EIR Forum at National Press Club: Only a Scientific & Cultural Renaissance Can Stop New Dark Age
Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave the following remarks to the EIR Forum at the National Press Club on Jan. 26. She was preceded by Thomas Wysmuller, a meteorologist and former Apollo era NASA employee and active in "The Right Climate Stuff” group, composed of mainly retired NASA scientists, astronauts, engineers, and administrators who are exploring the real science of climate change, sorting out the fact vs fiction and focusing on available hard, validated data. EIR's Michael Billington was the forum's moderator.
The following is a transcript of Helga Zepp-LaRouche's remarks. The transcript of Mr. Wysmuller's remarks and the question and answer period will be available soon.
MIKE BILLINGTON: OK, ladies and gentlemen, that's a good sound system. I appreciate that some of you, at least, braved the difficult weather to come out. We had a lot of other people who'd planned on coming, but who couldn't get their cars out of the drive, and such things; showing once again, the great infrastructure in the United States of America, which needs some help, to put it mildly.
I'm Mike Billington. I'll be chairing this. We're going to have presentations today, sponsored by the Executive Intelligence Review. We'll have presentations by Mr. Tom Wysmuller, who is a climatologist, a meteorologist, who was educated at New York University, in the Royal Dutch Weather Bureau in Amsterdam, and worked for five years during the peak of the space program, in different departments, and subsequently developed some mathematical models that are used by climatologists around the world; and was part of the founding of an Institute called The Right Climate Stuff, of mostly NASA scientists and climatologists and meteorologists, whose purpose is to counter the lies, and the fraud about the entire global warming hoax.
He'll give an opening presentation, and then, Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and chairwoman of the international Schiller Institute, the head of the Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Party in Germany, a Chancellor candidate. And she'll address the general global economic crisis, the battle that we are involved in to try to prevent the outbreak of world war, and the collapse into global financial disaster that we're now experiencing in the United States and worldwide.
Tom Wysmuller will speak first....
TOM WYSMULLER: OK, if you can follow the slides, that's great. I'll tell you which one it is. OK, if I'm going to be first, do I need a mike? All right, if I'm going to be first. Slight correction on the introduction: the TRCS group is a group of mostly NASA retirees, but some current employees.
Q: I'm one.
WYSMULLER: Hey, congratulations, that's great. Who were at one point or another based in Houston, but we're not anymore. I live in Maine, and we've got some people in Connecticut, and they're all over the country. Our purpose was to explore the science. It wasn't to change anyone's mind, in the sense that we were not advocating a pro- or anti-CO2 position. We were just exploring the science. What we do, is we hold meetings there every couple of months; have a good time doing it, because we're preaching to the scientific choir. And again, we're Apollo astronauts, NASA engineers, scientists. I'm one of the meteorologists. The other thing is, when we speak, we don't represent TRCS. We represent ourselves. So we have differing opinions within The Real Climate Stuff group. They tend to be very focused on valid science, validated models, but we are each speaking on our own.
Now it turns out, you're holding a package that has a logo of the International Symmetry Organization. You're actually seeing slides that I was planning to present in Vienna, sometime this summer, at the International Symmetry Conference, and there I'll be speaking about Ice Ages and things like that. But that's their logo. They do not endorse these slides. All right, these are slides that I'm using, and many of them aren't even mine. I'm using in an actually professional way, to present slides at a conference, where you have the logo of the conference there. So you're getting the first look at these slides, because nobody else has seen them.
So let's look at the first one. The first one, it says, "Sea Level Rise and CO2: Is There a Cause and Effect?" Cause and effect would mean does a rise or fall? And one increase or decrease the other? So, we're going to explore that.
The next slide shows what, many people are saying, is the future of New York City. This happens to be the book jacket of a book by a person who claims to be a meteorologist. It's great for selling books. But I'm going to tell you one thing: Not in your lifetime, and not in the lifetime of any of your descendants, is this going to happen. By the time I finish, I think you'll figure out why.
Let's go back a little bit. The next chart, you'll see it's titled, "2,000-Year Temperature vs. CO2." What you're looking at, is, CO2 is the green line, the green line crossing the center; and, for most of its trajectory into the present, it was running around 280 parts per million of concentration in our atmosphere. In fact, if you go back almost 10,000 years, that's what the CO2 has been. It's been unusually steady and level, over the last 10,000 years. Now here you see 2,000 years, but you notice, in the center, you have the medieval warm period, where temperatures shot up. And then we descended into the Little Ice Age.
By the way, during the medieval warm period, the Vikings were able to colonize Greenland, grow crops there, and make a small colony. When the Little Ice Age began, that was it. They were frozen out, and they left or died, I'm not quite sure which. The Little Ice Age was a period where we had low temperatures, temps frozen in the winter, the canals in Holland froze, people skated all over them. If you look at the Dutch Masters, you'll see lots and lots of paintings of these winters. Notice CO2 unaffected. CO2 did not affect it.
So now we exit the Little Ice Age, and at the top of the graphic, you can see a black arrow. I didn't pick black for any particular reason. It's just an arrow showing where the subset starts.
And then on the next page, you'll see the subset, and it says "Temperature vs. CO2 Subset." Now you notice, on the graphic before, you had a 4.5% correlation over the 2,000-year period, that we were measuring both temperature and CO2.
The next graphic, the Temperature vs. CO2 Subset is lifted straight from the National Climate Assessment. This is this 800-page, some science and some fiction, that the administration put out last year, National Climate Assessment. And this graphic comes from there. And they're showing that CO2 is rising; but you notice, for the first third of the page, temperature is actually falling, even as CO2 rises. And then finally, CO2 rises in tandem with the temperature, and there you have correlation.
But you probably figured out already, the correlation is not causation. The fact that two things happen at the same time, does not mean that one causes the other. But we do have a good correlation. It's been used by the Administration to show, look at CO2, look at what it's doing to the temperature. It's not doing much to the temperature, by the way.
Let's turn the page.
Now we're going to go to sea levels. You're looking at sea levels over a 25,000-year period, and most of the sea level that increased, did so during the 7,000-year period; the chart is titled, "7,500-Year Spike." Basically, what's happening here, is that the sea levels are rising, because the Ice Age, the 100,000-year long Ice Age ended around 20,000 years ago. And the way it ends, is by these giant glaciers, these continental glaciers, huge, 2, 3, 4 miles deep in some places, all melted. Now by the way, and I'm going to refer to this in the future, ice is heavy. If you take a cubic meter like this, this is a cubic meter of ice. Anyone want to guess what it weighs?
Q: 2,000 pounds.
WYSMULLER: Exactly. One ton. OK? And if it was water, by the way, it would be 2,240 pounds.
Q: They used to teach this at West Point.
WYSMULLER: I am very pleased to see that your memory is nicely intact.
Q: I learned it from a guy named Buzz Aldrin.
WYSMULLER: Buzz is one of the good guys. Let me talk about him later, too.
All right, anyway, when this ice, you have two miles, then melting to one mile, then a half a mile, a quarter mile, where does the ice go? The water goes in the oceans and you see the sea level rising. And it rises at a fairly rapid rate for about 7,000 years, and then kind of stops. Now why does it stop? It stops because the giant continental glaciers that covered Asia, Norway, Canada, part of the United States, were gone! They disappeared about 8,000 years ago. And that's it!
The rest of the rise of sea level, and it still is a tending trending rise, is due to the remaining mountain glaciers here and there melting into the ocean. Occasionally some of Greenland and Antarctica would melt in the ocean, but it is very steady. And much of it is due to thermal expansion. Because in this same period of time, the oceans are getting warmer, and as the molecular motion in the oceans increases, the space between the molecules increases, and you actually have a rising sea. But it's a slow, steady, methodical rise.
So how do we measure that? The slides that you didn't see, that I'm not going to talk about, talk about satellite measurements and other things. But the primary vehicle that I use, which is reliable, is the next slide, is tide gauges. And tide gauges, here you see the tide gauge at Fort Point, New Hampshire; The gauge itself, by the way, is anchored to the bedrock, and it's loosely tied to the pier. Now the tide level in Portsmouth, happens to vary about 9 feet per day. It's fairly high rise, and low rise. But what they do is basically they take the average, and over a long period of time, you have a pretty good reading of what the sea level is.
However, there's a bias in tide gauges, and the next slide will show you that. It's titled, "Tide Gauge Bias." All right, the next one shows you a distribution of tide gauges around the world, in places where the land is ascending. In other words, you have land actually rising. A great example is Norway, and I'll talk about that in the next slide. When you remove 2, 3, and 4 miles of ice and weight from the ground, the mantle of the Earth actually pushes up, and the land rises. So if you live in Norway, you're saying, hey, the sea level is falling at 7 millimeters a year! The sea level's not falling, Norway's rising. If you've ever been to Norway, and you see the way the mountains are developing, you understand that.
But places like Holland, which have been sinking, Norway rises, Holland sank. They have lots of tide gauges in Holland, because they're very worried about the sea level rise, or the land drop. They haven't figured out the land drop yet; but it is a sea level rise as far as the Dutch are concerned. And they build dikes, and they take care of it. One of the oldest tide gauges in the world is in Amsterdam harbor. In the 1600s they had a running tide gauge, and they kept really good records.
The distribution of these is skewed on a worldwide basis to the places where sea level is rising, otherwise known as land is falling. Places like in New York City, you have a very steady, linear sea level rise, about 2.5 millimeters a year.
Q: Which graph is this one?
