This transcript appears in the September 18, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

CREATING A PEACE PARADIGM:

A New Era for Mankind Where

We All Become Truly Human

[PDF version of this transcript]

Lyndon LaRouche, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (Alaska), and Helga Zepp-LaRouche keynoted the Manhattan Project conference on Sept. 12.

Dennis Speed: My name is Dennis Speed, and on behalf of the Schiller Institute, I'd like to welcome you to today's conference: "Creating a Peace Paradigm: A New Era for Mankind Where We All Become Truly Human." Our format today is that we're going to have a symposium, and we're going to begin right away with our first speaker, the Founding Editor of Executive Intelligence Review, the economist and statesman whom you all know, most people love, and some people are scared as Hell of, Lyndon LaRouche. [applause]

Lyndon H. LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche: I'm particularly relieved that I've had another chance to meet with our dear friend here, and I'm really honored by his appearance here at this time.

LPAC

The issue before us, is one of the most momentous in modern history, and probably history in general. We're on the verge of a general thermonuclear war on a global scale. That does not mean that this is necessarily going to happen, but it means the actions we're going to have to take in order to prevent that from happening, are very strenuous and also urgent.

Now, we in the United States have the opportunity to present the case for this situation. The problem is—well, let me put it this way; I have time considerations, I'll add to this later.

But at the end of this week and the beginning of next week, one of the most momentous developments in all modern history is about to unfold. It's going to unfold underneath this new assembly of the international movement of peace [at the United Nations General Assembly], which is the best term to call it. And so from that point on, we have to realize that that's the case. We are at the threshold of thermonuclear war. The President of the United States Obama is one of the principal instruments leading the world toward a thermonuclear war, and this means generally an extinction form of war.

This thing which is going to happen at the beginning of this next week, is probably absolutely necessary to avoid the danger of thermonuclear war. Now, of course, our President is the key source, the greatest source, of that threat right now. He's not as an individual, but as an individual as President of the United States. Unless he were suspended under the rules of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, he could still set off a thermonuclear war on a global scale. All the potential for that exists now. And therefore, what is going to happen in the next week, the coming week, and henceforth in that period, is going to determine whether or not the world is ready to prevent the launching of a thermonuclear war. That's what the issue is.

UN/Milton Grant

There are many aspects to this. The question is, why did mankind ever let itself get involved into this kind of mess? Well, there were problems, faults, in the way people thought. For example, since the beginning of the Twentieth Century, our very system of life has become more and more degenerate. People are not quite as smart, or quite as concerned about humanity, as they were at the end of the preceding Century. And therefore, this is an urgent issue. We have to recognize that our school systems, our education system, our economic system as it's organized, our standards of living, our standards of education of our young people,—all of these things have been put into jeopardy since the beginning of the Twentieth Century, when this change occurred.

So now we've come to the point, where the Twentieth Century issue, has come to the point of the paymaster. We must now take this moment of this new international assembly, which is fully aware,—its best people are aware—of the implications of this situation, now. And therefore, what we must organize around in the United States, in particular, but throughout the world, is to prevent the launching of a thermonuclear war. That's what Obama represents! And, to get him off the agenda, by the 25th Amendment, is the absolute requirement for the safety of mankind in general today.

Therefore, what was being assembled in the coming period, the international event, this event is absolutely crucial. It's also absolutely crucial that we contribute our abilities into making this next great convention successful. Because this may be the last chance for humanity. That's the extreme view, but things approximating that are there.

They have, however, been building up. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt left office, there has been, despite good Presidents,—a few of them have occurred—despite those Presidents and other representatives of our government, the general characteristic of our government has been one of degeneration. Degeneration in everything; degeneration in respect to our Constitution, and its meaning. And therefore, this event, which is to be assembled in the coming week, is the thing on which we must all concentrate, not only inside the United States, but globally. There are movements in the world which can do this, but they have to be brought together, and the forces of a different disposition must be curtailed.

And, that's what I think the situation is, what I see, and what I fear.





Speed: OK. Very good. [applause]

Our next speaker is Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States. So, Ramsey, why don't you go right ahead, and respond as you will, to what you've just heard.

