Article Search

Those familiar with the fifty-plus-year forecasting practice and record of economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche will perhaps recognize the deeper significance of the following statement, a significance probably unknown to the writer himself. In a London Guardian October 1 op-ed entitled “America faces supply-chain disruption and shortages. Here’s why,” author Matt Stoller says: “… what we’re experiencing is also the net result of decades of policy choices starting in the 1970s that emphasized consumer sovereignty over citizenship. The consolidation of power into the hands of private equity financiers and monopolists over the last four decades has left us uniquely unprepared to manage a supply shock. Our hyper-efficient globalized supply chain, once romanticized by men like Tom Friedman in The World Is Flat, is the problem. Like the financial system before the 2008 crash, this kind of economic order hides its fragility. It seems to work quite well, until it doesn’t.”It is not enough to point out that what seems to be a sudden seizing up of the trans-Atlantic goods-distribution system is not the product of the Covid pandemic of the past 20 months, but something more “long-range.” History is never “objective” in that way. What was the agency that was at work here? Thirty-five years ago today, an “event” occurred that, if omitted from current history, renders it impossible to fully understand what is happening now. THE PRICE FOR CHANGING HISTORY Lyndon LaRouche, in 2004, in a report titled “The Night They Came to Kill Me” explained the true, “subjective” nature of that “objective” trans-Atlantic-wide economic devolution. "On October 6, 1986, a virtual army of more than four hundred armed personnel descended upon the town of Leesburg, Virginia, for a raid on the offices of EIR and its associates, and also deployed for another, darker mission. The premises at which I was residing at that time were surrounded by an armed force, while aircraft, armored vehicles, and other personnel waited for the order to move in shooting. Fortunately, the killing did not happen, because someone with higher authority than the Justice Department Criminal Division head William Weld, ordered the attack on me called off. The forces readied to move in on me, my wife, and a number of my associates, were pulled back in the morning…… “The 1973 campaign for my ‘elimination,’ the near-slaughter of Oct. 6-7, 1986, and the stubborn effort to exclude me from the debates now (in 2004), are each and all products of the same issue of my fight against the effort of certain liberal economists, and others, to put the world as a whole under the thumb of the policies of former Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht. “The ultimate origin of these and related actions is not the U.S. Department of Justice, but a much higher authority than the U.S. government, the same assortment of Venetian-style international financier-oligarchical interests, and their associated law firms, which unleashed the wave of fascist dictatorships in continental Europe over the interval 1922-1945. The common feature of those international financier interests, then, back during 1922-1945, and today, is their present commitment to imposing Schachtian economics upon both the U.S.A. itself, and also on the world at large… “The shift of the U.S. and British economies away from the U.S. ‘s leading role as the world’s greatest producer nation, toward a pro-Schachtian, ’post- industrial’ utopianism, was the hall- mark of the 1966-1968 Nixon campaign for the Presidency. The follies of this ‘post-industrial’ shift into wild-eyed monetarism, led the U.S. government to the point, that it must abandon its foolish post-Kennedy economic and cultural policies, or make exactly the choice I had warned that I feared they would make. Nixon’s decision of August 15, 1971 made the march in the direction of ruin and fascist-like dictatorship inevitable.” Today, as in 1986 and 2004, there are two systems of choice before the world. There is the system of “Reesian choices,” named after the Tavistock Institute’s John Rawlings Rees, typified by the “development policies”—policies of financial looting—of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) toward the continent of Africa ever since the period after JFK’s assassination. Then there is the “American System” of “Hamiltonian” choices, of what has recently been called “win-win cooperation” by the nation of China. For example, when China’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Geng Shuang, recently told that body that the international community should “spare no effort in humanitarian assistance and post-disaster reconstruction” toward Haiti, he opened a “strategic flank in the mind,” that is a far more powerful idea than that of the self-doomed “Operation Orcus/Global Britain” military adventure hurtling to its strategic doom in the trans-Pacific theater. COMPLETING HAMILTON’S UNFINISHED “HAITI MISSION” The United States used to think that way. In 1861, the United States, under Abraham Lincoln, dispatched Ambassador Anson Burlingame as diplomatic emissary to a China then subjugated by the British Empire through the Second Opium War. Today, in 2021, China attempts to reach a United States whose leadership and institutional structure, as well as cultural institutions, have now also been subjugated, and largely devastated by the same “Opium War” method—though this time, not external force, but seduction through Winston Churchill’s “Empire of the Mind” was used. The United States was induced, through the Tavistock Institute and its Frankfurt School subsidiary, to destroy itself, to de-industrialize itself, to reject scientific progress itself, and, now, to depopulate itself. The just-announced proposal, however, for a joint, international mission to defend the sovereignty of the nation of Haiti from the international drug mafias that now subjugate it, by demonstrating, through construction of ports, rail, and power, including nuclear and thermonuclear power, that “economic development is a human right,” if accepted, can bring the United States itself back to its senses. The LaRouche proposal for the emergency reconstruction of Haiti, introducing the higher-order concept of development corridors and an " economic platform" into one of the poorest areas of the world, provides, as with Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Afghanistan proposal, and especially if successfully advocated by a group of Americans representing the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, including those that hail from Haiti, a way for America to return to its previous Hamilton/Lincoln/Roosevelt outlook, that Frederick Douglass, America’s ambassador to Haiti, represented in his living person. The uncorrected flaw in the American Revolution was, as all know, the inability to resolve the Africa chattel slavery matter at the beginning of the creaton of the nation, largely because of the influence of John Locke and his Royal Africa Company on the constitution of South Carolina, and other Southern states. But slavery was not the desired system, originally, even in the Southern colonies. Auguste Levasseur, Secretary to Lafayette, recounted in 1824: “In about the year 1680, the General Assembly of the State of Virginia requested of the parent state that it finally put an end to this commerce in human flesh, infamous and unnecessary in the future, since now the population was numerous enough and active enough to cultivate a land that required only the lightest work to reward the tiller richly. Other Colonies repeated this cry of justice and philanthropy, but the parent country was callous and responded only by this atrocious resolution of Parliament: The importation of Slaves in America is too lucrative for the Colonies to be able to insist that England renounce it forever. This response was accompanied by threats to which it was necessary to succumb since they were in no condition to resist them. Nonetheless, the General Assembly renewed several times its demand….” Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s support for the Haitian Revolution, and his co-authorship of Haiti’s Constitution, flowed from his notion of “Artificial labor” as expressed in his 1790 Report on the Subject of Manufactures. Is Thomas Jefferson’s then-opposition to Haiti’s self-government consistent with the now-present United States policy, itself opposite to that of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of allowing, tolerating, and in effect aiding in the never-ending torture of that population, through refusing to take down the “Dope Inc.” financial oligarchy that dominates it as surely as did the slave-masters of 1791? China, which has, since the Bandung conference of 1955, and now even despite the fact that it is not diplomatically recognized by the government of Haiti, insisted that economic development is a human right for that nation. It has now posed to the entire international community that the same problem China has successfully tackled and solved internally—the eradication of poverty—be solved worldwide. The Global Development Initiative premiered by Xi Jinping at this United Nations session has now placed “economic development as a human right” on the world table. Executive Intelligence Review has answered the United Nations, and the world, by providing a policy orientation for the now-distracted United States. The plan for Haiti invokes, implicitly, FDR’s Four Freedoms, and, explicitly, LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws, to chart a way forward, not only for Haiti, not only for the Caribbean, but by means of eradicating poverty through economic cooperation, for “everywhere in the world.” “YOUR DEATH WILL SAVE THE PLANET” There is only one problem. The financial neo-Malthusians intend to use the illiterate argument that “natural law” is above human rights, to introduce what Fred Wills used to call “the doctrine of regrettable necessity” as the means to argue that billions will have to go away to save the planet. The bill is beginning to come in for this sophistry, in astronomical gas and electricity prices, hyperinflation, supply chain breakdowns, cuts in living standards, and drops in life expectancy that, while blamed on the coronavirus pandemic, preceded it. As stated by Klaus Schwab in the book Stakeholder Capitalism:" 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." Except that Schwab isn’t actually referring in this passage to “western baby boomers,” but to both the Chinese policies for the development of African nations, and the desire of African nations to create a better future. As the Club of Rome’s Alexander King wrote: “The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” Especially the “high birth rate” in Africa—too many African “carbon footprints.” So, "regrettably", they imply, Africans must be reduced in their numbers, by any means necessary, in defense of "natural law." China’s calling the attention of the world to the crisis in Haiti at the United Nations, seen from the standpoint of the proposal in Executive Intelligence Review written by Richard Freeman and Cynthia Rush, places the United States in the position to choose, not the Tavistock choice method, but the “win-win” method which was always the essential characteristic of the American System which, as Henry Carey put it, “is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating vehicle equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

The just-released pamphlet, “The Coming U.S. Economic Miracle on the New Silk Road,” is an outstanding summary of what can and must be done to reverse America’s induced self-destruction at the hands of the British “Intelligence.” Its fourteen distinct sections, including the introduction, can be studied consecutively; such study could be supported by short videos prepared in consultation with its authors. Any individual or group, no matter what age or level of education, that takes the time to work through the pamphlet’s contents over, for example, the next three months, especially in conjunction with campaigning for the Afghanistan/Haiti reconstruction and “world health platform” initiative we are vigorously advocating throughout our international organization, will reverse the collapse of our otherwise-doomed trans-Atlantic culture.Those who attempt to understand the significance of the LaRouche “Triple Curve” hyperbolic function, will come to recognize that a worldwide, sudden drop in human longevity such as has been experienced in the past 20 months (with the United States male workforce losing more than two years), cannot be explained through mere linear causation—“the coronavirus pandemic did it,” for example. Think of the recent, ever-changing pandemic as more of a “crystallization process” which reveals, even more than triggers, an underlying and perhaps previously unrecognized metastatic process, that must first be correctly diagnosed to be aggressively treated, and globally, throughout the entire organism. What we are now living through is a cumulative, overlapping set of processes of trans-Atlantic dissolution whose arc was determined even well before the August 15, 1971 taking of the U.S. dollar off the gold standard. It could have been willfully reversed by Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas and proposals. That did not happen. “Tristes presentimientos de lo que ha de acontecer—” “Sad foreboding of what is going to happen—” so reads the caption on the first engraving of Francisco Goya’s 82-plate examination of The Disasters of War. Goya’s whole work reflects upon the “inevitable” murderous consequences that were about to befall a self-sabotaged 1808 Spain at the hands of Napoleon, who was himself charged, as the puppet of British/Venetian financial interests, with the destruction of France and continental Europe. Today’s sad foreboding of an “inevitable” war with China, by a United States similarly deployed to destroy itself is, on the contrary, directly attacked and refuted in the title, contents, and the intent of “The Coming U.S. Economic Miracle on the New Silk Road.” There is neither a reason, nor an excuse, for accepting the unacceptable. In some ways, as in 1972, then with our “Blueprint For Extinction” pamphlet, The LaRouche Organization is now, on the question of development or depopulation, drawing a line of sanity in the sand. The very possibility for a World Land-Bridge solution to our otherwise inevitable mass destruction, including through thermonuclear war, is primarily the result of another “long wave” process much different from that of August 15, 1971. It was the opening up, in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, of a Platonic form of strategic dialogue, notably first with Russia, but also with China, India, and many other nations. This was begun by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche, and this organization, in 1989-91 as the European Triangle/Eurasian Land-Bridge-New Silk Road. Three decades-plus later, when the China State Council Information Office announces the release of a paper entitled “China’s Epic Journey from Poverty to Prosperity,” we can state, with no exaggeration, that we played a central role in participating from the beginning, through that dialogue, in demonstrating that billions of people can, in principle, be lifted out of low life-expectancy, malnutrition, illiteracy, and despondency. We have acted, not through the still-subjugated power of the United States, but rather through the power of the self-conscious adoption, by China, of Alexander Hamilton’s and Abraham Lincoln’s American System with Chinese characteristics to, in fact, do what President John F. Kennedy tasked Americans, and the world, to do, as our pamphlet quotes him in the introduction—to “struggle against the common enemies of mankind: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself,” and win. This is a battle for no one nation, but all; for no one culture, but all; for no one individual, but all. In evaluating the just-concluded German federal elections, Helga Zepp-Larouche pointed out about “the 16 years of stagnation which went along with [Angela] Merkel, who was very efficient in breeding mediocrity. And therefore the present crop of politicians which you saw in these debates, was really the most mediocre crowd you had ever seen in German politics, and that’s just not fit to deal with the crises which will come for sure, and in part are already here.” She presented a detailed “breakdown of the breakdown,” and stated that “the outcome, whatever it will be, is for sure a turn in the direction of more instability and stupidity.” It was notable, Helga stated, that any international matter—Afghanistan, China, even the pandemic—in any real way, was prohibited from discussion, enforced by the corrupted “debate moderators.” As a result, the Lilliputians that will compose a not-so-grand-coalition there, whatever may be its ultimate configuration, will most likely still advocate the closing this year of three of the country’s remaining six nuclear power plants. (Of Germany’s original 17 nuclear plants, 11 have been rendered permanently inoperable.) “Tristes presentimientos de lo que…” But it isn’t true. Stupidity is not inevitable. Depraved indifference is not a condition, but a choice. Helga concluded by saying, “We should continue with our New Paradigm campaigns…a total paradigm shift has to be found with respect to Haiti and Afghanistan, This should really be our international strategic orientation.” That is the orientation, which, if stuck to, can truly create The Coming U.S. Economic Miracle on the New Silk Road.

