General

Press statement by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

February 24, 2021—Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and international leader of the international Schiller Institute and widow of the renowned American economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche, announced today that, through counsel, she has issued a letter to the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) and its Treasurer, Barbara Boyd, demanding that they “immediately cease and desist, both now and in the future” from “using Mr. LaRouche’s name, likeness, and potentially other confusingly similar terms.” The letter states that such use “is likely to cause confusion among consumers since they may believe that you [Boyd] (as an individual), LPAC, and/or the goods and services being offered are somehow associated with, licensed by, or authorized by our Client [Helga Zepp-LaRouche].” Among the remedies required are that Boyd and LPAC “Immediately take all necessary actions to change the name of your political action committee, and the name of any Affiliated Entities, to one that does not include the term ‘Lyndon,’ ‘LaRouche,’ or any formative or iteration thereof, and agree to refrain from using the infringing terms now and in the future on any website, company e-mails, letter head, advertisements, or other marketing literature or correspondence.”

To provide the background and context for this action, Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche issued the following statement:

“What had been since 2004 the official website of the political action committee founded by my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC), has had its content taken over by a group of individuals associated with Barbara Boyd, the Treasurer of that PAC, in a direction which I consider contrary to the central policies that my husband stood for. While my husband was still alive, he was responsible for the overall policy direction of the PAC. But since he passed away in February 2019, Mrs. Boyd and her associates, without my permission, have taken over the content of the website and the PAC’s activities as a whole and have embarked on a path that I believe misrepresents both my and Mr. LaRouche’s positions.

“My requests for the PAC to adhere to the policies of the LaRouche movement and to not associate the LaRouche name with policies that were inconsistent with our views, which started to occur within the PAC immediately after the death of Mr. LaRouche, were rebuked to such an extent that Mrs. Boyd and a group of individuals sharing her views issued a document in November 2020 proclaiming their ‘irrevocable’ independence from the leadership of the LaRouche movement, myself included, founded by my husband over 50 years ago.

“While paying lip service to some of Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas, and using video footage of him, in reality the political positions of the PAC increasingly diverged from the policies of the LaRouche movement and my late husband by, for example, excluding any substantive evaluation of the international strategic situation, in favor of focusing almost entirely on internal U.S. politics, principally on issues that were in line with the policies of Donald Trump. They increasingly failed to publish articles and videos that were critical of Trump on topics on which Lyndon LaRouche had personally frequently criticized Trump, such as his praise of the Wall Street financial bubble; the anti-China policies that came to dominate his presidency; and so on. For example:

“In a Jan. 26, 2021 video posted on the LPAC site under the headline ‘Make Impeachment Drive Backfire, Build Movement to Rescue Republic,’ Barbara Boyd stated: ‘If you believe they [people] are beasts and that you can have a social credit system, which is really what we’re putting into place here with the cancel culture—if you behave certain ways, you get social credits for doing x, y, z, and w; if you’re nasty or make stupid comments, or step out of line, you get negative credits. That’s what they do in China. That’s what they do in any totalitarian society.’

“These positions reflect the beliefs of Mrs. Boyd, not Mr. LaRouche or the LaRouche movement. I disagree fully with that characterization of China, and Lyndon LaRouche expressed beliefs to the contrary of this characterization repeatedly throughout his life.

“As the mischaracterizations of Mr. LaRouche’s political positions grew, I and the vast majority of the members of the LaRouche movement, both in the United States and internationally, felt we had no other choice than to support the creation of a new organization and associated website: ‘The LaRouche Organization’ (TLO), founded in December 2020, to ensure Mr. LaRouche’s name and likeness are only associated with his true policies and positions. The difference between TLO and the PAC becomes clear if, as one example, one compares the intention expressed in the TLO founding statement ‘Who We Are,’ which says:

“‘The sole purpose of The LaRouche Organization (TLO) is the dissemination of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche and the spread of his life’s work, his analytical and scientific method of thinking, with the intention of realizing the solutions he offered to the many crises now facing mankind.’

