This article appears in the March 15, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
The LaRouche Alternative to the Existential Danger of a Third World War
This is a shortened and edited version of a presentation by Elliot Greenspan to the March 2, 2019 Manhattan Meeting of the LaRouche PAC.
At our February 16 Schiller Institute conference, a dramatic intervention was made by the Russian government. The Russian Ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, put forward an approximation of the Four Powers concept proposed over decades by Lyndon LaRouche, as the decisive initiative to stop the escalation toward nuclear war.
Read the beginning of the Ambassador’s message, as delivered by the Councilor from the Russian mission, Theodore Strzhizhovskiy:
Theodore Strzhizhovskiy: We prepared a statement, which I will read now:
“First of all I welcome the organizers, participants, and guests of this conference. The Schiller Institute is known for its valuable contributions to the understanding of international political processes and development of new approaches to global challenges. The conferences held under your auspices are respectful platforms where the most urgent present-day issues can be discussed without politicizing and ideological clichés. We were very saddened by the bitter news of the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, the founder and inspirer of the Schiller Institute. We would like to express our deepest condolences to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, as well as to the relatives and colleagues. We are convinced that the paradigm of international political and economic interaction that he had proposed would be further developed by his apprentices and associates.”
Nebenzia proceeded to warn, in this message, about the shattering of the world security architecture, and counterposed the integration of the Eurasian Economic Union, led by Russia, and the Chinese One Belt One Road. He emphasized the importance of the triangular process, Russia-China-India cooperation, and the urgency of the United States, of Russian-American relations coming into, shall we say, normalcy, or progress. And as you see, this is decisive for global stability.
Our power is rooted in LaRouche’s singular power, the Power of Reason, as LaRouche calls his 1988 autobiography—the realm of ideas that actually shape history. In such an historic moment as this, this is uniquely decisive.
The Russians recognize this. They are playing the LaRouche card.
The Strategic Dimension
I want to concentrate this presentation on the strategic dimension of the unfolding crisis, in particular the existential danger of a third world war, a nuclear war of extinction. I want to focus your attention on this, on this war danger, insofar it is astonishing that such a danger appears not to exist if you listen to the mass media—the mainstream media, if you listen to the Congress, if you listen to most citizens. Perhaps it’s too frightening to face. Perhaps Americans fog out, thinking, “I can’t do anything about this, about war and peace. I am preoccupied by my day to day concerns; family, job, survival, pleasure, matters closer to home, matters within my ken.”
Happily, we have a growing movement, and we have a movement here, intersecting China and Russia and forces internationally, represented by those who are sending messages of condolence identifying the unique power of Lyndon LaRouche. But Americans, by and large, including the huge Trump support base, are not leading, not taking the urgently necessary actions. My intention here is to catalyze, not an antiwar movement, but a mass movement for peace through national and international economic development.
Listen to Jacques Cheminade, the leader of the French LaRouche movement, from the Schiller Conference two weeks ago:
Jacques Cheminade: Looking at all of us here, I see us with the eyes of the present, with all our imperfections, in this terrible moment of humanity, but I see us with the eyes of the future, and I am filled with hope, because our lives are shaped by the history of an organization which has always fought and fought to be at the forefront. Hope beyond pain and sorrow, hope across the boundaries of nations and time. . . . It is with confidence that I see the common world as the world of Lyndon LaRouche.
We have before us the possibility of a paradigm change to free the world from the destructive grip of the British Empire and its ideology, but it will happen only if all of us become guiding lights ahead of what we are, and not followers of easy paths. So let’s do it! Let’s do it because it is our mandate and mission. This conference, to make sense, has to be followed by unprecedented political organizing to inspire minds, extending our hands to others beyond all parochialisms, personal biases, and borders. Our commitments, a New Bretton Woods, a National Bank, Public Credit, the Glass-Steagall Act, and fusion energy are not mere words or recipes to be repeated, but powerful ideas defining a dynamic unity. If they do not become real, the world, as has been told us before, is doomed. The world is doomed.
LaRouche’s Four Laws will define the future of humanity if there is going to be one. It is as simple as that. And it is what should make us decide what we will do with our lives. What de Gaulle called, at the liberation of Paris, our otherwise miserable and short lives. Not by adopting a set of cultish life savers, but as an intervention in history which confronts our quality of being human. At the moment the human house is threatened both by financial tsunami, and by the flames of war.
