by Stewart BattleAug. 29—For the first time in nearly six decades, the subject of nuclear war has finally re-entered the public stage. Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer depicts the intense moral and emotional tension involved with the creation of the first atomic bomb, including the inhuman behavior by those who made the decision to unnecessarily murder over 200,000 Japanese civilians. Even more stark was the callousness of the American people of 1945, who cheered as the bombs melted the faces off those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.As is made clear in the chilling final scene, this is not simply some story from the past, but one that still stalks the world today. And if anyone is being honest, it is far worse than even that. Today, NATO is pushing Russia into an existential crisis and is showing no rational understanding that their continuing escalation will inevitably lead to global war. Russia has responded by threatening to change their nuclear doctrine to one of potential first-strike—mirroring that policy employed by the United States. A nuclear power can never be defeated militarily, and Russia has made it clear repeatedly that they will never accept a defeat in the current conflict in Ukraine. When you see Oppenheimer, see the reality that nuclear weapons are just as real today as ever, and nothing has been done over the past 78 years to make the world safer. Will today’s Americans act any different from those citizens in 1945, or will we cheer as the first round of nuclear missiles are launched against Russia?Over the recent several decades, this danger has receded from the minds of younger generations. As Nolan has reported in interviews, even his own daughter questioned him as to why make a movie about nuclear weapons, because “no one is interested in that anymore.” As part of his attempt to make the reality of nuclear war more real to his audiences, Nolan delivered a powerful and personal message by using his own daughter for the character whose face was melted off by the blinding flash of a nuclear bomb! Nolan said in an interview: “The point is that if you create the ultimate destructive power it, will also destroy those who are near and dear to you. So I suppose this was my way of expressing that in what, to me, were the strongest possible terms.”The dropping of the atomic bomb and the world’s entry into the Atomic Age meant one large step for mankind into the future. As the vast majority of the scientists in the Manhattan Project will tell you, there was tremendous excitement among them in this period, not because we developed a bomb that could kill millions, but because the splitting of the atom meant an entirely new power for mankind to harness for the good! This meant a nearly limitless source of energy, an end to scarcity, and hopefully an end to future wars, if treated properly. However, it also meant the unresolved problems of the world—of empires, of geopolitics, of an immature mankind—if left unresolved, could lead to the annihilation of humanity. While Nolan doesn’t capture the very real spirit of optimism around this period, he does illustrate the moral reservations those such as Oppenheimer himself had regarding these questions, as well as the beastly response from those such as the snarling duo of President Harry Truman and his Secretary of State, James “Jimmy” Byrnes.Loosely implied in Oppenheimer though also not explicitly portrayed, is the fact that although the Japanese had already all but surrendered long before the bombs were dropped, the decision had been made to proceed nonetheless. The lie that the bombing of Japan was ultimately what ended the war still persists today. In actuality, President Roosevelt was conducting negotiations with Emperor Hirohito which, if he had lived, would have guaranteed an agreement to end the war. Following the President’s untimely death, the Japanese continued trying to reach agreeable terms of surrender, and were in negotiations with the Soviets as well as with the Vatican, though these efforts were sabotaged.It was clear that the Americans—at the behest of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill—were resisting peace in favor of continuing the war, in order to demonstrate the destructive power of the bomb to the Soviet Union. The bomb was really not about Japan or even World War II at all, but was aimed at establishing a global reign of terror to extend Anglo-American rule far into the future.With that said, there are some important topics not discussed in Oppenheimer which are important to clarify.The AlternativeIt is crucial to understand the vastly different approach represented by Franklin Roosevelt and those around him. Roosevelt never would have used the bomb, as he made clear in discussions with his Vice President and later Commerce Secretary Henry Wallace and others. Additionally, in 1945, six out of seven five-star generals, including Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower, opposed the use of the bomb. Roosevelt’s view of America’s role in the world was not one of strong-arming one’s adversaries into submission, but rather that relations based on trust and cooperation were needed if the world were to continue to exist.On April 11, 1945, the night before he died suddenly, Roosevelt wrote a speech which he planned to deliver three days later on a national radio broadcast. In it, he wrote:"We seek peace—enduring peace. More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginnings of all wars—yes, an end to this