Author: Alicia

The following policy statement was issued by the Spain LaRouche Movement on October 2, 2017, translated into English

Ten years ago, the world financial system, riddled with filthy toxic derivatives with no intrinsic value whatsoever, exploded, bringing down with it the world’s physical economies. The policies of austerity measures and issuing fiat money across the trans-Atlantic region by the central banks and the IMF, have left the societies of that region with no future. Spain, along with other European countries, has been a leading victim of that tsunami of physical-economic disintegration, which is reflected in high youth unemployment rates, a growing percentage of the population at risk of poverty and social exclusion, and an abrupt drop in wages. All of this under the dictates of the IMF, the European Commission and the European Central Bank — the Troika.

However, in 2013 a ray of light came from the East, specifically from Astana (Kazakhstan), where Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the creation of an economic belt linking the nations of Asia, which he called the New Silk Road, and which he later broadened to what China today calls the Belt and Road Initiative. This infrastructure and re-industrialization mega-project, based on the most advanced technologies, is centered on a humanist win-win principle in relations among sovereign nation-states, on agapic love of others — principles shared by Confucianism and Platonic Christianity. This new architecture in international relations, with the Belt and Road as its cornerstone, is inspired by a campaign carried out for more than 25 years by the statesman Lyndon LaRouche and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, for the creation of a World Land-Bridge based on a series of development corridors integrating all of the peoples of the planet, raising their living conditions far above the poverty line. Precisely this has been China’s national plan, which to date has raised some 700 million human beings out of poverty, with the goal of completely eradicating it in their country by the year 2020.

And Spain? What role does it play? In its best moments, over the centuries Spain has played the role of being a bridge for humanist ideas among different civilizations. During the Middle Ages, it was a hotbed of scientific, technological and cultural progress, which produced great thinkers such as Ramón Llull, Alfonso X The Wise, and Al-Farabi, true Platonists who promoted the image of Man as a creative being in the physical universe. Llull and Alfonso X’s translations of Platonists works from Arabic to Latin and vernacular languages, such as Castilian and Catalan, directly inspired individuals who contributed to the Golden Renaissance in Europe, such as Nicholas of Cusa and Dante Alighieri, and likewise shaped the thinking of the creator of the science of physical economy, Gottfried Leibniz.

Later, Spain helped execute the last will and testament of Nicholas of Cusa (1401 – 1464), to create a republican Nation state far from Europe’s oligarchical corruption, which would promote Man’s creative abilities, and save Mankind from the dark age which it had endured for more than a century. As part of that project, Spain opened the way to the discovery of the Americas. It also contributed to the creation of the American republic, whose Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution are based on the Renaissance principles developed by Cusa and later Leibniz.

Spain has always been, in its moments of greatness, the bridge which united different cultures, the land where a true ecumenicism could develop, albeit briefly, among the three great monotheistic religions, as was reflected in the Toledo School of Translation.

Today, in the 21st century, Spain can once again become the World Land-Bridge’s bridge to Asia, Africa and the Americas. This year, the Spanish government took a first step towards joining the win-win paradigm which China is offering through the New Silk Road.

The real secession discussion which should dominate Spain’s national attention, should not be that of Catalonia separating from Spain — which would only benefit the City of London and Wall Street’s geopolitical Great Game — but that of separating Spain from the bankrupt and genocidal system of the European Union, of the Troika, which is the expression in Europe of the bankrupt monetary system whose austerity measures have left millions of Spanish youth with no future. A united Spain must declare its independence and reclaim is national sovereignty, and fully join the New Silk road. This is a pregnant moment.

Spaniards: Don’t let yourselves be swept away by the current pessimism induced by the British Empire, the masters of the current bankrupt system. Inspire yourselves in Llull, Alfonso X, Charles III, Bernardo Ward, Al-Farabi, Goya, Campones, and of course, in Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. We have excellent thinkers who showed what Spain is capable of contributing to elevate Mankind to its creative potential. Let us, united, declare our independence as a sovereign Nation state from the austerity imposed by the European Union, and join the New Silk Road to get Spain’s physical economy off the ground, and give its population, especially its youth, a purpose in creating a better future through productive high-skilled jobs which raise our per capita and per square kilomenter physical economic productivity.

Throughout history we have been the bridge among cultures, promoting the integration of civilizations by bringing forth the best and the good of each. It is time to take a step forward and return to being that bridge which is our true identity.

