For 67 straight weeks, the International Peace Coalition (IPC) has been warning, and organizing, and meeting about the overriding and immediate danger of nuclear war facing the entire planet—a danger most painfully visible in the Ukraine and Southwest Asia theaters. For 67 weeks, IPC initiator Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been pointing to the breakdown collapse of the City of London and Wall Street “unipolar” system as the underlying cause of that war danger, and systematically elaborating on the solution to the existential crisis: a new security and development architecture based on the principles underlying the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
That central issue of nuclear war or peace, which willy-nilly makes it clear that we are One Humanity sharing common interests, has at last erupted significantly on the stage of American politics on the home stretch of the presidential campaign—and not a moment too soon.
Former President Donald Trump, speaking at a campaign town hall meeting in Flint, Michigan on Sept. 17, stated: “To me, we have one major threat: that’s called nuclear weapons.… It’s the single biggest threat to the world, not only Michigan, [but] to the world, and you’re not going to care so much about making cars if that starts happening.”
This is the third time in one week that Trump has emphasized the danger of nuclear war. On Sept. 10, in his debate with Kamala Harris, Trump warned that Russia’s “got nuclear weapons, (but) nobody ever thinks about that.” Three days later, at a Sept. 13 campaign rally in Las Vegas, Trump again alerted the crowd: “You’re going to end up in World War III. You’re going to have a nuclear Holocaust if we’re not careful.”
Please do not try to brush these warnings aside as partisan, electoral politics.
It is not only Trump who has begun to sound the alarm. On Sept. 13, former Democratic Congressman and current independent Congressional candidate Dennis Kucinich stated: “The Biden Administration, using Ukraine as a proxy, is having discussions about whether to precipitate World War III, enabling Ukraine to have offensive missiles to strike deep inside Russia.… [This would] set the stage for what will inevitably be a nuclear exchange with Russia.… This is madness. No Administration, Democrat or Republican, has the right to take us into a war which has the capacity to destroy not only our country, but the world.”
Also on Sept. 13, former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, speaking at Trump’s Las Vegas campaign rally, warned: “We are closer to the brink of World War III and nuclear war today than we ever have been before directly because of the Harris-Biden administration’s foreign policy.”
And former Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. issued a short video Sept. 13, alarmed at “the slide toward nuclear war.… [The neocons] are pushing for maximum confrontation with Russia. Do you have any idea how dangerous that is? Russia is the world’s largest nuclear power.… If Russia gets desperate, they will use nuclear weapons.”
Why are the major media not covering these crucial statements—with a few honorable exceptions? Either because they are owned outright by the same global financial interests that are deliberately trying to provoke Russia into a nuclear exchange; or because they are being terrorized into silence and servility by Gestapo-style censorship and threats of imprisonment—or worse—of any who dare speak out.
The State Department’s announcement on Sept. 13 that RT, Sputnik and other Russian media—and any who work with them—are subject to new sanctions; followed by Meta and YouTube’s banishing those media from all their platforms internationally, are just the tip of the iceberg. Behind that is the Establishment’s mailed-fist policy of silencing—using all methods, fair and foul—any and all dissenting voices who object to the nuclear war drive.
Some are targeted for assassination, even when they supposedly have Secret Service protection. Others, like Scott Ritter, have their house raided by the FBI under “suspicion” of being an agent of Russian misinformation. Still others, including the Schiller Institute, are placed on the Ukrainian CCD-Molfar-Myrotvorets hitlist and publicized as “information terrorists” who should be “liquidated.”
Just this week, the deputy head of the Russia desk at the British Foreign Office traveled to Kyiv on Sept. 17, and met with the head of the CCD (Center for Countering Disinformation) Andriy Kovalenko, to map out “joint efforts” to deal with “information terrorists.” And Hillary Clinton took to the airwaves with Rachel Maddow on Sept. 16 to argue that Americans who “parrot Kremlin propaganda” should be prosecuted not just civilly, but “even in some cases criminally charged,” because “that would be a better deterrent.”
How fast do we have to act to stop the madness and the danger of nuclear war?
A Sept. 14 Bloomberg wire reported that White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said via a video link to the annual Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv: “I believe that we’re at a vital moment, at a crossroads.” With little more than four months before a new U.S. President is sworn in, “we are going to treat each single one of those days preciously when it comes to supporting Ukraine,” Sullivan swore. Biden and Ukraine’s Zelenskyy are going to meet at the UN General Assembly in New York, which begins on Sept. 22, and British diplomats have stated on the record that they expect that the U.S. and U.K. will announce at the UNGA a decision to begin firing NATO’s long-range precision-guided missiles from Ukraine deep into Russian territory.
That, Russia’s Putin has warned, “will mean that NATO countries—the United States and European countries—are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”
So, whether or not you’ve attended any or all of the last 67 meetings of the IPC, you have to agree that it makes a lot of sense for you to participate in IPC #68.
