18. december 2020 (Schiller Instituttet) — Muligheden for at præsident Donald Trump vil benåde Wikileaks’ grundlægger, Julian Assange, der nu langsomt dræbes i et fængsel i London, især i kølvandet på den nylige tilbagetræden af justitsminister William Barr, har rejst et spændende spørgsmål. Vil det russiske “computerhack, som aldrig fandt sted”, der er så centralt for den nuværende fængsling og tortur af Assange, endelig blive bragt frem i lyset, hvis han løslades fra fængslet? Vil den kriminelle sammensværgelse mod det amerikanske præsidentskab, der involverede “Five Eyes” efterretningstjenesterne, samt de finansielle interesser bag City of London/Wall Street, blive eksponeret gennem frigivelse af alle dokumenter, der er vigtige for at afsløre Russiagate-fupnummeret? Vil disse dokumenter omfatte relevante dele af de titusindvis af sider, som Ty Clevenger har erfaret, at FBI netop har erkendt eksisterer i deres sagsakter, der er relevante for hans anmodning i en FOIA-retssag vedrørende informationer om Seth Rich? Vil vi måske endelig se frigivelsen af disse og andre dokumenter gennem fyringer og/eller fratræden af CIA-direktør Gina Haspel og FBI-direktør Christopher Wray efter William Barr?

Resolut, uventet og uortodoks handling fra præsidentens side kunne nu være den eneste mulighed for at afsløre den sande natur af præsidentvalget i 2020, og vende det nuværende resultat. Ved at tillade retfærdigheden at ske fyldest gennem sådanne handlinger, kunne der skabes en platform for Snowden, en skrantende Assange, William Binney, whistleblower fra det Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur (NSA) samt andre, til at afsløre hvordan overvågningsstaten har såret den amerikanske valgproces så godt som dødeligt, ligesom den har manipuleret og fikset valg over hele planeten i årtier – uanset hvad der måtte komme frem – Donald Trump kunne endnu nå at blive indsat som præsident i januar 2021. Hvis sandheden om kampagnerne i 2016 og 2020 endelig blev fortalt til det amerikanske folk, vil den der gør det, have fortjent deres evige støtte. Og den sandfærdige forklaring vil øjeblikkeligt afsløre den blodige karakter af Obama-Bush-administrationerne, der blev forenet som siamesiske tvillinger gennem deres fremme af krig som det primære redskab til diplomati.

Britisk efterretningsvirksomhed, ikke Rusland eller Kina, er den “udenlandske spiller”

Har du bemærket, at hvis man nævner Kina eller Rusland, er mange hurtige til simpelthen at acceptere ideen om udenlandsk indblanding i det amerikanske valg, men hver gang man bringer den veldokumenterede involvering af britisk efterretningstjeneste i det amerikanske valg og præsidentskab gennem de seneste 5 år op, benyttes udtrykket “konspirationsteori” til at afvise denne analyse? Navnene Christopher Steele, Robert Hannigan, Sir Richard Dearlove, amerikaneren Stefan Halper og Sir Kim Darroch – alle direkte tilknyttet til GCHQ, MI6 eller den britiske udenrigstjeneste – er blot de hidtil kendte operatører, der er kendt for direkte at have skabt enten historien om “Rusland, Rusland, Rusland” eller historien om “Kina, Kina, Kina”. Der er sikkert mange flere.

Alligevel bruges “det er virkelig svært for mig at se, hvordan Storbritannien er involveret”, stadig som en undskyldning af de fleste for ikke at se, hvad der faktisk er foregået. At ignorere sandheden bliver dog umuligt, når man ser på sagen om Julian Assange. Assange bliver dræbt for øjnene af os i et britisk fængsel for at bevare den russiske fiktion. Hvordan gøres dette? Tidligere i år, den 20. februar, trykte avisen Guardian overskriften: “Donald Trump ’tilbød Julian Assange en benådning, hvis han benægtede russisk forbindelse til hack.'” De fleste medier ville øjeblikkeligt blive miskrediteret som svindlere og kun modvilligt, om nogensinde, blive troet igen, hvis først Assange sammen med andre kyndige fik lov til at udtale sig offentligt om Russiagate. ‘Cui bono’ – de som drager fordel af Assanges tavshed, er de sammensvorne, der fostrede, gennemførte og hemmeligholdt komplottet mod det amerikanske præsidentskab – briter, amerikanere og andre. Som journalist Viktor Dedaj udtalte på Schiller Instituttets panel den 12. december: “Hæng sammen eller hæng hver for sig: Frie suveræne republikker, eller digitalt diktatur (“Hang Together or Hang Separately: Free and Sovereign Republics, or Digital Dictatorship”):

”Da Julian Assange endelig blev fjernet fra ambassaden i strid med folkeretten, og oven i købet den ecuadorianske forfatning, tog det kun et kvarter for den britiske dommer, først at fornærme ham og derefter dømme ham til 50 ugers fængsel for overtrædelse af hvad? Hans betingelser for ‘prøveløsladelse’ … men han blev ikke alene … idømt 50 uger, men 50 uger i et højsikkerheds-fængsel. Vi vil se, at dette – så vidt vides – er det eneste tilfælde i Storbritannien, at en journalist, der ikke er anklaget for noget men holdes i varetægt, er låst inde i et fængsel med høj sikkerhed … Vi så en retssag, der fandt sted bag næsten lukkede døre, idet omkring 50 NGO’er, hvoraf 90 journalister, der [på forhånd] var blevet akkrediteret, blev afvist med navns nævnelse … ”

