March 13—EIR held an emergency roundtable seminar on March 2, with the title as headlined above, focused on the urgent need to stop the war dynamic, and launch a new system providing security and development for all the world’s nations. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute founder, opened the proceedings with the solemn warning, “We are meeting here at what very likely is the gravest moment in world history so far. It is more likely than not that World War III has already begun.”
The ten speeches delivered on Panel One, “On the Road to Armageddon,” were published in the EIR. Below are the first four of the nine speeches given on Panel Two, “Mankind Is the Creative Species!” The remaining five Panel Two presentations will be published next week.
Of special note in the discussion on Panel Two is the dialogue between Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the second speaker, Professor Richard Falk, former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories and professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, on the principles which were embodied in, or left out of, the Peace of Westphalia in the 1600s, and similarly, regarding the UN Charter in the 1940s after World War II. The video of this exchange begins here.
In her March 2 opening remarks, Zepp-LaRouche expressed the mission of this series of EIR roundtables thus: “It is therefore most urgent that all citizens of goodwill mobilize to call on their governments and parliaments in every country on the planet to immediately cease all military actions and return to diplomacy.”
Defend and Strengthen Institutions Acting for Humanity
by Donald Ramotar
The following is an edited transcript of remarks by Donald Ramotar to the March 2, 2026 EIR Emergency Online Forum, “Epstein and the Bottomless Depravity of the ‘Elites’—Urgent Need for a Cultural Renaissance!” Mr. Ramotar is the former President of Guyana (2011-2015). The video is available here.
The February 28 unprovoked attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, killing several of its military, religious, and political leaders, has ignited a regional war in the Middle East that can go to untold areas. As we speak, several cities, towns, and villages in Iran and Israel are burning. Many civilians are being killed, mainly in Iran. We have heard of the [Shajareh Tayyebeh] girls’ school [in Minab, Iran] that was hit, in which some 175 children were among those who were proved to be killed. The civilian deaths in Iran, unlike those in Israel and other Arab states, have not been accidental; they were deliberately targeted. This is a pattern of Israel-U.S. methods in previous wars. The objective is to scare the population in the hope of turning them against their government. This is state terrorism in all of its nakedness. The question being sought is, how have we, and why are we in this very dangerous situation? What are the main causes of this? After all, we know that Iran has never threatened the United States. Indeed, no country in the world wants a conflict with the United States. It is just too dangerous.
The answer is: Israel’s determination to continue its expansion. Its borders are living borders. They are not fixed borders; they are constantly expanding. If you recall recently, [American conservative political commentator] Tucker Carlson had an interview with the U.S. ambassador to Israel—who by the way, seems more to be an Israeli representative to the United States—Mike Huckabee. They see the whole Middle East, as viewed by them, as [viewed by] Israel, as something promised by God. This is the use of religion in order to keep Israeli borders living and expanding all the time. Every attempt at peace in the region has been sabotaged by Israel. Recall that under Prime Minister [Yitzhak] Rabin the possibility for peace was real.
[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, by his propaganda, indirectly or directly instigated the assassination of Rabin. Over the decades, Israel, in alliance with the United States, has made a lot of gains in achieving these objectives. An unchecked genocide is continuing against the Palestinian people despite the talk of ceasefire. And most of the countries have become clients, mostly vassal states of the United States. The only state capable of standing up to Israel’s military expansion and border expansion is Iran. It has supported the masses in the region that are fighting for freedom and for self-determination—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. Therefore, it has become the target of the most powerful military forces in the world.
Israel has had enormous influence on successive governments of the United States through various means. AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is well known, and a lot has been written and said about them already, of how they influence policies in the United States to favor Israel.
And maybe through blackmail—we were speaking about the [Jeffrey] Epstein incident there—and it is quite possible that knowing the lifestyle of the rich and powerful, these people were entrapped so that they could be blackmailed. The United States, while going along with Israel, has its own selfish and misplaced interests as well. It wants to maintain its hegemony at all costs in the world. That is why, under the [President Joe] Biden administration, it launched its proxy war against Russia. And this had its roots way back in 1989 [the fall of the Berlin Wall, Nov. 9, 1989], when Germany was reunited [Oct. 3, 1990], and when the Soviet Union was almost at the end. And after 1991, the United States could not resist the temptation to try to see that Russia never rises again.
