It Is Time To Create
a World Without War
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the keynote speaker at the 30th anniversary conference of the Schiller Institute on June 15, was introduced by Jeffrey Steinberg, who moderated the morning panel.
Jeffrey Steinberg: Exactly 30 years ago, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was deeply concerned that the trans-Atlantic relationship was in a profound crisis. People may remember that at that time, you had the battle over the deployment over the Pershing missiles in Europe. There was great concern about the danger of a situation escalating out of control, leading to a potential world war, a potentially disastrous thermonuclear war. And it was in that context, and a period of a certain bitterness back and forth between the United States and Europe, that Helga took up the task of founding the Schiller Institute, in order to create the historical and cultural foundations for a revival of trans-Atlantic cooperation around the great principles of liberty and justice that were the cornerstone of all of the writings of the great Poet of Freedom, Friedrich Schiller.
So, here we are now, again, unfortunately facing a grave global crisis; the threat of war, even thermonuclear war, again is looming very large, and it's in that context that we are convening this conference today, both to celebrate 30 years of extraordinarily important work by the Schiller Institute, and to also, once again, issue a clarion cry about the necessity for global cooperation to prevent the outbreak of another potentially needless and devastating war.
Helga really needs no further introduction. She's the founder of the Schiller Institute, she's the wife of American statesman Lyndon LaRouche, and, so I want to present Helga to give the opening keynote presentation, for this conference.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: You have come here to discuss at this conference how to create a world without war, and that seems to be a very unlikely proposition, given the current state of the world. But before I go into the discussion of why I still have profound optimism that we can accomplish this goal, let me just reference a couple of ideas which went into the founding of the Schiller Institute 30 years ago.
As Jeff mentioned, it was the period of heightened war danger. People were talking about the possibilities of the middle-range missiles, the Pershing-2 and the SS-20, which were only a minute's distance from each other in Central Europe; that you could have an accidental launch of only one missile, and in that case, the entire arsenal would have been fired by the opponent, because the time was too short. A lot of people were talking about us being on the verge of World War III, and I think people were much more aware than they are today—even though we are at a hair trigger from the potential extinction of civilization.
The reason I gave the name Schiller to the effort to have a completely different conception of relations among nations—and I want to say this because I want to encourage people to go to the library or to the Internet, and read Schiller—is because he has, to my knowledge, the most beautiful image of man. He was convinced—and he is convinced, because he's immortal—that every human being has the potential to become a beautiful soul. That every human being has the potential to become a genius, and that eventually, mankind will arrive at that condition, where all people born will be able to unfold all the potential which they have.
His ideas were sort of the red thread in my life, from early school on, and when I thought about how to create a new era of civilization, I could not think of a better synonym than him.
Now, the idea of the Schiller Institute was that foreign policy should no longer be based on coups, on subversion, on sabotage, on murder—which unfortunately dominate much of foreign policy in the world today—but that each nation should refer to the other on the highest level of their best cultural-scientific achievement. So, when you're talking with the United States, you should not think about slavery and the Vietnam War, and many other things, but you should think about Benjamin Franklin, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, John Quincy Adam, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy—and that should be the image of America.
In the same way, when you're talking about Germany, you should not reduce it to 12 years of Nazi terror, but you should think about all the great thinkers and poets and composers Germany has produced: the Classical culture and scientific contribution.
So, the Schiller Institute was founded on that idea, on the 3rd and 4th of July, 30 years ago, in Arlington, Virginia, and then, two months later, in Wiesbaden, Germany. And at the Arlington founding conference, we had quite an audience of 1,200 people from 50 nations, who all came marching in with their flags, their national anthems were played, and we decided that we would work relentlessly on the idea: "Now Comes Schiller's Time"—that we are to create a time where the ideas of Friedrich Schiller would dominate the world.
In the beginning, it was meant to be a German-American effort, but it became very clear, that the relationship between Europe and the United States was in terrible shape, and with the so-called Third World, it was even worse. So, it quickly became an international effort.