Det bør huskes, at Edward Snowden i 2013 blev hjulpet af Julian Assange i sin vellykkede flugt fra Hongkong. Snowden strandede derefter i Moskva, da hans pas blev tilbagekaldt, hvilket gjorde det umuligt for ham at rejse videre. Kirk Wiebe, whistleblower fra det Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur, har observeret, at Snowden, langt fra at være en forræder, som mange har hævdet, måske er blevet tvunget til at handle på en ulovlig måde for at honorere sin svorne ed til USA’s forfatning. Hans handlinger fandt sted adskillige år efter at Wiebe, sammen med William Binney og Ed Loomis og senere sammen med Diane Roark, medarbejder i House Intelligence Committee, havde brugt “de godkendte kanaler og procedurer” til at rapportere forseelser efter deres fratræden fra NSA i 2001 – for sidenhen at blive anholdt under våbenmagt af FBI og næsten justitsmyrdet og sendt i fængsel af Justitsministeriet i 2007. Præsident Trumps nylige indikation af, at han måske vil se på en benådning af Snowden, efter at Trump for flere år siden erklærede, at Snowden fortjente døden, har givet anledning til dyb bekymring i efterretningskredse, hos republikanere og demokrater. Disse “repræsentanter for den dybe stat” ønsker frem for alt at trække opmærksomheden væk fra den grimme sandhed. Den systematiske omstyrtning af regeringer, herunder gennem manipulation og valgfusk, foretaget af medlemmer af “Five Eyes” hemmelige regeringsarrangement, er en ‘standard operational procedure’ for det der i den amerikanske efterretningsverden kaldes for “Project Democracy”, som først blev afsløret for den brede amerikanske offentlighed af Lyndon LaRouche og Executive Intelligence Review i rapporten fra 1987: “Project Democracy: The Parallel Government Behind the Iran-Contra Affair.”

Hvordan ‘Project Democracys kampagne mod Lyndon LaRouche ødelagde amerikanske valg

Først kom de efter socialisterne, og jeg talte ikke imod – fordi jeg ikke var socialist.
Så kom de efter fagforeningsfolk, og jeg talte ikke imod – fordi jeg ikke var fagforeningsmand.
Så kom de efter jøderne, og jeg talte ikke imod – for jeg var ikke jøde.
Så kom de efter mig – og der var ingen tilbage til at tale på mine vegne.
—Martin Niemöller

Fortiden er prologen. For at forstå hvordan det gik til, at amerikanske efterretningskontorer, der agerede i hemmeligt samarbejde med en britisk udenlandsk magt, som ingen bryder sig om at nævne, begik valgsvindel ved både valget i 2020 og 2016, er det nødvendigt at forstå brugen af bekendtgørelse 12333 og andre præsident-direktiver fra 1980’erne om at omorganisere og centralisere mange efterretningsfunktioner under vicepræsidentens myndighed. (For at forstå konsekvenserne af hvad dette betyder, så tænk “Dick Cheney.”) E.O. 12333 (Executive Order 12333 -red) og forskellige andre ordrer fremskyndede privatiseringen af militær- og efterretningsfunktioner. Virksomheder, der undertiden benævnes kvasi, ikke-statslige organisationer (“quangos”), forpestede amerikansk dagligliv – og derefter kom Internettet, oprindeligt udviklet til militært brug og derefter ulovligt anvendt til universel overvågning gennem kriminelle applikationer af programmer, der oprindeligt var designet til at forsvare USA, såsom Bill Binneys ThinThread-program.

Læs resten på engelsk:

Studying the case of Lyndon LaRouche, and his 1984–1989 legal lynching, is the single most efficient means by which today’s American electorate can begin to understand the true nature of the grand crime against the Presidency presently being committed, a crime that will require, for its correction, LaRouche’s exoneration, as well as justice for Assange and Snowden.

In fact, whether Julian Assange is successfully kept alive and released from prison in the next weeks, or whether Edward Snowden is soon allowed to return home and assist in the process of cleaning out the “secret government” that has run the United States, is intimately tied to whether Lyndon LaRouche, economist, statesman, and Presidential candidate, is finally exonerated. Though LaRouche died on February 12 2019, his exoneration now plays an even greater role in rectifying the destruction of the American Presidential system that has gone on for over a half-century. The October 6, 1986 attempted assassination of LaRouche, and his subsequent prosecution, conviction and imprisonment, was not an attack on a “maverick political extremist,” as it was portrayed by literally thousands of printed and electronic media stories at the time. It was, because of LaRouche’s use of his Presidential campaigns to change the direction of the policies of the Reagan and other presidencies, that destroying him meant, in reality, a violent, near lethal assault on the American Presidential system. It was the same Presidential system that came under violent attack with the November 22, 1963 murder of JFK, the April-June 1968 double assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, and the March 1981 near-assassination of Ronald Reagan.