The United States also developed a hostility to China because of its rapid economic growth, and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, not because any of these countries are threatening them militarily, but they are afraid of the influence that China is gaining because of its work and its relationships all over the world. It is clear that neither China nor Russia harbors any hostility to the United States. The fear the United States has is that China is becoming too strong. More and more countries are mutually benefiting from relationships with China. China wants peace because only through peace can it continue its economic development. Its soft power has grown enormously.
The United States sees this as a danger. It is therefore trying to retard China’s growth. The first step is to limit its global influence. We in the Caribbean have seen that they [the United States] have announced, very specifically, that they want to push China out of the region—not militarily, because China doesn’t have any military installations in the Caribbean and Latin America. But they want to push them out economically, to dominate the continent unrivaled, and to continue the kind of neo-colonial relationship with the entire continent. Even Canada is now rebelling against such things. Using negative propaganda and fear, and even military methods like what we saw happen in Venezuela recently, is now taking place in Iran.
This is the method that the Americans are using to try to maintain their hegemony over the world. The United States has become so reckless that it is now openly ignoring international laws. International institutions that it can’t control and use for its own purposes are being undermined, and they are even trying to destroy them, like the United Nations, the ICJ [International Court of Justice], the ICC [International Criminal Court], and many of the other UN institutions that they have now been starving of cash that they were supposed to be paying to these bodies.
Use of deception in diplomacy and the economy is becoming more and more widespread. We know that in the last conflict with Iran, the United States was in discussions with Iran, and during the discussions [Iran] was attacked. We know that today they had an agreement to meet again in one of the Arab countries in order to try to see if they could find a solution. The [Omani] mediator said that there was a very good possibility of solving this problem—and that is why I believe that the attack took place when it did, at this point in time, [so as to] not resume those conversations—because, according to the mediator, Iran was at the point of agreeing not to enrich anything [uranium-235] for the nuclear program. Deception has now become a full-fledged method in [U.S.] policy.
We know that Russia has complained bitterly about being deceived with their two agreements [with Ukraine], the Minsk agreements [Sept. 2014, Feb. 2015]. They were deceived deliberately, in order to allow [the West] to arm Ukraine much more to fight. They have been deceived in agreeing to the reunification of Germany on the grounds that NATO would not move one inch [eastward]. But they are not the only people who are complaining now.
The speech that was given by [Canadian Prime Minister] Mark Carney at [the 2026 World Economic Forum in] Davos, [Switzerland]— I want to quote one part of what he said: “More recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerability to be exploited.”
So, all of these things are being used in many ways in order to continue the domination of the United States in the world, and for Israel to get its way, to expand its border as much as possible in the Middle East.
What is to be done? I think that our first task is to defend international institutions as vigorously as possible. I know that there has often been talk about reforming the institutions, but now I believe the number-one task is to maintain them before they’re completely destroyed. And then we can speak about reforming them and democratizing them. Some of the things that people have been talking about, I think, need to be thought out more carefully, [such as] the question of the veto powers [of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council: U.S., UK, France, Russia and China]. I still believe that there is a role for the veto powers for some countries to have, but maybe there will have to be some other ways of democratizing states.
We need to reinvigorate some institutions or even create some similar institutions. I am speaking about one of the institutions in the 1970s that was extremely effective in influencing world public opinion, which was the Non-Aligned Movement. It has lapsed. I believe we need to look at it in a different light, not only united in the countries of the South, but also many of the countries of the North, where we see that in some areas there is contradiction. For instance, I just mentioned Canada and the United States in the economic field. They still have some of the same positions as far as some key issues are concerned in politics, international politics and international relations, but a lot of countries now are beginning to see that the United States is more interested in domination, including [domination of] countries like Canada and so forth.
So, a Non-Aligned Movement needs to be broadened with other countries that are willing to stand up, in order to defend their own interests. Or, you need more countries like BRICS. But the BRICS nations, I believe, have got to be thinking very, very carefully of what they are doing, because it is not a cohesive organization. I don’t think that everyone is going along with them, going along with the general ideas in BRICS, and that is causing, I believe, some weakness in the BRICS. For instance, that was reflected, in my view, by the visit of [Indian] Prime Minister [Narendra] Modi to Israel, which shows clearly that India, the powerful country of India with such long history and tradition and culture, is lining up with a racist genocide regime. So, I think all of these things need a lot more discussion, and to strengthen these types of institutions that possibly will have the possibility of taking us forward.
