Video of 3N8XDRykt8g

This week’s show features the participation of Hussein Askary, an organizer for economic development in the world, with a focus on the Middle East. Askary, a long-time associate of Lyndon LaRouche, discusses the successes and challenges facing Egypt, as a case study for the dueling economic paradigms of the present. Development cannot occur within a monetarist straitjacket, but requires the credit approach of the Lyndon LaRouche–Alexander Hamilton “Four Laws.”

For more on the Four Laws, see: lpac.co/four-laws
Hussein Askary’s proposal for Egyptian economic independence
Alexander Hamilton’s four reports to the Congress

Intense meetings of European and American political and military leaders are taking place across Europe this week, discussing and planning wars — wars in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Ukraine. And underlying all these talks is Obama’s and London’s frantic efforts to get support for a war on Russia and China. Increasingly, European governments and/or leading institutions are resisting that madness, but provocations are being planned by Obama and his Defense Secretary Ash Carter that could kick-start an irreversible process towards war, threatening civilization itself with a nuclear holocaust.        

Yet, the vast majority of the world is looking to China, Russia and India, who met last weekend with their BRICS partners Brazil and South Africa in Goa, India, kick-starting not war, but global development, with high speed rail projects connecting nations through a World Land-Bridge; signing agreements for nuclear power construction and other infrastructure, collaboration in space exploration; and lifting the millions of poverty-stricken people in Asia, Africa and South America up to human standards of living, just as China has lifted 700 million souls out of poverty.        

Which paradigm will determine the future of mankind? To a great extent, that will be determined in the United States. As the war party mobilizes its forces, and as the irreversible collapse of Deutsche Bank’s derivative-saturated assets spreads panic through the western financial system, the wreckage of the Obama administration, and the hatred of the population for Obama and his clone Hillary Clinton, is only partially suppressed by the pornographic clown show being performed by the presidential candidates and the sick media who are promoting it.        

Elections, as envisioned by America’s Founding Fathers, were about more than choosing political representatives — they were a time for intelligent people to address and educate the citizenry on fundamental principles of natural law, and on the mission of the nation for the world’s future. That is the reason that Lyndon LaRouche’s campaigns for President over three decades had a deep and lasting impact on the nation, despite relatively few votes, and despite constant attacks from the government and from the media.        

Never in the nation’s history have candidates been so reviled by the population as in the current election, although in many cases neither major candidate was qualified for the position. The population has only one choice — vote for principle, mobilize the citizenry for LaRouche’s ideas, his Four Laws, based on Alexander Hamilton’s profound discoveries, and a restoration of classical music and culture.        

As Friedrich Schiller said, we must all be, at the same time, patriots of our nations and citizens of the world. In that way citizens of all nations can assist in the awesome task of reversing America’s descent into British Imperial Hell, and bring this once great nation into alignment with the paradigm of human progress.

What would Hamilton do? Find out.

Comments: 

Frequently Asked Questions

Wasn’t the repeal of Glass-Steagall irrelevant to the 2008 financial crash, because the crash was triggered by the failures of financial firms which were not combined monsters (banking/investment, banking/securities, broker-dealing/insurance, underwriting), but were stand-alone monsters like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers investment firms, AIG Insurance, etc.? Glass-Steagall would not have been regulating these firms anyway.

This is the argument of choice for Wall Street, President Obama, the authors of the Dodd-Frank Act which blocked the restoration of Glass-Steagall after the crash, conservatives and liberals alike who lobby for Wall Street, etc.

1) This argument is absurd on its face, because the big financial firms that failed in 2007-08 were simply those that were not bailed out by the Federal government.

That is all that determined it. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke himself told the Financial Crisis Investigative Commission in 2011, that 11 of the 12 biggest banks had been insolvent in October 2008; they would have failed without the TARP bailout by the Treasury and the abundant bailouts by the Federal Reserve and FDIC. These banks would never have become as large and unmanageably complex as they were, if Glass-Steagall had not been eliminated in the 1990s.

In fact, the most dangerous of all the banks in the 2008 crash was one that didn’t go bankrupt—Citigroup—because it received by far the biggest bailout in history by the TARP ($45 billion), the FDIC ($340 billion in asset guarantees) and the Federal Reserve (hundreds of billions in revolving, no-cost liquidity loans starting in 2007). The FDIC Chair, Sheila Bair, later wrote, “If you wanted to make a definitive list of all the bad practices that had led to the crisis, all you had to do was look at Citi’s financial strategies.”

2) That shows that the argument is absurd. But what shows that Glass-Steagall, if it had remained in effect and enforced, would have prevented the 2008 financial crash?

