The Russian Federation continues to insist that the United States and NATO commit to satisfying Russia’s need for assurances that its national security requirements will be respected. But the responses this week — delivered officially by the U.S. and NATO — fall far short of the mark. While offering room for negotiation on secondary matters, the U.S. and NATO have given no positive response on Russia’s core security demands.Russia, which is moving forward with military exercises in Belarus and the Arctic, and organizing training drills using its nuclear forces, has repeatedly made clear that failure to respond will force the use of “military or military-technical measures.” Will those measures include the forward deployment of hypersonic nuclear missiles? Placing short-range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad? The U.S. maintains some 200 nuclear gravity bombs in Europe, through joint nuclear missions. If Russia moves to bring similar pressure to bear on the United States, how small will become the window of decision for responding to a real (or perceived) nuclear attack? You and I can’t count on U.S. politicians, British imperialists, or NATO commanders to get this right — to avoid a situation which, whether through calculation or accident, could rapidly escalate to an unsurvivable nuclear exchange that would kill hundreds of millions of human beings within an hour and devastate civilization globally, perhaps permanently. Neither can the NATO/Anglo-American maniacs attempting to force Russia and China into submission count on the acquiescence of their supposed partners and instruments. Secretary Blinken claims that NATO is unified, that there “is no light between” the views of the U.S. and other NATO countries. But he is wrong. Those intent on crushing Russia fret that a single NATO country could destroy the consensus on which its decisions must be made. Will Croatia stand firm? Will Bulgaria? Will Hungary dutifully play its suicidal role? Will Germany, after its 1941-1945 attack on the Soviet Union, truly set up another war against Russia? Will diplomats, politicians, generals, and thinkers break ranks? This is the unanswered question of the moment. As Russian diplomats are kicked out of Washington, D.C., as American diplomats reportedly plan to leave Beijing, as the media drumbeat for war intensifies and as supporters of peace are cast as traitors — as weapons fly into Ukraine, as new sanctions are mulled — as calls for censorship grow — will you stand up for the dignity of the human species, and for your own life as well? Will you overthrow the hideous Malthusian dogma that says we are too numerous, and the false culture that says we are animals? Will we be here to marvel at the shocking observations the James Webb Space Telescope will soon be transmitting back to Earth? A crisis of this magnitude — an absolute branching point in history — demands great things of us. The LaRouche movement, headed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has warned of the magnitude of the crisis, to which increasing numbers are awakening, and has committed itself to catalyzing the needed new paradigm on this planet. In his poem The Artists, Friedrich Schiller — the namesake of the Schiller Institute — expressed the awesome responsibility that forces itself upon each of us today. “The dignity of man into your hands is given, “Protector be! “It sinks with you! With you it is arisen!” Can the future count on you?
Since the COP26 flop, along with the inevitable economic breakdown from the casino-monetarist system, and the green madness to-date, the geopolitical confrontationist hysteria against China and Russia from the U.S./UK/NATO alignment has reached the stage of war provocation. This is exactly the dynamic that the Schiller Institute has warned of, and its process of international dialogue sought to prevent. More voices are now sounding the alarm. The urgent task is to create a mighty chorus.Peter van Buren, an American with a long career in foreign service, has issued a warning posted today, in an article titled, “What Will Be the Casus Belli for War with China?” He makes the point that China “appears to be the next war now searching for a reason.” When it comes to making war, in recent decades, the U.S. “created a false pretext for doing so,” in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and so on. In contrast, in the case of Pearl Harbor, the aggression against the U.S. was real. But in these other cases, the casus belli was made up, like WMD in Iraq. The same thing is going on regarding China, and the danger is extreme. Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. political leader based in Hawaii, ripped into the rabid war-talk of Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) this week. Wicker, the second-highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on Fox TV, Dec. 7, that U.S. military options against Russia must include that “we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea, and we rain down destruction” on Russia. “I would not rule out American troops on the ground. We don’t rule out first use nuclear action.” Gabbard responded on Fox TV last evening, "Anyone who would propose or even consider what he is saying as an option must be insane, a sociopath or a sadist. Let’s go and launch a nuclear attack that would start a war that would destroy the American people, our country and the world and, oh, also, the Ukrainians so that we can save Ukraine’s democracy? I mean, it literally is insane. “And the crazy thing is, Senator Wicker is not an outlier. He is the number two Republican on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, and you are hearing the same kind of rhetoric coming from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the administration and in the media—no problem with this because they actually agree with this. They are pushing this same narrative themselves, which is why this is such a dangerous, dangerous situation…. We are being pushed closer and closer to a hot war, a nuclear war.” By whom? By “the same neocons and neo libs in Washington who dragged our country into regime change wars in places like Iraq and Libya and Syria.”There are consequences to leaders in our country, influential people in our country to throwing things out like, [that] a first use nuclear attack is on the table. This directly undermines our national security, and it directly puts the American people and our country and the world at risk." Against these voices of reason, comes the U.S-convened Summit of Democracy, which opened today, online from Washington, D.C., and stands out for its lies and confrontation. China and Russia were not invited. Pakistan declined, given their exclusion. Many poor nations were among the roster of 80 countries, participating with short messages out of fear of retribution. President Biden and Sec. of State Blinken announced that a new organization to combat corruption and misinformation that, they assert, threatens democracy, is being formed, called the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium, which has funding from the United Kingdom, Taiwan, the Open Society Foundation (George Soros,) Denmark, and the United States. The State Department’s Agency for International Development (USAID) will start up a Partnership for Democracy program, under the direction of its administrator, Samantha Power, who has been in the forefront of U.S. initiatives at this Summit and at COP26. The USAID was founded 60 years ago, under President John F. Kennedy, for the purpose of providing aid where needed, and doing good. It has been itself subverted years ago to serve British geopolitical purposes, as shown in the extreme by its latest mandate to enforce “democracy.” Now is the time to mobilize for true emergency aid, rebuilding war torn nations, starting with Afghanistan, and building the world economy. Kennedy’s mandate for the USAID was seen in action early today, when China’s air shipment arrived at Kabul International Airport, with 800,000 doses of vaccine against COVID-19, and other supplies. More will be coming soon. Tulsi Gabbard, who is an Army Reserve officer, currently serving at Ft. Bragg, displayed the needed spirit when she spoke out Dec. 7 on Pearl Harbor Day (before Wicker’s insanity), wearing her Army fatigues, delivering a call to action (on Twitter): “It’s time for anyone who cares about their loved ones, other Americans, and all human beings and wildlife, to wake up to this very grim reality of what lies ahead … if we allow the mainstream media, military industrial complex, and self-serving politicians to lead us into the apocalypse of World War 3.”
Globally, does democracy—rule by the people—include all people, or only the manipulated opinions of those who reside in nations possessing enormous military, logistical, and informational power? If the world took a vote, would it endorse current U.S. policy?Following the video summit between Presidents Biden and Putin—which comes just days after a flurry of breathless claims that Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine, the United States on Dec. 9 will open its “democracy” summit, in which that word will be twisted to mean whatever the purveyors of color revolutions wish it to mean. Hysterical and numerically impossible claims about Russia mounting an army to invade Ukraine sound like the intended outcome of a scheme under which Ukraine, with U.S. and other military or at least (im)moral support, launches an attack to retake the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Were these regions to request (and receive) Russian support, the entire operation would be reported as though it were an unprovoked Russian attack on Ukraine’s sovereignty. This would parallel the situation in Crimea, in which a complex situation created following a coup backed by the U.S. and U.K. was presented as a simple matter of a Russian invasion of that peninsula. How should Russia respond to such an action by Ukraine? And how should you act today to prevent such a situation from unfolding? The ongoing assault on China comprises several flanks: hypocritical claims of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, promotion of a drive for Taiwan independence, and attacks on the upcoming Olympics beginning in February 2022. These destructive strategies of conflict are coming from the supposedly “democratic” leaders of the trans-Atlantic world, who have left a disaster in Afghanistan and cruelly deny the humanitarian