Those are my very initial proposals. I hope that it can stimulate some discussion generally to see what we can do individually and collectively, to stand up to face the dangers that the world is facing, to try to prevent an all-out nuclear war that could destroy all of us, and to also build on economic development in order to ensure that we don’t slide into oblivion.
Thank you for your attention.
We Face the ‘New Phenomenon of Inter-Civilizational War’
by Prof. Richard Falk
The following is an edited transcript of remarks by Prof. Richard Falk to the March 2, 2026 EIR Emergency Online Forum, “Epstein and the Bottomless Depravity of the ‘Elites’—Urgent Need for a Cultural Renaissance!” Mr. Falk is a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and a former UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 (2008-2014). The video is available here.
It is a great honor for me to be part of this Schiller Institute conference. I had the opportunity to listen to the presentations of Panel 1, and I think they were extraordinarily rich discussions of how troubling the present world crisis is, and how it really does endanger the entire species, the destiny of humanity, in a way that has never been quite so vividly challenged. I think it is a brilliant move to associate the [Jeffrey] Epstein disclosures as a kind of metaphor for the way in which war and violence and corruption are shaping contemporary history.
It’s something that is deeply distressing, but also is part of a necessary diagnosis of what has to change if a positive response is to be generated and forthcoming. And I think I want to start my comments with some clarifications of the underlying diagnostic issues. I very much agree with the idea that Helga Zepp-LaRouche set forth so clearly of the need for a new architecture of peace and development as a foundation, a necessary foundation, for a viable framework of global governance that is premised on justice for all; and for turning this notion that there are only winners and losers in history, into a framing of international relations in terms of seeking to make all political actors winners, and to have a benefit for their peoples. I think it’s extremely important to understand that World War I and World War II were essentially regional wars within the West.
They’re called world wars, because the West was controlling or dominating the rest of the world. What [the unprovoked war against] Iran, and Israel’s genocidal treatment of the Palestinians, give us a glimpse of is this new phenomenon of inter-civilizational war. Israel represents the Western beachhead in the Islamic world, and as several of the speakers this morning alluded to, the [Samuel] Huntington idea of a clash of civilizations is now being enacted in a very menacing manner. That menacing manner is captured by the fact that the opening claims of the United States and Israel violate the most fundamental elements of a humane, law-oriented approach to the relations of sovereign states. I would put a great stress on the deliberate assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, because here is the notion that a person who is regarded as a representative of God and of something deeply spiritual should be the object of a deliberate assassination; [this] is to strike at the essence of what an inter-civilizational war is about.
That is different than the regional war within the West that was first fought in relation to Germany and then became the Cold War, but it was always a Western internal struggle, with spillovers to the rest of the world; but the antagonists in both of those world wars were part of Western civilization. This is something new, because what it portends is an era of inter-civilizational war, and [Indian Prime Minister] Modi’s visit [to Israel, Feb. 26, 2026], which was just alluded to, is another dimension of that, where a Hindu leader of India befriends a genocidal Western leader [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] in order to connect [Israel with] the suppression of Muslims in India and, even more grossly, in Kashmir. This is another dimension of inter-civilizational warfare that’s extremely disturbing and distressing. I’ve devoted my life to the promotion of an international law framework for the foreign policy, first of all, of my own country, the United States, and more generally of the world, but I have had no illusions that such a vision of a peaceful world was shared by the foreign policy elites, not only of the U.S., but of the other powerful countries. There’s a lot of wishful thinking about what the UN was established to achieve. That architecture of security and a peaceful development was basically giving concrete institutional embodiment to a vision of the future that was controlled by the winners of the war.
It was not an institution structured to achieve peace, because that would make no sense, of giving the most powerful and dangerous countries not only the control over the decision power of the UN Security Council, but over the enforcement of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court’s judgments of the capacity to amend the UN Charter. This was a winner’s idea of keeping the control of war and peace ultimately in the hands of the winners of World War II, and that meant that there was a primacy given to geopolitics, and a subordination of law that was to apply to the rest of the world. This kind of thinking, which is still very foremost among the foreign policy elites of the world, also was present in the war crimes trials in Nuremberg [Nov. 20, 1945-Oct. 1, 1946] and Tokyo [May 3, 1946-Nov. 12, 1948], where only the crimes of the losers were investigated and scrutinized, and the crimes of the winners were ignored.
