Go to home page

This transcript appears in the May 5, 2023 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

‘The Development of the Universe
Is the Ocean Toward Which
Our Mighty River Is Flowing’

[Print version of this transcript]

This is the edited transcript of Diane Sare’s keynote presentation to Panel 2, “The ‘Global Majority’ and the International Peace Movement Are Fighting for the Same Goal,” of the April 15–16 Schiller Institute Conference, “Without the Development of All Nations, There Can Be No Lasting Peace for the Planet.” Mrs. Sare is the LaRouche Candidate for U.S. Senate from New York. Stephan Ossenkopp moderated the panel and introduced Mrs. Sare. Embedded links and subheads have been added.

Watch the entire conference here.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Stephan Ossenkopp

Stephan Ossenkopp (moderator): I welcome everyone to Panel 2 of our groundbreaking Schiller Institute international conference.

Before I introduce our line-up of speakers to the virtual podium, allow me to preface today’s proceedings with a few remarks on the topic of this panel. It’s around a very recent event involving German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who had just held a joint press conference with her Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Qin Gang, in Beijing, China. She began her statement with a startling admission:

[The rise of Europe 150 years ago was] associated with expansionism, colonialism, and aggression. Many listen carefully when China announces its intention to become a world power by 2049, and wonder what path China intends to take in the process.

The Tragic Annalena Baerbock

Well, although the latter is merely an assertion by Baerbock, she herself has already made her verdict. Her whole presentation was filled with dishonesty. She then went on to accuse China of all sorts of evil deeds and intentions; deeds China did not commit and intentions China does not harbor. She has done this for the sole purpose of poisoning the minds of the beholders.

View full size
UN/Gonçalo Borges Dias
View full size
CC/Bündnis 90/Die Grünen NRW
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (left) thinks China can be forced to abandon Russia. France’s President, Emmanuel Macron (right), signed joint statements in China renouncing nuclear war and for cooperation in trade and cultural exchanges.

The absurd and dangerous tragedy of our times is that Western leaders such as Baerbock and her master, U.S. Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken, cannot or will not be allowed by their puppeteers in the circles of real power and influence, to think beyond the confines of their colonial mindset. They simply project their own view onto others, saying that they are concerned about human rights and equality and peace; but demanding that everyone else play by their rules, which means continuing total Western domination. The same colonial model she had just described as barbaric.

They want to unleash more color revolutions, use harsher sanctions, arm more separatists and extremists, demonize and smear—or even eliminate—leaders and thinkers associated with any alternative economic and social order. They say they want to overthrow Vladimir Putin and divide Russia; they want to remove Xi Jinping from office; they support separatists in Taiwan, Xinjiang, and elsewhere.

The tragic Minister Baerbock thinks she can force China to stab in the back Baerbock’s sworn enemy, Russia, against whom she has singlehandedly declared war. Her entire destiny and personality are the result of this dependence on the neo-colonial script and narrative from which she cannot break free or decouple, as it were, no matter how futile or far-fetched her demands may be. These people cannot tolerate the idea that China’s rise is a phenomenon of the emergence of a New Paradigm of cooperation and common development.

We Are in an Interregnum

Helga Zepp-LaRouche has often said that we are in an inter-regnum, a period in which the new global order of dialogue and common development and security among sovereign nations is forming at an accelerating rate, and the old colonial system is disintegrating, also at an accelerating rate. It is an historical shift full of irony, tension, and dissonance; of danger, but also of opportunity. One current leads into a new era, the other into a prolonged Dark Age and possible extinction.

Meanwhile, in the circles and centers where the new era is being formed, the discussion is to emulate China and its successes in eradicating poverty by mobilizing the whole of society around a goal related to the common and national good. China performed no magic, it simply worked hard. More than a million members of China’s 90 million-plus Communist Party, went into remote, rural areas for long periods of time to identify the causes of poverty and propose solutions, which were implemented. Most had to do with building infrastructure and installing advanced telecommunications to connect producers with consumers. China has also created an educational miracle. Never in its history have so many schools been built and so many teachers been trained.