brutal, inhuman, and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between governments....Today we are faced with the preeminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships—the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together, in the same world, at peace."Roosevelt was no imperialist, and as such he terrified Churchill and the British endlessly. He saw the war as largely a result of British and European colonial policies, which had created poverty and strife in their wake around the world (not to mention the direct British role in starting World Wars I and II). Roosevelt was determined that, following the close of the current war, the former colonies were not to be returned to Britain, France, Belgium, or anyone else, but would instead be offered American methods of modern industrial development and manufacturing so they could finally become truly free.FDR’s son Elliott relayed a discussion he had with his father in 1944 at the White House, where the President said:"The point is that we are going to be able to bring pressure on the British to fall in line with our thinking, in relation to the whole colonial question."Had Roosevelt lived, there is no question he would have brought this change about. An American policy based on technological and industrial progress for the benefit of all peoples was vastly different than the zero-sum game of British imperialism and would have been the bedrock for a new policy of trust and cooperation between sovereign nation-states—big and small.Certainly, Roosevelt did not see in the Soviets an eternal adversary, and he worked hard to gain Stalin’s trust for his anti-imperial vision for the world. Stalin even told Averell Harriman after Roosevelt’s death: “President Roosevelt has died, but his cause must live on.” It was this orientation that the British Empire was determined to kill, which is why Churchill pushed the knuckle-dragging Truman to make the final decision to drop the bomb. This of course created the intended effect: A new terror around the world that, far from creating peace, would set new future conflicts into motion.Reflecting on this changed dynamic during a visit to Moscow in 1945, Gen. Eisenhower said: "Before the atom bomb was used, I would have said yes, I was sure we could keep the peace with Russia. Now I don’t know. I had hoped the bomb wouldn’t figure in this war. Until now I would have said that we three [Britain, U.S., USSR] … could have guaranteed the peace of the world for a long, long time to come. But now, I don’t know. People are frightened all over."The Reign of Terror BeginsWith these actions in play, the British had the kind of foundation they were looking for to set a very different policy into motion. Again, the core question was: Could mankind survive with these new weapons powerful enough to blow up the whole world, or were we doomed to self-destruction? These questions and concerns were clearly portrayed in the movie, in particular in the final scene with Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer. Naturally, many proposals and discussions ensued as to how to deal with this situation—how much should be controlled by governments, how to ensure international cooperation, peace treaties, etc. These developments are touched upon only briefly in the movie, in reference to the large number of scientists pushing to ban the use of the bomb and other preventive measures to stop a further arms race. What Oppenheimer goes nowhere near, however, and what continues to be a sticky issue up to this day, are those axioms and assumptions which underlie this subject, which some in the British imperial camp would rather you conveniently overlook, amidst an impending nuclear Armageddon.Enter Bertrand Russell, the British lord, mathematician, philosopher, and pseudo-scientist who first became an outspoken voice for peace—the peace of the graveyard—during these years of the Atomic Age (as well as an outspoken proponent of mass population reduction, particularly among the “dark-skinned races”). In 1946, Russell wrote an [[article]] [[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.1946.11458033]] published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists titled, “The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War.” In it, Russell argues that the only way to save the human race from certain nuclear apocalypse is to establish world government, or more properly, world empire, as Russell compares it to the way that “Rome secured the peace of the Mediterranean area for several centuries.” Every nation must be forced to join it, Russell says, and even insists that if the Soviets don’t accept, it would be better to wage preemptive nuclear war against them rather than wait for them to build their own arsenal of atomic bombs later.With this view of “peace,” the question to be asked is: Is peace so sacred that it negates the need for freedom? The oligarch Russell’s insanely murderous plan becomes, with such logic, a “necessary evil.”By the mid-1950s, the pre-emptive nuclear warrior Russell had morphed into the leader of the anti-nuclear weapons peace movement, under the banner of SANE (the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy), informed by a 1955 letter drafted by Russell and signed by many scientists, where they conclude: “The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty.” Many scientists and others fell for this. Some, including Leo Szilard—portrayed in Oppenheimer as the main representative of those scientists who opposed the building of the atomic bomb—even