisputed skill, his penchant for comedy, that has led him to realize that the joke has gone too far. He does not intend to incinerate his nation. He and others have seen “up close” the mental difficulty the United States has in facing reality in the form of “the Other,” be that in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Ukraine. A recent example: Take Tony Blinken’s ham-fisted attempt to stop Argentina’s President Fernandez from visiting, first, Putin, and then China’s Xi Jinping, where an MOU on the Belt and Road Initiative is to be signed. On top of that, Brazil’s President Bolsonaro will visit with Putin Feb. 14. Brazilian Vice-President, Gen. Hamilton Mourao (ret.) says that he doesn’t think that Russia plans to invade Ukraine, or that Bolsonaro should not visit Russia because of tensions with the United States. “Let’s remember that Brazil is part of a group with Russia, the BRICS, through which we have a partnership with Russia. Russia is an important country for doing business…and we can’t give that up.” This is the real world, the world of physical economy, the world of what was once termed the American System, but which has been rejected in the United States since the largely-successful 1980s campaign to destroy the reputation and influence of Lyndon LaRouche. In all those areas now in the existential crosshairs—from the spread of lethal pandemics, to the collapse of the international monetary system and what to do about it, to stopping the danger of thermonuclear war though an ecumenical dialogue of cultures, to joint missions on the industrialization of space, and the production of advanced high-density energy platforms based on a revolution in nuclear power plant production, including thorium reactors, HTGR reactors, fission/fusion hybrids,etc.—the writings and campaign of Lyndon LaRouche, featured through the pages of Executive Intelligence Review, has provided a record of what to do, and how to do it. POSTSCRIPT: VERNADSKY, PASTEUR, LAROUCHE In the course of his 1981 discussion of the topic, “The Tragedy of U.S. Education” with a group of academicians in Poland, Lyndon LaRouche may also have provided an idea useful for the next ecumenical and scientific step that could be taken to advance the recent proposal made by President Xi Jinping for an international collaboration of scientists and economists to join together to fight the coronavirus. “Now, we have a case of a very famous Ukrainian-Russian scientist, who probably is one of the most important figures for the 21st Century, Academician Vernadsky. Vernadsky was a student of Curie (the son of Curie, the son-in-law of Pasteur), as well as of [Dmitri] Mendeleyev. Vernadsky went beyond this, but [he was] in the same school of Mendeleyev, of Pasteur, and actually the French school of Arago before them. He went through this, to develop a conception of what he called ‘biogeochemistry.’” “By working in the school of Mendeleyev—he studied originally under Mendeleyev in Petrograd—[he] showed a way of thinking about the relationship between living processes and what we call non-living processes. He demonstrated, for example, that the atmosphere, the oceans, and most of the area on which we live on the surface of the Earth, is a biosphere. These things he called the”natural products of life." That is, one could measure a change in the characteristic of the planet, produced by the continuous action of life, or life transforming the planet. He went further, in his work during the 1930s, and defined what he called the “noösphere,” that is, the action of human cognition in transforming the biosphere, and transforming the relationship of man to the universe. “Vernadsky was also the founder of nuclear science in Russia and Ukraine….” Can the investigation of the work of Vernadsky, and Lyndon LaRouche’s observations on Vernadsky from the standpoint of physical economy, provide a way to initiate an international dialogue that takes up the method of inquiry required to make breakthroughs in the field of biology and medicine, the harnessing of thermonuclear power, and the redefinition of the presently bankrupt notions of ecology and environment, from the standpoint of investigating Vernadsky’s scientific conception of the noösphere? How might that dialogue be proposed by a “Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites” in terms of the collaborations among people in many different nations, and across disciplines, to address both the short-term emergency of saving humanity from an onslaught of infectious disease, and the long-term investigation of the very nature of life, and of creativity as a unique form of life distinct from all others?