The simplest “proof” is the case of the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) hedge fund. By 1995, when Fed Chair Alan Greenspan had essentially finished emasculating Glass-Steagall, large commercial deposit banks could have up to 25% of their assets in securities speculations or derivatives, and/or in loans to non-bank financial firms which did nothing but such speculation. Glass-Steagall had stopped such conduct by commercial banks for 55 years. From 1995 until 1999, fifty-five banks had made loans to one notorious hedge fund—LTCM—dealing entirely in derivatives. LTCM had borrowed capital totaling 100 times its own capital; i.e., it was leveraged 100:1 by the big banks of the world. And when it failed in early 1999, this single hedge fund nearly caused a global financial panic – Greenspan had to call an emergency meeting of all the biggest banks and arrange an emergency bailout of LTCM.

Under Glass-Steagall from 1933-95, the U.S. commercial banking sector proliferated into many thousands of regional and community banks, with no global giants until the past 20 years. There were many failures of financial firms, but none of them spread into bank panics like Lehman Brothers in 2008—or like LTCM would have caused already in 1999.

Before Glass-Steagall, many banks had thrown their deposit bases into stock market speculations. After Glass-Steagall was eliminated, they did it again, on a much larger scale, and with much more complex bond market speculations and the financial derivatives casino. The banking system dramatically changed without Glass-Steagall separation regulations. The largest banks became impossibly complex, going from typically 1-300 subsidiaries to typically 2,500-4,000 subsidiaries, buying and creating what were overwhelmingly securities and broker-dealer vehicles. The derivatives markets exploded geometrically with the flow from depository giants, from about $70 trillion notional value of derivatives in 1997 to $700 trillion in 2007 according to the Bank for International Settlements. The largest banks became entirely interconnected with one another and with investment banks and “shadow banks” like hedge funds and private equity funds—particularly through their mutual derivatives exposures. The big banks’ leverage ratios were allowed to rise from typically 16:1, to 30-35:1.

Within less than a decade after the repeal of Glass-Steagall, every large “shadow bank” or monoline insurance company was a potential “LTCM.” If even a very large hedge fund blew up, everything would blow up. Bear Stearns would have done the trick but it was bailed out by the Federal Reserve, which [completely against its own regulations] bought $30 billion of Bear Stearns’ assets with printed money. Lehman Brothers did the trick because the Federal government did not bail it out. Under the Glass-Steagall regime, large investment firms could fail, like Solomon Brothers or Drexel Burnham Lambert, without causing bank panics, because the large commercial banks were separated—by Glass-Steagall – from their business of securities speculation.

Would restoring Glass-Steagall reduce the political power of the Wall Street banks?

There is no substitute for prosecuting the top executives of the major Wall Street banks for the endless catalog of criminal actions they’ve been exposed in – fines, even large fines, do not reduce these banks’ political power.

But restoring Glass-Steagall would definitely reduce their power. It would lead to the removal of the managements of many of the biggest bank holding companies, whose holdings would be broken up under Glass-Steagall. Secondly, many of the speculative units of these huge banks will go under once the commercial banking units, holding $12 trillion in savings deposits, can no longer be used to support them because of Glass-Steagall separation.

Moreover, the financial sector will again have different sections with different interests to lobby for. Without Glass-Steagall, a Citigroup pursues every speculative investment strategy known to investment banks, hedge funds, money market mutual funds, etc. etc., because it owns them all or buys or backs their securities and derivatives. So all the financial firms push for deregulation of all of it, the whole casino.

Under Glass-Steagall enforcement, commercial banks, investment firms and other funds were often lobbying against each other; in 1971, the mutual funds sued Citibank for trying to steal their turf in violation of Glass-Steagall – as a result, the Supreme Court upheld Glass-Steagall in the strongest terms. Thus the outrageous current power of the financial industry, acting through universal lobby groups like the Securities Industries Association, will be broken up.

A “secret FBI study” obtained by The Intercept found that the number-one cause of so-called “domestic” terrorism was — not the Internet, not travel to foreign countries, not even extremist madrassas, but rather, ongoing U.S. military operations in Southwest Asia throughout the Bush and Obama presidencies, especially Obama’s targeted drone killings.

The study, titled “Homegrown Violent Extremists: Survey Confirms Key Assessments, Reveals New Insights about Radicalization,” dates from December 2012, and was produced by an FBI unit called the “America’s Fusion Cell.”

While “online relationships and exposure to English-language militant propaganda and ‘ideologues’ like Anwar al-Awlaki are also cited as ‘key factors’ driving extremism,” author Cora Currier states that, “grievances over U.S. military action ranked far above any other factor.” The secret report, which echoes findings of one done in 2011, a year earlier, notes that “between 2009 and 2012, 10 out of 16 attempted or successful terrorist attacks in the United States targeted military facilities or personnel.”

Confirming that this is still the case, is the recording of the conversation between Omar Mateen, the shooter in the Orlando night club incident earlier this year, and his negotiator, tapes of which have just been released. During the conversation, Mateen repeatedly tells the person that “you have to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq. They are killing a lot of innocent people,” finally declaring, “What am I to do here when my people are getting killed over there? You get what I’m saying?”