And since then, we have really had hundreds of conferences worldwide. We worked on development plans for the whole world: for Africa, for Latin America, an Oasis Plan for the Middle East, a 40-year development program for India, where we worked with Indira Gandhi, together; a 50-year Pacific Basin Plan, and after 1989, after the Berlin Wall came down, we had the idea of uniting Europe and Asia through the so-called Eurasian Land-Bridge, through infrastructure corridors. And in the meantime, over the last 25 years, we have enlarged that to the World Land-Bridge, meaning a real in-depth development of all parts of the world, and that is still absolutely the concept for a peace order for the 21st Century.
Origins of ‘Regime Change’
Now, obviously, that is not the condition of the world right now. So, I want to go into the question, how did we come, 69 years after the end of World War II, to the point where we are on the verge of World War III, which, if it occurs, would be, by the nature of things, a thermonuclear war, and therefore lead to the extinction of civilization.
The reason is, when we had this idea of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, in '89 and especially when we extended it after the collapse of the Soviet Union, why was this rejected?
Well, the unfortunate historical coincidence was that at that time you had Margaret Thatcher as the prime minister of the British Empire; and in the United States you had the neo-cons. And rather than using the opportunity of the vanishing of communism, to create such a new peace order, they decided to go for the so-called New American Century Doctrine, which was really a prescription for an Anglo-American-dominated world empire.
The first objective of these people was to reduce Russia from a former Soviet superpower, to a Third World, raw materials-producing country. And the means by which they accomplished that was to apply the so-called shock therapy, by which, for example, Russian industrial capacities were reduced to 30%, from 1991 to '94.
The second main objective was to eliminate Russia as a potential competitor on the world market. They went, after the second superpower had vanished, for what is called globalization, or unrestrained globalization, which meant the complete deregulation of the financial system, creating cheap labor markets, turning the whole world economy into a casino economy, protected by private security firms, turned into what my late friend J.C. Kapur, a great Indian philosopher, called "armor-protected capitalism."
Then, they decided to go for regime change against all countries that would not submit to this new world empire. This was the basic reason for the first Iraq war in 1991, conducted by Bush, Sr. Then you had eight years of the Clinton Administration, which was sort of a mixed form—a little bit imperial, a little bit more republican. But after that, they went into the idea of eliminating all sovereign nation-states, which were regarded as an obstacle to this control by the world empire.
And regime change started. It happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. They attempted it in Syria. They did accomplish it in Ukraine for the time being. And for Europe, they decided to turn the European Union into the regional expression of this empire. It was demanded from Chancellor Kohl to give up the D-mark, to establish the European Monetary Union, as the price for the German reunification—especially with the aim of preventing Germany from developing strong ties with Russia, which it had historically many times.
Then they transformed the EU from the Maastricht Treaty of '91, into an empire. The criteria for the European Monetary Union, the Stability Pact, were agreed upon, which turned the EU into essentially an instrument in the interest of the banks.
In 1999, the monetary version of the EU was introduced, and in 2002, the euro as a cash currency.
Then, in the meantime, on Nov. 4, 1999, you had the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was the starting point for the complete deregulation of the financial system, and at the same time, these forces cleared up the final conceptual underpinnings for the empire.
Extremely important was the 1999 speech of Tony Blair in Chicago, when he declared de facto the post-Westphalian order; the basis of international law was finished, and was to be replaced by so-called humanitarian interventions worldwide, which, in the United States, led to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
Now the Blair doctrine immediately started to go into a complete confrontation with the Putin doctrine. Putin, who said that international law must be respected, that the UN charter is to be upheld, that the national sovereignty of every country cannot be violated—as compared to Blair, who said no, we can find pretexts to intervene militarily around the globe.
So, again, they basically decided to go into regime change against all nations that would not submit, and the EU was turned into a total empire. If you look at the condition of the EU today, which is committing genocide against the people of southern Europe, you can see that nothing of the words which they use has any truth in it.
The Color Revolutions and 9/11
Concerning especially the countries of the former Soviet Union, they decided to develop "color revolutions." Now, color revolutions are a synonym for a whole variety of modes of regime change. It's an undeclared warfare, but it is war, with a different characteristic appropriate to each country.
What I'm saying will probably be surprising for most people, but my husband, Mr. LaRouche, recently said, that the 9/11 in the United States was a form of "color revolution," because it turned the American republic, which had already some problems before, into an instrument of empire. And to turn the United States into the military arm, into the muscle, with the British having the brains, was sort of the precondition for the rest of the regime changes to succeed.