So I want to indicate, with some help from Vladimir Putin and Helga LaRouche and several others, the reality, the imminence of the flames of war that Jacques has referenced here. Why don’t we look at President Putin’s address, two weeks ago, to the Russian Federal Assembly on February 20, in Moscow?
Vladimir Putin: I have already said this, and I want to repeat: Russia does not intend—this is very important, I am repeating this on purpose—Russia does not intend to deploy such missiles in Europe first. If they really are built and delivered to the European continent, and the United States has plans for this, at least we have not heard otherwise, it will dramatically exacerbate the international security situation, and create a serious threat to Russia, because some of these missiles can reach Moscow in just 10-12 minutes. This is a very serious threat to us. In this case, we will be forced, I would like to emphasize this; we will be forced to respond with mirror or asymmetric actions. What else does it mean?
I am saying this directly and openly now, so that no one can blame us later, so that it will be clear to everyone in advance what is being said here. Russia will be forced to create and deploy weapons that can be used not only in the areas we are directly threatened from, but also in areas that contain decision-making centers for the missile systems threatening us. . . .
We know how to do this and will implement these plans immediately, as soon as the threats to us become real. I do not think we need any further irresponsible exacerbation of the current international situation. We do not want this.
What would I like to add? Our American colleagues have already tried to gain absolute military superiority with their global missile defense project. They need to stop deluding themselves. Our response will always be efficient and effective.
Crisis on the Horizon?
President Putin went on to reference, in a press conference the following day, the possibility of a Cuban Missile Crisis on the immediate horizon. Remember, this is the president of the nation which defeated fascism, defeated Nazism, in a long war, in World War II, at the cost of twenty-seven million people in the Soviet Union, the Great Patriotic War. So, Russia, as a sovereign nation, is committed to their security and their future, in concert with China, with India, and with the United States, and therefore, take Putin’s most recent warning, this warning, in the appropriate context, and identify the challenge to us in the United States, in that regard.
Take a series of similar warnings, such as the recent book, War With Russia?, by Professor Stephen F. Cohen. His theme, as he puts it, is this:
The new U.S.-Russian Cold War is more dangerous than was its 40-year predecessor, which the world survived. The chances are even greater, as I hope readers already understand, that this one could result, inadvertently or intentionally, in actual war between the two nuclear superpowers. Herein lies another ominous indication. During the preceding Cold War, the possibility of nuclear catastrophe was in the forefront of American mainstream political and media discussion and of policy-making. During the new one, it rarely seems to be even a concern.
Let us take another expression of the same danger. This is a Feb. 26 Washington Times column, “Are we Sleepwalking into Nuclear Disaster?” by Edward Losansky, President of the American University in Moscow. He reviews the warnings from Cohen, and the warnings from former Senator Sam Nunn, and others, but he makes an additional striking point. He writes:
The question is whether U.S. policy-makers are willing to risk extinction of the U.S. and the rest of mankind in a futile bid to hold onto a unipolar moment that has passed and brought Americans nothing but debt and danger while it lasted. A good start would be a trilateral summit of the leaders of U.S., Russia, and China, or better yet, a quartet that includes India, to start work on parameters of a new constructive international consensus. Everything depends on Mr. Trump, because the other troika members have already met, and they would definitely accept his invitation. Such a move by Mr. Trump could not only turn around the sleepwalk toward nuclear war, but would help solidify his 2020 win by reminding us why he was elected in the first place.
Zepp-LaRouche Weighs In
So, you recognize the Four Powers concept which LaRouche began working on decades ago and which is at the core of our international organizing today, as we discussed at the Feb. 16, Schiller Institute conference.
In an EIR report from November 9, 2018, Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated, “During my recent trip to Moscow, in several meetings with representatives of leading institutions, I had the opportunity to get a first-hand impression of how the strategic situation looks from the Russian perspective.” When she returned from that trip, she emphasized three things that struck her when she was there: 1) the difficulties facing Russia economically, 2) the huge respect that she saw from Russian leaders for Lyndon LaRouche, and 3) the fact that the Russians, in general, are preoccupied with this war danger, as opposed to Americans. She says in the article that only days after her October 23rd address in Moscow, the Deputy Director of Non-Proliferation and Disarmament for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Andrei Belosov, told the UN in New York:
Recently at a meeting, the U.S. stated that Russia is preparing for war. Yes, Russia is preparing for war, I can confirm it. We are preparing to defend our homeland, our territorial integrity, our principles, our values, our people. We are preparing for such a war. Russia is preparing for war, and the U.S. is preparing a war. Otherwise, why would the U.S. withdraw from the treaty, the INF treaty, and build a nuclear potential and adopt a new nuclear doctrine?