Separately, the FBI has now ramped up their own “domestic terror” operations, with the “exposure” of a plot to assassinate Muslims in Kansas. Three men, belonging to a network calling themselves “the Crusaders,” a group that espoused “sovereign citizen, anti-government, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant extremist beliefs,” were arrested on Friday, after planning to go on a bombing and shooting spree November 9th, the day after the Presidential election.

The FBI had been “investigating” the men since February, watching them “stockpile firearms, ammunition and explosive materials,” and finally “introduced” an undercover agent, who “provided [them with] automated weapons,” before arresting them soon afterwards.

Philippine Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III told the Inquirer last week, published Monday, that the Duterte Administration has called on the Senate to ratify the country’s membership in the Chinese-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) this week, before Duterte’s trip to China at the end of the week. He also said that the government planned to spend $160 billion for infrastructure during the six-year term.

Two weeks ago Dominguez told a Washington audience that were the United States to cut back on its investments in the Philippines, it would be too bad for them but no problem for the Philippines, since many other nations were anxious to invest in the nation, now that it has a pro-growth government.

He said they expected that membership in the AIIB would help “erase the massive public works gap that has hobbled the local economy,” and would “unlock funding for all other projects that the government would want to undertake — whether they be a new rail project, an expansion of the country’s aging road network or new airports.”

The subservience to U.S. imperial looting of the nation since the 1980s overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos has resulted in both mass poverty, a gaping deficit in infrastructure, and the most expensive electricity in all of Asia.

Most importantly, Dominguez made a sharp attack on the Washington-enforced policy known as Public-Private Partnership (PPP), which was a gimmick to leave infrastructure to the private sector, but with access to government money. He said that the Aquino administration (a puppet to Obama, both economically, and militarily regarding Obama’s confrontation with China) “used incorrect borrowing-cost scenarios for evaluating PPP projects, including the assumption that private sector firms would be able to fund infrastructure projects more cheaply because of efficiency considerations. They were always assuming that the private sector will be 15-percent cheaper than the government. Why should that be?” He pointed to specific earlier projects that the government could have done more inexpensively than the private firms.

Dominguez also denounced the Aquino policy of choosing the company for PPP projects which offered the highest payment (bribe) to the government upfront. 

In its final communiqué, called the Goa Declaration, the Eighth BRICS Summit in Goa, India declared the five-member grouping to be “an influential voice on the global stage, which delivers direct benefits to our people” through, among other things, new financial institutions such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) “which contribute greatly to the global economy and the strengthening of the international financial architecture.

The BRICS is committed, the Goa Declaration stresses, to a “comprehensive, concerted and determined approach” to face the challenges posed by global security threats and economic recession, to bring about the “transition to a multipolar international order.” The final declaration expresses the BRICS’ commitment “to international law and the central role of United Nations as the universal multilateral organization entrusted with the mandate for maintaining international peace and security, advance global development and to promote and protect human rights.”

In addressing global security concerns, the Goa Declaration underscores that development and security are “closely interlinked, mutually reinforcing and key to attaining sustainable peace.” It rejects intervention into the internal affairs of other countries, urging “cooperation excluding imposition of unilateral coercive measures not based on international law … we condemn unilateral military interventions and economic sanctions in violation of international law….”

In the specific cases of Syria and North Africa, the Declaration states that these are matters of deep concern, requiring solutions “in accordance with international law” and in conformity with the principles of “independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the countries of the region…. We will call upon all parties involved to work for a comprehensive and peaceful resolution of the conflict, taking into account the legitimate aspirations of the people of Syria, through inclusive national dialogue and a Syrian-led political process.”

The BRICS nations condemn international terrorism “in all its forms,” and agree to strengthen cooperation in combating it. The Islamic State, Daesh and its affiliates, are “a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security…. We call upon all nations to adopt a comprehensive approach in combating terrorism….”

The BRICS nations noted that the global recovery is “progressing,” but challenges remain. Moreover, “geopolitical conflicts … have further added to the uncertainty of the global economy.” The Declaration asserts that while monetary policy will continue to support economic activity, “monetary policy alone … cannot lead to balanced and sustainable growth.” Innovation is key: “We stress the importance of industrialization and measures that promote industrial development as a core pillar of structural transformation.” In this context, the BRICS agreed to consult and coordinate on implementation of the G20 agenda, outlined at the June G20 summit in Hangzhou, China, “to strengthen macro-economic cooperation, … as well as robust and sustainable trade and investment to propel global growth … enhance the role of developing countries, and strengthen international financial architecture.”

The Goa Declaration specifies that nuclear energy will play “a significant role for some of the BRICS countries in meeting their 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement commitments” and points to the importance of “predictability in accessing technology and finance for expansion of civil nuclear energy capacity which would contribute to the sustainable development of BRICS countries.” (Emphases are added.)