China’s President Xi Jinping gave the closing speech at the 76th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. During his speech, he said: “Facing the severe shocks of COVID-19, we need to work together to steer global development toward a new stage of balanced, coordinated and inclusive growth. To this end, I would like to propose a Global Development Initiative.”At the close of her discussion with the European organization on Tuesday, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said: “We have to escalate our intervention, counting on the fact that the majority of countries are moving in a different direction, of cooperation and not a military confrontation. But it is going to be, for sure, a roller coaster ahead. But we have to steer with the clearest strategic conception— that we have to get out of it with a New Paradigm, that has to start with a world health system, and the modern health system has to start in Afghanistan. So as long as we keep an absolute focus on that, I think we can catalyze whoever is a decent person, and that’s what has to be escalated on our side.” The statements of endorsement by Surgeon Generals Jocelyn Elders and David Satcher of the Schiller Institute Afghanistan perspective should be thought about, now, from the standpoint of the international potential of response to Xi Jinping’s speech of yesterday. The proposal for Pino Arlacchi to play a role in negotiating with the Afghanistan government, as a trusted and trustworthy senior figure committed to the eradication of the drug trade and the establishment of a health platform for that nation, should be endorsed wherever possible. Indeed, we have been escalating on our side. The LaRouche forces have in the last 48 hours made the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche resonate in Pakistan, China, France, and the United Nations, in addition to the various other places where organizers conducted physical deployments in the world, or spoke to people on the phone, or intervened in various conferences and gatherings. Sometimes we have been applauded, sometimes denounced, but never ignored. The polemical drive for a new era of cooperation through the principle of the Coincidence of Opposites, deployed as a strategic intervention in the Afghanistan theater, is the higher complex domain of military strategy, the “Paradiso,” a domain of power that creatures that dwell within the Inferno of geopolitics cannot even imagine to exist. In France, one think tank denounces the Schiller Institute in a 637-page document as involved in what they call “The Chinese operations of influence - A Machiavelian moment.” Machiavelli’s History of Florence was not consulted by them. It should have been. The two contrasting speeches of Biden and Xi—one from Venice, and the other from Florence—can be seen as the emerging book-ends of the debate on the topic, “development or depopulation,” that the philosophical association founded by Lyndon LaRouche must now propel to prominence worldwide. The LaRouche work, “There Are No limits To Growth,” from volume I of the LaRouche Legacy Foundation is, after all, the counterpole to the still-dominant Club of Rome’s Limits To Growth and later 1991 The First Global Revolution. This is not to stoop to the level of identifying the United States and China as two opposing teams in a soccer match. “Florence” and “Venice” here refer to the axioms actually underpinning the outlook of the two speeches given yesterday. The premises underlying Biden’s speech spell disaster. The premises underlying Xi’s speech define a productive future for mankind. Our association should conduct classes, wherever possible, on There Are No Limits To Growth, to allow our fellow citizens, especially youth, the choice to overturn the axioms they don’t know they have, so that they may take up a global development initiative in the form of the World Health Platform. Lyndon LaRouche, in a 1989 interview from his jail cell in Alexandria, Virginia, offered this useful advice on how to teach: "In knowledge, in teaching, you have two problems. One, you have to get away from sheer, arbitrary irrationality, the prejudices that people bring into the classroom, so forth, and say, well, let’s get this in an orderly fashion, at least. Let’s give that much to Aristotle, let’s get your knowledge in a consistent, logically organized form . And then say, well, now, we know this is not the truth, but it’s very useful to put it in this form because this enables us to conceptualize what we have to do to correct formal knowledge, to arrive at what really is the truth. And so, I was using all kinds of devices to try to get students to focus to that point. But my idea of the course was always to bring the course to precisely that point, (that) is, to present an orderly, logical form of representation of the field; then show paradoxes which flow even from the cleanest, most rigorous presentation of that field, and then show what the solution to the paradox is, and hope that the light would go on in the students’ head. And the student for himself or herself would have realized, “oh yes! This is the solution.” And experience the creation of the solution, so to speak, in their own mind. Which is always my pedagogical… I like to teach that way. I wouldn’t enjoy teaching under any other circumstances." Dante Alighieri’s forecast of the tragedy that would befall Florence, the Commedia, used this Socratic method of teaching. This is demonstrated through Dante’s dialogue with Virgil, and later transformed the higher dialogue with Beatrice on matters of scientific method. In this way, Dante used Plato’s dramatic method to provide a solution, both to the contemporary calamity that Dante richly described, and to our own. He not only placed many of his contemporaries in the appropriate circles of a Hell of their own design; he not only instructed the reader how to extricate oneself step by step from that Inferno, into Purgatory, through the intercession of the poet Virgil; he also demonstrated the power of the mind could discover new physical principles, new degrees of freedom, as later seen in Florence in the form of the Brunelleschi Dome. The United States need not be condemned to conflict with China on behalf of Orcus, the god of the underworld, who was, by the way, also the punisher of broken oaths. (France, take note.) President Xi offered this alternative: “We need to seize the historic opportunities created by the latest round of technological revolution and industrial transformation, redouble efforts to harness technological achievements to boost productivity, and foster an open, fair, equitable and non-discriminatory environment for the development of science and technology. We should foster new growth drivers in the post-COVID era.” The proposition is “There are no limits to growth.” Who will oppose it and who will defend it? Let the Great Debate begin!

The remarks made by U.S. Air Force General John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to a meeting yesterday of the Brookings Institution, are chilling in their implication. Hyten stated that he believed it to be all-too-possible that a shooting war between Russia and the United States, or between China and the United States, was a real danger. The build-up in new types of thermonuclear weaponry and deployment systems, and the lack of trust in negotiations, indeed the lack of any negotiations at all on matters of strategic weaponry between, for example, China and the United States, means that we are sliding, perhaps duped by computer-driven systems-analytical miscalculation, into “doing the unthinkable which nonetheless becomes inevitable.” “I know the President — President Biden — and President Xi have talked a couple times this year. That’s important, but I hope we can broaden that conversation all the way down to the military-to-military level as well,” Hyten said. “We’re having strategic stability talks with Russia to make sure we understand where we are, not just in the nuclear realm, but in space as well. We need to have that conversation start with the Chinese, we really do. We need to be able to sit down, I need to be able to sit down — Secretary Austin, the political leadership, the State Department — and talk about these issues with China. Because as different as we are, we do have a fundamental common goal, and that is to never go to war with each other.”Hyten stated that the other, non-negotiating approach might well destroy the world. He also observed that his Chinese and Russian military opposites, such as Ryabkov, assert that it has been the United States, through actions like placing thermonuclear weapons and “defensive platforms” in Europe, that has provoked this condition. Other than this and a few other important but singular calls for negotiations, however, so far, the United States has offered no known applicable strategic “reverse-paradigm” approach, or even insight into how such a reversal of outlook would be possible. The Afghanistan proposal of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche has many applications which, taken together, could undo the present self-imposed geopolitical Gordian knot. That proposal can also provide a guide for the morally perplexed of the State Department and various European intelligence agencies that still cannot fathom why, or how they were militarily defeated in Afghanistan. It was not the Taliban, but their own “Project Democracy/”Permanent Revolution" obsolete axioms, postulates, and presuppositions about reality, especially in the new era of Covid, that defeated them there. Military force, history should have taught them, is the precise opposite of what must be deployed in order to ensure strategic victory in this circumstance. The Taliban must be the acknowledged negotiating partner; the people of Afghanistan must be fed and medically sustained; the governing institutions, particularly the financial institutions must not be assaulted by trans-Atlantic sanctions. Trusted negotiators like Pino Arlacchi who know the nation and its people should be given the authority to assist in beginning the process of reconstruction, including the transition away from the Anglo-American supervised opium production. The United States, absent a military presence, should seek, in the theater of Afghanistan, to engage particularly the Chinese, such that General Hyten’s desire for military negotiation is grounded on at least a demonstration of trust and collaboration between China and the United States in a non-military task in a post-war zone. The idea, the strategic-military conception, of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites is that the non-lethal-force branches of the world’s respective militaries (such as the Surgeon General’s Office of the United States), can be augmented by large brigades of youth deployed for a life-saving mission especially in the health-deprived sections of the planet. Ironically, this may very well now be the only way to prevent the outbreak of what one U.S. researcher has called “Bubonic Plague 2.0,” a mutation combining the infectious capabilities of the Delta variant of Covid with something as horrific as Ebola, the Marburg virus, or other diseases. In “Gandhi’s Vision for a New Paradigm in International Relations, a World Health System, and Direct Non-Violent Action in Times of Social Breakdown,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche states: "Since it is the young people of this world whose future is the most threatened by the combination of the pandemic and the economic crisis, there needs to be a perspective that addresses the problem of the pandemic, and simultaneously gives them a concrete way for productive tasks…. “[T]he COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics can only be dealt with if every single country on the planet has a modern health system, and that requires a much larger cadre of trained medical personnel than presently available. There is presently an effort underway to set up a Committee in the U.S., Europe, and Africa to organize partnerships between universities, clinics, hospitals, and medical facilities. The task of these partnerships is to train unemployed youth, to first become medical auxiliaries and then medical personnel, on the model of Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).” The present conditions in Afghanistan, whereas David Beasley put it at 14 million people in danger of immediate starvation (with another 14 million just behind them), and where so many nations—Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, etc.—have a vested interest in not merely containing terrorism, but in creating economic development corridors. These can act as pathways of, not merely stability, but physical renewal. Afghanistan is today, at this moment, a “zone of negative curvature,” the best of all possible regions for potential application of the “coincidence of opposites” method. The underestimation of the war-avoidance implications of Nicholas of Cusa’s 1439 Council of Florence diplomacy, and of the strategic warfare conditions under which the De Docta Ignorantia came to be written, has meant that Cusa has been nearly inaccessible as a thinker to those that need to know him most. The “Teardrop of Grief” Memorial carried out in New Jersey on Sunday, Sept. 12, and the statements made by the participants, particularly the Americans Terry Strada and Kirk Wiebe, as well as the officials from the city of Bayonne, were the implicit statements of a policy intention which can in fact become hegemonic in the United States, and ironically, therefore in the world: respect for other nations, a passionate commitment to the health and general welfare of everyone on the planet, and a resolution of conflict through non-violent means. The opposition, in the form of the British Crown’s Tinny Blare and others, may know what they intend, but do not know what they are doing. The problem is somewhat accurately described by Caitlin Johnstone, in a Sept. 14 piece entitled “Our Gods Have No Heads”: "We’re on a planet-sized haunted hayride to Armageddon, and no one is driving. “Sure at first glance it looks like someone’s driving … Then you look closer still and … What’s ultimately driving things is not so much the people within those institutions as the institutions themselves, which operate based on motives of profit and growth that are built into them and are entirely divorced from normal human values…. And the problem of course is that these are not wise and beneficent gods, they are manmade conceptual constructs with no more intelligence or insight than that growth-at-all-cost values system held by a cancerous tumor. The modern gods are mindless devourers who are controlled by no one. The modern gods have no heads.” [Emphasis in original.]