In a cover story on Steve Bannon in Bloomberg Businessweek on Sept. 28, Bannon has escalated his stated intention of driving President Trump into an economic war with China, assuring that the U.S. does not save itself by joining the New Silk Road.

The article is titled “Bannon’s Back and Targeting China,” with the kicker: “From Birmingham to Beijing, the former Trump strategist is leading a movement of his own, now warning of the forced technology transfer of American innovation to China—and working with Henry Kissinger.” They report that Bannon has been consulting with Henry Kissinger and others, “preparing a project to sound an alarm about what he views as the primary economic threat to America: China.” They quote Bannon: “If we don’t get our situation sorted with China, we’ll be destroyed economically. The forced technology transfer of American innovation to China is the single biggest economic and business issue of our time. Until we sort that out, they will continue to appropriate our innovation to their own system and leave us as a colony — your Jamestown to their Great Britain, a tributary state.”

Bannon told Businessweek that he made up his mind to quit the Trump Administration after a pair of September meetings at Kissinger’s country home in Connecticut. Kissinger, Bannon told them, said that during the Vietnam War, analysts outside the administration revived the Committee on the Present Danger because they were afraid that the U.S. was losing the Cold War with Russia. “They understood that you couldn’t do it from inside,” Bannon said. “You had to go outside and, like a fire bell in the night, wake up the American people.”

Bannon also pointed to his work with Andrew Marshall, director of the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment for 42 years (who did his best to start a war with China in each of those years).

“There have been 4,000 years of Chinese diplomatic history, all centered on barbarian management, minus the last 150 years,” Bannon said. “China’s historical disposition toward trading partners is exploitative and potentially ruinous. It’s always about making the barbarians a tributary state. Our tribute to China is our technology — that’s what it takes to enter their market, and [they’ve taken] $3.5 trillion worth over the last 10 years.”

Businessweek writes that Bannon is planning to start a global conference series. “We are in advance discussions about having Breitbart sponsor a major security conference in sub-Saharan Africa, the Persian Gulf, Central Europe, and East Asia, in early to mid-2018,” he said.

The article also notes that Bannon’s meetings with Kissinger and with Politburo member Wang Qishan last week in Beijing don’t apparently cohere with his hardline posture.

The City of London’s The Economist this week escalated their campaign to get both Europe and the U.S. to launch full-scale economic warfare against China. The cover of the Sept. 23-29 issue pictures a mean-faced panda bear playing cards, with a card up his sleeve, under the title: “Does China Play Fair?” The editorial, in classic British style, writes: “Depictions of corporate China as just an undemocratic, state-run monster, thieving and cheating to get ahead, are crude and out of date.” We must be far more sophisticated in our war on China, they go on to explain.

China, they say, is fully guilty of “blatant theft of intellectual property” having gotten where they are by stealing our industrial and nuclear secrets. But the bigger problem, they say, and the “hardest to deal with,” is “unfair competition, sharp practice that breaks no global rules”! The obvious British solution: Change the rules. China has demanded that companies investing in China share their technology, and be subject to Chinese criminal law, while they have the gall to “restrict access to lucrative sectors.” This is “dangerous precisely because today’s rules offer no redress.”

This is followed by the subhead: “Don’t Get Angry. Get Even,” which calls on “America, Europe and big Asian countries” to come together to stop China, to “review their policies for screening investments” on so-called national security grounds.

Meanwhile, Fox News ran scurrilous attack on China under the title “Next Move in America’s ‘Maximum Pressure’ Campaign: Stress North Korean Atrocities and China’s Shameful Role.” The author, Anne Pierce, is a proud member of the Churchill Society and author of a book praising Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman as among our greatest presidents, writes: “China has worked long and hard to upend America’s post-World War II role as the guarantor of stability in Asia and has made tremendous strides in recent years in enhancing its geopolitical and military positions…. China’s aspirations are not just regional, but global. Its One Belt, One Road initiative — which entails building roads, railways and pipelines in Africa, the Middle East and beyond, and includes loans and poverty projects — is designed to gain access to raw materials, and gain economic and political leverage.”

Even the Confucian Institutes are devious, Pierce writes, “designed to disseminate Chinese history and culture in ways flattering to the Chinese government…. Massive information operations downplay its political system and territorial ambitions, and portray China as benevolent…. President Xi Jinping is positioning China as the only great power that can maintain world peace and stability and foster global cooperation and prosperity.”

The United States stands, undecided, before a historical cross road: will we choose to join China and other nations in the largest economic development projects ever undertaken by mankind, or will we collapse along with current, failed paradigm of economic and geopolitical thought?