Nuclear weapons, as a result, were given a provisional legitimacy, despite the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This has been reproduced in the so-called [U.S. President Donald] Trump plan for the end of the Israel-Palestine struggle, by rewarding genocide and punishing its victims. That’s another way of saying that what counts is the expression of military dominance, not what is beneficial to people or in accord with the embodied principles of justice.
We need to get rid of the illusions that we have something positive to reproduce in the present crisis situation. It’s the same thing about the United States saying the vision of the founders is something that the United States has departed from, which is certainly true, but it overlooks the fact that the founders were responsible for genocidal policies against the native peoples of the land they settled on and occupied. They were colonialists, they were settler colonialists. And beyond that, many of the founders and early Presidents were slaveholders. Slavery was part of that initial kind of claim that was delusionary, that America was an exception, that somehow or other, whatever it did, it could do no wrong. And that deception still is very prevalent in the popular culture of the country, and we really need to get beyond that if we are to achieve this new architecture, which we need desperately.
And one of the aspects of this is the groupthink within foreign policy elites that is epitomized by the Henry Kissinger perspective on law and morality, which is premised on a dogmatic acceptance of political realism, which is a cover for military agency in the history of the human species. And that view is still almost impossible to contest in the inner circles of the leading countries of the world, with the possible exception and partial exception of China. We can learn, in order to get the alternative architecture, I think one of the early moves toward making that not just a dream, but a political project, is to learn from China. We don’t have to imitate China. They have their own internal deficiencies, but we can learn a great deal from China about the importance of renouncing military agency as the basis of prosperity and of security. And until we learn that, I’m very doubtful that there will be a way to make this vision of a different peace and development architecture into a political project that has a chance of realization. The only alternative is the power of the people to rise up and challenge this, but that requires more time than I think this human species has, to address these fundamental dislocations.
And I will conclude by saying that we need to disabuse mythologies of what is possible in order to create a transition to this alternative peace and development framework. Because until it becomes a political project and not just a vision of peace-minded, justice-minded visionaries, it will remain a frustrated dream. Thank you very much, and I apologize for going over my time.
From Epstein’s Casino to the War Board: Global Citizenship as the Only Counterweight
by María de los Ángeles Huerta del Río
The following is an edited transcript of remarks by María de los Ángeles Huerta del Río, as translated from the Spanish, to the March 2, 2026 EIR Emergency Online Forum, “Epstein and the Bottomless Depravity of the ‘Elites’—Urgent Need for a Cultural Renaissance!” Ms. Huerta is a former Mexican Congresswoman. The video is available here.
Given the current state of war in the world, there is one burning question: What connection could there be between a private island in the Caribbean—where teenagers were tortured and raped—and the missiles that are now targeting entire cities in the Middle East? At first glance, none. But if we look closely, we see that the thread is the same: An elite that feels entitled to own everything—bodies, territories, lives; owners of money, owners of the law, and owners of silence.
The [Jeffrey] Epstein case exposed the rot in its most obscene form: princes, presidents, scientists, bankers, all sharing the same basement. In Mexico, we had our first warning in 2005. The Lydia Cacho case exposed the same thing: networks of pedophilia and abuse against children in all their monstrous magnitude, businessmen protected by governors, complicit judges; “the demons of Eden” in a system that criminalized the victims and rewarded the perpetrators. The geography has changed and Mexico has also changed, but now with the Epstein case we see that although the names change, the power structure of the neo-fascist pedophiles is identical—money, power, and impunity operating without borders.
We see the same networks with expanded and detected “Businesses of Power.” And that same structure is what has us on the brink of the abyss today, because the elites who feel entitled to possess other people’s bodies also feel entitled to possess other people’s territories. They are the same military-industrial complexes, the same arms lobbies, the same think tanks that manufacture consensus for war. The same banks in tax havens; the same logic—the world is their property, and we are mere tenants with more or less chance of survival.