Ramsey Clark

Clark: From here? I forgot I was wired! [laughter] I usually oppose wiring, but here I am, in front of all these people, wired. How good to see so many beautiful faces, who believe in the preparation, behind their faces, for struggle to overcome the human propensity toward self-destruction, war.

Schiller Institute

You know, when you think about our schoolchildren and all our babies, you realize that we still have this maniacal energy. Energy can be dangerous, as essential as it is to life, and the energy committed to destruction, to self-destruction; the billions we spend on the most sophisticated means of destroying big pieces of real estate, with lots of people on them; and even the pride that we take as a people in the capacity for self-destruction. Militarism ought to be the supreme crime, because it has been, and remains,—and because of its capacity for total destruction,—now more than ever, the greatest threat to life on Earth, and all the things that we can hope for, for our children, or, in my case, our great-grandchildren. Our materialism distracts us from, not only the best parts of life, those that really bring the most joy and happiness and satisfaction. But the clamor of our society, with technology in the driver's seat, and the driver is without a license.

When you think about militarism, think of Syria today: Damascus, beautiful Damascus, historic Damascus; a contender for, among half a dozen other places in the region, the oldest permanently settled place on Earth by human beings. It's been there for a long time; you don't have to be in the city but a few minutes before you're told about it, and it's a great story. But the threat to it, is much greater than any of the destructive potentials of history. The Roman troops were nothing compared what can happen today—the obliteration of whole cities with a single blast. And, somehow or other, we are able to live reasonably happily and normally, and not even think about it. And, when we do think about it, we think less of ourselves, because we can't find a way to do anything about it. We haven't found a way to do anything about it that's adequate to address the phenomenon.

Iraq, today, is a vast wasteland, as we used to say. The "cradle of civilization," in the Twenty-First Century a vast wasteland. You don't really want to go there. I have to go there; I've been going there too much for the last 20 years. Hasn't done any good, but we keep going, keep trying. With all that history, and all that love and all that knowledge, and all that violence that was mixed in with it, and finally, the violence seems to come out on top, doesn't it? Just staying alive in Iraq has been the principal challenge for every man, woman, and child that's living there. That may sound excessive, but go there and take a look. It's not just the constant threat of violence; it's where are you going to get potable water in the next days? And whether food will be available? And whether bombs will come down again?

And, still, rather than examine that, in acts of human unity and concern to change it, most of our energies and concentrations, on this subject, are devoted to more efficient means of mass destruction.

I'm an optimist, which has to mean, having said what I just said, a little crazy; but you have got to be crazy enough to face the situation, you know? A sane person would turn away from it.

And just look at the babies, and hug them. And there's more: what their future will be if we don't put our hearts and minds toward creating conditions, where there aren't millions constantly struggling to stay alive. Leaving their homelands, and going across wastelands and dangerous waters; and dying of thirst, and drowning on sinking boats. While we're wondering what the next Saturday afternoon movie will be at the theaters, a way of going away, of avoiding facing the reality of the condition of human conduct, and the life it's creating on a planet that in many areas is largely overcrowded, and doesn't seem to understand the possibility that that could create a problem; for all the organizations and mail we get about addressing the subject.

Our capacity to change all that is, to me, clear. It's a question of will. But we first have to have the will to face the facts, to organize and present the facts, in a way that every man, woman and child can see the havoc we're wreaking on this beautiful planet. A pretty terrific place to be born into, most of the centuries that we're aware of. There are scuffles around here and there that were cruel, and our species was the principal offender. But it's only in our time that making Mother Earth as lifeless as the Moon became a real possibility. We could scruff it up a little bit in the old days, but nothing serious. It's like walking through a rose garden, and getting scratched by a barb or two, here and there, a thorn.

Our capacity to overcome the problems we see, those that are risking their lives in boats to cross dangerous waters that they've never seen before, to try to get to a place where their feet could be dry, and their babies can be fed, and they can live in peace. It's clear, but we have to set our minds to it, and devote our energies to overcoming.

I'm a believer that energy is genius, and all that thinking doesn't change a thing until all that energy organizes and mobilizes it and moves it. And that's probably the main reason we're here today, is to see the problem, analyze the solution, and address it outright, and overcome.