The long-term economic breakdown in the United States must be reversed:

• Standard of Living Collapse: since 1978, average food costs have increased by 250%, housing by 380%, medical care by 600%, and college tuition by ,100%.
• Physical Infrastructure Breakdown: in their 2017 report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave U.S. infrastructure a D+, with a $2 trillion 10-year investment gap.
• A New Financial Meltdown: the 2008 bailout did nothing to fix the systemic problems in the financial system, leaving the U.S. and EU overdue for a larger meltdown.

These aren’t simply the result of bad policies, they’re the expression of bad ideas—failed axioms underlying modern economic thought. But there is another option available.

If the U.S. decides to work with China, Russia, and other nations in a “win-win” program of global infrastructure and economic development, a bright future is ours to create. Americans can look forward to a national high-speed rail grid, limitless power with fusion energy, the end of droughts with revolutionary water management, the development of new territories and cities, a space colonization program, and a new era of advanced manufacturing and related careers.

The 2017 LaRouchePAC economics class series will provide you with what’s needed to lead the United States down this correct path. Lyndon LaRouche is the world’s leading long-range economic forecaster, with an unmatched record going back to the late 1950s, and three of his top students will lead this international online class series Wednesday evenings, October 4 through December 13.

Register today

by Liliana Gorini, Chairwoman, Movisol

President Donald Trump
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Mr. President:

As an Italian citizen and chairwoman of Movisol, Lyndon LaRouche’s movement in Italy, I call on you to intervene in defense of Christopher Columbus and Columbus Day. The same people who are out to destroy the U.S. Presidency, led by Wall Street speculator George Soros (who destroyed the Italian lira in 1992), are also trying to eradicate history and culture not only in the United States, but internationally. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, his Italian collaborator Paolo del Pozzo Toscanelli, Columbus, Amerigo Vespucci, and others were part of a revolution in culture, art, geography, and science, which made the discovery of America possible. The deliberate explosion in human creativity that was the Italian Renaissance is a truly proud moment in all humanity’s history, and not merely for Italians. The people who want to abolish Columbus Day, whether they are maliciously witting, or merely deluded, are out to also dismantle this Western cultural and scientific heritage.

It has always been the British, including the “cultural thought-police” associated with the British Museum, who have tried to downplay and dismantle the Italian Renaissance: to undermine its successful expedition to explore new lands, and to obfuscate and deny its mission to construct, “in a new world,” a new and better sovereign nation-state, superior to those of Europe.

The United States of America eventually became that nation-state. This was a central, conscious part of the grand project of discovery, of Cusa, Toscanelli, and Christopher Columbus. There was nothing mistaken in that intention.

There is also nothing “sincerely mistaken” about this Dark Age movement to “bring down the statue.” The Aug. 29 beheading of a statue of Columbus in the city of Yonkers, New York, reminds one of the beheading of 28 statues of religious figures in one day in October 1793, during the French Revolution—the same month that Marie Antoinette was guillotined. They called their movement “The Cult of Reason.”

Similarly, it was the 1950s Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) which actually tried to abolish culture and our historical roots from the 1950s on, and now apparently inspires gangs of protesters who, similar to ISIS in Palmyra and other jewels of culture in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, are out to destroy monuments and statues which remind the population of its inheritance. Beauty, in the classical, aesthetical sense, disturbs them.

Columbus and his trip of discovery was the result of the Italian Renaissance, which is, to this day, an important reference point for each Italian citizen in a moment of great crisis.

This is why there was an uproar here in Italy, and rightly so also in the Italian-American community in the United States, when we heard that a statue of Columbus was knocked down and that there are petitions to abolish Columbus Day and the Columbus Parade on Fifth Avenue.

What will be next? Tear down the city of Columbus in Ohio, which I visited years ago to admire its Columbus statue? Tear down the Brunelleschi Dome in Florence? Or the statue of Leonardo da Vinci in front of La Scala in Milan, which shows how Leonardo was not only a Renaissance genius, engineer, and painter, but also invented Bel Canto with his treatise, De Vocie, on the human voice?

We trust that you will intervene to defend this historical heritage, which cannot be forgotten, but should rather inspire a new Renaissance in culture, leading to scientific and economic cooperation between the United States and the rest of the world, including Russia and China. As Italians, we also call on you to keep our electoral promise and reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which would not only stop speculation and free up credit to build urgently needed infrastructure, but would also put an end to the excessive power of Wall Street, which is certainly behind, and financing, such misguided grass-roots campaigns. We are hoping to do the same here, and thus to jointly work with your Administration and other nations on new discoveries worthy of the true legacy of Christopher Columbus and Western civilization.

