There is something monstrously inhuman that is unfolding outside of the Gazan city of Rafah—and may, indeed, have unfolded by the time that you read this. There is a term, “beast-man,” that describes the mind-set of the originators of the “Gaza policy,” also known as the “Ukraine policy,” and unashamedly as the “Africa policy,” with the name of virtually any African nation inserted as an operant, pejorative adjective in front of the term “policy.” It could all, more efficiently, be termed “NATO policy,” which expressed its global outlook most clearly in 1991, in the words of Alexander King, in the Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
The war against humanity is being fought in Gaza, using the Israeli hand-grenade not only against the Palestinians, but, in true British imperial fashion, against itself. Judaism itself might not survive what Netanyahu has been encouraged to direct the Israel Defense Forces to do already. Compare two unspeakable tragedies, both sired by the same NATO policy—the death and casualty tolls in Ukraine, and the same in Gaza. According to United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo, after nearly two years of war in Ukraine, as of Feb. 6, 2024, there are 30,041 civilian casualties. These include 10,382 killed, and over 19,000 wounded/injured. Casualties in Gaza total 27,947 dead, 67, 459 wounded/injured since October 7—four months, or one-sixth of the time. The population in Gaza as of October 7 was approximately 2.3 million. The population of Ukraine was approximately 39 million.
Now, in Rafah, something even more monstrous is contemplated, and will happen unless the world stands up to stop it. Momentarily, at any hour, if not even before you read this, NATO’s Netanyahu plans to order the destruction of the Gazan city of Rafah—perhaps not through a massive assault, but perhaps through a “Schrecklichkeit” terror assault, exemplified by the directive issued to civilians to evacuate to nowhere—to run, when there is no place to run to. This Rafah campaign cannot be called an act of war—this is an act of predation, like that of a crow, or a “murder,” that is, a flock of crows, attacking a flock of sheep. The murder stampedes the sheep, sometimes by alighting on their backs, causing them to madly run—but everywhere they run, there is death. That is what we are about to see in Rafah, should we allow it.
The “beast-man” premeditation of this act must not be hidden. “Known, or should have known” is the principle to be invoked here, as justice Jackson and other jurists demanded at the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46. We report below that “UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned yesterday that Israeli efforts to create a buffer zone in Gaza extending a kilometer in from the [Egyptian] border wall could itself constitute a war crime…. ‘Destructions carried out to create a “buffer zone” for general security purposes do not appear consistent with the narrow “military operations” exception set out in international humanitarian law,’ Türk said. ‘Further, extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, amounts to a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a war crime,’” according to a UN news report on Feb. 8.
Have we reached the point that even use of the term “war crime” is met with indifference? We are not helpless: We can change this “in a moment, not in the twinkling of an eye,” should we think clearly in this time of crisis. Consider, for example, that the two-hour discussion of foreign policy carried out with the American and world population, mediated through Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin has, as of this writing, already been viewed 145 million times on Carlson’s platform and 8 million times on Carlson’s YouTube alone. But what does that mean to us, and to the organizations and individual minds gathering around us?
Here, we must think beyond Tucker Carlson, and look at the process for which the response to the interview is the footprint of something else. We are seeing “the awful Shadow of some unseen Power that floats, though unseen, among us.” A few more “footprints”: “Russiagate Rachel” Maddow of MSNBC gets an average of 3.9 million viewers when she goes on, which is their most-watched show. On Fox News, “The Five” is their now-highest rated show, since Tucker Carlson’s firing, at 3.2 million average viewers. Anderson “Vanderbilt” Cooper on CNN gets 1.2 million views an episode. “Outlier” Carlson has been getting, in his last 5 episodes, 10-15 million views per show—that is, more than MSNBC, CNN, and Fox combined—for their most-watched shows.
So, again: What does that mean for The LaRouche Organization and affiliated organizations, with our marginal resources, and essential ideas? First of all, it means that the impact of so-called “mainstream media” is at the lowest point in its entire post-World War Two history. (That also means that the impact of the slanders against Lyndon LaRouche are at their lowest impact since the 1980s.) So, can “the mainstream” be marginalized, or even swept away, in the same way, and in a short period of time, that nations and empires were at the close of World Wars One and Two? Has that even perhaps already occurred? A test must be made to determine that.
Under what circumstances, given the peace proposals, and their history, described by Putin in his interview; given that those peace proposals, largely unknown to them at the time they were made, will now have been heard directly from Putin, and by at least tens of millions of Americans and Western Europeans, as well as many others around the world; what would have to be done to cause, for example, 1 million people worldwide to hear, read and consider the Ten Principles of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in the short term, if everyone already involved in our various organizing efforts underway, including independent electoral campaigns endorsed by the LaRouche organization, worked to conduct that experiment simultaneously?
As we consider the “feasibility” of this, we should consider this: How are we really going to be able to stop the mass murder in Gaza, the attempts to intimidate the Foreign Minister of South Africa, the “international assassination bureau” behind the Ukrainian “kill lists” as well as the omnipresent “American Presidential candidate assassination” threat, the funding of the military-financial complex? How are we going to link the physical-economic proposals of the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche to the BRICS-Plus process, ensuring not only that “colonialism is over,” but that the trans-Atlantic world regains its sanity before it plunges the world into thermonuclear Hell? We must consider, and do, the “impossible,” in order that we hew out of the ongoing, looming mountain of tragedy before us, a “Philosopher’s Stone” of hope. That hope is embodied in the Zepp-LaRouche Ten Principles of a New International Security and Development Architecture.