Under the Clinton Administration, the United States was still a kind of semi-republic, but after Sept. 11, it became the spearhead of this empire.
For the record, some of you will remember that Mr. LaRouche made a prophetic webcast on the Jan. 3, 2001, three weeks before the Bush Jr. Administration came into office, where he said that this administration would be confronted with so many problems in the financial system, that they would go for a Reichstag Fire. This was exactly nine months before Sept. 11 occurred.
And you all remember what happened with Sept. 11, what kind of hysteria gripped the population, with their yellow ribbons, with the over-and-over TV showings of the planes flying into the World Trade Center, and all the other pictures. And that was used then to implement the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act [in 2012], the total extension of the NSA to spy on the whole world population, violating the human rights of practically every citizen on this planet. And what happened was then, more and more, by Bush, and later by President Obama, government by decree, eliminating the separation of the three branches of government.
After 9/11, there was declared the war against Afghanistan, evoking Article 5 of NATO; and then, if you think what really has come to the surface—and we'll hear more about this today, what really was involved in Sept. 11, which was exactly what will be revealed when finally the 28 pages [are released] which have been classified from the original 9/11 Joint Inquiry report—and you will hear about that later with messages from Walter Jones, and Terry Strada, that there is a strong reason to assume that it was conducted by the British, and the Saudis having their hand in that.
Then, you look at what happened after 13 years of war in Afghanistan. You have now in Afghanistan 40 times the opium production of before that war. You have, between Iraq and Afghanistan, 120,000 traumatized [NATO] soldiers, whose lives have been destroyed. In Afghanistan, the training of the so-called security forces looks more like a mafia, which is already now, with U.S. and NATO soldiers still there, terrorizing the population.
Then, in 2003, you had the second Iraq war, which, as we now know, was entirely based on lies. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no missiles that could reach every city in the world in 45 minutes. It did happen, what was promised in both Iraq wars: the bombing of the country back into the Stone Age, and all of this was based predominantly on the lies of this man (Figure 1), who instructed MI-5 and MI-6 to make the famous dossier, which then was used by Colin Powell in his infamous UN speech.
Now, some of you remember that President Bush, Jr. arrived in Iraq one time in his bomber jacket, and declared "Mission Accomplished." If you look at what is happening in Iraq today, you have the takeover by [ISIS], this radical split-off of al-Qaeda, a group whose terrorism is, even for al-Qaeda, too violent, which has taken over Mosul and several other cities in Iraq.
And this, according to various articles in the British press, means the old partition of the Middle East of the Sykes-Picot Treaty, which was established during World War I (1916), is dead. It is leading already now, to a redrawing of the maps. The Mosul oil is now Sunni oil, belonging to the Saudis. From Mosul alone, more than 1 million people are fleeing, and the ISIS has announced that they will topple King Abdullah of Jordan. They will try to occupy the Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon. And obviously there is the immediate danger of a full-fledged war in the entire region.
And this is a security problem, naturally, also for Europe and the United States, because among these people are thousands of Europeans and Americans who have joined them.
Now, the color revolution against Russia and China, already started, in a way, in the '70s and '80s, with Project Democracy and the National Endowment for Democracy [NED], which was founded in 1983, and funded by the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the Open Society Institute of George Soros. They were proceeding to build up so-called ‘democratic movements" against governments which resisted the tendency toward globalization. It went along with the idea of a free-trade system, to turn the populations into cheap labor, and basically organize the whole world economy on the principle of "buy cheap, sell expensive," and treat many people of many countries as helots, as "useless eaters," like Prince Philip is regarding them, who has announced many times that he would desire a world population to be reduced from 7 to 1 billion people, and who has been on the record to say that he wants to be reincarnated as a virus, because he could help better to reduce the population.
Now, this whole system has more and more led to a gap between the super-rich and the poor. Recently it was published that 85 individuals on this planet own as much as 3.5 billion people!
The British ‘Mother’
This then was escalated, naturally, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the same forces proceeded to build up "civil society," as they call it, in Central and Eastern Europe. While the main funding came from U.S. institutions, the concepts and the strategy really originate in British universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, which are sort of the intellectual headquarters of the British Empire.
