---

---

---

The New Era of Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Conflict
http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/digital/p…

Defense Reform As an Integral Part of a Security Conception for the Russian Federation: a Systemic and Dynamic Evaluation
http://www.dynacon.ru/content/article…

How the Obama Administration Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
http://www.thenation.com/article/1926…

Vertrag über gute Nachbarschaft, Partnerschaft und Zusammenarbeit zwischen der BRD und der UdSSR, 9. November 1990
http://www.chronik-der-mauer.de/index…

Ich bin hier, um über eine großartige Vision einer Welt ohne Krieg und Terrorismus zu sprechen.

Nun, das klingt an diesem Zeitpunkt, da wir am Rande des Dritten Weltkriegs stehen, wie eine recht unwahrscheinliche Vorstellung. Selbst Gorbatschow hat das kürzlich sehr klar ausgesprochen, und auch viele andere sehen die Gefahr. Und die Welt wird derzeit von einer Welle des Terrorismus zerrissen, bei der es auch nicht einfach ist, sich vorzustellen, wie wir uns aus dieser barbarischen Tendenz wieder befreien können.

Aber wir können es schaffen. Das Potential, die Welt wieder in Ordnung zu bringen, existiert. Es existiert in Form des Beginns einer neuen Weltwirtschaftsordnung, die seit anderthalb Jahren von den BRICS-Staaten, den CELAC-Staaten in Lateinamerika und einigen asiatischen und afrikanischen Ländern aufgebaut wird. Aber damit diese Vision wirklich zu einer realistischen Perspektive für die Zukunft werden kann, ist es absolut unverzichtbar, daß wir den Kurs insbesondere der Vereinigten Staaten und Europas ändern.

Denn dies geht nur, wenn sich die Vereinigten Staaten den BRICS-Ländern anschließen und China, Indien und die übrigen BRICS-Nationen nicht als geopolitische Bedrohung ihrer oder unserer geopolitischen Interessen betrachten. Es muß absolut klar sein, daß Krieg im Zeitalter thermonuklearer Waffen kein Mittel zur Lösung von Konflikten mehr sein kann – es sei denn, man will Selbstmord verüben.

Krieg und Terrorismus sind die beiden bösen Zwillinge unserer Zeit, die sich in einer inzestuösen Verbindung fortpflanzen. Es gibt Terrorismus. Dann gibt es den Krieg gegen den Terrorismus, der weitere Terroristen erzeugt, was wiederum die Notwendigkeit weiterer Kriege schafft. Dann haben wir noch mehr Terrorismus – und so geht es weiter, bis ein Dritter Weltkrieg droht.

Man sollte verstehen, daß Krieg und Terrorismus – wahrscheinlich schon immer, aber speziell in unserer jetzigen Zeit – Werkzeuge eines imperialen Systems sind, das den Abstand zwischen arm und reich in einer völlig wahnsinnigen, perversen Art und Weise vergrößert hat; ein System, das eine Lage geschaffen hat, in der die reichsten Menschen – 85 Personen – genausoviel besitzen wie die ärmere Hälfte der Menschheit – 3,5 Milliarden Menschen.

Papst Franziskus nannte dieses System ein System, das tötet, und er fordert, daß man das fünfte Gebot – „Du sollst nicht töten“ – auf dieses System anwendet. Und hier in Manhattan, an der Wall Street, haben wir in gewissermaßen das Hauptquartier dieses Systems – zusammen mit der Londoner City.

Aber hier war auch der Beginn der amerikanischen Republik und der amerikanischen Verfassung, die Alexander Hamilton verkörperte, und der Idee, daß die souveräne Regierung das Recht hat, für das Gemeinwohl ihren eigenen Kredit zu schöpfen, und daß dieser ausschließlich dem Wohl der Nation zu dienen hat.

New York war der Beginn der Republik der Vereinigten Staaten und ihrer Institutionen, und die Wall Street war von Anfang an der Feind dieses amerikanischen Modells. Sie war schon immer der Brückenkopf für die Subversion durch das Britische Empire – die ganze Zeit über. Sie finanzierte stets die falschen Leute, darunter auch die Konföderation [der Südstaaten] im amerikanischen Bürgerkrieg.

Sie war also verbunden mit der Idee, die Amerikanische Revolution rückgängig zu machen und die amerikanischen Kolonien wieder unter die Herrschaft des Britischen Empires zurückzuführen, und heute laufen die Feinde der Idee Amerikas als Republik Amok. Einige von ihnen haben gerade ein Lunch oder Dinner mit dem Vertreter des Britischen Empires, der gerade die Vereinigten Staaten besucht, nämlich Tony Blair.

Das Schicksal der Welt wird davon abhängen, welche dieser beiden Traditionen sich durchsetzt. Und wir haben uns heute hier versammelt, um von dieser Konferenz aus einen Prozeß in Gang zu setzen, um Amerika wieder zu einer Republik zu machen und die Politik von Alexander Hamilton und John Quincy Adams umzusetzen, damit die Vereinigten Staaten wieder eine Republik werden, in einem Bündnis mit anderen, vollkommen souveränen Republiken.

Die Wall Street steht vor dem Zusammenbruch

Die gute Nachricht bei alledem ist, daß die Wall Street vor dem Zusammenbruch steht. Und die noch bessere Nachricht ist, daß es bereits eine Alternative zu diesem System gibt. Aber die Banken der Wall Street und auch in der Eurozone, die „zu groß zum Scheitern“ („too big to fail“) sind, stehen vor dem Zusammenbruch.

Am Donnerstag dieser Woche gab die Schweizerische Nationalbank ihre Bindung an den Euro auf, und zwar deshalb, weil diese nicht mehr aufrecht zu halten war, nachdem die Schweiz bereits Hunderte Milliarden Franken eingesetzt hatte, um eine Aufwertung des Schweizer Franken zu verhindern, und sie erwartete, daß in der kommenden Woche sehr stürmische Dinge bevorstehen. Und deshalb zog die Schweiz sozusagen die Notbremse und beschloß, die Parität aufzugeben.

Am Donnerstag der kommenden Woche – und das ist eine der Schweizer Befürchtungen – wird die Europäische Zentralbank sehr wahrscheinlich eine gigantische „quantitative Lockerung“ beschließen und uneingeschränkt Staatsanleihen aufkaufen. Sie wird tun, was Mario Draghi schon vor zwei Jahren angekündigt hatte, als der Euro in großen Schwierigkeiten war: Er sagte, er werde alles tun, um den Euro zu retten. Und „alles“ bedeutet, unbegrenzt Geld zu drucken.

Am 25. [Januar] finden die griechischen Wahlen statt, und alles deutet darauf hin, daß die Oppositionsparteien – SYRIZA und die Unabhängigen Griechen – die Mehrheit gewinnen werden. Und sie haben bereits angekündigt, daß sie in diesem Fall das Memorandum der Troika aufkündigen werden: das Memorandum, das der griechischen Bevölkerung unvorstellbare Leiden auferlegt hat – Austerität, höhere Selbstmordrate, höhere Sterberate. Und dagegen gibt es jetzt einen Volksaufstand in Griechenland.

Wenn die Oppositionsparteien gewinnen, dann wird das wahrscheinlich der Anfang vom Ende des Euro sein, denn wenn die EU-Kommission den Forderungen von SYRIZA nachgibt und die Austerität aufgibt, dann wird sich dies wie ein Buschfeuer nach Italien, Spanien, Portugal, Frankreich und wahrscheinlich viele andere Länder ausbreiten. Aber wenn sie das nicht tun, dann wird das Ultimatum wahrscheinlich bedeuten, daß Griechenland aus der Eurozone austritt, und auch das wird sich wie ein Buschfeuer ausbreiten.

Nun, die Wall Street steht nicht besser da, denn die Too-big-to-fail-Banken, die schon zuvor in einer verzweifelten Lage waren, haben spekuliert und in Schiefergas und -öl investiert und dabei etwa eine Billion Dollar an Schulden aufgehäuft, die bei einem Ölpreis von 80, 100 oder 120 Dollar zurückgezahlt werden sollten – aber nicht bei 45 Dollar, wo er im Moment steht. Und dazu haben sie noch etwa 20 Billionen Dollar an ausstehenden Derivatkontrakten unterschiedlichster Art angehäuft.

Das hat eine ähnliche Lage geschaffen wie bei der Krise der nachrangigen Hypotheken 2007, wo aufgrund des Zusammenbruchs der Eigenheimpreise viele Menschen auf Hypotheken sitzen blieben, die höher waren als der Wert ihrer Häuser, und das führte dann zum Zusammenbruch des sekundären Immobilienmarkts, der wiederum zum Kollaps von Lehman Brothers und fast zum Untergang des Systems führte.

Das bedeutet, daß das transatlantische Finanzsystem vor dem Untergang steht. Und angesichts der Tatsache, daß das System etwa zwei Billiarden Dollar an ausstehenden Derivaten hat, ist es völlig ausgeschlossen, daß dieses Geld zurückgezahlt werden kann – weder durch einen Bail-out noch durch einen Bail-in. Und das ist der Grund, warum wir vor dem Dritten Weltkrieg stehen.

Die Kriegsgefahr

Denn der Kollaps des transatlantischen Systems ist die eigentliche Ursache der Kriegsgefahr. Der Zünder ist offensichtlich die Krise in der Ukraine, aber in Wahrheit haben wir es mit einer geopolitischen Konfrontation gegen Rußland und China zu tun. Und wenn Gorbatschow, der im Westen sehr beliebt ist, aber nicht in Rußland, jetzt in einer dramatischen Änderung seiner Ansichten Putin verteidigt und warnt, wenn es zu einem Krieg um die Ukraine käme, würde das zu einem großen Krieg führen, in dem auch atomare Waffen eingesetzt würden, und daß dies dann zur Auslöschung der Zivilisation führen würde, dann kann ich nur sagen, daß das absolut richtig ist.

Derzeit erleben wir eine Aufstellung des US-Militärs und der NATO, die auf einer Erstschlagsdoktrin beruht. Sie haben die NATO nach Osten ausgeweitet und Rußland eingekreist. Die Vereinigten Staaten haben eine Doktrin des „sofortigen globalen Schlages“ angenommen, und das ist eine Erstschlagsdoktrin. Das globale Raketenabwehrsystem der USA ist ein Erstschlagssystem. Und die Vereinigten Staaten sind dabei, zu dem gleichen Zweck ihr gesamtes Kernwaffenarsenal zu modernisieren…

Rußland bildet sich diese Bedrohung nicht ein, sie ist sehr real. Deshalb hat Rußland über die Weihnachtstage reagiert und eine neue russische Militärdoktrin eingeführt, in der sie sagen, daß sie sich ihrerseits das Recht vorbehalten, Kernwaffen einzusetzen, um sich gegen einen Erstschlag der USA zu verteidigen. Sie investieren in neue U-Boote. Sie stationieren Interkontinentalraketen auf Zügen, damit sie keine einfachen Ziele sind. Auch sie modernisieren ihre nuklearen Kapazitäten und ihre Zielerfassungssysteme.

Die Dezemberausgabe des Magazins The Nation enthielt einen Artikel von Prof. Theodore Postol, in dem er mit vielen Details die Erstschlagsposition der Vereinigten Staaten beschreibt. Und er sagt, es sei ein fundamentaler Fehler der Leute, die dies zu verantworten haben, anzunehmen, daß es möglich sei, den Zweitschlag eines Gegners zu neutralisieren. Denn es bestehe ein grundsätzlicher Unterschied zwischen einem konventionellen Krieg, in dem man soviel wie möglich vom Gegner zerstört, bis der Gegner besiegt ist, während das in einem nuklearen Krieg nicht geht. Und er rechnet dann im einzelnen vor, warum die Russen in jedem Falle sechs Minuten haben, um ihre Kapazitäten zu starten, sobald sie angegriffen werden. Und das bedeutet die Auslöschung.

(Frau Zepp-LaRouche gab dann einen historischen Überblick darüber, wie sich diese Lage im Verlauf der letzten 70 Jahre entwickelte, bis zu den jüngsten Anschlägen in Paris, und über die Initiativen der BRICS-Staaten, insbesondere der chinesischen Initiativen des Wirtschaftsgürtels der Seidenstraße und der Maritimen Seidenstraße des 21. Jahrhunderts als Ausweg aus der Krise. Sie schloß ihre Rede mit einem Appell an die Amerikaner und speziell an die Menschen in New York:)

Deshalb müssen die Vereinigten Staaten nun mit den BRICS-Staaten zusammenarbeiten, mit Rußland, China, Indien, Iran und Ägypten, um Südwestasien als Verlängerung der Neuen Seidenstraße zu entwickeln. Das ist ein Programm, das wir schon 2012 ausführlich dargelegt haben, mit konkreten Projekten – Wasserregulierung, Begrünung der Wüsten, Aufbau neuer Infrastruktur, Aufbau neuer Städte, dort wo jetzt Hunger und Tod herrschen -, was die Armut und damit auch die Brutstätten für den Terrorismus beseitigen würde.

Ich denke aufgrund meiner Erfahrungen, daß die Menschen in den Vereinigten Staaten dazu tendieren, das Ausmaß des Antiamerikanismus in aller Welt nach drei Bush-Administrationen und sechs Jahren Obama vollkommen zu unterschätzen. Kriege, die auf Lügen beruhten, forderten viele Millionen Menschen das Leben oder haben ihr Leben zerstört. Ich erwähnte den Fall des Irak – die Kriege und das Embargo -, aber denken Sie nur an die Lage in Syrien, in Libyen, in Afghanistan, wo so viele Menschen getötet und traumatisiert wurden, wo so viele Soldaten – amerikanische Soldaten und andere – getötet, verletzt, traumatisiert und für den Rest ihres Lebens zerstört wurden. Und natürlich auch die Angehörigen der Opfer des 11. September.

Um diese gewaltigen Leiden so vieler Menschen zu überwinden – ein solches millionenfaches Verbrechen, Kriegsverbrechen -, brauchen wir wirklich ein größeres, außerordentliches Gutes, um es an seine Stelle zu setzen.

Die Voraussetzung dafür ist, die Kasinowirtschaft der Wall Street zu beenden, sofort das Glass-Steagall-Trennbankengesetz wieder im Kraft zu setzen, eine Hamiltonische Nationalbank einzuführen, die unbezahlbaren Derivate und toxischen Schulden zu beseitigen und die verbleibenden Schulden in einer Nationalbank als Grundlage eines neuen Kreditsystems zu reorganisieren – genau so, wie es Hamilton getan hat. Und deshalb muß New York, in der Tradition Hamiltons, wieder zum Ausgangspunkt für die Wiederherstellung der Vereinigten Staaten als Republik werden.

Nun, die New Yorker sind in aller Welt dafür berühmt, daß New York die geistige Hauptstadt der Vereinigten Staaten ist. Und diese Stadt ist ein wirklicher Schmelztiegel, in dem es Vertreter fast aller Nationen auf diesem Planeten gibt. Und jeder von ihnen leistet einen ganz speziellen Beitrag zu der ganz besonderen Idee von New York, und deshalb ist New York ein Synonym für eine geeinte Menschheit.

Die New Yorker sind stolz darauf, intelligenter, nachdenklicher und kreativer zu sein als die meisten Amerikaner, und deshalb denke ich, daß dies die besten Voraussetzungen sind, um von hier aus eine nationale Bewegung in Gang zu setzen, um eine Neue Ära der Zivilisation einzuleiten und die bestialische Ära der Kriege und des Terrorismus für immer zu beenden. Lassen Sie mich deshalb in diesen guten Geist John F. Kennedys in seiner berühmten Rede sagen: Ich bin ein New Yorker.

Der Kongreßabgeordnete Walter Jones führt eine Kampagne für die Aufhebung der Geheimhaltung des 28seitigen Kapitels aus dem Untersuchungsbericht des Kongresses über die Rolle Saudi-Arabiens bei der Finanzierung der Anschläge des 11. September 2001. Er übermittelte der New Yorker Konferenz des Schiller-Instituts für folgende Videobotschaft.

Ich möchte Sie alle zur Konferenz des Schiller-Instituts an diesem Samstag begrüßen. Ich bin der Kongreßabgeordnete Walter Jones und vertrete den 3. Kongreßwahlkreis von Nord-Carolina. Und ich möchte Sie bitten, sich uns anzuschließen. Seit zwei Jahren bemühen wir uns darum, daß die Familien, die unter dem 11. September gelitten haben, die 28 Seiten aus dem Untersuchungsbericht zum 11. September, die unter Geheimhaltung gestellt wurden, lesen können. Senator Bob Graham, der frühere Senator aus Florida, hat sehr viel getan und versucht, um dem amerikanischen Volk die Gelegenheit zu verschaffen, diese 28 Seiten zu lesen. Wie Sie sich vielleicht erinnern oder auch nicht, hatten Bob Graham und Richard Shelby, beides Senatoren, diesen Bericht über den 11. September verfaßt. Und die Regierung Bush beschloß – niemand versteht, warum -, daß diese 28 Seiten aus dem Bericht unter Geheimhaltung gestellt werden müssen.

Aber Leute wie ich, Leute wie Stephen Lynch, Thomas Massie und andere im Repräsentantenhaus haben diese 28 Seiten gelesen: Es gibt keinen Grund dafür, diese 28 Seiten geheimzuhalten. Es gibt nichts in den 28 Seiten, das mit der nationalen Sicherheit zu hat – nichts. Womit sie sich befassen, sind Verbindungen. Ich kann dazu nicht mehr sagen.

Aber ich möchte mich heute an Sie wenden, weil wir Ihre Hilfe brauchen. Greifen Sie zum Telefon und melden Sie sich bei Ihrem Senator aus New York, aus New Jersey, Connecticut oder wo immer Sie leben, und Ihrem Abgeordneten, und bitten Sie, den Abgeordneten Stephen Lynch aus Massachusetts, den Abgeordneten Thomas Massie aus Kentucky und mich selbst aus Nord-Carolina zu unterstützen und die Kongreßresolution HR 14 [für die Aufhebung der Geheimhaltung] zu unterschreiben. Sie können dazu die Nummer (202) 224-3121 anrufen.

Ein Beispiel ist Senator Schumer aus New York: Er sollte ganz vorne mit dabei sein, für die Familien, die [bei den Anschlägen] so viel verloren haben. Senator Cory Booker aus New Jersey sollte auch ganz vorne mit dabei sein, für die Familien, die so viel verloren haben.

Es ist deren Entscheidung, aber wenn sie von Ihnen hören, dann werden sie sich vielleicht entscheiden, daß sie die 28 Seiten lesen sollten, oder sie könnten sich auch entscheiden, daß sie eine Resolution auf der Seite des Senats einbringen, so wie wir sie auf seiten des Repräsentantenhauses eingebracht haben, und Präsident Obama auffordern, sein Wort, das er den Familien des 11. September gegeben hat, zu halten. Er hat den Angehörigen der Opfer des 11. September zweimal gesagt: „Ich werde diese Informationen entklassifizieren.“ Aber bisher hat er es nicht getan.