Despite efforts to portray the BRICS grouping as “dead” or “of no importance,” the just-concluded Eighth BRICS Summit in Goa, India displayed exactly the opposite: the BRICS exists as an institution, and despite upheavals in the world economy and British geopolitical machinations, these nations have consolidated their place as a “voice of influence on the world stage,” as the final Goa Declaration communiqué put it. The full functioning of the New Development Bank, which will ramp up lending to $2.5 billion next year, after a successful first year of operations, is evidence of the BRICS institutional character.

Chinese President Xi Jinping underscored this point in his remarks to the BRICS Business Council which met Saturday. The global economy is still in the midst of a “treacherous recovery” he said, yet despite difficulties, “the potential and strength of the BRICS countries in terms of resources, market and labor force is unchanged,” and continue to look positive for the future. The BRICS countries, he affirmed, have much to be proud of. “The past decade has seen BRICS partnerships expanding with win-win results. We need to deepen our partnerships: We BRICS countries are good friends, brothers and partners that treat each other with sincerity,” he was widely quoted in media today.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi seconded that sentiment, addressing the Business Council, saying “I think I speak for all when I say that through a common vision and collective action, we will create and sustain deeper bonds among BRICS nations, develop our economies and secure our societies. While our achievements have been substantial, we need to sustain the positive direction and strong momentum of intra-BRICS engagement.” He particularly emphasized the importance of institution building in the BRICS nations, saying he looked forward to the creation of a BRICS credit rating agency, speeding up the Agriculture Research Center, Railway Research Network, and sports council, among others entities.

Addressing the Council Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin reported that “we will now build on this strategy with the new investment cooperation roadmap currently under preparation.” Establishing close contacts and cooperation between the Business Council and the NDB is very important, he emphasized. “We hope to see relevant recommendations from the business community on expanding project activity with the Bank.” Putin noted that the first BRICS Trade Fair held in New Delhi Oct. 12-14 with Business Council support showed “our countries’ real potential for developing economic cooperation and expanding our work together in industry and technology.” Russia will continue efforts to facilitate economic rapprochement between BRICS countries and to lay the groundwork for launching new business projects, he said.

Sahra Wagenknecht, chairwoman of the Linke party’s group in the Bundestag, and MEP Fabio de Masi, the Linke party’s vice chairman of the European Parliament’s investigation committee on money laundering/tax evasion, published a joint statement in Spiegel Online which calls for strict action against Deutsche Bank. They note that the bank has been involved in so many legal violations that the question can justifiably be posed whether it is a criminal association, and indeed former Deutsche Bank employee and later whistleblower Eric Artzi spoke of a culture of crime. The bank however has never been prosecuted as a whole, and instead received billions in U.S. and European taxpayers’ money which helped it to survive the crisis of 2008. And if Germany’s Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble declares his confidence in this bank, taxpayers should keep an eye on their wallets, the two Linke politicians warn.

“The policy of central banks to flood the private banks with liquidity while at the same time drying out loans to the real economy has created even new financial bubbles in the past years,” Wagenknecht and De Masi write. An in-depth resolution and restructuring of private banks under state supervision, the approach with which Sweden for instance overcame its banking crisis in the 1990s has never occurred in the Eurozone. That is why the bad loans are still hanging like a Damocles’ sword over the financial system, they explain, adding that the EU bank resolution fund is much too small to handle cases like Deutsche Bank with its giant derivatives portfolio of EU42 billion euros—mega banks like this one are a ticking time bomb.

“But both the European Parliament nor the Bundestag have so far failed to decide for splitting up universal banks or a separation of investment banking from serious business with loans and deposits,” Wagenknecht and De Masi write. “That, however, is necessary in order to create a firewall between the casino banking and the lending business which is important for the national economy, and to prevent the central bank and also the taxpayers from having to step in when speculation deals fail. A bigger role of foreign investors at Deutsche Bank, be it from Qatar or from Wall Street, would only escalate the systemic risk. That would like turning on the air conditioning in a room full of influenza patients.

“We need more ‘boring banking’: more savings banks instead of gambling halls. Deutsche Bank must be split up, and its gambling units be shut down in a controlled way. If Herr Schäuble presents the German taxpayer with the bill from New York, it will be too late.” 

On Thursday Human Rights Watch issued a report, based on follow-up work on the ground in Sana’a, to the Oct. 8 Saudi bombing which killed more than 140 people, and wounded many more. The report, which terms the incident a war crime, identifies the bomb…

Video of 7LeGHs6_BZ4

Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered the following keynote address, “A New Financial Architecture and a Classical-Cultural Renaissance Are Urgently Needed,” to an October 13 video-conference on, “The BRICS Summit: Alternatives for a World in Crisis,” held with  simultaneous meetings in Guatemala City, Mexico City, and Lima, Peru.  The gatherings in those three cities were linked live by Google Hangouts on Air, and a panel discussion followed Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche’s remarks, with Dr. Mario Roberto Morales (professor at San Carlos University, Guatemala), Dr. Horacio Sanchez Barcenas (Vice President of the National Federation of Economists, Mexico), and Luis Vasquez Medina (EIR, Peru). The event was sponsored by the Center for Latin American Studies of the Department of Political Science of San Carlos University, the Schiller Institute, and Executive Intelligence Review. The transcript was prepared for translation.