“Contrast this to the February 14 ‘marching orders’ expressed on the LPAC site under the rubric ‘Your Role in the “New Politics”’: ‘Do battle for the Republican Party; force the traitors and the “weak ones” out, and restore it to the tradition of Abraham Lincoln.’

“Mrs. Boyd and her associates launched a redesigned website for the PAC in February 2021, which notably excludes two pages or topics which were formerly there:

“First, the extremely rich documentation of the 40 years of organizing activities that Lyndon LaRouche and his international associates were involved in across five continents of the planet. Intentionally or not, I believe that removing that history gives the false impression that Mr. LaRouche was only concerned about matters in the U.S. This negates his passionate commitment to mankind as a whole.

“Second, the new PAC website also omits the record of the role of Mr. LaRouche and his international movement in the evolution of a new paradigm around the New Silk Road. Mr. LaRouche wrote numerous economic programs for Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe beginning in the 1970s, and he spent a good portion of his life working and campaigning in and for the development of these countries.

“Mrs. Boyd and her associates have every right to establish a political action committee to express the views of Mrs. Boyd; but I believe they do a grave disservice to the late Lyndon LaRouche by misrepresenting — by commission and omission — his views by associating his name with their endeavor. For all of these reasons, we have hired legal counsel to stop all use of Lyndon LaRouche’s name and likeness by the PAC and to preserve the integrity of his vast work.”

For further information: press@LaroucheOrganization.com or (551) 209-3978

Foreign Minister Wang Yi was the keynote speaker at a Monday event titled the Lanting Forum on Promoting Dialogue and Cooperation and Managing Differences, focused on the restoration of civil and productive relations between China and the US. Wang Yi pointed to the following extensive list of divisive, and in many cases illegal, policies implemented by Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

Wang urged the new Biden Administration to:

Stop smearing the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese political system;

Stop supporting separatists in Taiwan;

Stop interfering in China’s sovereign affairs in Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan

End the unreasonable tariffs;

Lift the sanctions;

Abandon the irrational suppression of Chinese tech companies;

Lift the restrictions on educational, cultural and media institutions;

Support research exchange. 

Seeing the list in one place provides a shocking sense of the madness and criminality of the Pompeo belief that the US could abandon international law and decency to act as a global dictator. 

The Global Times coverage of the event noted that President Biden had stated in his speech to the G7 and the Munich Security Forum last week, “We cannot and must not return to the reflexive opposition and rigid blocs of the Cold War.” They also took note that Biden has already taken several steps to reverse some of the Trump-Pompeo anti-China policies (although reports on these steps were largely blacked out of the US press): He paused the ban on Wechat and Tik Tok, the Chinese apps; he withdrew the order for universities to disclose financial arrangements with the Confucius Institutes; and he sponsored a dialogue between the leading epidemiologists of the two nations, Dr. Fauchi and Dr. Zhong Nanshan, who have spoken by phone about cooperation in the fight against COVID-19, and will meet at an international conference on March 2.

Lyle Goldstein had never been afraid to “sail against the current” with regard to his vision of a sane U.S. defense policy, and it is hoped that his view is also shared by a number of U.S. defense intellectuals, who have some awareness of how the world is changing. In his latest article, entitled “The Indo-Pacific Strategy is a Recipe for Disaster,” Goldstein scores the malarkey dreamed up by U.S. policy planners based on the notion that the U.S. has now entered a period of intense rivalry with China and with Russia.

Goldstein goes back to a 1992 strategy document that asserted that the goal of U.S. policy was “to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge” and to maintain the continuity of “the unipolar moment.” He also notes that the DoD declassified, long before it was normal, the U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Paciific, which built on the same basic notion. “The authors of the Trump administration’s framework were evidently so pleased with the work that they thought it necessary to declassify it before leaving office and share it with the public, even though the general custom is to wait 30 years before declassification,” Goldstein writes. “But surely they also intended that the document might constrain and direct the Biden administration’s approach to U.S. strategy heads.”