Lyndon LaRouche(1922–2019), economist and statesman, was for five decades the most controversial figure in American politics. He became a world-class threat through his United States Presidential campaigns. His 1970s denunciation of the genocidal looting policies and predatory lending practices of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Anglo-American financial establishment in general, and his successful organizing of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative in 1982-83, earned him the undying enmity of the “baby doomers” that have now huddled around the trillions-dollar financial scam known as the “Green New Deal.” LaRouche had to be taken out, or at least, down. That attack was coordinated through the privatized intelligence route , including the April 1983 establishment of a “Get LaRouche Task Force” headed up by financier John Train of New York, and involving multiple intelligence agencies. Individuals such as London’s favorite Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, also played a central role in initiating fraudulent legal actions that aimed to stop him. LaRouche’s enemies, including Robert Mueller, played a role in the attempt to shut down LaRouche’s Presidential campaigns in both 1984 and 1988.

It is virtually impossible for Americans to understand what is now unfolding around the Presidential election without knowing why LaRouche posed such a threat, and what was done to silence him. LaRouche’s enemies are the Malthusians—those who want to see the planet’s population reduced by at least half in the next 30 years—the bankers’ environmental movement. Poor people are very bad for the environment, they say. And the most prominent of environmentalists are now, often, also the world’s biggest bankers. Take, for example, the newly-formed Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism, founded by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, whose leaders claim to represent more than $10.5 trillion in assets under management. Is this a “grassroots environmental movement?” Is this even an “astroturf movement? “ Their plan is to de-carbonize the planet by lessening the number of people presently on it by four, five, or six billion. Famine, pestilence, disease, and war—the “Four Horsemen”—are their preferred way of doing it. And those are the policies that are the immediate future under the new, friendly, enlightened cyber-dictatorship.

Only a vigorous campaign on behalf of justice in all forms—electoral justice, economic justice, defense of the right to know—can save the United States, the trans-Atlantic world, or the world as a whole. These next days before us give us a chance to not merely demand, but secure that justice. Action in these three cases—pardons in the cases of Assange and Snowden, and exoneration for Lyndon LaRouche—are the direct path to securing justice for all citizens throughout the world, and in every country. They are the path to justice for the President of the United States as well. Fiat Justitia ruat caelum —“let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” Now, in these next days, justice given, is justice gained.

Den 5. oktober 2020 (EIRNS) – Den 6. oktober 1986, for 34 år siden, stormede 400 føderale og statsansatte politifolk ind i Leesburg, Virginia, ledsaget af indsatsklare privatejede kampvogne, opstillet af , Magalen Ohrstrom Bryant, efterkommer fra Middleburg, Virginia. Formålet var tilsyneladende at gennemføre en skandaløst overdrevet ransagelse af kontorer forbundet med Lyndon LaRouche.

De oprindelige retskendelser var ikke rettet imod LaRouche som person, i mangel på endog fabrikerede påskud. To medlemmer af LaRouches sikkerhedsteam blev arresteret, sammen med en fundraiser for LaRouche-bevægelsen, baseret på en anklage udstedt i regi af Robert Mueller, som på daværende tidspunkt var statsadvokat i Boston.
Det er den samme Robert Mueller, der ledte den grundløse heksejagt imod Donald Trump og dem der var tilknyttet præsidenten.
Dokumenter, som blev beslaglagt under ransagelsen, blev bragt til en militærbase, Henderson Hall ved Fort Myer, hvilket næppe er den normale procedure for at sikre dokumenter beslaglagt ved eftersøgninger.

Påskuddet for at agere således, at LaRouche-bevægelsen ellers, på en eller anden måde, ville bryde ind på en befæstet flådebase og stjæle dokumenterne tilbage, var latterligt, og alligevel er det den årsag, som fremgår af de officielle dokumenter.
Senere viste det sig, at kampvognene kommanderet af Mrs. Bryants søn, Herb Bryants, i virkeligheden var blevet anskaffet af Oberst Tom Harvey, en militærassistent for vicepræsident George H. W. Bush.

FBI og politistyrker fra Virginia, inklusive en SWAT-specialstyrke (Special Weapons And Tactics), omringede gården, hvor Lyndon LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche boede. Helikoptere kredsede gentagne gange ovenover. Pressen meddelte, at en væbnet indtrængen af gården var undervejs. LaRouche sendte et telegram til præsident Reagan og opfordrede ham til at gribe ind, og pludselig trådte styrkerne, der havde omringet gården, tilbage.

Senere har regeringsdokumenter og vidneudsagn røbet, at man efterfølgende havde forsøgt at få en retskendelse til endnu en husundersøgelse af gården, men det blev aldrig til noget.
Vicesherif i Loudoun amt, Donald Moore, indrømmede mange år senere til en FBI-meddeler, at planen var at trænge ind på gården, fremprovokere en skudveksling og slå LaRouche ihjel.
Alt dette blev gjort imod folk, som tidligere statsadvokat Ramsey Clark passende karakteriserede som “boglige mennesker”. Lyndon LaRouches ideer havde en dyb indflydelse på den amerikanske befolkning, og hans bevægelse voksede. Den hemmelige regering havde bestemt sig for at stoppe ham og hans bevægelse, ligegyldigt hvad der skulle til. Et dokument, efterfølgende frigivet under FOIA (lov om friheden til information) afslørede, at hele sagen blev iværksat på baggrund af et krav fra den britiske regering.

