Author: mark

Lyndon LaRouche reveals the strategic priorities for today.

The following is an excerpt of comments made by Lyndon LaRouche, Tuesday, January 27, 2015.

…[w]hat we’re doing is, we’re actually saying, that we, as an organization, are saying to the nation as such, that we have given out the orders that what must be done, because Wall Street is bankrupt; and the bankruptcy of Wall Street must not be allowed to sink the Treasury system of the U.S. economy. Therefore, you have to have an intervening term, a method with which you foreclose Wall Street. Foreclose that thing; shut it down!

And the way you shut it down is presenting the program measure which has to be done to shut it down, as its alternative. Because saying the thing that the United States is going to go bankrupt unless we cancel this crap, that’s the statement we have to make, in various ways, and we have to do it now. We have to say, “We are saying, shut this thing down before you destroy the United States.” And you have to; once just say Wall Street is bankrupt and in failure, then all the things that Wall Street involves in terms of trade and whatnot, all these things suddenly come into question. Once you call into question, you say somebody else has to do something else; and we have specified in various ways, in various terms, in various forms, exactly what it is that we have to do. We have to declare it, and the actions of anybody else doing it.

And you have to have the guts and understanding to do that. You don’t go out and ask for permission; you go out there and do it. You simply have to go out in the street and say “Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt. Its values are falling at accelerating rates. Do you want to go bankrupt with them? Or do you want to put them into bankruptcy?” And then what do you do, to replace them? You define an institution, which is to be created which fits the system as we’ve had it before, under Bill Clinton, while Bill Clinton was still in power. The means that existed then, were the means which could have stopped this thing! And it has to be done. Then you can go up there and say how are you going to implement this, how are you going to implement that, and so forth.

But you’ve got to have a very clear statement to say, these things are bankrupt; you’ve got to shut them down before they destroy the entire U.S. economy. And that’s a fact; that’s the simple truth. And you can’t avoid that fact, because you have no credibility if you don’t understand that fact. You cannot leave the United States government without the means to conduct its banking system. You can’t do it! Anyway. [pause]

You’ve got a very short period of time in which you’ve got to do that. You don’t have much time. Maybe tomorrow; maybe tonight. You don’t have time. And it’s on you; because we can’t think of anybody else who is coming forward on this, except us. In order to do it, say, this is urgent because the United States is going bankrupt as long as it continues to be attached to Wall Street. And Wall Street is spinning into Hell right now; and it’s carrying the United States with it.

And this is the way that the war starts! Forget all these other things that they put out. That’s not the issue, those teasers — that’s not the issue. The issue is, when Wall Street is bankrupt, and spinning in bankruptcy at an accelerating rate, and what will Wall Street do? Wall Street will simply demand that the Federal government honor Wall Street’s debt, whatever. And that will be the launching of the new world war, which takes down the planet.

In other words, shutting down Wall Street provides the means, of getting rid of the danger of the mandatory thermonuclear war. If you don’t do that, you’re going to get a thermonuclear war. If you disarm Wall Street, and say Wall Street is bankrupt but there’s a substitute in place, a Federal substitute, a credit system, which means you’re going back to the changes which came with the ouster of Bill Clinton. And then you can automatically create the temporary institution, which picks up the chips on this thing. Without this, you are headed toward Hell! Because the British and Wall Street, and so forth, are ready to go into a default operation, which results in thermonuclear war. If you don’t understand that, don’t talk. If you do understand it, put it through.

We’ve got to get the guts to understand what we can do, and what we have to do. All you need is a few people who take our instigation, and say “We’re going to create a new way of dumping, and freezing, and closing down on Wall Street.” By doing that, we are implicitly saying, we have to cause an interim arrangement, of the Federal government as an action, which will provide a means of continuing the functioning value of the United States, which is now plunging into extinction, as an economy. And that plunging in the economy will be the official trigger that starts a total World War III.

What will happen? Well, it probably will happen in a curious way, if it happens, that the United States will launch the war attack on Russia. Russia will, a short time after that, launch its version of the war, or vice versa. Which will mean that the Russian bombardment will hit the United States, before the U.S. bombardment hits Russia.