WYSMULLER: It's not. I'm telling you just a fact about New York; and Boston also shows a sea level rise. The single unifying aspect of this, is that both of those cities have a fair amount of skyscrapers. Boston's are relatively new, about 19 or 23 up since 1960, so in the Boston sea level record, you see it going steadily up, and ending up in a different direction. New York City has been building buildings on this bedrock for many, many years, and there is a slow sink, so the New York City tide gauge is not — and I'm going to define the term here — tectonically inert. Tectonically inert area is a place in the world where land neither rises nor falls. Boston has one quite near. It's called Portland, Maine. And Portland, Maine, has shown a very steady linear sea level rise, however, it's minuscule. In the end of 2014, the sea level in Portland, Maine, read identical to the millimeter, to what the sea level was in 1947. And that wasn't even the highest reading in 1947. It's in the same body of water as Boston. Portsmouth, New Hampshire, shows a minimal sea level rise. Why? There's no skyscrapers there. So Boston is sinking.
We know we have a bias in tide gauges, let's look at the next page. And now we're going to get into the tectonically inert definition. Isostasy is the balance between what's on top of the land, and what's underneath it, and it looks like this. It looks like a big, blue lump on top of a slide.
This was done by the great Axel Mörner. Axel Mörner is a Swedish oceanographer, one of the best in the world. He did this diagram. You notice, while there is ice over Norway, it is pressing down. The yellow part is what's pressing down. And on the edges, in the thin blue bulges you see on the edges, is where the land is deforming upward. It's being pushed on; it has to go somewhere. When the ice melts, all of a sudden the land rises underneath that yellow part.
The next slide looks like this. The areas here, the yellow and the blue are equal deformation. In other words, the yellow area is where land has risen over the last 20,000 years, and the blue is where it has subsided. And the, I guess you call them [s/l iso 18.27] levels around here indicate the extent of the deformation. In the center of Norway, the mountains that were built there, rose almost 800 meters. It's huge. Over 20,000 years, it's a long time.
Down in Holland, and you see that at the lower left, about 2 lines in, you had the maximum sinking of the ocean basins. The ocean basins actually enlarge, so when you have that sinking in the land, the ocean actually is able to absorb and handle more water. And of course, where did the water come from? It came from the glacier that melted.
In between that is a zone, again, is right on that line, which is tectonically inert. The land is neither rising nor falling. The one that had the best tide record, going back about 135 years, was Wismar, Germany. Wismar is in the Mecklenburg Bend of the Baltic, and it is about, you have to interpolate from the line that is separating the yellow and the blue. You go down about 80 meters, and you'll find Wismar, Germany. Over a 20,000 year period, that 80 meters translates into about, maybe 4/10ths of a millimeter per year. You can do the division. It's not that hard. So Wismar is almost tectonically inert, but pretty close.
If you look at the next slide, you'll see we've had a massive 38% increase of CO2 since 1880, and in a tectonically inert area like Wismar, you see no signal whatsoever, of any acceleration in sea level rise. None! Again, the real increase In Wismar is probably about a millimeter a year, because the 4/10ths is due over the 20,000 years to — you have to take the subsidence into account. Portland, Maine, the tide gauge looks almost the same. Again, it's tectonically inert, and that's how you measure the real sea level on the planet. You find places that don't move up and down, and that's where you measure the sea level.
The next slide says, "Can the Paris Proposals CO2 Have Any Effect on Sea Level Rise?" Now we've had a 38% increase without any evidence at all of acceleration in sea level. If the Paris proposals can reduce 0.5% or even 1% of CO2, we don't have an instrument that could measure that effect on sea level. [laughter] There is no effect. The sad thing is, you guys are finding it humorous. We are spending billions of dollars to try to combat sea level rise due to CO2 — and I'm glad you see the humor, but my wallet doesn't.
All right, so the next slide shows you the real future of New York City; abundant power, no flooded streets. This is the way the world should be, and will be within your lifetime, within the lifetime of your children and their children too.
Now, on the last page, I have my conclusions. I am very pleased that you don't have to figure these out. These are the cause and effect? No! Between sea level rise and CO2. And does the rise and fall in one affect the other? The answer is absolutely not.
But now you see something interesting, and I want to talk about what's really important, research that needs to be done, and needs to be supported — and not billions of dollars spent on sea level rise and CO2.
This is a look at the last three solar cycles. You notice, there's something unusual. They're usually, the peaks and valleys are about the same. You could set your calendar in the past on the 11 and 22 year intervals of these sunspots. And what happens is that you have the peak in sunspots, and it flips the magnetic field of the Sun. And then you have a diminution of sunspots, and then it rises again, and then the magnetic field flips back to where it was. So the magnetic field flip is 22 years, the sunspot cycles are 11.
There are graphics on the internet you can see. They're called the butterfly effect, and you can see different ways of looking at the activity of sunspots, and it's been uniformly — I shouldn't say uniformly — it's been uniform for the last 100 years or so. And now all of a sudden, the peaks are starting to dwindle, they're going down lower, lower sunspots. What's worse, is that the interval between the peaks is beginning to stretch, so the 2005 to 2010 low period is much lengthier than it used to be.
If you look, and the reason the print job is so nice here, is because you can actually see this. If you go back to the minimum in 1987, you see there were two times where sunspots went back to zero — no sunspots at all. In 1998, you had one. In 2008-2009 you had five intervals where there were no sunspots at all. And this is the length of time of this activity decrease happened. And now the next peak is just about half of what it should be, and it's coming down. We may end up being now in a 13- and 26- year cycle. This is a massive change. Do I have about 3 or 4 more minutes?
Q: Yeah, sure.
WYSMULLER: I want to talk to you about something that happened. If you read the Washington Post, you certainly know what happened. A friend of mine, a colleague of mine, Willie Soon; Willie Soon is a doctor, a researcher at Harvard Smithsonian. Last February, when this became evident, there was a coordinated attack on Willie. The New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post newspapers, the L.A. Times, all over the country — within one week! — They all came out with stories that Willie Soon, at Harvard Smithsonian, is accepting oil money for his research. They were nice, they called it petrochemical dollars, that's OK. But you understand where it was coming from. By the way, nobody attacked the hundreds of papers that Willie has published, attacked any accuracy in any paper. The research was impeccable. It was beyond challenge. But what they did say, is that he's accepting money from oil companies. The truth is, Willie was working for Harvard Smithsonian. Harvard Smithsonian was accepting grant dollars from many organizations that were supporting research, including some oil companies. Willie never got paid by any oil company. Willie got a salary from Harvard. That was it! He was paid by Harvard Smithsonian and under contractual obligation not to mention the sources of his funding, if he knew what they were. And he only knew what they were about half the time. Again, the research was never challenged.
Why was this done? My theory, and this is my theory, is that it became painfully obvious that there was something really wrong going on with the Sun. They did not want the world's leading expert on solar activity, and Willie is the world's best, they took him out of circulation. For the next couple of months, Willie had to defend what he was doing. He was not doing his research. He was not making statements to the press. Harvard Smithsonian supposedly did an internal investigation. Did you ever hear the results? You didn't, because Willie was absolutely blameless! And we knew it, his colleagues knew it. But he's gone, he's out of the discussion.
He's back, by the way. He's writing papers again, and he's doing research, but you didn't know about this solar activity decrease. And if you're hearing about it now for the first time, that's a terrible shame! A terrible shame. Down at Johnson, we knew about it, because we talked about it all the time. This is not a new graphic. This is a NASA graphic. But the public just wasn't clued in. It is absolutely shameful. It is character assassination. Again, his research was superb, impeccable, and he's one of the great minds to ever walk the face of the Earth. And this is what was done to him over a six-month, eight-month period. It can happen to anybody. I think it happened to someone you guys know, too. Thank you for your courtesy.
Q: What is his name?
WYSMULLER: Soon. And he's a Malaysian guy, — but he's brilliant. He spoke here in Washington, at a conference that I was at last June. And that's where I first met some of you guys. So anyway, that concludes my part of the presentation. Sorry about the slides, but I think you'll be able to see them on the internet. I'm going to email them to [the webmaster]. Yes, sir.
Q: I think I understand most of this, but the thing that concerns me though, is what is the projection into the future of the attack?
WYSMULLER: Of the Sun?
Q: Of the Sun, yes.
WYSMULLER: I can't tell you. I don't know.
Q: So we haven't been researching that?
WYSMULLER: Yes! But that's where the research dollars should go.
Q: OK, but we've not come up with sufficient data to reach a tentative conclusion... [crosstalk 29.19
WYSMULLER: You are absolutely correct. Now you have a drift, if I can call it that, not a drift in the solar wind, but there's the Maunder Minimum was that period in the middle ages where there were no sunspots, and that was the little Ice Age.
Keep in mind, the Sun shines on the Earth. Now the Sun's a sphere. OK, the Earth is 93 million miles away. It gets a millionth of the energy of the Sun, quite little, but it does get it. And when you have high sunspot activity, more of that energy comes here. No doubt about it! And we know that.
If you see these old Chinese woodcuts, a lot of them display blind people, because the emperors in that time, asked people to look in a saucer of water at the setting Sun and count the sunspots. And these people who made a career of it, ended up losing their sight. But the records were very, very accurate, and methodically kept. We know there were no sunspots during that 160- to 170-year period. And then, when the sunspots returned, that happened to coincide with the end of the little Ice Age.
Now remember, I said before, correlation is not causation. But there are likely areas for research. And this decrease in solar activity is a place that, I think, you as a citizen, should insist that we put some research dollars here. In fact, they ought to go to Willie Soon, and he can tell people where they came from.
BILLINGTON: I think what we want to do, is please keep your questions and formulate some good questions. We definitely want to have a good, rich Q&A session, after the two presentations. So keep them, and others, I encourage you to think of some questions so we have that kind of rich discussion after the two presentations..
Now we're going to hear from one of the people Tom was referring to, who has been subjected to many international efforts to prevent her name and her husband's name from being known; but as I'm sure she will tell you, this is breaking wide open right now. And we will hear it. Helga LaRouche.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I will try to be brief; I have a hard time doing that. Obviously, the question is, why is such a report as you just discussed, how is this possible? Why? What is the motive? Why would you go through the effort of falsifying data of trying to squash an honest debate among scientists? And I think once one would pursue that question to the end, one would come to the conclusion of my presentation, which I want to put in the beginning; and that is, that the entire trans-Atlantic region — and I'm fully aware where I'm saying this; namely, in Washington D.C. — is run by very destructive policies and very destructive forces.
