Join Sen. Richard Black, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Graham Fuller, Ray McGovern, Diane Sare, Eva Bartlett and Mira Terada on Thursday, October 6 at 10am eastern for a Executive Intelligence Review press conference, “We Will Not Be Silenced! Speaking Truth in Times of War.”
It is not in a time of peace, but in times of war, such as now, that the right and duty to tell the truth most matter. Names continue to be added to the now-infamous Ukrainian “kill lists.” Journalists continue to suffer injury, death threats, harassment and ostracism. A few elected officials and others have spoken out, but the United States Congress and parliaments of Europe have been mute. People in the trans-Atlantic nations ask, “Why are we spending tens of billions we don’t have in a war that we don’t want?”And with the Nordstream pipeline explosions, credibility of the political elites is at an all-time low.
It is a badge of honor to be listed with the Truth-tellers on the “kill lists.” Join us Thursday, Oct 6 to hear the truth that others fear to state, so that we might join together and end this war madness before it ends us.
This article was written by Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche for the German weekly Neue Solidarität and translated into English for EIR. She is the founder of the international Schiller Institute and the Federal Chair of the BüSo political party in Germany
Oct. 1—The sabotage and possible long-term destruction of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines is an attack on Germany’s existential interests, and means millions of German citizens and many firms will suffer insolvencies and unaffordable heating costs for the coming Winter. It also undermines the demands at recent protest actions in many German cities, of demonstrators who called for an end to the sanctions against Russia and the opening of both pipelines, in order to resolve the two most dramatic threats now confronting Germany: the acute danger of a world war stemming from the confrontation with Russia; and the danger of the total economic collapse, due in large part to the explosion of energy prices.
If there was ever a situation in which the government needed to fulfill its oath to protect the German people from harm, this act of terrorism requires intransigent clarification and consequences for those responsible. The implication of the answer to the question of who perpetrated it, is enormous, and is likely identical to the question of war and peace.
Beyond all speculation as to who those responsible might be, the issue is comparable to the circumstances surrounding the attack of Sept. 11, 2001. Just as U.S. air space was completely surveilled by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Baltic Sea is among the most tightly monitored zones in the world, and, since the time of the Cold War, has been controlled by NATO, and of course by the neighboring countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Germany) with a dense network of sonar and underwater microphones to monitor all movement on sea and in the air.
As in all criminal acts, the questions to be asked are: Who had the means, who had the technical and personnel capabilities to carry out the act, and who was physically present on site in the relevant period of time? The need to fulfill these three criteria limits the list of possible perpetrators to a very short one. And given the tremendous technical requirements for damaging concrete pipelines lying on the sea floor at depths of 70–88 meters, it is generally agreed that such capacities are only at the disposal of countries—and of them, only three: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Unlikeliness of Russian Responsibility
An extraordinarily useful assessment of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines has been published by Swiss Lt. Col. (ret.) Ralph Bosshard, who took part in the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission in 2014 in Ukraine as senior planning officer, and was later in the OSCE High-Level Planning Group as operations officer. He describes the considerable technical challenges that must be overcome in such a sabotage act, which quite clearly limit the possible culprits to military special forces. And that increases the chances that conclusive information on the attack will come to light.
The robust construction of the pipelines, which are made of special steel and enveloped with concrete, then buried under rubble and covered with other material, requires complex techniques and the use of highly explosive charges at 80 meters under the sea.
Bosshard points out that if the Russian Navy were the perpetrator, it would not have had to take the trouble of destroying the pipelines off the Danish island of Bornholm in the middle of an area closely monitored by NATO, but could have carried it off more easily in the Gulf of Finland. That is, unless the intention was to demonstrate to NATO the superiority of Russian capabilities in seabed warfare, which is an unlikely explanation that Bosshard also references.
So if the Russians can be more or less ruled out as the culprit—after all, they could have simply turned off the tap if Moscow’s aim was to “foment uncertainty” and drive-up gas prices as some media moot—what other options remain?
On the Nachdenkseiten website, Jens Berger notes that the annual NATO maneuver BALTOPS took place in the Baltic Sea in mid-June, with 47 warships under the command of the U.S. 6th Fleet, including the U.S. task force around the helicopter carrier USS Kearsarge. Part of this maneuver was an operation by Task Force 68, which was operating off the island of Bornholm with unmanned underwater vehicles that can deactivate mines but, of course, theoretically place them as well.
Strangely enough, this very same task force around the USS Kearsarge was recorded by position signals last week only 10 nautical miles away from Bornholm. This does not yet mean, of course, that these ships were involved, but that they may very well have been.
Russian Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia added further observations on this at a UN Security Council meeting convened at short notice on Friday. He noted that the USS Kearsarge had remained in the vicinity of Bornholm since June; that the ship’s helicopter squad had been patrolling the Bornholm area since early August; and that the flight line of these aircraft surprisingly coincided with the pipeline route. Ambassador Nebenzia stressed, “I emphasize that this is open data on geolocation of sea and air transport, which is collected on the basis of the transponder’s signal. It means that the United States did not conceal its presence in the area and completed its maneuvers in an exhibitory and ostentatious way.”
Is it likely that Russia destroyed the pipelines, in which €20 billion in total had been invested, and from which it could have expected considerable revenue over the long-term? Vladimir Putin had offered as recently as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Samarkand, two weeks before the sabotage, to open Nord Stream 2, delivering 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year, if Germany agreed to lift sanctions against Russia.
‘Thank You, USA’
In the meantime, a video has gone viral on the Internet showing President Biden at a joint press conference with German Chancellor Scholz at the White House on Feb. 7, 2022, where Biden promised that the United States was in a position to put an end to Nord Stream 2, in the event Russia invaded Ukraine. Responding to a reporter who asked how he intended to do it, since Germany was in control of the project, Biden answered: “I promise you: We will be able to do it.”
Biden was not the only one to issue such threats: Tucker Carlson showed a video on FOX TVof [Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs] Victoria Nuland announcing the same thing at a State Department press conference back in January, in the event of a Russian invasion: “One way or another, Nord Stream 2 won’t move forward.” After the attack on the pipelines, former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski—husband of the bellicose Atlanticist Anne Applebaum—rejoiced, referring in a tweet to Biden’s Feb. 7 promise. “A small thing, but so much joy,” Sikorski wrote. And in another tweet: “Thank you USA.” That tweet has since been deleted.
Obviously, the facts given here are only leads, and not yet proof of the perpetrators’ identities. But the implications of the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines are enormous. They massively increase the immediate prospect of Europe’s deindustrialization, and its dependence on U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG). The skyrocketing costs are already causing a massive exodus of companies from Europe, and especially from Germany to the United States. All this means an assault on the living standards of the population.