USA har nu i fire år været udsat for et lignende, komplet ulovligt angreb på Donald Trump og hans tilhængere. Præsidentens og hans statsadvokat William Barrs bestræbelser på at standse det, der svarer til et koldt kup mod præsidentskabet for USA, er igen og igen blevet bremset af efterretningsfolk, der forsøger at skjule de forbrydelser de begik i en hård og hensynsløs indsats for at forhindre valget af Trump, mens de kæmper for at bevare den nationale sikkerheds- og økonomiske politik, som har ødelagt USA.
John Brennan, Obamas CIA-direktør, bevidnede i Kongressen, at briterne allerede i 2015 krævede, at Trump blev efterforsket.
Dette krav var tydeligvis baseret på præsidentens ønske om at samarbejde med Rusland om at bekæmpeterrorisme og afslutte krige.

Søndag den 4. oktober sagde kongresmedlem Devin Nunes, højtstående medlem af Kongressens efterretningsudvalg, at han har set, hvad han kalder “bevis på chokerende kriminalitet” blandt efterretningstjenesterne, som arbejdede for Barack Obama.
Direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste, John Ratcliffe, har beordret frigivelsen af dette bevismateriale. Andre beviser på kriminalitet, der allerede er blevet set af medlemmer af Kongressen, er blevet blokeret fra at blive delt med offentligheden under rubrikken “hemmeligstemplet”.

Nunes sagde, at efterretningssamfundet burde lukkes, hvis det fortsætter med at blokere Ratcliffes og andres bestræbelser på at frigive beviser på forbrydelser der er begået, og injurierende myter, som er blevet opfundet og spredt af en kontrolleret presse, i et forsøg på at forpurre Trumps præsidentskab

Download (PDF, Unknown)

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Goddag! Formålet med dagens begivenhed er, at gøre mange unge mennesker i hele verden bekendte med Lyndon LaRouches navn og personlighed og ideer. Hans ideer er absolut nøglen, hvis verden skal komme ud af den nuværende krise. I betragtning af, at han var min mand i 41 år, og jeg i cirka et halvt århundrede var hans politiske allierede – en af mange – så er det følgende ikke bare noget jeg siger, men noget jeg er dybt overbevist om i min sjæl og mit sind. Han var, og fordi han på en vis måde er udødelig, er stadig den smukkeste sjæl og den mest kreative person i sin tid. Der er en meget stor uoverensstemmelse mellem hvem Lyn virkelig var og er, og det billede der tegnes af ham.

Set fra et universalhistorisk synspunkt, hvis man bedømmer et enkelt menneske ud fra hvor meget de bringer udviklingen af menneskeheden frem, mener jeg han er en af de mest enestående personer i hele historien. På den anden side, den næsten uovertrufne vold – og det siger en del, især i nutidens USA – med hvilken hans modstander angreb ham, tilsmudsede ham, dæmoniserede ham, giver jer en ide om hvor skrækslagne de var for ham.

En af de store tyske naturretsfilosoffer, Friherre von der Heydte, sagde, at LaRouche-sagen mindede ham om Dreyfus-affæren i Frankrig. Og tidligere rigsadvokat i USA, Ramsey Clark, udtalte til en kommission, som undersøgte LaRouche-sagen i 1994, at “LaRouche-sagen repræsenterer et bredere omfang af overlagt, beregnende og systematisk retskrænkelse over en længere periode, med misbruget af den føderale regerings magt, end nogen anden retsforfølgelse af den amerikanske regering i min tid, eller efter min viden.”
Det, eller de, der stod bag dette, er hvad folk i dag kalder “Deep State”, eller rettere, det angloamerikanske efterretningsapparat; det samme slags apparat som har stået bag kupforsøget mod præsident Trump siden 2016, bag Russiagate, bag dæmoniseringen af præsident Putin of Xi Jinping, og bag de folk som nu presser voldsomt på for at få gang i en krig; måske endda før det amerikanske valg, eller i det mindste drive inddæmningen af Rusland og Kina så langt, at det kunne gå helt galt, og vi kunne have den 3. Verdenskrig.

Herunder følger resten af talen på engelsk:

The effect of these people having been relatively “successful” — and naturally, I’m saying that in an ironic way — is the reason why we are now on the verge of World War III; that we have an out-of-control pandemic; that we are still threatened with the danger of a financial collapse of the entire system, and that we have famine especially in the developing countries which could quickly reach Biblical dimensions.

If we want to overcome these dangers, it is — even at this very late stage of affairs — it will depend; and we can discuss, but it is my deepest conviction, it will depend on our ability and your help to free Lyn’s name from the lies, slanders, and distortions, and to implement Lyn’s solutions which really have practically taken care of every single problem which is an existential threat to humanity today. In a very beautiful paper called, “The Historical Individual,” which I would urge you to read, he defined that he saw two major missions for himself. One, he said, I want to get you safely through the worst of the presently onrushing world and national crises. And secondly, to foster a new leadership from among the ranks of our young people, which will understand the systemic features of history, and therefore, will be much less likely to make the same mistakes as the foolish members of the recent two adult generations have made until now.

That fostering towards you. You are the young people who are the future. Therefore, it is up to you to develop out of your ranks the kinds of leaders who will make a difference in history. So, Lyn said, in that same paper, when every nation, every culture is in a tragic moment of great crisis, it is “gripped by the need for a sudden and profound change in the quality of its leadership.” Then the survival depends upon its “willingness to choose a new quality of leadership,” and not leave the fate of humanity to those narcissistic leaders who occupy leading positions now, who are only concerned about their performance, but not about the well-being of their nations or the world. You have to have the aspiration to become, all of you, true great statesmen. You have to take as your examples, according to whom you want to orient your life, such people as Benjamin Franklin, or Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jeanne d’Arc, or Martin Luther King; and I would like to add Lyndon LaRouche.