Now, let me start with one which should be of the biggest concern of anybody who wants to outlive his lifespan; and that is that we are on the verge of thermonuclear war. And contrary to the height of the Cold War, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or at other high points of the Cold War where people were concerned about the possible extinction of mankind; even if we are much closer to it, there is no public conscience, there is no public debate about it. And only rare individuals, such as former Defense Secretary William Perry, or nuclear specialist Hans Kristensen, are warning of the possibility that the world could go to war. Now, if you want to take it on the light side, the danger of accidental war is extremely high; simply because the normal kind of code of behavior, which existed even between Kennedy and Khrushchov is presently not there. After the Ukraine crisis exploded, they cancelled the NATO-Russian consultations; an institution which was created to be there in times of crisis was abandoned.
However, I would take it a step further to say that the evolution of military doctrines in NATO, going from a Mutually Assured Destruction to the idea of a winnable first strike posture, which is what the missile defense system around the world actually is, which is what Prompt Global Strike is; and which is what the Air-Sea Battle doctrine against China is; is really, including the modernization of nuclear weapons in Europe, are all pointing in the direction of such a possibility.
Now, Russia and China have drawn their conclusions and they are basically also gearing up their arsenals; and William Perry was warning just a couple of days ago in the Boston Globe, that we are far advanced into a new arms race with nuclear weapons, which according to President Obama, he wants to spend $1 trillion in the next 30 years. Which, given the condition of the world financial system, sounds a little bit ludicrous; but this is the danger.
And if it comes to a war, by intention because some people have the illusion that you can win a nuclear war, or by accident; I think civilization very well may not exist within minutes, hours, or at the latest weeks. A nuclear winter would evolve, and that would possibly be the end of civilization. And all the beautiful things mankind has accomplished so far would be in vain: There would be nobody to even comment about it. No historian, nobody making an archive about it; not even a museum. So that is the one danger.
The other danger which is in direct correlation with this, is the fact that the trans-Atlantic financial system is about to blow up in much bigger ways than the crisis of 2007-2008. As you know, there was just the World Economic Forum in Davos, where people officially went through the usual kind of eclectic series of entertainment on different subjects; but behind closed doors or among themselves privately, there was an absolute panic. And publicly it was expressed by the former chief economist of the Bank for International Settlements, William White, who gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph; where he said that since there was nothing done to re-regulate the banking system since 2008, the world indebtedness today is such, this debt that can neither be repaid nor serviced. And that people who think they own a lot of money in this virtual world of finance, may wake up to very unpleasant surprises; namely, that it could evaporate in one minute.
So obviously, the measures, the so-called "tool box" which the financial institutions came up with after the 2008 Lehman Brothers/AIG crisis, was what? It was quantitative easing, it was bail-outs, it was various kinds of measures to basically turn private gambling debt into public state debt. And therefore, you have now a state debt crisis. And the recent developments which came in with Dodd-Frank and appropriate legislation in the EU Commission to go for bail-in, they called this the Cyprus model. This happened three years ago in Cyprus, where basically banks went bankrupt and then they confiscated the amounts of money in the accounts of either people who had their savings there, or had shares of the banks, or were holding bonds. And this was basically expropriated by 50%.
Now, Dijsselbloem, the Finance Minister of Holland, who is also the head of the Eurogroup, at that time said this Cyprus model is the blueprint for the entire Eurozone; and legislation was made. As I said, Dodd-Frank, Article II in the United States has that provision; all the European governments made legislation in the meantime to go for that. But the problem is — and this was just noted by Thomas Hoenig, who is the vice chairman of the FDIC in the United States, and similarly an unnamed EU official gave an interview to Reuters just three days ago — saying the problem is, this bail-in does not function; the banks have not been recapitalized enough to do it, and so they are not prepared. And furthermore, the amount which you could generate if you bail in all the accounts — business, private people — and go for additional bail-out measures, you would get approximately $18-20 trillion; the problem is, the outstanding derivative debt is about $2 quadrillion.
So, when William White says this debt will never be paid, and we have to have what he calls a Jubilee; pointing to the fact that in all great religions over the last 5,000 years, you had periodic debt write-offs when it became clear it was not payable. So, Mr. White is now a high-ranking member of the OECD, he's the former chief economist for the Bank for International Settlements, and you can call it a Jubilee, you can call it a debt conference, writing down this debt, or you can call it Glass-Steagall.
Now, that's just two of the situations. But we are reaching now a breaking point in the trans-Atlantic civilization. Let me emphasize two other aspects of why we are in a decaying, collapsing, destructive society both in the United States and in Europe. In the United States, apart from the abysmal collapse of real production, you have a drug epidemic which was highlighted by several articles in the New York Times in the last several weeks; based on a study from Princeton, and one from the CDC. Which shows that shockingly, that the death rate in the United States for white males in all age groups is increasing to such an effect that it outweighs and erases the progress in medicine. In the age group of white Americans — not black, not Hispanic, but white Americans — between 24 and 35, the death rates from suicide, alcoholism, or drug overdose has increased 500%. There are presently in all 3007 counties of the United States, there is an increase, a doubling, quadrupling of the suicide rate; there are 125 people per day committing suicide or dying from drug overdoses. That is five people per hour; so, since we have been here, five people have died. It's one every 12 minutes; and it is a sign of a dying society. This increase has happened since 2001, and you can think for yourself which Presidencies have been in charge since then. And only by that figure, you can say that you do not have good government in the United States.
Now in Europe we have a slightly different problem. We have a refugee crisis, which is detonating the EU. As you know, last year there were almost 1 million refugees coming primarily from Syria, from Iraq; but now, it's many people from Afghanistan, from Northern Africa. And at the Davos conference, the director of Davos, Kurt Schwab, said that he thinks that if the present oil price collapse is not stopped, there will be soon 1 billion people coming to the shores of Europe; and I think that that is not an exaggeration at all.
So, naturally the causes of this refugee crisis are the failed policies of the British, of the United States; the failed wars based on lies in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya; the attempt to topple Assad in Syria; the war in Yemen. And has this served the interest of the United States? I don't think so; I think it has damaged the United States and the reputation of the United States around the world.
Now, as you know, Chancellor Merkel did something right; she said, we welcome these people. And she's being criticized a lot for it; but at the moment when she said that, there was no other way, because you had thousands and tens of thousands of people being stuck in the Balkans between Macedonia, Croatia, Hungary. Because Hungary began to build a wall around its borders. So, it was a humanitarian crisis of unbelievable dimensions; and there is such a thing as an asylum right guaranteed by the Geneva Convention, and by the UN Charter. So Merkel did the right thing, and she did the right thing concerning the refugees; but obviously you have to change policy if you want to accommodate these refugees.
The result of the non-solidarity of the EU, all of Eastern Europe refuses to take one single refugee; the foreign minister of Austria just yesterday blasted Greece for not enforcing the security of the outer border of the EU. And the Greek government very correctly said, "What do they want us to do? Do they want us to shoot the refugees in their boats and drive them back into the ocean?"
And you all have seen these horrendous pictures where small children are caught between soldiers and barbed wire, razor wire. If this is not resolved in a human way, this is the moral end of Europe; and anybody who is any good has understood that perfectly well.
OK. However, fortunately, this is not the totality of the picture. Because you have right now, two universes: You have the trans-Atlantic world which is collapsing, and you have a completely different kind of political system emerging, coming primarily from China. And don't believe any China-bashing which you have read in the Washington Post or the New York Times. I have been occupying myself with China for the better part of 45 years or so, and I can assure you, that China right now is not only an economic miracle; the little news about the so-called Chinese stock exchange collapse triggering all these problems in the Atlantic world is complete nonsense. Because the real economy of China is doing excellently, and you will see in the second half of 2016, that all the many, many investments in real economy — Xi Jinping was just on a trip to the Middle East; he went to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt. The total volume of investments is between 55 and 100 billion, only with these three countries. And if you look at the large amount of Chinese investments in many, many countries, in Latin America, in Asia, in Africa, in Eastern Europe, you will see that that will be an economic engine which will remain there for the next several years.
However, even more importantly, China, a little bit more than two years ago, offered a fundamentally new policy: the New Silk Road. Now, the New Silk Road is the idea, in the tradition of the ancient Silk Road of the Han Dynasty of 2,000 years ago, to further economic cooperation, scientific exchange of ideas, cultural ideas, and to promote a new infrastructure integration of the whole planet. I think that this has affected the policy of the BRICS; it is right now moving forward very quickly, and you have a strategic partnership of China, Russia, India, and many countries cooperating closely. Like, for example, now between China and Iran, you have an increased activity along these lines among many countries, including China and Greece; China and East European countries that turned to China to have fast train systems being built by China; and many investments in Africa and in other areas of the world.
Now, should that be regarded as a threat by the United States? Only if you believe that the maintenance of a unipolar world is the only way to go, at a point when a multipolar world is already a reality. The idea that there has to be a unipolar world and that you have to eliminate, through a regime change, every country in the world which does not submit to such an order, is the guarantee that we will blow ourselves up as a civilization. What China has offered, and Xi Jinping offered that to President Obama at the APEC meeting in 2014, in Beijing, he said: We offer to the United States and other major powers to cooperate in a "win-win" cooperation, to transform the world economy.
Now, to my knowledge Obama has not answered that. But this is now becoming a realistic possibility, because we have published this report, "The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge": Because we have been working on this New Silk Road policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was our answer to the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany, to the end of the Iron Curtain, we proposed in '91, to connect Europe and Asia through so-called "infrastructure corridors." And we have campaigned for this policy for 25 years, and therefore, we were naturally extremely happy when Xi Jinping in 2013 said, New Silk Road is now the Chinese policy. As a matter of fact, we were extremely happy, and said that is exactly how we will get out of this mess.