Stephen Lynch und ich haben dem Präsidenten im April 2014 geschrieben und den Präsidenten daran erinnert, daß er den Familien dieses Versprechen gegeben hat, und hier stehen wir, im Januar 2015, und haben bisher nicht einmal eine Antwort vom Präsidenten erhalten. Das ist nicht fair gegenüber den Familien, die so viel verloren haben.

Es liegt also bei Ihnen, uns zu unterstützen. Wir werden das nicht auf sich beruhen lassen. Ich nenne es einen Trommelschlag: Wir werden auch weiterhin die Trommeln schlagen. Die Familien verdienen es, und Sie – das amerikanische Volk – verdienen es, die Wahrheit über den 11. September zu kennen.

Vielen Dank, daß Sie mich heute zu Ihnen reden ließen. Setzen wir uns gemeinsam für Wahrheit und Ehrlichkeit ein, um Amerika zu retten. Vielen Dank.

Im Namen Seiner Exzellenz, Botschafter Kingsley Mamabolo, Ständiger Vertreter Südafrikas bei den Vereinten Nationen, möchte ich Ihnen und den Veranstaltern der Konferenz, darunter Herrn Lawrence Freeman, dafür danken, daß Sie uns zu dieser Konferenz eingeladen haben und Ihnen einige unserer Gedanken zu dem Thema „Die BRICS-Nationen erneuern Dr. Martin Luther Kings Traum: Wirtschaftliche Gerechtigkeit ist ein unveräußerliches Recht“ mitteilen lassen.

Martin Luther King unterstützte aktiv den Kampf des südafrikanischen Volkes gegen die Apartheid. 1963 wurde das Sonderkomitee der Vereinten Nationen gegen Apartheid gegründet, und einer der ersten Briefe, die das Komitee erhielt, war von Martin Luther King. Zusammen mit dem Friedensnobelpreisträger von 1960, dem ANC-Führer Albert J. Lutuli, machte Martin Luther King am Menschenrechtstag, dem 10. Dezember 1962, einen „Aufruf zum Handeln gegen Apartheid“. In einer Rede, die er 1964 in London hielt, wiederholte Martin Luther King seinen Aufruf zu Wirtschaftssanktionen gegen Südafrika und sagte: „Wir können uns an einer Form gewaltloser Aktion beteiligen, die Südafrika Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit bringen könnte – die Aktion, zu der führende Afrikaner aufgerufen haben -, in einer mächtigen Bewegung für Wirtschaftssanktionen.“

Es waren diese Sanktionen, die unter anderem die Apartheid-Regierung zwangen, Nelson Mandela aus dem Gefängnis freizulassen. Nach seiner Freilassung kam Mandela in diese Kirche, um Ihnen, den Menschen von Harlem, und allen Amerikanern, die den Kampf des südafrikanischen Volkes unterstützten, seinen Dank auszusprechen.

BRICS

Zur BRICS: Ich stimme zu, daß dies erst der Anfang einer neuen internationalen Wirtschaftsordnung ist; es wird ein stufenweiser, aber stetiger Prozeß sein. Ich stimme auch zu, daß nicht alle über die Bedeutung der BRICS-Bank einer Meinung sind, aber die Schaffung der BRICS-Bank ist bedeutsam für die zukünftige internationale Ordnung – aus drei Gründen.

Erstens beweist sie die Lebensfähigkeit und Dynamik der BRICS, trotz aller Skepsis und Kritik der letzten Jahre. Ein Teil der Kritik ist berechtigt, weil BRICS-Nationen in jüngster Zeit weniger Wachstum erleben; sogar Chinas Wirtschaftswachstum scheint sich aus verschiedenen Gründen zu verlangsamen. Kritiker der BRICS-Bank verweisen auch auf die unterschiedlichen Ansichten unter den Mitgliedern als Beweis für ernste Probleme der Bank.

Aber das geht am Kern der Sache vorbei. Es wird immer unterschiedliche Meinungen und Ansichten unter den BRICS-Ländern geben, genauso wie es Unterschiede zwischen G7-Mitgliedern gibt. Das wichtige ist jedoch, ob die Mitgliedstaaten ein großes gemeinsames Ziel haben, welches sie trotz der Unterschiede einigen kann. Die Antwort lautet: Entwicklung.

Anders als die G7-Mitgliedstaaten sind die BRICS-Mitglieder noch weitgehend Entwicklungsländer, und diese Situation bedeutet, daß diese Länder sich noch lange Zeit darauf konzentrieren werden, wie sie den Lebensstandard ihrer Bürger verbessern können. Auch andere Entwicklungsländer brauchen dringend Finanzierung für Infrastrukturprojekte.

Zweites belegt die BRICS-Bank Chinas globale Führungsrolle. Angesichts Chinas gewaltiger Größe und schneller Entwicklung besteht kaum Zweifel daran, daß die Welt Chinas Führung wirklich braucht. Dabei muß China sorgfältig darauf achten, daß ein Gleichgewicht zwischen seinem eigenen Einfluß auf die Bank und dem Einfluß anderer Mitglieder aufrechterhalten wird.

Es ist daher ein gutes Zeichen, daß zwar Shanghai als Sitz der neuen Bank ausgewählt wurde, aber der erste Präsident ein Inder sein wird, der erste Vorsitzende des Gouverneurrates russisch, der erste Vorsitzende des Direktoriums brasilianisch, und daß das erste regionale Zentrum der Bank in Südafrika sein wird.

Drittens ist die BRICS-Bank bedeutsam, weil sie eine direkte Herausforderung gegenüber der vom Westen angeführten globalen Ordnung ist. Viele sehen in der neuen BRICS-Bank eine Reaktion auf die gescheiterten Reformen beim IWF und der Weltbank, weil Entwicklungsländer wie China und Indien ihren Einfluß in diesen Institutionen nicht vergrößern können.

Man sollte allerdings nicht vergessen, daß die BRICS-Bank gegenwärtig die liberale Wirtschaftsordnung nicht infragestellt. China und Indien sind die vielleicht größten Nutznießer einer offenen liberalen Wirtschaftsordnung; und daher sollte die BRICS-Bank versuchen, den IWF und die Weltbank anzuspornen, offener und transparenter zu werden. Letztlich sollte es beim Wettbewerb zwischen der BRICS-Bank und dem IWF und der Weltbank um die Effizienz gehen und nicht um einen Machtkampf zwischen liberalen und alternativen Wirtschaftsideologien.

In diesem Sinne besteht eine starke komplementäre Beziehung zwischen der BRICS-Bank, dem IWF und der Weltbank. Abgesehen davon sollten der Westen, der IWF und die Weltbank die BRICS-Bank nicht als Bedrohung ihrer Vorherrschaft in der globalen Wirtschaftsordnung betrachten.

Um das zu betonen: Es ist unwahrscheinlich, daß die neue BRICS-Bank in der nahen Zukunft IWF und Weltbank ersetzen wird, denn letztere werden mächtige Mitspieler in der globalen Wirtschaftsordnung bleiben. Am wahrscheinlichsten ist ein Verhältnis zwischen beiden, bei dem sie einander ergänzen, anstatt im Konflikt zu stehen. Dennoch wird auf längere Sicht der Wettbewerb zwischen beiden intensiver werden, und das Endergebnis wird von dem Machtgleichgewicht zwischen den beiden Blöcken abhängen – der sich entwickelnden Welt und der entwickelten Welt. Sicher ist jedenfalls, daß interessante Zeiten auf uns zukommen.

PIDA

Zum Programm für Infrastrukturentwicklung (PIDA): Weil das Infrastrukturdefizit in Afrika Wachstum und Entwicklung auf dem Kontinent hemmt, haben die afrikanischen Staats- und Regierungschefs im Juli 2010 ein neues Programm für Infrastrukturaufbau in Afrika (PIDA) begonnen. Organisiert von der Afrikanischen Union (AU), der Neuen Partnerschaft für Afrikas Entwicklung (NEPAD) und der Afrikanischen Entwicklungsbank (ADB), hat die Initiative ein Budget von mehreren Milliarden Dollar. Das übergreifende Ziel von PIDA ist die Förderung wirtschaftlich-sozialer Entwicklung und Armutsbekämpfung in Afrika durch verbesserten Zugang zu integrierten regionalen und kontinentalen Infrastrukturnetzen und Dienstleistungen.

[Südafrikas] Präsident Jacob Zuma wurde einstimmig zum Präsidenten von PIDA gewählt, weil die erfolgreiche Organisation der Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft den ganzen Kontinent inspiriert hat. In seiner Rede zur Einführung des Programms sagte Präsident Zuma: „Afrikas Zeit ist gekommen, und ohne Infrastruktur werden unsere Träume niemals verwirklicht werden. Wir können auf dem Kontinent keinen Handel treiben, weil es an Kommunikationsmitteln fehlt. Die Infrastruktur, die wir schaffen wollen, wird unserem Kontinent neue Chancen eröffnen.“

Das Programm für Infrastrukturentwicklung in Afrika wird verschiedene Infrastrukturinitiativen auf dem Kontinent, wie den Kurzfristigen Aktionsplan von NEPAD, den Mittel- bis Langfristigen Strategischen Rahmen (MLTSF) von NEPAD und die Infrastruktur-Gesamtpläne der AU, zu einem kohärenten Programm für den ganzen Kontinent zusammenfassen und vereinen.

Das Ziel von PIDA ist die Schaffung einer Rahmenstrategie für Infrastrukturentwicklung auf der regionalen und kontinentalen Ebene, die alle vier Schlüsselbereiche Verkehr, Energie, grenzüberschreitendes Wasser sowie Informations- und Kommunikationstechnik abdeckt. PIDA wird das entscheidende Planungs- und Programmdokument von AU/NEPAD sein, an dem sich die Agenda, Pläne und Investitionsprioritäten in den Schlüsselbereichen der kontinentalen Infrastrukturentwicklung von 2011-2030 orientieren.

Die ADB wird über ihre Abteilung für Regionale Integration für die Umsetzung des Programms für Infrastrukturentwicklung in Afrika (PIDA) verantwortlich sein. Die Rolle der Bank als ausführende Behörde umfaßt die Verantwortung für das vertragliche, finanzielle, technische und verwaltungstechnische Management des Programms, eingeschlossen die Verantwortung für Vergabeverfahren in Übereinstimmung mit ihren existierenden Vorschriften, Haushaltsmanagement und Mittelvergabe. PIDA soll von den regionalen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaften verwaltet werden. Diese werden eng mit den jeweiligen Mitgliedstaaten, den spezialisierten Agenturen der AU und Organisationen der verschiedenen Sektoren zusammenarbeiten. Das PIDA-Budget, ungefähr 7,8 Mio.€, wird finanziert von der Europäischen Union, der Islamischen Entwicklungsbank, dem Afrikanischen Fonds für Wasser und der Neuen Partnerschaft für Afrikas Entwicklung.

Grand Inga

Zum Wasserkraftprojekt Grand Inga: Im August 2014 gab das Kabinett die Zustimmung zur Ratifizierung des Vertrags über das Wasserkraftprojekt Grand Inga zwischen Südafrika und der Demokratischen Republik Kongo (DRK); das machte den Weg frei für die nächste Phase dessen, was letztlich das größte Wasserkraftprojekt der Welt werden kann, mit dem Potential, den halben Kontinent mit Strom zu versorgen. Das Grand-Inga-Projekt soll das Kraftpotential des Kongo, dem größten Wasserweg Afrikas südlich der Sahara, nutzbar machen. Wenn alle sieben geplanten Phasen vollendet sind, wird erwartet, daß gewaltige 40.000 MW erneuerbare Energie erzeugt werden. Spätere Phasen, die sich zu einer Gesamtkapazität von 40.000 MW summieren, werden es Ländern im südlichen Afrika, in Nordostafrika und Teilen Westafrikas erlauben, von der Produktion an dem Standort zu profitieren. Das Projekt hat das Potential, saubere und erschwingliche importierte Wasserkraft zu liefern, um den Bedarf der DRK, Südafrikas und umliegender Länder zu decken, und es birgt das Potential, die Entwicklung der SADC (Entwicklungsgemeinschaft des Südlichen Afrika) zu beschleunigen, Energiearmut zu lindern, Wirtschaftswachstum anzuregen und Infrastrukturaufbau zu erleichtern.

Es stellt eine der ehrgeizigsten Projekte dar, die jemals auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent unternommen wurden, und eines, das lange ein überwältigendes Symbol des Aufstieg Afrikas und seiner Menschen sein wird.

Kernkraft

Abschließend zur Kernenergie: Südafrika hat viele Verträge über Kernenergie geschlossen und hat zwei Kernreaktoren, die 5% seines Stroms erzeugen. Südafrikas erster kommerzieller Kernreaktor nahm 1984 den Betrieb auf. Die Regierung setzt entschlossen auf die Zukunft der Kernkraft und hat gesicherte Pläne für weitere 9600 MW im nächsten Jahrzehnt.

Ich bedanke mich für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.

Es gibt einen Bereich, über den wir heute nicht genug gesprochen haben, und das ist, daß wir dringend eine neue kulturelle Renaissance auf der gesamten Erde brauchen. Ich denke, daß wir uns alle einig sind, und das wurde ja auch schon von Ramsey Clark angesprochen, daß die populäre Kultur schrecklich ist, satanisch. Sie verwandelt Menschen in wilde Tiere – nein, so schlimm sind nicht einmal wilde Tiere. Ich kenne kein Tier, das so bestialisch wäre, wie es Menschen manchmal werden.

Wir brauchen also dringend eine Renaissance. Wie kommen wir aus einem Finsteren Zeitalter in eine neue Renaissance?

Wir haben die Universalgeschichte der Zivilisation studiert, und Jeff [Steinberg] hat schon den Decamerone und das Finstere Zeitalter des 14. Jahrhunderts erwähnt. Wie kam die Menschheit in das Goldene Zeitalter der italienischen Renaissance, die ein völliger Bruch mit allen Axiomen der Hexerei und der Flagellanten des Finsteren Zeitalters war? Die Menschen des 14. Jahrhunderts, als die Schwarze Pest wütete, wurden wirklich zu Bestien, weil die Schrecken so groß waren, daß sie jedes menschliche Gefühl, jede Menschlichkeit verloren. Mütter machten sich nicht mehr die Mühe, ihre toten Kinder zu begraben. Die Menschen waren vollkommen entmenschlicht.

Und die Zivilisation wurde dann durch eine Handvoll Menschen gerettet, die auf die Höhepunkte der früheren Zivilisationen zurückgriffen, die griechischen Klassiker, Dante, Petrarca, und sie begannen, die Schätze aus der antiken Vergangenheit wiederzubeleben. Und dafür war die Methode, Handschriften und Originalschriften der Humanisten zu sammeln, absolut entscheidend.

Mein erster Rat ist also, alle diese Bücher mit Fußnoten wegzuwerfen oder zumindest erst mal in den Keller zu schaffen, und zu den Originalquellen zurückzukehren. Gehen Sie zurück zu Platon, gehen Sie zurück zu Augustinus. Gehen Sie zurück zu Konfuzius. Lesen Sie die großen Denker der anderen Kulturen.

Das geschah in der italienischen Renaissance so: Es gab eine Reihe begabter Menschen, die das bereits wieder aufgegriffen hatten, aber wirklich in Gang kam es erst, als Nikolaus von Kues eine ganze Delegation der griechisch-orthodoxen Kirche dafür gewann, am Konzil von Florenz teilzunehmen, und sie brachten alle Bücher von Platon mit. Platon war 1700 Jahre lang in Vergessenheit geraten, nachdem Griechenland nach dem Peloponnesischen Krieg zusammengebrochen war. Und schon Petrarca hatte versucht, wenigstens eine Übersetzung zu finden, von der er wußte, weil er Augustinus gelesen hatte, sodaß ihm wenigstens klar war, daß die platonischen Schriften sehr wichtig sein mußten. Aber er konnte sie nicht finden.

Aber als die Delegation der griechisch-orthodoxen Kirche kam – Plethon, Bessarion und andere berühmte Gelehrte -, traf sie zum Glück die Medici, und sie gründeten eine platonische Schule. Da begann die italienische Renaissance erst richtig zu blühen, und sie schuf die Grundlage für die folgenden 600 Jahre der kulturellen Entwicklung des Westens.

Kunst und Wissenschaft

Die Lehren, die wir daraus ziehen können, hängen mit zwei Dingen zusammen.

Auf der einen Seite müssen wir uns den BRICS-Staaten anschließen, schon aus dem einfachen Grund, weil die Menschen in den BRICS-Staaten nicht so pessimistisch sind. Sie sind optimistisch. Sie denken an die Zukunft. Sie denken darüber nach, wie man die Zukunft gestalten kann. Und dieser Optimismus ist sehr ansteckend. Lassen Sie sich also von dem Optimismus dieser Länder anstecken.

Aber gleichzeitig müssen wir zur Wissenschaft, zur Technik und zur großen klassischen Kunst zurückkehren und die großen Beiträge der Vergangenheit studieren.

Warum, denken Sie, haben wir in jeder Konferenz, die wir veranstalten, soviel klassische Musik und Spirituals? Weil wir die moralische Seite der Menschen verändern müssen. Wir müssen die ästhetische Seite der Menschen verändern. Die Menschen haben keinen Geschmack mehr! Sie haben vergessen, was es bedeutet, klassische Musik zu lieben! Wir müssen sie also studieren.

Deshalb hat Diane Sare unseren Chor für New York und New Jersey gestartet, um den Belcantogesang zu lernen. Kommen Sie jede Woche, oder wann immer sie stattfinden, zu den Proben und lernen Sie, so zu singen wie die wunderbaren Sänger, die wir heute gehört haben. Jeder kann singen lernen. Ihre Stimme ist ein Instrument, und wenn Sie erst einmal anfangen, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Verdi und andere große Komponisten zu meistern und sich zueigen zu machen, daß Sie wissen, wie man die Musik singen oder spielen muß, dann werden Sie sehen: Es wird Sie verändern. Sie werden ein ganz anderer Mensch werden.

Befassen Sie sich dann mit den großen Dichtern. Lesen Sie Shakespeare, lesen Sie Schiller, lesen Sie Shelley und andere. Und Sie werden sehen: Diese Dinge werden zu Geistesmassen, Gedankendingen in ihrem Geist, und man wird Schritt für Schritt, immer wenn man sich ein neues Wissensgebiet erschließt, eine harmonischere Persönlichkeit. Und man weiß, daß man seine Emotionen verändern kann. Man kann bewußt eine schöne Seele werden.