It’s on the edge. It’s Wall Street or you. And that’s where it lies.

Well, I’m willing to do that, and willing to say that.

The following strategic assessment comes directly from Lyndon LaRouche:

We have a mission orientation which is tied to the threat of thermonuclear war. As of the latest international intelligence we have, Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt. There’s no way that you can justify the continued existence of Wall Street; there’s nothing there. It’s going bankrupt. What it’s doing, is it’s using the ability to declare a bankrupt institution as an asset. How? By saying “we run it.” “We,” Wall Street, runs it. So they’re insisting that a hyperinflationary float occurs on behalf of Wall Street, which will bankrupt the United States, bankrupt the people of the United States totally, bankrupt Wall Street itself, and lead to the worst Dark Age you could imagine,— leading directly into international warfare, thermonuclear warfare.

The gimmick on this thing is, that if, as is intended, by Wall Street and London, they go to thermonuclear war soon, soon,— not down the line, not possibly,—soon. Why is it soon? Because the British and similar forces, have no option. You cannot have a hyperinflationary growth of useless claims to money, which are getting more and more bankrupt. There’s no possible way.

So, we have to take charge right now. We have to send down Wall Street. What we did this past week, is in that direction. That’s the direction we’re going in. We’re going to bankrupt these bastards. How? By declaring the fact that they’re bankrupt. Therefore you have to organize people in the political process, to say, “We’re not going to sustain those debts. Wall Street is going to be written down to what it’s worth.” And the more they examine it, the faster and deeper the problem becomes. Because just thinking about it will make things go worse. And that’s what’s happening. It’s an absolutely hopeless situation.

You have this irony now, as the Russians have pointed out. Their policy is what? The United States and Britain are committed to launch war on Russia. Well, what happens then? In that case, the U.S. forces are making a mass attack of all forces on a time basis. What’s going to happen? Russia will wait a short period of time, until all of these forces, or most of them, have been committed to action. At that point, Russia will attack those attacking forces on a predetermined basis. And we’re in that situation already. There’s no way that Wall Street can survive except by playing that kind of game.

So we’re not talking about just reforming political economy. We’re going to destroy the form of economy we have now. And we play the fact up, that if the United States wants to have a unified launch against Russia, they’re screwed. Because Russia then has the ability to choose how it deploys its forces; and that screws everything up.

So we’re in a situation where, with this kind of reality now given to us,— put on the platter, so to speak,— we can no longer operate as we have operated, as most people in the United States have operated, heretofore. It can no longer be done. Because what you have is China, Russia, and other nations,— but China and Russia in particular, are the leading nations for the strikeback against Britain and the United States in particular, if an attack occurs. That means that Russia and China will be given a moment of opportunity, a last opportunity, to decide when and how a launch will occur,— and then it will be too late for the United States.

Anticipating Glass-Steagall restoration to be introduced into the 114th Congress, financial columnist Pam Martens wrote an excellent, Jan. 12 column destroying the primary lie deployed against Glass-Steagall during the past three years. And, Martens revealed that when she first exposed this lie in 2012 in letters to the New York Times, which had published the lie in a column by its financial reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin, the Times refused to retract, or to print a word from her.

Sorkin first circulated the sophistry that “since Lehman, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and AIG were not commercial banks, Glass-Steagall was irrelevant to how the 2007-08 crash could have been avoided.” That lie became Tim Geithner’s line in browbeating Congress against restoring Glass-Steagall; Obama’s line; and the line of the neocon American Enterprise Institute’s Peter Wallison, which was used to confuse Republicans. Now it is repeated in a new book by a radical Keynesian economist which is being given great play and is momentarily No. 1 on the non-fiction best-seller list — Hall of Mirrors, by UC Berkeley economics professor Barry Eichengreen.

