No More (Leo) Straussian Waltzes!
We can no longer live in a world divided against itself, using war as a common currency for the settlement of differences, no matter how intractable. A “harmony of humanity’s interests” demands a New Security Architecture based on the policy of “Peace Through Development.” That LaRouche-authored policy, which should inform diplomacy among all nations, requires an economics that increases the potential-relative population density of the planet. That, in turn, can only be done through increasing mastery of the electromagnetic spectrum, inventing technologies that improve the quality and the forms of energy available per capita, and per square kilometer/mile, for productive labor, for agriculture, and for the increasing consumption of households, everywhere in the world.
The world needs more people, with new generations given greater access to the powers of the electromagnetic spectrum through the successful application of “new physical principles,” expressed, for example, in processes such as the much-underfunded thermonuclear fusion. The “laser machine-tools” revolution could already have transformed the workplace, and our lives, decades ago, for both ourselves, and our purported adversaries. That was the policy that informed Lyndon LaRouche’s 1983 “beam defense policy” toward the Soviet Union, a version of which was adopted by President Ronald Reagan as the Strategic Defense initiative. One year later, it informed his “Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.” for his 1984 race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, and his later Independent Democrat race of the same year.
No later than 1987, then-Presidential candidate Joe Biden was directly informed of this policy by Lyndon LaRouche’s New Hampshire Presidential campaign workers, who ran into him frequently at homes and other sites still available to all candidates in that long-time-gone world of almost-real elections. On one occasion, speaking with two organizers, Biden responded, “The problem with LaRouche is that he thinks that people are smarter than they really are.” Is Biden’s unintentional self-evaluation on that occasion some 35 years ago still his disposition now? Such a disposition of mind in a leader, or a population, leaving one wanting in the courage to change one’s own axioms, and not even thermonuclear weapons, as such, is what, at this moment, threatens to doom the entire human race.
Today’s trans-Atlantic wide, lethally foolish policy toward Russia may also baffle Joe Biden. He may perhaps only pretend to understand it, as Anglo-American intelligence agencies, “flooding the Presidential zone” through “advisors” and operating through the American State and Defense Department on behalf of the City of London and Wall Street, usurp the powers of the Presidency and Congress with the assistance of long-standing operatives like Chuck Schumer. Biden muses “whether Putin has a way out,” while the stage is set for a possible detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon by the same forces that actually carried out September 11, 2001. These are forces which President Vladimir Putin, the first to talk to then-President George W. Bush that dangerous day more than 20 years ago, understands very well. Putin informed Bush on that occasion that he had ordered Russian strategic rocket forces to not take any action. But it doesn’t take Putin’s strategic prowess to see the strategic “lose-lose” nature of the “thermonuclear Great Game” currently underway. Even Jeffrey “Shock Therapy” Sachs has recently stated, in an interview, that the present round of sanctions might have somewhat hurt Russia, but have certainly hurt the world, and, further, that sanctions without diplomacy, as they are presently being applied by NATO to Russia, are an absurdity. Sachs pointed out that the crippling sanctions against Venezuela not only did not remove their target, President Maduro, but that the United States has now approached that country to negotiate for oil.
Sachs, Kissinger and others who have made statements with which sane people might well agree, are not capable of facing their own complicity in the systematic and deliberate destruction of what were termed in the late 1970s and 1980s the transitional nations—those that were at the cusp of “full-set” industrial capacities. These nations, such as Iran, Pakistan and others, by acquiring nuclear energy technologies as power sources, could have traded strategic minerals, raw materials, and semi-finished and finished goods for self-sufficient productive capacity. They saw this new technological platform achieved by the Japanese economy, once destroyed by war, including atomic weapons, but transformed over 30 years into one of the most productive in the world. Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Brazil, Mexico, etc., aspired to be “Japans” as well, but Kissinger, Brzezinski and Sir George Bush would have none of it. The Afghanistan War, which has actually spanned the period of 1979 until now, including what happened to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan, the Shah of Iran, Indira Gandhi of India, and ultimately Saddam Hussein of Iraq, should be a forewarning for all nations and leaders as to what will befall them if they “join NATO,” “support the sanctions against Russia,” etc.
The alternative is “to speak the truth, boldly and plainly, without artifice.” Former Australian deputy ambassador to China (1974-76) and Ambassador to Iran (1985-87) John Lander, said the following in a May 1 presentation to the Wesley Uniting Church of Melbourne: “I felt I should sound a warning. The unhinged, belligerent public pronouncements over the last few days left me feeling so depressed.… ‘Love your neighbor as yourself—’ it applies equally as well to countries as to individuals. It is the bedrock of diplomacy, the primary objective of which is the peaceful resolution of conflict. It guided me throughout my career. So, for peace, love in the broadest sense that Jesus meant, is the answer. … Yet we are subjected to an almost daily deluge of demands that we detest and dread China. It is the policy of hate. It is the same irrational Sinophobia that led to the white Australia policy, the ‘yellow peril’ that took us into the war in Vietnam, and now, the fiction of the ‘China threat.’