The fact that the pipelines have suffered considerable damage, and that repairs, according to the operators, would not be impossible but would take a very long time, has for now taken the wind out of the sails of the German protesters who were demanding the opening of the pipelines and the end of the sanctions against Russia. The pipelines will be inoperable this Winter and beyond, and a possible path to a diplomatic solution with Russia, given the growing threat of war, has been buried.
‘Cold-Blooded Economic Warfare’
However, if it is established that the attack was actually the execution of what Biden had announced Feb. 7 in the presence of Scholz, then Europe will have to immediately free itself from subjugation to the United States and the U.K. and mobilize all its efforts to overcoming the conflict with Russia, and increasingly with China, by diplomatic means.
In any event, U.S. responsibility would not be entirely new. On Feb. 27, 2004, the Washington Post reported that Ronald Reagan had agreed to a CIA plan [in January 1982] to sabotage the Soviet economy by covertly feeding it, among other things, contaminated software that later caused a gigantic explosion of the Siberian gas pipeline in January 2004. This revelation was taken from the memoirs of former Air Force Secretary Thomas C. Reed, who reported that this explosion was just one example of the “cold-blooded economic warfare” that the CIA waged against the Soviet Union in the final years of the Cold War. It was economic bankruptcy that led to the end of the Cold War, not battles or an exchange of nuclear strikes, Reed said.
We will have to make sure that the German politicians who want to “ruin Russia” do not willingly put themselves at the service of the perpetrators in covering up the crime. For that, the “harshest consequences” announced by Ursula von der Leyen [President of the European Commission], will have to be implemented, if the Germans do not want to give up altogether. It must be ensured in any case that Russia is included in the investigations. The fact that Scholz has promised support to Denmark and Sweden is definitely too little. Likewise, that Germany intends to strengthen precautions and protection against sabotage for critical infrastructure together with its partners and allies, as government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said, sounds more like a declaration of surrender than an announcement of the government’s intention to stand up for the existential interests of the German people, as it swore to do in its oath of office.
It is high time to remind them of that commitment.
Open Letter to Members of the United States Congress September 27, 2022
Dear Representatives and Senators:
I am troubled by the loose talk about launching a nuclear attack on Russia. From time to time, senior Republicans and Democrats have suggested employing such weapons. This appears to be a deliberate effort to acclimate Americans to the idea of nuclear war.
Now, we have Zelensky’s office jumping on too. On September 21, 2022, Newsweek ran this headline: U.S. Needs to Threaten Russia With Nuclear Strike: Ukraine. The article quotes Mykhailo Podolyak, Zelensky’s senior aide, as saying, “The other nuclear states need to say very firmly that as soon as Russia even thinks of carrying out nuclear strikes on foreign territory-in this case the territory of Ukraine-there will be swift retaliatory nuclear strikes to destroy the nuclear launch sites in Russia.”
Of course, it is impossible to limit retaliatory nuclear strikes to destroying only the nuclear launch sites. Not only would damage be widespread, but Russia would be forced to respond in kind to threats targeting its nuclear deterrence capability. Russia would launch an immediate, massive nuclear response, including air and ground-based hypersonic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Each Russian submarine would shower down 100 nuclear warheads, sufficient to incinerate the entire National Capital Region or the Western European industrial heartland.
As the Ukrainian War drags on, globalists are marching us relentlessly toward this nuclear Armageddon. Why?
The U.S. could have achieved peace by simply pressing Ukraine to implement the 2014 Minsk Peace Agreements which it had signed, establishing a clear framework for settling outstanding issues peacefully. Ukraine promised to implement the Minsk agreements, but chose instead to make war on the Donbass for the next seven years. Ukraine’s attacks killed 14,000 people before Russia ever entered the war.
Within two months after Russia crossed into Ukraine, Russia and Ukraine were finalizing a draft peace agreement. However, Prime Minister Boris Johnson suddenly flew to Kiev to block its implementation, undoubtedly coordinating with the U.S. State Department beforehand. War would continue, regardless of the parties’ longing for peace.
NATO had ample opportunity for peace but deliberately chose war. The U.S. realized that, with Russia’s back to the wall, it would have no choice to but to attack. In 2007, U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns pointedly warned that movement toward absorbing Ukraine into NATO might well trigger war between Ukraine and Russia. Nonetheless, the Obama administration overthrew the Ukrainian president and flooded in weapons, knowing that doing so would trigger war. [See: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html].
Today, wealthy globalists have billions at stake, and they intend to have their war profits even if it means gambling the lives of hundreds of millions of people across the globe.
Few Americans knew anything about Ukraine before February 24th. Was Ukraine in South America, Asia, Africa, or Europe? Many Americans couldn’t have answered that question. But now, in order to address a local border dispute on the other side of the globe, war hawks demand concrete steps toward a nuclear war that might-exterminate 60% of humanity, plunging mankind into a primitive state.
Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all approached nuclear confrontation with utmost caution. But the Obama administration changed course when it recklessly overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014 and flooded Ukraine with weapons aimed at Russia. It did so knowing that it was threatening Russia’s most vital national interest: the defense of its territory against nuclear aggression.
Now, the Biden administration threatens to cast caution to the winds. Many of its allies suggest a game of one-upmanship where the U.S. and NATO fire nuclear missiles in response to Russia’s use of such weapons to defend its territory. In other words, we would destroy the entire world as our way of saying, “Oh yeah? Well take this!”
Would simple revenge justify killing hundreds of millions of unknowing people? Should we annihilate the world’s population to intervene in a border war where the U.S. has no vital national interest?
The U.S. can promptly end this war by making Ukraine a neutral, non-aligned state, just as we did during the Cold War with Austria in 1955. Yes, there would be some territorial adjustments resulting from the war. But peace would end the ongoing bloodshed, avert a nuclear conflagration, and assure Ukraine’s long-term safety and independence.
Nuclear war is unthinkable; peace is the better course of action. Please consider it.
Part of that narrative is that the Ukraine war was the result of “an unprovoked Russian aggression.” Even mentioning that history didn’t start on Feb.23—even if you say that there was a history before that—makes you a Putin agent, a follower or proponent of Russian propaganda. And if you propose to try to end the war as soon as possible—which is what the opinion is, also, of leading military experts such as retired German General Kujat, former General Inspector of the Bundeswehr and head of the Military Committee of NATO (a very high position), [who] says in a recent article that the war cannot be won by either side; that the sanctions may cause irreversible damage to the German economy; that our freedom was neither defended at the Hindu Kush, nor is it defended in Ukraine right now; that this escalation risks the escalation to a nuclear war.
All of these are obviously very good reasons to negotiate a peace settlement. If you say all of that, you are being put on a death list on Ukrainian websites which are financed by the U.S. State Department: Now, obviously, that is real democracy. And European governments participate regularly in meetings of the Ukrainian institutions, which run these websites, such as the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation.