Martens’s facts, which the Times refused to print and “experts” like Professor Eichengreen prefer to overlook, are worth presenting in detail:

“Lehman Brothers owned two FDIC insured banks, Lehman Brothers Bank FSB and Lehman Brothers Commercial Bank. Together, they held $17.2 billion in assets as of June 30, 2008, 75 days before Lehman went belly up. Lehman Brothers Bank FSB is where Lehman handled its mortgage loan originations. When the FDIC approved the Lehman Brothers Commercial Bank application in 2005, it specifically noted that the FDIC insured bank ‘anticipates acting as a derivatives intermediary’…”

“Merrill Lynch also owned three FDIC insured banks. At an FDIC symposium held at the National Press Club in 2003, Merrill Senior VP, John Qua, explained the banking side of Merrill as follows: ‘Merrill Lynch conducts banking in the United States through two depository institutions — Merrill Lynch Bank USA, a Utah industrial loan corporation; and Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust, a New Jersey state non-member bank. We also own a federal savings bank that offers personal trust services to our clients’….”

“Bear Stearns owned Bear Stearns Bank Ireland, which is now part of JPMorgan and called JPMorgan Bank (Dublin) PLC. According to JPMorgan,… “It has also been added to the JPMorgan Jumbo issuance programs to issue structured securities for distribution outside the United States.”

“AIG owned, in 2008 at the time of the crisis, the FDIC insured AIG Federal Savings Bank. On June 30, 2008, it held $1 billion in assets. AIG also owned 71 U.S.-based insurance entities and 176 other financial services companies throughout the world, including AIG Financial Products which blew up the whole company selling credit default derivatives.” [AIG’s cross-ownerships would have been barred by both Glass-Steagall and the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act, which was also gutted by the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed Glass-Steagall.-ed.]

“AIG’s annuities … represent a significant source of income to retirees. Had AIG been allowed to fail, state guaranty funds for insurance products could have been wiped out….”

As to our situation today, Martens notes: “According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency which oversees national banks, as of December 31, 2011, inside the insured banks — not their broker-dealer components — were the following derivative holdings: $70.1 trillion at JPMorgan Chase; $52.1 trillion at Citibank; $50.1 trillion at Bank of America; $44.2 trillion at Goldman Sachs Bank USA.”

Eric Denécé, a director of the French Center for Intelligence Research (Centre Français de Recherche sur Renseignment, CF2R) think tank, in his latest editorial, apropos last week’s attacks, says that one of the best hopes for combatting terrorism comes to the trans-Atlantic sector from Egypt: “In the face of the obscurantism of mindless terrorists, indoctrinated and manipulated by radical and sectarian imams, serious reason for hope comes to us from Egypt. In effect, President [Abdel Fattah] el-Sisi’s stance needs to be brought to light, his action welcomed and his initiatives supported.”

Denécé continues: “The same day that the weekly Charlie Hebdo was attacked and members of its editorial board massacred, another event of considerable weight—totally unknown about in France—took place in Egypt. President el-Sisi cut short his state visit to Kuwait in order to celebrate Coptic Christmas in Cairo [on Jan. 7].

“This is the first time in the history of Egypt — a state that has always been led by Sunnis — that the head of state had attended a Coptic Midnight Mass. Neither Mubarak, during his 30-year reign, nor his predecessors (Sadat, Nasser, nor King Farouk) had shown such consideration for the Christians of Egypt, who make up more than 20% of the population. On the contrary, the country’s leaders had always treated them as second-class citizens.

“President el-Sisi’s approach is exceptional and marks a true break in the wake of the bloody interlude that Egypt suffered under the regime of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time, it is an expression of great courage, of great humanity, and a remarkable sense of policy.

“Some days earlier, on the occasion of the New Year, the Egyptian head of state gave an astounding speech — which also went unnoticed in France — on the necessary challenging of certain Islamic texts.

“On Jan. 1st, at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University (the highest religious authority in the Sunni world), he stated that murders committed in the name of Islam were intolerable. He proposed, before millions of television viewers, that the texts written after the Koran — that is, the hadith and the sunnah — be reviewed by religious clergy in order to make them no longer serve as the basis for terrorist acts. Furthermore, he confirmed that it is inconceivable that 1.6 billion Muslims would want to kill the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet in order to live according to their religion.