To announce the creation of a new Schiller Institute webpage entitled “Shakespeare In Exile,” the following quote was taken from Lyndon LaRouche, whose 99th birthday occurs today: “…He has pitted his life for his nation’s justice, and for the cause of all this world’s oppressed besides. For this cause, he has adopted the insults which the wicked and the fools of this world have come to heap upon the mere mention of my name…” Lyndon LaRouche, “On the Subject of the Sixtieth Birthday of His Excellency, the Honorable Frederick [R.] Wills, Esquire.,” Sept 16,1988.That standard of integrity is what is required in order to think clearly, non-tragically, in a time of crisis. Even though correct decisions, sometimes of momentous import, may be courageously made by a head of state or others, the durable survival of a nation or a civilization demands an intellectual consistency that can only be achieved, both on the part of the citizenry as well as leadership, through an immersion in the production and/or performance of Classical art. Fred Wills, the former Foreign Minister and Justice Minister of Guyana, on September 27, 1976, addressed the United Nations on the subject, not merely of debt moratoria for Third World Nations, but for the establishment of Lyndon LaRouche’s International Development Banks. He was able to find the courage to do this, when others failed, including during that UN session, because of his soul having been strongly rooted in Classical cultural studies, as the primary weapon he fiercely wielded against the racism and depravity of the “British Commonwealth.” Two years later, Wills went into involuntary exile in the United States, joining Lyndon LaRouche, not only in a battle against the Malthusian population-reduction policies of Henry Kissinger, George H.W.Bush and other British Intelligence agents and assets. He also taught, as well as re- studied the works of Plato, Sophocles, Aeschylus, and, most of all, William Shakespeare. Today, it appears that the Malthusians, the would-be Iagos attempting to pull together the COP26 Climate Change conference in Glasgow, have suddenly realized that the “Fourth World,” those countries once red-lined by World Bank head Robert MacNamara in 1974, and who are the primary targets for extinction by the “global warmers,” are not necessarily prepared to play Othello. They might, instead, embarrass them by skipping the solemnly lunatic proceedings altogether. Of 62 countries identified by the UK as “red zone countries”—countries that have small or negligible portions of their populations vaccinated—61 of them are in the (black, brown and yellow) “Third (Fourth) World.” Since those coming from such red zone countries must quarantine for at least ten days after they arrive in Glasgow, the danger is that, given the expense, the disease, and most importantly, the opportunity, many nations may just not show up at all. When combined with the known resistance from Russia, China, and India to the whole global warming pseudoscience, it seems to have become clear to British intelligence that it were wise to “get out in front of this thing.” Thus, no fewer than 1,500 environmentalist groups are now calling for the conference to be postponed. Their spokesman is one Taneem Essop of Climate Action Network International. Essop, the executive director of CAN-I, is an asset of British intelligence. She was previously the International Climate Policy Advocate of the World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund. She also worked for the British Council, sometimes referred to as part of “the soft power extension of UK foreign policy,” as an “Education Officer.” The British Council, founded in 1934, is a “nondepartmental public body” sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. COP 26 Glasgow can now provide the same opportunity as did the recent British freakout over the Afghanistan pullout, to reveal, especially to the credulous, the collusion between treasonous factions of the American military, financial, media, etc. establishment with the City of London policy interests antithetical to everything the United States stands for. The synarchy, whether represented by buffoons like Brazil’s Bolsonaro, wankers like Tony Blair, ghouls like Mark Carney, or the seemingly unlimited supply of shnooks knighted by the Queen over her 69-year reign, is defeatable by those with the courage to think Classically, like Beethoven, Handel, Bach, Schiller, kicking against the pricks (in every sense of that expression.) And that is why the British truly hate Shakespeare. Please also note an emerging story, contained in today’s briefing, that will be evolving in the next days and weeks—the Russian discussion of biological weapons and weapons labs in Georgia, Ukraine, and possibly other locations, operated by NATO and the Anglo-Americans, in connection with setting the record straight about the Second World War. Given the 20th anniversary commemorations this week, the fact that the anthrax attack beginning September 18, 2001, would initially shut down the Congress of the United States for weeks, and that the grade of anthrax deployed in that attack was declared by the deputy assistant director of Ft. Detrick to have been “too sophisticated to have been developed by us,” biological warfare, for better or worse, is sure to be discussed, even, perhaps, at the United Nations as it opens next week. In conclusion, Fred Wills offered these observations about Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, observations that are appropriately cited for Lyn’s birthday today. “We are blessed with myriad strengths. We focus so much on what the enemy says about us, that we forget what we are ourselves. The chief of our strengths is the creative leadership, and the fertile intellects of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. We have, in the Schiller Institute, the formal embodiment of the soul of the human genius. We must show ourselves worthy of such a heritage… I wish on your behalf to tell Lyn and Helga, that we intend to be worthy of their leadership. And to tell our enemies… that we shall never fail, we shall never falter, we shall always open new flanks, and we shall always strike mighty blows over and over and over again, until justice returns, as the imperishable axis of our human existence…” Fred Wills, Andover, Massachusetts, 1988.

