In his August, 1983 policy paper, “A Fifty-Year Development Policy for the India-Pacific Oceans Basin,” Lyndon LaRouche included a section entitled “The Foreign Policy of the United States Toward Asia, and By What Means It Might Be Transformed.” LaRouche sternly warns his American readers: “Any proposal for cooperation in the economic development of the subcontinent of Asia and Southeast Asia, is probably doomed to failure from the beginning unless the proponents address openly the fact that the foreign policy of the United States is committed to preventing the emergence of any significant economic development by such means. It may, and should be argued that such a foreign policy seems very foolish, and is probably contrary to the true most vital interests of the United States in Asia. It is not uncommon that states should be devoutly committed to foreign policies directly contrary to their own best interests. Unless and until that present U.S. foreign policy is changed in a profound way, U.S. participation in negotiation of economic cooperation merely assures such cooperation will not occur.”
LaRouche continued: “Discussions of Pacific Basin cooperation will continue to be merely discussions, until the question is directly stated: how might the foreign policy of the U.S.A. toward Asia be transformed to conform to the vital interests of the United States: The question must be posed: How might the United States return to the political philosophical world-outlook of its founders, or, more recently, the proposed post-war foreign policy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt?“
Today, 77 years ago, August 6, 1945, the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. In two months, from the blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as many as 200,000 died from the explosions and their effects. The only nation in world history to have dropped the bomb is the United States, not Russia, not China. The dropping of the bombs was not necessary; negotiations with the Japanese were well underway. The bombs were dropped to send another message. “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
“We have seen what kind of future the globalist ruling class has to offer. But we have a different future in mind.” Whatever one might think of Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, his statement, made recently to an audience in Texas, touched on a still-largely-unspoken, perhaps even largely unconscious sentiment among the people of the world, in every part of the world, that they “were born for that which is better.” This always escapes, and always will escape recognition by official media channels that delude themselves into thinking that they have their “fingers on the pulse of the people.”
This moment may be compared to 1989, or to 2016, in one sense; but there is a difference. The Feb. 4, 2022 “Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on International Relations Entering a New Era” (http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5770) was reacted to by a declaration of “financial nuclear war” by the Anglosphere. Ukraine may have been the designated theater of conflict, but the actual conflict, the “hypersphere” of conflict, involved two radically differing ideas of the future.
In this context, Lyndon LaRouche’s current “Earth’s Next Fifty Years” perspective, as strategically applied to establishing the World Land-Bridge policy as the basis for a new strategic architecture, and conveyed through the two years of conferences sponsored by the Schiller Institute, is the real target upon which the Anglosphere is seeking to unleash its Ukrainian-based international killer force. NATO-in-Ukraine is now running a multi-billions-dollar weapons sell-off, perhaps including biological weapons, as Russian investigators may be beginning to discern. To what end—to “liberate Ukraine from Russia?” This is, in any case, a re-tooling of the earlier “Afghansi” NATO special forces ("Gladio") terrorist capability.
The neo-Nazi forces of Ukraine have now disrobed to make the obscenity of their true purpose more luridly visible. The various blacklists, bans, roundups and bombings now on abundant display, and all documented below, are a return to an earlier, ignoble time in Europe. Yet, it is possible that the whole Ukraine show, which only a courageous few publicly, but many others privately, oppose, may yet be blown up by its puppet Zelenskyy.
In the last ten days, he has banned two more political parties, described Amnesty International as a “terrorist-supporting” organization, and has now locked down, “for the weekend,” a whole town in southern Ukraine to begin the process of military lustration, “cleansing” collaborators from the town, perhaps leading to scenes reminiscent of Rossellini’s “Rome Open City” portrayal of Nazi methods of torture and control.
LaRouche forces in the United States must once again find a way to wield the powers of the United States Presidency, despite the problem posed by the frightening order of succession, from Biden, to Harris, to Pelosi. The attack by Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation may have given us an unexpected vantage point from which to do exactly that. The action by a parliamentarian in Denmark, demanding that the Danish Foreign Ministry answer how Denmark’s supporting the repressive Ukrainian regime can be construed as supporting democracy, can awaken something deeper in that population, which indeed fought Nazism.
But what about the United States State Department? The United States government must defend the rights and persons of its citizens from threats from foreign powers. Ostensibly, that was the motivation for passing the Patriot Act, for passing the 2012 NDAA, and for universal, through unadmitted, surveillance of the American people. The Senate, the Congress, and the office of the Presidency should respond to the blacklisted’s concerns, and should as well inquire, publicly, to the nation of Ukraine about its misuse of American resources and reputation to such a disreputable end.
Scott Ritter’s inquiry to the offices of Senators Gillibrand and Schumer, as to why the United States is financially supporting a nation whose public officials threaten American citizens, by designating them as “information terrorists” must be promptly answered. After all, Ukrainian officials are saying, as did Zelenskyy Administration figure Mikhailo Podolyak, that “We consider these people to be unconditional agents of Russian influence…. This means that we officially respond to this with sanctions both within the country and seek sanctions against them in other countries of the civilized world. I will repeat once again because it’s important: These people … they themselves are a kind of instrument of war.”
More to the point, Ritter’s defense of United States Senator Rand Paul, and of independent United States Senate candidate Diane Sare, is an implicit defense of the office of the United States, particularly its Constitutional mandate to advise the President of the United States on matters of America’s relationship to foreign policy. The Senate’s obligation is to consent or dissent on those foreign policy matters as required, to advance and defend the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Defending that Congressional policy deliberation process, by defending, in this case, the right of American citizens to dissent from the official Ukrainian “narrative,” whether it originates with Ukraine, NATO, the City of London or the State Department itself, is a sacred duty required both of the institutions of government, and, should those institutions fail, of the citizens of the republic themselves. In this way, forcing a retraction of the Ukraine blacklist, and eliciting statements from various institutions, private individuals, and even from governments that may support Ukraine, yet denounce the issuance of such a list, can bring into existence a process that once again connects the American people to the true powers of the American Presidential system.