You have right now in most of the Western European and American countries—Britain for sure—a Gleichschaltung, a lockstep in the mainstream media, which would make Goebbels turn pale with envy. You have an atmosphere of McCarthyism; you have a digitalized Gestapo. And during the last months, dozens of people told me privately that they are afraid to speak their mind, even in private circles, because otherwise they fear to be ostracized.
And I want to say this for the record: We don’t need Russian analysis to come to our conclusions. We have an international private news service, Executive Intelligence Review, which was created by Lyndon LaRouche in 1974. The National Security Council’s Senior Director of International Economic Affairs, Norman Bailey, in 1984, in the position as a White House advisor of the Reagan administration, told us that he considered EIR the best private intelligence service in the world.
And more importantly, we are not gathering intelligence by reading newspaper clips, but by educating [the public with] our own policies, and then we evaluate the reactions and come to the conclusions and analyze what that means.
We know the prehistory of the 23rd of February, because we are part of it. Even before the Berlin Wall came down, LaRouche had forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union, absolutely correctly in 1984, when he said that if the Soviet Union would continue their then existing policies of rejecting cooperation with Reagan on the SDI, of sticking to the Ogarkov Plan, then they would collapse in five years. That is exactly what happened.
Renowned Russian economist Dr. Sergei Glazyev sent a message of appreciation of the thinking and impact of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., on the centenary of his birth, September 8, to his widow and co-thinker Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute.
Glazyev is an Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who has also held various posts in the Russian government since 1992. His book Genocide: Russia and the New World Order was brought out in English by EIR in 1999.
As a Member of Parliament, he headed up the State Duma’s Committee on Economic Policy. In that capacity, in 2001 he invited Lyndon LaRouche to speak at hearings he convened on how to protect and develop the real economy in the face of a global financial crisis. In recent years Dr. Glazyev has concentrated on Eurasian economic integration and development.
The following text was taken from Dr. Glazyev’s 14-minute video message, which is posted on the Schiller Institute of Germany’s youtube channel:
This year progressive people around the world are observing the centenary of the birth of the brilliant thinker and, I wouldn’t hesitate to say, prophet of our time, Lyndon LaRouche. Unfortunately, we no longer can converse with him, and it’s a pity he did not live to see the day when his warnings about the crash of the world financial system came to pass.
Already 30 years ago, and perhaps even earlier, Lyndon LaRouche drew attention to the fact that the inflation of financial bubbles, including derivatives bubbles, and the creation of financial pyramid schemes would inevitably bring about the collapse of the world financial system. And he proposed to adopt timely measures to avert that collapse.
If the leaders of the world’s nations had listened to the voice of Lyndon LaRouche, then perhaps we might have managed to avoid the social upheavals we confront today as a result of the collapse of the world financial and economic system, which is based on unlimited emission of the dollar and other Western reserve currencies. These financial bubbles are not getting any smaller. We have seen that attempts to clean them
up, end in the inflation of new bubbles. Even the crash of 2008, which erased tens of trillions of dollars of people’s savings, including pension funds, did not prevent financial bubbles from bloating up again as a result of the limitless emission of the world reserve currencies, using the device of so-called quantitative easing.
Lyndon LaRouche proposed a mutual cancellation of these debts, observing the principle of fairness and effectiveness.
In effect, what we see now is that the emitters of the world reserve currencies are simply refusing to fulfill their responsibilities. It could have been anticipated, that if countries which took the path of pumping up financial bubbles, abusing their monopoly on the right to issue a world currency, ran into a situation where the scale of these financial pyramids greatly exceeded the country’s ability to service them, the question would inevitably arise of how to repudiate these debts. Simply declare bankruptcy before the whole world, or come up with some other ways to write off their obligations – repudiate them?
The United States, Great Britain, the European Union and Japan have taken that second route. They unilaterally seized, and blocked, Russia’s foreign currency-denominated reserves. That means they are refusing to fulfill their obligations to Russia.
Russia invested – that is, extended a credit to these countries, in the amount of more than four hundred billion dollars, that’s the state-sector component and the government’s own, our foreign-currency reserves. plus another approximately one trillion dollars belonging to private parties is located in jurisdictions of the Western emitters of world reserve currencies.
The attempts to block these funds essentially means a default, but a default on what is owed to one of their creditors. In the past, we used to call this piracy, or robbery.
Of course, these extraordinary measures, which are totally against international law and violate every conceivable rule of decency, as well as the standards of the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, can be challenged in court. But, on the one hand, this would run into the national will of the emitter-country, which may be that of a pirate or a bandit, as we are witnessing right now.
On the other hand, their action won’t save the system, because even if the USA and its European allies refuse to fulfill their obligations to Russia, that is only a small percentage of the financial obligations the world reserve currency emitters have to the entire world and their own domestic markets.
So the world is plunging into chaos, in precise accordance with the scenario, the negative scenario, that Lyndon LaRouche spoke about in forecasts he made 30 or 40 years ago.
Back then, he proposed that, instead of pumping up financial bubbles, the world reserve currency emitter-countries, together with their partners and other countries, should invest in
building global infrastructure, which would reduce the cost of trade, increase the efficiency of international economic ties, and, overall, contribute to raising connectivity worldwide. So he viewed the process of globalization as a process of expanding cooperation among countries, rather than attempts by some countries to exploit others.
As for the liberal globalization that today is leading to the collapse of the world financial system, LaRouche criticized it. He proposed a different model of globalization, based on the principles of physical economy: in particular, the famous project, which he and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, put forward for international discussion – the so-called Eurasian Land Bridge. This is a splendid and interesting project, which now, after many years, has begun to be implemented through the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, which we support through linking it with the Eurasian Economic Union.
Lyndon LaRouche looked decades ahead. He warned the USA and its partners about the inevitable collapse of their financial expansion policy, under which the interests of speculators eclipse the national interest and the development of the economy.
The global speculators and world oligarchy, which are parasites on the monetary emission of world currencies, greatly disliked LaRouche for this. He was persecuted and faced with imprisonment. He ran for the U.S. Presidency several times, and if Lyndon LaRouche had been elected President, the world today would be developing in a stable fashion. There would not be the growing chaos, there would not be the worldwide wars and provocations, which the global oligarchy does in order to write off its debts.
There’s a Russian proverb: “War writes everything off.” In order to write off its debts to Russia, as well as to Europe, Washington provoked the war in Ukraine, and continues to deepen the confrontation. Things have reached the point where Washington’s agents of influence are shelling a nuclear power plant, to raise the temperature of the conflict and create the basis for a clash between Russia and all of NATO: NATO aggression against Russia.
The present nightmarish moment, with the breakdown of the entire system of international law, and of international cooperation, the collapse of the financial system, could have been avoided, if the Democratic Party organization had supported LaRouche as their Presidential candidate many years ago. But, unfortunately, history does not recognize the subjunctive mood. Or, as we tend to put it, no one is a prophet in his own country.