“This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.” The American Presidency, as represented by Joe Biden, has, as of August 31, potentially shut the door on more than three decades of post-1989 trans-Atlantic triumphalism by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC); by Bush #41 Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney’s neocon 1990 “5/20 Committee;” by Margaret Thatcher’s and George Bush’s 1990-1991 “Desert Shield/Desert Storm” Gulf War; by Tony Blair’s 1999 Chicago “responsibility to protect” speech; and by the "forever wars of the post September 11, 2001 period.With respect to Afghanistan, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin has offered, not an admonition but a sound proposal: “Any action taken by the [United Nations] Security Council, including the timing, should help to ease the conflict instead of flare up tensions, and facilitate a smooth transition rather than plunge the country back into chaos…. We hope that relevant countries will realize the fact that withdrawal is not the end of responsibility, but the beginning of reflection and correction…. The US and some other Western countries should provide Afghanistan with urgently needed assistance for the economy, livelihood and humanitarian needs, help Afghan people overcome difficulties as soon as possible and start peaceful reconstruction at an early date. What they should not do is to simply take to their heels and leave a mess behind….” The end of geopolitics is the beginning of wisdom here. And not mere “geo-economics” replacing geopolitics. A new idea, the idea of increasing the potential-relative population density of the planet as a whole, by strategically increasing population to increase the physical wealth of the planet as a whole—including the biosphere itself—through the enthusiastic cooperation of sovereign, independent nation-states, is the “outrageous” idea to which the trans-Atlantic world has to be won, on behalf of humanity as a whole. It won’t be easy. But “You cram these words into mine ears against /The stomach of my sense” need not be the presumed response from all factions of the United States and the trans-Atlantic world. The living body of work contained in the economic proposals of Lyndon LaRouche, including how to resolve the seemingly insoluble problems of each area of a world now embroiled in the tempest of conflict, disease surge, and underdevelopment, must now be set free to rebuild the Earth. That is the actual mission of our LaRouche Legacy Fund archive project, one which must over the course of the next months make available in video, written, and oral form the method of problem-solving contained in the hundreds of works of LaRouche. While other nations, particularly those that have initiated and affiliated with the Belt and Road initiative, have clearly manifested their desire and capacity for self-development, Lyndon LaRouche’s approach to physical economy, and his invention of the “development corridor” as the physical basis for an upshift in the evolution of the biosphere as a whole, is qualitatively superior to every notion of future progress presently underway. Transmitting LaRouche’s unique contribution to world knowledge, as well as to the reproduction of human creativity, is our purpose, particularly in the next days to months. Afghanistan is a presently unique situation, the theater of vast potential transformation by means of which a multiply connected process of world economic development can be triggered throughout the planet. In this way, we avoid the seemingly inevitable onset of this greatest of still-impending, but rapidly on-setting human tragedies. If it seems to be inexorable, that is only to those that lack the courage to change their axioms. Though LaRouche is not physically here to witness it, as in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, the winds of destruction, blowing the lethal three-part pandemic of disease, war, and famine/poverty to the shores of the Atlantic world, have delivered the enemies of humanity to the judgement of current history. That current history will not tolerate the silly self-eliminating utopianism of the Green New Deal. Even as the Scottish National Party mistakenly brings the Greens into government for the first time, and Angela Merkel gives her keynote speech at the 50th anniversary of the founding of the German chapter of Greenpeace, the world recognizes the vapid promises of green bliss are a recipe for death. “No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oil/No occupation; all men idle, all, and women,too.” We must now orchestrate, not an ending, but a new beginning to an Afghanistan circumstance that becomes, if not a convivencia, at least a dialogue of civilizations. Politics as art—not “the art of the deal”—is the only recourse the world now has there. In Laughter, Music and Creativity, Lyndon LaRouche says, “The crux of the genuine issue is the principle of Freedom in respect to Necessity. The analogy of the creative musician to the creative physicist bears out here most emphatically…the essence of creativity is problem-solving. In the final analysis, all creative problem-solving subsumes man’s mastery of nature, mastery of the implicitly adducible laws of the material universe.” This new American era of cooperation, of a return to the “human foreign policy” of Classical scholar John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State and American President who later successfully defended in court the kidnapped Africans of the slave-ship Amistad, must take into account the true interests of everyone in the world. The Helga Zepp-LaRouche-proposed World Health Platform, including public sanitation, clean water, medicines, and food, as World Food Program director David Beasley has recently demanded for Afghanistan, is the means to tame the sea of troubles facing the world, and by changing one’s axioms, end them.

Babylon, It Is Time To Listen To The Wise Words of Lyndon LaRouche No form of Babylonian priesthood, neither that of the original immoral Chaldeans, nor their latter-day expression in the form of the IPCC’s mathematical model mouthpieces, is actually capable of human forecasting. The idea that Grete Thunberg can be quoted at all, let alone in response to the just-released United Nations pronouncement by the hapless systems analyst Antonio Guterres that we must “sound the death knell for fossil fuels”—that is, kill hundreds of millions of the world’s poor in the next eight years, in order to save the planet—would simply have been recognized as mad 50 years ago. What, however, was not recognized a half-century ago, was the deadly Malthusian outlook that underlay the British-engineered decision to take the dollar off the gold standard, triggered by means of the November 1967 assault by the British pound against the dollar. The actual gun to the head of the Bretton Woods system had been “locked and loaded” earlier through the assassination of JFK in 1963 and the subsequent “countercultural paradigm-shift” expressed in the slipping, and then plunge into darkness known as the Vietnam War.From his work from 1948-52, his economic forecast of 1957, his piece “Depression Ahead” in 1961, and his then-increasingly famous forecast concerning the end of the Bretton Woods System, 1966-71, Lyndon LaRouche was able to see what others refused to see, or could not see. They, the political scientists, economists, and “intelligentsia,” were blinded because of their aspirations for membership in, acceptance by, or work for the modern Babylonian priesthood and financial oligarchy’s rule by pretense and dissembling. As the book of Daniel tells us: “Then came in, all the king’s wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.” The silly dissembling of Kirby regarding the American pullout from Afghanistan, extolling the “reliable” capabilities of the Afghanistan military, and berating the “irresponsibility” of Pakistan in giving safe haven to terrorists that the United States and London originally trained and financed over forty years ago; the embarrassing pretensions of Blinken, upbraiding Russia and China at the United Nations Security Council regarding their lack of respect for the “Law of the Seas Convention,” which the United States itself has never signed; the criminally silly aspersions cast at China as “the original sinner” regarding the coronavirus, when no one has died of the virus there for the past six months, in a nation of 1.4 billion people; this mental behavior, on the part of erstwhile leadership and large numbers of the population alike, strays beyond pagan hubris, requiring something Biblical as a corrective metaphor. Therefore, consider the case of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (not Long Island, but present-day Iraq) "The king spake and said, ‘is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?’ While the word was in the King’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying,‘O King Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen..’ (In the same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar…. Nedbuchadnezzar, however, recovers from his madness. “And at the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honored him..whose dominion is an everlasting dominion….At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honor and brightness returned unto me….and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.” Nebuchadnezzar’s journey from triumphalism, to madness, to reason, is a cautionary tale for our time. This time, though, the future of the entire human race hangs in the balance. Babylon, after all, did not have nuclear weapons. More positively, Russia and China are now collaborating in offering their view of humanity’s preferred path forward. India in an indirect, and Australia in a direct manner have just made it known that they do not intend to comply with the impending Glascow requirements, that is, to commit suicide for the greater glory of the City of London or Wall Street. Signs of resistance are evident in the trans-Atlantic sector, in Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands. The recent call by American doctors to manufacture vaccines in 50 nations and deploy for a comprehensive eradication of lethal pandemics in 200 nations is another indication of what sort of optimism can be generated even in the face of a mass tragedy. What is needed is an intellectual renaissance, out of the presently descending dark age. What is needed here and now is to generate the equivalent intellectual excitement worldwide, that was generated by the economic forecast, and subsequent classes given by Lyndon LaRouche in the immediate aftermath of August 15, 1971, fifty years ago. The paradoxes that fill the minds of those that would today lead the nations, from the coronavirus to cultural collapse to financial breakdown to scientific crisis, can be answered in the same way that Nebuchadnezzar did. As he listened to the wise words of Daniel, today’s Babylonians can be caused, by the power of Promethean forecasting, to listen to the certain trumpet of Lyndon LaRouche.