agreed with Russell’s proposal of a preemptive nuclear war on the Soviets.The Missing ElementIn exchange for “peace,” Americans were being pressured to concede that most precious thing—the kernel which separates a human being from a beast of the field. German poet and playwright Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) explored this question in his essay “The Legislation of Lycurgus and Solon.” As Schiller describes, Lycurgus’s Sparta was a utilitarian paradise, with all forms of society legislated to perfection. Equality was mandated, all wealth distributed, and all citizens were provided for with the utmost of care. The state behaved like a finely-tuned watch and generated immense pride and patriotism from its citizens—not to mention its famous military prowess born of its soldiers’ almost unnatural strength in war.But these strengths were gained at the expense of the human spirit of the Spartans themselves, sacrificing the free play of thought and human emotion for an indestructible security for the state. Those artifacts of human creativity—the arts and sciences—were banished in fear that they would distract citizens from a more simple-minded loyalty to the fatherland or engender dangerous rebelliousness. As Schiller points out, the Spartans saw their citizens as a means, not as ends, thereby destroying the foundation of natural law and morality through their own legislation. Properly understood, governments are instituted to protect and foster those inherent creative potentialities within their citizens, as it is only through the improvement of those faculties that the future of the state can be secured. Isn’t this true morality, to bring the ordering of oneself and one’s government into accord with the natural laws of the universe and the beautiful potentials of the human species? Instead, Russell and others of his British ilk seek to force humanity into submission to their depraved and arbitrary view of a necessary-if-slightly-evil world empire—as is now ongoing with today’s “rules-based order.” Rather, peace should be seen as President Kennedy described it in his famous speech at American University in 1963:"What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on Earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women—not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."Had FDR lived, he would have seen the situation in the same way. Oppenheimer’s release has helped raise the public consciousness of the nuclear bomb, and as such might just play a vital role in preventing nuclear war today. However, the movie fails to elaborate upon the deeper and even more important issues underlying the danger and the solution—up to and emphatically including today. The dawn of the Atomic Age fundamentally altered the world by the fact that it necessitated a new paradigm if mankind were to survive an otherwise assured self-destruction.While arms control treaties and other laws restricting nuclear weapons are undoubtedly critical, this change could never be brought about by forcing an iron fist upon humanity in order to secure “peace”—only the morally stunted or willfully evil would agree to such a horror. Rather, only through the recognition of the principle of the “One Humanity” and the inherent good in every human life—no matter how great our differences—can a true and durable peace be secured. Schiller Institute chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s call for a new security and development architecture, which takes into account the interests of all nations, is the main organizing concept currently on the table for the continued survival of the human race.More about the decision to drop the atomic bomb is available in EIR Here.EIR 30-35 – C&CBattle-Oppenheimer ReviewPIX1Universal PicturesOppenheimer movie promotional poster.PIX2Universal PicturesJ. Robert Oppenheimer, as portrayed by Cillian Murphy, in Christopher Nolan’s movie.PIX3U.S. ArmyJ. Robert Oppenheimer (left) with Army Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project, at the site of the Trinity atomic bomb test in New Mexico, 1945.PIX4U.S. Signal CorpsPresident Franklin Roosevelt did not see in the Soviets an eternal adversary, and he worked hard to gain Stalin’s trust for his anti-imperial vision for the post-war world. Shown: FDR and Marshal Joseph Stalin in Tehran, Dec. 1, 1943.PIX5DTRAProfound theoretical and philosophical questions concerning atomic energy and man’s survival of its destructive power occupied discussions of J. Robert Oppenheimer with fellow physicist Albert Einstein, shown together at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, c. 1950.
We post below another thought piece by Mr. X. He provides what we think is an interesting perspective from which to judge our current reality. What do you think? Let us know! It is from dialogue that we approach the truth.Let the City-Builders Come Forward Now to Save HumanityBy Mr. X"You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to build nuplexes (a nuclear complex.) Lay it out to ‘em. How do you build a nuplex? Well, you go out and dig a big crater…. Build a crater the size of a city, a city of a half-million people, or 100,000 people, but build a crater for an industrial city of a new type, from six, seven, or eight stories below the surface. On this thing, stick two nuclear plants, of one-half to two gigawatts each. We’re not going to export a few, ten, or twenty billion dollars worth of additional exports—we’re going to export hundreds of cities!!’In Lyndon LaRouche’s Presidential campaign