“The strategy represents a fusion of neoconservative and neoliberal thinking and may satisfy large segments of the foreign policy elite, orchestrating the design for a new cold war—this time focusing on China,” Goldstein writes. And what are the problems that this strategy represents? While harping a lot on the “alliance of democracies”, the strategy is meant to include countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and Singapore, all of which fall into that category only with great effort. Even with South Korea and Japan, traditional U.S. allies, he argues, it will be difficult for them to follow in the wake of a U.S. man-of-war heading for China.

More serious, he notes, is the situation with changing the policy toward Taiwan. “The island has befuddled American strategists for decades and their clever solution has been ‘strategic ambiguity,’ balancing a general acceptance of China’s claim with a subtle hint of deterrence in the hope that the complex issue could be settled peacefully. The newly declassified strategy overtly codifies the deterrence aspect without even the slightest nod to Chinese claims—something acknowledged by American presidents going back to Franklin Roosevelt. The attempt to shift the policy during the Trump Administration put the U.S. on a clear collision course with China.

“Some Americans seem to welcome that possibility, but they are not well informed about the military balance and likely scenarios. The truth is that the United States could very well lose such a war, a fact admitted in early 2021 by a senior Air Force official, and there is no telling whether nuclear weapons would be used or not.”

And then there is India. Goldstein notes that India’s military potential is not what it is cracked up  to be and that any attempt to promote trouble on the India-China border could lead to a disaster for India similar to that in 1962. And promoting an Indian presence in the South China Sea, he notes, has already led to a major Chinese naval build-up. He also notes the folly for India in pushing a major military build-up with so much of its domestic needs crying for attention.

“In the end,” Goldstein writes, “the Indo-Pacific framework proved long on rhetoric and ideology, but failed to grapple seriously with the underlying changes in the regional balance of power that must occasion a new U.S. strategy based on realism and restraint. The Biden administration should not overlook the former strategy’s foundational weaknesses. The new team would be wise to junk the old strategy and start fresh.”

Good advice from a defense scholar with great experience. Goldstein set up the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. But his article was published in a lesser known internet site, the “lawfareblog.” It is hoped that it will be transmitted further. For although Lyle Goldstein may be a lone voice, in a cacophony of disparate—and mostly outlandish—voices, it does remain the voice of reason, and therefore deserves to be heard.

Read the full article: https://www.lawfareblog.com/indo-pacific-strategy-recipe-disaster

Dr. Kelvin Kemm insists that “technological apartheid” not be imposed upon continental Africa. Instead the deployment of advanced nuclear power plant designs, including the fourth generation pebble bed reactors designed in South Africa, as well as floating modular nuclear complexes–“nuplexes”–can leapfrog Africa into Into world industrial and scientific leadership by 2050.

Virtual Roundtable Forum sponsored by the Schiller Institute
Please register here

The devastation and death across major portions of the US and Mexico from the polar vortex was not a “natural disaster,” but the man-made result of the systemic takedown of reliable fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, replaced by the primitive and unreliable use of sun and wind. This result was warned against in the EIR Special Report, “Great Leap Backwards – LaRouche Exposes the Green New Deal,” released just days before the polar vortex, demonstrating that this is the disaster awaiting the entire world if the Green New Deal is not replaced by international cooperation to deal with the global pandemic and economic breakdown with modern technologies, infrastructure and industrial development.

Instead, we are witnessing the open mobilization by the US and its NATO allies for military confrontation with Russia and China, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. 

Experts on China and Russia, as well as experts on the actual, galactic causes of climate change, will join this Schiller Institute Roundtable Forum, to discuss the urgent steps required to avoid the twin disasters of war and economic disintegration, and pose the changes in international relations required to turn the current crisis into a new paradigm of peace through development. We invite you and your friends and associates to join us. 

Mike Billington, Asia Intelligence Desk for Executive Intelligence Review, presents how BlackRock uses its power to threaten and intimidate nations— both advanced and developing— to accept “green” technology and abandon energy dense fuel sources, according to the genocidal diktat issued from the British Monarchy. Mike’s recent article on BlackRock, “BlackRock INC. How ‘Green Finance’ forbids modern fuels” appears in the EIR Special Report.