So, I'll be anxious to hear your wisdom. Most of my time is,—like today, I have to go someplace else—I'll never get there in time. But I'll be with you in spirit, and I'll hear what was said later.

Best wishes to you, and our thanks to those who brought us together, Lyn. You're looking well, pal! I hope I'll see you, in person, around Christmastime. [applause]





Speed: Our next speaker, former U.S. Senator from Alaska; 2008 Presidential candidate; most notorious for his work back in the 1970s, concerning the infamous Pentagon Papers, Mike Gravel. [applause]

Mike Gravel

Mike Gravel: Thank you very much Dennis. Lyndon, I've got to say that you've got me by eight years, and what I've noticed in reading history, in the biographies of people like Arnold Toynbee and Will Durant (and of course his wife, but primarily Will) is that, as they got older in life, they became more pessimistic about the survival of the planet. And I must say that I'm an optimist, but I've got vestiges of this fear as I get older, that is there hope for the human race?

Schiller Institute

But what I'm really impressed with, is the work that you've done, Lyndon, your wife, the Schiller Institute, the Executive Intelligence Review, and this didn't come to be naturally, or quickly. I want to say that this lady up front here, Anita Gallagher, has been beating on me for a decade, and calls me. [laughter] And I got to tell you, I have been captured. I am now part of the team, and will work towards the goals.

I want to compliment you, and first off, let me say this: when you look to solutions, I wish I could say, as an American,—because I love my country, and I'm sure all of you do, but I love the world more. When I was in the Senate, I used to get away with making extensive speeches, where I would end the speech that my priorities in life are first, the human race; second, the United States; and third, Alaska, and all my priorities are in that order.

And so all I can say now, is that I don't see a solution within the confines of the United States. I think that you're quite right in your assessment of the Obama Administration. But I've got to tell you that when you look to the Congress, and I can say when I was a Senator—you know, we had a certain arrogance, being Senators; we'd look to the House, and say, "Well, that's a zoo over there." But now, when I look from this distant position, on the entire Congress, it is a total zoo, not just the House! And so, we focus on the Administration and the Presidency as the agent to work on. Well, I got to tell you, this other body is co-equal, and they can do things, and have been doing things, that have been sabotaging—sabotaging—and destroying any possibility we have for world peace.

So I've come to the conclusion, after a number of years, that I look elsewhere. I look to where the successes in life have been, of recent nature, and the attitudes. I want to compliment you, by underscoring what China is doing today. I personally feel that Putin is running his country a hell of a lot better than our last three or four Presidents have been running our country. [applause]

When you take the combination of the Chinese leadership—and I'll go into, in a moment, what they're doing, which is, I think, the touchstone of the Twenty-First Century. If [Henry] Luce wants to continue to hold the view that the last century was the American Century, I think it's not a good mark on our history, because it was a terrible century.

But now, when you look at the Twenty-First Century, who is the group that's actually acting in the most mature fashion, and has not made a reliance on military power? Of course, that's the problem with American foreign policy today. It's that, first, we think in terms of force, and use of our "superb" military. Well, one, they're not so superb; and two, it's horrible thinking. You can say that, well, the American people sustains this. Well, unfortunately, the American people, they're not stupid, but they are totally uninformed as to what's going on in the world today. Our six leading communications companies, which are total pawns of Wall Street, have guaranteed, that we will [audio loss] ....

What's going to happen, from my perspective? I don't disagree with your sense of urgency, don't disagree at all. But I've come to the conclusion that we could all be incinerated over the Kashmir, because any bombs going off between Pakistan and India will just wipe us out, too, in the process. It's the total human insanity we have, that we can deal and manipulate and control the bomb. We can't. Not at all. We're victims of circumstance.

Look to the Chinese

And so, when I take your views, they're as valid as mine. But my view is optimistic; I'm not old enough, yet, to be totally pessimistic. My view is that what China is doing, with the help of Russia, and with the BRICS, is really where the future of mankind lies, in terms of solutions. Not our leadership. It's going to be what they're [the Chinese] doing, and how they're handling it.