Die Menschen gehen in Fitneßstudios und trainieren, wie man die Muskeln aufbaut, indem man die Maschine entsprechend bedient, und sie verwenden eine enorme Energie darauf, aber sie konzentrieren sich nicht darauf, eine schöne Seele zu werden. Schöne Körper sind okay, ich bin da nicht dagegen, aber schöne Seelen sind etwas wichtiger. Und Friedrich Schiller, nach dem das Schiller-Institut benannt ist, hatte genau diese Vorstellung, daß jeder Mensch eine schöne Seele werden kann: ein Mensch, für den Freiheit und Notwendigkeit das gleiche sind; Menschen, die ihre Pflicht mit Leidenschaft üben und frei sind, indem sie es tun.

Und Sie können Ihren Charakter so entwickeln, daß er dem entspricht, was die Nationalbank, die Neue Entwicklungsbank usw. schaffen werden.

Unser hochgeschätzter Freund Krafft Ehricke – ein deutsch-amerikanischer Wissenschaftler, der die Saturn-Rakete für das Apollo-Programm entwickelte – hat gesagt, das Schiller-Institut sei deshalb so wichtig, weil man alles zum Guten wie zum Schlechten verwenden kann. Man kann jede Technologie, jedes Instrument verschieden nutzen. Man kann Papier dazu verwenden, Menschen zu betrügen, aber man kann es auch für anderes verwenden. Es gibt nichts Objektives, alles ist subjektiv: Ist der Mensch, der diese Dinge verwendet, eine erhabene, edle Seele, ein moralischer Mensch, ein ästhetischer Mensch oder nicht?

Wir müssen also all das miteinander verbinden: Infrastruktur, neue Kreditinstitutionen, neue Wissenschaften. Und all das muß immer damit verbunden sein, Ihre Seele immer schöner zu machen und eine Renaissance von Menschen zu erschaffe, die ihre Identität nicht in den Besitz von Geld oder Macht legen, sondern deren Identität in der Kreativität der Menschheit liegt und die mit ihrem Leben dazu beitragen, daß die Menschheit voranschreitet, oder in den Worten Wernadskijs: daß die Herrschaft der Noosphäre über die Biosphäre immer stärker wird.

Wenn man die lange Evolution der Menschheit anschaut, dann sieht man, daß da ein enormer Fortschritt ist. Und je mehr Menschen Künstler, Wissenschaftler, Lehrer werden, und vor allem Entdecker in der klassischen Kunst und in der Wissenschaft, desto mehr Menschen werden besser werden und um so weniger werden sie den Wunsch haben, anderen Menschen Böses anzutun. Denn wenn Sie einen Wissenschaftler oder einen großen Komponisten oder Musiker fragen, was er will, wird er Ihnen sagen: „Ich bin so glücklich, daß ich meine Arbeit tun kann, denn das ist meine Identität. Selbst wenn ich nicht mehr Geld bekomme, würde ich doch das gleiche tun.“

Und das ist die Zukunft der Menschheit. Die Menschheit wird aufhören, kleine, habgierige Bösewichte zu sein, die ihre Nachbarn betrügen. Ich denke, das sind wir Menschen nicht, sondern wir sind [das Gute], was wir sein könnten.

Und ich bin optimistisch, daß ich noch in meiner Lebenszeit – und so jung bin ich ja nicht mehr – ein völlig neues Paradigma der Zivilisation erleben werden. Denn das ist in greifbarer Nähe. Und ich möchte, daß Sie sich unseren Bemühungen anschließen, damit dies so bald wie möglich geschieht.

Well, good morning, for a Saturday morning. I’m Lyndon LaRouche, of course, and speaking briefly on behalf of our team which is operating especially inside Manhattan, New York City that is to speak. And what we’re doing is commemorating in a, shall we say, systematic way, the leading role of Alexander Hamilton, who is actually the creator of a real New York City, and who also was virtually a creator of the Constitution of the United States; he wasn’t the only one, but he was the leading figure.

And he was assassinated. He was assassinated by a British agent, which is not unusual for heroes of the United States. And they usually get killed, like, we have a couple of Kennedys who were assassinated on that principle, and so this is the kind of thing we have to deal with now, to celebrate it, in a sense, of pointing out the importance of the life, and assassinations as well, of great heroes of the United States.

And we recognize also that the United States, was organized around New York City, organized especially by Alexander Hamilton, who was assassinated. And after the assassination of Hamilton, we had a bunch of Presidents who were not so hot. Then, in about 20 years, we had a new President who was good, and then we had another President who was good, and then we had another bum, and a lot of bums. But then eventually we had Abraham Lincoln, for example, specially, and other people.

So the United States has always been besieged by British-directed agents, who often operated as Presidents of the United States or something tantamount to that, or a group of people, or by institutions of the United States.

But the time has come, now, that the Wall Street interest, which is actually a British interest, traditionally, it’s a treasonous kind of operation, and they’re bankrupt. Wall Street is bankrupt! And actually, the island of Manhattan is pretty much bankrupt, when it comes to Wall Street matters. So we’re in that kind of situation today.

We have, on our hands, how, and we, some of us, have done something in this direction to remind the people of the United States, of the full United States and beyond, of the way in which the United States was created, and were brought into being under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton. Our time has come to recognize that there are no local states. There are states which we have created under our Constitution, with the help of our Constitution, but the creation was the creation of a single state, the United States so-called, and that the center of that has been Manhattan. And when you recognize that, the key role that Manhattan has played since the role of Alexander Hamilton and since his demise, that this is the issue we have to turn to, for policymaking for our nation.

We don’t make our nation in terms of defining a couple of states, or different states. We have no separation of the United States into states. We have a convention which we designate as states; this is a convention. It’s a useful convention when it’s not abused, when it’s not overextended. Now we have to bring the people of the United States, who now have to take on like a single force, to get rid of the filth and corruption which has destroyed us so often, especially under the Bushes, Prescott Bush’s crowd in particular.

So we have to have a mobilization of the spirit and intention of our republic, which is a task which is located essentially for our attention, in the role of Manhattan, of New York City, Hamilton’s New York City. And that’s what we have to do. We’re now today, we’re celebrating that point. We’re saying, yes, the states have a role as states, but they really aren’t that important. They are significant; it’s useful that they are organized that way. It’s significant that we manage them that way, but we manage them under a single conception, a conception associated most crucially with Alexander Hamilton, a citizen of New York City. And that’s the way we have to do it now.

I am rather old in some people’s eyes; I’m not dead and not stupid. But I’m passing on, of course, in the future, to this mission to recreate the intention of the creation of the United States, by bringing the factor of the island of Manhattan, New York state essentially, similarly, as the force around which we must organize our nation, again, afresh, to restore it, to eliminate all corruption and stupidity that we can do. And let’s do it today. Let’s do it now.

And here’s the old man, he’s got plenty of things to say, on later occasions, and you will hear about them I believe if the old man continues to live. But that’s the situation right now. Have a good time, and try to keep good health above all other things.

I’m here to talk to you about a beautiful vision of a world without war and terrorism.

Now, that sounds like a very unlikely proposition at this point where we are at the verge of World War III. Even Gorbachov has recently expressed that very clearly. Many others are seeing it. And the world is torn apart right now by a wave of terrorism, which is also not so easy to imagine how to get rid of this barbaric development.

But it is within reach. And the potential to get the world back in shape, in order, does exist.

It exists in the form of the beginning of a new world economic order which has been built since one and a half year by the BRICS countries, the Celac countries of Latin America, some Asian and African countries. But in order for this vision to become truthfully the realistic perspective for the future, it is absolutely mandatory that we change the course of the United States, in particular, and of Europe.

Because only if the United States joins with the BRICS, and not regards China, India, and the other BRICS nations as a geopolitical threat to their, or your, or our geopolitical interest…. It must be absolutely clear that in the time of thermonuclear weapons, war cannot be a means of conflict resolution, unless we want to commit suicide.

War and terrorism are the two evil twins of our time, which in an incestuous way breed each other. You have terrorism. Then you have the war on terrorism, which creates more terrorism, which creates more need for more wars. Then you have more terrorism—and it goes like that until the danger of World War III.

It should be understood, probably forever, but especially in our present time, war and terrorism are the tools of an imperial system, a system which has increased the gap between rich and poor in a completely insane, perverse way, a system which has created a situation where the top rich people—85 people—own as much wealth as half of humanity, 3.5 billion people. This system is one which Pope Francis has called the system which kills, and he has demanded that one should apply the Fifth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” to exactly this system.

And here, in Manhattan, you have, in one sense, the headquarters of that system, shared with the City of London, in Wall Street. But you also have the beginning of the American republic, and the American Constitution, which was represented by Alexander Hamilton, and the idea that the sovereign government has the right to create its own credit for the common good, and that that must serve only the prosperity of the nation.

New York has also been the beginning of the U.S. republic, and the institution. And Wall Street, from the very beginning, was the enemy of the American model. It was always the bridgehead of subversion for the British Empire, all the way through. It financed always the wrong people, including in the Confederacy, in the Civil War, when it financed the Confederacy.

So, it was associated with the idea to undo the American Revolution, and to return the American colony back to the control of the British Empire. And today, the enemies of the idea of America as a republic, are on a rampage, and some of them are having lunch or dinner with the representative of the British Empire, who is visiting the United States, in the form of Tony Blair.

Now, the fate of the world will depend on which of these two traditions will prevail. And we have assembled here today, to launch from this meeting a process to return American back to be a republic, and implement the policies of Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, and become the United States again, a republic in an alliance of perfectly sovereign republics.

The good news in all of this, is that Wall Street is about to blow up. And the even better news is that an alternative to this system, is already in place.

But the Wall Street too-big-to-fail banks are about to blow, and so is the Eurozone.

On Thursday of this week, the Swiss National Bank gave up their pegging to the euro, and that was because it was not maintainable any more after Switzerland had already spent $500 billion to prevent the upvaluation of the Swiss franc, and in expectation of very stormy things to come, this coming week, the Swiss sort of pulled the emergency brake, and decided to let the parity float.

Now, on Thursday of this coming week, and this was what the Swiss National Bank anticipated, the European Central Bank will, in all likelihood, go for the most gigantic Quantitative Easing, and buy state bonds without limit. They will do what Mario Draghi had already announced two years ago, when the euro was in deep trouble; he said that he would do everything to save the euro. And everything means printing money without limit.

On the 25th, that is, next Sunday, you will have the Greek election, and all the indications are that the opposition parties, Syriza and the Independent Greeks, will win a majority, and they have already announced, in that case they will cancel the memorandum of the Troika, the memorandum which forced the Greek population to suffer the most unbelievable pain, austerity, increase of suicide rates, increase of death rates. And right now, you have a popular uprising in Greece against that. And if these opposition parties win, then that will be in all likelihood, the beginning of the demise of the euro, because if the EU Commission capitulates to the demands of Syriza, to abandon the austerity, that will spread like a wildfire to Italy, to Spain, to Portugal, and to France, and probably many other countries.

And if they don’t, then the ultimatum also will probably mean that Greece will leave the Eurozone, and that will spread like a wildfire.

Now, Wall Street is not better off, because the too-big-to-fail banks, which are already now at their last gasp of desperation, have speculated and invested in shale gas, and oil, and they have accumulated about $1 trillion debt, which was supposed to be repaid at a price of oil of $80, $100, or $120, and not $45, where it is right now. And on top of it, they have amassed about $20 trillion of derivatives outstanding in various forms.

Now, this has created a situation like the secondary mortgage crisis in 2007, where, because of the collapse of the housing prices, many people were sitting on mortgages which were much more expensive than the price of their house, and that led to the blowout of the secondary real estate market, which then, in turn, led to the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the potential vanishing of the system.

That means the trans-Atlantic financial system is about to go under. And given the fact that that system has about $2 quadrillion outstanding derivatives, there is no way that that money can be paid, not through bail-out, and not through bail-in. And that is why we are on the verge of World War III.

The War Danger

Because the collapse of the trans-Atlantic system is the real trigger for the war danger. The obvious trigger is the crisis in Ukraine, but in reality, what we are looking at is a geopolitical confrontation with Russia, with China. And when Gorbachov, who is liked in the West, but not so much in Russia, is now defending Putin, in a real dramatic turn of his views, and warning that if it comes to a war over Ukraine, it will lead to a large war where atomic weapons will be used, and that will lead to the extinction of civilization, then I can only say that that is absolutely the case.

Now, what we have right now is a U.S. military posture, and that of NATO, which is operating on a first-strike doctrine. They have expanded NATO eastward, surrounding Russia. The United States has adopted a so-called Prompt Global Strike doctrine, which is a first-strike doctrine. The global U.S. missile defense system is a first-strike system. And the United States is in the process of modernizing its entire nuclear arsenal, for the same purpose.

Now, a report was issued this past week in Washington, where the International Security Advisory Board, which advises the State Department, and which consists out of former government and military officials, said: Oh, it’s so terrible. We have to acknowledge the fact that we have adversarial relationship with Russia, and naturally the immediate reason is Ukraine, and Crimea. And now the biggest danger is that either side miscalculates the intention of the other. It’s a big concern, because Russia believes that the United States wants to chance the government in Russia, and that we are working towards a first-strike capability. Naturally we are not, but if we just say so, they will not believe us.

Now, the Russians still have the greatest nuclear arsenal outside of the United States, enough to destroy the United States in one afternoon.

Now, that is the case, and Russia is not imagining these threats—they are very real. And therefore, over the Christmas period, Russia in response to this, has made a new Russian military doctrine, in which they say that they preserve on their side, the right to use nuclear weapons to defend against a U.S. first strike. They are investing in new strategic submarines. ICBMs are being put on trains, so that they are not easily targetted. They are on their side, modernizing their nuclear capabilities, and their targetting acquisition.

The December issue of The Nation, a magazine, had an article by Mr. Postol, where he described in great detail the first-strike posture of the United States, and said that it is a fundamental mistake of those who have done that, to assume that it is possible to neutralize a second nuclear strike of an opponent. Because there is a fundamental difference between a conventional war, where you try to destroy as much as you can from the enemy, and then the enemy is defeated. But in a nuclear war, you cannot do that, and he makes a sophisticated calculation why, in any case, the Russians have 6 minutes left to launch their capabilities, once they see that they’re attacked. And that means extinction.

How It Came About

Now, how is it possible that 70 years after the end of the Second World War that we are indeed on the verge of World War III? What went so horribly wrong that we are at this point?

To answer this question, we have to go back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and even before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Because since that time, you have two fundamentally opposite, competing conceptions about where the world should go.

On the one side, people may remember that the fall of the Berlin Wall was greeted with gigantic joy by the German people, and everybody was convinced at that time, that that would be the great historical chance of 1989. After all, communism was defeat—at least in the Soviet Union and in the Warsaw Pact—and there was actually no reason why one should not go for a peace order for the 21st Century. The enemy of the Cold War was gone. It had ended peacefully. There were not tanks. There was no big catastrophe. So, why not go for a new order among the nations of the world?

Now, Mr. LaRouche, whom you just heard, had the vision already in 1984 that the Soviet Union would collapse in five years, because if they would stay with their then-existing military policy, their economy would collapse. So it came to us as no surprise, and Mr. LaRouche and I gave a press conference in Berlin in 1988, one year before the Wall came down, where he predicted: Soon, Germany would be unified, with Berlin as the capital, and then we could start to develop the countries of the East.

So, when the Wall came down, we immediately to propose the economic integration of East and Western Europe, and when the Soviet Union collapsed in ’91, we proposed a Eurasian Land-Bridge, the idea to connect the populations and industrial centers of Europe, with those of Asia, through development corridors, in order to develop the land-locked areas of the Eurasian continent, and bring it up to the level of those nations which are on the sea or at oceans.

Now, that proposal was indeed a very realistic proposal. However, as you know, it was rejected, because you had Bush Sr. in the United States, you had Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, Mitterrand in France, and they started a process which is the reason why we are on the verge of World War III today. They developed the doctrine of preventive war, which, by the way, was not invented as a reaction to Sept. 11—what people normally say—but already in May 1990, Paul Wolfowitz went up to the then-Defense Secretary Cheney, and proposed something which was indeed a preventive war doctrine against Russia.

In May 1990, the German President Weizsäcker was still giving a speech in the parliament in Germany, in the Bundestag, talking about the Great Chance of ’89, but what he obviously did not know, is that that option was already gambled away.

What this looked like appeared in an article in the New Yorkermagazine on the first of April in 1999. [The article explained that] the Bush Administration basically announced that they would allow any other nation, or group of nations, to ever become a great power. At the same time the CIA published a study, which only partially was made known, in which they said that Russia, despite the fact that the Soviet Union had collapsed, still had more raw materials and more skilled labor than the United States, and therefore it was advisable to discourage the industrial development in Russia, in order to eliminate a future competitor on the world market.

And we all know what happened. Economists like Jeffrey Sachs and others went to Russia, and Eastern Europe countries, and applied the shock therapy, which succeeded to reduce the industrial capacity of Russia, from ’91 to ’94, down to only 30% of what it had been.

Now, at that point, Zalmay Khalilzad, who was one of the Cheney people, wrote a book From Containment to Global Leadership, in which he basically advertised that the United States should take preemptive steps to preclude the rise of another global rival for the indefinite future, and be willing to use force, if necessary, for that purpose. Now, “indefinite future”—that sounds even better than the thousand-year Reich of the Nazis, who only wanted to have 1,000 years, but indefinite rulership, that is really remarkable.

So, in 1992, the Defense Planning Guidance was published, which was the same preemptive war doctrine, and then some excerpts of this doctrine were published in the New York Times. Senator Joe Biden, who was then the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, “oh no, this is a new Pax Americana. This is an American empire.” Now, unfortunately, Vice-President Biden today is exactly pushing the same policy.

Now, what that doctrine included was the permanent U.S. dominance over all of Eurasia, U.S. global domination, and regime change against many countries who would oppose this—like Iraq.

The Case of Iraq

Now, to get rid of Saddam Hussein was already on the agenda before Bush Jr. became President in January 2001, because they published, from the Project for a New American Century, in September 2000, a 90-page paper where the section about Iraq, said that the U.S. sought for decades to play a permanent role in the Gulf security, and the need for a substantial U.S. presence in the Gulf, transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Now, before the famous second Gulf war, there was the meeting between U.S. ambassador April Glaspie, after Kuwait had started to steal some of the oil from Iraq, and when Saddam Hussein indicated that he would make efforts to regain that, and occupy Kuwait, Mrs. Glaspie signaled that that was okay—the U.S. would not get involved in inner Arab relations—and Saddam Hussein proceeded.

Now, that was the pretext for a war, Operation Desert Storm, where General Schwarzkopf at the time announced that they would bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age—and so they did.

Then, following came a ceasefire resolution, the UN Resolution 687, which was adopted by the UN Security council in April 1991, which, among other things, demanded that Iraq should give up the weapons systems which had been supplied by the United States to Saddam Hussein, in the decade before, for the war against Iran.