TRANSCRIPT

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Good day.  Thank you so much for inviting me to address your conference.  The world is in a very, very dangerous situation.  Everybody who watches the strategic development every day can see how the confrontation between the United States and Russia is increasing.  Just a few days ago, the official coordinator for the cooperation with Russia of the German government said in the 2nd channel of German TV, that a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia can no longer be excluded.  Now, it’s not that this is something new, but the fact that a representative … [audio loss 57.6-1:06.2] What he referred to was the complete breakdown of negotiations between Russia and the United States over the Syria crisis.  And there is the immediate danger of an escalation if the policies of such people as General Petraeus or Sen. John McCain would be implemented.

And I think everybody knows that if it would come to war between Russia and the United States, it would be a global war, and it would lead to the annihilation of all of mankind in all likelihood.

Now, there is a second danger to civilization which could also lead in the end to a nuclear war, and that is that we are about to face a total collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system, much, much worse than 2008.  The IMF has named Deutsche Bank as the bank with the most risk in the whole global financial system, and depending on what will be the outcome of both the IMF/World Bank annual meeting in Washington right now, where the CEO of Deutsche Bank, John Cryan, went to, but also at the same time to negotiate with the Department of Justice to reduce the fine of $14 billion which the DOJ had fined Deutsche Bank for criminal manipulations before the secondary mortgage crisis in 2007-2008, from $14 billion to only $5 billion, because $14 billion would mean de facto the insolvency of Deutsche Bank.

Now, the German daily Die Welt said what Cryan is doing is a “chicken game,” that Deutsche Bank has $42 trillion worth in outstanding derivatives, and that is enough if Deutsche Bank goes bankrupt, to bring down the entire financial system, and according to the old wisdom, if you have enough debt you can impose the conditions how this debt will be renegotiated; but Die Welt basically said, this is a chicken game which nobody would survive.

Now, Deutsche Bank is maybe the worst case, but by far not the only one.  Deutsche Bank, as I said, has $42 trillion in outstanding derivatives, that is about 12 times the entire GDP of the German economy per year, and it’s still about 3 to 4 times the GDP of the entire European Union.  Therefore, it is obvious that if Deutsche Bank collapses, neither the bail-in law which is by now law in the entire European Union, nor bail-out would be sufficient to solve the problem.  And if you look at the engagement of these derivatives with the banks which are counterparty to Deutsche Bank, it involves the entire too-big-to-fail banking system of the trans-Atlantic system, and if Deutsche Bank goes without state intervention, and that is obviously not the solution either, it could be like the super-nova, basically evaporating in a very brief time.

A similar situation is true for the Italian banks, for the British banks after the Brexit, and one should not overlook that all of these banks have large fines to pay for crimes.  Deutsche Bank had to pay because they manipulated and cheated the customers in the real estate market in the United States.  Wells Fargo just had a hearing in the U.S. Congress because they set up 2 million fraudulent, fictitious bank accounts to steal.  Then you have HongShang banking corporation, which is openly laundering the entire drug money of the Mexican drug mafia.  They all were involved in the LIBOR manipulation, which caused the three-digit billion losses for the customers.

We are for sure heading towards an October crisis.  This is not going to be a crisis after the U.S. election: This is now. And all the means of the central banks, quantitative easing they have been doing since 2008; negative interest rates, which kills the savings of the population; and now they’re talking about “helicopter money” which is really the last straw. All of these tools do not function any more.

There is a remedy, and that is, you have to implement immediately the Glass-Steagall banking separation law, exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933.  Lyndon LaRouche has enlarged that conception to say, we need Glass-Steagall, that is, you have to write off the speculative part of the banks; but then you have a lack of liquidity and therefore, you have to have a credit system in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, which issues new, large credits for productive investments.  But you also have to increase the productivity of the economy, you have to have a science driver, and the best for that is international space cooperation and vanguard technologies which go along with that.

We also need what Roosevelt did at the time, a Pecora Commission. Pecora was the New York State attorney, who investigated the CEOs of the Wall Street banks under oath at the time, to then send many of them to jail. And as a leading banker contact told us, if you don’t do that, you cannot reinstate the confidence in the banks, because people have lost completely confidence in the system which is obviously more criminal than not.

There is good reason that this can be done.  Because in the United States both parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, have the Glass-Steagall Act in their platforms and despite the fact that Hillary Clinton is not for Glass-Steagall, it is important that in times of crisis such provisions are there.  And there is a renewed optimism that you can mobilize the Congress, even if normally people have little hope that the Congress will do something useful, they just did by voting up the JASTA bill overriding the veto of President Obama in respect of the ability of the families of the victims of September 11th, to sue the Saudi government.  This is a tremendous victory, because what was victorious in this situation was a sense for justice: That it was completely unjust that the victims of the September 11th terrorist attack would not have the ability, and the families in particular would not have the ability, to bring the criminals responsible for that terrorist act to court.  And that has now occurred, and there is a tremendous sense that you can move, once people are united for a good plan, and once they act together.

