The “overwhelming optimism” of Trump’s State of the Union address (SOTU), combined with his likely acquittal in the Senate vote later Wednesday, create a moment of optimism in which it is possible that the strategic and financial crises threatening mankind can now be resolved. With Trump freed from the threat of being removed from office, Helga Zepp LaRouche called on viewers of her weekly webcast to support him in a full break with the geopolitical doctrines which have created the crises. She emphasized a mobilization for full funding for the Artemis program, for an emergency summit between Trump, Putin and Xi, and the exoneration of LaRouche, as among the most crucial battles ahead.
The exoneration of her husband, she said, would enable people to study his ideas, in economics, history and science, to rise to the level of strategic thinking necessary to take advantage of this moment. One of the real problems we face, which can be overcome by familiarity with LaRouche’s method, is that the connection between Energy Flux Density, and Potential Relative Population Density, is not understood.
In contrast to the optimism of the moment, she spoke of the “Rumpelstiltskin Moment” of Nancy Pelosi; the debacle of the Iowa Democratic Caucuses; the “barrage of racism” against China on the Corona Virus; and the Bloomberg campaign’s championing of Green fascism, as examples of the threat which must be overcome. 2020 is the year that the old system likely will collapse—let’s make sure it is replaced by a New Paradigm, which acts in the interest of the Common Aims of Mankind.
With their case for impeachment falling apart, the British-American coup plotters deploying against President Trump and the American electorate predictably turned to the New York Times to preview John Bolton’s “memoirs”, to try to pump some life into their efforts for a regime change in the U.S. In her weekly webcast, Helga Zepp LaRouche said this is a sign of desperation, as their case has been effectively refuted by Trump’s legal team, and a significant segment of the population is enraged at the unconstitutional assault on the institution of the Presidency, and the increasing difficulty they are having to cover the cost of basic necessities.
The biggest danger the imperial forces behind the coup face has been Trump’s commitment to establish better relations with Russia and China. Not surprisingly, Bolton, one of those virulently opposed to this shift in U.S. strategic policy, is now being embraced by the same Democrats who in the past denounced him as a dishonest war-hawk. This latest eruption on behalf of the war party occurs as the President has put forward his Middle East peace plan, which LaRouche described as a potential first step toward an expanded negotiation process—one which must include the Palestinians, as well as the Russians.
With social chaos world-wide, and the war danger still real, she called on viewers to become active in the battle to defeat the geopoliticians with a great power summit, which can assure security and economic cooperation. A major aspect of this activity must be to revive the role of classical culture as a means of uplifting people.
HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is January 29th, 2020. And as most of you are well aware, we are in the midst of this crazy impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. There have been some significant developments in the last hours, the last couple of days, including the resurfacing of John Bolton, courtesy of the lying New York Times. Helga, what do you make of this situation, where it’s headed now?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the emergence of Bolton, while naturally its designed to put the nail in the coffin for the impeachment of Trump, is also a sign of desperation. Because they could not prove the case, there is no criminal act which they could attribute to President Trump. But Bolton who obviously was guided to write this book — it’s supposed to come out and spill the beans about what Trump supposedly did in the phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. Now, this is obviously an act of desperation on the side of the Democrats, because, if you remember, they used to attack Bolton as a liar, as a completely untrustworthy fellow, but now they are relying on him as the key witness.
Where this will go it’s too early to say. It’s Wednesday. Friday is the vote. If the Senate will allow more witnesses, in which case it would open up not only the potential to have Bolton testify, but the Trump team could bring into the Senate hearing all the other crucial people — Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the so-called “whistleblower,” and many others. Adam Schiff, for example, they could bring out the entire British involvement in the coup attempt against Trump from the very beginning, the Christopher Steele dossier, the FISA Court, all of these things which were mentioned in the Horowitz report. So it could become a big mud fight. And if the Democrats succeed in getting Bolton as a witness, then maybe you have to have the whole truth out. That was the view of President Trump in the beginning. He said, let’s have a big discussion. Later he changed it and said it may be bad for the country to drag this out indefinitely. But if it comes down to that, then maybe the whole truth has to come out.
McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, said he doesn’t have the vote to block the witnesses. This is today, we have to see how this goes until Friday. But I think it is very clear that this is not functioning with the American people. We have picked up an increasing mood of the American population, that they really are enraged. And if you need one proof, yesterday, Trump appeared at a rally in south New Jersey, and there were 175,000 people registered to go to this rally. Naturally not so many could, but that shows you there is a tremendous ferment, and south New Jersey, that is where the so-called “deplorables” live, this is a poor working-class area and obviously this is where Trump is resonating very big in the population.
So, I think we are probably in the end stage of this coup attempt, despite the fact that the Democrats have stated their intention to keep dragging this on. Maxine Waters, for example, said they will continue this impeachment throughout the election campaign; but I think the Democrats are playing a very risky game, because the population is really sick and tired of this whole story.
I think it is becoming very clear this is a coup. There is another very interesting blog piece by Pat Lang, who says that in his former capacity as a person working for the CIA or the military in the dark field of covert operations, he recognizes that there was a continuous political campaign against Trump from day one, and if one operation doesn’t function, they pull up another one: This was Russiagate, then Ukrainegate, now the impeachment, and the Bolton thing being the latest such operation. So it is really a battle where the role of what some people mistakenly call the “deep state” — it really should be better called the Anglo-American British Empire intelligence apparatus — the role of these forces is becoming very, very open. And I think that that may change the character of politics not only in the United States, but internationally, for good.
SCHLANGER: You mentioned that the case was not proven by the Democratic managers. In fact, I think Trump’s attorneys did a very good job of countering it. One of the most significant was the testimony of Alan Dershowitz, who made the point this was not just against Trump; it’s against the Constitution, it’s against the American Presidential system. I think that was quite significant, don’t you?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Dershowitz is not a Trump supporter, he is a Democrat, and he had been very critical of Trump in the past. But he argued very strongly on the question that what is at stake here is the American Constitution: That this is a blatant attempt by the Democrats to turn the U.S., as a republic based on the Constitution, into a British Parliamentary system, that this goes completely against the will of the framers of the Constitution. He takes apart these arguments by the Democrats very efficiently. For example, this ominous notion, which they all of a sudden treated as if this would be the final proof of Trump’s crime, that in the discussion with Ukraine that he pursued a quid pro quo. Now Dershowitz says, so what about it? Even if everything Bolton is saying would be true, this does not constitute a crime, because a quid pro quo is what every head of state uses in any negotiation with any other state, so it is nothing special; it is what normal negotiations among states are. And I think these kinds of arguments which demystify the ghosts which are being created artificially, like this ominous quid pro quo, that he takes it down and takes it apart as a constitutional lawyer, I think is very, very useful. Because there is a lot of confetti spread around and thrown around to have a voice arguing for constitutional matters is extremely useful.