LaRouche’s voice was heard very well. We remember him. In practically all the major countries in the world that today are developing successfully – above all India, and China – there are partisans of LaRouche. They have used his thoughts and ideas, for creating their economic miracles. It is the principles of Physical Economy championed by LaRouche, that today underlie the Chinese economic miracle and are there in the foundations of India’s economic development policy. The supporters of LaRouche in those countries exert a fruitful, very positive, and constructive influence on economic policy-shaping in these leading nations of the new world economic paradigm.
We should not forget the creative legacy of Lyndon LaRouche, which demonstrates the interconnection of events taking place today with their roots many centuries ago. I was always impressed by Lyndon LaRouche’s enormous erudition. He saw the parasitical global oligarchy from its origins, and traced how those oligarchical families were parasites on trade, first in Venice; then they resettled, and continued to build up their financial power, through international trade and global speculation, in Holland; then they relocated to England; and after that, seized control of the political system of the United States.
Lyndon LaRouche saw the totality of world history through the prism of the struggle between the Good – national interests, the interests of improving the general welfare – and the forces of Evil – the world financial oligarchy, which hinders countries’ development, which strives to extract speculative super-profits from trade and economic cooperation, and which deceives the entire world by inflating speculative bubbles, and abuses its positions of power in the countries where it dominates the political system. We see how today’s U.S. financial oligarchy is unleashing hybrid world war, up to and including the risk of a nuclear catastrophe, for the purpose of holding on to its global hegemony.
Lyndon LaRouche’s warnings are coming to pass. It is important, that these warnings are not abstract. They are not simply lines on a graph. I remember the famous [triple] curve, where he showed the growing gap between the size of the world [real] economy and the size of the world financial system. He was the first to make note of this disproportion, which 30 years ago was still not so big; it could still have been overcome by transforming the excess financial aggregates into the real sector – into real investment projects. Now, this is a gigantic abyss. It is impossible today to transform quadrillions of dollars of financial bubbles into investments in the real sector of the economy. There are simply no mechanisms for this. None was created, because the parasitical financial oligarchy, which hated LaRouche, which always tried to shut his mouth, and persecuted him and tried to keep him locked up, ultimately acquired a monopoly on political power in the United States. And today, it uses its political influence in Washington to force all the countries in the world to obey its will. It continues to dominate the world and exert its hegemony for extracting super-profits from speculative operations.
Lyndon LaRouche turned out to be right. Today we rely on his work, his writings, in composing proposals for a very rapid transition to a new world economic paradigm. We call it an integrated world economic model, in which finance capital will be subordinated to the tasks of developing the economy, and in which the principles of Physical Economy will come to fruition. As we can see, countries that are taking this path are enjoying success.
There is no doubt that the ruling American financial oligarchy is losing the hybrid world war, which they have started against all mankind. It’s only regrettable, that the price that has to be paid for this will be very high. That includes the lives being lost as a result of the war that the American and European financial oligarchy organized against Russia on the territory of Ukraine. We have to muster all our forces to fight that evil, and the creative legacy of Lyndon LaRouche helps in this.
I want to speak about the subject that universal history must not end in a tragedy. Who wants to deny the fact that we are faced with the most dangerous moment in history, ever? Let me say this forcefully from the beginning: This multi-faceted, unprecedented crisis is entirely the result of wrong policies, and therefore it can be corrected. That is, if the political will to do so exists. To mobilize that political will is what this conference, which commemorates the 100th birthday of my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, is all about.
We face the acute danger of the strategic situation spinning out of control, leading to a thermonuclear World War III. A situation which is more dangerous than at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and, if it comes to that, would lead to the annihilation of mankind, a nuclear winter, and there would not even be an historian left to study the reasons why it occurred. Despite the fact that there is no question that that danger is very real, there are still some politicians saying that no scenario can be excluded. The tabloid Bild Zeitung today is bragging that the present Ukrainian offensive in Kharkiv is helped massively by NATO, armored vehicles from the U.S. and Turkey, tanks from Poland, intelligence from NATO, the U.S. altogether giving $10 billion in weapons to Ukraine. Well, are all these countries and NATO not already war parties? The question is, when is the red line crossed, and when will we have a full-fledged war between Russia and NATO?
Then, in addition, the financial system of the trans-Atlantic world is hopelessly bankrupt. It’s about to go through either a hyperinflationary blow-out like Weimar Germany in 1923, only this time it would be not one country but the entire so-called West. Or, we could experience very shortly ahead, a chain-reaction crash, triggered by the belated increase of the interest rates through the central banks. The European Central Bank just increased 0.75%, the highest in its history. Jerome Powell from the Fed evokes the “pain” of the Paul Volcker high-interest rate policy, which at the end of the 1970s, beginning of the 1980s, was over 20%. If you imposed that now in the already completely bankrupt situation of many over-indebted firms, already capital flight out of the emerging markets, this could trigger a prolonged plunge into a dark age, in every country dependent on the trans-Atlantic financial system.
If we would have such a collapse, it would naturally increase the war danger instantly. We already have a world famine. Already now there are 1.7 billion people in danger of starvation. According to the United Nations, each day 25,000 people die of hunger completely unnecessarily! Obviously, if there would be a crash, it would lead to the death of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.
The pandemic is not defeated. New ones are looming for the same reason COVID-19 erupted, because you have in a completely under-developed world, in large parts of entire continents you have the suppression of the immune system of entire populations.
In Europe, and in Germany in particular, we are right now, with the policies of the present government, going to crash against the wall this winter. There will be mass bankruptcies, mass unemployment, emergencies, blackouts. Banks like JPMorgan Chase are already preparing to leave Germany for London or other capitals in case of a black-out, which they expect.
Officially, we have a strategic situation, where the rules-based order of the “democracies” of the West are against the nefarious “autocracies” and dictatorships of Russia and China. In reality, the situation is a mirror image. The countries of Asia, led by the rise of China, the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and much of the Global South, are building a new economic system with the aim to overcome poverty and have real economic development. There is a renaissance of the Bandung spirit, the revival of the Non-Aligned Movement. What these countries are absolutely determined to do this time is to end colonialism for sure: the colonialism which officially does not exist, but which came along in new clothes. They want to implement this time for sure the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Let’s take a look. What is actually the state of affairs in the so-called West? There is no democracy anymore. The possibility that the West could move towards a system of “fascism with a democratic face” was already discussed in the mid-1970s by the Trilateral Commission and think tanks, that openly discussed that in the case of an economic collapse, it could be necessary to impose such draconian austerity, that one has to do away with the basic Constitutional rights. Samuel Huntington, of The Clash of Civilizations fame, which was a blueprint for the North-South conflict to replace the East-West conflict, and the author of the horrible book The Soldier and the State, which is an entire argument of mercenary armies to defend the Empire, he wrote for the Trilateral Commission in 1975 The Crisis of Democracy: Which was the idea that zero-growth would make it necessary to limit democracy; that if governments are too democratic, then only a cataclysmic crisis would be sufficient to impose on the people the sacrifices which may be necessary.