We have now the greatest danger that the world is run by leaders around the world — there are very few exceptions — who are mediocrities; who are really not fit to lead the world out this crisis. This is at a moment when you would need intellectual and moral giants. So, the indispensable leaders for such times as these, Lyn says in this paper, are those people who succeeded practically from childhood to let themselves be taken over by the natural potential for the sublime. The sublime — that is, that quality described by Friedrich Schiller where a human being attachés his or her identity to higher values than even our physical existence; and becomes not physically safe, but morally safe. Such a person rejects the banality of popular culture and taste. Such a person rejects the world of sense certainty; the pleasure in the here and now, and develops that innate power of that quality which is described in I Corinthians 13 — agapē. A profound passionate love for mankind, without which, the world will not get out of this crisis.

Those relatively free souls among us, Lyn says, are the “ugly ducklings,” those who are mistakenly called “eccentrics” because they don’t fit the mainstream popular accepted taste of the social clubs of that kind of paradigm which got us into this crisis. Lyn jokingly, but not so jokingly, called himself many times an “ugly duckling.” But I can assure you, his mind was the most beautiful swan you ever could see.

As a young man, Lyn studied all on his own the ideas of Leibniz, and he listened to Classical music. He rejects Kant — especially his ideas about aesthetics — that there was no meaning in beauty, and that beauty was arbitrary. He rejected Kant’s idea that there was no knowable universal truth. Lyn then joined the Second World War, participating in the India-Burma theatre. He told us many times his experiences in the Calcutta riots of 1946. This was a very decisive moment in his history, because he saw firsthand the brutish character of the British Empire in action. It was clear in his mind from that point on that the natural course of affairs would be that after the Second World War, the Americans would return back and develop India and other developing countries, as was the intention of Franklin D. Roosevelt to develop the developing countries with American technology.

Lyn was absolutely shocked when he heard that Truman would replace Roosevelt, and already told his contemporaries in India that a great man had been replaced by a very little man. And he was completely appalled when he then returned to the United States and saw how people who had developed a certain greatness in fighting Nazism and in fighting fascism and being in World War II, how they really became petit bourgeois; going into the suburban life of American cities. Lyn developed a healthy contempt for that kind of lifestyle. Then, in his function as a business consultant, he came across the theories of Norbert Weiner and John von Neumann. He studied information theory and systems analysis, and immediately recognized that these systems were not capable of describing real economic processes of physical economy, which he had started to develop into his own system based on the ideas of Leibniz.

He developed this idea of physical economy, which became the basis for him to become the most successful economic forecaster of the recent period. His love for Classical music — Bach, Beethoven — had given him very early the appreciation for the importance of the cognitive potential of each individual. From that standpoint, he was one of the very few people in the 1960s, when everybody was mesmerized by the hippies, by flower power, he immediately recognized that this paradigm shift — which was induced by the oligarchy, but people naturally didn’t know that — would destroy the cognitive potential of the population in the long term. He started an endless campaign against the danger of drugs and the combination of the rock-drug-sex counterculture. Then, I think the most important point in this early period was that Lyn recognized, having been familiar with Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the principles of the Bretton Woods system as it was intended by Roosevelt, as compared to what it would become with Churchill and Truman. He recognized in an absolutely prophetic way, what it meant that Richard Nixon, on August 15, 1971, decoupled the dollar from the gold standard, and introduced the floating exchange rates. Lyn said prophetically, that if that monetarist tendency would be continued, it would inevitably lead to the danger of a new depression, a new fascism, the danger of a new world war, or it would be replaced by a just, new world economic order.

Immediately following this in 1973, Lyn constituted a biological taskforce, whose job it was to study the impact of the austerity of the IMF and the World Bank on the developing sector; the infamous conditionalities of the IMF which prevented the developing countries from investing in infrastructure, health, and forced them to pay their debt instead. Lyn said, if you continue to do that, it would inevitably lead to the outbreak of old diseases and new pandemics. He had an absolute foresight for the epidemics and pandemics which developed since AIDS, SARS, MERS, Ebola, and now the coronavirus. All of this would have been not necessary if Lyn’s policies for the development of the developing countries would have been implemented.

From that perspective, Lyn also immediately recognized the absolute devastation of the implementation of the Malthusian policies of the Club of Rome, and how the paradigm shift occurred at the beginning of the 1970s. The idea that it was a natural question that eventually all developing countries would develop, which was expressed in the development decades of the 1950s and ’60s of the United Nations. And how that was replaced by the infamous theories of the Club of Rome; the idea that there are limits to growth, the idea that population is not a good thing. That the population bomb is the greatest threat to humanity; that there is overpopulation. Basically, Lyn obviously knew that was completely wrong; that this was completely against the laws of the actual physical universe. He developed one of his most important conceptions, which was the idea of relative potential population density. Meaning that it is a law of the universe that people must increase; the number of people must increase; they must develop more abilities to have longevity in order to be able to have more people be able to develop more skills which requires longer education. And that the effect of this would be limitless development. He also knew that the premise of the Club of Rome was completely ridiculous. The Earth is not a closed system; the whole assumption of the Malthusians is wrong. Naturally, his image of man was that man is not an accountant who manages the limited resources, and for sure not a parasite as the Greenies today day. But that the discoveries of man, which can again and again show him new physical principles which are part of the development of the universe. As a matter of fact, the most developed part of it.