SCHLANGER: I think one of the things that came out from Dershowitz and others is this argument that a policy disagreement is not the basis for impeachment. And Helga, from the beginning we have been emphasizing that you have to look beyond the so-called facts of the case, because the facts of the case don’t exist. But what does exist is this coup, and we see this again in terms of the re-emergence of Bolton who has been opposed to what President Trump was trying to do in working with Russia.
How do you explain this to the American people? I think this is something that has not been fully explained fully enough by the President’s team, but I think we’ve done the job. How would you explain it?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Trump — who obviously is not a simple person, he has many sides to him; he does use a language which antagonizes a lot of people — and therefore it is actually very important to note the fact that, despite the fact of all these things which one can argue “is this the style I like, is it not the style I like” — the point is the biggest mortal danger to the existence of the British Empire is the demonstrated willingness by Trump to seek a better relationship with Russia and China. And that has to be understood, because that is the most important. He has made clear that, given the opportunity, he is absolutely easy with Putin; this was demonstrated especially in the Helsinki summit, despite all influences around him to the contrary. He does want to have a positive relationship with China. He still calls Xi Jinping his “good friend.” He praises the great culture of China. And from the standpoint of the British Empire this is the end of them, because once they lose the ability to manipulate the great powers in a geopolitical manner, one against the other, then they will absolutely vanish. And given the potential which we have helped to create in terms of having a summit of these major powers, they are really in a panic.
So, I think it is important for the people who support Trump, especially in the United States, people should really think through, the world is in a terrible condition. We are sitting on a powder keg of a potential blowout; there are many problems we can address as we continue to talk. And there is no way how to solve these problems, unless you have a new level of politics which overcomes geopolitics, and that requires that at least the three Presidents of the United States, Russia and China work together and work out solutions for the world’s problems. If that does not occur there are incredible dangers.
So, the people who are anti-Russian but pro-Trump, or people who are pro-Trump and anti-China, they should really rethink their prejudices. Because a lot of what people think they know or what their dear opinion is, is the result of psychological warfare coming from the mainstream media and other operations. And the fact that Trump wants to have a positive relation with Russia for the sake of world peace, positive relations with China, is the most important factor of the strategic situation and it really explains almost every other aspect of the strategic situation.
SCHLANGER: We see this very clearly in the reaction of Adam Schiff, with trying to use Bolton as the key witness. Schiff, in his presentation as a Democratic manager, constantly stressed, we’re at war with Russia. And he lied about this, he made the whole case again, the Mueller case on Russia;, and it showed that this is a pro-war faction in the Democratic Party that’s opposing Trump.
In this context you mentioned the British Empire, the geopolitics: We’ve now seen at least the beginnings of the so-called “deal of the century,” of a peace plan for the Middle East. From what you’ve seen so far, what’s your analysis of this?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I mean we knew this was in the makings, it shows the handwritings of Jared Kushner. It is a first step and I think if you look at the international reactions, which I will mention in a second, it shows it has at least the potential to start a negotiation process. If you look at the proposal itself, naturally it was proposed between Trump and Netanyahu, who faces criminal trial back at home, so he was probably very happy to have that occasion. And it gives Israel practically everything they would possibly ask for: It reaffirms Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel; it says the settlements are okay in the West Bank; the Golan Heights, the Syrian territory, belongs to Israel, so it has all of these things. It gives security guarantees to Israel fully.
The interesting thing is, that it does talk for the first time about the U.S. promoting a Palestinian state. Now the Palestinian Authority was not involved in the discussion, so they even rejected this plan before it was published, because they said all the decisions made before, point in the direction that it does not represent any Palestinian interest. President Abbas called for an emergency summit of the Arab League, which will take place on the Feb. 1. Naturally, the proposed Palestinian state, from a territorial standpoint, is extremely meager. It basically cuts out a lot of the interesting parts. To make it viable, will be very difficult. The proposed money over a certain period of time of $50 billion is not a hell of a lot.
So I think the reactions to it — I would like to mention a couple of them — first of all, Netanyahu will immediately leave Washington and go to Moscow to discuss with Putin. Various Russian spokesmen, Lavrov, Peskov, Kosachev, the head of the International Relations Committee of the Federation Council, they all said they would study it, we will look at it intensively; and negotiations have to be based on the involvement of the so-called “quartet” — the quartet meaning the United Nations, the EU, Russia, and the U.S. In any case it’s an international approach and even the EU foreign representative, Josep Borell, said it has to be based on respect for all the UN resolutions concerning Israel-Palestine, and the representative of the UN General Secretary said, it has to be in respect of all UN resolutions, including the one that Israel has to go back to its pre-1967 borders. So that naturally is not what’s here proposed, but that is the reaction from international forces.
I think it’s useful to start a negotiation process provided that the Palestinians agree to that, which they have not so far. But I want to say very clearly, that it is good to give security guarantees for Israel. That is absolutely crucial. But I think there is not going to be a peace in the region, in Southwest Asia, if you don’t give security interests to all relevant parties, and that includes emphatically Iran. If people go back in history and look at which peace treaties functioned and which didn’t, you have the Peace of Westphalia which explicitly formulated the principle that for the sake of peace, you have to take into account the interest of every other, and that’s why the Peace of Westphalia was such a groundbreaking work and led to the whole development of international law; as compared, in total contrast to the Versailles Treaty, which going against all historical evidence, presumed Germany was the only guilty party for World War I, all the reparations had to be paid by Germany, and that laid the ground for the developments which then led to the Great Depression of 1929 and naturally the emergence of the Nazis, and it led to World War II. If you don’t have a peace which takes into account the interest of every party, it cannot function.