This is surely what Brazilian President Lula da Silva was referring to when he said during his recent visit to China that the Chinese would invest in new assets like bridges, roads, railroads, advanced communications networks. Brazil, like most nations in Latin America and the Caribbean, wants to jump on the fast train of development. The Eurasian Economic Union’s Commissioner for Macro-Economics, Sergei Glazyev, has just published a study on how the Eurasian Union can apply the Chinese model to its own challenges.

Russia, China, along with other neighboring countries of Afghanistan such as Iran, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan, have just held the fourth meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Afghanistan’s neighboring states, and published the “Samarkand Declaration.” In it, they stressed the combat against the drug threat and terrorism, noting—and this is crucial:

[The] fundamental importance of major international energy, transport, communications, infrastructure and other projects implemented by neighboring countries for the socio-economic development of Afghanistan and its active integration into the world economy.

Africa is also fully on board with this new direction. The Arab world is performing a complete reorientation. And China’s neighbors such as Laos and Thailand are experiencing an almost unprecedented boost to their existence and prosperity, thanks to the Belt and Road Initiative, which secured investments into rail infrastructure.

So, why did Baerbock not point to this huge historical shift? She could have done something similar to French President Emmanuel Macron when he went to China, and brought dozens of industrial and cultural leaders with him. In their Franco-Chinese Joint Statement of April 7, both sides declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” They will cooperate on 5G, nuclear energy, third-party markets, improving mutual cultural and linguistic exchanges, education, food security, the New Silk Road, financial system reform, and much more.

We cannot leave Germany or Europe in the hands of tragic figures such as Baerbock. Other forces that share the perspective of the New Paradigm must be encouraged, through our organizing and through crucial platforms such as this one, to step up as leaders and re-shape public opinion and institutional reorientation around the real ideas and demands of the Global Majority of nations and cultures for peaceful development.

With these remarks, I would like to bring up our first speaker, Diane Sare. She is a LaRouche candidate for the United States Senate in 2024. She had already successfully achieved ballot status for the 2022 U.S. Senate race in New York State by collecting well over the required 45,000 signatures. So, we are happy to hear your perspective, Diane.

A Short Economics Lesson from LaRouche

View full size
Schiller Institute
Diane Sare

Diane Sare: Thank you very much! I’m happy to be here. I would actually like to begin with a short economics lesson from Lyndon LaRouche, in 2000.

Lyndon LaRouche (video): The modern nation-state was a break from earlier forms of society, which finally brought true justice to the form of society. The ability to bring this justice about, depended upon another great discovery which was made during the 15th Century: The idea of modern experimental scientific progress, in which the discovery of universal physical principles and their cooperation and their use to the benefit of mankind, made possible, with the support of the nation-state, the ability to raise the standard of living and life expectancy of the people.

View full size
Lyndon LaRouche: The sovereign nation-state has meant an increase in the number of people that can be sustained, but also an improvement in their well-being.

That’s what this chart means. [The figure above shows the growth of European population, population density, and life expectancy at birth, estimated from 100,000 B.C. to 1975.] In Europe, in the 15th Century, in the great Golden Renaissance, a new form of political society was formed. One based on the sovereign nation-state, one based on a commitment to fostering and utilizing scientific and technological progress. This was typified, for example, by our dear friend, Leonardo da Vinci, who was typical of the science that came out of that. Johannes Kepler is typical of the science that came out of that. Gottfried Leibniz is in that tradition; the great Carl Gauss is in that tradition; Bernhard Riemann’s in that tradition. This is the great tradition of scientific and technological progress which enables us to meet the challenge of disease, to meet the challenge of hunger, to meet the challenge of conditions of life generally. Therefore, these two things, together, are what make an economy work.

The characteristic feature of this, if you look at the chart, is that progress means an increase in not only the number of people you can sustain and the standard of living in which they will exist, but an improvement in the demographic characteristics of the population as a whole and of the members of households. It means the means to increase the number of years that a child spends in educational-related development. It means the richer development and opportunity for the mind of that child as they develop. That’s what art is based on.

Now, what came along here, with information theory, was based on the work of a fellow called Bertrand Russell, who was probably the most evil man of the 20th Century. Russell was the man who invented the policy of developing and using nuclear weapons as a way of destroying sovereign governments and establishing world government. That was his life’s purpose; that was the policy we’ve been living under for a long time. That was the policy of John Jay McCloy, who was a boss of Henry Kissinger’s at one point; of McGeorge Bundy, who was a boss of Kissinger; and of Kissinger himself. That’s the policy it was based on.