Helga further reports that, according to a recent Military Times survey of active U.S. military personnel and officers, 46 percent—almost half—are convinced that their country will be drawn into a major military conflict with Russia in 2019. I could ask the question if those of you in this audience have thought about this situation in this way.
Look also at Helga’s recent interview with the Russian news service, Sputnik International, “Europe to Sign Own Suicide Pact If It Hosts New U.S. Missiles.” In the interview, Zepp-LaRouche proposes to “re-establish good relations with Moscow by creating an economic zone from the Atlantic to the Pacific on the basis of integrating the Belt and Road Initiative, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the European Union.” She went on to note that such cooperation would create a “new security architecture” that should become the basis on which Europe builds its cooperation with the United States,” a concept she has developed and proffered on multiple occasions.
A Crisis Long in the Making
How did we get here? This is an existential crisis—without much attention being paid to it by the man in the street, by the mass media, or apparently, by the Congress. I think it would be extremely useful to go back to a famous broadcast Lyndon LaRouche produced in 1999, called, “Storm Over Asia.” Here is what Mr. LaRouche foresaw and forecast twenty years ago:
LaRouche: What you’re seeing is a war in the North Caucasus region of southern Russia. What you’re also seeing, is a war which has broken out simultaneously on the border between Pakistan and India.
The forces behind these attacks on Russia and on India are the same. They are a mercenary force which was first set into motion by policies adopted at a Trilateral Commission meeting in Kyoto [Japan] in 1975: policies originally of [Zbigniew] Brzezinski and his number-two man there, Samuel P. Huntington; the policies which were continued by then-Trilateral Commission member, that is, back in 1975, George [H.W.] Bush, before he became Vice President.
These were policies which were continued by George Bush as Vice President. Under Bush, this became known as the “Iran-Contra” drug-financed link operations of mercenaries deployed with private funding all over the world—recruited from Islamic and other countries, and targetting Russia’s flank.
This mercenary force, created then, still exists. The primary responsibility for creating the force, was the government of the United Kingdom—most notably, most emphatically, the government of Margaret Thatcher; a policy which has been accelerated and continued in full madness by the present Prime Minister, Tony Blair. . . .
This war, if continued, using mercenaries, can lead to nuclear general war. The major powers principally threatened today by this mercenary operation, are two of the world’s largest nations: China and India; China on its western borders, India on its northern borders. Iran is also threatened; but, more notably, Russia. If these nations are pushed to the wall by a continuing escalation of a war which is modelled on the wars which the British ran against Russia, China, and so forth, during the 19th century and early 20th century, this will lead to the point that Russia has to make the decision to accept the disintegration of Russia as a nation, or to resort to the means it has, to exact terrible penalties on those who are attacking it, going closer and closer to the source, the forces behind the mercenaries—which includes, of course, Turkey, which is a prime NATO asset being used as a cover for much of this mercenary operation in the North Caucasus and in Central Asia.
This is our danger. The weapons the Russians have, are no longer the large armies. . . . Those vast armies are dissipated, weakened. Russia is ruined almost, by a vast economic destruction, caused by IMF policies, and related policies. But Russia still has an arsenal, an arsenal of advanced weapons, and laboratories which can match the weaponry being developed in the United States, Israel, Britain, and elsewhere.
If Russia is pushed to the wall . . . the likely thing is, it will fight back. It will use the weapons it has. It does not have the weapons to win a war, but it has the weapons sufficient to impose a powerful, deadly deterrent on the nations behind the mercenary forces which are presently attacking it. There lies the danger.
Unfortunately, most people in the United States are living under the delusion, that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the combined military power of the United States and its British Commonwealth allies—including Australia, New Zealand and so forth, countries that are really under the British Queen personally, as the United Kingdom is—these forces, Anglo-American forces, are so powerful, that they can ignore the United Nations Security Council, and conduct wars on their own, with impunity.
War Can Come to the U.S.
Most Americans tend to believe that, and believe they don’t have to worry about foreign wars. They don’t have to worry about terrible things happening in Africa or South America, or Eurasia generally. “It won’t come here,” just as many Americans said before Pearl Harbor about the war then ongoing in Europe.