Well, that is the policy of Carl Schmitt, that the sovereign is the one who decides on the state of emergency. [Fig.1] This brings us back to the point when Abba Lerner was telling LaRouche in the famous debate [December 1971] at Queens College, that if people had accepted Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler would not have been necessary. Forty-seven years later, democracy—which a while ago, one would assume includes the right of free speech—in which a democratic multitude of viewpoints could be exchanged, that idea is completely gone. There is no more knowable truth, which one can find out, at least in approximation for example through Socratic dialogue; instead, one can only accept the one narrative. And much of so-called politics going on these days is the absolute attempt to have dictatorial control over that narrative.
Part of that narrative is that the Ukraine war was the result of “an unprovoked Russian aggression.” Even mentioning that history didn’t start on February 23rd, even if you say that there was a history before that, makes you a Putin agent, a follower or proponent of Russian propaganda. And if you propose to try to end the war as soon as possible, which is what the opinion is also of leading military experts, such as retired German General Kujat, former General Inspector of the Bundeswehr and head of the Military Committee of NATO (a very high position), says in a recent article that the war cannot be won by either side, that the sanctions may cause irreversible damage to the German economy; that our freedom was neither defended at the Hindu Kush, nor is it defended in Ukraine right now; that this escalation risks the escalation to a nuclear war. All of these are obviously very good reasons to negotiate a peace settlement. If you say all of that, you are being put on a death list on Ukrainian websites which are financed by the U.S. State Department: Now, obviously, that is real democracy. And European governments participate regularly in meetings of the Ukrainian institutions, which run these websites, such as the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation.
You have right now in most of the Western European and American countries—Britain for sure—a Gleichschaltung, a lockstep in the mainstream media, which would make Goebbels turn pale with envy. You have an atmosphere of McCarthyism; you have a digitalized Gestapo. And during the last months, dozens of people told me privately that they are afraid to speak their mind, even in private circles, because otherwise they fear to be ostracized.
And I want to say this for the record: We don’t need Russian analysis to come to our conclusions. We have an international private news service, Executive Intelligence Review, which was created by Lyndon LaRouche in 1974. The National Security Council Senior Director of International Economic Affairs, Norman Bailey, in 1984, in the position as a White House advisor of the Reagan administration, told us that he considered EIR the best private intelligence service in the world. More importantly, we are not gathering intelligence by reading newspaper clips, but by educating our own policies, and then we evaluate the reactions and come to the conclusions and analyze what that means.
We know the prehistory of the 23rd of February, because we are part of it. Even before the Berlin Wall came down, LaRouche had forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union, absolutely correctly in 1984, when he said that if the Soviet Union would continue their then-existing policies of rejecting cooperation with Reagan on the SDI, of sticking to the Ogarkov Plan, then they would collapse in five years. That is exactly what happened. We put out the answer to that—the Paris-Berlin-Vienna Productive Triangle. And when the Soviet Union collapsed, we proposed to connect Europe and Asia through economic development corridors, and we called that the Eurasian Land-Bridge. It was our idea of a peace order for the 21st Century. [Fig. 2] Please show the picture of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, which then became the World Land-Bridge, which is still our present policy.
It would have been in the self-interest of all countries to realize that proposal. We know that it was rejected for geopolitical reasons by Thatcher, Bush, Sr., and Mitterrand, because at that point it was the policy of these countries to have the former superpower Soviet Union, turn into a Russia, which would just be degraded into being a raw material-exporting, Third World country. This was the idea in 1991 to eliminate a potential competitor on the world market, because it was considered that Russia would have more educated scientists and more raw materials, so, if you would allow economic development, it would become stronger than the United States at that time.
But despite the fact that this policy was rejected at that time, we kept organizing for the Eurasian Land-Bridge on five continents. We held hundreds of conferences and seminars, and from that standpoint we experienced and observed firsthand how the historic chance of 1989 [Fig. 3] was lost. We published a book about that. And how the promises not to expand NATO to the East were broken. We observed firsthand, by organizing for the Productive Triangle and the Eurasian Land-Bridge, how in the Yeltsin years, the shock therapy reduced Russia’s industrial potential between 1991 and 1994 to only 30%. The intention to ruin Russia was already there, and Yeltsin was the willing instrument of such policies.
Now, after Putin came to power, the policies of color revolutions were implemented: the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004; the Rose Revolution in Georgia; the White Revolution attempted in Russia; Yellow Revolution attempted in Hong Kong against China. In 1999, Blair instigated the policy of the “right to protect,” which was the idea to replace the Peace of Westphalia order and the UN Charter with the rules-based order, to create the basis for interventionist wars in Southwest Asia and Libya.
No, we are not repeating Russian propaganda. We are attempting to give history a better direction, and we saw who supported this proposal and who opposed it. Most importantly, we are not the Flat Earth people. We have a different method of thinking, which relates to the real physical universe of ideas, not opinions based on sense perception. That’s why we cannot be “nudged”—in the term of Cass Sunstein—into believing what is the allowed narrative.
I said in the beginning, we have the worst crisis in history as the result of wrong policies, and therefore, they can be corrected. Now, LaRouche forecast in 1971, and this is probably the most important forecast ever made in history, that when Nixon introduced the floating exchange rates and cut the dollar from the gold standard, if the countries would continue with these monetarist policies, it would lead to a new depression, fascism, and a new world war. Or, we would have to have a completely new economic system. This was 51 years ago. LaRouche made in the meantime nine major forecasts, and many, many more at each branching point.
When the Trilateral Commission introduced the “controlled disintegration of the world economy,” and the authors of that then all became members of the Carter administration, this was the evil idea to never allow the emergence of mercantilist economies in the developing sector. Never allow “another Japan” in the Southern Hemisphere, meaning that Japan, after being undeveloped for many centuries, then in the Meiji Restoration suddenly made an industrial revolution in a few years, which obviously could be replicated by every developing country. That was supposed to be outlawed. That was followed by the Volcker high interest rate policy, a brutal austerity policy, Reaganomics, Thatcherism, mergers and acquisitions, outsourcing to cheap labor markets, just-in-time production, shareholder value society, going public of middle-level industries, market deregulation, derivative speculation, quantitative easing, negative interest rates, etc.
