MEDIA FORCE

The Trajectory After The Xi Jinping State Visit to Washington
Sept. 27, 2026 (EIRNS)—The paid nitwits in the Western media have predictably sounded off for the last 48 hours about how the Trump-Xi meetings were “all sizzle and no steak,” “pageantry and not substance,” “rich in pomp but failed to resolve tensions,” and on and on.

In addition to being nitwits, such commentators are epistemologically oblivious to the existence of trajectories in human history, as in the physical universe. From that standpoint, two things stand out about the Sept. 23-25 state visit, which interestingly are the two first points emphasized in both the White House and the Chinese readouts:

The two sides agreed to build “a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability on the basis of respect, fairness, and reciprocity,” Xinhua reported. President Xi explained this means that China and the U.S. are “partners, not rivals”—the same expression adopted by Xi and Indian Prime Minister Modi in their recent talks—and that a win-win approach is possible, thereby avoiding the infamous Thucydides Trap.
This is not “sizzle;” it’s a concept—a concept which admittedly is at odds with most of the Trump administration’s current foreign and economic policies, which are centered on imposing the law of the jungle, rewarding speculation, “annihilating” countries and civilizations the U.S. dislikes, and ensuring that the mantra “to the victors, the spoils” prevails. But that is exactly why London is so jittery about the Xi-Trump relationship and where it might be heading.

“China and the United States support each other in successfully hosting the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting and the G20 Summit. The two heads of state intend to attend each other’s meetings.”
This is the trajectory part of the picture. The APEC summit will be held in Shenzhen, China on Nov. 18-19, and Trump and Xi are scheduled to meet there. Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated that it is likely that he will also attend, since Russia is a member of APEC. A number of people have floated the idea of the “Big Three” holding a meeting in Shenzhen. The Schiller Institute’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche has repeatedly called for such a summit to urgently address the danger of nuclear war facing the planet. On Aug. 19 of this year, she joined other leading international peace activists in issuing an “Appeal to Pope Leo XIV To Organize a Global Leaders Summit To Address the Questions of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament.”

The Pope—or certainly his insistence on Paul VI’s policy that “development is the new name of peace”—would be a welcome addition to the deliberations in Shenzhen.

Then on Dec. 14-15, the United States will host the 2026 G20 Miami Summit at the Trump National Doral Miami resort in Doral, Florida. Xi Jinping will be there. Russia is also a member of the G20, but Putin’s attendance is still considered a long shot. However, that decision may well be shaped in large measure by what happens at APEC.

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche summarized the point in her remarks to the 173rd consecutive weekly meeting of the International Peace Coalition on Sept. 25: “Hopefully, this state visit [by Xi Jinping] will turn out to be a change in the relationship between the United States and China. As Xi Jinping said, this visit would not [by itself] solve any problem in the world, but many problems in the world cannot be solved without the two largest economies working together. And once these two settle their basic relationship, it would filter down to all the other regional crisis points in the world.”

A series of highly-significant upcoming national elections—in Brazil (Oct. 4), Israel (Oct. 27), the U.S. (Nov. 3), and South Africa (Nov. 4)—will also be shaped by that trajectory, and will in turn help shape it in decisive ways.

9/11: A Dialogue Across Generations On September 13, 2026 the Vega for Congress campaign hosted an extr...

Always Under Human Control’: From Petrov to the Summit
Sept. 25, 2026 (EIRNS)—On Sept. 26, 1983, the screens at a Soviet early-warning center reported five American intercontinental ballistic missiles in flight. The duty officer, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, had minutes to pass the alarm up a chain of command that would likely have ordered a counterstrike, and with it a thermonuclear exchange that would leave most human beings dead in its aftermath. He reasoned that a United States starting a nuclear war would not start it with five missiles, and reported a malfunction. He was right: the satellites had mistaken sunlight on high clouds for rocket exhaust. Petrov was not a system or a protocol. He was a human being exercising the judgment that cannot be reduced to a statistical outcome, and the UN General Assembly chose the date of his decision as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, which it now marks.