And then, we started to make our report, and you can see here, — you can't see it now, because I was not so industrious as you! This is a map of all the corridors, bridges, tunnels which will eventually unite all the continents of the world, and bring unity to all the different development areas of the planet.
So we have said, since 2012, at least, that the only way how you will end terrorism in the Middle East and bring peace to this tortured region of the world, is you have to have — I hate to call it "Marshall Plan," because "Marshall Plan" has always the connotation of a Cold War dimension to it — but just to use the word so that people get an idea that there has been examples of successful reconstruction of war-torn regions. I would like to call it the extension of the Silk Road to the Middle East. Which is already now uniting Central Asia; it's moving into South Asia; a corridor is being built by China through Pakistan to the Persian Gulf. So, in 2012, we held a conference in Frankfurt proposing a Silk Road Marshall Plan for Southwest Asia, the Middle East, the Near East, and Africa, as the only way how you can — you know, how do you end terrorism?
You know, terrorism has now been a menace: We have seen it in Paris, two times last year; the Charlie Hebdo massacre, then the horrible massacre in Paris later in the year; there have been terrorist events all over the planet, practically in all countries. So, will you stop this horror show by bombing ISIS or al-Qaeda? Well, you have to do something. And I think the best approach right now is what has been negotiated by Secretary of State Kerry together with [Foreign Minister] Lavrov in the Vienna conference which was very successful in getting Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and other parties of the Middle East at one table, the resumption of this conference was delayed because there were still some tensions, because Saudi Arabia didn't want certain oppositions groups from Syria; the Turks didn't want the Kurds; but, I think, you know, if Russia, the United States, China, and the other major powers of the Middle East sit together and say "we will militarily eliminate ISIS, but then you need something else."
Because you need a reconstruction program which gives real hope to the people in the Middle East to dry out the environment out of which al-Qaeda and Al Nusra, and ISIS and so forth have been recruiting. And only if you put a Marshall Plan, a Silk Road Marshall Plan into the region, where all these countries, Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, Germany, Italy, France, the United States, work together and say: We will take the entire region from the Caucasus to the Persian Gulf, from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, as one region, and we put in real development. We declare a war on the desert; we create, you know, new water! Because if you ever have flown over that region, this is all desert. There is not one little oasis — nothing! So you need to have large amounts of ocean water desalinated, which is only possible through nuclear energy; you need to tap into the moisture in the atmosphere, which you can do through ionization; you can use aquifers and other methods. And then, you can develop agriculture. You can develop forestry. You have to put in infrastructure, infrastructure as dense as it is, for example, in Germany. Germany is a perfect example of a very well-developed infrastructural country. Then you can put in new cities, you can build industries.
And you give the people of the region a new hope. A hope that they can have a future, that they can become engineers, that they can become scientists, that it's worth to have a family. And that is how you bring peace to the Middle East and to Africa.
Now, I have said this in many speeches, and people have said, this is completely utopian. Who should pay for this? Well, but I believe that if you have a breakdown of an old paradigm and you have a good plan, I believe that then you can be successful, simply because you are the only one who has the right idea. And I am totally flabbergasted and surprised, but I have to announce that one of the persons in Germany, who is not — and I emphasize not — on my favorite list, Wolfgang Schäuble, is now coming out for a Marshall Plan in the Middle East! He did that in a very surprising speech in Davos, where, to the surprise of everybody, he said, "well, it should be obvious that we have to invest many billions in the region, that we have to form a 'coalition of the willing' to do so," in a beautiful reversal of the coalition of the willing of Bush, you know, who wanted it to make war; so Schäuble, of all people, wants to have now a "coalition of the willing" to reconstruct the Middle East. And this is now being picked up by newspapers in Germany.
And you know, I always said, when there is no reason you can appeal to, the only thing which causes political change, is what I call the "policy of the burning shirt." That when people realize that their shirt is getting a little bit hot on their behind, they start to move. And I can assure you, this refugee crisis right now, is exactly that, because the EU is about to detonate. If they build, again, borders around all national countries, then the Schengen Agreement is out of the window, and everybody is now debating openly if there is no Schengen, then the European Monetary Union doesn't make any sense; the Eurozone will collapse; and very likely also the EU. Because then you have no raison d'être any more for this alliance as it developed from Maastricht to Lisbon.
So I think we have now a tremendous situation. I think we need to have a change in paradigm. I think people have to recognize, and you may not believe what I'm saying, but I want you to think about it, that if we stay in the old paradigm of geopolitical confrontation, with Russia, with China, the likelihood that we will not exist as a civilization is very high.
If, however, we look at the longer arc of the evolution of mankind, well, mankind has been only around for a little time, a few million years. The record in terms of writing and other readable artifacts is, maybe 10,000 years. And just think, what a tremendous development mankind has made in the last 10,000 years, from the Stone Age, where you would use a stone to kill your neighbor; now you have a smart phone of the same size, you can have international conferences, you see the people you're talking to around the globe. And in 10,000 years, people will say, "Oh, these people with their 'smart phones' they thought that was already a big accomplishment," because they will be communicating from one galaxy to the other, and look back at our period as the "Stone Age."
So you have to have a tremendous sense of optimism in mankind. Mankind is the only species which can, again and again, change the knowledge about the physical universe, making discoveries, and I believe that there is a limitless ability for mankind to improve, both intellectually and morally. I don't think that people have to be so mean as they are right now. I don't think that the drug culture, with all the ugliness that goes along with it, is what should be the worthiness of man.
I think that if we combine an economic reconstruction program with a cultural Renaissance, that we will go into a completely new era of civilization where man will be truly man! Truly beautiful! We have made an addendum to this report which is called "The United States Joins the New Silk Road." And it is the idea that, the Silk Road should not only be built in China and Africa, but the United States, needs urgently a Silk Road development. Has the United States a fast train system? I don't think so. Has the United States a functioning airplane system? I think it's getting a little bit shabby and old.
So why not build 50,000 km, or 35,000 miles, connecting the East Coast, the West Coast, the North and the South, through the maglev train, through other high-speed train systems, reconstruct some of the cities which ware falling apart; build some new cities! Some beautiful cities in the South; to inspire people to go back to the Moon, to rebuild NASA, to go to Mars, just to find out why the universe is built the way it is it!
You know, this problem of the Sun is very urgent, because the Sun in 2 billion years will not make it so comfortable on the planet Earth, so we have think, how, we as a species can live on as a species in the Galaxy and beyond.
So I think what we need to do, is we have to have an honest, fearless discussion about the change of a paradigm. And I think we have to recognize that good government means also, to have a beautiful culture which is uplifting people. I named the Schiller Institute, "Schiller Institute," because I believe that the image of man of Friedrich Schiller is the most beautiful I have found on the planet. And he basically said, Art is only art if it is beautiful and if it ennobles people.
So we need to combine this economic reconstruction with a Classical Renaissance of Classical culture, and then start a dialogue of the high phases of all cultures: Confucianism in China, which fortunately has a Renaissance right now, which has the whole country excited; you know, people in China are completely optimistic. They believe in the government — can you imagine that? They have trust in the government? So, they're in a good shape. China has produced beautiful poetry, painting, Mencius, other great neo-Confucian thinkers.
India has produced many high points: The Gupta period. The Arab world was once in a much better shape during the Abbasid Dynasty when Baghdad was the cultural capital of the world. You had the Italian Renaissance, you had the Andalusian Renaissance. If we revive all of these high points of cultures, I'm absolutely certain that we can create a new Renaissance of human civilization, this time, on a completely different set of axioms than the present world of our decaying trans-Atlantic world.
And I want to stop here. But I think, if you think about it, we are on the verge of calamity beyond believe. But we can turn it around, if we go to FDR policies, Glass-Steagall, shut down Wall Street, make a new credit system, get production going. And it will be easy.
TOM WYSMULLER: Helga, if I can add, if you stop wasting billions on climate research, you can buy a lot of bricks for that the New Silk Road.
MICHAEL BILLINGTON: I can assure you, the Chinese are not wasting much of their money.
Q&A Open Discussion
So I want to open the floor to questions in just a moment. I want to say a few things, and I encourage you to think about some good questions, a good dialogue here. This is video taped, it's going to be listened to by thousands of people around the world, so the better questions you have, the better dialogue we have, the better for achieving what these two speakers have addressed.
I want to say that when you do leave, we have copies of this report, which Helga was the inspiration for this. She has a long introduction; it's a 370 page, detailed analysis of the what we could do with the world as a whole, and the universe, if we could overcome the political insanity now governing our society.
Before the COP21 conference, we also published a report called "`Global Warming' Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science"; about half of it is an analysis of where this population control movement came from, from the Royal Family in London, and Holland. The fostering of this Malthusian idea of depopulation on behalf of the oligarchy. And the second half is, as Tom was talking about, real science, real climate science. We hope to have some of the material Tom's done included our publications later.
And the third thing I would mention is that we now, for the last year and a half or so, have been publishing an EIR Daily Alert service, five days a week, a concise, 8, 10, 12 page analysis of the science developments, the anti-human developments, the war policy, what's going on in the United States, what's going on in the Europe, in Asia, the new world economic developments, of the sort that you've heard here today, on a daily basis which is crucial to keep people in touch with this movement. That Daily Alert service is $1,200 a year. What we are offering today, and in general, and which I encourage each of you to do if you can, because we need to pay for the room and we need to sustain our operations, is to get a package that we're putting together, of the first month of that Alert which is $100, with which we are going to give you the reports, both the "Global Warming" report and the Land-Bridge report. So, please, each of you if you can, when you go out, stop and get the package or get what you can; contribute what you can.
We have at least an hour, perhaps more, so let's open the floor. And please participate, think of some questions to both of our speakers.
