As of mid-September, the critical intervention for the world to change course from the road to Hell, comes from the actions of individuals and networks getting out the truth about the collusion of the Democratic Party, with British and U.S. intelligence circles, which are conducting coup operations against President Donald Trump and the Office of the Presidency, and about the interlock with military elements plotting insurrection. This goes right up and into Trump’s Cabinet.
The leading edge of the patriotic truth intervention is the presentation, “Do We Risk a Military Coup?” given by Col. Richard H. Black (ret.), at the Sept. 5 strategic session of the international Schiller Institute conference that weekend, and by his fellow speakers, former NSA specialists William Binney and Kirk Wiebe, and their follow-up presentations since. Dozens of thousands of views of their exposés are now spreading, with feedback reported from many nations. For example, today Colonel Black gave a webcast interview in Britain, on the UK Column’s “Insight Vox” online video program, with Editor Mike Robinson. It is also notable that yesterday, 235 U.S. retired flag officers issued a statement of support for the reelection of President Donald Trump.
Given this super-charged context, the contrast was dramatic today between President Trump’s remarks on peace policy, made at the White House event on the new Middle East Abraham Accords, and those of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, made just hours earlier at an online Atlantic Council event, which gloated over permanent war policies, aimed at Russia and China.
Trump spoke at the signing ceremony for a peace treaty among top ministers of the U.A.E., Bahrain and Israel. Trump called the declaration of peace, “historic.” He stressed his hopeful view that the basis is laid for security, and a “peace without blood,” adding that soon, several other nations, including Saudi Arabia and Iran would sign onto the agreement. “I want to make a good deal with Iran,” he announced.
In contrast, Pompeo spoke of military might, and U.S. geopolitical successes against Russia and China. He said “I’m going to travel to a state capital next week, talk about the threat from the united front here inside the United States,” and to inform Americans not to have anything to do with the treacherous Chinese. He bragged that for international allies—though they may be trading with China, “the tide is turning,” and they are seeing the light. He said that the new U.S. policy must contain China for the next 100 years. In Central and Eastern Europe, Pompeo spoke of U.S. action to deter China and Russia, by backing the “Three Seas Initiative” (Black, Baltic, Adriatic,) which is supposed to involve U.S. funding of infrastructure, along with military preparedness. He plans an event in Estonia on this soon.
This warhawk outlook is amplified dangerously through certain military command statements. Yesterday at the Pentagon, the head of the U.S. Strategic Command, Adm. Charles Richard hyped the view that, “Our competitors [Russia and China] have continued to develop both nonstrategic and strategic capabilities in an effort to outpace us. And we are going into a very different world.” Asked about the danger that the U.S. bomber flights so close to Russian borders “could lead to actual conflict,” Richard asserted that the U.S.—per the National Defense Strategy—must be “strategically predictable, but tactically unpredictable.”
Add to this danger, the fact that the actual physical condition of the world is fast deteriorating in the combined crises of the pandemic, hunger famine, economic and social breakdown and the deliberate fostering of chaos. What is required is a leadership break with the confrontationism and lack of action on the pandemic and economic crises, and a summit of some working combination of great powers to start collaborating on the needed solutions.
This is exemplified by the opening today of the UN General Assembly, for its 75th anniversary session (Sept. 15-30). The first—or one of the first—appeals to the General Assembly is for action on hunger. A message was sent by 24 international relief agencies (CARE, Save the Children, OxFam, Islamic Relief, and more) titled, “Joint INGO [International Non-Governmental Organizations] Statement on Yemen—75th Session of the UN General Assembly.” The appeal was notably not sent to the UN Security Council, World Food Program, Food and Agriculture Organization, or any other agency, which so far have been unable to respond adequately. The two-page document states, “Two-thirds of the population—20 million people—are hungry, and nearly 1.5 million families currently rely entirely on food aid to survive. Yemen is now a drastically under-funded crisis. At a critical time when needs are increasing, famine once again looms, and COVID-19 remains a constant threat, it is inconceivable that funding for Yemen’s humanitarian response is drying up.”
UN General Assembly President Volkan Bozkir said yesterday: “COVID-19 is a global crisis the world hasn’t known since the UN was created out of the ashes of World War II. It is not only a health crisis, but a social and economic crisis, which has exacerbated existing challenges.…” He called for unified action. But the jump start required is the initiative of great power nations to confer and act. This has been the goal of the series of Schiller Institute conferences from April through September, to provide support pressure to make this happen. But the likelihood will not remain for long.
Yesterday, Helga Zepp LaRouche, Schiller Institute President, was asked about this. She replied, ”So even if it looks more unlikely, and more difficult, it makes it all the more urgent. And I think that’s what we should tell all the people we are talking to, because who is going to take care of the pandemic, if the expectation is that it may very likely take longer than another year, before vaccines function and — what about the famine? What about the refugees everywhere? There has to be an institution — the German word is Instanz [jurisdiction, appropriate authority].... But in any case, there has to be a level on which the decisions to change the dynamic in the world has to come, and can only be the summit of the most powerful countries in the world. So it should be the P5, it should be the big four — Russia, China, the United States, and India; it can be another process involving only the three — U.S., China, Russia; it can be a larger grouping — it doesn’t matter, it has to be guided by the decision of the presidents that they are the ones where the buck stops.”