The increasingly complex web of processes into which the ICLC has now poised itself to intervene, are the new terrain of a reality that will never again look like that of the pre-2020 world. A unique, though not new, compositional approach must be taken, to change the minds of the people of the trans-Atlantic sector. As the Austrian chancellor said of the Greens, “It would be totally wrong to believe that we could save the climate in the future by asceticism… the only right approach is to rely on innovation and technology…I do not share at all the view that our direction should be going back to the Stone Age.”We must keep in mind that the intersection of Beethoven’s 250th anniversary, and the 50th anniversary of the successful forecast by LaRouche of the collapse of the Bretton Woods System, can compel, at this time of conjunctural crisis, serious reflection upon the method of hypothesis generation characteristic of both composers. It is to this that we should now seek to draw the attention of participants in the upcoming August 14 symposium. The LaRouche forecasts, like the compositions of Beethoven, are the shadow of an unseen power, a principle of nonviolent power, a power of change “which floats, though unseen, among us;” otherwise we were doomed by what lies immediately ahead—not by our prospects, but by our axioms. Remember that the city-state of Florence was not, as the credulous believed, depopulated by the Black Death, but by the “Black Guelph,” as well as other factions of the oligarchy. In fact, the city had begun to lose population from the time of Dante’s exile, and consequent triumph of the murderous financial policies of the Italian banking houses. From a height of 105-125,000 in 1300-25, it had declined to 80,000 before the 1347-49 Bubonic Plague, in which about half that number died. Even by 1425, when Cusa was 24, Toscanelli 25, and Brunelleschi 48 years old, the population was only 60,000. Monetarism demanded, and secured, the self-cannibalization of Europe. The disease was the means, not the cause. As then, so now. To correct the (actually) generation-long demographic collapse of the United States and Europe, the climbing suicide rates, the menticide known as drug addiction, and the musical score that accompanies it all, seen in the lethal “Lollapalooza St Vitus dance” of last weekend in Chicago, requires a metanoia, an inversion of mind-set. Dante’s great poem, the Commedia, used a new form of musical composition, and a newly invented language, to create a vernacular, a “native tongue” capable of conveying profound and impassioned conceptions beyond the confines of the doomed educated class, to all the people, creating an independent nation in character, if not in form. It is this, which is comparable to what is required of us now. It is also this which is the contents of the writings, when studied and applied, of Lyndon LaRouche. From this standpoint, look then, as Dante did, at the ostensible prospects before us—what we see in the emergence of new strains of disease, including the treatment-resistant Candida auris “super-bug,” identified as present in New York City hospitals since at least 2019, itself the consequence of failing to care for the General Welfare through public health and sanitation measures, including drug eradication and mental health, which were insisted upon by LaRouche in 1974, 1985, and 2001, the latter through the D.C.General Hospital battle against what LaRouche referred to at the time as “germ warfare.” Then, look at what China, Cuba, and other nations have done in the medical field, despite opposition from the trans-Atlantic “depopulation lobby”. Look: While the Biden Administration drunkenly asserts that it leads the world in vaccine mobilization, China has in fact created vaccine production and research centers in many nations, distributed some 350-plus million doses of vaccine worldwide, and organized 28 nations to join in launching the China Initiative for Belt and Road Partnership on Covid-19 Vaccine Cooperation. The difference between China and the United States is duly noted in the nations that have received vaccines, versus the places that have been promised. The pathetic EU, which promised 200 million vaccines to help the developing sector, has delivered on 8 million—4% of what they promised. The difference is measured in lives, not numbers. Look: While Bloomberg’s recent deployment to kill the coal industry (and install Joe Biden in the White House) may successfully kill coal in the United States, unless we can stop it, that doesn’t go for places where people don’t relish committing suicide for a seat at a coronavirus-infected trans-Atlantic table. India’s present decision to walk away from the Glascow COP 26 trap, and its crazy “kill coal” project, has particularly upset Sir Mike “Mouseolini” Bloomberg, as just expressed in his news service: “When India failed to show up at climate talks in London last week, the meeting’s British hosts took it as a snub. It was also a stark reminder of how hard it’s going to be for diplomats to pull the global climate back from the brink of disaster, with less than three months to go before the next round of high-stakes negotiations.” This, however, is still to view reality from the one vantage point—the inside of Dante’s Inferno. Let us momentarily shift our view to another, that of Dante’s Paradiso. SciTechDaily reported on August 3: “Solar Orbiter and BepiColombo are set to make space history with two Venus flybys just 33 hours apart on August 9 and 10, 2021.” The Solar Orbiter is a joint NASA/ESA project, which will investigate the poles of the Sun for the first time. BepiColombo is a Japanese Space Agency/ESA project investigating Mercury. Why are they redezvousing at Venus? No, it’s not an extra-terrestrial hookup; they will be, in fact, the proverbial two spaceships passing. They won’t even be able to take pictures of each other. “The two spacecraft need the gravitational swingby to help them lose a little orbital energy in order to reach their destinations towards the center of the Solar System.” It’s more like a two-part invention, a contrapuntal intersection of the gravitational field of Venus intended to deploy that gravitational field as a brake, allowing both spacecraft to access and “ride” that orbital pathway to significantly different ends. And BepiColombo will be able to take some pictures from Venus as it moves away from the planet, and maybe a couple of partial selfies as well. Solar Orbiter’s first visit to the poles of the Sun will be March of 2025, with later visits scheduled for 2027, 2028, and 2029. This represents the minimal vantage point, the minimal level of physical economy, and is the minimal level of civilization for the human race. Seen from the vantage point of Dante’s Paradiso, human navigation of the Solar System is Stage One of culture; human navigation of the Milky Way galaxy is Stage Two; human navigation among galaxies is Stage Three. Anything less than that represents the infancy, childhood and adolescence of humanity. And thus, the science behind the engineering and navigation of these and other missions being carried out by more and more nations, is the minimal conceptual standpoint for a true science of physical economy, a standpoint clearly stated in the LaRouche works There Are No Limits To Growth and Earth’s Next Fifty Years. The method of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, as applied in the past twelve days, is a reflection of that method of composition that Dante, Beethoven, and LaRouche had mastered. It is “politics as art.” It is what can give us the power, not through influential people, but through the influence of ideas, to even at this last moment, provide a pathway from Hell to Purgatory, when looked at from the standpoint of the Paradiso, the Promethean mountaintop of forecasting. It is that which underlies the urgent strategic importance of the August 14 symposium.