Q: I'm Mike Springmann. I'm not sure whether I have a question or a couple of statements. I would dispute the analysis of the Middle East, based on my book, Visas for al-Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World. It basically talked about how the United States has created an organized terrorist group, that once was the mujahideen; then was rebranded as al-Qaeda, and is now rebranded as ISIL. And the problems with the Middle East stem from the United States and its repressive allies in the area, recruiting arming, financing, and training these people.
And they were carefully connected, I think, to be driven into Europe, through Turkey, another one of America's repressive allies, and Frau Merkel said, "Y'all come," and they did! There'd been a steady trickle in the past from North Africa, thanks to America's Libya policies. But now it's North Africa, the Middle East, and all over the world. And they're in Germany, they're welcomed with opened arms; from what I can see, the hope of driving down wages, or at least preventing them from rising. They will be used to split the natives apart from one another; they will be used to create hate between the Christian Europeans and the Muslims and the Arabs, which has been done.
We've seen how Germany and France and Britain have been driven into the American war in the Middle East. The French started bombing Syria — they sent an aircraft carrier, the nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle; Germany sent two frigates to the Mediterranean, the Augsburg and Karlsruhe, one of which was an escort to the Charles de Gaulle, carrier which is bombing Syria and Iraq. And I think it's a complete disaster and I think it's basically American policy.
And being aided and abetted by the German chancellor, who really ought to know better. From what I've seen, it's a disaster, and it's getting worse. You had carefully coordinated robberies, rapes, and thefts in cellphones and gropings, all throughout Germany on New Year's Eve, and Manuel Ochsenreiter, who is the publisher of Zuerst! [http://zuerst.de] an online magazine among other things, he showed a video of Berlin with the caption, "This is not Berlin in April of 1945, this is Berlin on New Year's Eve 2015." And it's all of the aliens firing strictly controlled handguns into the air, and shooting rockets and roman candles, horizontally into the crowd. And the German government did nothing!
In Cologne, the lord mayor refused to take any action and said everyone should keep an arm's length from strangers, to avoid being raped, and when a thousand protesters came out the next week, about her policies, they turned a water cannon on them.
So, anyway, I'm talking too much. Read my book Visas for al-Qaeda, it pretty much sets forth the basis for current policy.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think you're mixing obvious truthful facts with a view of the matter which doesn't give any hope. And I'm talking about how to get out of this situation.
I mean, look, I could give you a several-hour presentation on how the United States policy, starting with Brzezinski in 1975, in Tokyo, proposed to play the "Islamic card," how that was used to build up the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union; how that evolved into what you are saying, correctly, including what happened in Libya, in Benghazi; and you know, General Flynn has said the same thing, that he briefed the White House that they were planning a caliphate, and that he thought the White House had an intention to allow that to happen — all of that is true!
I didn't want to go at length into the known history of how this disaster happened, and I agree with you, it is a horrible disaster!
However, the question is, how do we get out of this. And I'm very happy, because when — you know, look, how did we get to this crisis? There are many people, including the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Matlock; then you had such people as Horst Teltschik and many others who were eyewitnesses, who said, it was promised to Russia that NATO would not expand to the borders of Russia. And then, unfortunately, you had the policy of the New American Century doctrine, the PNAC policy; so that, basically, from the beginning, you had a policy of regime change, of color revolutions, of Mrs. [inaudible 8.54], or Victoria Nuland. They have said it publicly that they have spent $5 billion in Ukraine alone, to build all these NGOs and so forth for regime change, first with the Orange Revolution 2004; then the whole Maidan.
And you know, given the fact that I have a positive conception of how the world should look like, I follow events more critically in evaluating, because I see what it's detrimental to. And therefore, when the EU made the association offer to Ukraine in November 2013, it was very clear that this was a provocation which would have meant eventually NATO would have had access to the Black Sea, and even American think tanks like Stratfor had long articles saying that that was unacceptable from a Russian standpoint, because of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and the relatively indefensible character of only 300 km to Moscow.
So it was very clear that the decision by Yanukovych to not sign that agreement was an admittedly late recognition that this wouldn't work; plus it would have opened up Russia to cheap products from the EU and so forth. So, who is responsible for the Ukraine crisis, therefore?
The late chancellor Helmut Schmidt said something which I fully agree with, that the Ukraine crisis started with Maastricht, because Maastricht was the point when the EU was transformed from a European alliance into an imperial, expansionist movement, trying to expand eastward and they would like to expand as far as they possibly could, according to the words of Robert Cooper, who was the advisor of Lady Ashton [then EU foreign policy representative].
Then, naturally, you had the Maidan and the Maidan was immediately subverted by the Bandera groupings; these were old Nazis, which were kept in the Cold War by MI6, by the CIA, by the BND/Gehlen organization. So these were known entities, and nobody can tell me that the Western governments didn't know what they were dealing with, with the Nazi coup in Ukraine!
So if you look at, how did we come to this point, you have the NATO expansion to the Russian border; you have now, basically the provocations everywhere. So you have to understand that Russia is not the evil one. And I'm fully aware that in Washington, there is a prevailing view that Russia is the culprit, that Putin is a monster; I can assure that but for Russia, we probably would have had World War III already! And the fact that Russia has now moved in a brilliant way in Syria, basically taking back large territories from ISIS, supporting the legitimate government of Assad, you know, because, all of this is — there is such a spin in the chronology how these things happened and who committed the atrocity and what was the reaction! And that it's the logic of war that once you are in a war, all sides commit crimes. There has not been one war where that didn't happen.
So anyway: what I'm saying now, Germany and France and Italy, they were drawn into this Cold War provocation with the sanctions against Russia, very much to the detriment of German interests; because the German industry is losing more than Russia! Russia can go to China and so forth, but Germany is losing export markets forever! So that was very dangerous. And I’m extremely happy, that there was, after the intervention of Putin in Syria, a change: because the refugee crisis forced Germany to say, "wait a second, we cannot solve this problem without Russia. So therefore you have now, amazingly, Schäuble, who is not my favorite man — I said it already — is welcoming the Russian deployment in Syria; so does Steinmeier, so does Lamont [ph] and various other people.
And I think this is a good thing. Because if you get an agreement between, as I said before, the people who are participating in the Vienna congress, to militarily reconquer Syria, Iraq. Get rid of ISIS; ISIS is not that many people. But then, you have to do something to change the environment, because the evolution from the mujahideen to al-Qaeda to Al Nusra to ISIS shows, this thing is not — as long as you have Wahhabism, and the Salafist idea to eradicate culture, you know, you will have new groups. If ISIS is eradicated, they will be a new group!
And I'm talking about a long-term — no, not long-term; a thorough, — an immediate and thorough solution to dry out terrorism for sure. I have said this many times: If you have the power of the United States, Russia, China, and India, that alone is enough to put these other countries in containment. Because what would Saudi Arabia be without the United States? Nothing.
You know, you can change the rules. If the big powers can be gotten at one table and work together, we can solve it. And it's the only human thing to do. You know, we are about to lose our humanity: If you look at this drug epidemic in the United States, and you look at some people, like this Jens Spahn, deputy finance minister who said, "Oh, we shouldn't be afraid of ugly pictures, when we deport women and children back to the countries they come from." I don't think we will morally survive that. You know, we are about to lose our humanity.
But I'm proposing, what we are proposing with these programs is a way to change a new paradigm, and I'm absolutely optimistic that mankind has the possibility to dramatically change. Look, if you look at the change from the Middle Ages, which was dominated by scholasticism, by Peripatetics, by witchcraft, by all kinds of horror-shows, but then you have the Renaissance: You have Nicholas of Cusa, you had Brunelleschi, you had great minds which created the new paradigm, which created the modern times and which had a completely different set of axioms.
And what I'm saying is, we need a change of axioms as fundamental as the change from the Middle Ages to the modern times, if we want to survive.
Q: Hello, my name is V—B—. I didn't catch the book author's name, but I thought he brought up some very important points. Because as you were speaking, and this is all very interesting and very relevant, you just said something like, for example, the images of refugees being sent back, the children and the mothers, that we're losing our humanity, but we stand to lose a great deal more if we don't stem the tide of this ludicrous refugee crisis, which was precipitated on fictitious premises. Because you have mentioned in the last couple of minutes that there are people who are suggesting that the refugee crisis could get to the point where there are some billion people coming from Iraq, and Afghanistan and northern Africa and Syria into Europe.
And at the same time, you also mentioned that the whole paradigm, the whole philosophical international viewpoint of nuclear war has changed, since the '60s. It used to be that we understood it was a potential mutual destruction; whereas now we're thinking it's a winnable situation. Well, if you have on the one hand, a billion refugees coming in, and changing completely, the population of Europe, who's going to be behind the nuclear buttons in just another 10, 20 years?
So we can worry about losing our humanity, but I think we stand to lose a great deal more if we don't stem the tide, of these refugees. And I therefore think that as important as it is to look forward, you can't look forward without also looking back. We have to go back to where — step backwards and look at what really precipitated the refugee crisis? The gentleman brought up the rise of course, going from the Taliban to the al-Qaeda to ISIS and the United States' role in this, and it's very important to take a look at that, because if we don't examine how it started then — were these color revolutions, for example that are in the leadership deposals in so many countries, which are creating the power vacuums into which these so-called rebels groups begin to run like cockroaches that, as the light is off, and they're in there and they're reproducing! But if we're going to continue to destroy the power structures in countries like Syria, that we're trying so hard to remove the leader, and completely ignoring what happened after we did this in Iraq and in Libya for God's sake! You know, we created a situation where these people are developing strength; you know, we pay for the people, for example, that we think are going to serve our purposes in a given country, and someone comes along, they sell some illegal oil, they have more money and they just run over to the other side.