and development assistance that nation so desperately needs. An op-ed in Al Jazeera, written by an international group of supporters of Afghanistan, sums it up: “The Afghan people should not be denied vital healthcare and be abandoned without food because the international community sees economic starvation as the only available tool to influence the Taliban regime. The international community is effectively punishing Afghan civilians for the actions of a regime brought upon them by force.” The op-ed concludes, “The international community that 20 years ago promised to support Afghans in their pursuit of peace, prosperity and human rights has a moral obligation to stop its freefall towards starvation and death. And the time to act is now.” Is “democracy” practiced by murdering the people of Afghanistan? Are the “democratic rights” of the people of Russia supported by pursuing a reckless policy that threatens military engagement? Are the aspirations for “freedom” of the Chinese people advanced by stirring up trouble for them and their country, to prevent its growth? The paradigm that drives this cruelty and fosters the cultivated indifference that tolerates it must be replaced. But how? The economic success of China’s development and its willingness to bring its infrastructural know-how, hard capabilities and financing to projects around the world through its Belt and Road Initiative is a promising reference. The ongoing Covid situation presents an opportunity to address the pitiful state of health infrastructure in much of the world, including significant portions of what are considered to be “developed” countries. Can an initiative to partner with long-suffering Afghanistan to develop a modern health infrastructure in that nation force a rethinking of national goals and serve as a catalyst to bring into being a new paradigm of statecraft? Will the conflict between what is promised under a Green New Deal, and the physical economic despair that that policy’s implementation would necessitate, be used to provoke a deeper understanding of power density and infrastructure platforms? The answers to these questions lie in our hands. Lyndon LaRouche and his movement have, over decades, developed, fought for, and succeeded in realizing policies capable of reversing economic collapse and inflation, cultural decay and division, geopolitics, and scientific stagnation. Will you ensure that those efforts succeed?
Diane Sare, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate from New York, issued a campaign statement pointing to the hypocrisy of the United States holding a "Summit for Democracy" while her state is depriving its residents of the opportunity to vote for a candidate of their choosing, through nearly impossible ballot access requirements for candidates independent of the two-party system. The LaRouche Organization agrees with Sare's criticism, which opens with a quote from Matthew: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:5)Sare writes that on December 9-10, 2021, "U.S. President Joe Biden will host a virtual 'Summit for Democracy' with the noble-sounding goal of 'providing a platform for leaders to announce both individual and collective commitments, reforms, and initiatives to defend democracy and human rights at home and abroad.'" "As an American candidate for the United States Senate from the State of New York, and as a long-time associate of the politically-persecuted American statesman and economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.," she continues, "I am writing to urge the participants, and the uninvited nations, to look behind the flowery phrases on the State Department’s webpage at the actual state of affairs within the United States, and to consider that this 'platform' may be more like the platform beneath the feet of unfortunate souls waiting to be hanged." Sare's campaigning over the past year and a half has included "over 50 weekly symposia on various urgent topics, including homelessness, food shortages and famine, Afghanistan, education, election reform, nuclear power, water management, and more, with panel participants from among leading national and state experts including medical doctors, scientists, prisoner rights advocates, farmers, housing association leaders, teachers and others." "If I am denied ballot access," she stresses, "the voting public will have no opportunity to express their opinion on these important policies." At the time of her writing, Sare tells us that "of the several candidates supposedly challenging Schumer, I am the only candidate who has filed any report with the Federal Elections Commission. Thus, as of this time, if I am excluded from the ballot, there will be no opposition in this very important U.S. Senate election." She concludes: "Perhaps some courageous individual will ask their American hosts at the upcoming 'Summit for Democracy' about the question of ballot access in American elections, as well as the case of Julian Assange, and the case of former presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. If the summit hosts were sincere, these clearly un-democratic matters would be at the top of the agenda as issues to be happily rectified." The full statement is available on Sare's campaign webpage.