At each step, LaRouche not only made a brilliant analysis, but presented policy initiatives [Fig. 4]. He proposed the IDB in 1975, which was the idea to replace the IMF with a development bank which would allow the massive development of the developing sector. He proposed together with and for Mexican President José López Portillo Operation Juárez in 1982. He proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was implemented by President Reagan on March 23, 1983. We developed in all of time, programs for Africa, Latin America, Eurasia, the Middle East, the U.S. LaRouche was always working on the idea, that to avoid plunging into a prolonged Dark Age, one had to get the institutions to reject and overturn the wrong assumptions of monetarism.
What is involved here is a fundamental difference in the methodology of thinking. If one looks at the long arc of universal history, mankind has made enormous progress. From the hunter and gatherer society where the population did not surpass 10 million on the planet, alone during the last 10,000 years, there was an enormous population growth to about 8 billion people today. We see in that history a recurring phenomenon: Actual leaps forward occurred through renaissance periods. For example, I can name the Classical Greeks, the Abbasid Dynasty, the Song Dynasty in China, the Italian Renaissance, the German Classical period; all of these are high phases of history, and they were always catalyzed by a relatively small number of individuals, who contributed original discoveries as the result of adequate hypothesis in science and art, leading to new levels of understanding concerning valid principles of the physical universe. So far, each time these upturns were subsequently interrupted by the enemies of progress, who were able to induce society from the leading layers down to the credulous majority of the population to adopt views which ignored the realm of ideas just discovered, and replaced them with ideologies suiting the interest of those enemies—i.e., the ruling oligarchy.
The secret of why LaRouche has been the most successful forecaster of economic and social tendencies, and all his critics have been utter failures, lies in the fact that he acquired throughout his life an unparalleled knowledge of those ideas which over the course of millennia led to the qualitative advancement of human history, in contrast to those ideas that would fold the universe down, from what Gauss would call later the complex domain, to a reductionist Euclidean conception of things and events. Plato describes that difference in the paradox of the cave: Where the real world of ideas exists outside the cave, while those people who rely on their biological sense-perceptual apparatus, only perceive reality as shadows, as if upon the walls of a dimly fire-lit cave. A crucial example of that difference is highlighted by the paradoxes in geometry that do not allow reductionist solutions, such as the construction of the five Platonic solids and the doubling of the line, the square, and the cube. It is these paradoxes which laid the foundation of thinking for a whole class of thinkers, who were thinking and subsequently making discoveries in the realm of the complex domain and the Platonic tradition: such as Brunelleschi, Nicolaus of Cusa, Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Gilbert, Fermat, Huyghens, Leibniz, Bernoulli, Kästner, Gauss, Lazare Carnot, Dirichlet, and Riemann. And naturally Einstein and Vernadsky. All progress in human history has come from that tradition, as LaRouche has demonstrated in numerous treatises.
On the contrary, the ideologues of the reductionist tradition have done absolutely nothing to contribute, but a lot to obscure, the insight into real knowledge, such as the Aristotelian tradition of Descartes, Newton—remember his famous “hypotheses non fingo,” you don’t need hypothesis, or you don’t assume hypothesis—Boyle, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, Clausius, Grassmann, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Lindeman, Felix Klein, Bertrand Russell, and the students of those.
The same is essentially true for ideas in art, where you have the fundamental, axiomatic difference in the Classical art aimed at the elevation of the creative power of the audience, and those forms of art which dwell on the banalizing, or even worse, brutalizing the senses—the preferred method of the oligarchy for the control of the population. In this respect, there is no difference between the Roman Empire making the audiences of the amphitheater complicit in the killing of the gladiator, where the audience has to put thumbs up or down, to decide if the gladiator dies or lives, and the cult of violence portrayed in the entertainment industry of today. LaRouche had a profound knowledge about the different axiomatic outlook of these opposite traditions, and provided ample proof that the physical universe does not follow the pathway of Euclidean geometry, such as the difference between the shortest distance and the actual principle of the Leibnizian least action. [Fig. 5]
In the same way, the physical economy cannot be described adequately by mathematical and statistical methods. LaRouche developed his whole economic scientific method, explicitly with a polemic against information theory and the systems analysis of Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann. Or, algorithms don’t fit the real economy either, but only by the methods of a Riemannian space-time of general relativity. It is only that thinking in terms of the complex domain, which can conceptualize the impact of a never-ending series of discoveries of qualitative new principles of the physical universe, which each defines an entirely new economic platform, where the newly-discovered principle redefines the relative productivity of each aspect of the entire economy. Out of that methodological approach, LaRouche arrived at the unique concept of relative potential population density and the related concept of energy-flux density in the production process, both of which must continuously increase per square kilometer and per capita, because of the relatively finite character of resources at each level of development. At each level, the cost of development of the resources tends to increase and thus lower the productivity of labor. With the stagnation of the technological level, the effort and cost to maintain the same number of people increases, and the relative potential population density decreases. But the conclusion of that fact, as LaRouche concludes, is exactly the opposite of what the evil Club of Rome concluded in its oligarchical propaganda pamphlet, Limits to Growth, namely, from now on, one needs zero growth and even negative growth.
And LaRouche wrote against that [Fig. 6] in his book There Are No Limits to Growth, with which Lyn wrote one of his most important books, and demonstrated that continuous scientific and technological progress are necessary, and that higher degrees of anti-entropy are arrived at by the continuous application of human creativity. This is corresponding to the laws of the real physical universe, and this is therefore the precondition for the durable survival of humanity.
The relative population potential in primitive society was approximately 0.06 to 0.1 persons per kilometer, and the total potential of the world did not exceed 10 million people. Today, with 8 billion people, there are more than two orders of magnitude more, and with the commercial use of fusion technology within reach, and the existing technologies to produce essentially limitless amounts of new fresh and clean water, the population potential can double, and beyond, in a very short period of time and create a living standard for each human being comparable to the average family living in Switzerland today [Fig. 7].
From solar and wind energy, with a very low energy flux density, to fossil fuels, to nuclear energy, this measurement increased from 0.2 kilowatts per square mile to 70,000 kilowatts per square mile, and has the potential to increase to 1015 kw/sq mile with the second generation of fusion power. In light of this reality, the exit from nuclear energy in Germany, and the EU policies of the Green Deal, not only means the end of Germany as an industrial state—and that is the intention of the Greens—it also means the reduction of the relative potential population density of the world, because the productive capacity of the fourth largest economy of the world, Germany, will be subtracted, and this will absolutely lead to an increase in famine, epidemics, and social unrest. And that is the intention of the Malthusian oligarchy as well.
LaRouche knew all the essential representatives of the two opposing outlooks, and he made it absolutely transparent for anybody who wanted to know, why the elimination of creativity and the potential for genius was so absolutely essential for the oligarchical class, for whom the evil Malthus was only a paid scribbler. So, it was clear that the common denominator between the outlook of the British East India Company, the controlled disintegration of the world economy of the Trilateral Commission, the Great Transformation of Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and the Great Reset of the World Economic Forum, is the same reductionist, empiricist, Malthusian ideology.