Liliana Gorini
Chairwoman of the Movimento Internazionale per i Diritti Civili Solidarietà (Movisol),
Milan, Italy

Learn more:
The discovery of the Americas and the Renaissance scientific project
The ‘Toscanelli Project’ factor in the Christopher Columbus story

On September 26, a UK citizen writing under the pseudonym Adam Carter responded to several short questions from EIR regarding his role in uncovering numerous inconsistencies in the reporting on Russia-Gate, most prominently regarding the purported Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0.

His work was a key reference in the July 24 VIPS memo “Was the Russian Hack an Inside Job,” the contents of which were discussed by VIPS members Ray McGovern and Bill Binney at two LaRouche events in Manhattan: one on Aug 19 (by video) and on Sept 9 (in person).

EIR: You are very active on the Russia-Gate/Guccifer 2.0 issue. Recently, on Sept 17, you wrote about reaching out to the foreign embassies in London as “Phase 5” of your actions. Could you tell our readers how you’ve been weighing in on the Russia-Gate discussion, and other ways you’ve been acting to shape the debate and avoid a needless nuclear war with Russia?

Adam Carter: As you may know, I’ve been researching the topic of Guccifer 2.0 since the beginning of the year (after considering various anomalies and deciding to independently investigate). While quite a lot of new information has come about from this (with a lot of help from co-contributors and other analysis from independent researchers/analysts), the mainstream press have been unwilling to report on the discoveries.

Knowing that we’re up against systems that have much to lose from the collapse of the erroneous mainstream narrative on Guccifer 2.0’s origins (including budgets and contracts worth billions over time, reputations of politicians, reputations of many in the press, reputations of cyber security experts and firms, etc.), I’ve always known it was going to be an uphill battle that would take a long time.

So, when one of the more recent additions (from an analyst working under the pseudonym Forensicator) caught the eye of several VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) members and we subsequently had Forensicator’s work and some of the research from my site cited by them, I wanted to make sure we made optimal use of the opportunity to increase exposure of the research and evidence.

We were fortunate that Skip Folden reached out to us on behalf of VIPS, and since then, both Forensicator and I have tried to answer any of their questions and let them know of any of our new discoveries, test results, etc.

As you know, an article in The Nation (“A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack”) caused quite a stir recently too. It did make some conclusions that weren’t necessarily stated in the original research it drew upon (likely from inference due to the archive contents and other information relevant to the date but not necessarily declared anywhere as a hack on that date) and it appears that a metaphorical third party statement, I believe, was reported as though it was a literal one.

In addition to researching and reporting on numerous discoveries made, I’ve always tried to consider strategy with regards to getting the information out. Throughout the past nine months, I’ve consistently considered such issues as dealing with media black-outs, propaganda, the use of logical fallacies to degrade and disrupt the information, and other factors. As part of that, I also planned several phases for my own efforts, with the latter phases being direct contact with politicians and, pending legal advice, possibly with DNC donors whose details were published (though I’m likely to leave that to a legal firm if I find one that wishes to pursue it).

When I saw other writers attack the article in The Nation (and in most cases through a strawman attack on the calculated transfer speeds and conclusions drawn from them) including presenting themselves as debunking the underlying research, I knew I had to make sure that as many of the articles that were unfair or deceptive were challenged and that those seeking to mislead their readers were skewered for every effort to manipulate.

While all that was going on (and as continues to crop up from time to time!), I noticed in a follow-up article that Skip Folden had mentioned sending a more detailed report (“Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge”) to the Office of the Special Counsel and Deputy Attorney General. Seeing his direct action reminded me of the fact that there was still a phase of the efforts I’d previously planned out that remained—phase #5: contact every foreign embassy in London (as I’m from the UK) and advise representatives of as many nations as possible about the likelihood of false attribution of Guccifer 2.0 to Russia and how it was being exploited by politicians and mainstream media to manufacture consent for war.

Knowing that Skip’s report may remain unacknowledged and possibly ignored by the recipients, it seemed it would be a good time to draw attention from around the world on the investigations being carried out. I wanted to try to make sure there was increased scrutiny on the recipients of the report and how they are reacting to being provided notification of exculpatory evidence and of problems with the JAR and ICA reports (and so far, it looks like they’ve failed to acknowledge it).