Something may be developing in Afghanistan, involving forces from the United States, Russia, China, Pakistan, and several nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. You can tell, because everything in the power of British “Intelligence” is being done to force Biden to denounce China and Xi Jinping, now through re-running “RussiaGate” as “the Chinese hacked Microsoft.” The United States, the British declare, must not be allowed to do with China what it has just done with Russia through person-to-person talks between the heads of state. American representatives, however, have been involved in high-level discussions whose prospects for changing disastrous, decades-long failed policy are as promising as our efforts, and those of our allies, will make them. All concentration must be forced in the direction of undermining the axioms of Anglo-American failure that have characterized the past 20 years, since the still-unexplained events of 9/11, and the derived “Responsibility To Protect” preventive war policies—practices declared “crimes against humanity” at Nuremberg in 1949, policies that were also instigated, as in 2002-2003 through British Intelligence’s “dodgy dossier.”The international strategic deployment which is the subject of the three-movement organizing process of the next month, indicated by the “date-markers” July 24, July 31, and August 14, requires what Lyndon LaRouche referred to as “visualizing the complex domain.” In the spirit of “listening to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche,” it were advisable to consult his conception of creativity in music in order to understand how to better inform what we are actually trying to do in these next 30 days. The following is from a September 14,1995, memo, “Comment On Rene Sigerson’s Memo On Opus 131.” “How Musical Ideas Become “The relevant special significance of the Op. 131, is that its organization, as a whole, around transitions, forces the musician to attend to the reality, that the idea of the composition as a whole, is nothing other than a platonic ‘One,’ for which the ordering of the ‘Many’ according to nothing but a constant notion of change is the crucial feature of the development. Compare this with the case of our now-much-cited case of the Eratosthenes’ estimate of the curvature of the earth. It is the manifest inconsistency among a series of astronomical observations, which is the experiential referent for Eratosthenes’ idea of the curvature of the earth. It is the process of reducing that series of errors to a notion of ordered change, which leads to the idea of curvature. So in a musical developmental process, it is the adducing of the existence of an ordering principle which subsumes a series of developmentally ordered changes, which implies the idea of the composition as a whole. “Thus, if one states the formal expression of the developmental ordering of the entirety of the Opus 131, the idea of the composition as a whole is implicitly stated as the platonic idea of a unified process of Becoming. This implies the corresponding attempt to generate the notion of a Good.” Leibniz’s idea of the Good in politics, an idea which was the bedrock of the American Revolution’s “the pursuit of Happiness,” is what the Schiller Institute, as another form of expression of the intent of the LaRouche’s Presidential campaigns, is daring to promulgate through proposals like the present Afghanistan initiative that we have suddenly, without preparation or warning, “so nobly advanced.” The Good always poses the greatest threat to the self-doomed imperialists of several empires, most emphatically the British. The “arc” of our intervention including its July 24, July 31 and August 14 inflection points, is a single process of change, a “One,” intended to secure the establishment of an international agreement, among Russia, China, The United States, and India, to spearhead the successful and timely creation of a world health platform as the basis for the eradication of poverty and pandemic disease planet-wide. That proposal, not “zero carbon emissions,” is a worthwhile goal for 2030-2040. It should be adopted by those nations, as China adopted the ending of poverty for itself, and accomplished it; but, now, given to the world as the mission for Earth’s next generation (next 25 years.) Earth’s next 50 years as discussed in the eponymous work of Lyndon LaRouche, is the “envelope,” as well as the “pedal point” for the discussions of the next month, particularly that of August 14-15. Given “the march of folly” we see displayed once again in the completely predictable “resurgence” of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as in the foolish “war maneuvers and war games” against Russia and China, that health platform may be the only available pathway to avoid the self-immolation of trans-Atlantic civilization which the tragic, “Wagnerian” performance of many nations’ present leadership-circles foreshadows. Afghanistan has been proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche as the theater of battle upon which we must intervene for the adoption of that “reversal of fortune.” We can be the non-tragic exception to the rulers. We are capable of changing the axiomatic, compulsive doom. Afghanistan is only the graveyard for empires; for patriots and world citizens, it can be the land of a thousand cities, and the New Silk Road just as it once was, but better. What we propose may be opposite to every instinct of the world’s ruling bodies of the past half-century, but it is natural to those who consider humanity’s General Welfare to be the first and only truly human unit of measurement of progress. The too-long-deferred dream of FDR, Sukharno, Nkrumah, Nehru, JFK, Pope Paul VI, Martin Luther King, and many others, the dream of Hamilton’s First and Lincoln’s Second American Revolution, is achievable, if we choose to visualize it as Beethoven and LaRouche do.

Yes, it’s true that the BBC reported yesterday that the HMS Defender’s foray into Russian territorial waters was a deliberate provocation that was, as BBC reporter Jonathan Beale, who was on the destroyer, said, “a deliberate move to make a point to Russia.” But what was the point? Was it, perhaps, that “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make MAD?” Were the British unintentionally underscoring the theme designated by Helga Zepp-LaRouche for the first panel of the upcoming Schiller Institute conference?The British, incensed by the fact of the Putin-Biden summit, and the communique that echoed Reagan-Gorbachev 1985, stating that a nuclear war can never be won, and must therefore never be fought, decided to play “Who’s The Boss of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance?” in Russian territorial waters on June 23. Being literally, as well as littorally-minded, they attempted to “test the waters,” and found them dangerously warm. It might have been easier to read the recently-released RAND report (June 23,) which almost told the truth: “NATO might lose a nuclear war with Russia.” “Although the overall military power of the United States and the NATO alliance vastly outstrips that of Russia, a regional conflict close to Russia’s borders would pose enormous challenges and could result in defeat for the West.” Only polygon-to-circle closer to the truth, though,because, indeed, there is no “might” about it. The RAND report itself, probably influenced by earlier fantasies such as the “Prompt Global Strike” mirage, is delusional. Last week’s Geneva communique, on the other hand, was accurate: nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Reality, however, has rarely been a British strong suit. Evil, more often than not, bases its dirty practices on desire, not reality. “Dirty Bertie” Russell, whom Lyndon LaRouche called “the most evil man of the twentieth century,” was dominated by a lustful desire for the resurrection of an imperial world order that he knew to be doomed. In a 1952 interview, on or about his 80th birthday, which can be viewed on YouTube, Bertrand Russel said," It’s very difficult for anybody born since 1914, to realize how profoundly different the world is now from what it was when I was a child…. A world where ancient empires vanish like morning mist… We have to accustom ourselves to Asiatic self- assertion…It is an extraordinarily difficult thing for an old man to live in such a world.." So, like many a lecherous old man, he sought to destroy it. “Russell made more than a dozen public statements in speeches and articles concerning Russia and war in the 1945-48 period,” Ray Perkins, Jr wrote in the paper “Bertrand Russell and Preventive War”. In a footnote to his article, Perkins states: “[I]n a televised interview with John Freeman published on the 19th of March, 1959, Russell claimed that he was prepared to go to war if the Soviets had not given in: ‘you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.’” Climate change and thermonuclear war are a single strategy of the descendants of Russell. NATO, as you will read, is retooling itself as the primary world advocate for “saving the Earth,” echoing the Aquarian-utopian premises of earlier fascist movements, as the book “How Green Were The Nazis?” partially documented, and the Schiller Institute’s own The Hitler Book" showed more thoroughly some years ago. British Mini-Minister for the Armed Forces James Heappey, in a speech before the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), spoke about the implications of climate change on the Armed Forces: "According to a report by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, current trends show that when the Arctic is fully open, there will be a potential reduction in travel times and fossil fuel costs of more than 40 per cent to maritime shipping. Elsewhere, Oxford University’s Future of Arctic Enterprise report states that the Arctic seabed contains about 13 per cent of the world’s remaining undiscovered oil, 30 per cent of the undiscovered natural gas and 20 per cent of the undiscovered natural gas liquids…. “Now, I’m an enthusiastic ‘green’, and I wouldn’t want anybody to think that I am somehow celebrating the opening up of a Northern Sea Route with the opportunities that it brings for fossil fuel extraction. In fact, quite the reverse—I wish that this was not a threat that we had to face. But my job is to work out what we need to do to keep the UK safe and it is a sad reality that the High North could become a