While Cambridge was more in charge of the technology side, things to do with the information age, the Internet, the social media, the spy apparatus, the GCHQ, which is the equivalent of the NSA in Great Britain, Oxford was more the operational side. They were the base of operations already at the turn of the 19th into the 20th Century, for Cecil Rhodes, who had quite sinister plans for the Third World; they were the origin of the Round Table; they selected Rhodes scholars from around the world, and the main aim of this was to reconquer the U.S. former colony.
After they had not succeeded to undo the American Revolution by military means, in the War of 1812 and the Civil War, they decided to subvert the American establishment into adopting the model of the British Empire as their own, to create a world empire based on the Anglo-American special relationship. Whoever wants to look into this, read the book by H.G. Wells, from 1928, The Open Conspiracy.
Now, one mentor coming out of this was William Yandell Elliott, who was the professor and mentor of such people as McGeorge Bundy and Sir Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington. And naturally, they again have another, new generation, where you have the interventionists around [U.S. National Security Advisor] Susan Rice and others.
The Oxford project, where this whole thing came from, was called "Civil Resistance and Power Politics," led by Sir Adam Roberts, who was one of Susan Rice's mentors, and who is one of the main advocates of "liberal internationalism." And they trace themselves to the Lord Palmerston doctrine of the 19th Century. Collaborators of Sir Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash conducted this project at Oxford University, which was called, "The Oxford University Program on the Changing Character of War." It was the idea to build up civil resistance in terms of military strategy, and in March 2007, they had a conference at St. Anthony College, in Oxford, with the title, "Civil Resistance and Power Politics, the Experience of Non-Violent Action from Gandhi to the Present." They decided to develop new techniques, and in the catalogue of these new techniques, they ask, "Are economic sanctions useful to support the actions of civil resistance movements?"
One of the speakers at this conference was Michael McFaul. Here you have Nadia Diuk from the National Endowment for Democracy, and McFaul (Figure 2); another participant was Gene Sharp (Figure 3), who is really the author of the color revolution. He sits in the Albert Einstein Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and is the author of a three-volume book, The Politics of Non-Violent Action, which he wrote as a dissertation already in 1968; From Dictatorship to Democracy, A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, which was published in 1993.
This work has been published in 40 languages, financed by George Soros, and it teaches the techniques for political defiance. He enumerates 198 tactics, from boycott, to symbolism, like—don't look for a theoretical underpinning; I tried to find it but I couldn't—it's reducing everything to one word, or one sentence, like a color, "orange," or "rose," or rude gestures, or some other symbolism, like a fist. And then they would supply these activists in the targeted countries with buttons, with flyers, sometimes with rock bands, with clothing, and they would have false references to such people as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, but in reality, it is basically just paid activists.
Now, there is a video speech by Gene Sharp in 1990, which you can see on YouTube (it has no content, it's just "resistance," almost in a monotone), but this has now spread as so-called "color revolutions" to dozens of countries around the globe.
Now, the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) had training sessions, for example, in 2000 in Hungary, where they created the Serbian color revolution organization "Otpor!" which means "Resistance!" They were responsible for the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic. Then the NED admitted the funding of Otpor! for Georgia, Ukraine, and also on YouTube, you can find a video by Otpor! where the present head of it in Serbia admits that they have trained activists around the globe. They take responsibility for the Arab Spring. Gene Sharp says he was also a key figure in the Tiananmen Square upheaval in 1989 in China.
In Ukraine, this apparatus has recruited 2,200 NGOs! They did the Orange Revolution before; they did the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and then, what erupted in the Maidan in Kiev after President Yanukovych cancelled the EU Association Agreement in November of last year, was exactly that apparatus, a mixture of such NGOs financed primarily from the United States, and neo-Nazis who had an unbroken tradition from Stepan Bandera, who was one of the collaborators with the Nazis, to help the Nazis to invade Ukraine in the '40s.
Now, according to this concept, these militants are reinforced by mercenary types, who have trained with al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. They were shipped into Ukraine, and they were in large part responsible for the atrocities which were committed there: the barricades, the molotov cocktails, the snipers who fired on both sides, both police and the demonstrators, and who were responsible for the coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22.