Lyn, because he saw the danger these ideas would represent for humanity, he decided, as an individual, as somebody who was not backed by Wall Street or the City of London, he decided for President of the United States. He did that first on the Labor Party ticket, a party which he founded in 1973. And basically, he was in this Presidential campaign in 1976, fighting against the Trilateral Commission and all their rotten ideas, the danger of nuclear war, and the urgent need for the industrialization of the developing sector. This was a very bold idea. Lyn meant it; he went in for winning the Presidency. The U.S. Presidency is probably the most powerful institution in the present world; this is due to the American Revolution, the idea of the Declaration of Independence, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the inalienable right of all human beings, given to them by the Creator. This Constitution of the United States defined it as the task of the government to protect those inalienable rights of all human beings. Therefore, it was the first time that there was actually a form of government which was the complete opposite of the oligarchical model which existed with the monarchies and other forms of government in Europe, where the idea was that the purpose of the government was to protect the privileges of the elite and keep the mass of the population backward.

So Lyn, as in independent, decided to go against this plutocracy, the control of the Democratic and Republican Parties by Wall Street. And actually fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. Lyn ran for President eight times, from 1976, and then from 1980 to 2004 as a Democrat. He had the concept that he had to wage this battle to turn the United States into a force for good, as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. Already in year before he started the first campaign, in 1975, he developed a revolutionary conception — the International Development Bank. It was the idea that it should replace the IMF; that it should be an incredible credit institution for technology transfer to industrialize the so-called Third World. He developed also in 1975, the Oasis Plan, which was the idea to develop Southwest Asia; develop new water, green the deserts. He developed with his associates, a plan for the industrialization of Africa.

Naturally, immediately, the establishment regarded Lyn as the greatest threat to their system. Because what became known only later, in 1974, Kissinger had developed a paper called NSSM 200 [National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests], which was a blueprint for population reduction. It quite brazenly defined the raw materials in some of the most populous of the developing countries — actually 13 countries — as belonging to the strategic interest of the United States. Therefore, the population should be reduced, because too many people in these countries would consume too much raw materials. This scandalous paper was only made public in the 1990s, but obviously every word Lyn was saying went completely against these ideas. Then, we published these proceedings of the Africa Development; we had a conference in 1976 in Paris, and also in 1976 when Lyn’s Presidential campaign was already in full gear, I was in Paris organizing a one-week diplomatic seminar with a whole bunch of Arab ambassadors who had planned to invite Lyn to come to Paris and give them a one-week course on the Oasis Plan, on his economic theory. This was really a major event. But what happened was, on the day when the seminar was supposed to start, Lyn had just arrived from the United States. I got a phone call from the Iraqi ambassador, who said, unfortunately, I have to tell you that Mr. LaRouche has to develop a “diplomatic flu.” He must basically say he’s sick and therefore cannot participate in the seminar. Even so, he was supposed to be the main speaker, the main teacher. As it turned out, Henry Kissinger had flown himself personally into Paris that day, making pressure on the French government and all the ambassadors to cancel this event all together.

In 1976, we had already organized for one full year in many countries around the world, to implement the International Development Bank. We had talked to many embassies of the Non-Aligned sector, of Africa, of Latin America. In the fall of 1976, the Non-Aligned Movement adopted practically that plan for a New World Economic Order at the Colombo conference in Sri Lanka. So, we were extremely happy. I called up all the media in Germany and asked, “When are you reporting this?” They said, completely arrogantly, “We are not reporting this, because this is not newsworthy.” I said, “What? Three-quarters of the human species want a New World Economic Order, and you say this is not newsworthy?” Well, that was the first major lesson about the control of the media. Then, what happened was a tremendous backlash, where leaders of the Third World like Indira Gandhi, Mrs. Bandaranaike, Prime Minister Bhutto, were all destabilized, and also Gen. Juan Velasco Alvarado from Peru already in 1975, he was one of the leaders of this movement. They all were ousted or killed. But Fred Wills, the Foreign Minister of Guyana already in 1976, introduced the IDB conception to the UN General Assembly. This all happened on the orders of the IMF and the State Department.

In 1976, Lyn was running for President in the United States, and I was running for Chancellor in Germany. I thought that was necessary because the alternatives were Helmut Kohl and Helmut Schmidt; Kohl being your typical mediocre conservative, and Schmidt, who had some good features, but he had also endorsed Hjalmar Schacht, the Finance Minister of Hitler, or his policies. So, I thought it was absolutely necessary to fight for an alternative. That double candidacy brought us also closer, Lyn and myself. So, in 1977, we got married. This was then the beginning of a truly very beautiful marriage, which is obviously very precious to me. Immediately, death threats started. The so-called Red Army Faction, Bader-Meinhof groups. The Red Army Faction is RAF, which happens to also be short for the Royal Air Force of Great Britain. So, one has to think, because some of the third generation of the RAF actually were probably enemies of Lyn’s conception, and were determined that they would suppress these ideas.

Lyn continued his Presidential campaigns. In 1980, he campaigned against Bush, Sr. and ruined his Presidential ambitions at that time, which got him the lifelong hostility of the Bush family. But it also made him an acquaintance of President Reagan, which turned out to be very fruitful later on.