Now, these sanctions alone had absolutely catastrophic consequences. The so-called oil-for-food program had consequences, that, in one year, 550,000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age died. From ’91 to 2003, 1.5 million additional people died, for lack of food and medicine. And it turned out that Madeleine Albright, who was at that time UN Ambassador, gave an interview in ’96 about this to “60 Minutes” CBS, and she was asked, is the death of half a million children an appropriate price for maintaining the embargo? And she said, we think the price is worth it.

So, there was a UN study in which they also showed that the number of children who had psychological trauma, psychological ills, anxiety, state of horror, increased to several hundred thousands per year.

Now, at that time the Schiller Institute initiated a Committee to Save the Iraqi Children. This was a proposal by our friend, the Russian Professor [grigori] Bondarevsky, and we created this committee with His Beatitude Rafael I Bidawid, the Patriarch of the Chaldean Church of Babylon; Dr. Hans Köchler from the IPO organization in Austria; Amelia Boynton Robinson; Massimo Pini, a Swiss parliamentarian; Ramsey Clark, and others. And we organized an airlift. Milk powder from America, from dairy farmers: 5 tons, 3 major shipments of 16.5 tons of medical supplies. We transported 22 Iraqi children to Germany to be treated; 48 hospital beds, 10 operating tables, 67 wheelchairs, and so forth.

But the martyrdom of the Iraqi people continued.

In the meantime, the Schiller Institute continued to organize seminars for the Eurasian Land-Bridge, in hundreds of cities, among them a big conference in Beijing in 1996.

Then we created a Women’s Commission for the New Silk Road, which was the idea to bring peace to the war-torn area of the Middle East, through development, by extending the Eurasian Land-Bridge into the Middle East. We said in the text: “Iraq is one of the central countries in the New Silk Road. If one wishes to change the dynamic in the entire Gulf, in the Middle and Near East, and eliminate the looming danger of the world, for good, there is no better way than to build the Southern tier extension of the New Silk Road from China, through Central Asia, to Iran, Iraq, to the Near East, and from there branching out into Africa, on the one side, the Balkans, on the other side; and in the other direction, the southern tier of the New Silk Road must go from Iran to India, and from there integrate all of Southeast Asia.”

Now, at that point, our words were not heard, because the powers-that-be had other conceptions.

In ’96 was the same year in which Richard Perle announced the “Clean Break” policy for Netanyahu, which was the idea to undo the Oslo Accord of the Clinton Administration.

But, in ’97, the Asia crisis, and even if the Chinese government had already declared the Eurasian Land-Bridge to be the long-term perspective for China until the year 2010, the Asia crisis almost caused a meltdown, and it led then to the Russian GKO crisis in ’98, and state bankruptcy. At that time President Clinton called for a new financial architecture, but he was watergated as a result.

In ’99, Larry Summers repealed Glass-Steagall, and basically that deregulation of Wall Street, and the European banking system, went then without restraint.

On the 3rd of January (2001), Mr. LaRouche made a famous webcast, where he said that the incoming Bush administration would be confronted with so many financial problems, of the financial system, that they would go for a new Reichstag fire, in order to create the precondition for a police state. That was three weeks before Bush Jr. came into the White House.

When September 11 happened, Mr. LaRouche accidentally was giving a live interview to a radio program in Utah, the Stockwell show, where he basically said, this attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon would not have been possible without complicity of criminal elements of the United States administration.

Now, we will hear later in the afternoon a special presentation about the need to release the 28 pages, so I will not go into this here, but that 28 pages is giving you a window of what really happened behind the scenes, and when these pages will be published, that will be a lot to undo what went wrong.

But continuing on this trail, this was not the end of it. In 2003, you had the discovery of the “Axis of Evil,” Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea. Supposedly, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Supposedly it was building a nuclear weapon, and had the ability to reach every city on the planet within 45 minutes. Supposedly, Saddam Hussein had close ties to al-Qaeda.

Now, that was all due to a memorandum of MI5, and condoned and organized by Tony Blair.

Now, we know what happened. The Iraq war did occur, based on lies, throwing the nation of Iraq into more turmoil.

In the meantime, the terrorist network spread. Which had started with Brzezinski playing the Islamic card against the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, these networks spread—to Central Asia, to Chechnya, to Dagestan, to Xinjiang in China, Pakistan, and the virus of Wahhabism, which had been the true responsible for 9/11, spread. And also, Article 5 of NATO was invoked, because supposedly this was al-Qaeda. And the war in Afghanistan happened.

So then, next came the war against Libya. The United States, the British and the French supposed Islamicist radicals in Libya to topple and murder Qaddafi. And after they had thrown the country into complete hell, they started to fight against the same terrorists. In the meantime this would not prevent them from using them, to start the effort to topple Assad.

Now, this has all morphed into ISIS, who have become strong in Iraq and Syria, and a war against ISIS is being declared. Whose creation is the result of the previous policies. But naturally, the United States is not doing it alone. It is doing it with the its good allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, countries which are under high suspicion of financing the very same terrorists against whom this war is being fought.

Now, today, you have good terrorists you are using for regime change, against the governments you don’t like. Tomorrow you find out these are the bad terrorist you have to make war against. In the meantime, the Wahhabists’ madrassas, schools, and charities are recruiting more people from the United States, converts, from Germany, from France, from Belgium, training them in Syria and Iraq, and then send them back to commit atrocities like we just saw in Paris against the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

This has to end. Because this has become an absolute nightmare, and it is a nightmare which will destroy civilization for good, if we don’t stop it. And this is why the publishing of the 28 pages is the absolute key. And it is absolutely key because, only if the truth comes out about what happened, can there be a remedy.

An Emerging New World Order

But that is not good enough. Because in the meantime, in the last one and a half years, a completely different model of world order has emerged.

When Xi Jinping announced one and a half years ago in Kazakhstan, that he would build a New Silk Road in the tradition of the ancient Silk Road, he referred to this:

These are the Mogao Grottoes in Dunhuang.

[end clip]

Now, I can only advise you to go to the internet and look at some of the documentaries about the ancient Silk Road, because 2,000 years ago, the ancient Silk Road was an effort to unite the nations and the cultures of Europe with those of Asia and it led to a tremendous exchange of goods, but more importantly of technologies of silk-making, of porcelain production, of gunpowder, of printing, book printing, and many of the most advanced technologies of the time were exchanged and led to an increase of the wellbeing of the people at that time. So when Xi Jinping announced that he would build, in the tradition of the old Silk Road, the New Silk Road, we were extremely happy because I jumped that high and said, “Wow! Now China is going with the policy of the Schiller Institute, the Eurasian Land-Bridge, the New Silk Road which we had advertised since the end of the Soviet Union.”

Now, in the meantime, an unbelievable development has taken place, because in the six months since, you had breathtaking developments, starting with the announcement of Xi Jinping in November 2013 to also build the ancient Maritime Silk Road; then in May you had the summit between Russia and China in Shanghai, concluding large corporation treaties. And then, in July 2014, you had the Fortaleza conference of the BRICS, and then afterwards with many other countries, summits between the BRICS countries, the Celac, the ASEAN and so forth and so on.

In this period, a breathtaking development has taken place, projects which have completely been blacked out by the Western media or are slandered, like the building of a new Nicaragua second Panama Canal, which is being slandered as being environmentally damaging; but that it will bring up the living standards of the Nicaraguan population they do not mention, because this canal, which will be 278 km, will connect the Pacific with the Atlantic Oceans, immediately deploy 50,000 workers, build two ports, and international airport, numerous industries, and it will, since it was begun already in December 2014, it will be completed in five years and transform Nicaragua into a modern nation.

Then, an unbelievable number of corporation agreements between Russian and Nicaragua, Putin visited there and they agreed on agricultural production, Nicaragua will have a GLONASS system, which is a Russian GPS system; numerous technological cooperation agreements. Putin also made ten agreements with Cuba, building an international airport, nuclear power plants. Russia and Argentina, cooperation for nuclear energy; air and space industry; communications; nuclear plants; desalination. Argentina and China: between President Xi Jinping and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, they concluded an all-inclusive alliance, 19 agreements — nuclear energy, infrastructure, communications, transport. Argentina and China: China gave several credits for these projects. China is building a transcontinental railroad from Brazil to Peru. Bolivia: Bolivia is the most exciting example, where from a coca-growing company, now Bolivia is seeking a transcontinental rail connection from Brazil to Bolivia to Peru. Russia and Bolivia are cooperating on the development of nuclear energy, naturally, for its peaceful use; the education of its workforce, hydropower. Bolivia and China: cooperation for space technology, satellites. Russia: Gigantic cooperation with Brazil, increase of trade, nuclear energy, machine tools. Brazil and China, building together infrastructure, science exchange, space cooperation, sale of Brazilian plane to China, and science and technology exchanges.

China and India have agreed on 10 major projects between Xi Jinping and Modi, to develop the thorium reactor, the high-temperature reactor, a pebble-bed reactor; high speech train systems; a huge corridor between China-India-Myanmar, Kolkata and Kunming, and also other projects of the New Silk Road and the Maritime Silk Road.

Russia and China have 48 large agreements, among them, floating nuclear plants for large-scale ocean water desalination; also energy supply for large industrial parks, like for example to supply energy to oil drilling stations in the ocean; a pipeline from Siberia to China. They concluded a deal for gas supply for 30 years; high-speed train systems, Moscow-Kazan will be built immediately. China-ASEAN had a summit in Myanmar in August; then there was a huge machine-tool Maritime Silk Road exhibition in Nanning, China in September with the participation of 4,600 firms.

The BRICS have started a program for education and exchange of young scientists. They’re building many new universities and high schools. Modi has said that the BRICS alliance is for the first time an alliance among countries which is not based on their present capacity, but on their joint future potential, and that the big advantage of India is that 60% of all Indians are under the age of 35, and they will be the main export of India to countries which have demographic problems — like Germany and Italy, for example.

Modi has revived, at the recent summit of the South Asian nations [saarc], 30 large water projects which had originally been agreed upon by Indira Gandhi, but which were not built because of her and her son’s assassinations, and now these water projects which will tame the waters flowing from the Himalayas, and normally causing gigantic floods in Bangladesh and other countries, and will tame this water and bring it for the use of agriculture and hydropower.

Similar developments have happened in Egypt. Egypt is doubling the Suez Canal. There is intensive cooperation between Russia and Egypt in nuclear energy, agricultural production.

Russia and South Africa: Russia is supporting the building of a nuclear industry in South Africa, while China is helping South Africa to get back control over large steel plants which they had lost to British control in the meantime. Li Keqiang, the prime minister of China, was in Africa, and announced that it is the Chinese intention to connect all African capitals through a system of high-speed trains.

Now, this is a reality and I only can mention some of the projects, but if you look at it in detail, it is mind-boggling what these countries are doing right now. And this is an alliance of countries to stay, because just a few days ago the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov gave an interview to Xinhua where he said that Russia will use its chairmanship of the BRICS, which will start in April, to transform the BRICS from a “dialogue-based forum” into a “full-blown mechanism of interaction on key issues of global economy and politics.” That at the summit of BRICS in the Russian city of Ufa in July, where also the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [sco] will meet, they will bring “reform of the international and economic system” on the table, “strengthen the legal framework of international relations, make greater use of the complementary nature of their economies” in order “to accelerate the development” of our countries, “to improve industrial and technological cooperation,” decide on new projects, “energy, mining, metallurgy, agro-industry, telecommunication, high-technology” projects, expand the capability of the BRICS in the social sphere, research activity, health-care systems, youth development and information policies. They also will cement and consolidate the new financial institutions, the New Development Bank which will finance all of these projects, together with the AIIB and the New Silk Road Development Fund; they are creating the Contingency Reserve Arrangement which is a pool to defend member countries against speculative attacks and in the event of a global crisis. They deepened the integration of their states, and they strengthened their trade and investment capabilities, and Russia, in particular is actively cooperating on these issues with China.

That the BRICS, together, will increase their economic cooperation strategy until the 2020, they will create a business council, an economic bloc of participating countries, and they want India and Pakistan to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and do joint celebrations at the upcoming victory over the Nazis in World War II.

Now, that means there is a completely different world out there. The BRICS countries, Celac, the ASEAN countries, and a growing alliance of other countries are building a just new world economic order. And it is based on fundamentally different conceptions, not on global dominance, not on the idea that there is one, dominating remaining superpower, which is ruled by, not a Washington Consensus, but in reality the submission of everybody who believes in this Washington Consensus to the rule of Wall Street and London.

The New Silk Road conception is built on a completely different conception and every country is invited to participate, not as a geopolitical interest against other geopolitical interests, but as one, unifying conception for all of mankind. President Xi Jinping elaborated the principles on which the New Silk Road are built repeatedly. He said: It is a mutual development concept, non-confrontational. It has mutual respect and dialogue. It has respect for the choice of social system of the other. It is supporting the strategic interests of the other. It show absolute respect for the sovereignty of each. It is an absolute rejection of any form of hegemony.

And in 2014, at the Sixth Strategic and Economic Dialogue Conference between the United States and China, China proposed a new model for relations among larger states, and the emphasis was on the need to have good and stable relations between the United States and China, which must be an anchor of stability in the whole world, and that both states are responsible for the fate and the common future of the world. And at the recent APEC meeting in Beijing in October, Xi Jinping offered to President Obama that the United States and other major nations should join all of this, the New Silk Road, the AIIB, the New Development Bank.

Now, all the Western think tanks, at least all of them I know, and the mainstream media, and a large part of the Congress, which naturally are controlled by this Washington Consensus, which means Wall Street money, the famous “dark money” which has bought the recent midterm election, they all say, “oh no, China is an imperial force, this is all not true, China has evil motives, they pursue their own interests.” And typical was an article in the German paper Die Welt on the 7th July, with the headline, “The Mega Empire Reaches Out to the Whole World.”

Now, what China and the BRICS countries do, is what the United States to do, when it was still a healthy, sane nation. After the War of Independence against the British Empire, Alexander Hamilton created exactly that kind of a credit system, that kind of banking and economy, and he outlined in his famous reports to Congress, what became known worldwide, as the “American System of political economy.” In the Report on the Subject of Manufactures, he wrote: “To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted.” And that connection between the inventions of the mind, the creative power of the mind, and the increase of the physical production process of labor, that is the kernel of the American System.

And that is what China today does, and that has led to this phenomenal development of the last 30 years. And basically what China did in that period, is exactly what the United States and Europe and several other countries did. And that is the basis for the BRICS alliance today, which are going for a science- and education-based economy, a science-driver and that is how China developed from the complete devastation of the Cultural Revolution 40 years ago, and could accomplish in 30 years, just 30 years, what the United States and Europe did in 200 years. So that is why China today is the leading space nation in the world, and why, working together with India and Russia in space, they are today the leaders.

Now the idea, respect for the interest of the other, happens to be also the principle of the Peace of Westphalia, out of which international law grew, and that Peace of Westphalia ended 150 years of religious war in Europe. It is that spirit of the Peace of Westphalia, which was based on the ideas of Nikolaus of Cusa. Nikolaus of Cusa said that the aim of any civil order isconcordantia, harmony. It’s a precondition for the common good to develop. This harmony is based on the development of all in their mutual interest.

Human society, according to Nikolaus, is part an image of a harmonious cosmic order which the Creator has built within the universe, and which only functions if it realizes that order. To seek concordance is also the task of each individual in his or her political activity, and it can only be based on a consensus omnius, that is, the consensus of all, not on the basis of submission under the rule of the strongest. Each individual has to learn to serve the whole as a part, but also respect the other as the embodiment of the same right. Nikolaus develops this in the Concordantia Catholica.

Now, if you look at Confucius you find exactly the same ideas. Confucius has the conceptions of ren, which is agapë, love; and li, which is exactly this idea that each individual has to fulfill their place in the universe is the best possible way for the universe to function.

A similar idea is also Confucius’ idea of harmony which must exist in society. He says, “the road to this harmony is the development of each individual to become a human being with a very high morality, to become a chün tzu [ph], a noble person. And Confucius said legislation, law, is not the power how you can create [chün tzu], it is only through the moral example of leadership — which happens to be the same idea as Schiller’s Aesthetical Education of Man as the only way how the state can function and blossom. The moral example of leadership must inspire the population through example and if the leadership is moral, then the population will develop automatically, the kind of shamefulness to reject evil and to seek perfection and self-perfection. Now, our society has become a completely shameless society. Everything goes, and that is a sign of a dying culture.

Nikolaus of Cusa wrote in De Venatione Sapientiae, The Hunt for Wisdom that in all forms of existence in the cosmos, there is an inner dynamic to be in the most perfect form. And in the universe exists an order, a natural desire of all things, to develop its essence in commonality with the other species in the optimal way, in such a way that it develops from vegetative forms, to higher forms of mental conscience and human creativity, as a reflection of the Creator. And this is the highest reflection of this principle in the universe, and that is, in a sense, the purpose and goal of the universe.

Now, this is what this Manhattan Project is really all about. Because, when Lyndon LaRouche, my husband, called for this Manhattan Project, it was the idea that New York, and Manhattan in particular, must play a very special role, in turning the United States around. If mankind is to exist, as I said in the beginning, it is absolutely mandatory that the United States and Europe join the BRICS dynamic.

Now, Europe right now is being torn apart. You have those who follow the Washington Consensus, the expansion of NATO, the encirclement of Russia, the provocations by backing Nazis in Ukraine — and that’s 70 years after the Second World War ended, is a shame on Mrs. Merkel and I really want you to spread that shame wherever you can.

However, there are others: The foreign minister of the EU, Mrs. Mogherini from Italy, just prepared a new report to the EU foreign ministers, demanding a renewal of the relationship with Russian. The French ambassador to Russia, Jean-Maurice Ripert just said, France does not want Europe to split from Russia. I have no problem with the concept of Eurasia, he said. Russia must be a bridge between Europe and Asia.

Greece, with the coming election on Jan. 25, if Syriza and the Independent Greeks win, they will cancel the sanctions and they will not go for a renewal of the sanctions against Russia. The German coordinator for Russian policy, Gernot Erler just gave an interview where, on the one side, he proved utter ignorance about the true policies of China; but, he said that if there is a military solution for the crisis in Ukraine which is being pushed not only by some people in Europe but also from overseas, then that will lead to the horror scenario Gorbachov outlined.

And we have a problem in Germany: We have to get rid of Merkel, if Germany is to survive.

Now, the European nations have now a gigantic crisis as a result of the developments in the Middle East. Every day you have hundreds, sometimes thousands of refugees coming in little boats from Africa, but now mostly from Syria and Iraq. And many of them drown — half of them drown! And even if they know 50% drown, they still come, to flee from the horrors of these countries, from the Hell of their home countries. And these drowning people are turning the Mediterranean into a sea of death.

