The two-day online conference of the International Schiller Institute, “Without the Development of All Nations, There Can Be No Lasting Peace for the Planet,” begins today. Over 1100 persons have pre-registered for it, and it will be live-streamed by various platforms, or re-broadcast by others. Its task is to engage citizens from around the world in the happy task of inducing their otherwise-doomed nations to adopt policies for the world’s durable survival in what has been called by many “the most dangerous moment in all of human history.”
Lyndon LaRouche, though not physically here, provided the ideas—conceptual “machine tools” developed and perfected over nearly seven decades (1948-2016)—that can guide the human race from a future of tragedy to one of hope. “If one proposed to force existing governments to directly implement (a certain policy), the task must seem formally an impossibility,” LaRouche tells us. “Yet, if the possibility for a rapid succession of intermediating developments is clearly understood, no such difficulty as initially appears to prevail stands in our way.”
Certainly, the world is now undergoing what could be characterized as a “rapid succession of intermediating developments.” That these developments are ushering the greatest change in human history since the Fifteenth Century is not so well known. Acquaintance with poet Friedrich Schiller’s science of universal history is a prerequisite to understand that, and the “Ten Principles for a New International Security and Development Architecture” composed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, apply Schiller’s outlook, particularly his vision of mankind as inherently good, to accomplishing what would otherwise appear to many to be the impossible task of establishing a new, just community of principle among the world’s nations, including China, Russia, and the United States.
The especially troubling, even seemingly impossible task of freeing the United States from the grip of treasonous forces that have dominated all aspects of its foreign, military and economic policy for decades, can in fact be successfully achieved. In service to this task, the following “conceptual machine tools” are offered. They are taken from Lyndon LaRouche’s June 1983 writing, “Saudi Arabia in the Year 2023.”
“Why did the United States ever follow a different policy? In his May 10, 1982, public address at London’s Chatham House, Henry A. Kissinger stated accurately that the death of President Roosevelt enabled Prime Minister Winston Churchill to dictate the postwar foreign policy of the United States, that every U.S. Secretary of State after Roosevelt’s death had been an agent-of-influence for the British Foreign Office. Only President Eisenhower, and he only in exceptional cases, ever dared to challenge the British-controlled U.S. State Department during the postwar period to date. No President since Roosevelt has ever found the courage to challenge the U.S. Federal Reserve System or the complex of foreign, private rentier-financier interests which have controlled the Federal Reserve System since its original establishment under the puppet-President Woodrow Wilson. Thus, the most vital of the objective interests of the United States, and the monetary and foreign policies of that government, have been frequently directly opposed to one another. Similar conditions have prevailed during most of the postwar period among the nations of continental Western Europe.”
What, in contrast to the British imperial interest, is the true “universal history” of the American Revolution? LaRouche states:
“In the year 1766, 10 years before the United States’ declaration of Independence, Dr. Benjamin Franklin traveled to centers in Europe, organizing the beginning of the greatest conspiracy in modern history, the European conspiracy which made the victory of the United States over Britain possible. The conspirators included the remains of the Commonwealth Party of England, as typified by Dr. Joseph Priestley and Priestley’s protégé, Thomas Paine. It included republican adversaries of Britain in Ireland, such as Mathew Carey, and republicans in Scotland, typified later by John Paul Jones. On the continent of Europe, it included the surviving elements of the conspiratorial networks of Naples, Tommaso Campanella, the networks of Richelieu, Mazarin, and Colbert. It included the networks, from Petrograd into the court of Spain’s Charles III, of the great Gottfried Leibniz. These European forces, and their allies in Charles III’s American colonies, allied to the specific purpose of bringing forth on the shores of North America a new kind of republic, free of the wicked rentier-financier forces which ruled Britain and much of Europe, a new republic to change the balance of forces in the world, to aid so in bringing into being a new kind of community among sovereign constitutional nation-states. It is only from that vantage-point, from those forces which today continue Dr. Franklin’s great conspiracy, that the desired new order in North-South relationships can be brought into being.
“Each of us who adhere still to Dr. Franklin’s conspiracy today, are at once undiluted patriots respecting the vital interests of our own nations, and yet also world-citizens dedicated to establishing and defending that community of principle which U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams identified, in rejecting the proposed Anglo-American treaty offered by British minister Canning, and in promulgating what became known as the 1823 Monroe Doctrine. Wherever peoples of nations fight for those same principles of sovereignty in economic development which Dr. Franklin’s conspiracy fought to bring into being, we are obliged to be world-citizens defending that nation’s rights in such matters, otherwise, we are not true patriots of our own nation.”
In this spirit, and with this faith, let us then enter into these deliberations today with the same hope for the future that animated those that convened at Bandung in April 1955, in San Francisco in October 1945, and Philadelphia in 1776. We are all part of that universal history, rather than universal tragedy, should we choose to be.