And most importantly, you have to look at the region as a whole. You have to look at Afghanistan—a mess; Iraq—pretty bad; Syria—totally destroyed from the senseless war; Yemen. You can even go into North Africa: Libya. Look at the result of what President Trump clearly wants to end, namely, these endless wars. Therefore, if you want to reconstruct this area and have a durable peace, what you need is an economic development for the entire Southwest Asian region, and that can only happen if all the great powers work together. I think the immediate perspective is given, because the Chinese have offered to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Syria, to extend the New Silk Road. Also the Arabs have many interests of cooperation along the Silk Road with China. That is the only way how you can have the hope to calm down this region. And rather than trying to continue geopolitical games, I think all the great powers—Russia, China, India, the United States, European countries—they should all join hands and reconstruct this area, and then you can have the hope for peace.
So, I think the extension of the New Silk Road from China via Iran, Iraq; into Turkey, Syria; into Egypt, all the way to Africa, developing Africa in the same way. Then, through Turkey, extend the New Silk Road to Europe, to the Balkans; to connect via the Central Asian corridors — If you have a total peace plan like that, I think it can be really the basis for peace.
And I would hope now, this is now a first step. It needs to have more steps. But I think it’s a negotiation basis, and people should take a positive attitude, and then, hopefully, it can lead to the result of a real peace in the region.
SCHLANGER: As we’re discussing these things, there’s been something that has just emerged as a strategic concern in the last days, really last weeks: the spread of the coronavirus out of China. President Trump, in a comment a couple days ago, praised the Chinese for the way they’re handing it. The anti-China lobby is going crazy against China. What’s your assessment of where we stand in dealing with this virus?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, one of the leading Chinese scientists, who is charge of managing this crisis, said that he thinks the peak of the epidemic may be in ten days from now. That would be a very good news. China has done a very big job, by putting about 60 million people into quarantine. In major cities, people are being told to stay home. They have a letter out for the elderly, that they should especially not leave their apartment, because they are more at risk than other people. I think it is an incredible job. There was just a meeting between President Xi Jinping and the leadership of the WHO, the World Health Organization. They praised China, by saying they did an absolute fantastic job, by also giving a standard of how to deal with such a crisis. From an objective standpoint, there is no question that China is handling this extremely well, building three hospitals of more than 1,000 beds in a week — I don’t know what other country could do that at this point.
As you mentioned, there are also some really degenerated minds, who have absolutely no respect for human life. One is the unspeakable Danish newspaper Jyllands-Post with its cartoon, which showed the Chinese flag with the stars in the flag being replaced by the coronavirus. China protested very strongly, and basically said that this is a complete contempt for human decency, and should not be regarded as a cartoon. I think our colleagues from the Schiller Institute in Denmark also put out a similar statement, absolutely condemning the degenerate mindset coming from such “cartoons.”
Other than that, if this Chinese scientist is correct, then hopefully this could be resolved very soon. Naturally, doomsday-sayers, who say the economic impact could be a trigger for the world financial collapse. I don’t think that is more than a cover story, for the fact that this financial system is bankrupt as it is.
SCHLANGER: These very same central bankers and financiers, who have bankrupted the financial system, are circulating this new report from the Bank for International Settlements, talking about the “Green Swan.” They are now saying that the scapegoat for the crash will be man-made climate change. Obviously, this is another aspect of the cover-up, isn’t it?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. The “Black Swan” is a synonym for the big financial crash, for the “everything bubble” to collapse, which we are very close to. So, to blame the climate crisis for such an event is ridiculous. The effort to impose green financing, and in that way destroy the basis for industrial economy is a danger to the financial system, if it needed another one, other than the one caused by the insane bailouts and quantitative easing policies.
So, I think this is an absolute lie. I think we are entering a period, where not only a crash is hanging on the horizon, but the effects of this financial policy are causing the entire society, in many countries, to disintegrate. I only want to mention two situations: One, I think now eight weeks of strikes in France; this is not reported at all, but I know about it from our French colleagues. These demonstrations and strikes are becoming more violent all the time. That is the result of the government policy, because the French police have the policy of throwing out sort of a net, isolate different groupings, and basically drive them into violent reactions.
This doesn’t only come from antifa and Black Bloc, but it comes from the Yellow Vests. For example, you have lawyers who are so absolutely furious about the attack on them, that they have thrown down their robes by the hundreds. Tax accountants who throwing their tax codes on the floor. This is really getting out of proportion. And the government of Macron is making absolutely no concession, but keeps absolutely with the line of BlackRock, which is really what this pension reform is driven by.
You have a similar situation now in Germany, where the German farmers, who are now basically fighting for their existence, they have now changed their tactic. They do flash-mobs at political meetings: All of a sudden, you have 250 tractors showing up; they block the warehouse deliveries from the large food chains. They say they are now being destroyed, between a rock and a hard place, because the food chains lower the prices for their products way below the parity price — you can forget, not even the producer’s price. And then you have the European Union legislations which make it impossible for these farmers to continue to farm.
So, we are looking at a real social explosion, not only in places like Chile and Lebanon and Algeria, but also, increasingly, in the European countries. I can only see this continuing, because if people like [European Commission President Ursula] von der Leyen implement their green legislation, thereby raising the prices for everything—electricity, transport, food—then this social ferment will just explode, because many people are already at the end of their means.
I think this is going to require our intervention, globally, to impose what we have proposed many times, the full package of LaRouche: the Four Laws, Glass-Steagall, national bank, New Bretton Woods, crash program for fusion and space cooperation to increase the productivity of society, and cooperate with the New Silk Road. That is the solution, but we need more people to help us in this mobilization. So, go to the links provided at the end of this webcast. Subscribe to our Alerts and other publications. Sign our petitions and mobilize together with us. I think that’s the only answer you can give.
SCHLANGER: There’s another aspect to this situation, which you’ve addressed many, many times: which is, the social explosion, the social ferment, and social disintegration are occurring at the same time as there’s a cultural collapse, which is engineered by the same British Empire, destroying the image of man. You’ve just written an article on this; you are quite prolific on this. What do people need to know about how we reverse this cultural collapse?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I launched a campaign which I called an “Open Letter to the Lovers of Classical music.” I deliberately do not address this letter only to people in Germany, but I really want to address it to everybody who thinks that Classical music is important for the mental health and creativity of people.