On September 11, the FBI released a declassified (but redacted) report from April 2016, which provides additional conclusive information of the involvement of agents of the Saudi Arabian government supporting the 9/11 hijackers. And this is only the first of a series of declassifications set to occur over the coming six months under Biden's Sept. 3 executive order. The full story of Saudi Arabian involvement in 9/11 will become increasingly clear, but this involvement itself poses larger questions.First, who within the United States acted to cover up Saudi involvement on 9/11? This question is intimately tied with such unresolved anomalies as the lack of air defense response after it became clear at the World Trade Center that an attack was underway, as well as abnormalities about the effects of that attack itself. Second, who promoted and financed the operation, and to what end? Asking "cui bono?" points us not to Riyadh, but to London. September 11, 2001, set into motion what has been two decades of emergency rule, in which long-term planning has been replaced by responses to supposedly urgent threats, in which intelligence agencies and financial institutions have taken increasing power in the trans-Atlantic world. This two-decade change in the governance of the planet, or at least its trans-Atlantic sector, was forecast by Lyndon LaRouche, before the September 11 attacks. Responding to a question from the Congressional Black Caucus, regarding Bush's nomination of "inveterate Confederate" John Ashcroft as his Attorney General, during an EIR January 3, 2001 webcast, Lyndon LaRouche warned of the danger of U.S. government itself being replaced by crisis management, and of the threat that a Reichstag Fire event would be used to usher in dictatorial powers under the incoming Bush Administration, all driven by a collapse of the financial system. LaRouche: "We're going into a period in which either we do the kinds of things I indicated in summary to you today, or else, what you're going to have, is not a government. You're going to have something like a Nazi regime. Maybe not initially, at the surface. What you're going to have is a government which cannot pass legislation, meaningful legislation. How does a government which can not pass meaningful legislation, under conditions of crisis, govern? They govern, in every case in known history, by what's known as crisis management. "In other words, just like the Reichstags fire in Germany. "How did that happen? "Well, a Dutchman, who was a known lunatic, used to set fires, as a provocateur. And he went around Germany setting fires. And one night, with no security available for the Reichstag [the Third Reich Parliament], he went into the Reichstag building, and set the joint on fire. And Hitler came out and said, 'Well, let's hope the Communists did it.' And Göring moved, and the Schmitt apparatus, that is, of Carl Schmitt, the jurist. And they passed the Notverordnung. And on the basis of a provocation—that is, crisis management—they rammed through the Notverordnung [emergency decree], which established Hitler as dictator of Germany. "What you're going to get, with a frustrated Bush administration, if it's determined to prevent itself from being opposed--its will--you're going to get crisis management. Where members of the special warfare types, of the secret government, the secret police teams, will set off provocations, which will be used to bring about dictatorial powers and emotion, in the name of crisis management. "You will have small wars set off in various parts of the world, which the Bush Administration will respond to, with crisis management methods of provocation. That's what you'll get. And that's what the problem is. And you have to face that. You've got to control this process now, while you still have the power to do so." Several years following the attacks, an enormous scandal around a 22-year deal starting in 1985 known as "Al Yamamah" between British weapons manufacturer BAE and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia erupted. This involved enormous quantities of off-the-books cash, bribes, and weapons. On June 21, 2007, LaRouche, speaking at a webcast entitled "BAE: The World's Biggest Loose End," returned to his earlier warning: "The world has been living under a system, which is the 9/11 system, which already existed, as I warned at the beginning of 2001, before President George W. Bush was inaugurated for the first time in January of 2001. Where I said The world system has reached the point, that an onrushing collapse of the system is now in process. We can not determine exactly when or how this will occur, but we know the following two things "Number 1, we know that this President and this Presidency can not deal with this crisis. Therefore, we must expect that the entire world will be subjected to the kind of thing we experienced in February of 1933, when Hermann Göring, the man behind the throne, the sort of Dick Cheney of the Hitler Administration, orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag as a terrorist event. And this terrorist event was used on that night, or the following day, to install Hitler with dictatorial powers, which Hitler never lost, until the day he died! "And I said then, the danger is that something like this will occur, under present trends in the United States, and it did occur. And it was called 9/11." "Now, without going into the details of what we know and what we don't know about how 9/11 was orchestrated, we know that the only means by which this kind of thing is orchestrated, is found in one location in a financial complex which is centered in the identity of the BAE. Now, that's the mystery of 9/11. How it was done, the mechanics—that's irrelevant. We'll find out. And everybody in and around government, who understands these matters, knows that! And that's where the heat is here. "We've come to the point that an entire system is collapsing. That system, at this point, because of the complicity of the present U.S. government, and the complicity of the leadership of the Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party, because of this, we are living under a one-world system, called generically 'globalization.' It's a preparation for the new Tower of Babel, under which there are no nations, and in which languages begin to become babble. Under this system, what controls it? It's called 'globalization'; it's called the 'global warming crisis'; it's called these various kinds of things, referring to these things. It's a one-world system! It is not consolidated, but every obstacle to this one-world system is crumbling." Now, 20 years later, the misguided NATO/American adventure in Afghanistan has ended in disgrace, and additional truth about the event that ushered in a global shift in governance is coming to light. Will the past two decades of geopolitics and hegemony be repudiated and reversed? Will the American people, and the world, come to know what happened on 9/11? A "big lie" created 20 years of such offenses against human rights as the Patriot Act, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, the Libyan disaster, the Yemen War, military intervention in Syria, and, if not stopped, war with Russia and China. If that lie is not countered, and the theft, by ongoing crisis management, of the very concept of "future" is not reversed, the human race could be decimated by the dark age conditions envisioned by proponents of geopolitical war, "green" supranational governance, and financial "regime change." Lyndon LaRouche was right when he forecast this train of development over 20 years ago. Will the world take his advice today?