Now, there is an equal yearning for justice concerning the banking system.  The banking system which has provided unbelievable profits for a few, where bankers which provably are criminal can get away with bonuses of hundreds of millions of dollars, while the people they are looting, more and more of them become completely impoverished.

The other important aspect about this is that the alternative financial system is already in place. Since 2013, when President Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road, there has been an unbelievable development, in the tradition of the ancient Silk Road of 2,000 years during the Han Dynasty, which at that time was an immense exchange, not only of goods, but of culture, of ideas, and most importantly of technologies, of the ability how to produce silk, how to make porcelain, and other such vanguard technologies of that time; the idea is now that the same kind of exchange has been occurring since three years among the nations of the New Silk Road, but with modern technologies.

This is the largest infrastructure plan in all of human history:  It’s about twelve times larger than the Marshall Plan was which was helping to reconstruct Europe after the Second World War, in terms of actual buying power.  It right now encompasses $1.4 trillion; it already involves 43% of the world economy, and 4.4 billion people, 70 countries, are cooperating around it. It is the only long-term development strategy under the leadership of China right now.  As a matter of fact, it’s the only strategic plan to overcome this present geopolitical confrontation I mentioned in the beginning, because it is based on the idea of a “win-win cooperation” of all countries on this planet.

Very important, in respect to the financial crisis, these countries have started to set up an alternative financial system. They have started the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), where immediately about 70 countries wanted to be founding members, despite enormous pressure from the United States not to do so.  Even close allies of the United States, like Great Britain, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, and Canada, they all wanted to be founding members of this new bank, which has a starting capital of $100 billion, which can be expanded, and will be.  They also have created the New Development Bank, that is the bank of the BRICS countries; the New Silk Road Fund of $40 billion; the Maritime Silk Road Fund; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has created a new bank; and they have created something called the Contingency Reserve Arrangement which began as a pool of $100 billion, helping the BRICS countries and other developing countries to fend off manipulative speculative attacks like those of George Soros and other speculators.

It is very important that this idea of the New Silk Road is expanding with an unbelievable speed, and many countries, not only in Asia, but also in for example, Eastern and Central Europe are picking up on it.  There is now a cooperation between China and Greece, Serbia, Hungary, Czech Republic and even Poland, all working on high-speed trains on infrastructure cooperation.  And the idea is to extend this kind of a New Silk Road into the Middle East and into Africa, to address the very, very dramatic situation there, to reconstruct the Middle East after the war, and to develop Africa, so that also the refugee crisis, which is one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world ever, to create conditions where Africa and Southwest Asia are being industrialized so that people do not want to leave their home, but rather, help to build up their nations.

All of this is not just business.  The Silk Road is by no means only infrastructure in the narrow sense, connecting A to B through trains and ships, but it is also not just a replacement of American imperialism by Chinese imperialism, which is what some media are trying to insinuate.  The New Silk Road, put on the agenda by China, is truly a completely different model of cooperation among states:  It is based on dialogue, partnership and cooperation; and China does not want to be a new hegemon, but wants to have cooperation with all countries based on a “win-win” mutual benefit, where each country has their own advantage.

China has said many times, as a matter of fact, Xi Jinping has used the formulation that what is needed is a “community of shared destiny.”  Now, this is what the Schiller Institute has promoted for 25 years when we proposed the Eurasian Land-Bridge when the Soviet Union collapsed, and expanded it in the 25 years since, that the Silk Road must become the World Land-Bridge, we always have said that we need a completely new paradigm based on “win-win cooperation”; and that is exactly what is now pushed by China.

Now people always have suspicions, “what is the real aim of China?”  But I have come to the absolute conclusion, that China means exactly what they’re saying, that the world must not be run on the basis of a zero-sum game, but on the idea of a harmony of all nations.

Now, 2016 is the 2,567th birthday of Confucius and you have right now a total revival of Confucian philosophy, in all of China, in all schools, universities, cities, and there is right now a two-and-a-half-thousand-year-old history of Confucian tradition in China, with the very short except of the ten years of the Cultural Revolution.  And that has shaped the Chinese mind to a very large extent, the Confucian idea that the world should be organized in a harmonious way, by allowing the harmonious development of all nations, of all families, of all individuals; and that a country cannot do well, if its neighbors are not doing well.  The idea of Confucius that politics must be based on love, now that is associated with the idea that politics has only one aim, and that is the happiness of people, an idea which used to belong the American Declaration of Independence, and an idea which is also very, very known in the history of European humanism.