We will put the link of this Open Letter below, so please download it, read it, circulate it, comment on it, because I want to generate a debate. There was this unbelievable assault, where some so-called modern composer dared to change the finale of Fidelio in a performance in Darmstadt. What came out was absolutely horrible ugliness. So, please read my letter and circulate it.
But it points to something which I think is really of a general nature. If you look at what is happening in the United States, you have the drug epidemic, you have the school shootings; you have a lot of violence as a potential breaking out very quickly. In Germany, you now have churches being robbed. People are stealing the sacral instruments for the church service, pictures from the walls. You have attacks on first responders, on the police — I mean, this getting very, very ugly. I think what all of these symptoms—which I could tell you a long, long, long list of, but you probably all know it—all of these are symptoms of a decaying, collapsing society, like the end of the Roman Empire, or some other cultural collapses.
This very dangerous and this is why I take this attack on Classical music as extremely important to be countered. Because if you look at Europe, Europe is in terrible condition right now; political unity doesn’t exist. We just found that the German government already in 2018, at a conference in Berlin on Africa, deliberately countered the proposal which was adopted in 2018 in Abuja, Nigeria, by the governments of the Lake Chad region demanding implementation of the Transaqua project, which we have discussed many times on this show; and Germany gave only Greenie arguments, basically perpetuating the colonial world-outlook toward Africa, condoning the disgusting policy of the EU against the refugees from Africa and Southwest Asia, which is really a murderous policy. The Pope called these camps for refugees “concentration camps,” which I think is absolutely on the mark.
So, if you look at all of these things, the only positive thing which Europe still has — other than its potential to be an industrial powerhouse, if we change our ways; but that is not in the cards right now, if you look at the EU—so the only thing which we is our great Classical tradition: The Italian Renaissance, which indirectly President Trump referred to in his speech in Davos, by pointing to the Cupola of the Florence Duomo, by mentioning the beautiful Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, by referring to the European cathedrals. That ennobled view of man, including the German Classical period, the German, Italian, and other Classical music in general, these are the most precious heritages of Europe which we could contribute to the shaping of a New Paradigm in the world.
And if you have, right now, as a continuation of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) operation, the ongoing destruction of Classical music, with disgusting Regietheater; you can’t go into a German theater any more, since quite a while, without people copulating on the stage, being naked, doing absolutely obscene things. András Schiff, the great pianist, wrote an article recently, where he said that in New York people are talking about this kind of theater as “Eurotrash.” What this unspeakable so-called composer did in this re-write of the finale of Fidelio is nothing but Eurotrash; and that is a mild expression for what was presented there.
We have to defend Classical Culture. We have to go back to the idea that we need beauty in art. I fully agree with Friedrich Schiller, who in a letter exchange with his friend Christian Körner, said that art which is not beautiful, is no art, it’s trash (those are my words, not those of Schiller).
So, I would really ask all of you who have any sense that we cannot allow the continuation of this destruction of great culture to go on, that you should join with us, and that we really create a Renaissance movement as a counter to that. This is completely in the spirit of my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche. His spirit is alive, especially as all of his prognoses in respect to the financial system, the strategic situation, become more obvious; there is a growing recognition of the increasing intellectual role of the work of my late husband. I want to encourage to always include the demand for his exoneration, because people have to have unmediated access to his works, because it is that, what great minds have written, what great composers have composed, which gives us the inner strength to get out of this crisis of humanity. So, help us in really making this Renaissance movement.
SCHLANGER: We also have the benefit that this year is the 250th anniversary celebrating the birth of Beethoven. Your husband gave us the marching orders: “Think Like Beethoven!” which is the way out of this
So, Helga, thank you for joining us today, and we’ll see you again next week.
While 190 billionaires and their corporate and institutional flunkeys gathered at Davos, pushing a Green fascist agenda, U.S. President Trump intervened with a different axiomatic background. While his speech provoked hysteria, with some accusing him of “pointless optimism,” his praise of the citizens of Florence acting with imagination and boldness in building the great Dome—a feat often referred to by Lyndon LaRouche as exemplifying the spirit of human creativity and commitment to progress which resulted in the Renaissance—highlights again why the oligarchy is committed to ending his presidency.
Helga covered a number of topics, from the war danger, to the increasing likelihood of a financial collapse, coming back to the necessity for an emergency summit of three Presidents as a means to move into a New Paradigm, to overcome the dangers. She called on our viewers to join us to change the agenda, to bring mankind back to science and culture to counter war and destruction. Use the opportunity of this Beethoven year to discover the true beauty of human culture.
With the release of the Horowitz report last week — as false as its final conclusion of no “political bias” of the FBI may be — there are more people now speaking clearly about the criminal intent of the coup plotters in launching impeachment efforts against President Trump. In her weekly webcast, Helga Zepp LaRouche reviewed comments to an LPAC audience of Bill Binney and Larry Johnson about how the report exposes that the FBI used a false dossier, written by a British spy, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and filled with hearsay and outright lies, to set-up Trump campaign officials Papadopoulos and Page to get a FISA Court warrant to launch a spy operation against the campaign.
As the exposure of corruption expands, making the likelihood that the whole impeachment process will backfire against its perpetrators, Nancy Pelosi destroyed any credibility she had as leader of the opposition, in comments she made about Bush going to war against Iraq, based on lies — which she knew about at the time — was NOT an impeachable offense, and about how the process of impeachment against Trump has been going on for two-and-a-half years, though she recently claimed she only just decided to proceed recently!
Helga also reviewed how the recent NATO conference confirmed that it is both “brain dead” and obsolete; how the disunity at COP25 is a good thing; and how EU officials von der Leyen and Christine Lagarde demonstrate, through their statements and actions, the absolute failure of the neo-liberal system. She urged viewers to “not sit on the fence of history”, but to join us, to assure the victory of the New Paradigm.