Xinhua/Wang Ye

As I pointed out to you earlier, Putin has run things very well. After the provocation of Ukraine—and most Americans have forgotten that we're the ones that did this; we're the ones that did it. They don't hear that any more in the press. And I don't know if anybody has seen the recent "Frontline" piece on "Putin's Way": It was horrible. And I have an intelligence background.

When I was 23 years old. I was a top secret control officer. At 23, mind you. I was in Germany as an adjutant for a communications intelligence service. Our cover was the CIC. What did we do at this place? There were only two military officers—myself, 23, as a second lieutenant; and a lieutenant colonel, who was in the sauce a good part of the time. The rest of it was run by Germans. And what we did is, we'd open people's mail, wantonly, and wire-tap people in Europe, wantonly. Now, that's when I was 23 years old. [1953]

So you can figure, when we had the Pentagon Papers come up in the Senate, and a Senator could not go in and read the papers, except being under guard, couldn't take any notes; all I could think of was: when I was 23, I was acting with more power than any Senator can act right now in viewing the Pentagon Papers! So, little wonder that when Ellsberg approached me, and asked if I would read the Pentagon Papers as part of my filibuster against the draft, I said, instantaneously, "Of course, yes, I would!"

And so, now we come to the same situation that existed then and exists now: what the government, our government, is doing, is really what's leading the destruction throughout the world community. When you see the blow-back of these refugees, which we have not seen it at this level since the Second World War; when you see that going on right now,—who's responsible for that? I would hope that, maybe, our European leaders, who are all wimps, led around by the American forces, both civilian and military, through NATO,—which I want to characterize, as, NATO is the globalization of the military-industrial complex. That's what NATO is, and it's as useless as anything you could think of. We should dissolve NATO, first opportunity.

But let's get back to where the answers are, and what's going forward: it's what China is doing. And it's in their self-interest. There's nothing wrong with intelligent self-interest; and that's what they're exercising. Because they have overcapacity; they have a great deal of presence in the world—not military presence—but what they're going to do is to amass this into a force, to create the economic union, via communications and transportation systems, and general broad economic systems. They're going to go from western China to Europe, and then all the areas in-between. And this is going to give the world a focus of attention on economic solutions, rather than what we focus on now.

I was just listening to General [Michael] Flynn. A fine thing: The guy's admitting that they were doing things wrong, but not too much of an admission. But he was saying we failed, but the real answer is economic development in these areas, so that people could be concerned about their well-being and jobs in the future, rather than what they're doing now, which is annihilating themselves.

Well, this is exactly what China is putting forth, with the help of Russia, and tying it in. And thank God we have these institutions that are creating financial institutions to overcome the short-sightedness of the World Bank and IMF. So, they're leading in the financial area; they're leading in the economic area. And, if only we would have enough sobriety in this country to say, "Let's work with them."

Can you imagine? Since the Second World War, we have been the ascendant power in the world, and we've not acquitted ourselves very well. Look out at the world today, since the Second World War, and say, "This is nothing to be proud of." But what China is doing—and if we were to now say, "They're on the ascendancy, economically, and they're going to ride that horse to the saving of human civilization."

And so, here again, I want to compliment the LaRouche organization for all that you're doing in this regard, in communicating this. And this is in line with views that I found out 20 years ago: I went to an event, as a normal citizen, to a LaRouche gathering, and that's when I became aware of what you wanted to do in crossing the Bering Sea into the Kamchatka Peninsula. And I was always fascinated by that as an Alaskan, because there's no question, it's very do-able.

I won't live, and you won't live, to see the fruits of what is going on today with this new wisdom exercised in China, in their leadership. Of course they're not falling prey to what we did. Their defense budget is 10% of our budget. And it's ridiculous that we feel such suspicion about what they're doing. But we've been on an ego trip for decades and decades, and all of a sudden, there's somebody coming forward that is going to eat our lunch, and we don't know how to stop them, because they're not talking about eating it with the force of arms. They're talking about outperforming us in an economic fashion.