Now the present "Yats" government—I call him not Yatsenyuk, but "Yats," because that is the name Victoria Nuland gave him, and she put him in there; this was a government based on a coup. They have now seven members of Svoboda in their government, which is a Nazi organization; the Right Sector is integrated very closely with the Ukrainian Army, and they are conducting presently air strikes against their own population in eastern Ukraine.
And so this has all led to a situation where, now, today, there may be more military action after the eastern pro-federalist forces in Ukraine downed this attack plane, and now there is a danger of a real eruption of a larger conflict between Ukraine and possibly Russia if this continues any longer.
Russia's New Doctrine
In response to all of this, the Russian military announced a new military doctrine, which is of the highest importance. This was in the context of the Moscow Security Conference, which took place on May 23, where they declared that the use of color revolutions is a form of warfare against Eurasia.
Russia's Gen. Vladimir Zarudnitsky, who is the head of operations at the Division of the Military Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, declared that "the color revolutions are a completely lawless, medieval and disgusting form of aggressive war. A new form of a Thirty Years'War, going in their tactics, far beyond what the Nazis did." And if you look at what these other color revolutions are doing in Iraq or Syria, or in eastern Ukraine, you can only agree with that. They are using new techniques of aggression, with the geopolitical aim to destabilize countries that have an independent policy, and they are targeting, according to this general, Russia, China, the Middle and Near East, Africa, Central and South Asia.
One of the Americans who participated in this conference, Anthony Cordesman, from CSIS, was so impressed by the proceedings of this conference that he published a 52-page report of his notes on his [[website]] [[http://csis.org/publication/russia- and-color-revolution]], where he basically said that the Russian military is now regarding the color revolutions as a new method of U.S. and European warfare against Russia and China, based on having minimal cost and casualties, but that this all leads to an important source of terrorism. (Figures 4 and 5). This is from the PowerPoint presentation which was presented there.
And then, Defense Minister Shoigu also underlined that these protests, which supposedly come from the population, are really backed up by military means and irregular warfare (Figure 6). They're being used in Serbia, Libya, Ukraine, and Venezuela, and the so-called "Arab Spring," which has destabilized (Figure 7) the entire northern African area. And as a result of it, several African nations are about to disintegrate completely, as a result of what happened in Libya, because then, the Tuareg and others fled to Mali, and other countries, spreading the terrorism.
Russian Chief of Staff General Gerasimov also said that this is a new method of warfare, conducted by the United States. It begins with the non-military tactics of the color revolution, but then behind that, military force, and if the potential of the upheaval is not sufficient, military force openly intervenes for regime change, as we have seen in Ukraine, Syria, and many other places.
The Belarus Defense Minister, Yuri Zhadobin, pointed to Gene Sharp as the author of these color revolutions, stating that these revolutions are always started from the outside. Russian General Zarudnitsky also said, that the West regards the color revolution as a peaceful means of regime change, but events in the Near East and North Africa "show that the military force is an integral part" of this, and if the sanctions are not sufficient, then they go into military operations.
Now, obviously this is completely lawless, it is not sticking to the Geneva Conventions which had established rules for declared war, and therefore it makes it all the more dangerous and criminal, and it is conducted also by open terrorists and private security firms, as we have seen it in Ukraine, where Blackwater and Academi mercenaries were deployed.
It is very similar to the way John Perkins describes the toppling of governments in his famous book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, where different techniques are used to lure countries, first into indebtedness, and then with bribes; if the bribes don't function, use destabilization; and if that all doesn't function, go for military means, which Perkins describes in great detail.
Now, the significance of this new Russian and Belarus military doctrine is absolutely enormous, and the fact that you have not read about it in the New York Times, doesn't mean that that is not so. Because if Russia says that the color revolutions are an undeclared war of aggression, then that means, we are presently in a state of war! So if you take that, in addition to all the other situations, in the Middle East, and in the Pacific, I think people had better be scared and do something about it, rather than being complacent.
NATO Encirclement of Russia and China
This all must be seen in the context of the encirclement policy of NATO and the EU against Russia and China.