Even with the near total blackout, in the mainstream media, of the real nature of the coup ongoing against President Trump, the truth is getting out. Helga Zepp LaRouche highlighted the significance of Scott Ritter’s article in Consortium News this week, which showed how a relatively young man, the “anonymous” Whistle Blower, was placed by John Brennan and others into a position from which he could manipulate U.S. policy on Russia and Ukraine, while at the same time undermining Trump’s efforts to change U.S. policy, by coordinating with the coup plotters from the Obama intel team. Ritter’s article should be read along with the speech given by Attorney General Barr, in which he accused those pushing for impeachment of being part of a “seditious coup”, and the updated statements from Barbara Boyd, Bill Binney, and Larry Johnson, to get a grasp on why it is now possible to realize the Schiller Institute’s goal to crush the coup, and bring the U.S. into the New Paradigm.
During her webcast, she blasted the unprecedented escalation against China; presented the true story of what is happening in Xinjiang province, going back to Brzezinski’s playing of the “Islamic Card”, to counter the slanders against China; explained how the “repo crisis” is a symptom of the collapse of the economic/financial system, which can only be reversed by implementing the policies of Lyndon LaRouche; and mocked the declaration of a “Climate Emergency” by the EU, as part of a full offensive to temporarily save the banks, while destroying what’s left of the physical economy.
The objective conditions are there, she concluded, for a great moment of global transformation. What is necessary is for you, the viewers, to play your role as active and informed citizens, by joining with us to make sure that it happens.
Zepp LaRouche opened by discussing what she described as the historic press conference by President Trump on Oct. 9, when he made clear he intended to reverse the last 50 years of geopolitical wars. Referring to Pres. Eisenhower’s identification of the “Military Industrial Complex” as the driver for war, Trump ended with a moving personal statement, identifying the costs of these wars, in terms of American lives lost, as well as those millions lost on the other side in the wars.
She came back several times to the importance of two things: first, President Trump must now work with Russia, through the Astana process, and bring in China, to end the wars with real economic development; second, that the guide to this development process should be the life work of Lyndon LaRouche, whose exoneration is the necessary ingredient to make it work.
LaRouche’s voice is important additionally, as the financial collapse is on, and it has been his scientific approach, embodied in his Four Laws, which is needed to prevent the collapse from unleashing misery globally. We must address directly the panic and cultural pessimism which dominates the population — now is the time that our optimistic view, based on an understanding of the true, creative nature of man, shapes the discussion.
In reviewing the onrush of events, Helga Zepp LaRouche said today that the only way to understand what is happening is to know that the financial system is blowing up, and the West is undergoing an historic breakdown crisis. The push for the impeachment of Trump, which Nancy Pelosi finally agreed to undertake, on a completely flimsy pretext, is being done out of fear that Trump will not accept the agenda imposed from the City of London. This agenda is on display at the U.N. General Assembly session. While much of the corrupt media attention, and that of many world leaders, was on the rage-filled remarks of Greta Thunberg, the actual agenda was laid out by Bank of England chairman Mark Carney — the same person who pushed for “regime change in global financial markets” at the recent Jackson Hole, Wyoming meeting, sponsored by the Federal Reserve.
She discussed the present liquidity crisis as a sign of the desperation of the bankers, and the breakdown crisis that it reflects, as the real reason why they have been escalating their drive for fascist economic policies, disguised as addressing a “climate” crisis. The eco-fascist agenda was first identified by Lyndon LaRouche, based on his studies in the 1950s and ’60s, which led to his rejection of a mathematical approach to economics. LaRouche’s analysis, and the solutions he designed, including his Four Laws of physical economy, are needed today.
Zepp LaRouche called on viewers to organize with the new pamphlet, “CO2 Reduction Is a Mass Murder Policy…” In closing she discussed why, instead of vilifying China, people should ask themselves why China is advancing today, while the west is collapsing.
Presented at the 2019 Euro-Asia Economic Forum, which took place in historic Xi’an, China, bringing together over 1,000 people, representing more than 58 nations from Europe and Asia, for two days of presentations and discussion. Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave this speech as the keynote presentation to the Forum’s “Think Tank Meeting” on Sept. 11.
For most Chinese, it is very difficult to understand why so many institutions in the West are reacting so negatively to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI, or New Silk Road), and why an anti-Chinese mood has been stirred up recently; why in the USA, for example, Chinese scientists and 450,000 students are suspected of being spies, which is reminiscent of the worst days of the McCarthy period, while in Europe, some security authorities are making similar allegations. It is difficult to understand, because the Chinese people experience the reality of the BRI from a completely different perspective.
For the people of China, the experience of the last 40 years of reform and opening-up policy since Deng Xiaoping is an incredible success story. From a relatively poor developing country—as I myself experienced it in 1971, when I was in China for the first time—China has developed into the second, and in some categories even the first national economy in the world. Eight hundred million people have been freed from poverty; a wealthy middle class of 300 million and soon 600 million people with a good standard of living has developed. The pace of modernization is unparalleled in the world, as is demonstrated, for example, by the expansion of a 30,000-kilometer high-speed railway system that will soon connect all the major cities.
Schiller Institute founder, Helga Zepp-LaRouche addresses the 2019 Euro-Asia Economic Forum.
Since President Xi Jinping put the New Silk Road on the agenda in Kazakhstan, in September 2013, China has also made cooperation with the Chinese model of success available to all other states for “win-win” cooperation. In the mere six years that have passed since then, there has been an incredible response to the BRI, which now has 130 nations and more than 30 large international organizations cooperating with it. This, the largest infrastructure project in human history, has launched six major corridors, built railway lines, expanded ports, built industrial parks and science cities, and for the first time offers developing countries the opportunity to overcome poverty and underdevelopment.
From the very beginning, the BRI has been open to all the countries of the world. President Xi Jinping has not only explicitly offered cooperation to the USA and Europe, but has also said in countless speeches, that he is proposing a completely new model of international cooperation among nations, a “community for the shared future of mankind.” In doing so, he has proposed a higher conception of cooperation, unprecedented in history, which overcomes geopolitics and replaces it with a harmonious system of development for the benefit of all. In this sense, the BRI is the absolutely necessary economic basis for a peace order for the 21st century!
While in many countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, and even some in Europe, the New Silk Road is welcomed as the greatest vision, as a concept of “peace through development,” as Pope Paul VI had formulated it in his encyclical of 1967, Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples)—yet its adversaries call the same policy a “competition of systems.” Many Chinese do not understand why this violent reaction, fuelled by geopolitical motives, is taking place. Meanwhile, the West has begun to habituate itself to the changes that have fundamentally altered its political orientation and its scale of values over almost the last 50 years.