Confucius also taught that people have to have a lifelong learning, and that they should perfect themselves without limit, and that the highest ideal of man is the chun tzu, the wise man who is basically perfecting himself in the highest degree.  And out of this comes the idea that the sage king is morally much more attractive than the hegemon.  This is the same idea as Plato’s “philosopher king,” that only the wisest and most moral people should rule.

Now, while the hegemon rules by forcing the underlings into submission, the wise king and the wise leadership is elevating the people through inspiration. At the recent G20 meeting in Hangzhou, which occurred for the first time under the leadership of China, they have made a wonderful proposal to put the whole world economy on the basis of innovation and to share whatever scientific and technological breakthroughs are being made, immediately, with all other nations, but especially the developing nations, so that their development is not being held up.

Since then, they have announced scientific and technological cooperation among the countries along the New Silk Road; they opened up science and technology parks, huge exchange of scientists and youth, in order to spread these ideas in the quickest possible way.  All of these policies are a reflection of the Confucian philosophy.

If you study it more closely, you will realize there is a tremendous affinity between Confucian thinking and European humanism.  They are much closer and much more related than most people are aware.  While in China, a Confucian Renaissance is fully underway, it is the West which is in urgent need of such a cultural renaissance.

The Western world has plunged into a terrible moral degeneracy and decadence:  If you look at the drug addiction, for example, well the case of Mexico, for example, is famous: The drug lords have taken over much of the country.  But in the United States the drug addiction is the most important cause for the rising suicide rate which has quadrupled since 2001, since Bush came into office, suicides in all age groups.  If you look at the violence in the United States, but also in other Western parts, you have the police violence, you have the school shootings, you have pornography, you have the total brutalization of behavior, which almost is a breakdown of civilized relations among people.  I don’t want to go into this more deeply, because you all know it.

So we need urgently, if you want to save humanity, we need a Renaissance of Classical culture.  We have to go back to an image of man which emphasizes that, which separates man from all other living species and that is the creativity of the mind of the human being. The problem with popular culture is that it de-emphasizes this creativity.  Pop music, for example, if young people go to discos, it almost always goes along with drug consumption, with something which destroys the creative faculties of the mind.

We need a Classical culture which emphasizes the beauty of the best traditions of Greece, for example, Greek architecture, Greek historical dramas, Greek philosophy, but also the beauty of Dante, of Petrarca, of the Italian Renaissance; in the Spanish culture, of the Andalusian renaissance, of Cervantes, of Goya; in Germany, the Schiller, Beethoven, and many other great thinkers.

Now, why is Classical culture so absolutely important? Rather than being a soap opera, where you add irrational emotions one after the other, without rhythm or rhyme, you have in Classical culture either a poetical or a musical idea, and then, according to very strict principles of composition, you develop that idea until it is exhausted, in a thorough-compositional way; and then you come to a conclusion on a higher level of reason. And when you train your mind in this way, in Classical thinking, you become more creative.  And it also leads to an education of the emotions.  Because if you only rely on your senses, you are just reacting.  That is why Friedrich Schiller demanded the aesthetical education of man: Namely, through Classical art, the aesthetical education teaches man to feel more noble and to education your emotions up to the level of reason, so that you can blindly follow your impulses because they will never tell you anything different than what reason commands. This is why we have to reintroduce beauty into art, and the great German poet Friedrich Schiller said “Art which is not beautiful should not be called art.”

In the Greek Classical period, you had the ideal of the identity of the beautiful, the truthful, and the good.  And you cannot be truthful if you are not trying to develop the idea of beauty, and you cannot develop the good without being truthful. So there is an inner connection between these because they address the same faculty in the human mind.

The future of mankind very clearly will be in space.  If you look at the evolution of man, or even of life as it developed through photosynthesis from the oceans to land, from lower to higher species, and eventually the creative mankind, man settled at the rivers and oceans first; then through infrastructure development, opened up the landlocked areas of continents. And now with the New Silk Road we are completing that phase of the evolution, where man through infrastructure, develops the landlocked areas of all continents.  And the natural extension of that infrastructure development will be the opening up near space, probably first a colony on the Moon, and that will be the launching pad for future space operations as our energy sources become more dense, and we will be able to even understand much better what is the position of our planet in the Solar System, in the Galaxy, and we will develop a much deeper understanding about the laws of the universe and the relationship of creative mentation to that Universe, because our mind is obviously not outside of the universe, but it’s part of the universe, and it is the most developed part.

A lot more studies have to made about that connection between the mind and the universe at large, and the better we understand that connection, the more rational we will become as a human species.  The great German space scientist Krafft Ehricke developed the beautiful notion of the “extraterrestrial imperative,” saying that man only becomes truly adult when we try to understand and conquer space more deeply, because man will only become fully rational when we do that.  And Krafft Ehricke, who was a close friend of ours, said at the end of his life, that the importance of great Classical art was absolutely crucial, because if science is developed that does not yet say whether it’s applied for something good, or for something bad; it is always man who applies that science which makes the difference. And therefore, the aesthetical and moral education to beauty and to the good is what will make the longevity of the human species possible.