Look at the present from that standpoint. On Tuesday the President of the United States told the Assembly he was weighing whether to make a deal with Iran or “annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly.” On Wednesday the Security Council heard from the people building artificial intelligence. Yoshua Bengio, co-chair of the UN’s scientific panel on AI, said the companies admit their products pose catastrophic risks, offer no convincing technical solutions, and “say they are locked in a race to make those AIs even more powerful.” Panama’s foreign minister stated Petrov’s principle: “There are decisions which, by their nature, cannot be reduced to a statistical outcome.” The U.S. reply was that international dialogue “cannot be allowed to drift towards global governance.”

Then consider the Trump-Xi summit. President Trump met Xi Jinping’s plane at Joint Base Andrews—the first president to meet a visiting political leader there since Kennedy in 1962—and at the White House the next morning Xi laid out his view of U.S.-China relations: “The Thucydides Trap can be overcome.” The “trap” is a statistical claim about history—that a rising power and a ruling one usually end in war. Xi’s answer to it is Petrov’s: it is a decision. He said the two countries have “the capability and responsibility” to “ensure that the development of AI is always under human control,” and “shoulder a historic responsibility of advancing human development and progress.” Trump said the two “have never gotten along better.” What the governments agreed, by the reporting so far—an AI dialogue, an AI “hotline,” military channels, a trade truce extended to Jan. 10—is what Xi called “mechanisms for crisis communication and prevention.” The comity is real and worth having. But the relationship must move beyond improved forms of crisis management, to the establishment of a new paradigm.

Lyndon LaRouche described the obstacle to such relations, and the alternative, in March 1983, half a year before Petrov’s night and eighteen days before Reagan’s address on strategic defense, in a televised speech to the citizens of San Diego:

This doctrine is called Mutually Assured Destruction, or appropriately, MAD. The doctrine essentially is that thermonuclear ballistic missiles are the ultimate weapon—a weapon so terrible that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union would actually ever launch a nuclear war. The argument is that we can eliminate war by maintaining static garrisons, static forces of this type, and by setting up arrangements which are in general called “crisis management.” This means red telephones, special conferences, and so forth, to make sure nothing goes out of control, and that the two governments do not find themselves wandering by miscalculation into a situation in which they might actually set off a thermonuclear war.

His alternative was not a better telephone but a joint program: the two powers, “independently but in parallel,” to end the missile’s standing as “the ultimate weapon,” and “then proceed on the basis of that agreement to a program of eliminating thermonuclear weapons”—“to free the world from more than 20 years of thermonuclear terror”—turning the science “to assist the development of developing countries, to increase the general welfare of mankind on this planet.”

The hotline is just a start. Helga Zepp-LaRouche told the International Peace Coalition on Friday that whether the United States goes to war to keep its dominance “is the question which will decide if mankind exists or not”—and of Xi’s claim that the trap can be overcome: “I eminently think it’s possible.”

Many are putting their names to that possibility. More than 2,000 organizations and individuals have endorsed the appeal that goes to the General Assembly on Sept. 26—no first use, abolition by 2045, the budgets redirected. At least sixty of them have also signed the Appeal to Pope Leo XIV to convene the heads of the three principal nuclear powers, as John XXIII gave Kennedy and Khrushchev a way out in 1962, among them Peter Kuznick, who co-wrote it. In Paris on Friday, ten Schiller Institute organizers put eight thousand copies of it into the hands of the crowds waiting for the Pope.

Will the two presidents stop at the hotline, or proceed to a program? What is needed is the summit at which the management of differences gives way to the coincidence of interests.

Manhattan Project Meeting, Saturday at 2pm ET The LaRouche Organization

https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoHwt4KyUk5CGLAoAbkJ4EG9Len4wTgfc

International Peace Coalition Meeting Podcast • Schiller Institute

Xi Visit Shows the Potential for a New Outlook in Thinking
Sept. 24, 2026 (EIRNS)—During his joint press conference at the White House with President Donald Trump on Sep. 24, Chinese President Xi Jinping gave the following formulation: While cooperation between the U.S. and China “may not solve every problem in the world,” without it, “it would be hard to solve many of the world’s problems.” This truthful remark was important for President Trump to hear, who, despite presiding over a breathtaking and glamorous state visit honoring the Chinese leader, was struggling to understand the significance the event itself held.