There has been also a change in the military doctrine of the United States and NATO, because when we had the medium-range missile crisis in the beginning of the 1980s, which was the context for the creation of the Schiller Institute, you still had MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, which was the idea that the use of thermonuclear weapons was completely impossible, because it would lead to the extinction of the entirety of mankind.
But in the meantime, this has moved to a first-strike doctrine, which is the basis for the ABM system in Eastern Europe, which has been denounced as such by the Russians. It is the basis for the Prompt Global Strike doctrine, which is the idea that you can, with modern means, cyberwar, and other modern technologies, somehow sneak behind the defense lines of an opposing country, and take out their second-strike capability (Figure 8). And it is also the idea of the Air-Sea Battle doctrine against China.
This is the utopian conception that nuclear war is winnable. And there are some military, even in the United States, who have made the point that these first-strike doctrines encourage both sides to go for a first strike, because if you wait too long, then you are defenseless, so it's better to be the first one.
Already two years ago, at the Moscow Security Conference, then-President Medvedev said, and also at a law forum in St. Petersburg, that this policy of the Western states, using the pretext of humanitarian interventions, is leading to regional wars, including the use of nuclear weapons. At that same conference, then-Chief of the General Staff General Nikolai Makarov said that Russia will not accept the continuation of the U.S. ABM system to its third and fourth phase, because it would then give a first-strike capability, which would make Russia defenseless.
Compared to this statement of two years ago, the new Russian military doctrine is a very clear sharpening, because they have now confirmed what we have published for many, many years, but it is now official Russian doctrine.
And if you take all of what I said into one picture, which you should, you can only come to one conclusion: We are presently on the verge of World War III, and therefore, the danger of the extinction of mankind. We need urgently an international debate about this. We have to declare color revolutions absolutely illegitimate. We have to denounce the farce, that these people go around the world, militarily intervening everywhere and call that "democracy," "freedom," "human rights," when it is in reality, murder, crime, terrorism, and war of aggression.
Now, if you kill somebody in an officially declared war, that may be terrible and tragic, but it happens according to rules of established international conventions, like the Geneva Conventions. But if you kill somebody in an undeclared war, it is murder. To instigate a war of aggression makes the person who does so a Nuremberg criminal.
The fact that we are already in a war, in a sort of global war, means we are sitting on a global powder keg, whose fuse has been lit in many places—in Ukraine, in the Middle East, in the Pacific. And then, the question is: Can we stop this in time, before the self-extinction of mankind?
Seize the Alternative!
The potential alternative fortunately already is in place: What the LaRouche movement has been working for, for 39 years, what Mr. Lyndon LaRouche proposed for the first time in 1975, to replace the IMF with the International Development Bank, and then, in particular, after we proposed the Eurasian Land-Bridge, 25 years ago (Figure 9), it is now on the table.
The good news is that the Chinese government has put the Eurasian Land-Bridge, or the New Silk Road, on the table. Last September, in a conference in Kazakhstan, and in the meantime, at the recent Shanghai Russian-Chinese summit, Xi Jinping and Putin not only concluded the 30-year gas deal, which was talked about a lot in the media, but they had also 46 cooperation agreements on the New Silk Road, and the fact that on the highest level, namely, between the two Presidents of the two countries, there is an agreement to cooperate, which gives hope that also on lower levels and regional levels, still-existing tensions can be overcome.
Now, while the trans-Atlantic system is about to blow out financially, there is a gigantic dynamic of the New Silk Road development very, very rapidly. The new Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has expressed his full intention to cooperate with Russia and China on this New Silk Road, and to help to build the north-south extension of the Silk Road. Recently, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was in India pledging full support for the Indian development to upgrade the railways and express highways, set up industrial parks, build many nuclear plants in India. In the meantime, Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang was in Bucharest, where he met with 16 heads of state of Central and Middle Europe, and announced that China is going to build a high-speed rail system in Eastern and Central Europe, something the EU obviously is incapable of doing.
He also went to several Africa states and promised that China will connect all African capitals through a system of high-speed rail. And at the upcoming BRICS summit in July, Xi Jinping and Putin will go on a tour through Latin America, to engage all of Latin America in the New Silk Road/World Land-Bridge conception.