Why is it so difficult to bring a powerful sexual predator to justice? Because he has networks that protect him. Prince Andrew [Mountbatten-Windsor] of England enjoyed more than 20 years of direct protection from the British crown. [U.S. President] Donald Trump is still protected by the darkest forces of the U.S. state. Why is it so difficult to stop a war? Because the same networks benefit from it; it is no coincidence. We now know with complete clarity that impunity in sexual matters and impunity in war stem from the same source.
And there is something even deeper, something that is often left out of these analyses. It is the question that perhaps every human being asks themselves today. Because Epstein’s elite, the elite of war, operates from a very specific idea of what we are. Human beings as objects; as disposable flesh; as pieces that are moved or eliminated as it suits the board. That is the philosophy of predation.
Faced with this, any response that does not recover an updated idea of men and women will always be incomplete. That is why we need to raise an opposing concept: Human beings as creators, as bearers of dignity, as moral beings. Not a naïve morality, but a living ethic that sets limits where power does not want to recognize any. Enough is enough. Humanity must find a way to say enough is enough.
This impossibility that we have had until now as citizens of the world is perhaps one of the great shortcomings of our current culture. We have lost the language to name what makes us human. And without that language, any struggle remains in gestures, in slogans, in fireworks that burn nothing. We must clearly recognize the moment we are living in today. Let us not be distracted. What we are experiencing is not a succession of isolated crises. It is a situation of pre-war, or global war. The powers are measuring themselves, the blocs are tense, the war rhetoric is becoming normalized. The Middle East is a powder keg with a short fuse. Ukraine is a testing ground. The Taiwan Strait is a constant flashpoint.
And behind every tension, every missile, every bomb, are the same beneficiaries: the arms dealers, the energy barons, those who always profit from the death of human beings; the same people who protected Epstein; the same people who bought silence in every case similar to that of Lidia Cacho anywhere in the world. War and depravity are the same business in different packaging.
Faced with this terrible global situation, we in Mexico are raising our voices and want to make Five Proposals for a Global Citizenship Network. If they have a global network for impunity, we need a global network for dignity. Not a token network that meets to sign manifestos, but a network with real impact. How?
First: A global citizen audit of the war economy and exploitation. We need to know which banks, investment funds, and corporations are behind the weapons that kill and the networks that enslave. And once we know, we need to organize massive divestments and create a public shaming index that hits where it hurts most; a large global network against these institutions of predation, abuse, and globalized cynicism.
Second: A global observatory of elite impunity. A citizen body that follows up on cases, from Epstein to Gaza, from tax havens to war crimes. One that has the capacity to submit reports to the UN and the International Criminal Court. One that is the memory that the powerful want to erase.
Third: Globally coordinated nonviolent direct action. Imagine a day when, simultaneously in dozens of countries, the citizens of the world take action in front of embassies, banks, and complicit corporations. Symbolic but powerful actions that show that we are connected, that when they harm a victim anywhere, we all respond.
Fourth: Influence multilateral organizations from below. The UN is hijacked by the vetoes of the powerful, but organized citizens can push from the margins. We propose a network that pushes for two causes: a binding treaty against economic impunity and the activation of mediation mechanisms driven by civil society, not by governments that sell and buy weapons.
Fifth: A protection network for defenders of peace and dignity. Lydia Cacho survived because there were those who protected her. We need to expand that network globally—journalists, courageous judges, activists, victims. “No one who faces the monster should have to do it alone.”
What we learned in the south of the continent, from Mexico, is something that may be useful to the world: Change is possible when citizens organize and do not give up. For decades, pedophile networks operated with absolute impunity. But citizen organizations, the feminist movement, search collectives, and tireless pressure have broken that pact of silence. Not because the system has become good, but because citizens have become incorruptible. That same force is what we need on a global level to stop the war machine.
This day is a starting point. The Epstein case and every case similar to that of Lydia Cacho are not old news. They are the mirror in which power looks at itself when it believes no one is watching. And that same power is now playing with the possibility of a war that could wipe us off the map. That is why this meeting cannot be just another conference. It must be the starting point for a global network of citizen advocacy; a network that not only denounces, but also acts. That not only shows solidarity, but also organizes. That not only looks at the board, but also moves the pieces.
The monster is global. But we can be, too. And there are more of us. We are the ones who believe that no child should be abused or exploited. We are the ones who believe that no war should be inevitable. We are the ones who defend a concept of humanity that is opposed to predation—human beings as creators, not destroyers. We are citizens of the world. And the time has come to act as such.