In reality, it can come here. I’m not predicting that it will; I’m saying the likelihood—the danger—exists. And as long as the present policies of our government continue, especially the policies of the right-wing Stone Age faction inside the Congress, the right-wing policies of Vice President Al Gore and of [Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright, a Brzezinski associate—as long as these policies on the United States’ part continue, the danger of war is growing.
It’s not immediate, not tomorrow, and not the day after tomorrow. But wars come on like that: you get to a point of no return, there’s still no war. Then, somewhere down the line, maybe a couple of years later, the war actually breaks out.
And war is breaking out all over the world war now; not only in the Balkans, as we saw recently, not only in an insane bombing attack on [President] Saddam [Hussein], for no reason whatsoever—the continued war against Iraq. . . .
That was 20 years ago. Consider what’s unfolding today: the Korean situation, the Southwest Asian situation, the India-Pakistan conflict, the Ukraine situation, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) issue. LaRouche said we’re not talking about a war today or tomorrow; well, that was 20 years ago. Perhaps we are. That again, defines our mandate and our mission.
Look at the Russia-gate business. Russia-gate is emphatically a British-directed operation to destroy this President; because this President is not under British control—to destroy the potential for improved relations with Russia. Trump’s intention is to improve relations with Russia, to develop his friendship with Xi Jinping and so on, to end regime-change wars and to insure that there’s no escalation beyond that to nuclear war. What you have is an attempt to consolidate the cooperation of major powers in particular on the common aims of mankind. Then the British war party, time and again, comes in to bust it up; manipulating both sides to maintain and perpetuate this division of the world, this East-West division, to maintain their empire, their neo-colonial looting, and their free trade system.
Think back to the Kennedy era. Look at Allen Dulles and company—the war party in the Kennedy period. Allen Dulles was the Director of the CIA. A couple of months after Kennedy’s inauguration, that war party attempted to trap Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs operation, an invasion of Cuba. It was a disaster. Kennedy learned the lesson and moved to clean some of these characters out, but in the following year it was the Cuban Missile Crisis, and in those famous 13 days in October, most Americans quickly got religion, because for those 13 days, people were very aware of the existential danger of that moment.
The JFK Approach
Providentially, JFK had developed a correspondence with Khrushchev. Therefore, Kennedy was able to deploy his brother, Robert, and others in back channel negotiations with Khrushchev to work out a deal for removing Russian missiles from Cuba, and the U.S. removing its missiles from Turkey on the Soviet border. You had a diffusing of what could well have led to an imminent U.S. military attack of one form or other on Cuba, which could have led to nuclear war. Soon thereafter, on June 10, 1963, in a speech at the American University, JFK proffered to Moscow the establishment of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, a serious move toward disarmament. And a few months after that, on September 30, 1963, Kennedy addressed the United Nations General Assembly, calling for a genuine détente between the great powers through mutual interest cooperation. I’ll quote Kennedy:
Kennedy: I include among these possibilities for great power cooperation, a joint expedition to the Moon.
Why should man’s first flight to the Moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the U.S. and the Soviet Union become involved in immense duplications of research, production, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries, indeed of all the world, cannot work together in the conquest of space. Sending someday in this decade to the Moon, not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries.
Two months later, he was shot, murdered. Think about that initiative of JFK, and you have one very clear reason why the British Party, in the UK and in the U.S., acted to kill that President.
The Last War-Avoidance Intervention
Let’s jump ahead. Twenty years later, Soviet and American medium-range missiles,—the Soviet SS-20s and the American Pershing missiles—with a range of a few hundred to a few thousand miles, were in place in Central and Eastern Europe. A strategic crisis was exploding.
Happily, we had a President, much like Trump in important respects, with the courage to act and to act with Lyndon LaRouche. When Jimmy Carter was elected in November 1976, LaRouche, based on intelligence from inside the U.S. military, from inside the Pentagon, learned about the Soviet intention to develop a ballistic-missile defense, a beam-weapon defense; to “Sputnik” the United States in terms of such a strategic defense operation.
LaRouche authored a pamphlet, Sputnik of the Seventies: The Science Behind the Soviets’ Beam Weapon in 1977. This led, in the ensuing period, to President Ronald Reagan bringing LaRouche into his administration, unofficially, with security clearance as a back channel to the Soviets based on LaRouche’s proposal, which proposal began with that publication.