So I wrote to every embassy that I could in London, to try to bring more attention to the issue, and to try to put some pressure on those that should be investigating thoroughly and in good faith.

EIR: What advice would you offer activists, on this issue, and more generally?

Carter: Failing to succeed is far better than failing to have tried at all.

If direct action is correspondence, try to draw public attention to the fact that recipients have been informed of and then put their inaction and disregard on a pedestal. Politicians and “deep state” institutions will try to ignore things that are inconvenient for them until doing so becomes damaging to their own reputations and sometimes you have to provoke a situation where you can demonstrate that someone is acting shamefully or betraying public trust.

Regarding online/social-media activism. There is an information war on: there are reputation management firms that are paid a lot to degrade information, to cause confusion and conflation, and to dispute claims through the use of logical fallacies. As such, it’s good to be aware of their tactics, able to identify them quickly and call them out. I’d recommend the following links for some interesting and helpful information on the topic:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/Deception-IWC7-06-Slides.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/Deception-IWC6-05-Slides.pdf
http://www.mindivogel.com/uploads/1/1/3/9/11394148/how_to_detect_propaganda.pdf
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

If engaging in direct action, try to always do things in a group, the bigger the better – it helps with confidence and makes it more difficult for activists to be singled out and unfairly treated.

Personal Background

EIR: Tell us about yourself, in terms of your motivations and decisions to put so much effort into this matter. How do you see your role in history?

Carter: I’m a citizen of the UK with interests in technology, digital arts, global politics, science, media and more. I’ve been in awe at America since I was a kid and over the last 15 years (due to 9/11 and the response from both our governments to it) have become fascinated by US politics (and the foreign policy objectives our nations seem to share in many areas).

For the past 15 years, I’ve worked in web site and web application development. While this is my primary area of expertise, I have a much broader interest in technology and try to stay up to date with new developments whether in development, 3D design or less creative (but still essential) fields such as information security.

Inherently in what I do, I’m defending clients from hackers, malware, botnets, etc and have written software that scans for malware from any website root it’s installed on.

Going further back, in my teens, I disassembled & cracked software and more (back in the 16-bit era), I was no stranger to BBSs and did have a brief phase of being a black-hat. However, that was all a long time ago. I’m now a director of a business with two kids and a mortgage, and the closest I now come to mischief is having the audacity to call out what I strongly feel is—at least as far as it pertains to Guccifer 2.0—a false narrative built upon deceit.

So, essentially, you could say I’m an ex-hacker calling out a fake hacker.

Motivation To Investigate

Around December of 2016, I noticed Guccifer 2.0 was being cited a lot in the media alongside “Russian hacking is an act-of-war!” rhetoric and some specious claims about Putin ordering the hacking and/or directing the use of hacked materials. I noticed it become a highly polarizing issue and it got me thinking back to the many inconsistencies in the alleged hacker’s actions and words, the blatant nonsense of the supposed “Clinton Foundation Hack,” how weird it was that Guccifer 2.0 was supposedly a skilled hacker, yet, lacking the egotistic flair skilled hackers are renowned for, adopted the name of someone else and stuck “2.0” on the end. I then thought about the headlines Guccifer 2.0 had generated and how so much of the material he released was of little to no impact to the Clinton campaign or the DNC’s leadership. It didn’t make sense and yet this “hacker” was being used as part of the justification. To me, something just didn’t seem right with it.

Towards the end of December, with time off work, my curiosity grew, I started searching, going back to old articles, trying to make more sense of what Guccifer 2.0 was. It was no good—everything was spread out and the facts I had gathered lacked chronological context. So, to get a better understanding of what Guccifer 2.0 was, I decided to construct a timeline with everything I could find in terms of primary and secondary sources relating to Guccifer 2.0, with dates, key revelations and including the links to the source articles and links to archived copies of the pages.

I read all the articles while gathering them (and eliminated tertiary sources that added nothing to the sources they were citing). I then read through everything in sequence again at the end.

Initial Discoveries

It didn’t take long before I found an enormous number of anomalies and inconsistencies where there shouldn’t be any, as well as some odd correlations where none should exist. It was baffling, but one thing I was sure of was that this was not a genuine hacker nor was it someone who truly intended to hurt the DNC leadership or the Clinton campaign. (ThreatConnect discredited his breach claims, he never mentioned any of the significantly more damaging revelations exposed in the emails released by Wikileaks, and his leaks were mostly junk—and mysteriously, this supposedly skilled hacker could only produce material from the Democratic Party.)