Now, recently, traffickers in human beings lured several hundreds of women, children, pregnant women, into old cargo tankers, which were already on the garbage pile, and they used them one last time, to put hundreds of such poor people on the boat to just leave them, then, in the middle of the Mediterranean without navigation, without water, food, waiting to die or be saved — whatever. Now, that stream of refugees coming from the Middle East and Africa, naturally increases the xenophobia in Europe, and you may have heard about the large demonstrations against foreigners, and racial conflict.

Now, what is the situation of the United States: The long list of war, unjust wars, wars based on lies, breeding terrorism, are not in the interests of the United States, and there are reasonable American diplomats who made speeches publicly in Washington, saying that even from a narrow American interest, these wars have completely caused hatred among people against America, and America has lost power in the world as a result.

Now, therefore, for the United States to join hands with the BRICS, with Russia, China, India, Iran and Egypt, to develop Southwest Asia as an extension of the New Silk Road, a program which can only be realized as part of the World Land-Bridge, and a program which we have extensively presented, already in 2012, with concrete projects, water management, greening the deserts, building new infrastructure, building new cities, where now there is death and starvation, that would eliminate poverty and therefore the breeding ground of terrorism.

I think the people in the United States, from my experience, tend to completely underestimate the depth of anti-Americanism in the world as a result of three Bush administrations and six years of Obama. Wars which were based on lies, on millions and millions of people killed, their lives being destroyed, and I only mentioned the case of Iraq, the wars and the embargo, but if you think about the situation in Syria, in Libya, in Afghanistan, so many people killed, traumatized, so many soldiers, American soldiers and others, killed, injured, injured, traumatized, being destroyed for the rest of their life. And naturally, the families of the victims of September 11.

To overcome such a gigantic pain, of so many people, to overcome such a million-fold crime, war crime, requires an equally, or even bigger, extraordinary good, to replace it.

Now, the precondition for that, is to end the casino economy of Wall Street, to immediately help to implement the Glass-Steagall law, to go for a Hamiltonian National Bank, eliminate the unpayable derivatives and toxic debt, reorganize the remaining debt in a National Bank as the basis for a new credit system, exactly as Alexander Hamilton did. And therefore, in this tradition of Hamilton, New York must become the launching pad from which the United States can be reconstituted as a republic.

Now New Yorkers are famous in the whole world, that New York is the capital — really the intellectual capital of the United States. And basically, it is a city which is a true melting pot, where you have representatives of almost every nation on this planet. And each of them brings a unique contribution to the very specific idea of New York, and therefore, New York is the synonym for one humanity.

Now, New Yorkers are proud to be more intelligent, more thinking, and more creative than most Americans, and therefore, I think that is the perfect precondition to launch from here a nationwide movement to join the BRICS, to create a new era of civilization, and end the bestial era of war and terrorism forever.

And in that good spirit of John F. Kennedy in his famous speech: Let me join you as a New Yorker. [sustained applause.]

 

In his speech in this church in 1967, I guess it was, and I’ll correct myself if I search and find otherwise, Dr. King said some words that hurt him deeply and personally, but he felt had to be said, and they were these: “The greatest purveyor of violence on Earth, is my own country.” It hurt him palpably to say it, but it was a truth he felt deeply and he said it.

The next day a couple of lawyer friends of his showed up, and they’d got a copy of the speech. And they said, “Dr. King, I want to be sure I have an accurate copy” of what he really said. And it was that “the greatest purveyor of violence on Earth, is my own country.”

Conditions haven’t changed globally in that particular, I’m afraid. We remain the greatest purveyor of violence on Earth. We glorify its power and ignore its pity. Just look at our entertainment, our war films, and our crime films, and it’s like we’ve got a love affair with violence. [applause] And yet, the words he spoke here will win the struggle, if human life is to endure on this planet. And I’m an optimist: I’m sure it will, at least from our own hand, which is the cruelest fate of all.

The first night out, I was sent down to Montgomery, Alabama, about four days before the march started; I was Deputy Attorney General at the time, which is on the organization chart, the second highest-ranking officer in the Department requires Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. And my assignment was to protect the order of a U.S. Federal judge who prescribed the fashion in which people could march from Selma to Montgomery, along a public highway. It was litigated for quite a while and came up with the solution that 50 people could be chosen and march two abreast. If you see the movie “Selma” which I recommend, but the movie Selma’s about Selma: It’s about the courage and beauty of the people there who were tired of the sheriff who liked to walk his horses over their bodies, a man named “Clark.” [laughs] No relation that I’m aware of. If there is, I disclaim it now. Not that, had I been in his shoes, I might have the same.

But the march was an interesting occasion, a study in the character, the moral character of our society. The FBI which always requires someone who wants to know the truth to be carefully observed in his statements, told me that there were 1200 men, who had served lengthy convictions in prison for white racist crime against African-Americans who had come to this Selma-Montgomery area — 1200, they were out of prison now, and they had rifles on the rack on the back of the cabin of their pickup trucks. And the Bureau, whose assumptions I don’t usually follow, was saying they tended to use those rifles if they got a chance.

We brought a diversity of law enforcement into that area that was certainly unprecedented in this country, in terms of its diversity, in terms of its magnitude, in terms, we had 10,000 standing by in reserve; it’d taken ’em maybe 48 hours to get into action. But we had Border Patrol and U.S. Marshals, and to the extent we could rely on them, some state and local agents and Army standing by — for 50 people to do under court order, which was litigated for about a year and a half, before you could undertake the project in a free society, to do something no one in his right mind would want to do, unless someone dared ’em to, and that is, walk from Selma to Montgomery!

I remember John Doar [Justice Dept. Civil Rights division] got so sunburned, I thought he was going to lose his nose! Even though it was in March, the Sun was really hot down there. I got the top of my ears blistered and my nose is bigger’n his, and it got more blistered than his, but I could see mine as well as I could see his. [laughter]

And the fear was palpable. The first night, we got across the bridge. I nearly lost my job, because I was standing on the far side of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, by a Border Patrol car. I always liked Border Patrolmen ’cause they’re kinda cowboys, and they work independently and they don’t have a director of the FBI who’s makin’ them dress like they’re on Wall Street, or someplace, and they go in pairs, ’cause they’re afraid.

I was standing by this Border Patrol car, with an open mike, there were about six other Border Patrol cars that were stationed all around so we could talk to each other immediately. And they started to cross the bridge, and I made the enforcement error of saying, “Here they come, isn’t it beautiful?” This was Sunday [March 21] — Monday morning the New York Times headline is: Deputy Attorney General down there to be neutral” — ha-ha — “and protect the marchers from the public and the public from the marchers, at the point at which the marchers started over the bridge, said, “Look at that, isn’t it beautiful?” — for which some of my superiors were uncomplimentary about my verbiage. But it was beautiful.

The idea that it would take a force of that magnitude, and it wouldn’t, really, but it would take a pretty good force to make it safe, to do something that no one in his right mind would want to do anyway, and that is march from Selma to Montgomery, even though it was the month of March, as well as the marching month, in the broiling Sun.

And the first night, we got out — I talked to farmer myself; we’d leased some land. We’d pay him some money so we could stay on his land, because we didn’t want to have some conflict about, “Hey, get off my property.” There weren’t other places that were as convenient; and I forgot what I paid him, but maybe $500, for 50 people to spend the night on his land, on the ground or most of them had sleeping bags and something like that. We got there, and he said, “Can’t do it. You can’t come on my land. I’ve been threatened.” But it was getting to be dark, and I’d been up and down that road so many times, I knew every foot of it, and there was a state park, it wasn’t a mile and a half or two miles further down the road, so we just went on down there. And I set up sentries to march around the camp as we set up some four foot side-wall army tents, and had sleeping bags for the 50.

So about 11 o’clock Dr. King grabbed me and we walked away from the crowd; we were sitting around fires and we had these sentries — it looked like a Civil War scene to me. And he said, “I think you’ve been told, I’ve got to fly to Chicago in the morning.” I said, :No, I haven’t been told.” He said, “Yeah, I’m going to leave here about 3 in the morning, so I’m going to sleep now.” I kinda fussed at him, and said, “You’ve got to tell me if you’re going to do those things, ’cause I want to be sure you’re safe, man. You can’t be driving yourself or having somebody drive you down that road by yourself without protection.” But we were by this tent, we were looking down; it looked like a Civil War scene here in the United States of American, 1965, with campfires and sentries marching around the 50 people. And there was only one of the 50 that slept any that night, as far as I could tell — I didn’t. I wasn’t one of the 50 but I was supposed to be in charge of their safety. Which was kind of ridiculous in itself; I’d been a Marine corporal and a Boy Scout, but I wasn’t a professional in the field of protection.

He got up and left, and got back Monday night. But the other marchers didn’t really sleep that night. They sat around the campfire and they talked, and thought, and some of came up and got in the tents for a while.

And we marched on.

It’s hard to believe that the palpable fear of violence and the actuality of risk. I have no idea of whether there were really 1200 men with felony convictions for racist violence, all white, all the men that were there with their guns on racks behind them in pickups, were there and had the will to shoot. But I was flying a plane back that Friday, after we’d gotten to Montgomery, and all the speechifying had gone on in front the capitol. And it was a little Army plane, about 12 passenger plane, but they had a door between the pilot came back and said, “I got a phone message for you,” so I went up to the cockpit and listened. They said that a woman had been killed on the way back to Selma; she was taking some of the people who had come over for the march from Selma, that lived in Selma, wanted to go home, back; and was shot and killed. So we turned the plane around, flew back to Montgomery and tried to see what we could do to show our sorrow and prevent further violence under a pretty tense situation, still.

There were about 25,000 people who came from outside of Alabama, to participate, or just stand there and watch, a big crowd out in front of the Capitol, watch the speeches and all after the end of the march.

You wonder how much each really changed. You hope for the best, but you go into our prisons and you see they’re overwhelming, disproportionately African-American, African-American males, young — young, very young. Lives of freedom for them are terminated, at least temporarily, the length of their prison sentence. And probably, at least, freedom of will and mind and spirit badly damaged for the rest of their lives. Because we haven’t found the capacity to love each other, yet, and particularly when we have different colors of skin. Which in my view doesn’t tell you anything about what’s underneath, except another human spirit. And we know of so many who are so great.

Dr. King’s spirit will prevail for societies, not just ours, in the spirits of many, many people, for as long as our form of communication endures. Which we hardly say that we’ve purged, or even meaningfully addressed the capacity for violence that remains in our character. All’s you got to do is, look at the military budget. We call it “defense,” but it’s all pointing guns at other people in other places! So we’re defending on foreign shores, about as far away as you can get sometimes, and be on the same globe.

Our military budget’s a major measure of the spirit of our character, and it shows a spirit of fear. And a spirit of willing, if not wanting, to destroy others if it comes our mind that they’re some kinda threat to us, or just in the way. And that’s not the way of peace or the road to the love for each other, alone can bring peace to the planet.

But I hope that the symbol of the Selma-Montgomery march will permeate our character, because it really believed that we could overcome, it desired it passionately, and it was committed to lives without violence. As the greatest character-failure of our species, and one that threatens it — just look at our military budgets; look at the research and development of weaponry, that’s to me the most painful and keenest measure of, if not where we are, where we’re going. Because it’s what we want to have and so much of it is so beyond imagination in terms of its capacity for the destruction of life.

So we have to resurrect the spirit that pervaded those who imagined and led, what was really a wonderful march. I think I’ve already said that the fear was palpable. That wasn’t true of Dr. King. I remember we were standing by this tent where he was going to sleep for little bit, looking down at this “Civil War” scene. And he said, “You know, you can never be afraid,” because you could almost smell the fear. I mean, that’s a pretty serious thing, but that was the environment. That was not an irrational state of mind. And I think the presence of all the guns, and all the military.

The provost marshal general of the United States, who heads the Military Police for Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guards, I guess they must have some guards too, he was down there, and he was gun man. He was later indicted for stealing guns; he’d stolen about 2,000 guns that had been seized by the military, but when they’re seized they become U.S. property, and he just loved guns. [laughter] Which I guess was suitable for his calling, which shows why we have to change the calling; and had about 2,000 of them that had been seized from people, and legally seized from people because they were held illegally all branches of the U.S. Military Police, of which he was in charge. And he’d taken about 2,000 of them back home to Oklahoma with him when he retired. He was opening a gun museum. And the U.S started looking at it, and said, “where’d you get all these guns?” And he said, “Oh, they were seized.” “Who seized them?” He said, “The Military Police around the world seized ’em.” And they said, “How’d you seize ’em?” And I think his answer was, “well, they were there.” What do you do?

We’re still a gun-loving country. But guns aren’t good for children, or for life and it may be about as good a thermometer of our violent potential, as anything. I was raised in Texas, and I had a .22 rifle by the time was nine; a .410 shotgun before I was 11. And loved the blue steel and the sheen of the wood stock.

But now, I’ve seen too much about what they do, and I never really wanted to shoot those doves anyway! We’re big dove hunters down in Texas, doves are a sign of peace. It may be some meaning there, too. But they taste good. There are lot of dove hunters just shootin’ doves, they’re not thinking about dinner.

We’ve “got miles to go before we sleep.”

Our military budget is still a danger to life on the planet. It’s a measure of the moral worth of our people; our research and development for better ways of killin’ is as high was it ever was, as if we don’t have enough ways now, to destroy life on the planet. We obviously do. We’re just looking for keener ones. And spend a lot of money for it.

But if we want peace on Earth, we, the people have to stand up and say, “Enough.” We want to demilitarize our country and demilitarize the world. And yet, as it was when Dr. King spoke those words, in this church, we remain the “greatest purveyors of violence on Earth.” And we can overcome that. It’s a matter of will: Until we address it, we may be singin’ good songs, but we’re not marchin’ the road toward disarmament. And the world daily becomes more dangerous.

Good to see you all here, and honored to be here with you in this great church. Thank you. [standing ovation]

The following Statement was delivered on behalf of His Excellency, Ambassador Kingsley Mamabolo, South African Ambassador to the United Nations, at the Conference on “BRICS Nations Revive Dr. Martin Luther King’s Dream: Economic Justice is an Inalienable Right,” by Thembile Joyini, Advocate, Counsellor, and Legal Adviser to the Permanent Mission of South Africa to the United Nations.

On behalf of His Excellency, Ambassador Kingsley Mamabolo, Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations, I would like to thank you and the Conference Organisers including Mr Lawrence Freeman for inviting us to this Conference and for allowing us to share some thoughts with the audience on the topic “BRICS Nations revive Dr Martin Luther King’s Dream: Economic Justice is an inalienable Right”. Martin Luther King actively supported the struggle of the South African people against apartheid. In 1963 the UN Special Committee against Apartheid was established and one of the first letters the committee received was from Martin Luther King. Together with the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1960, the ANC leader Chief Albert J. Lutuli, Martin Luther King made an ‘Appeal for Action against Apartheid’ on Human Rights Day, 10 December 1962. In his speech held in London in 1964, Martin Luther King repeated his call for economic sanctions against South Africa and said “We can join in the one form of non-violent action that could bring freedom and justice to South Africa – the action which African leaders have appealed for – in a massive movement for economic sanctions”. These are the sanctions that inter alia forced the apartheid government to release Nelson Mandela from prison. After his release, Mandela came to this Church to say thank you to the people of Harlem and all those American people who supported the struggle of the South African people.

On BRICS, I agree, this is just the beginning of a new international economic order; it will be a gradual, but steady process. I also agree that not everybody would agree on the importance of the BRICS bank, but the creation of the BRICS bank is significant for future international order for three reasons.

First, it demonstrates the viability and dynamics of the BRICS despite all the skepticism and criticism in recent years. Some of the criticisms are legitimate as BRICS nations have experienced slower growth lately; even China’s economic growth appears to be slowing down due to a variety of reasons. Critics of the BRICS bank also point to different views among the members as evidence of serious problems of the bank. But this misses the point. There always will be different opinions and views among the BRICS countries, just like there are differences among G7 members. What is important, however, is whether member states share a major common goal that can unite them despite differences. The answer is: development. Unlike G7 member states, BRICS members are largely still developing countries and this situation means that for a long time these countries will focus on how to improve the living standards of their citizens. Also, other developing countries are desperate in need of funding for infrastructure projects.

Second, the BRICS bank demonstrates China’s global leadership. Given China’s huge size and quick development, there is little doubt that the world truly needs China’s leadership. What China needs to be careful about is to maintain a balance between its own influence on the bank and other members’ impact. Thus it is a good sign that although Shanghai has been chosen as the headquarters of the new bank, the first president will be Indian the first chairman of the board of governors will be Russian, the first chairman of the board of directors will be Brazilian, and the first regional center of the bank will be in South Africa.

Third, the BRICS bank is significant because it is a direct challenge to the global order led by the West. Many view the new BRICS bank as a response to the failed reforms at the IMF and World Bank as developing countries like China and India cannot increase their influence within those institutions. However, it should be kept in mind that the BRICS bank is not currently challenging the international liberal economic order. China and India are perhaps the two greatest beneficiaries of an open liberal economic order; and thus the BRICS bank should try to push the IMF and World Bank to be more open and transparent. Ultimately the competition between the BRICS bank and the IMF and World Bank should be about efficiency rather than a struggle between liberal vs. alternative economic philosophies. In this sense, there is a strong complementary relationship between the BRICS bank, the IMF and the World Bank. That said, the West, the IMF and the World Bank should not view the BRICS bank as a threat to their domination of the global economic order.

To be sure, the new BRICS development bank is unlikely to replace the IMF and World Bank in the near future as the latter will still remain powerful players in the global economic order. The most likely relationship between the two is a complementary relationship rather than a conflicting one. That said, in the long run the competition between the two will intensify and the final outcome will depend on the balance of power between the two blocs: the developing world and the developed world. What is for sure is that we are in for some interesting times.

On the Programme for Infrastructure Development (PIDA), because the infrastructure deficit in Africa penalizes growth and development of the continent, in July 2010, African leaders launched a new programme for infrastructure development in Africa (PIDA). Led by the African Union, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and African Development Bank (ADB), the initiative has a budget of several billion dollars. The overall goal of PIDA is to promote socio-economic development and poverty reduction in Africa through improved access to integrated regional and continental infrastructure networks and services. President Jacob Zuma was unanimously elected for the PIDA’s president because of the successful organization of the World Cup, which inspired the whole continent. Speaking at the launch of the programme, Mr. Zuma said that “Africa’s time has come and without infrastructure, our dreams will never be realized. We cannot trade on the continent because of the lack of communication. The infrastructure that we want to create will provide new opportunities for our continent “. Programme for infrastructure development in Africa will bring together and merge various continental infrastructure initiatives such as the NEPAD Short Term Action Plan, the NEAD Medium to Long Term Strategic Framework (MLTSF), and the AU Infrastructure Master Plans initiatives into one coherent program for the entire continent.