Reagan and many of his associates in California were readers of EIR magazine from at least 1974. Reagan was elected in 1980. Key Reagan figures approached LaRouche’s associates after the election and requested recommendations from LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche presented a series of proposals regarding international economic cooperation and development. President Reagan selected one thing, which is the policy that Reagan called the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Let me quote from Reagan’s famous television broadcast of March 23, 1983:
. . . I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.
. . . We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose—one all people share—is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.
Reagan was shot two months into his administration, early on in the administration; shot and almost assassinated. But it was already well known to British intelligence that this relationship that LaRouche had developed with Reagan portended the kind of breakthrough we would see later in the SDI. Reagan was shot, and the British faction inside his administration, led by Vice President, the “President of Vice,” George H.W. Bush, took greater control over that administration. Soon after the SDI breakthrough, a “Get LaRouche” taskforce was established in Manhattan, coming out of the Department of Injustice, and related government and private operations. Eventually, with the assistance of the amoral legal assassin, Robert Mueller, the same guy we see today, LaRouche was framed up and sent to prison in 1989, after years of slander.
A year later LaRouche, from prison, proposed what was first called the European Productive Triangle and then the Eurasian Land-Bridge. We published “The Productive Triangle: Paris-Berlin-Vienna. Locomotive for World Economic Development” as a document in EIR in 1990. Then, in July 1992, EIR published an article on the “Eurasian Rail Project: Building the World’s Greatest Rail Network.”
This is what has become, through our work, through Helga’s work, the New Silk Road, the Eurasian World Land-Bridge. This is what the LaRouches put on the table at the point that the Soviet Empire came down. Instead, there was a dirty agreement between Gorbachev, Bush, and Thatcher to acquiesce in a reunified Germany joining NATO in exchange for a pledge that NATO would not move one inch east of Berlin.
Well, NATO soon thereafter start gobbling up nations. NATO went from 12 countries at its founding in 1949, to 29 now. Over these past 70 years NATO has deployed massively to the borders of Russia. Beginning in 1991, Russia was subjected to horrible looting, de-industrialization, and depopulation.
So instead of the Eurasian Land-Bridge unfolding to unify the giant Eurasian landmass through economic, scientific, and infrastructural cooperation, the British/London/Wall Street financial empire looted the hell out of this country. This takes us to 1999; we have just reviewed what LaRouche emphasized about that danger in his Storm Over Asia.
The Current War Drive Begins
On September 11, 2001, the United States is attacked. The first head of state to respond—within moments of that attack—was Vladimir Putin. Unable to get through to President Bush, Putin spoke with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice: “You realize we’re on strategic alert?” Putin: “Yes, we know, and we are standing down.” Putin then offered cooperation with the Bush administration to actually engage in a war against terrorism.
Instead of accepting such cooperation, a series of wars were launched, beginning with Afghanistan, through Iraq, Syria, and Libya—the various regime-change wars. And soon after 9/11, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, indicating the intention by the United States to attempt to develop, over time, a war-winning first strike capability.
To understand what happened after 9/11, you have to go back to 1991-92, and examine the policy proposals of British intelligence, of Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs), to develop what they called a “unipolar world.” In the U.S. it was called the “Wolfowitz Doctrine”—one pole; one hegemon; the United States domination of the world. Of course, it wasn’t United States domination; it was Anglo-American—a dumb giant on a British leash.
The intention of these wars was that there would be no cooperation of the major powers to generate the sort of international economic development that LaRouche had been proposing—a New Bretton Woods system.
Fast forward now to the coup of 2013-2014 in Ukraine. Neo-Nazis were deployed on the Maidan with U.S. funds (about $5 billion having been pumped into the Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union), to bring down the democratically elected Yanukovych government. There was no Russian military invasion of Crimea, as has been said; there was no Russian annexation of Crimea. There was a referendum in that section of what was formerly Ukraine, but for centuries prior, a section of Russia. The referendum was an overwhelming demand by that population to return Crimea to Russia.
Nazis were put in power in Ukraine, by the Obama administration with their British and other friends, on the border of Russia, and that dramatically ratcheted up the danger level in the strategic situation. Think back to the history of Russia! Then, these same forces attack a new American President—Donald Trump—for trying to address this, by engaging with, and developing improved relations with the other leading nuclear power. That, in a nutshell, is Russia-gate.