Thank you to everyone, to the Schiller Institute, to our dear Helga for this work and for the initiative. The time to act together and support these great efforts is now or never.
How ‘Sovereign Peace’ Contrasts with Barbarism
by Fernando Garzón
The following is an edited transcript of remarks by Fernando Garzón, as translated from the Spanish, to the March 2, 2026 EIR Emergency Online Forum, “Epstein and the Bottomless Depravity of the ‘Elites’—Urgent Need for a Cultural Renaissance!” Mr. Garzón is a former Undersecretary of Government of Ecuador, and leader of the Ecuadorean-Palestinian Union. The video is available here.
Good morning to all of you, especially Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Dennis, and others who are present.
For this presentation, I considered it appropriate to focus on peace, which I call sovereign peace, and to contrast this with what is barbarism. So, in that regard, I would like to make reference to what was stated at one point by Ernest Hemingway in 1958, who learned from Leo Tolstoy, the Russian author of War and Peace, how to write about war in the most direct, honest, objective, and raw way.
Let us proceed accordingly by stating that in the origin and development of human communities, violence has manifested itself as an instrument for conquering the community of nature and of some human groups against others. Today, in the face of warnings of an end-of-the-world war and the moral crisis of false leaders, the truth must not die.
And here is a statement which provides a framework of what we would like to say, what orients us with regard to what I call consciousness driven mad by the accumulation of capital by financial entrepreneurs and their productive partners. They generate wars as part of the circulation of monopoly capital. To this end, the Dutch movement, PAX, winner of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, demonstrated in its 2022 report that financial companies in the United States and Europe made more than $746 billion available to 24 companies heavily involved in the production of weapons. This was $746 billion between January 2020 and July 2022. The main companies were BlackRock, Vanguard, Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, among others.
It’s surprising that financial investment, colluding with the military industry, is concentrated in U.S. companies such as Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and others, and a British company, BAE Systems. By 2022, the United Nations estimates that there were still around 12,500 nuclear weapons, of which 5,943 belong to three NATO countries, the United States, 5,428; France, a lot less, and the United Kingdom, and a similar number belong to Russia with 5,977. Among these weapons are tactical nuclear bombs. Nuclear barbarism does not lie with [U.S. President Donald] Trump or [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, who are mere operators of war, but rather with the shareholders of transnational financial companies who are willing to use tactical nuclear weapons even if it leads to strategic nuclear war.
So, we should take note of the fact that, in that regard, the genocidal war of Israeli Zionism against Gaza and the West Bank is a model for investment and business, and I would like to mention this as well. It is an investment business model that can be reproduced and repeated against other peoples and nations.
The 2024 United Nations report, based on images obtained from the UNOSAT satellites, identified a total of 156,409 structures destroyed or damaged in Gaza in an area of 361 square kilometers. By 2026, an estimated 215,137 homes had been damaged. In this regard, Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, presented a report on July 3, 2025; a report on the economy of occupation—the economy of genocide. There you can see the role of the artificial intelligence transnational corporations such as Palantir, which provided technological support to the Israeli military for the assassination and selective destruction of infrastructure and buildings in order to make the land available in less than three years for Trump’s Grand Riviera. Also listed are Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Caterpillar, Volvo. There are also military-industrial complex companies such as Lockheed Martin, which we mentioned, competing for contracts with Elon Musk’s emerging aerospace company, SpaceX, and communication company Starlink. Now the companies are negotiating with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who presented the master plan for the reconstruction of Gaza on January 22, 2026, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, as part of the peace plan imposed by the U.S. and Israeli governments before the newly inaugurated Peace Board that would govern Gaza, and which is chaired by Trump. So, this starts to give you a sense of not really belonging to humanity. It continues with a proposal.
The bloody and anti-sovereign model currently being implemented in Gaza, with some variations, is now being replicated in Venezuela, following the kidnapping of constitutional President Nicolás Maduro, in Cuba, in the north of Mexico, and even in Greenland, Patagonia in Argentina, and Chile; and dramatically in Iran, following the military attack by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026.