The objective of the PIDA is to establish a framework strategy for infrastructure development at the regional and continental level covering all the four key sectors of Transport, Energy, Trans-boundary Water, and ICT. PIDA will be the AU/NEPAD key planning/programming document guiding the continental infrastructure development agenda, policies, and investments priorities in the key sectors for 2011 – 2030. The ADB will be responsible for implementing the Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA) through its department of regional integration. The Bank’s role as Executing Agency covers the responsibility for contractual, financial, technical and administrative management of the programme including responsibility for procurement procedures, in conformity with its existing regulations, budget management and disbursements. The PIDA is supposed to be managed by the regional economic communities. They will work closely with the respective Member States, specialized agencies of the AU and sectoral organizations. The PIDA budget, estimated at 7.8 million Euros, is financed by the European Union, Islamic Development Bank, the African Fund for Water and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development.

On the Grand Inga hydropower project, the Cabinet approved in August 2014 the ratification of the treaty on the Grand Inga hydropower project between South Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), paving the way for the next phase of what could eventually become the largest hydroelectric project in the world, with the potential to power half the continent. The Grand Inga project will seek to harness the power potential of the Congo River, sub-Saharan Africa’s greatest waterway. Once all seven of its planned phases are complete, it is expected to generate a massive 40,000 megawatts (MW) of renewable power. Subsequent phases, adding up to an eventual total capacity of 40,000 MW, will allow countries in southern Africa, north-east Africa and parts of west Africa to benefit from production at the site. The project has the potential to supply clean and affordable imported hydroelectric power to meet the needs of the DRC, South Africa and surrounding countries and holds the potential to fast-track SADC [Southern African Development Community] development, alleviate energy poverty, stimulate economic growth and facilitate infrastructure development. This represents one of the most ambitious projects ever undertaken on the African continent, and one which will long be a resounding symbol of the rise of Africa and her people.

In conclusion, on Nuclear Energy, South Africa has signed many treaties on nuclear energy and has two nuclear reactors generating 5% of its electricity. South Africa’s first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in 1984. Government’s commitment to the future of nuclear energy is strong, with firm plans for further 9600 MW in the next decade.

I thank you for your attention.

I want to welcome you to the Schiller Institute’s conference this Saturday. I’m Congressman Walter Jones. I represent the 3rd Congressional District of North Carolina. And I want to ask you to join us—we after two years, have been trying to make sure that the families who felt the pain of 9/11 could read the 28 pages in the 9/11 report that have been classified. And this past week, as a matter of fact, Sen. Bob Graham, the former Senator from Florida, who has done so much to try to get the American people the opportunity to read the 28 pages, you might remember or you might not remember, but Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, both Senators, co-authored the 9/11 report. It was the Bush Administration—and no one can quite understand [why]—that decided that 28 pages out of the 9/11 report would have to be classified.

Well, people like myself, people like Stephen Lynch, Thomas Massie, and others in the House, we have read the 28 pages: There is no reason that they have not been declassified. There is nothing in the 28 pages that dealt with national security—nothing. What it deals with are relationships, and I cannot go any further than that.

Why I wanted to address you today, is that we need your help. We need you to pick up the phone, call your Senator from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, wherever it might be, and your House member, and ask them to please join Congressmen Steve Lynch from Massachusetts, Congressman Thomas Massie from Kentucky, and myself from North Carolina, and cosponsor H.Resolution 14. You can do this by picking up the phone and calling (202) 224-3121. Such an example as Senator Schumer from New York—he should be out front for the families who have lost so much. Sen. Cory Booker from New Jersey should be out front for the families who have lost so much.

That’s their decision, but if they hear from you, then they might decide that they should read the 28 pages, or they might decide that they want to put in a resolution on the Senate side that we have put in on the House side, calling on President Obama to keep his word to the families of 9/11. Twice he has told the families of 9/11, “I will declassify this information.” He has not done it yet.

Stephen Lynch and I wrote the President in April 2014 to remind the President, that he made this promise to the families; and here we are, January of 2015, and we have not even gotten a response back from the President. That is not fair to the families who have lost so much.

So it’s up to you to join us. We’re not going to let this go. I call it a drumbeat—we’re going to keep beating the drum. The families deserve it, and you, the American people, deserve to know the truth about 9/11.

Thank you for letting me speak to you today, and let’s work together for truth and honesty to save America. Thank you so much.

Thank you Dennis, and thanks Helga, and thank you Congressman Walter Jones and also Ramsey Clark.

There is in fact, one dove that I can think of in the world, that actually deserves to be shot, and that dove, is Al Yamamah, which is the Arabic word for “the dove,” and also happens to be the name of the project, through which, for the last 30 years or so, the British and the Saudis have been amassing the offshore slush funds that have been the major source of financing, to all of the world terrorism that Helga identified in her presentation as one of the two great horrors that have been bestowed on the world by the British Empire, and which still represent the greatest threat: The danger of thermonuclear war at the high end, and the danger of terrorism as a source of mass population reduction at the low end of the violence spectrum.

Now, I think that in the words of Congressman Jones, you may have detected the fact for the first time in quite some time, there’s some passion in Washington about something that really is important, for the survival of the United States and the world. What I would say to you today, is that the pathway for realizing what Helga called for, in her keynote address, namely for the United States to accept the offer that was presented recently in Beijing by Chinese President Xi Jinping, for the United States to join not just the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), but the whole emergence of a new just paradigm for the world. If the United States can break free from the power of the British Empire, which is manifested not only in the overarching power of Wall Street over our political institutions today, but I would say is equally demonstrated by the fact that Presidents Bush and Obama have gone far beyond what anybody would consider to be rational in covering up the 28 pages. These are both examples of the power of the British Empire today.

Much of what is in the 28 pages, per se, is fairly well known, at least portions of it that are very damning to the Bush family, and to the Saudis, are fairly well known. Senator Graham, in 2004 wrote a book called Intelligence Matters and by using anecdotal accounts of the work of his Joint Select Committee on 9/11, he was able to get a lot of the story out. So, for example, we know that two agents of Saudi intelligence, located on the West Coast were the official greeters of the first two 9/11 hijackers when they arrived in the United States, in early 2000. They were financed by those two Saudi intelligence agents, they were set up in housing, and for security purposes, they were set up in residence at the home of an FBI informant. They were provided the funds to go through the flight training, and every step along the way, they were provided with all of the resources they needed.

It’s become pretty obvious to anybody who has actually tried to dig into the details of 9/11, that 19 individuals, 15 of them Saudis, who did not speak English, could not have conceivably carried out that attack, without substantial logistical assistance, and there’s evidence on a certain level that agents of the Saudi government were involved in providing that assistance. So that aspect of it — name, rank, serial number — of the people involved in that, both the Saudi intelligence officers and the terrorists themselves is fairly well known publicly. It’s also now known that the FBI covered up 86,000 pages, of evidence that there was a similar Saudi support cell backing up the terrorists in Sarasota, Florida, so that the group down there, including Mohammed Atta, were able to operate freely because they had, similarly, a support apparatus with lots of money that was behind them. And so a lot of those details are going to come out.

The real importance of getting the 28 pages released, though, is something quite different, because there’s some mythologies that need to be busted up. And the best opportunity that we have right now, the critical flank for getting to the underlying, deeper truth, not just about 9/11, but about the nature of the real political control over the United States, is buried in those 28 pages, so long as when they come out publicly, the full implications of what they tell, are fully realized. We know, for example, Ambassador “Bandar Bush,” that was his unofficial name, Prince Bandar bin Sultan was the Saudi Ambassador to Washington for decades, and was considered to be the adopted son of President George H.W. Bush, and the adopted brother of President George W. Bush. You can find on the internet, hundreds of photographs of Bandar and the Bushes, hanging out together. It’s also known that Bandar was a source of some of the funds that went through Saudi intelligence, directly into the pockets of the 9/11 hijackers.

And so, some of those elements are well known and the critical thing is that, once those leads come out, once the official content of those 28 pages comes out publicly a number of things are going to be clear. Number one, it’s going to be clear that the real issue, behind why President Bush, and now for the last six years President Obama, have desperately refused the demands of the 9/11 families, the demands of Congress to release those 28 pages, when everyone who has read them, knows that there are no genuine national security secrets to be protected, is going to be a lot more clear.

The first fiction that I expect and I can assure you, those of us here, will guarantee that this fiction is busted once and for all, is that the whole idea that there are countries of the Persian Gulf, the whole idea that Saudi Arabia exists, the whole idea that Bahrain exists, the whole idea that Kuwait and Oman and the U.A.E. and Qatar, actually exist as real countries, is a pure British fiction. These countries have never existed as independent entities, in any way, shape, or form, that we think of as a genuine, sovereign country.

And we’ve written extensively about the Al Yamamah deal, the Dove deal, which began in 1985, between Prince Bandar and Margaret Thatcher, that continued under Prince Bandar and Tony Blair, and every subsequent British government since then. It was a barter deal in which the British gave armed equipment, fighter planes, radar systems, military hardware, to the Saudis, and the Saudis paid in oil. And the amount of oil that they gave, when sold on the international spot market, generated literally hundreds of billions of dollars in excess cash, after BAE Systems was paid, after all of the usual bribes were given to the relevant Saudi princes, there were hundreds of billions of dollars left over. And the British themselves and Bandar himself, openly admit that that has been the largest offshore, unregulated secret source of black funds to finance terrorism, in the world today. It still exists. It’s still operational.

But the story itself goes back long before Prince Bandar was born, long before the Al Yamamah deal. In point of fact, the British Empire has controlled every country of the Persian Gulf, and by official British accounts, they openly acknowledge that Britain ran all of these countries, officially, through a series of treaty agreements, beginning in 1763, and extending officially through 1971.

So, in other words, you’ve had centuries in which the policies of these countries were dominated by the British.

Now, the story goes back a little bit earlier, because in 1661, the British East India Company expelled the Portuguese from the Persian Gulf because the Persian Gulf was the critical stop along the way to India. And the battle for empire in Europe centered around who would control India.

And so, I think it’s very notable that the starting date from which the British themselves say that they ran the entire Persian Gulf, is 1763: That’s the year that the British won the Seven Years’ War and defeated all of their European rivals and at that point, took undisputed control over India, and through India, they took undisputed control of the Persian Gulf. I’ll just give you a few examples: In 1820, the British signed what they call the General Treaty of Peace, and this solidified the fact that the British actually selected the particular tribes in each of the countries of the Persian Gulf, that would be installed in power. And those tribes, the al-Khalifa tribe, the al-Thani tribe, the Saudi tribe, are still to this day, the ruling families in the six countries that makes up the Persian Gulf Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

The actual head of state of the Persian Gulf region, from the time of that treaty was the Viceroy of Bombay in India, and under whom there was a resident agent of the British East India Company located in various cities, first in Iran and later in Iraq. And they were the actual sovereigns. The actual name, that the British head of operations in the Persian Gulf was referred to, he was called, “the uncrowned King of the Persian Gulf.”

In 1853, there was a follow-on treaty signed between Britain and all of the tribal leaders of all of the countries that still exist under the same borders today in the Persian Gulf. It was called the Treaty of Maritime Peace in Perpetuity. In 1892, there was a corollary to that treaty called the Exclusive Agreement, which basically gave the British absolute veto power over any territorial transfers; it gave the British control over all foreign relations; and in return for that, the British guaranteed that they would be the armed force to provide security for all of the Persian Gulf states.

In 1922, even after the end of the First World War, during the epoch of the Sykes-Picot Treaty, the agreements were extended to give the British control over all resources of the Persian Gulf region, and by that point, obviously, “resources” very much meant “oil.” Much of this was under royal charter, under the control of the British East India Company directly, during the 19th century in particular. But as late as April 1st, 1947, the British Foreign Office officially assumed control over the foreign affairs of all of the countries of the Persian Gulf, under a new treaty, in which a power-sharing arrangement was reached, with British security backup, the tribal sheikhs were given control over the internal affairs, and the British controlled foreign policy, they controlled military policy, they controlled the international commerce, meaning the British had actual sovereign control over the oil flows, and basically, the British courts had extraterritorial jurisdiction over all non-resident Muslims. So in other words, any foreigners operating throughout the Persian Gulf were operating under British Crown law and there were British courts that existed in the area to make sure that that was enforced.

By the way, I should say that in the British archives, you can go there and find a series of annual reports covering elements of the British controls, year by year, over this region, one of which was called the “Annual Memorandum of the Cultivation of Opium in Persian.” So you’re dealing with the Opium Wars policy, all along.

Now, in 1971, the British were so confident, with Henry Kissinger as both Secretary of State and soon-to-be National Security Advisor as well under Nixon, that they “nominally, surrendered their absolute, top-down control over the Persian Gulf. And it was short-lived, but nevertheless, they temporarily thought that it was more important to let the Americans foot the bill, since costs of military operations were getting a little bit more expensive.

In 1985, with the establishment of the Al Yamamah deal, they clearly decided that they had to be in on the ground and running things as a result of the relationship between the British and nominally Saudi empires.

Now, things are changing: On April 29th, 2013, the preeminent military think-tank for the British Crown, the Royal United Services Institute [rusi] published a report called, “A Return to East of Suez: U.K. Military Deployments to the Gulf.” I’ll just read you a couple of sentences quote from it. They say, “Just as U.K.’s withdrawal in 1971 created a security vacuum that drew the U.S., somewhat unwillingly, further into the affairs of the Gulf, the U.S.’s cooling of its engagement seems to be drawing the U.K. back in. We seem to be witnessing the slow transformation in the U.K. military postured towards a tentative return at this early stage, to the pre-1971 strategy of rooting Britain’s presence in the southern Gulf through agreements with its traditional allies in Abu Dhabi and Dubai without outlying anchors in Bahrain and Oman, and with close political and economic ties with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that could be upgraded to the military level if necessary.” So, in other words, they’re back. And really, the truth is, they never left.

So, when you look at the implications, from this historical standpoint, of the role that the Saudis are now nakedly playing as the patrons and sponsors, of virtually every form of jihadist Sunni Wahhabi terrorism in the world, and fold in the fact that the other major source, of international terrorism, is the international drug trade run by the British through institutions like HSBC and the follow-on institutions of the old British East India Company’s Opium War policy, then you see very clearly, that what we’re dealing with here, if we go to the heart of what these pages reallytell us — let’s not worry about the literal “words”; we already know a great deal about what the literal words tell us, but let’s look at the implications, let’s take the opportunity of getting these 28 pages released, and released in such a way that we guarantee that the truth, the underlying truth, that the real source of 9/11 — yes, it’s Saudi, but explicitly, it’s also British.

Why is the Bush family so desperate to cover up 9/11? And what does the Bush family have in common with President Obama, who remains equally desperate to cover up 9/11? I can assure you this is not about Saudi Arabia. This is not about a bunch of people running around the Persian Gulf, still to this day riding on camels. This is about the British. And the 9/11 events, and the content of the 28 pages, opens up a window into the historical truth.

At the event a week ago Wednesday in Washington, D.C., that Congressman Jones referenced in his brief remarks earlier, Sen. Bob Graham made a number of very clear, unveiled references to the British. I can assure you that he’s aware that this Al Yamamah factor, the British factor in 9/11 is significant. Two years ago, he wrote a novel called Keys to the Kingdom, and of course, in a novel, you’re free to say a lot of things you can’t say if you’ve been privy to classified information; you can give real name, rank, serial number. But he goes through, as the centerpiece of the entire narrative, the Al Yamamah deal and the fact that the Saudis and the British are basically wedded at the hips, and that’s really the nature of the source of international terrorism today.

Now, Prince Bandar, who does not actually have a reputation for being the brightest bulb in the marquee, made the kind of typical mistake of arrogance that you would come to expect from someone who considers himself to be a protected asset of a royal system — by which I don’t mean the Saudi royal family. He’s had on-and-off relations with the Saudis. But Bandar’s a British agent: He was trained at Sandhurst, and if you think about the long wave of British control over Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Persian Gulf, you realize that there are many, many people who may nominally be Saudi by birth, or Qatari by birth, or Bahraini by birth, but they’re British to the core, and Bandar is absolutely one of them. That’s why he went to Thatcher to establish the Al Yamamah deal in the first place.

So Bandar was leaving the United States; he was a burnout case. And so, he was preparing to go back to Saudi Arabia, and so he commissioned a biography, an official biography written by someone who he went to British Air Force academy with, a kind of a finishing school for training of young Gulf princes who were going to be going back and having some kind of power role in the establishment there. And in this book [The Prince, by William Simpson], he could not resist, but boasting about the real nature of the Al Yamamah deal. And so, he said, and this is a quote from one of the British officials who actually managed the bank accounts through a British office in the Ministry of Defense, called the DESO, the Defense Exports Support Office. They basically wrote the checks for the Al Yamamah and a guy named Edwards was the head of the DESO for a number of years and was interviewed by Prince Bandar’s friend who was the biographer.

And he says: “Edwards admitted that for the Saudis the use of oil meant that the contract was effectively an off-balance- sheet transaction: it did not go through the Saudi Treasury. Edwards also confirmed that one of the main attractions for the Saudis in this unique arrangement was British flexibility.” I don’t think that was a sexual allusion, by the way. [laughter] “‘The British were much more flexible than the Americans,’ he said. ‘The Americans went through the Foreign Military Sales system which has congressional law behind it. If the customers get out of line and they fail to pay the money, then they are cut off. In this country, it was quite flexible;…’ The phenomenal amount of money generated from the sale of oil comes through DESO before being paid to British Aerospace. Edwards admitted that the government does charge a little commission for administering the contract, money that attracted the attention of the treasury, as it built up a considerable surplus…. The ingenious diversity of Al Yamamah, together with the British government’s discretion and liberal approach to a unique finance deal, largely founded on the undisputed collateral of the huge Saudi oil reserves, could explain the financial black holes assumed by a suspicious media, to be evidence of commissions.”

But [author] Simpson explained, “Although Al Yamamah constitutes a highly unconventional way of doing business, its lucrative spinoffs are the by-products of a wholly political objective: a Saudi political objective and a British political objective. Al Yamamah is, first and foremost, a political contract. Negotiated as the height of the Cold War, its unique structure has enabled the Saudis to purchase weapons from around the globe to fund the fight against Communism. Al Yamamah money can be found in the clandestine purchase of Russian ordnance used in the expulsion of Qaddafi’s troops from Chad.” And here’s the key admission: “It can also be traced to arms bought from Egypt and other countries, and sent to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviet occupying forces.” In other words, the antecedents and then the existence of al-Qaeda was being financed through this fund. “Arguably,” Simpson admitted, “its consummate flexibility is needed because of inevitable opposition to Saudi arms purchases in Congress…. The oil barter arrangement, circumvented such bureaucracy.”

So this is the kind of thing that exists when you are an empire, and you can make your own laws as you go along and you happen to control every offshore financial in the world. You can use them to run these operations, and, if you shut down that apparatus, then you dry up international terrorism in short order. The idea of approaching this from the bottom up, by hunting through caves in Afghanistan or desert outposts in Yemen or Somalia is not the way to go, when this is a policy of empire. And if we can break the myth that there is in fact a Saudi Arabia or a Qatar, or a U.A.E., or a Kuwait, as real sovereign entities, as opposed to subsidiary fictions of the British Empire, then we’ll already be a very long way towards defeating terrorism.