This is the British House of Lords’ strategy. LaRouche PAC, EIR, and the Schiller Institute have now pinned down—authoritatively—the authorship of the ongoing destabilization—through Russia-gate and through the various strategic moves, including the withdrawal from the INF Treaty.
As Barbara Boyd put it in a series of articles published on the LaRouche PAC website and in EIR magazine:
In the U.S., they (the British) have one immediate goal: Ending the disruption caused by Trump, by removing him one way or the other. They found that the “special relationship” was intact and revered in U.S. intelligence and defense establishments, and especially on both sides of the aisle in Congress. But that relationship is threatened by the continuation of the Trump Presidency; therefore, their insistence on removing Trump or crippling him, ensuring that he is not more than one term. . . . With respect to Russia, they plan to continue their policy of containment, economic isolation, and political destabilization; and to ensure their destabilization and degrees of control over India and China.
No Economic Development, No Peace
So, we can and must defeat this. But to defeat the new emerging danger, it is necessary that people change their axioms, just as Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin proposed on September 13, 1993 in a toast to all who had participated in the Oslo peace negotiations, that they tip their glasses to “those with the courage to change their axioms.”
Again, look at the case of Professor Cohen, who I referenced earlier, a courageous figure in sounding the alarm. But Cohen, in his book, cites a perilous paradox:
Why, unlike the 40-year Cold War, is there no significant mainstream opposition to the new and more dangerous Cold War? I cannot explain this exceedingly dangerous paradox. . . . The fault lies with America’s governing elites.
Cohen misses entirely the nature of the beast that he’s dealing with. It’s not just America’s governing elites, but it’s the control by this British ideology of those elites. “Dumb giant on a British leash.” If you are fighting a war, you had better recognize your enemy—the mindset of the enemy, and the strategy, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities of that enemy. If you mis-identify your enemy, you’re not going to win the war—or, in this case, we’re not going to stop the war.
What’s the nature of this British disease? Globalization, geopolitics, the neo-liberal system of free trade. Trump has made clear his intention to improve relations, and to potentially move into LaRouche’s proposed Four Power geometry. What Trump’s doing in Southwest Asia; what Trump did in Singapore and is working toward in East Asia with Korea—this is all conclusive evidence of Trump’s courage and laudable intentions. In just the last 48 hours, Trump, with Putin and Xi, have intervened in the India-Pakistan situation.
But, if we are to succeed, if the world is to avoid war, we have to be more precise as to the nature of the enemy; we have to take up the economic and financial dimension. As the German mathematician Bernhard Riemann put it, concluding his habilitation paper, “On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Foundations of Geometry,” we have to move from the department of mathematics to the department of physics, in this case, physical economy.
What is the physical-economic as well as financial reality in the world? The system is bankrupt. The British system, the London-Wall Street system is bankrupt; it’s coming down. It is, therefore, a wounded beast and extremely dangerous. But it is also very vulnerable. What is required is to put forward a program, a positive conception—not merely a détente idea, which is what many of the better people desired years ago. Détente will not work. You need an entente in terms of a Four Powers combination. And you need to unify the Four Powers around their common interests, in economic development, scientific progress and all forms of infrastructure development, as the unique basis for peace.
Physical Economy Is LaRouche
The name for that is LaRouche; who is the physical economist in the world. Therefore, the general blindness on British influence and power goes directly to the decades-long, induced hysteria about LaRouche. Because LaRouche identified in the 1970s the actual enemy of America and of humanity—and it wasn’t the “American elites,” although many of those elites are in the British camp. But it was, and is, British ideology, British intelligence warfare—as you see with the targeting of Trump.
Let me try to make this as uncomfortable as I can for some of you, perhaps. To win this strategic war against empire on behalf of humanity, you have to go after various axioms, and you have to think them through in order to change them.
For example, Axiom #1: There’s no British Empire after 1945, but an American Empire; Axiom #2: The left-right, east-west, communist-capitalist division of the world is fixed and eternal. This involves the lie that the British system of monetarism, international financial speculation, globalization, looting, and drugs, is somehow equivalent to the American System of capitalism—that there’s no actual profound and systemic distinction between the historic British imperial system and the American republican system. Another axiom is that the world must necessarily be governed by zero-sum games—we win, you lose; as opposed to the win-win conception that the Chinese have put forward through the One Belt, One Road, the Westphalian idea of nations acting for the benefit of the other, to the benefit of all.