The American and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the entire 20-year military occupation there, are widely recognized as the worst disaster in NATO’s history. But have the lessons from his failure been learned?Shortly following the suicide bombing that killed a dozen U.S. troops and over 100 Afghans at the Kabul airport, President Biden announced to those responsible: “We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay.” While making such a statement (and using drones for revenge) was obviously far superior to extending the date of U.S. withdrawal, that such a statement would be considered politically necessary or expedient points to a deep and widespread sickness in the trans-Atlantic establishment. This sickness is seen in far more advanced form in Britain, whose institutions are frantically trying to assure themselves of their ability to continue to project force anywhere in the world, and to continue their endless war policies, with or without the United States. The sickness comes in a denial of the nature of the human species, a denial that looks towards a future of maintaining past dominance, rather than one that looks towards an era of new development, of growth, and of changing dynamics. Aeschylus captured this tension in his Oresteia trilogy, in which a series of revenge killings, including a demand for revenge in the form of the Furies—the Erinyes—is transformed, through the mediation of the goddess of wisdom Athena herself, to a concern for the future. The furious Erinyes become the Eumenides (the Gracious Ones), and serve as a constructive force for the future of Athens. The “forever war” policy that has come to characterize the trans-Atlantic approach since the murder of U.S. President Kennedy, against which Trump inveighed in his campaigns, and against which Biden took what could be a significant step with his Afghanistan withdrawal, must be replaced with a policy of peace through development. In the Eastern Economic Forum, held in Vladivostok, Russia, aspects of this principle were raised by Presidents Putin and Xi, who insisted that development is the path forward, and that “democracy” could not be instilled at gunpoint. Will Biden’s executive order on declassifying 9/11 reveal truths that will cast the 20-year experience in Afghanistan in a new light? Terry Strada, the leader of 9/11 Families United, rejoiced: “We are thrilled to see the President forcing the release of more evidence about Saudi connections to the 9/11 Attacks. We have been fighting the FBI and intelligence community for too long, but this looks like a true turning point.” Biden’s move for declassification, following his decision, taken despite enormous pressure from media and political layers, can be a powerful flank against the intelligence agencies whose lies have been used to maintain the forever war policy. Will the momentum away from permanent warfare continue through improved relations with Russia and China? Will a growing portion of the world’s leaders and thinkers—aided by you—come to understand that the true, immortal self-interest of the human individual lies not in maintaining power over others, but in doing good? If so, this present era can be a singularity, an inflection point, a change from one geometry to another, in which we defeat empire and raise our heads from the muck of conflict to look to the stars that hold our future. Lyndon LaRouche devoted himself to fighting for such a world, a commitment carried on by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, internationally, today. Will that movement, and its allies, succeed?