The visit began with the almost unprecedented greeting of President Xi by Trump and First Lady Melania at Andrews Air Force Base, marking the first time a sitting U.S. President greeted a visiting head of state at the airport in over 60 years. The pair then held a joint ceremony, presided over a military troop review in the Rose Garden, held high-level talks in the Oval Office, and enjoyed a lavish state dinner at the White House.

But this is the same Donald Trump who, two days earlier during his remarks to the UN General Assembly, had threatened to “annihilate” Iran, dismissed the very concept of cooperation in favor of the law of the jungle, and expressed the notion of “to the winner, the spoils,” as could be seen in the case of Venezuela.

Xi wrote in a statement released on the eve of his visit: “China and the United States should be partners, not rivals”—the very phrase and concept which Xi and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had just agreed to during their meeting at the BRICS Summit. “The great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and making America great again can go hand in hand,” Xi added, and later proclaimed at the White House that “the Thucydides trap can be overcome.” Trump, for his part, said that he and Xi had “forged a friendship… built on mutual respect and the vital interests of our people.” He referenced the U.S.-China alliance to defeat fascism during World War II, and noted: “Just as our people worked together to win that war, President Xi and I will continue working together to forge a better future for both of our nations.”

As far as it goes, the visit exemplifies the potential collaboration between the two countries—arguably one of the most consequential relationships in the world today. However, while Xi’s actions have followed his words, Trump’s actions have not yet followed his.

Led by London, European and Western nations are pledging more and more support to Ukraine in a dangerous escalation toward all-out war with Russia. And the U.S. itself recently passed the Lindsey Graham Sanctions Act that will punish other nations for even trading with Russia. In addition, a dangerous rearmament is ongoing throughout Europe that is setting the stage for new and future conflicts. The UK is now joining in the Trump administration’s initiative of weaponizing space, and is forming a special squadron in the Royal Air Force for the purposes of “disrupting, degrading, and denying enemy activity… in space.” “This century will depend on control of space,” British Defense Minister Wes Streeting said.

At the same time, the British have their strategic allies in the U.S. who are hell-bent on stopping any cooperation. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, at a Sep. 23 press conference alongside Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Andy Kim and Elissa Slotkin: “Trump is handing China the technology it needs to win the AI race.” All four senators demanded Trump stop further advanced semiconductor exports to China, and insisted China be held accountable for assisting Iran in the current war. Slotkin said watching Trump welcome Xi to the White House “is really difficult.”

This is not the view of China, nor of the growing portion of the world which is increasingly rejecting the failed unipolar model in favor of a new global architecture. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche put it in her weekly webcast on Sep. 23, there is a “whole group of nations rallying around a new principle, and that is the idea of partnership, of diplomacy, of coexistence, of the idea that the new name for peace is development, and to rule out war as a means of conflict resolution by basically saying that only diplomacy and negotiations are legitimate.” And between the approach of the defenders of the unipolar order, she remarked, “there seems to be a widening gap.”

It is now an urgent necessity to put this perspective on the table, and to mobilize awareness within the nations of the West that such an alternative option exists. The UN General Assembly this week offers an excellent opportunity in that regard. Tune in to Friday’s meeting of the International Peace Coalition, which will take up these questions in more depth.

The International Schiller Institute On Sept. 4, the Executive Intelligence Review and the International Peace Coalition will hold a roundtable discussion on “An Alternative to War and Looting in the Americas,” which will be streamed live on YouTube in English, and broadcast on Zoom with simultaneous interpretation into Spanish, Ge...

The Drama Unfolding at the UN General Assembly
Sept. 23, 2026 (EIRNS)—“According to the original doctrine of the beast-man developed by Martinists such as Joseph de Maistre, fear of such predatory tyrants is not the fear of the power they are believed to represent, but the kind of wild irrationality associated with Roman Caesars such as Caligula or Nero; or that image of the Spanish Inquisition which the Martinists admired.”

So wrote Lyndon LaRouche on Oct. 4, 2003, in a short piece Hi**er and Schwarzenegger As Beast-Men exposing the whys and wherefores of the combination of frenzied support and wild fear generated by figures such as then-California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Adolf Hi**er.