And so, I just want to add my voice to the work that the Executive Intelligence Review is doing, what the Schiller Institute is doing, and say that any way I can help, I'm there. Because the opportunity is there—and, a little bit which is a take-off from your career, Lyndon—is that, if the truth be told, it is fully recognized by those who hear it, unfortunately. And you have a cadre of people who do hear it, who are committed to it, and now, count me as one of those aboard. Lyndon, thank you. And Helga, thank you for what you're doing. [applause]



Speed: Now we're going to hear the founder of the Schiller Institute, Helga LaRouche. [applause]

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Well, thank you. Thank you, Senator. Hello, Lyn!

When the Senator made his remarks, I reminded myself that when the Iraq War was conducted, we had a conference on the same day. And we were truly horrified. As a matter of fact, we knew that this was based on lies. The EIR had produced a report, half a year earlier, where we predicted that they would make this war, the Bush-Cheney-Blair combination. And we had tried to warn against it, because there were no weapons of mass destruction; there was no way that Saddam Hussein would have reached any city around the world in 45 minutes.

Schiller Institute

We knew it was a lie, and we published that in an EIR report, and we had distributed many leaflets around the world. And in Germany it led to a situation where in August, shortly before the war broke out, Gerhard Schröder all of a sudden made an about-face and said Germany is not going to participate in this war. And that had a very important influence in causing Jacques Chirac to also not go in this direction.

And so on that day when the war started, I was so horrified. I gave a speech at this conference and I just recalled that I said, are these people not aware that there is a higher law which will avenge this injustice? And I think I recalled the Ibykus poem by Friedrich Schiller; I said "Don't you know the lesson that if you commit a crime, there is such a thing as Erinyes, the goddesses of revenge which will come down on you?"

I think that that is exactly what we are seeing right now. Because one war followed the other one. You had the Iraq War. You had before that the Afghanistan War, which was also based on lies, because if you look at what really happened on Sept. 11, then Article Five of NATO should not have been invoked. Then you had the murder of Qaddafi. Look at what all of these countries now look like. Then you had the attempt to overthrow Assad. You can add Yemen. You can add Palestine. So, the whole region from Afghanistan to the North of Africa is a nightmare.

And, as a result of it, because of various dubious policies, to say the least, of the Obama Administration in support, first of the mujahideen, then al-Qaeda, then Al Nusra, then ISIS, you have now a situation where the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War has erupted. There are now every day, tens of thousands of people coming from mainly Syria, but also Iraq, Afghanistan, and other war-torn regions, and this is clearly over-stretching the capacity of Europe. People arrive, 10,000, 20,000 on the shores of the Greek islands; and the Greek Islands are poor, so the authorities have no food, they have no water, they have no medical supplies.

So, people are now trying to get to the mainland in Greece, and from there they are trying to get to Macedonia, which is exploding with refugees. People are trying to go further to Hungary, and there is a barbed wire wall built around Hungary. You saw these absolutely horrifying pictures, where you have small children caught between tear gas deployed by the police and refugees trying to get through these barbed wires. This is a breakdown of civilization, what is happening there; on top of all the other things which happened in Ukraine and other places. So, as a result, you have now an explosion of misery and refugees.

A Shift in Process

But something positive has happened. I think it remains to be seen what all went into it, but there was a sudden shift in the German policy. Now Mrs. Merkel, who I admit is not my favorite politician, responded to an impulse in the German population, where all of a sudden the German population who were pretty much in a soap bubble of unreality until very recently—because people in Germany behaved exactly like Americans, they said there's nothing you can do anyway. They felt completely impotent to change anything. As a matter of fact, this was not the American outlook some years ago, but in the recent period, Americans and Germans became pretty similar in their pessimism, but also indifferentism, not being interested in all these matters.

But suddenly—suddenly—people recognized, these poor people running away from war needed help. So you had an outpouring of love, of charity, people streaming by the thousands to the main rail stations in different cities, bringing clothes, bringing food, bringing necessities of life. I think it was that which caused Merkel to say, wait a second, the majority is going in this direction, and I can only stay in power if I go with the majority; being a truthful politician, so she took the initiative.

I think other factors were involved, because in the recent period, there were many, many people in Europe who warned that we are on the edge of World War III. Helmut Schmidt, who is 95 years old, and Gorbachov, who's not liked in Russia but the Germans always liked "Gorby," warned three times in a row that we are at the verge of World War III. The head of the Duma, Naryshkin, said if it comes to World War III, this will be the last one of mankind because nobody will survive it.