Now, this is why we are saying, so emphatically, that the economic development of the New Silk Road must be combined with a Classical Renaissance of Classical culture, and that we must bring forward the best traditions of each culture, of Chinese poetry and philosophy, of Chinese painting, of Indian philosophy, of African wonderful philosophical contributions from the time of Timbuktu; of other great cultures, which each, at one point had a high phase in their culture, like the Arab Renaissance of the Abbasid Dynasty at which point the Arab culture was the most developed.

What we have to do, is we have to make the best phases of these periods known, and then have a dialogue between these cultures and then out of that will generate love for the other culture; and we will indeed reach a new paradigm of civilization.

If we make that cultural universal heritage known to all children, in the universal education, I think the future will be that such geniuses as Bach, Schiller, Einstein, will not be such an exception.  There will never be a second Einstein, but we will have many, many geniuses because we will provide children with a much, much better opportunity to unfold all the potentials which are embedded in them.

Now,  I think we are not only on the verge of a potential global war, but with the New Silk Road we are also at the edge of entering a completely new paradigm of civilization, what I like to call the “adulthood of mankind,” and not any more behaving like stupid two-year-old little boys kicking each other in the knee.

So we are really at an important historical moment, and I would ask all of you to join in a Renaissance movement, because I’m absolutely optimistic that if all good people on the planet are working together to this aim, we can do it.

Some French politicians are charging that President Francois Hollande’s Russian policy is made at the U.S. State Department and are calling on France to cooperate with Russia, sharply contrasting Hollande’s policy with that of General Charles de Gaulle, who insisted that Paris serve as a bridge between the West and the Soviet bloc.

French deputy Thierry Mariani told RT, “I am wondering whether France has its own foreign policy. I have an impression that we are merely an additional section of the U.S. State Department and that French foreign policy is conducted by copying and pasting the belligerent U.S. model,” Mariani said, adding that in the past two-and-a-half decades, relations between Russia and France have never been as tense as they are now. “I think that the American policy that we back and implement is leading us to a catastrophe,” he lamented.

Deputy Valérie Boyer added that Hollande decided not to meet with Putin, due to pressure from Washington.

“Hollande has looked to the US and is not trying to understand what truly is in the interests of Europe or Russia. This has been a constant of French diplomacy since Hollande came to power. In this respect France has no autonomy,” Boyer said. She described Russia as a “friend and ally” of France. “France’s attitude to Russia is shocking to me. Like Europe, France is not interested in its diplomatic relations with Russia being so tense. I find attempts aimed at reviving the Cold War between Russia and Europe stupid.”

In an interview with Sputnik, French Senator Yves Pozzo di Borgo said that he was “very sorry” that President Vladimir Putin had cancelled his visit to France. “This is God-knows-what on the part of Hollande,” he said. Instead, Putin and Hollande need to engage in a “discreet dialogue,” he said. Both leaders “know each other and could discuss all the issues without Hollande putting on an act. I am deeply sorry that the visit has been cancelled. This has caused additional unnecessary tensions. What we need is a dialogue with Russia so that we could find the ways to resolve the Syrian conflict.” 

Some French politicians are charging that President Francois Hollande’s Russian policy is made at the U.S. State Department and are calling on France to cooperate with Russia, sharply contrasting Hollande’s policy with that of General Charles de Gaulle, who insisted that Paris serve as a bridge between the West and the Soviet bloc.

French deputy Thierry Mariani told RT, “I am wondering whether France has its own foreign policy. I have an impression that we are merely an additional section of the U.S. State Department and that French foreign policy is conducted by copying and pasting the belligerent U.S. model,” Mariani said, adding that in the past two-and-a-half decades, relations between Russia and France have never been as tense as they are now. “I think that the American policy that we back and implement is leading us to a catastrophe,” he lamented.

Deputy Valérie Boyer added that Hollande decided not to meet with Putin, due to pressure from Washington.

“Hollande has looked to the US and is not trying to understand what truly is in the interests of Europe or Russia. This has been a constant of French diplomacy since Hollande came to power. In this respect France has no autonomy,” Boyer said. She described Russia as a “friend and ally” of France. “France’s attitude to Russia is shocking to me. Like Europe, France is not interested in its diplomatic relations with Russia being so tense. I find attempts aimed at reviving the Cold War between Russia and Europe stupid.”

In an interview with Sputnik, French Senator Yves Pozzo di Borgo said that he was “very sorry” that President Vladimir Putin had cancelled his visit to France. “This is God-knows-what on the part of Hollande,” he said. Instead, Putin and Hollande need to engage in a “discreet dialogue,” he said. Both leaders “know each other and could discuss all the issues without Hollande putting on an act. I am deeply sorry that the visit has been cancelled. This has caused additional unnecessary tensions. What we need is a dialogue with Russia so that we could find the ways to resolve the Syrian conflict.”