potential flashpoint as a result of climate change. “Moving away from the Arctic, another key geo-strategic challenge caused by climate change is desertification. In May I had the opportunity to visit countries along the Sahel, including Mali and further along in the Lake Chad Basin, both Nigeria and Cameroon. I saw first-hand the desert’s increasing encroachment upon the land, where already scarce natural resources are gradually being swallowed up….” At the Moscow Conference on International Security, Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev also pointed to the Arctic, but with a difference. “NATO’s activity for militarizing the Arctic, especially the deployment of new military infrastructure elements in that region cannot but cause concern.” As for Africa, Russian President Putin’s announced intent to supply that continent with nuclear power, and China’s already-demonstrated commitment to integrating Africa into the 21st Century—including its education of students, from nations such as Ghana—is “not pleasing to the Queen.” Far more concerning to the British beast-men, though, is the demonstrated ability of other governments to think, as in, for example, what Russian minister Sergei Lavrov said in his letter to the participants in the Asia and Pacific High-Level Conference on Belt Road Cooperation: “Today, the entire world community is experiencing serious upheavals due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Broad multilateral cooperation and a unifying agenda are required for comprehensive overcoming of its consequences and effective post-Covid recovery… I am pleased to say that recently we have substantially advanced in aligning plans of the EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union) development and the Belt and Road construction.” For example, initiatives like China’s deployment of its veteran astronauts to Hong Kong for a university and high-school lecture series promoting national pride in China’s past and future space missions, powered, as 88-year old “spaceman” Qi Faren, the father of the Shenzhou program, said, by “love of the motherland,” that is, pride in the “one Chinese nation.” Against the principle of the power of Reason, your average beast-man, and beast-regime, as imperial Britain discovered when confronted by Ben Franklin’s Industrial Revolution, is paralyzed, conceptually unable to act. In one sense, the idea that the British are assisting in the organizing of the upcoming Schiller Institute conference is true. That is because the world—including the non-existent “material world” believed in by the Manicheans—is actually governed by the “physical arc of the moral universe.” This is the universe of Filippo Brunelleschi’s catenary principle, discovered not to solve a geometric or mathematical problem, but to crown the Cathedral of Florence as a “transubstantial” physical proof and reflection of the Augustinian outlook of “man in the image of God” proposed in “The City of God.” The Duomo was a realization of the work that Augustine and Ambrose had pioneered in music, which had later been advanced in the work on harmonics of Abbe’ Suger and the great cathedral builders of France, and would give birth to machines, inventions, and architectural techniques that Arnulfo di Cambio, the initial designer of the Cathedral project in 1296, had to believe that others as dedicated to the future mission of humanity as he, would be born to complete. The beast-like geo-political mind rejects the existence of that spiritual-mental power, which is what is actually meant by the assertion: “God does not exist.” The divine, and the ability to divine, are the principle of power, which gives the fire and light of reason and discovery to be molded in the hands of humanity. That is why humanity is the greatest known natural resource for the universe itself. That coincidence of opposites—the individual creative mind that changes the living universe through humanity, and the dynamic universe changing the individual through that same humanity—is the subject matter which the conference of Saturday and Sunday, will not only discuss, but celebrate.

Vladimir Putin’s recently expressed convergence with the outlook of late 17th/early 18th century Massachusetts republican thinker, scientist and patriot Cotton Mather, on the nature of humanity and government, is of true strategic importance, as we approach the eve of the June 16 Russia- U.S. Summit. When Putin, during a June 8 speech to social workers, stated: “The very values of mercy, love for one’s neighbor, and support for those in need bind and consolidate the entire centuries-old history of our people. They constitute the spiritual basis of the traditional religions of Russia … the fundamental aim of life should be to do good,” Putin echoed the premise, exposition and very words of Cotton Mather’s 1710 Essays To Do Good.The premise of the idea called “the coincidence of opposites,” is that there is a higher domain—what, for example, is sometimes referred to as “the complex domain”—of ideas, not bounded by the banal linearity of Newtonian space-time, or other equally noxious fictions. In that realm of absolute space-time, there is one human culture, and ideas and the individuals responsible for them, exist in what LaRouche referred to as “temporal eternity.” For example, the Mather family—Cotton Mather and his father Increase Mather in particular—was probably the most important of the seminal influences on the early life and later mission of scientist Benjamin Franklin, the intellectual author of the conspiracy called the American Revolution. Vladimir Putin, however, echoed this “Bonifacius outlook” independently, from a Russian, as well as universal perspective, and this perspective is coincident, from the standpoint of temporal eternity, with that of the ancestors and history of the American republic—including the “current history expression” of those ideas in the writings and deeds of Lyndon LaRouche. Yes, there appears, from the present semi-literate braying of the State Department against Russia and China, to be no hope at the summit for a security breakthrough of the quality required to bring the world to safety. That job, however, is what Lyndon LaRouche has required of this organization, with no excuses for what others might fail to do or say.The June 26-27 Schiller Institute conference organizing process, and the June 16-26 period leading up to it, are a point of inflection, and intervention. Followers of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz should regard this “interval of action” as containing the “best possible” potential—not through the upcoming events themselves, but through our mobilization of a worldwide, “no limits to growth” anti-Malthusian alliance. This can allow the people of the world, through their advocating a world health platform, to disrupt the constructive fraud of geopolitics, and declare that only the health and general welfare of the whole world can come first, that humanity comes first, before anything smaller. “One humanity, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” is what this movement must pledge its allegiance to. In a higher sense, both the United States and Russia reflect, in this notion of doing good, the impact of Gottfried Leibniz, the founder of physical economy, on both nations—directly and personally on Russia’s Peter the Great, and indirectly on Franklin, through Pennsylvania’s James Logan and Logan’s defense of Leibniz against Newton, as well as John Locke. Leibniz’s long-arc impact on China, both personally and through both the physical-economic writings of Lyndon LaRouche, and the self-conscious adoption of the mission of Leibniz to China of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has come back to haunt his enemies, and the enemies of humanity in the form of the historic China-Russia “community of principle” collaboration, still missing the United States. The specter of Lyndon LaRouche, and his conceptual ancestors, hangs over the upcoming world proceedings, and not merely because of the 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative. The coronavirus pandemic has crashed the party. The 1974 “economic breakdown and the threat of global pandemics” forecast of LaRouche, the 1995 Ninth Forecast of LaRouche, and LaRouche’s 1999 “Storm Over Asia” presentation, are on the minds of those that may have doubted him, but cannot deny what he said. Even in the United States Congress, we now see the recognition that, yes, the worldwide nature of a pandemic demands that a Franklin Roosevelt-style approach to assisting the world, is the only realistic way to address the continued survival of the United States itself. When Sergey Lavrov says that “I am convinced that we cannot ignore the indisputable fact that the current world system is a sum of accords by the powers of victors in World War II. And Russia will object to those who want to throw the results of this war into doubt,” the real legacy of FDR is being invoked. The post-1945 NATO alliance is rejected, and should be rejected, as a relic of a condition that ended in 1989-91. The principle of world reconstruction of independent, sovereign nation-states, instead of a return to empire, of the 1946 United Nations, as advocated by Franklin Roosevelt and advanced in part by Eleanor Roosevelt, not a post-1991, or post-September 11, 2001 “rules-based system” is the starting point, however imperfect. “We have neither an inferiority complex nor a superiority complex on the global political scene,” Lavrov stated. “However, we are always ready to render assistance to those who need it. This is our historic mission, and it is rooted in centuries of our history.” Russia is prepared in leadership, history and intent, to do good. China has transformed itself in the past half-century to do good, as the improved lives and circumstances of 800 million people in China attest. Like Lyndon LaRouche, Cotton Mather’s more than 450 books and pamphlets were written for those that wished to do good. Today, as that summit process begins, let it be our mission to, by referring to the deeper history of these Leibnizian principles in the practice of statecraft, and particularly as expressed in the documents and books of Lyndon LaRouche, point to the true domain within which the conception expressed by Vladimir Putin, and demonstrated by the Belt and Road Initiative, dwells—the realm of the coincidence of opposites, not geopolitics.