So we have to look back, we have to stop these ridiculous color revolutions, and leadership deposals, and let the leadership in a given nation stay there! It's none of the United States' call, to decide who should be running Syria. I think we should step back and let Assad keep his country intact. We've already seen what, God knows what happened in Libya.
So it's very important to examine, what are we doing wrong? I mean, you mentioned also the Ukraine and Victoria Nuland, admitting that we spent some $5 billion upwards of regime change money over in the Ukraine! We're seeing that something similar is starting to happen right now in Moldova! When does this stop?!
I don't see how any of this — how can we maintain a concern for humanity and culture, if we're decimating country after country after country. So we definitely have to start a conversation about what we did wrong, so that we can get the United States, the American people, to see that we have to stop doing this, and stop having Ted Cruz and people send around their surveys for Presidential support, saying "Don't you think we should be — do you agree with me that the United States should lead the charge against ISIS?" In other words, what he's trying to say is, don't you think we should send our troops and get them on the ground in Syria?
We need a conversation about this. Because we are one of the main problems, and only a change in our conversation is going to wake up the American people so that we can just let the rest of the world live, and culture continue.
And if I've gone on too long...
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I couldn't agree more with you, and I'm very happy that you seem to be a full, red-blooded American, so... compared to the bluebloods. [laughter]
No, I agree with you. And there was a letter just put out, an open letter to the American people by Richard Falk and a couple of other people, pointing to the war danger, saying that it is an absolute scandal that none of the Presidential candidates has even touched the issue. And I think that that is, that's why I put the danger of nuclear war at the beginning of my remarks, because, not to say that these other crises are not equally existential, but if this happens, it would be the end.
There must be a public discussion, is it the right thing to entertain the idea that nuclear war is winnable? And I have read enough articles by all the experts, commenting on this thing, that I think there is no question that there are people who think you can win a nuclear war; including a limited nuclear war in Europe. Why would you modernize nuclear weapons in Europe? The B61-12 bomb, which is supposed to be so small and so smooth, and bunker buster — and you know, there is no debate about that! And I can only encourage you, we must discuss that. Is it legitimate to plan for nuclear war? Isn't that a Nuremberg Crime? Isn't it an absolute insanity, to maintain nuclear weapons when that implies the possible extinction of civilization?
I fully agree: let's have this debate and have much of it. But the reason why we had previous events where we discussed this; every Friday we have a webcast where these issues are being raised. But the reason why I wanted the idea of a future orientation, is because I think we are now at a moment where only if people see a positive idea of the future, that you can change it, including the Americans. Because why do so many Americans commit suicide? Now, that should shock people! It should shock the hell out of people that Americans are killing themselves more quickly than medicine makes progress in curing diseases! If that is not a symptom of a dying society, I don't know what is.
And how do you get hope? We have to do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did with the CCC program: the same young people who are now despairing in drug addiction and, you know, they must be brought into — and say, we have to build America. We have here now, a first study, how you can rebuild the United States. And that's what FDR would do. FDR would close down Wall Street; he would put in a Pecora Commission and put all these bankers in jail; because the banks are laundering the money of the Mexico drug cartel: HSBC laundered in one year, I think $100 billion in drug money from Mexico alone, and then they got a $1.9 billion fine. They had already calculated that into the operating costs! It's a tiny amount of money.
All the Afghanistan heroin, you know, the various drug czars, like Antonio Maria Costa from the United Nations, or Viktor Ivanov, said the entire financial system would have already collapsed but for the influx of the drug money.
So Wall Street has to be scrutinized and we have to see — you know, the LIBOR manipulation, the drug money laundering — you have a criminal banking system, but nobody went to jail!
So, anyway, we could have many, many of such things, but I welcome what you're saying.
Q: G_R_: First of all, I want to make note that Concepción, who for 30 years sat over in front of the White House on the sidewalk, protesting the idea of nuclear war, she passed away yesterday. So that protest, that continuous 24/7/365 protest for the last 30 years is gone now.
Anyway, I very much appreciated your proposing that we're facing an existential threat to our humanity. That's very profound and very far-reaching and I hope you can get that concept out. The whole idea of our very existence, it's a big part of, of course, of the Zionist-imperialism stuff. Their fear, their sense that their existentially threatened when they're existentially threatening so many others.
But I wanted to address the question of taking the profit out of war. We seem to be, certainly this city is run by the war profiteers, it seems our government is run by the war profiteers, and so I'm wondering what you might have to say with regards to that?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I don't know if it was Defense Secretary Perry or one of the other experts who said, that the announcement by President Obama to spend $1 trillion in the modernization of the nuclear triad in the next 30 years, should be stopped cold, now, because he said, once you start, it becomes a dynamic of its own; because then you will have constituencies, with factories, who lobby their congressmen to go for it and so, I think that that is really very true. And I would really urge all of the participants of this meeting to help to mobilize against that.
Because the military-industrial complex, you know, it is a really a very important force. And Ramsey Clark has spoken on this issue, very, very meaningfully. And I think the only remedy to it, is, we have to awaken the moral conscience of enough Americans to say, there would be a solution! You can convert any factory, from producing tanks, into producing some usable, useful thing: maglev trains, tracks, cabins, locomotives, tubes for these new maglev systems which you can go in the future, in one hour from New York to London. I want to see these kinds of things. And the same with the auto industry: It would be very easy to transform it into other production.
Q: [follow-up] Yeah, Walter Hickel, who was Secretary of Interior and Governor of Alaska, he said "wars are just big projects." So rather than put your money into this big project, put it into this big project.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, and I again can only ask you, please, get ahold of this pamphlet and circulate it as widely as possible ["The United States Joins the New Silk Road: A Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance."]. Because you see, the reason why I think there is hope that it can be done, is because what China is doing — I know that if you only read the Washington Post and the New York Times you will not know what I'm talking about — but China has developed a new model of state, which is based on completely different principles. It's based on Confusianism to a very large extent.
If you read the book by President Xi Jinping about The Governance of China, which is a publication of about 70 of his speeches, and other speeches he gave on his travels which are not in this book, there is no question, that what China is doing is, they're producing a new model of society, no longer "Made in China," but "Created in China." They're right now investing in the rejuvenation of their nation on a daily basis; they're putting maximum emphasis on the education of excellence of their students. They want to leapfrog technologies, to always be the vanguard in all areas. That's why they have the best Moon program of any nation right now.
And in a certain sense, they're not competitive. They're offering that model for a "win-win" cooperation to transform the planet. When President Obama went to Africa, he made a really silly speech: He attacked China, I think without mentioning them by name, but it was pretty clear, attacking other colonial powers who want to have their own interests. And the response of Chinese media was to say that that was an infantile response; because why not join hands and uplift this continent which is right now, really in trouble, together?
There are so many common aims of mankind, so many things, like defending the planet against asteroids; finding out what is really happening with the sunspots. Maybe you want to talk about this a little bit more. Because you know, people should be scared of the real things. They should not be scared of irrational things, they should be scared of, what happens to our small, blue planet, if we don't find out how the universe works better? And I would like to...
WYSMULLER: That's why I ended up with the solar slide. The other thing, yes, put research where it counts. You have a real, potential threat you want to find out about.
The other thing is, take a step back, and decide for instance what NASA should be doing. Right? NASA right now is a shell of its former self. I think it's been hijacked by the climatologists, but that's a different story.
But what NASA could do, is resurge the technological drive that we had when we went to the Moon, and here I'm not talking about going back to the Moon as much as I'm suggesting that we should seriously look at a Martian mission, sending a human being to the inner moon of Mars which is Phobos; and there are some real good reasons to pick that particular moon, because it rotates around Mars three times, so that means we need less braking, to land on it than we would if we would land on a planet. And when we want to come back, we would need less fuel to take off, because we're already getting a boost from the moon on its way around the other side of the planet, heading back to Earth.
That's the adventure part, OK? What are the real benefits? You look at what we did in the Apollo program, and the benefits that we accrued as a result of that, I think somebody at the Department of Commerce estimated that one out of every five jobs in this country alone, is dependent upon and utilizes a technology that we developed in the process of getting to the Moon.
People used to say, "We went to the Moon and we put $20 billion up there." We didn't! We spent that money on Earth. It stayed on Earth! It developed our technology; it developed medical sensing systems, imaging systems, communications systems, all these things that you now define today, as what humans should be using and accomplishing.
You know, I can go in my pocket and pull out an iPhone: You think that would have existed without the space program? And the need for miniaturization and the movement away from vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated circuits. All of that was a byproduct of one of mankind's greatest achievements. And the achievement wasn't getting on the Moon and coming back. It was developing the technology that got us there.
And by the way, if anybody is interested, Buzz Aldrin, who was mentioned before by somebody is also a big fan of going to Mars. A little sticker that I had in my car and it's something that Buzz came up with and it's the NASA meatball, but the NASA meatball was the NASA logo; but in the center is the planet Mars and you could see the two moons on there, and not inelegantly, it says, "Get Your Ass to Mars." If anybody would like to sheet of paper that you can cut that sticker out and stick it in your car, send me an email, please. And it's tom_at_colderside.com Just think of "colder side"; if you can get your rear end to Mars, I'm more than happy to help you do it.
Q: I believe that I'm the person that mentioned Buzz earlier, who I know personally — a fellow West Point graduate.
I'm a little concerned, I think we need to talk a little more about what we can do realistically, and I believe there was a guy named Eisenhower who referred to the military-industrial-congressional complex. I could be wrong on that.
And I think right now, our biggest problem is the congressional portion. And I've decided to run for Congress at my advanced age and I would like to have as much support and get this material that we've been putting out here, I'd like to get that before the committees in Congress, and get some action to do these things. And I has to start there in this country; we can talk about grandiose things left and right, but that's not going to do us any good unless it gets through our Congress.
And I'd like to be, if possible a point man to do that, but first I have to get elected. And I'm more than willing to do it, if I'm elected, and I hope I can have some support from people like this organization and so forth.