This is the only hope to stop and reverse this war and terrorism, which is now exploding in the Middle East, and prevent it to come into Europe, Asia, and Africa. At a Schiller conference in November 2012, which we also had called because of the increasing war danger, we presented a comprehensive plan for the Eurasian Land-Bridge, for the entire region between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean, Central Asia, and the Gulf.
If you look at this from the African Atlantic coast, all the way through the Arabian Peninsula, and into China, you have one big band of desert. Most of the Middle East is desert. And the only hope to have peace in this region is to green the desert, using aquifers, river redirections, large-scale desalination of ocean water through the peaceful use of nuclear energy (Figure 10), and have the hope that Russia, China, and India, Iran, some European nations that hopefully free themselves from the yoke of the EU Commission, and a changed United States, work together on development being the new word for peace.
There was recently a two-day conference in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, of the new Central Asia Expert Club on Eurasian Development, where the director of the Center for Strategic Studies Sayfullo Safarov spoke, and also Yuri Krupnov, of the Supervisory Board of the Russian Institute for Democracy, Migration and Regional Development, and they presented an economic development program for the elimination of drug production in Afghanistan, a program which [Russian anti-drug official] Viktor Ivanov had already proposed in March, in Moscow, and which again was then presented in Islamabad, Pakistan, for a development program for Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Yuri Krupnov presented four key areas of such development for Afghanistan, agricultural and food processing, machinery production, transportation infrastructure, rapid construction of hydroelectric power plants along the Panj River, science and technology education. They also decided at that conference to impose preventive measures to ward off a Ukrainian scenario in the region.
So this is what the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement proposed 50 years ago, starting with the so-called "Productive Triangle" for Eastern and Western Europe, and after the Soviet Union disintegrated, with the Eurasian Land-Bridge, and which in the meantime, we have enlarged into the World Land-Bridge (Figure 11). Basically, a global program for the reconstruction of the world economy and that program is becoming a reality. This represents a very concrete perspective for all nations on this planet.
The problem is, the domination of the British Empire in the United States. And Mr. LaRouche has declared in the recent period many times, the only way to stop World War III is the return of the United States to its Constitutional character as a republic—and that may require a change of government, which we will also hear about later today.
Mr. LaRouche has presented a four-point program: It is a scientific document, a basis for legislation, for the United States to adopt.
Bail-In vs. Glass-Steagall
This is not a theoretical question, but as I said, the trans-Atlantic financial system is about to blow. It is much, much more bankrupt than in 2008. The ECB, European Central Bank, just implemented negative interest rates, and the head of the Hamburg economic institute, Straubhaar, who is a very conservative economist, declared that to be "the end of capitalism."
Now, what they have planned in Europe and in the United States is the so-called "bail-in," the Cyprus model, but we have calculated that even if you expropriate the accounts of all the people in Europe and in the United States, a haircut for the owners of savings accounts and business accounts, this would give you only 1% of the outstanding derivatives contracts. So what we are really looking at is a sudden danger of a collapse of the real economy, and it is my suspicion that this could only be managed under wartime conditions—or that's what these people hope.
So therefore, Mr. LaRouche says, the only hope to stop this danger is to end the Empire, to end this monster which has developed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And the only way to do it is to bankrupt Wall Street, declare Glass-Steagall, do it exactly as Franklin D. Roosevelt did it, and then go to a program of National Banking in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, the American System of economy, and to replace that present monetarist system.
Now, all of this has to be done from the perspective of the fourth point of Mr. LaRouche's conception, which is the idea of Vladimir Vernadsky, who basically defined the law of evolution in the universe: Namely, that the noösphere, the influence of human cognition and invention, is becoming more and more dominating over the biosphere, that the role of human cognition, of human creativity, will be more efficient in the entire universe.
A New Standard for Science
This also sets an entire new standard for physical science. Mankind is the only species which is capable of creative reason, and it is distinct from all other beings, that it was able to control fire—no animal can do that—and to increase the control over the forces of nature through a constant process of discovery, which goes along with higher and higher energy-flux densities, to be used in the production process. And this ability of man has led to an increase in the relative potential population density, and therefore, that must be the yardstick for the physical economy, for the decision whether an investment is good or bad.