When China recognized its error that the assumption of limited resources of the planet was wrong, they changed the one-child policy, because they recognized that each additional child would contribute the potential of new creative discoveries, and they emphasized from there on the continuous need for innovation in the economy. Thus, the Chinese economy made a miracle, which did not suffer economic cycles, because the continued increase in productivity eliminated the reasons for that.
So, the rise of China is the result of a correct economic policy which echoes the theory of LaRouche, and the United States and Europe are collapsing because they prefer Malthus over LaRouche. The crisis in the West is entirely self-inflicted, and not the result of evil policies of Russia or China.
The BRICS countries, the SCO which have their big summit on the 15th and 16th of September—just in a few days from now—in the ancient Silk Road city of Samarkand, Uzbekistan, many organizations of the Global South working on a new world economic order, reviving the tradition of the Non-Aligned Movement, all of these are aiming to end colonialism, overcome poverty and underdevelopment. And the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Global Security Initiative which are proposed by China, these are all concepts to overcome the geopolitical confrontation and create a platform for a shared future of mankind.
The United States and Europe, rather than trying to contain these developments, should rethink the reasons why we are in the mess we are, and we should join with these countries in a new paradigm of international relations based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the UN Charter. We are not only going into a hot autumn and winter, but what in all likelihood will be the collapse of the entire system. This is why the Schiller Institute has put the need for a new paradigm, a new security and development architecture, on the table.
So, with Friedrich Schiller, we can say, “Man is greater than his destiny,” provided, however, if we follow the advice of López Portillo and “Listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche.” Thank you.
Dr. Clifford Kiracofe (U.S.), Former Senior Staff Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; President, Washington Institute for Peace and Development
Ray McGovern (U.S.), former Senior Analyst, U.S. Central intelligence Agency (CIA); Founding Member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Panel 2 — 2pm EDT, 8pm CET
Defend the Right to Deliberate! Speak Out Against Blacklists and the Suppression of the Search for Truth
Moderator: Harley Schlanger, The Schiller Institute
Speakers include:
Diane Sare (U.S.), Candidate for United States Senate, 2022 (N.Y.), LaRouche Party
Sept. 9—The international press conference Sept. 7 hosted (online) by Executive Intelligence Review gathered a powerful group of former military and intelligence professionals, political leaders and candidates, journalists and peace advocates from the U.S. and other countries, documenting the criminal and evil “hit list” compiled by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), founded March, 2021) and the “kill list” compiled by the Myrotvorets (Peacemaker, founded in 2014) website in Ukraine. They demanded these operations be shut down, and that all U.S. funding be immediately stopped.
The five opening speakers—whose remarks are summarized below, and many of the other participants in the event, are on the Kiev CCD list, and several are on the Peacemaker death list as well.
The 2.5-hour event, with in-depth exchanges, was action-oriented. Several of the speakers are among the 16 CCD-targetted Americans, who contacted Congress in August, to move against the murder threat and assault on free speech.
New initiatives came from the meeting. There is a proposal to find Constitutional attorneys to take legal action to force U.S. agencies to desist their funding and collaborating with the Kiev kill list threats to Americans and citizens of other nations. There are rights of free speech, association and other fundamentals involved.
There is a proposal to take this deadly scandal to the international community, through the mission offices in New York of every member nation of the United Nations, whose General Assembly convenes Sept. 13.
EIR will follow up its Sept. 2 report with more investigative reports in the coming days, and other media are planning publicity. It is notable that within 12 hours of the EIR event, the Washington Post ran an apologetic article for the occurrence of hit list targets and killings in Ukraine, chalking it up the excesses of war, and simply lying that it was strictly limited to Ukraine. (“Ukrainian Hit Squads Target Russian Occupiers and Collaborators,” Sept. 8).
Opening Speakers
Col Richard Black (ret.), a former Marine officer and the head of Criminal Law Division for the Army, as well as a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate, described his patriotism and extensive military experience, but insisted on his absolute opposition to the U.S. proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, which “risks triggering a global nuclear war.” The CCD, which has accused him and 70 other prominent international citizens as “war criminals” and “information terrorists,” had a parallel operation at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in the U.S., the Disinformation Governance Board, whose director was the “outrageous narcissist Nina Jankowicz,” so outrageous that the popular outcry against her forced the closing of the Board, at least officially. But it is continuing the operation by running the CCD in Ukraine, he said, with representatives of the U.S. government co-sponsoring CCD events.
Col. Black reported that it is unlawful for the U.S. government to fund other institutions, foreign or domestic, to do things which are illegal for them to do themselves. Congress, he said, must stop all funding to the CCD.
Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector in the Soviet Union and in Iraq, described his exposure of the lie that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction: “If they had listened, we could have prevented that terrible war and those that followed, killing millions of Americans and civilians of the Mideast.” Now, being called a “Russian propagandist” by an organization sponsored by our government, “has a chilling effect. If you disagree, debate me, but don’t sentence me. Don’t mark me for death for telling the truth.”
Ritter galvanized the discussion saying: “We need a constitutional lawyer to take a hard look at the First Amendment issues that are accrued when Congress funds an appropriation bill that empowers a foreign entity to do that which is prohibited by Congress! Namely, the suppression of free speech! We also need to focus on terrorism laws, and is Congress complicit with political terrorism? These are important issues, and I believe if we frame them right and we target the right people, we can actually get a federal judge—and I can tell you right now, in the State of New York, they exist! We can say, the justice system doesn’t work. It works here in New York! And if I, as a New York citizen filed an injunction in a federal court in the State of New York, they will freeze the funding! If it’s a legally sound injunction.”
Diane Sare, an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate from the State of New York, said that the principles of the nation are under assault. “The most patriotic thing to do is to stop the perversion of our founding fathers’ principles which have left us on the side of the Nazis.” She thanked Scott Ritter for his letter to Senator Schumer, her opponent in the November election, who is implementing a “roundabout way of targeting his opponent”—namely herself—by funding the CCD in Ukraine and setting her up for possible physical attack.
Sare ridiculed the U.S. and European representatives claiming to defend “democracy” in Ukraine, where 13 opposition parties have been banned, Russian-language newspapers shut down, trade unions stripped of their rights, and anyone voting in a referendum is threatened with 13 years in prison.
She particularly cited the ugly irony of a Canadian official who said: “Canada understands the threat of propaganda to the freedom of speech!” Sare added, “It is astonishing, that 77 years after defeating the Nazis, people don’t find a problem with siding with Nazis today. Why has the U.S. refused to vote in the UN to condemn the revival of Nazism?”