WYSMULLER: Well, let me remind you that the TRCS group has made its skillset available to any politician, any party, running for any office, who wants to get a good handle, on what climate is really about. And I am more than happy to send you slides and things like that you can use in your campaign; I think, I hope you've learned a little bit about what climate really is about today; there's a lot more. And, well, Helga can answer the rest of your question.
Q: [follow-up] I certainly have.
And one of the things, I was walking through the halls of Congress, and a guy by the name of Scalise [ph] announced that his biggest problem was reducing carbon emissions. And I'm not sure that that's true any more, after listening to this!
WYSMULLER: Hang on. There's a difference. The carbon emissions, they include carcinogens, particulates, toxins and other things that may have a carbon link to them. The specifics I was talking about was CO2, carbon dioxide. That's what you're exhaling right now; it's what makes plants grow. It has been conflated with carbon pollution, and that's the fraudulent part of it. They are basically mixing some real poisons that we ought to be concerned about, with things that make us healthy.
And it's the lack of science understanding that I think is a big problem in this country. It's what we overcame when Sputnik challenged the technical skills of our country. It challenged the high schools, and the universities to focus on science, engineering, mathematics. And our lunar landing was the culmination of that.
I think a Martian moon-landing at first, would be a beautiful way to reignite that kind of research, that kind of energy, make jobs that are meaningful for people, because there's a goal at the end. And the goal, like I say, is not just getting to Mars, but the development of the technology that would get you there.
So if you want that climate help, I will be more than pleased to talk to you. And I can find 30 other guys who'll do the same thing; and women, too, by the way. We have some very highly capable women engineers and scientists in the TRCS group.
Q: I must say that this latest discussion brought to my mind a very important point, and a thing that's been troubling me for decades, now. My first job when I went to work after graduating from City College in New York, was to work at the NACA, which became NASA in 1958. And I was working on the development of nuclear rocket propulsion, a joint office of NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission; I headed that office.
And we developed the nuclear rocket so that in 1969, I said, "Well! We're ready to start planning for missions to Mars!" Now, I go to various meetings in NASA and AEC and all of them, and I keep saying, "are we ever going to think about humans to Mars?" because that's the position I had taken at that time; we're ready to start planning for that.
WYSMULLER: I salute you for that.
Q: [follow-up] And in 1972, they killed the nuclear rocket program development! I don't understand that at all. They're not really working on it. They're using nuclear propulsion in various small ways, the isotopes and various things like that. But they've killed the whole reactor development which we had proven out in Jackass Flats in Nevada. It was already there!
WYSMULLER: Keep in mind in 1972, they took the whole program out. They decided not to fly Apollo 18 which was ready to go; they had astronauts selected and everything. They sliced the NASA budget in half. We had 34,000 people in '71; we ended up with 14,000 three years later. And I was one of the victims, by the way, or casualties; whatever you want to call it, because that's when I left the agency. I didn't have sufficient seniority. It was the old NACA guys who were keeping me from staying at NASA. [laughter] That's OK, that's OK.
I ended up at Pratt & Whitney and had an interesting career after that.
But you're absolutely right: '72 was the key year. You hit the nail on the head.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think people have to really realize that China just concluded a sale of a commercial high-temperature reactor without having one operating; they only have a research reactor which I happen to have seen when they did the excavation in '96 at the outskirts of Beijing, and now it's functioning, and they're selling it as an export item.
So China is going ahead, and if America doesn't want to fall back into the stone age, you know, I think we have to turn this situation around.
So we will hopefully get all of you onboard to create a Renaissance movement, because that's what we need. I think we need a Renaissance movement in the United States. And I think people, it's almost like the famous elephant and the blind men; everybody has in their field, they see how this was dismantled, how that was destroyed.
But you have to look at the elephant, and the elephant is the British Empire. You know, the same reason why they commit this swindle on the climate change, you know, we wrote that in this report, that this is genocide! Because if you make a decarbonization of the world economy, which is what this guy Schellnhuber is advertising, the population carrying capacity of the Earth is a billion people or less.
If you take all carbon fossil fuels — and they are also anti-nuclear, naturally — if you only go to alternative energies, you kill people! What is the refugee crisis, what is the failed wars, other than killing people? What is the drug epidemic? Why are people so stupid? It is really true! If you look at the entertainment industry, it is not to entertain people, it's designed to make people stupid!
WYSMULLER: Yeah, look at some of the video games they're selling kids, and they'll see them shooting, shooting, shooting, killing, killing, killing, killing. That's not the way a functioning society can function, can work.
MALE: [from the floor] That isn't something real!
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: So that's why I'm really appealing to all of you: Join our choruses. You may think you are too old for this, or too young, I don't know, it depends in each case: But you know, we are creating a Renaissance movement in Manhattan; we are doing the same thing now, in Berlin, in Paris, in other places where we can build Classical choruses.
BILLINGTON: Let me say a word. On that, our organization in New York and what we call the Manhattan Project, which is largely focussed on creating a cultural revolution and doing it through great Classical music, conducted a free concert in two leading churches — one in Brooklyn and one in Manhattan in late December — for which we have a DVD sitting out on the table there. I think they're $10 or something
I encourage you to watch this. It's not just a "good performance" of the Messiah. It's something which, — by the way, at Classical, Verdi tuning; not the high pitch that they've driven up since the time of Goebbels. But this concert represented a reaching out into the population, pulling that population in through music, to find in themselves that power of creativity which is driven out of them, day after day after day by the ugliness of this culture.
And in doing so, believe me, we see it's working: This is creating a movement which is not just for New York, it's not just for America. It's global, it has the impact, not just amongst the people there, but all of those who are able to be part of it through watching it, through being part of our movement, to recognize what a real future would be if we create it, through the creativity in our minds, and not simply follow along in a pragmatic way of what seems possible.
So on your way out, add that to the list of things I encouraged you to pick up.
Q: Lawrence Freeman. I have a question for each of the speakers. One is, when Helga spoke she talked about the propaganda against China and China's economy. One of the parts of that propaganda now is because of quote, "China's collapse," this is now effecting a collapse in the economies throughout Africa. And so there have been dozens of articles in the last several weeks, including one in the New York Times today, blaming the quote "collapse of the rising economies of Africa" on China. So I thought that maybe you could analyze and provide a different alternative to that particular narrative.
In terms of Mr. Wysmuller, one thing I want to ask you in your discussions on climate change, is — I talk to a lot of people in the UN, in Washington and in Africa, who are reasonably, sometimes, intelligent people. But on climate change, they become completely irrational and they have accepted every aspect of the propaganda. And otherwise, they can at least be encouraged to think on other issues, but on this, they've become so completely brainwashed and dogmatic, — you must have run into this. And I was wondering if you might want to say something about how to deal with it?
WYSMULLER: I run into it all the time. This arose from a conscious effort, to seek revenue from companies that produce energy. How do you get the public to buy in to that? What you do is you propagandize the average person, including school children. And if you notice the syllabus that your children are reading from or learning from has been orchestrated and controlled, to including all this quote "climate education"! If you can get the public to come to you and say, "we need a tax to prevent this," it could be sea-level rise, it could be a lot of other things, the request to ask for a tax is wonderfully accepted by politicians as "Yes, we would give it to you!"
And all these countries have signed on, because they are all revenue hungry — every one of them. They're looking for additional revenue, that the public does not mind giving them. So if they're willing to accept a gasoline tax that's a nickel higher or a dime higher, hey, that's all fine! I think that is one of the fringe benefits of lots of countries getting behind it.
The rest is, I think, more insidious. It is actually changing a culture in people that is not science-oriented. They're talking about putting windmills that produce one one-hundredth of the energy that you need at a utility scale, to power the world. Our President goes to Africa and makes a speech; now, I'm paraphrasing it. I can't quite get it right, but he said something like, to a group of African students, "you guys don't need cars and air conditioners. Until we figure out a different way how to power them, then maybe you'll get them." The hubris involved in that statement is astounding! The fact is, those African kids do deserve to get need cars and air conditioners; and for us to withhold them is ludicrous!
You know, there are people in Africa, who are running around, or sending their kids out in the local forest, gathering up firewood so they can boil water so their kids won't get river blindness. And that's how they're living! To deny them power, when we could electrify Africa, at a fraction of the cost that we are spending and wasting on climate research — that's the paradigm that has to change!
And it's not just Africa, it's South America, Indonesia — lots of places. Why? Because we can get kids and school them! And they can learn cures for cancer and other things that we will never know, because they have never been given the chance to develop that intelligence.
We need the intellect of humanity, available to solve the problems of humanity. And by keeping two-thirds of world on a subsistence economy, you will never achieve that goal!
Sorry for the long answer, but I hope I addressed your question.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Briefly on this propaganda against China, it really absurd. Because the United States manipulates statistics in such a way that it is unbelievable. They have all categories of production go down, but then they have "confidence index" which goes way up, and then they put this out as the forecast. You know, there are fortunately some European economists who have seen through this fraud, and there are many newsletters now, where people say: Forget it, if you look at all the investments in Africa, in Asia, that China is involved, in the second half of 2016 you will see that these things will transform every place this is happening. Because it's based on sound economics. It's based on high-technology, on increase of productivity of the labor force, on education. So don't believe it, and I think it's just total propaganda.
I mean, the New York Times, the Washington Post, — the Washington Post is lying! They had just three articles on why Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the crash of 2008, just by repeating and reprinting the same document which they did on two Sundays, doesn't make it any more true. This is spin! This is spin-doctor medicine, trying to nudge the people into believing different axioms.
You know, go to the website of LaRouche PAC and look at the presentation by Jeff Steinberg on the British Empire drug policies of going back to Aldous Huxley and various other people, and then compare what is happening to the United States today. (LaRouche PAC Friday webcast, Jan. 22)
This is a long plan to lower the cognitive potential of the population, which is what empires do. You know, the Roman Empire invented the circus, the gladiators, they included the population in bestial decisions about whether he should die or should live, and in that way you make people bad, you turn them into evil people, because you can control them more easily.