Knowing that hackers are more prone to security lapses at the beginning of an operation and at points of excitement (I was able to predict the moment when Sabu of Lulzsec had been compromised by the FBI on the basis of something I’ve only ever seen occur with Compromised-Sabu and Guccifer 2.0), I decided to review the first batch of files and activities of Guccifer 2.0’s on the day he emerged.

I then spotted Warren Flood’s name, not just on one document but on three different documents, and something else—the document creation dates were all June 15 (the same day as this “hacker” emerged) and the three with Flood’s name on them had identical creation times. (To be clear, Flood is very likely innocent and his name is likely to be an indicator of which computer was used to produce the initial pre-tainted template document.)

I thought it was odd because those that had reported on it seemed to have made no mention of it. In fact, an article published at Gawker actually misreported the date of the first document’s metadata.

Learning What Guccifer 2.0 Was

I started to see how Guccifer 2.0’s behavior did more to undermine and distract from WikiLeaks than anything else and soon realized the significance of what I was looking at.

I then had an interaction with a user on Reddit (u/tvor_22) and, when looking at the initial documents Guccifer 2.0 released, he made a discovery that helped clarify what we were looking at. Essentially, the documents were constructed in a deliberate manner to have Russian language metadata and stylesheets in them.

Knowing this was an attempt to blame Russians for leaks and seeing that it was now being exploited by some who were coupling it up with hawkish rhetoric, I knew it needed opposing but also knew more investigation was needed as a strong multi-faceted argument would be required to go up against a well-established mainstream narrative (and one that had just been bolstered by various statements made by intelligence agencies and was aggressively promoted by many in the mainstream press).

I considered the facts:

• I knew Guccifer 2.0 was a lie of some sort.
• I’m outside of the US (so, was hopefully at less risk of interception or worse).
• I’ve successfully attributed a hack to perpetrators before.
• I’m probably less emotionally invested in the election outcome than most Americans, which may help carry out an impartial investigation.
• I already knew much that had been unreported or misreported.
• I was prepared to investigate in good faith, turning over every stone eventually and being transparent about discoveries made.

I thought as I’d already come this far and figured out things that had been missed, maybe trying to carry out a more extensive investigation and take things further wasn’t necessarily beyond my capabilities.

I didn’t welcome the risk, but the guilt I’d feel from allowing an unnecessary conflict to occur would be completely unbearable, especially when I knew I was in a better position to speak out about it than most.

While that, of course, means the path I’ve been walking the last 9 months hasn’t been an easy one, there have been some very positive things too and it’s these that give me the stamina and determination to keep pushing forward.

I’ve been extremely fortunate to have gained some valuable support and contributions from a number of talented and thoughtful people (sometimes directly through my site, sometimes separately through analysis they release on their own sites). Merging paths with some key members of VIPS as well as a highly proactive contributor to their efforts has also been a very welcome blessing too.

Regarding your question, “How do you see your role in history?” — I don’t want my ego or personality to get in the way, especially not at such a critical time. Maybe one day I’ll be able to contemplate that, but for now, I’m just someone that tried to do the right thing when they realized everybody had been lied to.

For now though … there’s still much to do and still many that are yet to wake up.

By Mike Billington

It was true in the 1990s, as it was in 2002-2005, and is even more emphatically true today: only by engaging North Korea in a process of large scale regional infrastructure development can the threat of war be averted — perhaps global thermonuclear war.

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, Lyndon and Helga LaRouche called for a New Silk Road, from Pusan to Rotterdam, as the necessary basis for ending the danger of global war, uniting East and West through the joint construction of multiple development corridors. The continuing isolation of North Korea was a key stumbling block to this vision of a new paradigm for global peace and development. The U.S. and North Korea had never signed a peace treaty to end the Korean War in the 1950s, and confrontations occurred on a fairly regular basis. Constructing a rail corridor through the North, LaRouche posed, would not only complete the proposed New Silk Road, but would provide the North with a stake in this historic development process, and grounds for trust that they would not be attacked.

Today the world is being presented with an apparently insurmountable conflict between North Korea and the United States, with the danger of war looming before us. The George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations established an imperial policy that all agreements and all talks would be suspended unless North Korea unilaterally ended all nuclear weapons programs and all missile development. Now, President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un are trading barbs and insults, with both sides threatening military action. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking in New York on Sept. 22, called the exchange a “kindergarten fight between children” and urged calm. “We have to calm down the hot-heads and understand that we do need pauses, that we do need some contacts,” Lavrov told a news conference at the United Nations on the sidelines of the annual General Assembly debate.

