International Peace Coalition Meeting #87, Friday January 31, 11am ET/5pm CET
We will be joined with Ray McGovern (VIPS), Mossi Raz (Israeli politician, Activist) and others for the discussion.

While there is a real possibility that a new security and development architecture may be advanced through the intense efforts of various of the world’s Presidents—among them Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, Brazil’s Lula—to engage the second Trump Administration in a dialogue about “peace through development”—the outlook enunciated by Pope Paul VI in his groundbreaking encyclical Populorum Progressio—such a transformation in the American outlook, for historical reasons, cannot succeed without the adoption, in some approximation, of the physical economic solutions of the economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche. The LaRouche Oasis Plan for Southwest Asia, also known as “the Middle East,” illustrates why. Gaza and the West Bank—the State of Palestine—cannot be treated merely as a construction site, rather than a civilizational crossroads.

The fact that this is the crossroads of not only Africa, Asia and Europe, but of the Islamic, Christian and Jewish faiths and cultures can be its strength, and not be its weakness, when approached from above. Rebuilding is necessary, true, but water and peaceful nuclear power, not oil speculation, mass deportations and war, must be its future. The LaRouche Oasis Plan can only be implemented through a combination of China, Russia and the United States leading that effort. No one of those nations is trusted by itself to lead an effort together, with the neighbors in Southwest Asia. Together, however, such a thing can be done, such a miracle can be achieved. The joint implementation of the Oasis Plan, or an approximation of it, must become a topic of discussion among the three leaders in the immediate future.

The institutional opposition to LaRouche and his Oasis Plan, composed, in its essentials, over 50 years ago, came, not from Southwest Asia, but from the “Henry Kissinger” Anglo-American intelligence agencies that still oppose it today. These agencies, used regularly by powerful financial forces to violate the United States Constitution and its Preamble’s “promotion of the General Welfare” clause, have to be restructured, or abolished. The very welcome release of the JFK, MLK and RFK assassination files—but only now, decades after the occurrence of those events—demonstrates why.

The near-ruination of America’s national security capability—and through it, the American Republic itself—by means of criminal, treasonous operations carried out through the “special relationship” with British intelligence, and its extension known as “the Five Eyes,” had brought the Presidency to the precipice of disaster, from September 11, 2001, until the recent process leading up to the election of November 5, 2024. (This involved not only the American elections, but also the emergence of the BRICS and BRICS-Plus nations during 2023 and 2024, including their attempted role in the Ukraine conflict, and especially South Africa’s role at the International Court of Justice.) If the appointments to the position of Director of National Intelligence and head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) go through as proposed, that corrosive U.S.-U.K. “special relationship” can undergo a political root-canal.

With respect to Tulsi Gabbard, 60 intelligence professionals have just endorsed the Gabbard nomination for Director of National Intelligence.

Ver todos los episodios