Let me go directly to the situation today, with the help of Helga Zepp-LaRouche who, in her weekly Schiller Institute New Paradigm webcast of March 1, identifies the method of thinking that is required for us to develop a quality of leadership in our ranks, and rapidly far beyond our ranks, to resolve the existential crisis and bring about the becoming of a LaRouche world:
Zepp-LaRouche: I think it [the U.S. threat to withdraw from the INF Treaty] is definitely a very dangerous development. It may be that President Trump wants to accomplish some other treaty replacing the INF Treaty, but this is a very tricky question. I think there is not so much the immediate danger that we will see immediately medium-range U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, because as far as I know there are no such weapons systems in the pipeline that could be established immediately. If they were to be positioned there, it would basically bring us right back to the situation of the beginning of the 1980s when you had only a few minutes’ warning, and therefore all the forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO were on launch-on-warning.
But I think the more immediate situation is that it opens a Pandora’s box, because once you break down all disarmament or arms-control treaties, like the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty, which has been cancelled many years ago now, such action basically brings down any kind of treaty arrangements, leading to all kinds of developments.
This brings me to the point I have made many times. Some people say that behind that is the effort to get the Chinese into an INF agreement, but experts were writing, in the recent period, that it’s not very likely that the Chinese could agree or would agree; because if you just have an INF approach, it means that the Chinese would have to give up about more than two-thirds of their entire missile arsenal, which they obviously will not do under these circumstances.
It brings me to another point I have made many times. Look at the totality of all of these problems—Venezuela, North Korea, India-Pakistan, the whole situation of Southwest Asia remains extremely fragile, the situation with Ukraine. All of these things have the potential of leading to a large, if not the final, catastrophe of a Third World War. Given the fact that the old paradigm is disintegrating, there are people and forces representing this old paradigm that are pushing confrontation. I think it is extremely urgent to recognize that humanity must move to a completely new type of thinking, a New Paradigm in which you establish new international relations that take into account the security interests, the economic interests, and the political interests of all nations.
The only way you can do that is to establish a higher order of a system, a New Paradigm that overcomes geopolitics and puts humanity first, and then all national and regional interests second. That is what Xi Jinping has been proposing with his New Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the idea that we have to build a community of shared interests for the future of mankind. . . .
Fulfilling LaRouche’s Mission
As many of you know, we are heavily mobilized to break through on the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche and to get the truth of LaRouche’s life work, LaRouche’s ideas out in the open. The exoneration of LaRouche is directly relevant to the injustices that we see today with the British and Mueller operations against President Trump. Trump taking action in such a way—for LaRouche’s exoneration—and for our movement to create the conditions for that to occur, is decisive in defeating the British imperial forces that hate Trump and have hated LaRouche for many, many years, will thereby free the President to bring America at long last into the Four Powers arrangement, to consolidate the great potential to create a future through the New Bretton Woods.
Messages of condolence on the passing of Lyndon LaRouche continue to stream in from leaders internationally. Sergei Glazyev, an advisor to the Putin government sent such a message. I will quote one passage from that here:
Glazyev: A great thinker of our time, Lyndon LaRouche has left us. He was a titan of thought; a man of incredibly encyclopedic knowledge, great soul, and love for humanity. His conception of the Eurasian development bridge from Western Europe to Russia’s Far East and onward to Alaska and the U.S.A. could become a real alternative to today’s hybrid world war. . . . I remember one of the leaders of the Brookings Institution urging me in a whisper not to have any contact with LaRouche, so as not to spoil my reputation. For me, who had come to the U.S.A. to take part in a scientific forum on issues of developing democratic institutions in the post-Soviet region, this was shocking.
From then on, I started closely reading LaRouche’s publications and attending conferences he organized. I must acknowledge that his presentations were often a ray of light in the kingdom of darkness and hypocrisy which had seized the public mind of progressive mankind.
Today, those ideas are coming to life in a New World Economic Paradigm. As you have leaders of Russia and China and India—and we already have a good number of them—and of the United States in particular, who are coming together around LaRouche’s power of reason that defines a movement that can win.
The Russian government is playing the LaRouche card; the Chinese, to the extent that the New Paradigm of the One Belt, One Road and its Confucian methodological roots is transforming the world, are playing it as well. The method of thinking that Helga is identifying is the basis to create a Westphalian universe, to create this coming future for which we organized the February 16 Schiller Institute conference.
That’s the challenge put to us by Helga. It is now up to us to realize Lyndon LaRouche’s life’s work. Thank you.