But Lavrov also referred to President Trump’s speech at the UN as “remarkable,” saying: “I think it’s a very welcome statement, which we haven’t heard from an American leader for a very long time.” He referred to Trump’s defense of the concept of national sovereignty, that “we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone,” and that, “I will always put America first, just as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first.”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche pointed to the apparent contradiction between this and the threat in Trump’s speech to destroy North Korea if it comes to war, calling it a “tale of two speeches.”

But war is neither inevitable, nor even probable. The retired flag officers now serving in Trump’s Cabinet have made clear that a war would be catastrophic for South Korea, the region and the world. Trump has assured South Korean President Moon Jae-in that there will be no U.S. military action without South Korea’s accord — and Moon has made clear that he will not allow a war, which would be particularly destructive of South Korea, whether or not nuclear weapons were to be deployed. Also, leading U.S. experts have argued that we can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, as we have for 20 years already, because we have a powerful deterrent, and because Pyongyang is not suicidal. (See, for instance, )

But a solution is necessary, quickly. The 1995 Agreed Framework achieved by President Bill Clinton with Pyongyang — shutting down the North’s production of weapons grade plutonium in exchange for a new, safer type of nuclear plant, establishing IAEA inspectors in the country, while moving towards a peace agreement — was cancelled when George Bush and Dick Cheney came to power in 2001. Nonetheless, then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung’s Sunshine Policy toward the North proceeded, working closely with China and Russia, and with significant input from Lyndon LaRouche, leading to the opening of the Demilitarized Zone in 2002, and the reopening of The Iron Silk Road rail connections between the South and the North. (see EIR, Vol. 29, No. 37, Sept. 22, 2002, pp. 48-50)

The UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP) issued a report in 2003 identifying the two rail routes from South Korea through North Korea, one to China and one to Russia, as part of the New Silk Road connections between Asia and Europe. Even Japan engaged in the process, as then Prime Minister Kunichiro Koizumi travelled to Pyongyang and signed agreements with Kim Jung-il, the father of the current North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

The Bush-Cheney neocons, however, were openly out to stop this process. Among other threats, Cheney and Deputy Secretary of State John Bolton threatened to begin boarding North Korean ships to stop alleged “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” — i.e., piracy on the high seas.

China then took the initiative, with Russia, Japan and South Korea, to invite the U.S. to join Six Party Talks to resolve the nuclear weapons issue peacefully. These began in 2003, leading to an agreement in 2005, again ending the North’s weapons programs and bringing the IAEA inspectors back. Bush and Cheney managed to scuttle this peace and development agreement as well, claiming that a North Korean effort to place a satellite in space constituted a breach of the agreement against developing ICBMs — a clear case of “technological apartheid” under the guise of non-proliferation. Obama then adopted his provocative “strategic patience” — no talks until the North ended all nuclear development.

What should be obvious is that the Anglophile imperial forces in the U.S., including Bush and Obama, want North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Their target is not North Korea, but China and Russia, maintaining the British imperial division of the world into East vs. West. As long as North Korea can be falsely claimed as an imminent threat to the U.S. and its allies, there is an excuse to: encircle China with 60% of the U.S. naval nuclear armed forces (Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”); place ABM systems and high-powered radar systems in a ring around China (THAAD); and deploy U.S. strategic forces in South Korea. These massive forces are obviously not needed to contain and deter North Korea. The target is China and Russia.

The solution is at hand. First, since President Trump is committed to cooperation with Russia and China, both in fighting terrorism and in economic development, he can be brought to work with them on a development orientation towards North Korea. The proposal by China and Russia for a double freeze — a pause on nuclear and missile tests in the North and a pause or scale-down of the U.S.-South Korean military exercises — is a sound basis for each side to show concern for the security of the other. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has clearly stated that the U.S. will not impose regime change, or attack, or force reunification on North Korea, and despite Trump’s extreme bargaining position approach, such restoration of talks is both possible and urgent.

President Putin, speaking with the press together with South Korean President Moon Jae-in at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok early this month, said: “I would like to say that Russia is still willing to implement trilateral projects with the participation of North Korea. We could deliver Russian pipeline gas to Korea, and integrate the power lines and railway systems of Russia, the Republic of Korea and North Korea. The implementation of these initiatives will be not only economically beneficial, but will also help build up trust and stability on the Korean Peninsula.” President Moon concurred, in keeping with his intent to revive the Sunshine Policy.