And the entire media, I don't know, maybe there are 20% journalists, all the rest is PR. They're only having a certain belief structure they want to convey, and then they run campaigns like a PR firm using every piece of information to spin it in a certain sense, until they have nudged, like Cass Sunstein describes it in his horrible book; that you have a group of people sitting on one side of the room, and then, by the end of the meeting, they're all sitting on the other side of the room, because you have nudged their beliefs to group-think now believe they should sit on the other side of the room. This is manipulation.
And the biggest task we have to accomplish is to get people self-thinking again, that they should have an allergy against group-think. Group-think makes people stupid. You know, you have clubs and people believe only the belief structure of their club, and if you don't go along with the leading axioms of that club you get kicked out, so therefore you adjust your belief structure to what this group of people is thinking. And that's what the neighbors are saying, or your colleagues, or your peers. And the number of self-thinking people, of truth seeking people, of people who are trying to develop their own mind in such a way that they may not know everything, but they know how to find out and how to think — and I don't mean Google.
People should start reading books, again, do research. If you want to investigate any subject, you have to read books, lots of them!
WYSMULLER: Let me add a little bit to that: I'll give you one example, and that's a club that I'm fairly familiar with, that's the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club used to be composed of people who really were true environmentalists: they did not want the environment hurt by poisons, carcinogens, or water pollution or things like that! They have been methodically, I use the word hijacked, to now be anti-energy, anti-development, anti-carbon dioxide obviously, but this is a total change from what the group really originally was. Protecting forests and keeping them pollution free, are very laudable aims. But again, they've been hijacked into a totally different direction. I don't recognize the Sierra Club any more when I read their publications. I'm trying to convince them to go back to what they ought to be doing.
But you see that in different organizations all over the country; this process of hijacking. Making sure that, if you're involved in a group, that you make sure it doesn't happen in yours, that you keep your mind intact, and your purposes clear.
Q: [Jeff Steinberg] Yeah, I had a comment and then a question to both speakers. Helga, right at the start of your presentation, you mentioned Perry and the idea about the danger of an accidental launch. I just finished reading his memoir, and it's interesting because what he describes as "accidental" or "unintentional," has now become completely intentional. (My Journey at the Nuclear Brink, by William J. Perry; see Steinberg's review in EIR, Jan. 29, 2016)
Because what he basically says, is that we must abandon this doctrine of launch on warning, because given the provocations against Russia, given all of the crises, the danger is that if there is a perception even of a launch by one side, then the amount of time in which a decision has to be made about whether to launch a war of total Armageddon is now reduced down to a matter of seconds. And what I'm afraid of, is quite frankly, that these are not even human decisions any more, but that these are computer programmed decisions where, in effect, the outcome is completely predetermined.
So I think when people talk about worrying about accidental launch, particularly in the case of Perry, I was quite happy to get a more fully explanation which he goes through in this recent book. Because it's really not accidental in the sense of somebody slipping and their elbow knocks on the nuclear button, or something like that; it's now, an opportunity to abandon the danger. And there have been calls by Perry, by Matlock, by General Cartwright, to bring an immediate end to launch on warning, and to the extent that's not being done, that's now willful. So I think the danger is even greater, that there's an opportunity to at least deescalate the danger, and the decision not to do it, is a conscious decision on the part of the White House, the President.
My question stems from that little quick back-and-forth between the gentleman there from NATA [ph] and you, because I hadn't realized there had been this total decimation of NASA in 1972. And Helga talks about a paradigm shift being urgently needed today; what's clear from the scope of this discussion, is that there was a paradigm shift that was consciously enforced in that early period. Because NASA was taken down, the Club of Rome issued the Limits to Growth; there was the Bucharest UN conference on population reduction; in other words, there was a sort of a conscious, top-down onslaught, to change the policy thinking and the policy paradigm. And one of the things I was struck by, is that, had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated, it's almost a certainty he would have been elected President. And I highly doubt that he would have shut down the Apollo program and halved NASA, considering it was the hallmark of his brother's Presidency.
So I'd like comments on this paradigm shift issue, because I think we're living through, now, the dying moments of a bad paradigm, that one way or the other is coming to an end. And it's both a great opportunity, but the danger is greater than ever, and I think that's the larger context in which all of these establishment figures tied to the nuclear program have all come out and said, the danger of nuclear Armageddon is greater now than it was at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
WYSMULLER: I can start if you like. Let me address the NASA shift, the extent to which is stunning, if you think about it. These days, when we had a shuttle program, that's been terminated, too, and people like to blame Bush and the current administration, but I can blame the current administration, too; both Bush and Obama. Obama in his first two years, controlled both sides of Congress; they easily could have gotten NASA back on a funding track, but the answer was no, they were going to continue that taking down of the agency.
Now, what do we do? We pay the Russians $100 million each, per astronaut that we send to the International Space Station. Now, this is $100 million of your tax dollars, and they're going to supply and fund jobs in Russia. On a typical shuttle launch, for about $200 million — and a little more if you count salaries and stuff — take seven or eight people up there, plus cargo. It's an astounding shift!
And now, I've heard people defend this, in that, well, this is the only way we could have gotten the Russian space program to survive, because they needed that money. That may have been true, but you know, cooperation is the way to go here and we shouldn't be sending those American jobs that used to be here, in shuttle support and others, they're gone! These people aren't working in NASA any more. They left like I did; they work other places, if they have jobs, or they're still counted in the employed.
But what happened to NASA is real. I don't know,—this administration is not going to be able to solve it. Will a subsequent administration change things around? I don't know. I don't have a lot of confidence in it, because there's lots of other things going on in the economy, and I think Helga's probably better off to address those. But NASA is a shell of its former self.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this paradigm shift, — if you think back, Roosevelt wanted to end colonialism by the end of World War II. De Gaulle wanted to have the French people involved in a mission to develop the so-called "Third World"; Kennedy, obviously. So you had a certain direction which I would put under the category of "good government," where the aim was to improve the livelihood, the living standard of the people, to have a moral improvement: You know, the old idea that you are working so that future generations have a better life than you. That was always the yardstick of morality.
And then, in this period, you had, in the '60s, you had the UN Development Decades, the idea that eventually you would overcome underdevelopment of the Third World; you had Paul VI with his Encyclical Populorum Progressio, which was the idea that you would overcome poverty, that you would eliminate poverty! Because poverty is the biggest human rights violation there is. Because if people die of hunger, you know, Jean Ziegler has written very important things about that, that people who die of hunger, it's the most horrible death you can have. Because all your bodily functions eventually stop, and it's painful, and so forth.
So, there was a clear commitment to overcome underdevelopment in the Third World. And I remember very well, somewhere in the '60s, there was a conscious decision by the international British-dominated oligarchy, to eradicate that. And we saw it: It was the Club of Rome, which put out the lies about the Limits to Growth. And Meadows and Forrester later admitted that they programmed the outcome of their computer such that it would prove that there are limits to growth. And they admitted that they left out the most important aspect, namely that what is a resource is defined by the technology with which you deal with this.
So it was a fraud. That's how the green movement was created. And I remember, they transformed the '68 movement, and made it a green movement. So they used this social engineering. And it was the genius of my sweet husband, that he recognized in the '60s, that the rock-drug counterculture would destroy the cognitive potential of society. And he was the only one who said that at that time. Everybody else said, "Oh these hippies, they're so sweet, flower power, isn't that nice...?" But he said, "no, it is that culture which will completely destroy the cognitive potential of society."
And that's how this movement was founded, as a conscious counter, based on Classical music, based on science, on natural science and beautiful conceptions in literature, in that which celebrates the creativity.
This other culture makes people stupid! Rock music makes people stupid. Drugs — sex, I don't know... [laughter]
WYSMULLER: Well, sex makes people.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, it has a useful function, but mixed with these other things it is — definitely.
So, I think that the paradigm induced was very conscious. And we have published an enormous amount of materials about that, including the invention of the population bomb. People used to think that population is an asset: That the more people you have, the more creativity, the more people can develop expertise. If you want to have a modern, industrial society you need to have a lot of people, because you need a lot of different branches of knowledge being pursued in depth, and if you have only Luxembourg, you will never become a... [laughter]; you look at Juncker, you see what comes out of it!
But I think the idea of people being a parasite, that idea was induced! That the less people, the better, because they are all polluting the planet, this is a bestial conception! And a whole green movement, we watched how it came into being: It was the Club of Rome, Limits to Growth. Die Zeit had a series of articles discussing the so-called "scarcity of resources. " And I was at this Bucharest population conference in '74, and at that time, people were not yet green! All the left groups were left, they were Marxists, they were something, but they were not green. The Communists used to be for technology — can you imagine that? It's no longer the case!
No, I think that the real paradigm shift was the combination of the green — and Lyn has always said what is green is already decaying, and people should remember that.
WYSMULLER: But that's the hijacking I talked about, you know? You take an organization that is basically interested in making sure a forest doesn't die, and you hijack by during them green, which means anti-energy, anti-development, anti-lots of other things. And that's happen to a number of — that's happened to politicians, they've been hijacked. I think the world has to — we need to be sensitive to that.
So, do your best to keep your mind functioning, and make sure you do that for your children too.
BILLINGTON: It's 4.30. We do have the room longer, so let me call an end to the formal session, but we can stay around, if you want to talk more; we'll be here and we can have some more discussion, and you'll have time to stop at the table before we have to close down at 5.00
So, let me just, on behalf of everybody thank Tom Wysmuller and Helga Zepp-LaRouche for an amazingly inspiring afternoon. [applause][a:class=links_good_rands;href="https:\/\/www.sportaccord.sport\/afewshop\/p-category\/air-max-270-men\/"]Air Max 270 Men[/a][script][/script]