The United States is quite literally descending into fascism, with the creation of a new federal intelligence agency to engage in a domestic war on terror, government-directed censorship of speech in the public commons of today (social media), and comparisons by Biden between the present moment and the Civil War -- in which millions of Americans were engaged in literal military combat against each other. Reversing this descent into authoritarianism requires identifying the threat, of course. But it also requires an affirmative statement of what the mission of the United States should be. And perpetual opposition to China and Russia ain't it!As the American military departs Afghanistan, will American engineers and contractors play a useful role in planning and constructing infrastructure in that nation, as part of a global development policy?Will feisty American farmers, ranchers, citizens, and energy experts overturn the Green New Deal fraud and demand reliable energy for the future?The shared enemy of mankind is that oligarchical outlook and financial-intelligence-media power that seeks to destroy productivity through a new "green" religion while creating chaos and the threat of war through color revolutions and intelligence assessments painting the world's major powers as implacable enemies.Lyndon LaRouche spend half a century fighting to institute a just world economic system, based on the dignity of each human individual as made in the image of a living God, a system committed to the development of new platforms of infrastructure and productivity, unlocked through advancements in science and technology fostered by long-term investments in such frontier areas as space and nuclear fusion.Next weekend, on July 24, the Schiller Institute will hold an event addressing the absolute conflict between seeing the future in terms of "green" power sources -- which have been promoted with the intent of preventing development -- versus major investment in transportation, power, industry, and trade. And on August 14, the LaRouche Legacy Foundation will hold a seminar on the economic work of Lyndon LaRouche, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Nixon's end of the Bretton Woods system, about which LaRouche achieved notoriety.From the standpoint of that future orientation, the Great Reset, the push for war with China and Russia, and the drive for fascism within the United States come together as a single goal of a financial oligarchy intent on preventing it.That oligarchy can be defeated, and a beautiful future can be created, if we make it happen.
While it may be tempting to those countries adopting a new paradigm of economy and international affairs to separate themselves from the disasters of the trans-Atlantic world—physical productivity’s replacement by financialization, accelerating inflation, and increasingly unhinged and unattainable “climate goals”—the reality is that there can be success only for the entire world, not a portion of it. This lesson, made clear by the coronavirus pandemic, applies to the world’s strategic situation and to its interlinked economies.Solutions are possible, but they must be based on true economic principles. And calls for change abound: The U.S. dollar increasingly takes the role of a weapon, deployed through sanctions, rather than a stable basis for global trade. An event at the United Nations (sponsored by Iran) presented the painful costs exerted on everyday people by supposedly targeted sanctions, and gave the lie to claims that humanitarian and medical purchases are unaffected by sanctions. Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Argentine President Alberto Fernández gave a short but impassioned speech on the need to revise “capitalism as we know it,” stating that at present it creates only injustice and inequality. (His nation has finalized arrangements for domestic production of the Sputnik V vaccine.) President Vladimir Putin himself spoke in person at St. Petersburg, on the topics of equitable vaccine access, improving the Russian business environment, and his own version of actions to address “climate change.” Nuclear, hydro, and natural gas play prominently in his proposals, which also envision billions of dollars flowing into Russia to purchase carbon credits for its forests and tundra. Meanwhile, what passes for political discussion in the United States is an absolute joke—Tony Blinken castigating China for Tiananmen Square, UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield shedding crocodile tears for Syrians, Facebook offering social media convict Trump the potential of parole in two years, conditioned on good behavior. Although some in the world may wish to just abandon the United States or the “West” altogether, the actual problems must be resolved, including the beyond-bankrupt condition of the U.S. economy. Lyndon LaRouche wrote in 2000 how to address the kind of inflationary situation we face today: “The presently reigning financial and monetary institutions, are so hopelessly and profoundly bankrupt, that the world economy could not be saved without wiping several hundreds of trillions of current U.S.-dollar equivalent from the current, vastly hyperinflated, financial-asset-values account. In other words, outstanding financial claims must be brought implicitly into line with the world’s present levels of an estimated hard-commodity valuation of the world’s combined domestic product.” With such bankruptcy reorganization, what will serve as true value? “In the present situation, where the valuation to be placed on each and every currency of Europe and the Americas, among others, is increasingly in doubt, what constitutes the quality of durable value upon which medium- to long-term, hard-commodity capital formation could be rationally premised?” If “durable forms of economic value cannot be adduced from a quantity of money, where does a measurable valuation of economic activity lie?” Real value lies in the rate of increase of the potential relative population density of the human species, a change made possible only through the discovery and social implementation of physical principles. By starting with goals expressed in terms of scientific and technological advancement, and the physical baskets of commodities required to attain them, a meaningful organization of society can be achieved, one premised on growth of energy-intensity—as through nuclear power—rather than its diminution, as called for by the Green New Deal. The intention must be to grow! “The issue of economy is, therefore, not the exact price to be placed on any economy, but the good will [the shared commitment to do good] expressed in the way a reasonable estimate of a fair price is adopted.”