You had the European Leadership Network, which is a thinktank of former defense ministers and military analysts, who put out three papers within six weeks, saying we are heading towards war, towards nuclear war. The first paper said "NATO is preparing a war against Russia and Russia is preparing a war against NATO," and therefore we have to have urgently new rules of dialogue, of communication, which does not exist any more, urging that such a code of behavior must be urgently established.

So, while the normal person on the street may not know all the reasons, the geopolitics behind it, the fact that the trans-Atlantic financial system is about to blow out in a much bigger way than 2008, yet people in the last weeks have changed in all of Europe. We have information tables in many countries, and therefore we have a good reading on what is the mood in the population; and I think it was the combination of the euro crisis,—people knew that if Greece would go in an unorderly exit, you could have an instant blowout of the entire financial system.

So people were caught in between anxiety because of world war, worry about the economic security because of the euro collapsing, and naturally then the refugee crisis on top of it. I think it dawned on people, all of a sudden, and this soap bubble, which people were in the whole time, popped; and people realized, "Hey wait a second. This civilization is about to crash against the wall and we have to change." That, I think, led to a situation where people opened their hearts, and responded to the refugee crisis. I think the last time you had an expression of popular will like that, was when the Wall came down, and with the peaceful revolution, the peaceful demonstrations, the Monday demonstrations, in what became then east Germany, and what was the G.D.R. before, which brought down the Wall. And the present mood in the population is approaching exactly that quality.

Now with that goes something else and that is what I referred to as the Erinyes, the idea, in this beautiful poem by Friedrich Schiller, the Cranes of Ibykus, which you should all read when you get home,—we have a book where this is published also and translated,—that there is a higher power, that you can't commit crimes for a very long time; that God is not an old man with a beard Who immediately, if somebody robs their neighbor, comes down with the lightning and strikes people down. It's not like that at all.

But there is something which is called natural law. The Chinese call it the Mandate of Heaven, and in all great cultures you have this idea that there is a higher lawfulness which man cannot defy forever. And I think we are, at this point, experiencing such a moment where a great crime is awakening many, many peoples around the world, and it is a moment of change, and we must absolutely not miss that moment.

Because what went along with the refugee crisis is suddenly people saying, wait a second; where do these refugees come from? It is the United States. It is the wars which were conducted by the United States in the Middle East, and it is the support of terrorist organizations, to eliminate and replace legitimate sovereign governments. Now, you don't have to be a friend of Saddam Hussein, of Assad, of Qaddafi, but the reality is when these people, who may have been dictators or not,—I mean, democracy is not such a thing to cherish so much, because where is democracy in the United States? Where is democracy in Europe? [applause] So these people have been called dictators, and you don't have to like them. I have no particular sympathy for any of them.

But if you look at how they were running their countries—Iraq, with Saddam Hussein, had a functioning infrastructure, a functioning university system; women could study. You look at Libya, Qaddafi was involved in infrastructure development not only in Libya but in Africa. It was a functioning country. Syria before this happened, was a country where you had a very functioning collaboration of all religions who peacefully lived together, Christians, Muslims of different types, other people, and now?

Look at what has happened now! You have Wahhabi Salafists trying to destroy the memory of humanity about its cultural goods. The bombing of the Baghdad museum—there was no military reason for it. U.S. General Schwarzkopf, who promised to bomb Iraq back into the Dark Age, did a pretty good job fulfilling his promise. Then you look at what happened recently with the ancient city of Palmyra. It was flattened. In Afghanistan, the large Buddhist sculptures. These people are trying to eradicate the memory of culture, which is universal history.

So, don't tell me there was anything good coming out of these wars. You have a situation where even some former American diplomats are making public speeches, to say that even from a narrow American interest, this is a failed policy from Cheney, Bush, to Obama without interruption, because the same neo-con apparatus is running both administrations. Even from a narrow American standpoint, if the objective is to increase American influence in the region: complete failure. So why is there not a movement in the United States that says: Yes, these are failed policies and we need to correct them.