This policy is a complete hoax. It’s based on the assumption that merely by transmitting information, without any discovery of a physical principle, you can increase the wealth of society. It’s not true. If you base a society on transmitting information without the experience of scientific discovery, without the utilization of scientific discovery, you will have a collapsing condition of life in society.

Two Images of a Peace Movement

Sare: Imagine being on a flat plain, surrounded by hills, where little rivulets come flowing in and gather at the lowest point into a pool—a pond of sorts, which has no spring and no lower point for the water to leave. After several days of rain, there are weeks with very little rain, but the Sun comes out and heats this large, rather shallow puddle. After some time, some green algae begins to grow, and animals drink the water and die nearby, creating a terrible smell, with flies buzzing all around.

This is what Scott Ritter would call “Kumbaya.” It is a so-called peace “movement” with no movement, no purpose. All the little streams of water join at the lowest point and sit there and stink. “We’ll all put aside our differences and be happy that we are holding hands together, wallowing in the stinky decaying mud.”

Lyndon LaRouche knew that peace was not static. It is not a fixed state.

Now imagine another image:

This time we are in a valley, and many streams come racing from different directions down the sides of mountains, or from rainfall, or lazy hills, but the valley forms a river bed, which leads to another valley, a little bit lower, and another one until this now-mighty river reaches the ocean.

First of all, this river is not going to fill up with dead things. New water is always coming in and creating subtle changes which feed many forms of life. This river can power a turbine to generate enough electricity to power a new city and perhaps half of a nation. Maybe locks and a series of dams can be built, making the river not only a great source of power, but also navigation. This mighty river is what we must become, moving mankind toward a higher state of existence.

Luckily for us, we don’t have to do the job of destroying the old system. It is collapsing of its own weight, and you will hear much more about that in the morning panel tomorrow. What I would like to discuss is the physical parameters for how we measure whether we are moving in the right direction, as Mr. LaRouche indicated in the short clip that I just showed you.

Human development must reflect the laws of the creation of the universe. Contrary to Greta Thunberg, King Charles, and Al Gore, the universe is not winding down. It is not governed by a law of entropy. If one considers the development of the biosphere, life forms have become more and more complex—from plants to animals, to mammals, to human beings—and this is not a linear progression, but leaps from one phase to the next occur, as if by miracle. Even after an extinction event like the death of the dinosaurs and 99% of all living species, new species emerged that were more advanced. We don’t know how—you can’t find the so-called “missing link” as Bertrand Russell and an AI nerd would insist.

The American System of Political Economy

When we arrive at humankind, we have a new species, with two unique qualities—creative reason, and free will. While all of us feel the tug of habits and instinct, we can also choose to ignore those lower motives for higher ones. We are conscious that our individual mortal lives are short in the span of human history, and shorter still in galactic history; but each of us, amazingly, is unique and capable of making a discovery of principle which will change the way our species lives for thousands of years into the future.

Whoever it was who first used fire, changed the course of human existence. And I pick that example, although there are others, like the wheel, because another way of considering fire is as energy. Before we had harnessed energy, later in the form of electricity, the amount of energy consumed per capita was very small relative to what it is in a developed industrial economy today. My point is that it is natural for human beings to produce and consume more and more energy per capita from one generation to the next. And that not only is it natural, it is necessary. It is also necessary to have a growing population. There is simply is no way to consume and produce more energy without a greater division of labor. Alexander Hamilton already understood this principle very well and elaborated it in his 1791 “Report to the House of Representatives on the Subject of Manufactures.”

However, as our economy becomes more advanced, it might take more years in school—good schools, not like what we have today in the United States. The levels of technology will become more complex, there will be less and less physical labor, and more and more thinking required, accompanied by very refined skills. So we will need more engineers and scientists, more specialized farmers—and of course better musicians and artists to fuel the minds of our generations of geniuses. It may be that some people will need to study until they are close to 30 years old. That means that we need people to live longer and be healthier for a greater part of their lives.