The crucial point is that a paradigm shift has taken place in the West since 1971, leading in the opposite direction from the path that China has taken.
Toward a New Fascism
When President Nixon triggered the dissolution of the Bretton Woods System on August 15, 1971, with its fixed exchange rates and gold reserve standard of the dollar, he set the course towards an increasing renunciation of a policy oriented toward the real physical economy, in favor of a policy aimed at the monetary profits of the financial economy, which was increasingly oriented toward maximizing those profits.
This tendency was reinforced by the abolition, in 1999, of the Glass-Steagall banking separation system, and the accompanying complete deregulation of the financial markets, which led to repeated financial bubbles, and finally to the crash of 2008. Yet the central banks have done absolutely nothing to remove the causes of that crash, but on the contrary, have promoted speculation in the casino economy at the expense of the real economy, through continued quantitative easing, zero interest rates and now even negative interest rates. As a result, the trans-Atlantic financial system, today, faces the danger of an even more dramatic crash than that of 11 years ago.
The late American economist, Lyndon H. LaRouche, JR. , 2018
The American economist Lyndon LaRouche, my recently deceased husband, farsightedly warned in August 1971, that a continuation of Nixon’s monetarist policy would lead to the danger of a new depression and a new fascism—if it were not replaced by a new world economic order.
In 1972, LaRouche also opposed the Malthusian-inspired thesis of the Club of Rome, that the “limits to growth” had supposedly been reached; a false doctrine on which the entire environmentalist movement is still based today, and which has led to a “greening” of a large part of the political party spectrum of the West.
LaRouche replied with his book, There Are No Limits to Growth, which emphasizes the role of human creativity as the engine of scientific and technological progress, which is the factor that defines what a “resource” is. At the same time, he also warned that the shift in values towards a rock-drug-sex counterculture associated with this neo-liberal economic policy, would, in the medium term, destroy the cognitive faculties of the population, and thus not only cause a cultural crisis, but also ruin the productivity of the economy.
Unfortunately, this is exactly where we are today.
China took the opposite path in 1978. It replaced the anti-technology policy of the Gang of Four, with a dirigist real economy, based on innovation and financed by a state credit policy.
What is not understood in the West, is that the Chinese economic model is identical, in its basic principles, to the American System, as developed by the first Secretary of the Treasury of the young American Republic, Alexander Hamilton, and his concept of the National Bank and sovereign credit creation. This concept was elaborated by the German economist Friedrich List, who is very famous in China; it was the framework of Lincoln’s economic advisor Henry C. Carey, and it influenced the economic policies of Roosevelt’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, with which he led the U.S. out of the depression of the 1930s. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was later the model for the Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau, with which Germany organized its post-war reconstruction and the German economic miracle.
So today, China is doing the same thing that was the basis of the economic success of the USA and Germany, before they turned away from this policy and replaced it with the neo-liberal model, whose “success” can be seen today in the example of the world’s largest derivatives trader, the bankrupt Deutsche Bank.
Cai Yuanpei and Aesthetic Education
An extremely important aspect of the success of the BRI, which is insufficiently understood in the West, and, in my view, not sufficiently emphasized by China, is the basic cultural orientation of the 2,500-year-old Confucian tradition of Chinese society, which was only interrupted during the ten years of the Cultural Revolution. In China, thanks to this tradition, the common good plays a greater role than individualism, which has acquired a greater significance in the West since the Renaissance, but which, to some extent, has taken on a life of its own with today’s liberal change in values, and has degenerated into “everything is permitted.”
The Confucian tradition also implies that the development of the moral character is the highest goal of education, which is expressed in the term junzi, which roughly corresponds to Friedrich Schiller’s concept of the “beautiful soul.” It has therefore been taken for granted in China, for more than two thousand years, that respect for public morality and the fight against bad qualities in the population are the prerequisites for a highly developed society.
In the West today, with the abolition of the Humboldt educational ideal—the core of which had also been the development of the “beautiful character”—the idea of the necessity for moral improvement goes completely against the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times. It is therefore only from the point of view of the liberal system, that someone could call China’s an “authoritarian system,” but by no means from the point of view of China’s own cultural history.
Four participants of the 2019 Euro-Asia Economic Forum, Italian economist Nino Galloni, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Solidarité et progrès head Jacques Cheminade, and his wife, Odile Mojon.
Anyone who wants to understand Xi Jinping’s intentions must consider his letter in reply to the request of eight professors of the Central Academy of Fine Arts (CAFA), about a year ago, in which he emphasized the extraordinary importance of aesthetic education for the spiritual development of China’s youth. Aesthetic education plays a decisive role in the development of a beautiful spirit; it fills the students with love, and promotes the creation of great works of art.
Confucius had already understood that the study of poetry and good music should have a decisive role in the aesthetic education of man, but a master key to the understanding of Xi Jinping’s vision, not only of the “Chinese Dream,” but of the harmonious development of the entire human community, is the scholar who created the modern Chinese educational system—the first Minister of Education of the Provisional Republic of China, Cai Yuanpei. During his travels in search of the best educational systems of his time, Cai finally, in Leipzig, came across the aesthetic writings of Baumgarten and Schiller, and, through the writings of the philosophical historian Wilhelm Windelband, became aware of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s educational concept. He was totally enthusiastic about the affinity of Schiller’s aesthetic education to Confucian morality, and recognized that Schiller influenced the spirit of German Classicism with “great clarity.”
Cai used these ideas to modernize the Chinese educational system, and created the new term meiju, for aesthetic education. This strengthened the idea, already found in Confucius, that the refinement of character can be achieved by immersion in great classical art, so that in this way, a bridge can be built between the sensual world and reason. In an essay of May 10, 1919, Cai formulated thoughts that could also build a bridge for today’s problems in the West:
“I believe that the root of our country’s problems lies in the short-sightedness of so many people who want quick success or quick money without any higher moral thinking. The only medicine is aesthetic education.”
Is the Good No Longer Conceivable?