“The idea that China has ambitions of territorial expansion akin to those of Nazi Germany is scaremongering and arrant nonsense. China has not threatened to attack Australia or anywhere else. It has invaded no country. By contrast, the U.S. has invaded countries in Latin America, Asia, notably Vietnam and the Middle East, notably Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, causing the death of millions and further millions of refugees whom we subject to cruel and inhumane indefinite detention simply for the crime of seeking a better life….
“Our leaders have lost sight of that fact, that as you do unto others so shall be done unto you…. So I am afraid, not of the threat from China, but of the war psychosis that grips the Australian body politic regarding China. I’m also frightened by the complacency of the general public in Australia, that seems to believe that what is happening to Ukraine cannot happen to us. It can, and it will, if Australia continues to position itself as an enemy of China. We are fortunate that China has not yet declared Australia to be its enemy….”
Other voices of reason are speaking more clearly now than before. In Europe, Gen. Leonardo Tricarico, former head of the Italian Air Force and head of an Italian strategic think-tank, told national TV La7: “When (NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg) says that membership of Sweden and Finland contributes to the security of the North Atlantic …, I ask you: does membership of Sweden and Finland contribute to the security of the North Atlantic region or does it do exactly the opposite, i.e., does it help destabilize an already explosive situation?”
In the United States, Senator Rand Paul, who recently challenged and pledged to oppose the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board, stood in the way of the $40 billion Ukraine allocation. He demanded an inspector general be appointed to—imagine that!—actually inform the Congress where the $40 billion (and implicitly, the up to $60 billion that, with this bill’s passage be on its way to Ukraine) is going, saying, “No matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the United States of America,” Paul said. “We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy.”
Senator Chuck Schumer, who always can be counted on to vote for war, denounced Paul on behalf of Wall Street and the bankers intelligence establishment: “It’s clear from the junior senator from Kentucky’s remarks, he doesn’t want to aid Ukraine,” he said. “All he will accomplish with his actions here today is to delay that aid, not to stop it.” Senator Paul, who does not share the economic views of Lyndon LaRouche, does, however, have a relatively intact sense of smell, enough so at least to detect the whiff of moral treason from Schumer.
Sophist Schumer follows in the political footsteps of the “ignoble liar,” University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss (1899-1973), about whom Lyndon LaRouche and his associates have extensively written (“Profile: Leon Strauss, Fascist Godfather of the Neo-Cons”; EIR, March 21, 2003; https://larouchepub.com/other/2003/3011profile_strauss.html). Strauss was the “teacher of the teachers” of former Deputy Defense Secretary and World Bank official Paul Wolfowitz, as well as other neo-cons that were, in turn, responsible for the original “unipolar world” policy that expanded NATO following the Fall of the Berlin Wall, lying all the time that they would “not expand one inch eastward.” If Finland and Sweden now succeed in joining NATO, the Anglosphere will not only violate that 1990 agreement again—they will claim that the purpose of expanding NATO is to prevent Russia from expanding westward. “Snow, as you can clearly see, is black.”
Another Straussian moment recently occurred in a Senate Foreign Relations exchange between Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried. Markey asked her to essentially state that the United States neither intends to “pose an existential threat” to Russia, nor to engage in a first use of nuclear weapons. Her non-answer was, “The United States is not a party to this conflict … the United States is providing security assistance and weapons to Ukraine, but there’s no question of the U.S. providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine.”
This “Strauss doublespeak” is a verbal dance step—call it the double-step—"a bamboozle,” made familiar to all through “jargon of authenticity” phrases like “the rule of law,” “restorative justice,” “war on terrorism,” “disinformation governance board,” “autocracies versus democracies,” “walking back the statement,” etc. It is, however, rendered powerless through true conceptions of statecraft that result in potent action on the part of citizens. The Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, “Operation Ibn Sina,” A New Security and Development Architecture, perhaps even a renewed “Food For Peace” effort, like the earlier 1984 LaRouche Draft Memorandum, all ideas generated by the Schiller Institute and its co-founders Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche, are the “heavy ideas” which when they are coupled with direct mass-based action for their implementation, capable of superseding the geopolitical sophistry that will surely lead the world to certain destruction otherwise. Humanity’s potential new era of prosperity, as seen for example through the eyes of the newly-operational James Webb Space Telescope, demands a new era of humanity’s maturity. That starts with the rejection of the addiction to war, and criminal sanctions, which are a form of war against humanity itself. “Oh, Friends! No more of these tones!”