The Promise of the BRICS

Now, on the optimist side, I was very happy that the Senator was praising China so much, because it is a different model of working together of nations. Not only has China developed the idea of Confucian economics. It's a meritocracy. It's maybe still a little communist, but I think that can really be neglected, because the Confucian element is so much stronger in what the present Chinese government does: the emphasis on education, the emphasis on brilliance, on excellence of young people, of bringing the best minds forward, of having as many people as possible participating in the best possible education. And offering a model of collaboration based on win-win, on sovereignty, on respect for the other social system. And they have offered to the United States a collaboration on equal footing. So why not take that offer?

The BRICS countries have developed a completely alternative model of economics, of great projects, of overcoming underdevelopment, and it's steadily progressing. Just now, China had a big conference with leaders from the Arab world. Now, when I read that, I was extremely happy because, how are the hell are we going to bring peace to the Middle East? Obviously, and from everything we know, President Putin will make a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, where he will demand and offer an international coalition to fight terrorism, and other forms of extremism.

I know that Germany, for example, is already backing a flanking move, which Russia just did in Syria by moving its military there, because they don't want to have the last secular government in the region wiped out. Now, the United States government was completely caught by surprise. They said, "why didn't we see this coming?" The CIA said, "Oh, we missed that one..." But, what is the NSA good for, if they're spying on everybody, when they can't even catch a move like that?

Now you have a situation where Germany has already backed the Russian move in Syria. Hollande is backing it. Even the British are forced to realign their view on it. So, when Putin makes a speech in the United Nations, saying we need to have an international coalition against terrorism, if the United States should turn out to be the only country opposing it, that would really make them look very bad. So I hope that they use the remaining days to think through this question very well, and make up their mind to join this coalition.

Because what we need to do, is not only to end this terrorism, but we have to eliminate the root of terrorism, and that is poverty. The only way that we will bring back peace to the Middle East, is by taking the BRICS conception of a "win-win" collaboration of all the participating countries, of extending the New Silk Road—the idea of rebuilding the ancient Silk Road with modern means, modern technology, modern infrastructure, and extend it to become the "World Land-Bridge."

We—EIR, the Schiller Institute—have produced a 370-page study, with the title "The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge," which is the idea of taking that conception, in a certain sense take an economic miracle, like the United States did it repeatedly, with Lincoln, with Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Kennedy; or Germany did it after the Second World War, with the German Economic Miracle; or China has been doing it for the last 30 years, where China developed in 30 years what other major nations needed 200 years for!

And China is now offering that Chinese economic miracle as a model of economic development for all the countries who want to be part of it. And it is moving quite nicely: Latin America is already part of it; large parts of Asia are part of it; Africa is very much interested in it. The Egyptian President el-Sisi, has just completed the second Suez Canal, in one year. And, that is part of the Chinese Maritime Silk Road.

So, when I read that the Chinese just conducted a conference with the Arab leaders, and they responded very well to the idea of having economic development in the Middle East, I was extremely happy. Because this is what we proposed in 2012, where we said we have to have a solution where Russia, China, India, Iran, Egyp, and hopefully Germany, Italy, France, the United States, all work together to develop the Middle East economically. We have to give a perspective especially to young people, that they want to study, in order to be able to raise a family, rather than joining the jihadis; where we have to offer them something where they start to love you, instead of hating you. I mean, the only way that we will ever come out of this is, stop the hate! Stop this destruction! Stop the drones! For every drone killing a terrorist, you are creating 50 new terrorists! Have we not learned that lesson?

So, we have to replace this policy of destruction, of militarization, which doesn't serve anybody except a couple of billionaires.

And look, the United States is falling apart! Have you travelled recently over a highway? Have you tried to go by car from Washington to New York? Your chance of ending up in a pothole, is higher than winning the Nobel Prize! [laughter] Well, that's not a good proportion. But anyway, if you go by the train, how many miles of the fast train system has the United States built in the last decades? None. Zero. How many has China built? I think it's around 18,000 km right now. The goal is 50,000 by 2020-something. But, they have already built 18,000! I was lucky enough to travel from Beijing to Shanghai with one of these Chinese-engineered made fast trains, and it goes 310 km; and you can take your water, fill it to the brim and not one drop falls out of it, because they go smooth, quick, quiet—more quiet than this room! [laughter]





Gravel: Siemens. Siemens is the one that built that technology. Isn't that maglev?