Many people in the West today, find it hard to believe that China could be serious about its idea of win-win cooperation, because they have become too accustomed to the paradigm shift already described, with its axiom that all human interactions must be a zero-sum game. But we in the West should remember that the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which ended 150 years of religious war, established the principle that a lasting order of peace must take into account the interests of others. It was the Peace of Westphalia which established international law and laid the foundations for the UN Charter.
It is the West, and not China, which has moved away from the principles laid down therein, such as absolute respect for the sovereignty of all states—adopting instead concepts such as the alleged R2P (right to protect), so-called “humanitarian” wars of intervention, and regime change through color revolutions, as we are currently witnessing in Hong Kong.
Xi Jinping’s vision of a “community of a shared future of humanity” corresponds to the Confucian notion of a harmonious development of all, a tradition to which Cai Yuanpei also contributed essential thoughts. He designed the dream of a “great community of the whole world” (datong shijie), which would be harmonious and without armies and wars, and which could be achieved through the dialogue of cultures, comparing the partaking of a culture by the culture of other peoples, with the breathing, eating and drinking of the human body, without which it can not live. Indeed, a look at history shows that any higher development of mankind has always taken place through involvement with other cultures.
It is significant that hardly any real analysts or politicians in the West have responded to Xi Jinping’s idea of a “community of destiny for the future of mankind” in any significant way. If it is mentioned at all, it is only in passing, as if it were not worth regard as anything other than communist propaganda, and as an announcement of China’s intention to play a leading role on the world stage in the future. But what Xi said at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 2017, was that by 2050, at about the 100th anniversary of the founding of the PRC, the people of China should have democracy, human rights, a developed culture and a happy life. And, not only the Chinese, but all peoples on this planet.
This implicitly poses the question—and answers it positively—that should occupy all philosophers, scientists and statesmen and stateswomen, in view of the many chaotic developments on our planet: Can the human species give itself an order that guarantees its long-term survival, and is appropriate to the specific dignity of humanity as a creative species? Xi’s concept of the one community of a shared future, very clearly presents the thought that the idea of the one mankind be put first, and only then can national interests be defined in agreement with it.
West Must Return to Cusa, Leibniz, Schiller
In order to be able to keep up with the discussion on this level, of how to shape this new order of “reformed international governance,” we in the West must return to the very humanist traditions that we have pushed aside with the liberal system. Corresponding ideas can be found in Nicholas of Cusa, who considered a concordance of macrocosms possible only through a harmonious development of all microcosms. Or in Gottfried Leibniz’ idea of a pre-stabilized harmony of the universe, in which a higher order is possible, because with higher development, the degrees of freedom increase and therefore we live in the best of all possible worlds. Or in Friedrich Schiller’s idea that there need be no contradiction between the citizen of the world and the patriot, because both are oriented towards the common good of the future of mankind.
In conclusion: China must help the West to understand the concept of the New Silk Road. China must not react defensively to the anti-Chinese attacks, but should instead emphasize the brilliant periods of its own history all the more proudly and self-confidently: the depth of Confucian moral theory, which inspired Benjamin Franklin to his own moral philosophy; the profundity of Chinese poetry; the beauty of Literati Painting. And China should challenge the West to revive its own humanistic traditions, of the Renaissance, of Dante, Petrarch and Brunelleschi; of classical music in the culture of Bach, Beethoven and Schiller; and of republican traditions in politics. Only when the West experiences a great “rejuvenation,” reviving the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List and Henry C. Carey, can the problem be solved.
Leibniz was very enthusiastic about China, and he tried to learn as much as possible about it from the Jesuit missionaries. He was fascinated that the Kangxi Emperor had come to the same mathematical conclusions as he had, and concluded that there are universal principles accessible to all people and cultures. He even thought the Chinese were morally superior. He wrote: “In light of the growing moral decay, it seems to be almost necessary that Chinese missionaries be sent to us, who could teach us the application and practice of a natural theology. I therefore believe: that if a wise man were chosen, to judge not the beauty of goddesses, but the excellence of peoples, he would give the golden apple to the Chinese.”
The German middle class and the German small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and cities such as Genoa, Vienna, Zurich, Lyon, Duisburg and Hamburg, and many more, have long since come to realize the potential that lies not only in the expansion of bilateral relations, but above all in the expansion of cooperation in third countries, such as the industrialization of Africa and Southwest Asia.
The enthusiasm that is evident in international cooperation in space travel—the ESA cooperation in the projects of the Chinese Space Agency, the idea of international cooperation on the future Chinese space station, the construction of an international moon village and the terraforming on Mars—underlines that Xi Jinping’s vision of the community of a shared destiny for the future of mankind is within reach.
As the storm signals of the impending financial crisis become more alarming, we are witnessing what is probably the largest social engineering experiment that has ever taken place. The aim of this trans-Atlantic campaign is to make the population—with the help of orchestrated climate hysteria (“We only have 18 months left!”)—voluntarily accept a collapse of its standard of living while directing all investments into “green” projects.
At the same time, the “Great Transformation of the World Economy” is supposed to give “green” investors huge profits and—together with the miraculous increase in money supply via endless “Quantitative Easing”—postpone the collapse of the hopelessly bankrupt financial system once again.
Sixteen-year-old climate star Greta Thunberg, the FridaysForFuture (F4F) student movement, and the Extinction Rebellion (XR) are being strategically exploited by the neoliberal financial oligarchy through a whole complex of institutions and organizations—including investment bankers, consulting firms, the Tavistock Institute, entire battalions of psychologists and behavioral therapists, the World Bank, the European Union (EU), and several billionaires, as well as internet platforms and veterans of the population reduction lobby.
‘Green New Deal’ is a Bad Deal
It uses the whole gamut—from panic-stricken children to “Green New Deal”-advocating “internet personalities,” to groups that are also willing to cross the boundaries from civil resistance to more violent forms—to enforce the demands of the Paris Climate Agreement well before the agreed-upon date of 2050. It includes all the green cadres, from Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project to the internet platform wedonthavetime.org, “We don’t have time,” on whose advisory board sits, among others, Greta Thunberg.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel who, along with Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, had previously praised the F4F movement, commented in her summer press conference that Thunberg’s demonstrations had certainly accelerated the government’s decision-making process toward implementing efficient measures to reduce CO₂ emissions. The German “Climate Cabinet” will announce a whole series of measures on September 20, among which the determination of a “carbon price” will be of central importance. Whoever “pollutes” the atmosphere with carbon dioxide will have to pay a price in the future.