And by the way, this is what Bush and Obama are terrified of more than anything. What they’re afraid of, is that their existence as creatures of the British Empire, poisoning the United States, is going to be exposed.

Now, I don’t believe in coincidences, at least not when it comes to major historic turning points, and so, I have a sinking suspicion, that there’s some correlation between the press conference by Senator Graham and Congressmen Lynch and Jones and the 9/11 families on January 7th, and the fact that earlier this week, the Republican Party in their retreat, their “chocolate kiss” retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, had as their keynote speaker, Tony Blair. And the same day, President Obama at the White House was entertaining British Prime Minister David Cameron. So I think this is the Bush/Obama concept of “bipartisanship.” [laughter] The British New Labour go to brief the Republicans, and the British Tories go to dictate to President Obama what to do.

Now, I am sure, that Blair, who shut down the Al Yamamah investigation as Prime Minister, because it threatened vital British national security interests, — and indeed it did — was there with the Republicans, telling them, “You better shut these guys up. You better make sure that this Senator Graham, Walter Jones, et al. thing gets quashed now, and it doesn’t see the light of day, because all of our necks are on the line.”

So I think that sort of brings me to an obvious conclusion: Everybody here in this room, as Representative Jones urged all of you, has a special responsibility to make sure that these 28 pages see the light of day, and they see the light of very soon, before we wind up staring down the barrel of Russian nuclear weapons, or American nuclear armed submarines launching on Russia. This is the legacy of Ground Zero. If you want closure on Ground Zero, which is hallowed ground in this country, then let’s get these 28 pages released, and let’s be the voice that explains to the American people, and the world, what these pages actually reveal. It’s not just the fact that Prince Bandar received money through the Bank of England into his account, and dutifully wrote checks to the 9/11 hijackers, which is exactly what happened. But that’s merely a small episode in something that’s much bigger and that we’ve got to make sure that the world clearly understands.

If we can accomplish that, in the days and weeks and months ahead, then what Helga called for, about the United States becoming an active participant in the BRICS process, in the new paradigm of relations in the world, can be realized. So there’s no gap whatsoever, between the fight for the 28 pages, and the fight to restore the United States to its Hamiltonian tradition, which means wiping out the power of Wall Street and London over the U.S. And this is the decisive flank, to make that happen.

Thank you.

Glad to be here, glad to see everybody here. Glad to everyone made it and looking forward to the challenging and important acts that you’re going to be taking part in after the conference as well. Let me give an abbreviated version of what I want to talk about and I’m going to take up the main topic being, what economics is. Two other topics I’ll just refer people to things on: The other two topics are more about nuclear fusion and more about Vladimir Vernadsky and the breakthroughs in science that are going to be made if we choose to take them up.

So it used to be, or at times it has been natural to progress. It used to be said that it was natural in the United States for each generation to live better than the one before. That’s not the case today. Most Americans, as polls show, are not believing that any more: They are concerned that their children are not going to live as well as they have. Why the change?

It used to be considered natural that we would improve, that things would be better, that we would develop. Now, let’s take up, how we create strategic safety in the world. You know, Jeff was speaking about the 28 pages, about the need, if you’re going to address terrorism at its core, don’t overlook, don’t leave out the financing of it, go right for the 28 pages, go right at Saudi Arabia; that’s the only way you’re going to have a lasting security in that regards. And Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche has spoken frequently about Xi Jinping’s understanding that security is not a local matter: That in this world, we will either have global security, or we will not have security. It’s not possible to have safety and well-being in one country, while allowing terrorists and irregular warfare to run amok elsewhere to pursue various interests. We have to have a global security order.

What I’d like to address is how that global security order has to itself be based and include science as a cooperative means among nations, from the standpoint of economics. Because creativity isn’t something, — you know, development, this isn’t just something that the soul yearns for, that the spirit seeks. It’s the basis of why we have economies and animals don’t. You may have noticed that animals don’t have economies: There aren’t banks for squirrels; the International Pidgeon Institution doesn’t release indicators of inflation; there are not rhinoceroses who measure their manufacturing output. This doesn’t happen.

Take an example: If we had a time machine, and you went back 5,000 years, you’d been in a very different world than that of today. You might also ask yourself, what could you do in that world. Would you have anything helpful to offer? I don’t think you’d be help people with their iPhones, since there weren’t any; would you be able to help people discover how to turn rocks into metal? Could you help people use the stars to navigate? Could you help develop agriculture? Could you design a canal? Or, take someone from 5,000 years ago, and bring them to today. Obviously, it’s a very different world.

Now, if you put a kangaroo, a hummingbird, a mosquito in this time machine, they’d get along just fine. Kangaroos don’t have to operate any differently now, than they did 5,000 years ago; hummingbirds? There’s no difference; it doesn’t matter. They’re timeless. Time is something that only exists for us, as human beings. We’re a species for which this kind of time has a meaning. It doesn’t exist for the animals. They have one generation to the next, but they’re all the same.

So, economics is based on the ability of us to create history, to discover new true things, to determine how the universe works, and to change our behavior by using that knowledge to live differently. So 5,000 years ago, human beings first turned rocks into — let’s get that slid — first turned rocks, this green rock is called malachite, you can turn it into copper. You can add some tin and create bronze. There weren’t any pigs doing this; this was people. This developed a new era in history. Or think about agriculture: Think about the development of planting seeds, so you would know where you would find food in the future. Do animals do that? or do they walk around hoping they’ll find something.

Here you see the development of corn. On the left, that’s what corn looked like, before farming turned it into the modern form of corn that we’re familiar with today. Not very appetizing-looking on the left. But that’s what it looked like. We develop new forms of life. And this is well before Monsanto, or genetic modification of that sort; this is the genetic modification of breeding, of developing better plants, of creating new kinds of fruits, of grafting trees for example.

Or, take the other knowledge we developed: astronomy, navigation, using lodestones, the natural magnetite rocks that you could use as a compass. How did that change our relationship to the entire globe? How about Eratosthenes figuring out how big the Earth was? How does that change your relationship to it? How about developing hydraulic engineering, canals, waterways, irrigation systems. The first creation of a lock, to move up a river past rapids, of a dam to control floods, to control water heights. Of a mill, to use that flow of water to replace human labor or the labor of oxen or horses, pulling something.

Or windmills: Windmills were a great invention several hundred years ago! They’re not, today. But when they were first invented, it was a great breakthrough. You could use it for grinding, you could use it to pump water and move back the sea, as in the Netherlands.

How about the Renaissance? How about the stunningly beautiful conceptions of the beautiful human race, as seen in Florence, as see in the work of the greatest artists, the greatest musicians? The development of perspective, beauty, music, poetry: We could use these to channel, to celebrate, to advance, our view of ourselves, a higher view of what it is to be a human being. This is something that everybody has in their mind, whether you’re conscious of it or not, what it is to be a member of the human race. In the Renaissance, in addition to the scientific aspects represented a real breakthrough in explicitly developing a way of discussing that in an uplifting and more truthful way: What are we? What are people?

How about the development of the first modern nation-states? How about Joan of Arc, and the creation of Louis XI’s France, Henry VII’s England. How about modern science, which made tools that weren’t made out of stone, like in the Stone Age, or metal or wood, but tools made out of the power of the mind. How about creating that apparatus of scientific thought as a possibility? These tools created by Cusa, Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, how did that change us? It allowed us to move forward, solving all sorts of scientific, engineering problems. Think about the steam engine! That released tremendous amounts of power! You could burn a rock, and instead of using that just to cook your food, you could somehow turn burning into motion: That’s a phenomenal change! It seems like two completely different sorts of things. So that breakthrough, how did that change what we could do? How much power did we have at our disposal thanks to that?

How about electricity? Now, instead of carrying coal around, you could carry power on a thin piece of metal, on a wire. You could have your engine over here in a power plant, you could have a wire and you could have a motor, in a factory. How did that change production, how did that change what we were able to do? Electricity allowed us to create new materials as well, by separating metals, for example. Today, throwing away a piece of aluminum foil, that’s something that people do, or maybe recycle it, but go back a couple of hundred years, Napoleon used aluminum for his plates, and he served his guests on gold plates, because aluminum was more expensive then. Now it isn’t; that’s because of electricity.

How about the germ theory of disease? Which I hope everyone’s keeping in mind and washing their hands a lot. The germ theory of disease, vaccination; how many lives have those discoveries saved? How much unnecessary suffering have they averted? How about the development of anesthesia and pain-killers, which made surgeries possible, that you would never think of having done without those developments! A hip replacement? I don’t think anyone would want to do that without anesthesia and pain-killers! It wouldn’t happen, right?

The nuclear era, that brought in a whole new possibility of technologies: Medical scans, smoke detectors, power plants, explosives, basic knowledge of the physical world. How much more power will nuclear fusion bring to us, and the fuller development of already-existing nuclear fission? What would be the potentials of a fusion economy, where we’re using helium-3 mined on the Moon, as China’s already moving to do, to have a platform where we would have to worry about many of the things we consider to be natural phenomena today?

Drought — that’s considered a natural catastrophe. It shouldn’t have to be. There’s plenty of water in the oceans, why is there is a drought in California? Well, we don’t control our weather, and we don’t have a desalination capability. Why do we have shortages of power, or of materials? With a fusion torch you could recycle 100% of waste, you could mine even poor-quality soils. We could move asteroids! There’s 100% guarantee, that an asteroid or a comet will strike the Earth and kill almost everything on it. That will happen. I don’t know when, but there’s 100% guarantee it will happen. And we’re at a stand in human development where we need to take that seriously: Under a fusion platform, we could move these asteroids — we could move them where we wanted them! If we had Obama’s plan to visit an asteroid, we could put one where we needed it and use it as the raw materials for building our spaceships and things like this up there, instead of here on Earth, and having to carry them up.

Also, we wouldn’t have to worry about Saudi Arabia manipulating the price of oil. But we also wouldn’t have empires.

So, that’s economy. Those kinds of changes? That’s economy, that’s moving the human species forward. Those are chapters in a history book. What happens on Wall Street? That’s not economy, that’s stealing, that’s gambling, it’s empire, it’s money! Money’s not economy. We use money, but it’s not what the economy is. Food is an essential part of the economy; having a place to live is an essential part of the economy. Gambling? That’s not an essential part of the economy, that’s not one of the basic needs of human beings, or of us as a social species.

So, let’s take the opportunity to enjoy understanding this heritage of human development. We’re a part of that, that’s our common ancestry, our common past. We can all develop a greater understanding of that, and use that to act to create a better future. We also have, just very, very briefly, before us — can we get the chart of the fusion energy budgets, just very quickly — why isn’t this happening right now? Why are polls saying truthfully that Americans don’t believe that the next generation will live better: Here’s one example. Back in the late ’70s, several ideas were developed about how financing of nuclear fusion research would change the expected date that nuclear fusion would be a reality. You can see these different colored charts. You can see that maroon line, which people then expected meant that we would never achieve fusion. The black line is the actual U.S. funding for fusion: So a decision was made to stop that real economic process, they discussed, as part of a shift towards Wall Street.

We don’t need Wall Street. We don’t need monetary economics. We need physical economics.

So let me leave with a teaser, and an announcement about a couple of events, particularly — well, not particularly for, but for young people; I see some young people here in the audience. One of them is about the work that Mr. LaRouche has initiated on moving science forward, and I’ll just point people toward the website of 21st Century Science & Technology, for more on fusion, for more on Vernadsky, and how life sciences can transform our idea of physics.

So let me leave you with those things, also on the larouchepac.com website, there’s a video I just produced about putting fusion power in the context of these overall changes, and end with an announcement, that if you are a young person, — if you’re wondering whether you’re young, I would not consider myself to be young, so if you’re younger than me — please, after this conference is over, we’re going to meet; look for me and Daniel by the elevator bank, and we’re going to discuss an event that we’re going to be having tomorrow in New Jersey from 11-3, and also possibly an even tonight, for more on these developments.

Thank you.

There is one area which we have not really talked about enough today, and that is that we need urgently, to have a new cultural renaissance on the whole globe. I think that we all agree, and it was expressed by Ramsey Clark and you, that the popular culture is horrible, Satanic. It turns people into beasts. Or no — beasts are not like that. I don’t know of any beast which is as bestial as human beings sometimes become.

So, what we need urgently is a Renaissance. How do we get out of a Dark Age into a Renaissance?

We have studied the universal history of civilization, and since Jeff mentioned the Decameron, that described the Dark Age of the 14th Century. And how did mankind get to the golden age of the Italian Renaissance, which was an absolute break with the entire axioms of witchcraft, of flagellants, of the Dark Age? People in the 14th Century really — when the Black Death was raving, people became total beasts, because the horror was so big that they lost every human feeling, every human sentiment. Mothers didn’t care about burying their children any more. People were completely dehumanized.

And what was done then, civilization was saved by a handful of people going back to the high points of previous civilizations: to the Greek classic, to Dante, to Petrarca, and they started to revive the ancient treasures of the past. And the method of collecting handwritings, and original humanist writings, is absolutely key.

So, my first advice is, throw out all books with footnotes, or at least put them in the basement for the time being, and go back to the original sources. Go back to Plato. Go back to Augustinus. Go back to Confucius. Read other great thinkers of other cultures.

What happened in the Italian renaissance was that you had a couple of gifted people who already revived it, but it really clicked when Nicolaus of Cusa organized the entire delegation of the Greek Orthodox Church to participate in the Council of Florence, and they brought the entire volume of Plato. Plato had been forgotten for 1,700 years after Greece collapsed after the Peloponnesian war, and Petrarca had tried to find at least one translation, which he had knowledge of because he read Augustinus, so he knew there was this Platonic writings which must be very important. But he couldn’t find it.

But when the Greek Orthodox church delegation came—Plethon, Bessarion, and other notable scholars—they found fortunately the Medicis, and they created a platonic school, and then the Italian Renaissance really flourished, and laid the foundation for 600 years of cultural development of the West to follow.

So, the lesson of that is, we have to do two things.

On the one side, we have to join the BRICS for the very simple reason that the people in the BRICS countries are not so pessimistic. They’re optimistic. They’re thinking about the future. They’re thinking about making the future. And that optimism is absolutely contagious.

So, let yourself be infected by the optimism of these countries, but at the same time, we have to really get back to science, technology, great classical art, and study the great contributions of the past.

Why do you think we put so much classical music, spirituals, in every conference we have? Because we need to transform the moral side of people. We have to transform the aesthetical side of people. People have no more taste! They have forgotten what it is to love Classical music. So we have to study it.

This is why Diane Sare has started a New York-New Jersey chorus, to learn bel canto singing. Join the chorus. Come every week, or whenever this occurs, and learn to sing like the beautiful singers we heard today. Everybody can learn to sing. Your voice is an instrument, and once you start to conquer Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Verdi, and other great composers, to own them, that you know how to sing them, or play the music, you will see: it transforms you. You become a completely different human being.

Then, go to the great poets after that. Read Shakespeare, read Schiller, read Shelley, and others. And then you will see, these things become Geistesmassen, thought objects in your mind, which, step by step, every time you add a new area of knowledge, you become a more harmonious personality yourself. And you have the idea that you can change your emotions. You can consciously become a beautiful soul.

People go into the fitness studio, and they train how to that muscle to go to that angle, instead of that angle, by using the machine in such a way, and they spend an enormous amount of energy on this, but they don’t focus on becoming beautiful souls. Beautiful bodies is okay—I’m not against that, but beautiful souls are a little bit more important. And Friedrich Schiller, according to whom the Schiller Institute has been named, had very much the idea that each human being can become a beautiful soul, a person for whom freedom and necessity are the same. People who are doing their duty with passion, and are free in doing it.

And you can develop your character to match what the National Bank will be, the New Development Bank, and all these other things. Because our dear friend Krafft Ehricke, who was a German-American scientist who developed the Saturn rocket on the Apollo program, he said the reason why the work of the Schiller Institute is so important, is because you can use anything for good or for bad. You can use any technology, any instrument—you can use a paper to cheat people. You can also use it to do something. There’s no such thing as an objective. It’s always the subjective.

Is the human being using these things an elevated noble soul, a moral person, an aesthetical person, or not?

So, we have to combine all of these things—infrastructure, new credit institutions, new sciences—all of that has always to be connected with making your soul more beautiful, and to create a Renaissance of people who have their identity, not located in money, or power, but who have their identity located in the creativity of mankind, and to contribute with their lives, that mankind is progressing. And in the words of Vladimir Vernadsky, that the noosphere is becoming stronger in the domination of the biosphere.

That is, if you look at the long evolution of mankind, you can see that there is a tremendous progress, and the more human beings become artists, scientists, teachers, but especially discoverers in classical art and science, the more people will be better, and the less they will have a desire to do evil against other people. Because, you ask a scientist, or a great composer or musician, what he wants: He says, oh, I’m so happy that I can do my job, because that’s my identity. Even if I wouldn’t get any money, I still would be doing the same thing.

And that is the future of mankind. Mankind will stop being a greedy little bastard, cheating on his neighbor. I think that that is not what we human beings are, and what we potentially will be.

And I’m optimistic, that I in my lifetime—and I’m not so young any more—that I will experience a complete new paradigm of civilization. Because it is within reach. And I want you to join the effort to make it happen soon.

Die neue Dynamik der BRICS-Nationen und der damit verbundene Optimismus, die akuten und großen Probleme der Menschheit gemeinsam lösen zu können, war bei der Konferenz präsent durch hochrangige Redner aus China, Indien und weiteren Ländern, die sich an den BRICS-Staaten orientieren. Die Teilnehmer der Konferenz kamen aus 25 Ländern, überwiegend aus Europa, aber auch aus den USA, aus Rußland, Ukraine, Iran, China, Bangladesh, Australien sowie Mexiko – ein äußerst lebhafter und intensiver Austausch unter den Gästen während der beiden Konferenztage war somit vorgegeben. Grußbotschaften erreichten die Konferenz von Professor Michail Titarenko vom Fernost-Institut der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, einem langjährigen Freund von Lyndon und Helga LaRouche; aus Australien vom früheren Premierminister Malcolm Fraser (1975-83), sowie per Videobotschaft von Chandra Muzaffar aus Malaysia, dem Gründer und Vorsitzenden der Organisation „Just International“.

Der erste Konferenztag begann mit Musik: Der Chor des Schiller-Instituts sang „Und eine neue Welt…” aus Joseph Haydns Schöpfung – dies war eine gute Einstimmung in das Thema der Konferenz: das schöpferische Prinzip als Gesetz des Universums und der Menschheit. Die Spannung zwischen der Gefahr des Absturzes in die Vernichtung der Menschheit und dem Aufbau einer neuen, auf die Zukunft ausgerichteten Welt souveräner Nationen, die für das Gemeinwohl und die gemeinsamen Ziele der Menschheit zusammenarbeiten, zog sich durch die Reden und Diskussionen der ganzen Konferenz.