“The relevant lesson to be learned from the current situation in Iraq,” LaRouche continued, “is that neo-conservatives such as the fascists Vice-President Cheney, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and so on and so on, are not exactly geniuses. Their power lies not in the development of their mental powers, but in their lack of morals or rationality. Their power lies in their disposition to act in ways no sane and moral person would do. Their appeal lies entirely in the fear they instill because of the part they are disposed to play, in whatever roles, on- or off-stage, they are cast.”

Fast forward to today, and the drama now unfolding in New York City at the General Assembly High-Level Week from Sept. 22-28, where nearly 130 heads of state and government are scheduled to speak. Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche had issued an open letter to the assembling delegates urging them to rise to the occasion. “We are experiencing at the same time the end of the epoch of five hundred years of colonialism. If we, as the human species, want to prevent this tumultuous transition period from ending up in a new world war, we have to replace geopolitical confrontation with a completely new paradigm, the vision of ONE humanity,” Zepp-LaRouche stated. "We must establish an entirely new paradigm: The idea of the one humanity first, must be put above all particular interests.

“This U.N. General Assembly is the place to put the concept of a ‘New Security and Development Architecture’ on the agenda, which must take into account the interests of every single country on the planet.”

The first head of state to address the UNGA, as is traditional, was the President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. “Leading is to reconcile the interests of the nation with those of humanity,” he stated. “This General Assembly… needs to focus on issues crucial for the future of humanity. We are called to choose between multilateralism or unilateralism, democracy or extremism, sovereignty or subordination.”

Lula was followed by President Donald Trump, who put on a studied, beast-man performance in which he threatened to “annihilate” Iran—and implicitly any country that dares challenge the U.S. Speaking deliberately, with chosen words that have been widely reported in the international media, Trump stated:

“Will a deal be made with Iran… or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?”

Trump had issued similar blood-curdling threats against Iran on April 1, 2026, when he said he would “bring them back to the Stone Age, where they belong,” and again a week later, on April 7, 2026, writing on Truth Social: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back.”

But because Trump’s latest Sept. 22 speech was delivered at the center of the world stage, at the High-Level UNGA meeting, it carried far greater weight—and is far more dangerous as a statement of his administration’s policy—than his earlier, similar threats.

Timed for effect, Trump personally signed the U.S.-Greenland deal on the sidelines of the UNGA right after his speech, a deal which gives the U.S. “permanent control over security and all other needs on that territory,” he pronounced. The so-called “missile defense” Golden Dome is at the center of that deal, whose real purpose is primarily offensive, not defensive—since it has no way of stopping Russian Sarmat ICBMs and Avangard hypersonic glide missiles, which can fly a trajectory over the South Pole to strike the U.S.

Add to that: 1) the pre-UNGA official announcement by the U.S. that it is unilaterally placing weapons in space; 2) Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby’s making it clear that his nuclear policy review favoring the use of tactical nuclear weapons would not be subjected to public scrutiny, including his arrogant refusal to even brief the congressional committees that are Constitutionally mandated to conduct oversight; and 3) rapidly escalating European preparations for war against Russia in the short term.

And so, as the drama unfolds at the United Nations, the big picture, strategically, is that the trans-Atlantic financial establishment has charted a course leading to thermonuclear confrontation with Russia and China in the short term, and to Schachtian looting of the global economy to make that war drive possible.

On Sept. 24, Trump will meet with China’s President Xi Jinping, who will assuredly be working at changing that trajectory, as the Global Majority systematically builds a world based on radically different principles of cooperation and respect for sovereignty.

Shall we, or our friends and neighbors, be like the terrorized followers of Schwarzenegger and the man with the moustache? Or will we assist in deflecting the U.S. and Europe off the current trajectory and into cooperation with the Global Majority?