“A former director of military intelligence, profoundly attached to his country, faithful to his Muslim creed, President el-Sisi, like most of his co-religionists, is aghast at the violence committed in the name of Islam by Daesh [isis], al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the number of victims in their wake. Because of their barbarism, these groups are in the process of provoking a profound debate within and throughout Muslim world, for a massive number of believers are disgusted by this tendency and reject this obscurantist reading of Islam.

“We should welcome the initiatives of the Egyptian head of state, insofar as he appears to be one of those rare men capable of pushing the boundaries in both the Middle East and within the Arab-Muslim world. His compatriots are not mistaken when they characterize him as the ‘Egyptian de Gaulle.’ We must also firmly support his first steps, since obviously all the extremists and radicals that Islam includes are staunchly opposed to him and henceforth treat him as an apostate.”

As reported by the media, the meeting of the four foreign ministers (France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine) in Berlin, last night, produced no concrete results except an agreement to meet again sometime next week. Germany’s Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that there is still a long way to go, that they will look for additional options to get progress in the talks, that at this point, a meeting of the respective four heads of state and government in Astana would make no sense but that they continue to prepare for it. Steinmeier spoke of partially “quite differing views” without going into detail.

It is reported that Ukrainian President Poroshenko yesterday made an otherwise unspecified offer to grant eastern Ukraine the status of a special economic zone, whose close relations with Russia would be acknowledged, but that elections would have to be held again in eastern Ukraine, this time under Kiev election laws. On paper, however, eastern Ukraine regions have a certain degree of autonomy already—but that is not respected at all by the government of “Yats,” who continues to sabotage all diplomatic efforts, as he did last Thursday, Jan. 8, in Berlin, when he claimed that the Soviet Union was the one that started World War II against Germany and Ukraine. That provocation has led to some back and forth between the foreign ministries of Russia and Germany since.

Natalia Vitrenko, the president of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, issued an open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and other world leaders yesterday, titled “The West’s Loyalty to Yatsenyuk’s Neo-Nazi Outburst Is a Provocation of War in Eurasia.”

“During his visit to Germany on Jan. 8,” she wrote, “Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in an interview to the German television station ARD, permitted himself to express, on behalf of the people of Ukraine, statements and ideologies that are monstrous in their nature and political implications.

“Having arrived at the home of Hitler’s Nazism, the ideas of which plunged the whole of mankind into a global tragedy of unprecedented proportions, Yatsenyuk spoke, not even as a Ukrainian neo-Nazi, but as a German neo-Nazi. Here are his words, which have not been properly condemned either by the UN, the Western countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, or the victims of Nazism and fascism: ‘We all still remember the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany.’

“And Germany, which unleashed the bloody Second World War and was defeated in

it, and which repented for its crimes, was in no rush to condemn Yatsenyuk and expel him from its territory.

“I draw your attention to the ominous meaning and future political consequences for the global community of Yatsenyuk’s 9 words.

“With these words, first of all, he rehabilitated Hitlerite Nazism as a national socialist ideology for constructing a world order, justified the aggression of Hitler’s Germany and the horrendous crimes committed by it, which were perpetrated by it along with collaborators in the occupied territories, including the territories of Ukraine. And he came to Germany immediately after demonstrations by many thousands of Ukrainian Banderite neo-Nazis, the heirs of Hitler’s collaborators.

“As an official of the State of Ukraine—a country that was a victim of Nazi aggression—Yatsenyuk spoke as a provocateur, demolishing the principles of international law, destroying its foundations in the form of the Charter and Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.”

Vitrenko went on to quote the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and various declarations of the Big Three Allied powers, concerning the nature of their common fight against Nazism. “All the above-named documents show without a doubt,” she wrote, “that it was not only the Soviet Union that was fighting against Hitlerite Germany, but also the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, which joined the forces of all anti-fascist, progressive mankind.”

Yatsenyuk’s statement, as one of the organizers of the coup in Ukraine, should be evaluated as that of an envoy of the U.S.A., determined to draw Germany into sparking World War III, she wrote.

She proceeded to quote from statements at the Nuremberg Tribunals by the prosecutors of the four victorious powers, including Robert Jackson (USA), Hartley Shawcross (U.K.), François de Menthon (France), and Roman Rudenko (U.S.S.R.). On the last, she notes: “The Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R., the country that paid the highest price, 27 million lives from the total of 50 million victims, and, of course, which played a decisive role in the victory over Nazi Germany, was Roman Rudenko, a native of [Ukraine’s] Chernihiv region, at that time the public prosecutor of the Ukrainian S.S.R.”