Zepp-LaRouche: Well, no, no. The train I went on was a Chinese-engineered technology. I'm not talking about the maglev, no. This was a different fast-train system.

I'm saying, why can we not create a movement in the United States, which says: If the United States joins the Silk Road, joins the World Land-Bridge, rather than wasting all this investment in military products—which is not so great anymore, anyway; you know the Chinese are just outdoing you there too?

And why can we not build an infrastructure in the United States, have fast train systems connecting the East Coast; replace obsolete, old airplanes by having maglev trains, or other fast trains? And reconstruct the United States! Build a couple of new cities! The Chinese are building one new city after the other; why can the United States not build a dozen new cities in the middle part, east of the Rocky Mountains? This is a pretty depopulated, underpopulated area. And we need to do something, in any case, in order to fight the drought and the desert. So, when we go to new water systems, like ionization of water over the ocean to fight the drought in Texas and in California, and the other Southern states, let's just build a couple of cities! New science cities, beautiful cities! I'm for building a beautiful city in the United States! [applause]

As Mass Movement for Development

So, I think that what we need to do, is really have a Renaissance movement. Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, called for a mass movement for development, and I think that's what we need in the United States. Because, you have to get the sense that there is a chance to turn the situation around.

China is progressing, offering a "win-win" cooperation. Germany, they are already increasing the number of people who say, "Wait a second, for us to work with the Silk Road would be so much more profitable, than being drawn into wars against Russia with sanctions, which is hurting us more than even Russia." Russia can go to China, to India—they're reorienting! But, Germany is about to lose—Germany exports machine tools, machine tool design, and some of these take five years to build! These are not things you just "pop out" like popcorn; these are things which need planning, designing, tooling for specific purposes; and when sanctions ruined that, and you lose a market, you lose it forever. And that is the fear in the German industry right now, if the sanctions are being maintained, then extremely important relations between Germany and Russia will be lost, for economic purposes.

People are thinking the same thing in France, in Italy. So, there is right now a groundswell to stop the sanctions. But obviously the question is, will people have the courage to buck the United States? Because that is really the bottom line of all of this.

What I'm really doing is, I'm calling upon you to become even more active than you are already. We have the United Nations General Assembly, and I wrote an appeal to this effect, and in my view, maybe, and Lyn said the same thing, it may really be the last chance for humanity to change course. You have an extraordinary number of political leaders—Xi Jinping will come, Putin will come, the Pope will come, other important people will come; and we should create an atmosphere in New York, and around the United States to say: "Enough is enough! We want the United States to join with these other countries to build the world, and stop wars based on lies and support of terrorists, one organization after the other!"

I think if we get enough motion by people who say, it is really time for the United States to be a republic again, and not try to be an empire, and have a unipolar world, based on the Project for a New American Century doctrine, which is really what is working here still; that the United States will not allow any country or a number of countries, to come up and be superior or even equal,—that policy has to stop! The United States must accept they are not the only superpower anymore.

Nobody wants to deny the United States a role. They should have a role. They should be part of the nations as John Quincy Adams said. I don't mind if the United States wants to be the primus inter pares, the first among equals; that's fine! But you are not the only one, and that is what has to be said very clearly as a message.

So, I think it's really a moment, where everything depends on the subjective factor. Because objectively, all the elements for change are there. And you have to be aware that many times, you cannot change anything, because structures are cemented; it looks as if you can't really do much because you have alliances, you have processes, treaties, and nothing moves forward. But, then come, from time to time, what I call the "star hours of history" [Sternstunden der Menschheit]: '89 was such a moment, when the Wall came down, and the German reunification was the result of it: that was a "star hour of history."

I know that we are now in this kind of a period. We may not be at a November '89, but I think we are like October '89. You can see it coming, and it comes like a groundswell, where both the forces of destruction are accelerating, but also the forces of construction and of the Good are also moving.

Everything will depend on the Americans. Because if America joins this world movement for development, everything can be solved.

So please, live up to the moment of history! [applause]