Executive Intelligence Review, the Daily Alert Service, and other LaRouche publications, including our video, must be vectored, especially in the next days, to asserting the reality of the present danger of total war, including thermonuclear war, and what to do to avert it—even as mistaken distortions in the calm strategic evaluation required in this situation abound in the printed and electronic media, whether through incompetence or design. This begins with accurately reporting, particularly to the largely clueless American people, what the Russian government is actually saying. On Monday, Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitri Peskov said during his briefing: “The head of our state, as the commander-in-chief and the man who defines the foreign policy of our country,.. takes necessary measures to ensure our common security and to protect our interests… It were us who initiated the negotiations, the consultation [on guarantees of security for Russia], and we expect to receive written responses to our proposals, which aim to help us avoid such tense situations in the future.”Peskov refused to speculate on any potential military action that might be initiated, either by Ukraine, or by Russia. He indicated that there was no plan at this point for Biden and Putin to speak again. Those written responses by the United States and by NATO are the clear precondition for anything else. We also insist, emphatically, and as only these publications will, that despite the obvious culpability of the knuckle-dragger factions of American intelligence agencies, including their criminal manipulation of, and deployment into, the United States Congress, the war design that is presently unfolding is British in origin, as it was in Iraq I (Margaret Thatcher,) and Iraq II (Tony Blair.) Today, the hapless Boris Johnson represents the tattered imperial “Remains of the Day” that is the silly “Global Britain” scheme. A vigorous, polemical attack on “the sexual impotence of British liberal imperialism,” on lurid display yesterday in a “senior U.S. administration officials’ special background briefing” on the “incredibly potent” sanctions about to be imposed on Russia, or in Britain’s depraved indifference to defending the General Welfare of British subjects as expressed in the “herd” approach to the coronavirus pandemic, is certainly in order, and would uncomfortably echo through the halls of Buckingham Palace right now. (The now-demoted Andrew was, in fact, the ideal representative of the latter-day British “Great Game.”) The imposition of new sanctions against Russia, now being discussed in the U.S. Congress by Senators Menendez (D-New Jersey) and Risch (R-Idaho,) is also being simultaneously contemplated against China, ostensibly because of the “imperial threat” China may pose to Taiwan. Notably, manic Republican legislators have proposed that these new Russian sanctions should happen now, before any incident even occurs involving military forces at the Ukrainian/Russian border. Sophistries aside, are not sanctions, in fact, an implicit act of war? The present drive towards war was not, in fact, provoked by any recent Russian actions whatsoever. Ukraine’s Natalia Vitrenko documents in her " Open Letter to World Leaders: Stop supplying weapons and using political blackmail to incite Ukraine to war with Russia!" that, “The split in society and deceiving of our population have been intensified by the policy forced upon our country of seeking to join the EU and NATO. In 1991 Ukraine’s sovereignty was recognized by the world community on the basis of the norms and principles set forth in the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine, which was twice affirmed by our people in nationwide referendums (17 March and 1 December 1991). The legal force of this Declaration still has precedence…. That means that the world community not only recognized, but is obliged to defend the sovereignty of Ukraine as a neutral, non-bloc state, committed to a foreign policy of creating a union state with the former republics of the USSR….” The reality is that the same Anglo-American intelligence establishment that manufactured the “Russia-gate” hoax, and instigated the overthrow of the duly elected government of Ukraine in February 2014, has partnered with a pro-Nazi grouping to provoke a war on the border of Russia. We should note in this context, recent reference by Chinese spokesmen to a “zero tolerance” policy toward attempts at “color revolutions” in nations such as Kazakhstan, which borders both Russia and China. Various American commentators now warning about the war threat opine that “there is nothing that the United States actually can do to stop a Russian action,” and that “there is no basis to believe that NATO can expect to win a war in this area.” They, however, miss the point. British imperial interests, which dominate the thinking of the United States State Department, realize that their system is doomed unless China and Russia are subjugated—which, however, will bring about planetary doom, not merely monetary doom for an already-dead system. Trans-Atlantic policy no longer follows logic, let alone reason. In an article entitled, “NATO As Religion,” author Alfred de Zayas, professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and a U.N. official, states: “I dare postulate the hypothesis that the best way to understand the NATO phenomenon is to see it as a secular religion. Then we are allowed to believe its implausible narratives, because we can take them on faith…. As [with] every religion, the NATO religion has its own dogma and lexicon. In NATO’s Lexicon a”color revolution" is [the same as] a coup d’état, democracy is co-terminous with capitalism, humanitarian intervention entails “regime change,” “rule of law” means OUR rules, “Satan Nr. 1” is Putin, and Satan Nr. 2 is Xi Jinping. Can we believe in the NATO religion? Sure. As the Roman/Carthaginian philosopher Tertullian wrote in the Third Century AD—credo quia absurdum. I believe it because it is absurd “….I dare consider myself a US patriot—and an apostate from the NATO religion—because I reject the idea ‘my country right or wrong.’ I want my country to be right and to do justice—and when the country is on the wrong track, I want it to return to the ideals of the Constitution, of our Declaration of Independence, of the Gettysburg address—something I can still believe in. “NATO has emerged as the perfect religion for bullies and war-mongers.” It is not enough, however, to aspire to “return to” the American Republic. Policies must be formulated now, to deal with the shock of what British monetarist-economist Jeremy Grantholm characterized on January 20 as “the end of the Fed U.S. bubble extravaganza: housing, equities, bonds, and commodities,” the “three-and-a-half super-bubbles collapse.” For the Anglo-Dutch imperial impulse for total war, including thermonuclear war, to be defanged, the American Presidency must publicly reject war with Russia and China. It should consider, and respond positively, to the perspective presented to an apoplectic Davos audience last week by Xi Jinping: " Countries need to strengthen international cooperation against COVID-19, carry out active cooperation on research and development of medicines, jointly build multiple lines of defense against the coronavirus, and speed up efforts to build a global community of health for all….In the context of ongoing COVID-19 response, we need to explore new drivers of economic growth, new modes of social life and new pathways for people-to-people exchange, in a bid to facilitate cross-border trade, keep industrial and supply chains secure and smooth, and promote steady and solid progress in global economic recovery…." Operation Ibn Sina, the World Health Platform policy of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, and the “Four Economic Laws” of Lyndon LaRouche, the most concise statement, and advancement of Hamilton and the American Revolution’s rejection and replacement of British liberal imperialism, are the readily available solution for a rapid move forward by the United States Presidency into the Twenty-first Century, free of the “eighteenth-century methods” of the British Empire that Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected.