“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” Were discussions of the Ten Principles proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche to replace the chat room gossip and partisan “much ado about nothing” presently clogging up the internet, the seeming impossibility of creating a dialogue among cultures, based on the mutual, if differentiated, economic progress of all nations, would evaporate. LaRouche often stated that “the content of policy is the method by which it is made,” which should clarify why you will never get the right policy from a Samantha Power, or Blinken, or Sullivan, or even worse, a pompous Pompeo.
The world has to be given a fighting chance of understanding how each citizen, no matter how seemingly powerless, is potentially an essential part of not only reversing the present danger of thermonuclear war, but of a new, productive future for all humanity, and posterity. There is almost no knowledge of, much less study of universal history. There is, however, a world-historic shift occurring in our time—the increasing emergence of a “new non-aligned movement” involving the majority of the human race. (In 1945 there were 74 nations, with less than 2.5 billion people. Today, there are 195, with 8 billion people.) It is up to us to connect that emerging movement to the science of physical economy, and of statecraft, advanced in the 20th century by Lyndon LaRouche, that allowed LaRouche to temporarily solve, and in a real sense prevent the problem of impending thermonuclear war 40 years ago.
“The content of policy is the method by which it is made.” There is no substitute for the method of organizing taught by Lyndon LaRouche to the philosophical association called the International Caucus of Labor Committees. That method was displayed in the interview conducted by Helga Zepp-LaRouche with Vladimir Solovyov (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/12/08/soloviev-live-interviews-helga-zepp-larouche-on-ten-principles/). That is the standard which, if emulated, will allow the strategic breakthrough now required. We need to fight our way onto social media platforms, using the interventions approach so effectively deployed two months ago, to force the contrast between our image of mankind and that of “Last Days” Pompeo, or Liz Truss. We have to, in that way, seize conceptual leadership of the trans-Atlantic sector in a battle for intellectual and policy hegemony. In the United States, the candidacy of Diane Sare for United States Senate has been an essential part of the emergence of an American non-aligned movement of citizens walking away, in the spirit of George Wshington’s Farewell Address, from the “two-potty system.” This is not for a third party, but rather a third force, above parties.
About the conditions under which revolutionary changes in society can occur, Lyndon LaRouche once said, “bring that society to a point of discontinuity, such as the present.… The society has reached the point at which it can no longer exist on the basis of the previously dominant sets of institutions. As a result, what worked as reactions to events in the past, no longer works. In a very meaningful sense, the laws of the universe have suddenly broken down insofar as relations within that society approximate a set of implied universal laws of social practice. Consequently, what was effectively a ‘fact’ in 1971 (now 51 years ago) is no longer a fact today.”
“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” Is that true? Can a “subjective” shift, cause an “objective shift?” Perhaps one’s pre-existing ideas of what is subjective, or objective, are both wrong. Consider the (actually non-existent) quandary trans-Atlantic intelligence specialists and others have just stumbled into.
Over the course of the past 24 hours, various evaluations have appeared, from various persons in the trans-Atlantic sector, that have asserted that Vladimir Putin has “re-examined” or “re-evaluated” Russian thermonuclear war-fighting policy. There has been no statement from Putin, nor anyone else in the Russian government, that states that. The Russian policy on the use of thermonuclear weapons has been clear. Nuclear weapons are used if Russia is attacked with nuclear weapons, or if there is an existential threat against their nation. The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis has been used by Russia, by ourselves, and many others, as the appropriate analogy. And, in fact, at no time in the recent period has Russia “threatened to launch a first strike” against the West, though that has often been falsely repeated.
There is, however, a recognition among circles in the Anglosphere that the reality of the Russian military buildup of hundreds of thousands of troops, and the horrific losses, particularly on the part of Ukraine, in the fighting in the Donbass region—where, as in the trench warfare of World War I, corpses rot in water-filled holes, limbs are amputated, and lives by the thousands are wasted for nothing— constitutes an inexorable process of Ukraine’s ultimate defeat. This may lead to an unhinged advocacy and even attempted use of thermonuclear weapons by “the 9/11 boys,” those that have already blown up the Nord Stream pipeline, attacked ships at Sevastopol, and have perhaps even thrown a missile at Poland.
Putin did make a statement, at a meeting of the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights on Wednesday, Dec. 7, regarding his concern about the placement by the United States of thermonuclear weapons in Europe. “Our strategy for using the means of defense—and we regard weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons as defense—it’s all built around the so-called retaliatory counter strike, meaning when a strike is being inflicted on us, we inflict one in response,” Putin said. “Large amounts of so-called tactical U.S. nuclear weapons are located on European territory. We have not transferred and do not transfer our nuclear weapons to anyone.”
Observers, like Col. Douglas Macgregor (ret.), have asserted that they believe that Putin is concerned about the increase in weaponry sent over the past months by NATO, particularly the United States, not only in Ukraine, but also into Europe. “We’ve placed a lot of aircraft in the theater that are capable of delivering nuclear weapons. And I’m sure that most of your viewers are aware that we do have nuclear weapons on the ground in Germany.”
For those with short memories, the following passage from the New York Post from Dec. 26, 2021, just over a year ago, may be useful. “(Putin) reiterated his assertion that allowing Ukraine into the alliance or deploying troops or weapons there would be a ‘red line’ for Russia. ‘We have nowhere to retreat,’ he said, pointing out that any missiles placed in Ukraine would be able to reach Russia in under five minutes, posing a threat to the country.” Also one year ago, in an interview with RIA Novosti on Dec. 15, Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov pointed to the U.S. Army’s reactivation in early November 2021 of the 56th Artillery Command, based in the Mainz-Kastel district of Wiesbaden, Germany. This was, Ryabkov said, an “indirect indication” to Russia that NATO intends to redeploy weapons in Europe to which Russia would have to react with measures of its own. Many will remember the 1983-85 deployment into Germany of over 100 Pershing 2 nuclear-tipped missiles.
What has gotten the attention of many is another statement Putin made on Wednesday. “About Russia not being the first to use under any circumstances, well, if it’s not the first to use under any circumstances, then it won’t be the second to use as well because a nuclear strike on our territory greatly limits the chances of using.” There was consternation. By Friday, Dec. 9, NATO’s usually bellicose and blustering Jens Stoltenberg tried his best to seem to sing a different tune, although he was still off-key.
“KYIV, Ukraine (AP)—The head of NATO expressed worry that the fighting in Ukraine could spin out of control and become a war between Russia and NATO, according to an interview released Friday. ‘If things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong,’ NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in remarks to Norwegian broadcaster NRK. ‘It is a terrible war in Ukraine. It is also a war that can become a full-fledged war that spreads into a major war between NATO and Russia,’ he said. ‘We are working on that every day to avoid that.’”
Actually, Stoltenberg isn’t. You can tell, because he did not simply say, “We have to stop NATO’s war with Russia now, before we wind up in a thermonuclear confrontation.” By contrast, consider Zepp-LaRouche’s Seventh Principle:"The new global security architecture must eliminate the concept of geopolitics by ending the division of the world into blocs. The security concerns of every sovereign nation must be taken into account. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction must be immediately banned. Through international cooperation, the means must be developed to make nuclear weapons technologically obsolete, as it was originally intended by the proposal which became known as the SDI, suggested by LaRouche and made as an offer to the Soviet Union by President Reagan.”
What would happen, were that principle, and the still-denied history that surrounds it, including NATO’s expansion Eastward (after Lyndon LaRouche was jailed for his successful advocacy of the adoption of the SDI policy by the President of the United States), to be discussed publicly, in the United States or Europe, as an approach to peace, by any legislator/ former legislator, or
organization? What of the other principles, as well as the “Ten Principles” document as a whole?
The “Mandate of Heaven” no longer lies with the governments. Where, then, does it lie? What happens if, by studying and responding to the Ten Principles, people change the way they look at things, including themselves? Will they also “not sleep, but be changed, in a moment?”
Should we not do this now, before the last trumpet sounds?