In 1982, we did an enormous amount of things. López Portillo, the President of Mexico, who had gotten to know our youth movement in Mexico, was completely intrigued by the fact that there would be young people who would fight for such ideas. So, he wanted to find out about LaRouche. When the peso was under massive attack, and there was a huge capital flight organized out of Mexico, he invited us to come to Mexico City. He asked Lyn to help him defend the sovereignty and the currency of Mexico. Lyn immediately wrote a program, not just for Mexico but for all of Latin America. This was called Operation Juárez. It was the idea of an infrastructure development plan, a debt reorganization, and basically developed credit mechanisms for long-term real development of the entire Latin American continent. At that time, Latin America had a $200 billion debt. They had paid that debt many times over; this is what we call “banker’s arithmetic,” but $200 billion — which is now proverbial peanuts in terms of all these quantitative easing trillions being pumped into the system. But $200 billion in 1982 was regarded to be enough to bring down Wall Street and the City of London. When López Portillo implemented that policy on September 1, 1982, it just happened to be that Lyn and I, on the same day, were in Germany in Frankfurt meeting with the management of the credit institution for reconstruction. And at 11 a.m., we just were standing there, talking. One of the biggest currency traders rushed into the room and said, “This is it! Wall Street is finished! This is a debt bomb by the Latin American countries. This is the end of the system!” Lyn just smiled and said, “No, don’t worry.” It’s just a way to save these banks; because if you reorganize them in an orderly fashion, that’s the only way they can actually be saved. So, well, that was really a very interesting moment, but the establishment thought that was the end of their system. It increased the resolve to go after Lyn.

In the same year, we went to India, and we met with Indira Gandhi. We worked with her on a development plan for 40 years for the development of India, which also was part of Lyn’s conception to develop the whole world. The programs together, the Mexico program, the India program, Latin America, Asia, Africa; it basically would have meant that the entire Malthusian order as it was then developed, would have been undone.

The same year, Lyn started to work on another grand design for the change of the world, which was that since the end of the 1970s, we had found out that the Soviet scientists were developing beam weapons. They had developed a point defense system for the city of Moscow. Lyn was actually convinced that the biggest danger of nuclear war would arise when one side — either NATO or the Warsaw Pact — would be able to develop new weapons systems based on new physical principles, making nuclear weapons obsolete. In that moment then, the one side would feel encouraged to use nuclear weapons while they are still usable. You also had the development of the medium-range missile crisis, where in Europe you had both the Pershing II and SS-20 missiles directed against each other, with only three or four minutes until they would hit their target. They were always launch on warning, and at that time, you had a gigantic peace movement of people who knew that we were on the verge of World War III. So, Lyn developed a conception how the two superpowers — the United States and the Soviet Union — would not try to out-develop themselves, but develop these new systems jointly. To develop them, to implement them, and for the first time, make nuclear weapons technologically obsolete. Because also the defense would be less costly than the offensive; it was really an absolutely incredible design. It was not what the media made out of it, who called it Star Wars; but it was an absolutely incredible conception of how to technologically make nuclear weapons obsolete. So, for one full year, we organized conferences — in Rome, in Paris, in Bonn (at that time, Bonn was the capital of Germany), in Warsaw, in Washington. Out of that developed negotiations between Lyn and the representatives of the Soviet Union in a so-called “back channel” discussion, where the Soviet Union seriously studied to adopt that policy. After one year, in February 1983, they sent the message from Moscow that this is rejected, because it would give the West more advantages. Later we found out the reasons — namely that the Ogarkov plan had completely different objectives, and therefore rejected it. But, on the 23rd of March, President Reagan announced that very policy to be the official U.S. strategic policy; the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative. A little bit later, Lyn developed what that policy could have been. Namely, in a protocol for the superpowers, he described how the development of these new technologies based on new physical principles would lead to a science driver in the military field. And that if they would be applied in the civilian sector, they would lead to an incredible increase of the productivity of the economy. Then, if the two superpowers would work together, they could dissolve the military blocs of the Warsaw Pact and NATO, and jointly make a technology transfer to the developing sector; ending the character of these countries as proxies in a superpower confrontation, and really go in the direction of overcoming poverty and the development of the Third World.

President Reagan had adopted that policy. He wrote two official letters to the Soviets, offering American help to apply these technologies in the civilian sector. That is generally not being discussed at all, but we were very close to establishing a completely human world order. At that time, the determination of the oligarchy to really go after Lyn escalated. Because Lyn was not only able to define conceptions which would have changed the world for the better, but he got heads of state to implement these ideas — López Portillo, Indira Gandhi, President Reagan. So, then when the Soviet Union rejected that in 1984, he said if the Soviets keep their existing policy, they will collapse in five years. Now, they did, as you know. In 1989, when the [Berlin] Wall came down, his prediction was fulfilled.

In 1982, when all of this became very clear, that Lyn was having this impact, Henry Kissinger, in May, made an infamous speech in the Chatham House in London, where he admitted that he always was following the orders of the British Empire much more closely than that of the United States government. Kissinger, in August 1982, wrote a letter to the FBI Chief of that time, William Webster, and demanded that there should be an investigation of Lyndon LaRouche as a Soviet agent of influence. Nothing was further from the truth, but that is where basically the entire apparatus which was completely upset, after Reagan started to put the SDI on the agenda, went completely wild. Bush, Shulz, that faction. However, this was a period when we did so much. In 1984, we started the Schiller Institute. It was my idea, but Lyn was completely supportive. Very quickly, the Schiller Institute, which had the idea that you needed to replace the present policy with a foreign policy based on statecraft, and that nations should relate to each other by referring always to the best of the other. The best culture, the best traditions. That you needed to fight for a new world economic order and a renaissance of Classical culture. So, in the 36 years since, the Schiller Institute has become a very influential institution on five continents. Also in 1985, we had a beautiful conference for the honor of Krafft Ehricke, one of the great space visionaries and rocket scientists, who had not only developed beautiful conceptions about colonizing the Moon and the development of Mars, he developed the idea of the extraterrestrial imperative. The idea that mankind would completely transform its nature through space travel. He was a very good friend of Lyn’s and mine.