The way we measure this is something Lyndon LaRouche called “Potential Relative Population Density.” Crudely put: How many people could be sustained at the highest available standard of living per square kilometer? I think you can imagine why nuclear power would be vastly superior to burning charcoal, as a platform for society. You need a society which reveres and is capable of assimilating the breakthrough discoveries of your individual creative geniuses. That is the role of the nation-state. A government must protect the creativity of its people.

Ten Principles of a New International Security and Development Architecture

What does that mean? Helga Zepp-LaRouche outlined it in her Ten Principles of a New International Security and Development Architecture. It exists also in the Declaration of Independence of the United States.

I’d like to just review the Ten Principles which Helga gave us last December, most of them slightly abbreviated:

First: We need perfectly sovereign nation states, based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the UN Charter.

Second: We have to alleviate poverty in every nation on the planet.

Third: The life expectancy of all people living must be prolonged to the fullest potential by creating modern health systems in every nation.

Fourth: Access to universal education for every child and adult person living.

Fifth: The international financial system must be reorganized, so that it can provide productive credits to accomplish these aims. A reference point can be the original Bretton Woods system—as FDR intended it, but which was never implemented fully, due to his untimely death—and the Four Laws proposed by Lyndon LaRouche.

Sixth: The new economic order must be focused on creating the conditions for modern industries and agriculture, and modern infrastructure and transport corridors.

Seventh: The new global security architecture must eliminate the concept of geopolitics by ending the division of the world into blocs. The security concerns of every sovereign nation must be taken into account. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated, including through use of higher technologies, like Lyndon LaRouche’s conception of laser defense against nuclear missiles.

The last three principles are heavier, so I’m going to read them in full. I presume you’re familiar with them, but I think it’s worth reconsidering.

Eighth: In former times, one civilization at one corner of the world could go under, and the rest of the world would only find out years later, due to the length of distances and the time needed for travel. Now, for the first time, because of nuclear weapons, pandemics, the Internet, and other global effects, mankind is sitting in one boat. Therefore, a solution to the existential threat to humanity cannot be found with the help of secondary or partial arrangements, but the solution must be found on the level of that higher One, which is more powerful than the Many. It requires the thinking on the level of Coincidentia Oppositorum, the Coincidence of Opposites, of Nicholas of Cusa.

Ninth: In order to overcome the conflicts arising out of quarreling opinions, which is how empires have managed to control the underlings, the economic, social, and political order has to be brought into cohesion with the lawfulness of the physical universe. In European philosophy this was discussed as being in cohesion with natural law; in Indian philosophy as cosmology, and in other cultures appropriate notions can be found. Modern sciences like space science, biophysics or thermonuclear fusion science will increase the knowledge of mankind about this lawfulness continuously. A similar cohesion can be found in the great works of Classical art in different cultures.

Tenth: The basic assumption for the new paradigm [and we’ve discovered this is the most controversial point] is that man is fundamentally good and capable to infinitely perfect the creativity of his mind and the beauty of his soul, and being the most advanced geological force in the universe; which proves that the lawfulness of the mind and that of the physical universe are in correspondence and cohesion, and that all evil is the result of a lack of development, and therefore can be overcome.

Peace Requires Growth in Energy and Population

So, this urgent necessity for growth in energy consumption and population, which is also the naturally occurring process of the universe, is why the environmentalist movement as an anti-growth movement—that is, population and energy consumption must be reduced—is incompatible with world peace. In fact, an anti-growth outlook guarantees perpetual war, and the ultimate annihilation of the human species.

If you look at what China and Russia are building in the nations they are working with—nuclear power plants, modern ports and railroads, among others—you can see why they have the ability to achieve peace. This used to be the commitment of the United States, expressed very explicitly by President John Quincy Adams, and later Presidents Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, McKinley, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. It is not a coincidence that four of the seven Presidents I just named were assassinated.

We in the United States are responsible for restoring that legacy to our republic, and our European friends can locate related trends in their own history, going back to Jeanne d’Arc and Leibniz in particular. This is necessary if we wish to rejoin human civilization.

But mankind must also build forward, to a breakthrough in fusion energy, and toward establishing an industrial base on the Moon, and perhaps a manned colony on Mars. The development of the universe is the ocean toward which our mighty river is flowing.

Back to top    Go to home page