China is committed to this approach. Japan is now closely engaged with Russia in developing the Russian Far East, which depends on integrating North and South Korea into the process.

Trump can and must be convinced that to live up to own challenge, stated in his UN speech, that, “We have it in our power, should we so choose, to lift millions of people from poverty, to help our citizens realize their dreams, and to ensure that new generations of children are raised free from violence, hatred and fear,” that he should fully join with China and Russia in the New Silk Road process, including for a long-term, long overdue peace for the Korean people.

‘Peace Through Development: The Path to a Unified Korea’ a feature documentary published by LaRouchePAC in May, 2016.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson held an hour-long informal meeting at the Russian United Nations Mission in New York. They reiterated their commitment to cooperate in Syria to eliminate conflict situations and reduction of violence, according to a statement by State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert.

“The two recommitted to deconflicting military operations in Syria, reducing the violence, and creating the conditions for the Geneva process to move forward, pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254,” according to the document.

The Russian Foreign Ministry reported that they also discussed cooperation on the Syrian crisis and other aspects of the situation in the Middle East and North Africa as well as the status of implementation of the Minsk agreements.

Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev said today that the meeting was a positive signal. “I see a positive signal in today’s meeting,” said Kosachev, who chairs Russia’s Federation Council (upper house of parliament) International Affairs Committee. “No doubt, the two countries, which are permanent UN Security Council members, should coordinate their steps ahead of the upcoming General Assembly. This is a good sign,” he said.

Nonetheless, Kosachev said it was unfortunate that in a interview with Face the Nation on CBS, Tillerson said that “if our diplomatic efforts (on North Korea) fall though, our military option will be the only one left.” Kosachev didn’t mention the fact that both U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster issued similar threats of military action, speaking on Sunday talk shows.

“As long as the U.S. and other Western countries, their allies and neighbors of North Korea — South Korea, Japan and other regional countries— leave open the possibility of external interference and toppling the current regime there, unfortunately North Korea and its authorities will continue implementing its nuclear program,” Kosachev warned.

“Definitely, there is no military solution there, no doubt that if any military operation is carried out, unfortunately, North Korea’s authorities will fulfill those possibilities that they have,” the Russian Senator stressed. “All this will end sadly not only for the region but for the whole world, including the US.”

“That’s why I sincerely regret Tillerson’s statement as this is definitely not a solution to the North Korean problem, recognizing that this is a problem, it is evident that it exists and demands immediate solution,” the senator said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson held an hour-long informal meeting at the Russian United Nations Mission in New York. They reiterated their commitment to cooperate in Syria to eliminate conflict situations and reduction of violence, according to a statement by State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert.

“The two recommitted to deconflicting military operations in Syria, reducing the violence, and creating the conditions for the Geneva process to move forward, pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254,” according to the document.

The Russian Foreign Ministry reported that they also discussed cooperation on the Syrian crisis and other aspects of the situation in the Middle East and North Africa as well as the status of implementation of the Minsk agreements.

Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev said today that the meeting was a positive signal. “I see a positive signal in today’s meeting,” said Kosachev, who chairs Russia’s Federation Council (upper house of parliament) International Affairs Committee. “No doubt, the two countries, which are permanent UN Security Council members, should coordinate their steps ahead of the upcoming General Assembly. This is a good sign,” he said.

Nonetheless, Kosachev said it was unfortunate that in a interview with Face the Nation on CBS, Tillerson said that “if our diplomatic efforts (on North Korea) fall though, our military option will be the only one left.” Kosachev didn’t mention the fact that both U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster issued similar threats of military action, speaking on Sunday talk shows.

“As long as the U.S. and other Western countries, their allies and neighbors of North Korea — South Korea, Japan and other regional countries— leave open the possibility of external interference and toppling the current regime there, unfortunately North Korea and its authorities will continue implementing its nuclear program,” Kosachev warned.

“Definitely, there is no military solution there, no doubt that if any military operation is carried out, unfortunately, North Korea’s authorities will fulfill those possibilities that they have,” the Russian Senator stressed. “All this will end sadly not only for the region but for the whole world, including the US.”

“That’s why I sincerely regret Tillerson’s statement as this is definitely not a solution to the North Korean problem, recognizing that this is a problem, it is evident that it exists and demands immediate solution,” the senator said.