In all of these years, Lyn was incredibly productive. He had already developed in the 1970s key conceptions about the fundamental laws of the universe. He had developed the Riemann-LaRouche economic model, which was based on the physical principles of the real universe, and not on the sense certainty perception of the mere shadows, which was one of his ways to absolutely be the best forecaster on the planet. He absolutely made clear the fundamental difference between the Plato and Aristotle traditions in European history. He initiated a beautiful campaign for the protection of the principles of Classical music, the so-called Verdi tuning, which was signed by all major singers of that time, and many instrumentalists. Lyn developed out of this a close friendship with Norbert Brainin, who was the first violinist of the famous Amadeus Quartet. After Norbert spent one time two days in our house in Virginia, he and Lyn spoke for hours and hours; two full days about music. At the end of which, Norbert said, “Well, you know so much more about music than I do.” I think this was an absolutely correct characterization. Lyn also developed beautiful friendships with such singers as William Warfield and Sylvia Olden Lee; with Piero Cappuccilli, with Carlo Bergonzi.

Lyn already in 1974 had founded the Fusion Energy Foundation, which was a scientific institution fighting for the frontiers of science. Life sciences engaged in development projects. We had assembled around us in the 1980s, more than 100 top scientists who agreed with us to build three private universities. One in Peru, one in America, one in Germany, to teach Lyn’s scientific method.

Obviously, that was all interrupted with the infamous raid of our house in Leesburg, our offices, and the prosecution which followed. The life of this organization has completely changed. Up until 1986, we were building, we were optimistic, we were only engaged in productive concepts of how to make the world better. But after this raid, we had to really defend ourselves, and obviously with the prosecution of Lyn and him being innocently in jail, this organization had really to fight for our existence. They wanted to get rid of us all together.

But before the jailing of Lyn happened, he already in 1987, again completely prophetically, wrote an article in 1987, in which he said, if I become President in 1989, I will make sure that there will be a unification of Germany with Berlin as the capital. That idea that Germany should be unified and that Germany should have a peace treaty, was also part of our wedding agreement. We had said that Lyn would be President of the United States for eight years, and then I would be Chancellor of Germany for eight years. So, this was sort of joke, but not totally. It was also meant seriously.

Then, in 1988, Lyn made the famous press conference in the Kempinski Hotel in Berlin, where he predicted that Germany would be soon unified, and Berlin would be soon the capital of Germany. Again, as Lyn’s prognosis that the Soviet Union would collapse, which he said in 1984. In 1988, nobody thought that Germany would be unified. But when the Wall came down one year later, therefore, we were the only ones who had a conception of what to do. Lyn was already sitting innocently in jail, but we immediately worked together on the Productive Triangle, the idea to develop Eastern Europe with the help of modern technology. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, we immediately prolonged that to become the Eurasian Land-Bridge; the idea to connect the population and industrial centers of Europe with those of Asia through development corridors. We promoted that conception in literally hundreds of seminars and conferences. I’m absolutely sure that whole effort very much influenced what then became the Chinese New Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative.

The most important thing Lyn contributed however, was a method of thinking. He opened the access to ideas which had been completely forgotten, pushed aside, by the rewriting of history and the history of ideas through the oligarchy. He again made it possible for people to understand the spiritual power of the mind for hypothesis. A method which, if it would be applied by young people all over the world, would simply mean — and it has to mean — that many of the young people of the world will have a way to access how to become a genius. Many of you will also become outstanding leaders, who can change the world for the better.

So, what is the lesson of all of this? Will we give up just because Lyn’s opponents have made such a mess of the world? They have the questionable success that they succeeded; this is why we are on the verge of World War III, famine, epidemic, and general collapse. But I think if we think — and we will hear about that for the rest of this event — if Lyn’s idea would have been implemented for the past 40 years, we would have Africa to be a blossoming garden. We would have Latin America completely developed. You would have many countries who would be not less developed than China is today. You would have Europe not being the culturally relativistic mess it is right now; but Europe would have revived the beautiful culture of the Golden Renaissance and the German Classical period of Schiller and Beethoven. The United States would be a force for the good, where people would be happy to be friends of that great country.

I think history will, for sure if there is going to be a history, write that Lyn’s enemies were the worst scoundrels, on a match with all the previous scoundrels in the world; among them, Hitler and others. And that the world would have been such a much more beautiful place if Lyn’s ideas would have been implemented. That task is now yours. You will be those people who have to design a new era of mankind. If you think that job is too big, I think you should be confident. The entire history of mankind is the proof that Leibniz’s conception that we are living in the best of all possible worlds is actually true. Every great evil will generate an even greater good. I think that that is exactly what we can do, and it absolutely depends on if there are enough people who have the potential to be truly great leaders. That is what I want you to become.