Thursday Fireside Chat, 9pm ET The LaRouche Organization

Are We Psychologically Ready?
Sept. 20, 2026 (EIRNS)—On Saturday the BBC reported “War May Be Coming” and asked the British public: “Are We Psychologically Ready?” Readers were told the government wants them to stockpile canned food and water and “plan for the possibility of war”; the piece closed by explaining how Finland and Norway run conscription. The same day the U.S. Secretary of War opened a national recruitment tour called “Send Me,” from Isaiah—“SEND ME TO GO FIGHT WHATEVER THREATS THREATEN OUR NATION.” In Paris, a three-hour intelligence briefing convened by President Macron left one party leader speaking of “vertigo.” In Copenhagen, NATO’s outgoing military chairman said “the weapons are ready” for conflict with Russia and that the alliance holds “4,000 pages” of war plans.

On Sunday, the German people whom these institutions were preparing to fight and die, went to the polls. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the Chancellor’s party, the CDU, lost all its seats in the state parliament while the AfD soared to the fore, and in Berlin the CDU lost to Die Linke. The winning parties disagree on much, but both oppose sending weapons to Ukraine. Two weeks earlier, Saxony-Anhalt had given the AfD 43.8%.

The institutions seek to prepare the people for war, and the people aren’t having it. But what will they have?

Speaking to the Indian Council on World Affairs in New Delhi on April 23, 1982, Lyndon LaRouche described the citizens of the industrial nations as decent, moral in their private lives, and “little”—unable to think past their families to the fate of nations. Such people, he said, do not evaluate policy; they “define their relationship to policy in terms of institutions—political parties, religious associations, trade unions, and so on. They allow these institutions to do their thinking for them.” Which means:

If they adhere to institutions which have bad policies, you can change the people only by reforming those institutions, or by causing them to become disaffected from those institutions if the institutions cannot be reformed. Therefore, the only time that you can produce what we might call a nonlinear change in the course of policies of nations are those conditions of crisis in which the little people themselves begin to question those institutions. Under those circumstances, if a people is inspired, great enterprises may be accomplished.

After citing his own 1946 encounters with Indians inspired to think about nation-building and the industrial development of their country, LaRouche cited Shelley: there are periods “in which the power for receiving and imparting profound and impassioned ideas concerning man and nature is increased.” That is what a peace-camp audience in Saxony-Anhalt meant two weeks ago when it told a Schiller Institute speaker who briefed the gathering on the BRICS and China, “your speech completely changed my narrow view.” It is what the president of the AFL-CIO meant this week when she said the Pope’s encyclical on human dignity “could have been a document written by the trade union movement.” Minds are open that were shut a year ago.

LaRouche continued:

However, also in such times of crisis there is a peril: lacking leadership for great enterprises, mankind will often turn itself into beasts. The same little people will destroy themselves. We saw that in Europe in the case of Mussolini’s Italy. We saw what happened to Germany.

People want to believe in something. “Send me to go fight whatever threats threaten our nation” is one identity on offer. Development, progress, railways, nuclear reactors, canals, and desalination plants are another.

This week both offers are on the table. The General Assembly opens in New York on Tuesday, with the host country having barred the Palestinian president and 152 states having voted to hear him anyway. On Wednesday the presidents of the United States and China meet in Washington. Their treasury chiefs spent all of today at JPMorgan’s headquarters in Manhattan and issued no statement as of this writing.

LaRouche’s 1982 proposal to the same India that hosted this year’s BRICS summit was that peace would not come from negotiation among parties who could not change their agendas, but from “creating the conditions under which peace negotiations are unnecessary.” The voters of two German states are the latest to have said what they do not want. What the people of the world are offered next is the question of the week.

schillerinstitute.com For over 30 years, the Schiller Institute has been leading the fight to replace the geopolitical order in the world, with a New Paradigm based on the mutual respect and development of perfectly sovereign nation states.

UNGA Debate of Nations Opens this Week: Time and Place to Declare a New World Paradigm for Peace
Sept. 19, 2026 (EIRNS)—In two days, the General Debate will open at the United Nations General Assembly. From Sept. 22 to 28, leaders of nearly 190 nations will address the UNGA, beginning, as is customary, with Brazil, represented by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. U.S. President Donald Trump will speak next, and so on throughout the agenda. On the first day, three nations from the recent BRICS Summit are on the list, South Africa and Indonesia along with Brazil. Dozens of meetings and events will occur on the sidelines. The theme of the General Debate is, “Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: A United Nations that Delivers for All.”