The transnational communication companies that lead the cognitive war against humanity have deep-seated monopolistic conflicts. On December 4, 2025, Warner Brothers, with more than 100 years in the audiovisual world, announced a preliminary agreement with the powerful Netflix, which offered to pay $82.7 billion for its studios and streaming divisions, with a share value of $27.75. WB brands include Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, The Lord of the Rings, various motion pictures, HBO, TNT, among others. Four days later, on December 8, 2025, the transnational Paramount presented shareholders with a hostile takeover bid of $108.4 billion, offering $30 per share; a purchase that would include the Trump-opposing television networks CNN and CBS. On February 28, after Netflix withdrew from the multi-billion-dollar bidding war, Paramount finally agreed to the purchase of Warner Brothers, with a boost from the relationship between Trump and the Ellison family, including tech billionaire and Republican mega-donor Larry Ellison, the main shareholder, who is close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and a donor to Israel’s military defense force. This business alignment included the signing of Affinity Partner Investments by Jared Kushner, negotiator of the peace plans for Gaza, Ukraine, and possibly Venezuela. Paramount’s offer included other financiers from Saudi and Qatari sovereign wealth funds.
The binding regional variants stand out. José Luis Manzano, an investor who was a minister under Argentine President Carlos Menem and is currently with Millei’s right-wing government, was reported on February 17, 2026, to have purchased Ecuador’s largest newspaper, El Universo, while also negotiating for the Spanish economic newspaper Cinco Días. This investment was backed by the Cuban-American Foundation of the famous anti-Castro terrorist Jorge Mas Canosa of Miami, who managed the interests of Cubans in Miami. The Foundation is linked to Marco Rubio, of Cuban origin and Secretary of State in Donald Trump’s government, who is promoting a criminal blockade against the Cuban people, reproducing the Gaza model. The resolution of this monopoly conflict will shape the global geopolitical context, the direction of information, narratives, and the false construction of reality.
There’s another point to make—the depravity of the elites of the economic and political power blocs. It seems that the depravity of political and business leaders is inherent to power. Therefore, it constitutes a system of structures and patterns of behavior that go beyond ethical and moral relevance to become part of a system of extortion, control, and blackmail for strategic business and state economic policies. Many of the individuals on [Jeffrey] Epstein’s list fit this profile. In Latin America: Mexican businessman Ricardo Salinas, president of TV Azteca; Carlos Slim, president of Telmex; María Aramburuzabala, one of Mexico’s wealthiest individuals; Alfonso de Angoitia, president of Televisa; and Ramos Allup, who recommended that Epstein meet with an anti-Chavez leader. And Andrónico Luksic of Chile appears in Epstein’s files, mentioned in a conversation with a sultan from the United Arab Emirates, where they discuss a trip to Dubai, where, according to Colombian President [Gustavo] Petro, the World Drug Trafficking Board is based. [The purpose,] he says, was to meet the chairman of DP World, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayen. The sultan, shocked by the revelations of links to the pedophile Epstein, left the company on February 13, 2026. This company invested more than $1.2 billion in the deepwater port of Posorja in Ecuador, my country, a key infrastructure concessioned for 50 years that allows the operation of large-draft vessels, 15 meters. Isabel Noboa Pontón, through the Nobis Consortium, has been linked as a representative of DP World in Ecuador.
It’s relevant that, according to other emails, there was a relationship between former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Epstein, with whom he shared similar interests, including an Israeli security start-up [Reporty Homeland Security]. Similarly, former Colombian President Andrés Pastrana had a very close relationship with Epstein’s wife [sic], Ghislaine Maxwell, who allegedly asked Jean-Luc Brunel, a modeling agent accused of sexual harassment and rape of minors, to warn Pastrana about billionaire Tommy Mottola. He [Mottola] said he’s going to try to be the entertainment czar of Cuba.
Finally, according to Dropsite News, Epstein was negotiating with a Rothschild banker to finance new Israeli cyber-terrorism companies.
So, in conclusion, a few comments: First, the values of the ancient civilizations of the Global South are emerging in the face of the crisis of Western civilization after more than 500 years of conquest, colonization, and subordination. The BRICS countries represent an alternative of sovereign peace, development, and planetary security in an uneven combined process of confrontation with the crisis-ridden system of the power bloc that has remained hegemonic for 500 years. The so-called First and Second World Wars were limited to specific populations and regions, while the current economic, political, and military confrontation is global in nature and involves conflicts and regional sovereignties. And finally, Zionism is the highest stage of fascism.
Thank you very much.