Die Vorsitzende des Schiller-Instituts, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, übermittelte der Konferenz gleich zu Beginn ihrer ausführlichen Eröffnungsrede die Grüße ihres Ehemanns Lyndon LaRouche, dessen Werk entscheidend dazu beigetragen habe, daß es in der heutigen Welt eine Lösung gibt.

Drei Weltkrisen

In ihren weiteren Ausführungen betonte sie die Bedeutung der BRICS-Allianz vor dem Hintergrund der drei sich gleichzeitig verschärfenden Weltkrisen – dem barbarischen IS-Terrorismus, der Ebola-Pandemie und dem drohenden Zusammenbruch des Finanzsystems. Während das derzeitige, marode Weltfinanz- und Wirtschaftssystem nur Terror, Krieg, Hunger und Seuchen wie Ebola mit sich bringe, sei in der Entschlossenheit der BRICS-Staaten zu realwirtschaftlicher Entwicklung und in der Gründung mehrerer neuer Entwicklungsbanken eine wirkliche Alternative zum bankrotten monetaristischen System der transatlantischen Welt im Aufbau, betonte Frau Zepp-LaRouche. Der Aufbau der Neuen Seidenstraße und ihre Erweiterung zur Weltlandbrücke, sowie der Wissenschaftsmotor von Chinas Raumfahrtprogramm biete der Menschheit eine Chance, in eine neue Ära einzutreten, die von Achtung der Souveränität und Förderung des Wohlergehens des jeweils Anderen, in allgemeiner Zusammenarbeit zum Vorteil aller, bestimmt ist. Mit Videos über die Alte und die Neue Seidenstraße sowie die chinesische Mondlandung, bekamen die Zuhörer einen lebendigen Eindruck des Paradigmas dieser entstehenden „Neuen Welt“, der sich die Nationen Europas und die USA anschließen müssen.

Schließlich schlug Frau Zepp-LaRouche eine Resolution für die Zusammenarbeit aller Nationen gegen die akuten Bedrohungen der Zivilisation vor, die später als Grundlage für eine umfassende Mobilisierung nach der Konferenz verabschiedet wurde (siehe nebenstehenden Text).

Das Konzept des Entstehens einer neuen Ära der Menschheit entfaltete sich dann in beeindruckender Weise in den Beiträgen der hochrangigen Redner des ersten Panels „Die Neue Seidenstraße transformiert den Planeten“. Prof. Shi Ze, Direktor des Instituts für Internationale Energie-Strategie-Studien und Fellow am China Institute of International Studies, Beijing, stellte Chinas Konzept der Seidenstraße als offenes Konzept der Zusammenarbeit mit anderen Nationen vor („Einige innovative Ideen zur Zusammenarbeit entlang der Seidenstraße“). Ihm folgte Frau Dr. Fatemeh Hashemi, die über „Irans Rolle in der Strategie der Neuen Seidenstraße im Dritten Millenium“ sprach. Frau Dr. Hashemi ist Präsidentin der Women’s Solidarity Association, Teheran. Frau Jayshree Sengupta, Senior Fellow der Observer Research Foundation in Neu Delhi, sprach über „BRICS und die Neue Internationale Weltordnung“. Sie ging auf das Konzept der BRICS als Alternative zur gescheiterten Finanzglobalisierung ein und machte deutlich, daß Indien unter dem neuen Premierminister Modi fest entschlossen ist, mit BRICS einen völlig neuen Kurs für Indien und die Menschheit einzuschlagen. Die Ökonomin Natalja Witrenko, Präsidentin der Progressiven Sozialistischen Partei der Ukraine, berichtete in einer schockierenden Rede mit Videoclips über die Situation in der Ukraine und unterstrich die Notwendigkeit, endlich die geopolitische Eskalation gegen Rußland zu beenden, die ansonsten zu einem Dritten Weltkrieg führen kann. Sie formulierte dazu eine Resolution, die später während der Konferenz verabschiedet wurde. Als letzter Redner dieses Panels sprach Ali Rastbeen aus Frankreich, Gründer und Präsident der Pariser Akademie für Geopolitik, über „Eine Vision für die Zukunft Eurasiens“.

Der Nachmittagspanel, „Die Zukunft Europas – transatlantischer Kollaps oder Allianz souveräner Republiken?”, wandte sich zunächst der dringend notwendigen Neuorientierung für wirtschaftliche Entwicklung anstelle des gescheiterten monetaristischen Finanz- und Eurosystems zu. Prof. Dieter Ameling (bis 2008 Präsident des Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl) sprach über „Die Rolle von Stahl für die Perspektive der Neuen Seidenstraße” und zeigte das brachliegende Potential Deutschlands für eine globale Aufbauperspektive auf. Der griechische Parlamentsabgeordnete Panos Kommenos, Vorsitzender der Partei Unabhängige Griechen, ging auf die bereits existierende griechisch-chinesische Infrastrukturzusammenarbeit ein und erteilte der EU-Austeritätspolitik eine klare Absage („Griechenland und der Wirtschaftsgürtel der Seidenstraße“). Ein sehr anregender Beitrag folgte von Professor Enzo Siviero, Mitglied des italienischen Nationalrates der Universitäten aus Venedig und langjähriger Brückenbauexperte, der mit vielen Beispielen zeigte, wie Brücken alle Länder des Mittelmeeres in der Geschichte und der Zukunft zu einem Kultur- und Wirtschaftsraum verbinden können, der bei der Verwirklichung der Neuen Seidenstraße eine Schlüsselrolle spielen wird („Brückenschlag über das Mittelmeer“).

Kurswende notwendig

Im zweiten Teil des Panels wurde deutlich, daß nur eine radikale Kurswende weg von der britisch-amerikanischen Geopolitik im Nahen Osten den Absturz in die völlige Barbarei von IS und der Destabilisierung der ganzen Region, sowie die weltweite Ausbreitung von Terrorismus verhindern kann. Oberst (i.R.) Alain Corvez, früherer Berater des Generalkommandos der UNIFIL (UN-Friedenstruppe für den Libanon) in Paris analysierte die Lage und bezog sich auf den iranischen Präsidenten Hassan Rohani, der 2013 vor der UN-Generalversammlung dazu aufgerufen hatte, Konflikte durch Zusammenarbeit zu lösen, statt durch Krieg. Raymond McGovern, früherer Analytiker der CIA und bekannt als Mitbegründer der Organisation VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), zeichnete zum Abschluß ein dramatisches Bild der diktatorischen Verhältnisse in den USA unter Präsident Obama und machte deutlich, daß Amerika unbedingt wieder zu den Wurzeln seiner Verfassung zurückgebracht werden muß. McGovern rief besonders die junge Generation auf, für die Zukunft zusammenzuarbeiten, und erinnerte mit bewegenden Worten an den Mut der Geschwister Scholl und ihrer Mitstreiter gegen die Hitler-Diktatur.

Eine ausführliche Diskussion mit Fragen an die Podiumsteilnehmer schloß sich an, wobei es aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln darum ging, wie das neue Paradigma für Aufbau und Entwicklung den vorherrschenden Niedergang und den zerstörerischen Kulturpessimismus in Europa überwinden kann. Ein konkreter Punkt war dabei die Forderung, daß die durch nichts gerechtfertigte geopolitische Sanktionspolitik der USA und der EU gegen Rußland sofort beendet und die historisch gewachsene Zusammenarbeit Europas mit Rußland wieder aufgenommen und vertieft werden muß. Alena Petrowa von „Art Assemblee“ überbrachte Grüße an die Konferenz und berichtete über die jährlich stattfindenden Russischen Kulturtage in Baden-Baden und ihre Bedeutung für die europäisch-russische Zusammenarbeit.

Der erste Konferenztag wurde gekrönt von einem Musikabend, bei dem der Chor des Schiller-Instituts, zusammen mit professionellen Solisten und Orchestermusikern unter Leitung von Sergej Strid, die Oper Fidelio von Ludwig van Beethoven in szenischen Auszügen aufführte – wofür es begeisterten Applaus gab. Fidelio, in der die Hauptfigur Leonore gegen alle Widerstände mit einzigartigem Mut die Befreiung ihres willkürlich eingekerkerten Gatten Florestan erkämpft, feiert die Kraft der Liebe, die selbst die schlimmste Tyrannei der Oligarchie besiegen und die Freiheit für die Menschheit erringen kann. Viele Konferenzteilnehmer kannten die Oper überhaupt nicht und waren tief beeindruckt von der Schönheit und Wahrheit dieser Musik, die das Innerste des Menschen berührt und es ihm ermöglicht, der sinnlich-erdrückenden Realität auf der Ebene des Erhabenen zu begegnen.

Der Ausweg: Zusammenarbeit

Der Sonntagmorgen begann mit dem Themenkomplex „Die neue Seidenstraße und das Neue Paradigma für die Menschheit“, eingeleitet durch Jacques Cheminade, dem früheren französischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten und Vorsitzenden der Partei Solidarité et Progrès. Cheminade stellte in seiner Rede über „Europas Identität: Der Vorteil des Anderen im Neuen Paradigma“ die Politik des EU-Empire und der oligarchischen Bevölkerungsreduktion dem Konzept der Zusammenarbeit der Nationen für die gemeinsamen Ziele der Menschheit gegenüber, wie sie im Westfälischen Frieden formuliert sind. Mit leidenschaftlichen Worten forderte er die Zuhörer auf, sicherzustellen, daß Europa und die USA zu ihrem geistigen und politischen Erbe zurückkehren und als „freie Nationen“ für die Zukunft Afrikas und der Welt kämpfen. Mit derselben Entschlossenheit und dem Mut, wie sie Leonore in der Oper Fidelio zeige, könne es gelingen, die Bevölkerung selbst auf die Bühne der Geschichte zu bringen und die Zukunft zu bestimmen.

In einem eindrucksvollen Beispiel dafür, wie Repräsentanten ganz verschiedener Nationen für die gemeinsamen Ziele der Menschheit zusammenarbeiten können, sprachen in diesem Panel anschließend sechs Redner aus verschiedenen Kontinenten. Saeed Khatibzadeh vom Institut für Politische und Internationale Studien (IPIS, Iran) und Leiter des IPIS-Regionalbüros in Berlin hielt einen Vortrag über „Die Welt gegen Gewalt und Extremismus: Der Nahe Osten im Übergang“, der die großartige Geschichte und Kultur des Iran und seinen Beitrag für die Seidenstraße der von außen erzeugten Spirale von Gewalt und Extremismus im Nahen Osten und dem Leiden der Bevölkerung in der Region gegenüberstellte. Herr Khatibzadeh schloß mit dem Appell, die USA möchten ihre Hauptstadt wieder von London nach Washington zurückverlegen, was ihm viel Beifall eintrug. Es folgte der Ökonom Antonino Galloni, Aufsichtsrat am Nationalen Institut für Sozialrenten in Italien, mit einer Rede über „Enrico Matteis Politik als Universalmodell für die Beziehungen Nord-Süd, Ost-West”, in der er die umfassende Wirtschaftskooperationspolitik Matteis mit den Ölförderländern im Gegensatz zur anglo-amerikanischen Geopolitik beschrieb. Prof. Milena Nikolic vom serbischen Hochschulinstitut für Angewandte Studien sowie Dragan Duncic von der Staatlichen Agentur für Raumplanung (beide Belgrad) präsentierten einen Bericht über das kürzlich wiederbelebte Projekt der „Donau-Morava-Vardar/Axios-Ägäis-Wasserstraße“ und gingen auf die Perspektiven der Zusammenarbeit Serbiens mit China bei der Entwicklung der Infrastruktur des neuen „Seidenstraßen-Wirtschaftsgürtels“ ein.

Dann folgte ein besonderer Höhepunkt: Die China Soong Ching Ling Stiftung mit Sitz in Beijing, vertreten durch Frau Pei Hua, die Direktorin der Forschungsabteilung des CSCLF, und Herrn Chen Bo, stellvertretender Leiter der Abteilung für Internationale Angelegenheiten des CSCLF, übermittelte Grüße an die Konferenz und besonders an Helga Zepp-LaRouche, die kürzlich prominenter Gast bei einem von der Stiftung veranstalteten Seidenstraßensymposium gewesen war. Die Soong Ching Ling Stiftung bewahrt das Erbe der Ehefrau von Sun Yat Sen, dem ersten Präsidenten Chinas nach der Revolution von 1911-12, und setzt sich besonders für die Völkerverständigung und den Kulturaustausch sowie die Förderung der Jugend ein. Frau Pei Hua und Herr Chen Bo überreichten Helga Zepp-LaRouche ein chinesisches Glockenspiel als Geschenk und Zeichen der Verbundenheit.

In einem Beitrag von Diogene Senny, Generalsekretär der Panafrikanischen Liga in Frankreich, ging es anschließend um die „Operationelle Konvergenz zwischen den BRICS-Nationen und Pan-Afrikanismus“, in dem er über die Aufgabe der gemeinsamen Entwicklung Afrikas und der notwendigen nationalen Souveränität der Nationen sprach. Den Abschluß bildete ein Bericht von Robert Barwick vom Citizens Electoral Council (CEC) in Australien. Barwick stellte die zwei Wege für Australien polemisch gegenüber: „Wohin Australien? Zur Hölle mit London und Wall Street oder in den Himmel mit den BRICS?“ Er ging ausführlich auf die Kampagnen der LaRouche-Bewegung in Australien gegen das britische Empire ein und stellte klar, daß sich der Kontinent nicht als geostrategische Schachfigur in Obamas britisch-imperialer Kriegsstrategie gegen China mißbrauchen lassen darf. Dies kam auch in der Grußbotschaft des früheren australischen Premierministers Malcolm Fraser zum Ausdruck, die schon am Vormittag verlesen worden war. Fraser hatte sich kürzlich auch für eine sofortige Glass-Steagall-Bankentrennung ausgesprochen, für die das CEC in Australien mobilisiert.

Wissenschaftsmotoren für die Zukunft

Zum Abschluß der Konferenz ging es um die Parameter, von denen die Gestaltung der Zukunft abhängen wird, und zwar unter dem Thema: „Wissenschaftsmotoren für ein neues Wirtschaftswunder und die gemeinsamen Ziele der Menschheit“. Zunächst wurde ein Beitrag des Dekans der School of Nuclear Science and Technology an der Universität Lanzhou/China zum Thema „Zukünftige Perspektiven der Kernkraft in der neuen Ära der Seidenstraße“ vorgetragen; leider konnte Prof. Dr. Wangsuo Wu kurzfristig den Vortrag nicht persönlich halten. Im Kern behandelte er die Aufgabe, genügend qualifizierte Fachkräfte auszubilden, die in kurzer Zeit die Erfordernisse des chinesischen Kernkraftprogramms im Rahmen der neuen Strategie der Seidenstraße erfüllen können. War dies schon ein vollkommen anderes Denken als die vorherrschende grün-malthusianische und wissenschaftsfeindliche Denkweise in Deutschland, so erweiterte Jason Ross vom LaRouche-Wissenschaftsteam in den USA die Vorstellungskraft der Zuhörer mit seinem grundlegenden Beitrag über „Förderung von Helium 3 auf dem Mond für eine Fusionswirtschaft und als Raumfahrtantrieb“ anschließend gleich um mehrere Größenordnungen! Sein Beitrag zeigte das enorme Potential des chinesischen Mondprogramms vom Standpunkt der Entwicklung der Kernfusion als nächstem Schritt in der Evolution der Menschheit und gab den Zuhörern einen Einblick in Lyndon LaRouches Wissenschaftsmethode.

Toni Kästner, Vorsitzender des Fusions-Energie-Forums (FEF) in Deutschland, ging auf die Zusammenarbeit Europas, Rußlands und Chinas zur Entwicklung Eurasiens ein, für die schon der Universalgelehrte Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz zu Beginn des 18. Jahrhunderts gekämpft hatte. Von diesem Standpunkt aus kommt Deutschland mit seinem enormen wissenschaftlich-ökonomischen Potential eine besondere Rolle bei der Verwirklichung der Seidenstraße und der Weltlandbrücke zu. Kästner griff NRW und Sachsen als zwei besondere Schwerpunktregionen heraus, die sowohl für den Bereich der Weltraumforschung und andere Hochtechnologiebereiche zukunftsweisend sind, wobei Sachsen aufgrund seiner geographischen und historischen Rolle ein wirkliches „Tor zum Osten“ darstellt.

Das Thema, das schon ganz zu Beginn der Konferenz von Helga Zepp-LaRouche als eines der unmittelbar dringlichen Probleme genannt wurde, die die Menschheit jetzt lösen muß, nämlich die Ebola-Tragödie, stand im Mittelpunkt des Vortrages von Dr. Wolfgang Lillge, dem Chefredakteur des Wissenschaftsmagazins Fusion. Dr. Lillge behandelte das Thema, „Der Kampf gegen Krankheiten und Pandemien durch eine Politik globaler Entwicklung“, und machte eindringlich klar, daß der Ausbruch der Ebola-Pandemie in Afrika das Resultat der völlig verfehlten Wirtschaftspolitik des IWF in den letzen 40 Jahren ist. Schon zu Beginn der 1970er Jahre hatte Lyndon LaRouche eine Studie in Auftrag gegeben, die vor einem „Biologischen Holocaust“ warnte, wenn die imperiale Ausplünderung Afrikas und des Entwicklungssektors nicht beendet würde. Das Gegenteil geschah, und heute droht die Vernichtung Afrikas durch Ebola und andere Pandemien in Kombination mit Hunger und von außen angeheizten Kriegen, wenn die Staatengemeinschaft sich nicht international sofort dazu entscheidet, einzugreifen. Dr. Lillge betonte, es seien unmittelbare Maßnahmen erforderlich, um die Sterberaten der von Ebola infizierten Menschen in Afrika zu senken. Dies gehe nur, wenn eine absolute Kehrtwende in der internationalen Politik vollzogen wird und statt oligarchischer Entvölkerung das Menschenrecht auf Leben und Entwicklung im Mittelpunkt steht.

Der Geist der Konferenz, der Menschheit eine optimistischen Weg in die Zukunft zu bahnen, war in der Abschlußdiskussion, ebenso wie in den vielen Gesprächen am Rande der Konferenz, deutlich spürbar. Wie in der Polyphonie eines Musikstückes entstand bei dieser Konferenz zwischen Menschen der verschiedensten Nationen und Hintergründe eine neue Ebene des Dialogs über Ideen „jenseits politischer Floskeln oder Formeln“, und damit eine neue Realität dessen, was menschliche Kreativität und Liebe zur Menschheit bewirken können.

Elke Fimmen und Rainer Apel