In conclusion, she quoted Article 26 of the Nuremberg Charter: “The judgment … shall be final and not subject to review,” and appealed to the world leaders to take action.

Mikhail Gorbachov, the last leader of the Soviet Union, warned, in an interview published by Germany’s Der Spiegel, yesterday, that the U.S.-Russia confrontation over Ukraine could lead to a major war. “Such a war today would inevitably turn into a nuclear war. If someone loses their nerve because of the acrimonious atmosphere, we will not survive the coming year,” he said. “I do not say this lightly. This is of truly the utmost concern to me.”

This is just the latest of Gorbachov’s high-profile warnings of the potential consequences of British/NATO policy toward Russia—which have been echoed recently by top members of the political class in Germany, France, and Italy.

Gorbachov decried the “loss of trust” between Russia and the West as “catastrophic,” and said ties must be “defrosted.” He, Gorbachov, accused the West and NATO of destroying the structure of European security by expanding its alliance. “No head of the Kremlin can ignore such a thing,” he said, adding that the U.S. was unfortunately starting to establish a “mega empire.”

Gorbachov also blasted the role of Germany in the current crisis and, in doing so, reminded it of its own history. “The new Germany wants its hands in every pie. There seems to be a lot of people who want to be involved in a new division of Europe,” he said. “Germany has already tried to expand its influence of power towards the East — in World War II. Does it really need another lesson?”

Gorbachov also denounced the U.S. sanctions against Russia as “damn stupid and highly dangerous.”

Today is the birthday of the founder of the American System of Political Economy, Alexander Hamilton, who was born January 11, 1757 (or 1755). Hamilton went from the obscurity of a Caribbean Island, to become a world-historical genius operating out of New York City, with the conceptions necessary to create a republic based on a commitment to unending economic progress, conceptions intended to be applied not only in the newly formed United States, but worldwide.

Hamilton succeeded in creating that Republic, but the British Empire which he fought was not destroyed. Today that Empire still maintains a vise-grip on the United States, and threatens to blow up the whole world in nuclear war, if it doesn’t get the concessions it needs to maintain its power.

Just as Hamilton knew, even as a very young man, that the British Empire could not destroy the American colonies in a war, he would recognize today that the British cannot win their contest against the rest of the world, without destroying themselves. Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly stressed that point as well. But they can destroy the rest of the world with them, if the necessary leadership does not emerge to destroy their power.

In the recent weeks, there are ever-increasing indications that top political layers, particularly in Germany, but also in other countries of Europe, understand the imminent danger created by the British imperial thrust against Russia. Indeed, that the Londonistan attack on France followed soon after President Hollande’s attack on the EU/NATO confrontational stance toward Russia, may not be coincidental. One of the loudest voices of warning is, ironically, that of erstwhile British agent Mikhail Gorbachov, hardly seen as a prophet in his own Russia, but now correctly speaking out frequently on the danger of a war confrontation provoked by the West. In this week’s interview in Der Spiegel, he is more explicit than ever: what’s threatened is “nuclear war.”

Another aspect of the danger the Europeans see clearly is the rise of full-fledged Nazism, being backed by the British-NATO forces. Western backing for Nazism in Ukraine clearly leads to war—as Ukrainian patriot Natalia Vitrenko pointed out forcefully in the statement we report below.

How can this war be stopped? Once again, only by Hamilton’s approach to political economy—the approach which overturns the system of imperial financial dictatorship, and replaces it with a system based on physical economic cooperation and scientific growth. That is the approach that has now been taken up by the BRICS, as an alternative to geopolitics, but which desperately needs to be taken up by the United States as well.

This coming week must see a non-linear upsurge of that Hamiltonian approach in the United States, spearheaded from his New York City, but leading the entire nation into a decisive break from the British Empire. Hamilton was an exemplary fighter, known for going against all the odds to win victories that appeared impossible. That is our task in the immediate days ahead.