Ray McGovern, former CIA officer and cofounder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), noted the hypocrisy of the sudden and total denunciation and sanctioning of Russia by the Obama Administration after that Administration had run the 2014 coup, overthrowing the elected government, and inserting puppet officials with extensive Nazi supporters, then blaming Russia for “annexing Crimea without provocation.” He quoted Vladimir Putin’s response: “Americans appear to conduct experiments with people and nations as if they were rats, without understanding what they were doing.”
The mantra today that the Russian military operation in Ukraine was “unprovoked,” McGovern said, brings to mind a quote by Will Rogers: “The problem is not what people know—it’s what people know that ain’t so.” He then quoted the George Bush gaffe in Texas recently when he denounced the fact that: “One man, on his own, launched a brutal, destructive war in Iraq—I mean, Ukraine!” He took note that Bush was never tried for his open support for genocidal wars based on lies, or for his promotion of torture. Asked why the Schiller Institute was singled out on the CCD hit list, he replied: “Where is any other unfettered discussion of the truth in the Ukraine/Russia war? It doesn’t exist!’
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, who is number two on the CCD hit list announced July 14, as well as being on the Myrotvorets “kill list,” said that the Schiller Institute conferences, 31 of whose speakers were placed on the hit list, were not about Ukraine per se, but about how to avoid World War III, calling for a new architecture for global security and development for all nations. She stressed that political assassinations were always aimed at those challenging empire, which is true about the Schiller Institute today. The fact that the neo-liberal system is bankrupt, with economies in the West in hyper-inflationary free fall, while famine is sweeping the Global South, can only be resolved by the U.S., Russia, China, and others sitting down together rather than going to war. The West must join the new paradigm being forged by the BRICS, the SCO, and others, not try to destroy them.
Zepp-LaRouche said that after the assassination of JFK, a deep pessimism took over the U.S., nearly as severe as in Germany, which is a “colony of the Empire.” If the U.S. would return to being the Beacon of Hope and Temple of Liberty of its best traditions, the world would admire it once again.
She closed the EIR press conference praising all who had participated in this powerful call to arms, to non-violent direct action, contributing substantially to the exposure of the approved “narrative” by Western governments and media, which has covered for this overtly fascist censorship and threats to free speech and the personal safety of leading Americans and international figures. She called for wide distribution of the event, to expand momentum for the creation of a new security and development architecture for mankind.
The five opening speakers were joined by journalists and other individuals also were on the Ukrainian “kill list” as well as a former analyst from the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Among other speakers were Sonja van den Ende, a Dutch journalist, Alessia Ruggieri, a trade unionist from Italy, and Dragana Trifkovic, the head of the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Serbia.
Mira Terada, the head of the human rights organization Foundation To Battle Injustice, based in Moscow, addressed a question and a proposal for joint action to Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Terada’s personal data were also published by the Myrotvorets database as a result of her efforts to get it shut down as a terrorist organization. Her Foundation, she said, “held two press conferences in Moscow, the main purpose of which was to attract the attention of world community to the illegal publication of personal data of underage children and of journalists” by Myrotvorets. There are 326 children and minors named on that death list.
She continued, “Moreover the human rights defenders of the Foundation To Battle Injustice have transferred the collected materials to the United Nations through the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy, and to the UN Children’s Fund minister. I was happy to see today Sonja van den Ende on this video. She was talking about the press conference that took place yesterday and was arranged by my Foundation.
“I would also like to inform you that just yesterday the Foundation To Battle Injustice submitted documents to the Federal Security Service of Russia to investigate the activities of the Myrotvorets website and recognize those involved in the creation of this resource as a terrorist organization. We have prepared, also, an open letter to the UN that has been signed by many journalists and we came to the conclusion that the database of the Ukrainian nationalist resource contained the personal data of at least 341 journalists from 31 countries of the world. We ask all participants and viewers of today’s press conference to sign it. I will send it any mail to the organizers of the conference, with the open letter. And as the head of the Foundation To Battle Injustice, I’m convinced that only through the joint efforts of human rights organizations, law enforcement agencies and international intergovernmental organizations, is it possible to achieve a concrete blocking of the Myrotvorets resource and complete deletion of person data collected and posted illegally.
“I have a proposal to sign the petition, to sign an open letter that I will email to the Schiller Institute. Thank you.”
Bradley Blankenship, who writes for Xinhua and RT, described himself as “the youngest person on the list” at the event, adding that he has been attacked for what he writes in several parts of the world—in Syria, in Ecuador, and now in the Czech Republic, where he has been summoned to the Interior Ministry. He said he has become so disillusioned by the situation in his native U.S., that “I don’t feel like a patriot any longer.” He pointed out, however, that “70,000 people marched against the government’s anti-Russia policies in Prague last week.”
Jens Jørgen Nielsen, a former Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken, and author of several books about Russia, is one of three Danes on the hit list. He reported that a courageous member of Denmark’s Parliament challenged the Foreign Minister to denounce the CCD, threatening attack on his right to free speech, but the Foreign Minister refused to do so. Instead, the Foreign Minister just spoke of the necessity for victory over Putin. “This is a scary thing,” Nielsen said. “Our rights are apparently not inalienable, as we believed.”
Geoff Young, who won the Democratic primary as the candidate for U.S. Congress in Kentucky’s 6th district, said Ukraine had not been a democracy since 2014 when the CIA, State Department and Pentagon overthrew the elected government, placing their puppets in power. That government proceeded to bombard their own citizens who had rejected the foreign coup, killing over 10,000 citizens in the Donbas, “three times more than the deaths on 9/11.” He said that if elected, he would correct the impeachment laws so that presidents would be impeached not for trivial things such as political burglaries, sexual picadilloes and false charges as foreign agents, but for the genocidal and illegal wars, such of those waged by George Bush, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.
David Pyne, Deputy Director of National Operations for the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a private grouping, said that he earned a place on the hit list by, first, offering a means to avoid war before the February Russian move into Ukraine, requiring simply a U.S. pledge that Ukraine would not join NATO; and, after the war started, proposing an agreement similar to the Minsk accord. “My intention was to save the world from a nuclear holocaust,” he added, and blasted Boris Johnson and Joe Biden for sabotaging the peace negotiations in April. He offered his thanks and support to EIR for leading this campaign.
Kirk Wiebe is a former National Security Agency expert who exposed the NSA sabotage of systems which could have targeted terrorists and prevented the 9/11 disaster. The system, he said, has instead been used for mass surveillance of Americans and others. Wiebe emphasized that “we are all under attack,” and that there “must be no spectators, but a full-court press” working with the Schiller Institute to counter “this cabal of fascists.”
The new EIR Investigative Reports: “Kiev’s ‘Info Terrorist’ List: ‘Global NATO’ Orders a Hit on Advocates of Peace;’” and “Ukraine’s Deahtlist Database: myrotvorets.center” are available in EIR, Volume 49, Number 34, September 2, 2022 on line at https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2022/eirv49n34-20220902/index.html .