Will these and/or any other national leaders speak out for the urgently needed new paradigm of development and peace among nations? Will they denounce the might-makes-right paradigm seen in the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, in the European persistence in backing and ruining Ukraine as a proxy against Russia, and in the U.S. rampage in the Western Hemisphere? Will the concept be put forward of how security for all nations comes from collaboration on providing for the good of “one humanity,” which then serves the interests of everyone?

This is not a crystal-ball type question, nor is it a matter of watching from the benches to just wait and see. It is a matter to be actively involved in, by doing all possible to mobilize forces for bringing about a new paradigm for security and prosperity. The impetus behind the warfare is the breakdown of the Western financial-economic system, given its decades of degradation under casino practices imposed through the self-styled elites/Epstein class, centered in the City of London, Wall Street, and financial-imperialist outposts.

Last weekend in New Delhi, the annual BRICS Summit brought together leaders from 21 nations (11 members, and 10 partner nations) plus others, representing over half the world’s population, for deliberations on moving toward a new world economic and security architecture. The spirit of interchange was characterized, as host Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, said, by the spirit of “partners, not rivals”—his specific reference to India and China. It was emphatically not in the spirit of casting other nations as demons, economic outcasts, and victims, as those still in power in the West maintain.

In particular, Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, President of Iran, a member of the BRICS, participated fully in the New Delhi proceedings and side meetings with fellow leaders of BRICS countries, though Washington has decreed that no person or nation dare have any dealings with Iran. Pres. Pezeshkian and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have obtained visas to be in New York at the UNGA. Yesterday, Araghchi addressed (virtually) a meeting of the Global Town Hall, held in Indonesia, whose President Prabowo Subianto will be in New York as well. Araghchi struck the theme of putting development back at the center of international law. Today he and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar conferred by phone on how to restore diplomacy to the regional crisis.

The situations in the zones of warfare—Southwest Asia and Ukraine—remain deadly. The threat of breakout into further regional warfare is extreme from hot conflict on the Arabian Peninsula, triggered by the U.S.-Israeli attacks throughout the region to begin with. Early today a fuel tank was hit and set ablaze in Riyadh at the King Khalid International Airport. The Aramco terminal was struck in the port of Yanbu. Saudi Arabian air strikes continue in Yemen. Some 112,000 people have been displaced in Yemen in just the last two weeks, with 3,000 having fled across the Red Sea to Djibouti.

Meantime, Israel continues its strikes in Gaza and Lebanon, and assaults on the West Bank. Yesterday the son of the Health Minister in Gaza was murdered in an IDF strike.

Respecting Ukraine, where strikes and counterstrikes continue, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the international bankster, added his connivance to the crime of backing Ukraine to the last dead citizen, by visiting Europe this past week and plugging his idea for a new bank to fund more arms—a “NATO Bank.” Adding to the sleaze, Carney used the old wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing disguise, claiming to be a “Middle Power” trying to do good on the world stage.

In opposition to these maneuvers, a world conference to deliberate on security took place in China this past week in the Beijing Xiangshan Forum. Its Sept. 15-17 event drew military personnel and experts of many other specialties, for the 20th meeting of the group, now regarded as a premier world platform for collaboration to further stability through mutual respect and economic development. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President of the Schiller Institute-Germany, and founder of the International Peace Coalition, participated. More will be forthcoming on her presentation and the proceedings. The theme of the Forum: “Build Consensus on Stability, Advance Security Governance Together.”

EIR this week, during the UN General Assembly General Debate, will carry a reprint of a prophetic speech from 1982 by Lyndon LaRouche, exactly to the point of the way out of the conflicts we face today. He spoke in April that year in New Delhi, addressing the Indian Council of World Affairs. Giving careful attention to particulars of that time—including the nuclear arms race, the West vs. the USSR, etc.— he spoke of how to “organize economic cooperation, both East-and-West and North-and-South, toward the point of fulfilling” objectives to benefit all concerned. He repeated this political-geographic imperative many times, explaining how to build up economic activity, saying we must “predicate our political relations and the resolution of problems of military confrontation and other problems upon this combined East-West/North-South trade” based on exchanging goods for development of all.

Will the Global Majority Put An End to the Epstein Class’ March of Folly? The LaRouche Organization