Thus, Mrs. Merkel has finally joined the camp of the ideological climate lobby that wants to “nudge” the population, via an increase in prices for energy and transport, to change its behavior. In practical terms, this will mean that a majority of people will no longer be able to afford to use cars or planes, or have adequate heating or power supply.
It means a bonanza for investors, on the other hand, should this measure become policy. This point was made at a June 7 event on “Sustainable Financing” at the House of Finance in Frankfurt by Dr. Christian Thimann, Chairman of the Executive Board of Athene Deutschland Holding, a subsidiary of the insurance company Athora and a long-time employee of the IMF and European Central Bank.
Often one strives unsuccessfully for years for something, and then suddenly something surprising happens, which changes everything. For example, the topics of the “limits to growth” of the Club of Rome, and climate protection, have been under discussion for decades, but only after the notable phrase, “The climate goals will only be achieved if we direct the capital flows into sectors with low emissions,” was formulated in the Paris Climate Agreement, did the climate for the financial sector change completely. Suddenly the issue of “sustainable investment” became central to the economy; suddenly twelve million young people took to the streets, and suddenly this became a “big thing.”
The EU is working on guidelines on emissions trading and climate protection, and legislation that is designed to make these guidelines binding for investment in green technology. For an industrialized nation like Germany, but also for the whole of Europe, this is nothing less than a pre-programmed course for economic suicide.
For what neither the EU bureaucrats nor the sharks of the financial sector understand, are the principles upon which the real, physical economy is built: There is a direct correlation between the energy-flux density applied in the production process, the productivity of the economy, and the number of people whose lives can be supported through these parameters. A diversion of investments exclusively into so-called “sustainable” areas, e.g., “renewable” energy sources such as electricity generated by wind turbines and solar cells, as well as carbon emissions trading, and mandating that the transport, construction, and agriculture sectors must comply with climate regulations, in fact means devolution back to pre-industrial society. For Germany it effectively means the emigration of young workers, more of the aging population left without adequate care, and general impoverishment.
Scientists Dispute Anthropogenic Climate Change
This “Great Transformation,” the complete decarbonization of the world economy, which has long been propagated by German climatologist Hans Joachim “John” Schellnhuber, CBE, is all the more criminal, because the alleged scientific consensus on the thesis of anthropogenic climate change is a fiction. There are many declarations worldwide that have been signed by thousands of scientists, including the late Frederick Seitz, the former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; scientists and scholars associated with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC); and hundreds of Italian, Scandinavian, and Japanese scientists addressing this very problem.
Contested by all these experts, is the claim that the anthropogenic contribution to climate change plays any noteworthy role. They argue that the causes of changes in the Earth’s climate are, above all, natural fluctuations that have to do with processes on the Sun, cosmic radiation influences on cloud formation, the Solar system’s changing position in the Milky Way galaxy, and other cosmic phenomena.
They also stress that climate simulation models do not reflect the actual climatic fluctuations of the past 10,000 years, and that nature—not man—determines the climate. As the recent petition by the Committee of Italian Scientists led by the renowned Professor Uberto Crescenti highlights, it is therefore illusory to suggest that a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions could control the climate.
However, Christoph M. Schmidt, the chairman of the so-called economic “Five Wise Men” of Germany, the top advisory body of the German government, did not refrain from praising the F4F movement at its Congress in Dortmund, for allegedly making it clear to the public that present policies cannot continue. Schmidt also fully supported an increase in the CO₂ emission allowance price as a “basic tool” in the fight against climate change. His appearance in Dortmund and his statement are equally scandalous in view of the consequences of this policy and raise the question of whether he should resign because of incompetence, or because of profiteering.
Banks and Foundations in the Climate Line-Up
In the financial markets, initiatives are popping up such as the Climate Bond Initiative, which seeks to turn the $100 trillion global bond market into a giant new platform for investing in sustainable economic activity of all kinds. (The EU has so far provided “only” $360 billion.) Participants in this initiative include the Rockefeller Foundation, Bank of America, HSBC, the Inter-American Development Bank, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the government of Switzerland, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Frederick Mulder Foundation, OAK Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, FSD Africa, NAB (Australia), European Climate Foundation, the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trust, the EU’s Horizon 2020 Program, Climate Works Foundation, UNDP, Climate KIC, KR Foundation, and Martin International. Equally active are the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), The Economist magazine, and the Green Climate Fund, to name but a few.
Ironically, it is clear to Greta Thunberg herself that wealthy interests are involved in the controversy. In a speech to schoolchildren in Katowice, Poland, she said:
“I do not care about being known. My concern is climate justice and a livable planet. Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunities of a small group of people who want to make more and more money.”
However, exactly these sentences were deleted in the publication of this speech by the Internet platform Avaaz. Avaaz, a product of the George Soros-related MoveOn.org platform, specializes in collecting personal information on every conceivable topic by organizing petitions around the world.
Will the Real Economy Survive?
This is precisely the point: At a time when the real economy in Europe and the United States is crumbling and the next collapse of the financial system can be delayed only by a new flood of liquidity, a new gold rush for green investment is being generated, which perhaps may enable speculators to make a large amount of money for a short time. The effect on the developing countries will be catastrophic, the non-affluent part of the population in our country will be clobbered, and after a super-short boom in the monetary area, Germany will be destroyed as an industrial location.
It is high time to pull the emergency brake. But who will do this if the EU and the Berlin government are part of the problem, and the Greens obviously represent the same thing, only colored in green? It can only come from the parts of society that are the victims of that policy: the middle class, the productive part of the working population, parents, teachers and all thinking people.
We urgently need a public debate on these issues. Germany is currently driving at full speed off the cliff!
French President Emmanuel Macron has capitulated to the Yellow Vests revolt in France—what’s really going on?
The uprising in France is not a series of “protests”—this is the type of phenomenon that Lyndon LaRouche has previously identified as a “mass strike” (referring to the insights Rosa Luxemburg).
As the Schiller Institute has warned for decades, the so-called “climate change” scare is a cover story for a Malthusian policy of radical austerity—a British-globalist plan to reduce living standards, reduce energy consumption, and reduce population.
Now we’re seeing that underlying reality bursting through.