Pobisk Kuznetsov, the late Russian scientist, several years ago announced at a scientific conference in Moscow, that Mr. LaRouche will be known for his discovery, namely to signify potential relative population density with the word "La," from "LaRouche," in the same way as other inventors and discoverers give their name to their invention, like "watt," "ampere," and so forth.
Human progress is the intention of the universe! It's a physical principle, and it is is the law of the universe itself. Vernadsky based himself on Nikolaus von Kues (Nicholas of Cusa), the great thinker of the 15th Century, who was the first to discover the biogenetic law of evolution. He was the first to distinguish between the inorganic, the organic or biological, and the third level, creative reason, and he also then defined a fourth level, which is the Creator. He said: The evolution in the universe occurs in such a way that each species is only fully accentuated in its character, if it participates at least in one point, in the next higher species.
So the evolution does not occur from below, like a Darwinian survival of the fittest, according to Cusa, but from above. The higher level rips the lower upward, almost in a violent upward-pulling. Therefore, one can never measure the higher domain with the yardstick of the lower; you cannot measure the biological realm with the yardstick of the inorganic, and you can not measure the human mind with the tools of the biological sphere. Therefore, the human principle of an upward evolution, of the increase of the power of the noösphere, is the only yardstick to measure human affairs.
LaRouche says in this fourth point: Man is mankind's only true measure in the universe, and it is that idea which must guide the practice in physical economy.
Cusa already discussed this conception in principle, by saying that the Creator created the physical universe, but after He created man, man continued the creation of the physical universe as imago Dei through his vis creativa, his creative powers.
The problem with the present system of Empire, of globalization, of monetarism, is that it measures all mankind from the level of the organic, or the inorganic, from the standpoint of money: That is why it leads to such inhuman results. What the World Land-Bridge and the Silk Road is the synonym for, is the conscious decision for the next phase of the upward evolution of mankind, because only the completion of the World Land-Bridge, which includes the collaboration by many nations in the manned and unmanned space travel, the colonization of the so-called "Near Abroad" in space. That is the conclusion of the World Land-Bridge.
Nicolaus of Cusa already said in the 15th Century, that each human individual recapitulates the entire evolution of the universe in his mind, and when he becomes conscious about it, he can determine, with absolute scientific accuracy, what must be the necessary next step of discovery. This is why LaRouche, who developed this concept of the potential relative population density, which goes along with the absolute necessity of higher levels of energy-flux density in the production process, has determined that mankind will only get out of this crisis if we go into a crash program for thermonuclear fusion power. Because only then, can we have any hope that mankind has a future as a species in the universe, because our planet is not only a planet in itself, but we are sitting in a Solar System, in a galaxy, and the challenges coming from there have to be met.
Rid the World of Empire
So we have to get a situation where the true identity of mankind is that of a creative species. If we want to survive, we have to rid our institutions from oligarchy and Empire which have turned Satanic. War can no longer be a means of conflict resolution. It therefore must be prohibited, punished, eradicated, outlawed, banned, and condemned. And we have to make an international campaign to do exactly that.
The perpetrators of this war must be brought to court, and I suggest a new Nuremberg Tribunal. Even the British Minister of Interior Norman Baker said, in respect to Iraq, that it was the intervention of Blair and Bush which has destroyed that country and made it open for the extremists, and that what we see now in Iraq, is the legacy of Tony Blair.
Blair is trying right now, to campaign to become the new President of the European Commission, by making machinations to not have [Jean-Claude] Juncker have that post, and I'm totally committed, and I call upon all of you to help, that that should not happen, and that Blair should have a quite different place, maybe less comfortable, but secure. Whoever basically supports this person, who is a war criminal in my view, is himself not up to moral standards.
So therefore, we have a tremendous situation, and I can only say that having been in this movement for 40 years, the LaRouche movement, having gone through quite some unpleasant experiences, which Ramsey [Clark] also knows a lot about, but nevertheless, I must say, the world is in great peril. And I cannot give anybody the guarantee that we will be here in a couple of weeks or days, because this is very, very dangerous. But nevertheless, I can tell you, I've never lost my profound optimism, in the true character of human beings, and I believe that Leibniz was absolutely correct when he said that a great evil also brings forward in human beings a greater desire and power for the good. And therefore, I still, after 30 years of the Schiller Institute, I still believe: Now Comes Schiller's Time!