announcement of 1978, his design of a new type of bank, called the International Development Bank, crafted to make technology transfer from the “advanced” to the “developing” sector the fundamental, characteristic loaning activity of that bank, was, and is revolutionary. LaRouche’s unique concept of the World Land-Bridge, composed of what he called “development corridors,” is also unique. It frees mankind from the need to build most cities along coasts or pre-existing inland bodies of water, and instead, to import, through a system of water and power projects, the very process of systemic, “full-set” industrial development into the interior of continents. These two ideas shift the characteristic of not only how civilization, but the biosphere itself is evolving. These and other LaRouche ideas are the most advanced economic conceptions ever presented in an electoral campaign by any candidate for public office in history. They should be made the subject of discussion, deliberation, and debate in the “non-elections” planned for the United States in 2024. These stand out as completely revolutionary ideas, even 45 years after they were first proposed. It is only by presenting ideas of this type, in the streets of the United States and Europe in particular, including in an electoral setting, that the basis for negotiations between Russia and the trans-Atlantic world, or China and the trans-Atlantic world, can be re-established on a higher conceptual footing than now exists.Only if the method underlying LaRouche’s economic proposals is increasingly publicly discussed is it likely that the Anglosphere can still be dissuaded from its disastrous, “surprisingly” short path to thermonuclear war. LaRouche publications are the short-term means to this end, augmented by vigorous social media campaigns that widely distribute video material such as the keynote speech by Helga Zepp-LaRouche at the Sept. 9 Schiller Institute conference, “Let Us Join Hands with the Global Majority To Create a New Chapter in World History!” There, in her [Ten Principles for a New International Security and Development Architecture (More Here) of November last year, the reader can encounter the best short-term introduction to the method by which a higher order of strategic international policy is made.While many things are happening in current history, it is important for everyone who actually cares about civilization to read Russian President Putin’s (Report Here) Sept. 12 speech to the annual Eastern Economic Forum plenary directly, rather than the various media distortions. It should be read from the standpoint of the LaRouche “City-Builder” new economic platform conception identified above. Why? Let us examine this statement, made by Putin in his keynote speech to the Plenary Session of the 8th Eastern Economic Forum today: “Essentially, we are witnessing a new emerging model of relationships and integration—and not by Western patterns, for the elite, for the chosen ‘golden billion,’ but for the entire humanity and the entire existing and developing multipolar world. This model offers creative energy, openness, and focus on a specific outcome as a powerful competitive advantage of the Asia-Pacific region, a key factor that determines and I am sure will determine for a long time its global leadership in economic growth.”In the speech, President Putin was concentrating his attention on the enormous potential of the Russian Far East, an area that is more than 80% that of the continental United States. Putin pointed out, “I should note here that the average percentage of explored subsurface resources in the Far East is now 35%. You understand, that only 35% of the subsurface area has been explored. What does this mean? It shows that there is every opportunity for the mining industries to grow by leaps and bounds, including the strategic raw materials that are in short supply, and which will be in demand in the economy of the future. … In order to increase the scope of geological exploration, we have launched a frontal strategy, it is called so beautifully: Geology. Revival of a Legend. I ask the Government to include a separate section in it, dedicated to the study of the Far East subsurface and to start preparing a similar section for Siberia….”Those who know something of the scientific history of the United States can hear the implication of what Putin is actually discussing here. What is the significance, in American history, for example, of the United States Geological Survey, the United States Coast Survey, or the U.S. Geodetic Survey, and their roles in establishing a scientifically independent, increasingly self-sufficient United States? In response to the passage of the President John Quincy Adams-inspired General Survey Act of 1825, “authorizing the President to employ officers of the Army Corps of Engineers to make surveys for roads and canals of national importance,” Virginia Sen. John Randolph stated, “if Congress possesses the power to do what he is proposing this bill … They may emancipate every slave in the United States.”The BRICS process, so denounced and dismissed for so long by those that would have the world plunged into perpetual war, has increasingly emerged as the “seed-crystal,” but nonetheless central physical reality of a future “new planetary correlation of forces.” About Putin’s speech, though they reported secondary matters, Reuters and other press outlets could not grasp much, though many decided to fixate on the Russian President’s statement in discussions with the forum moderators, (More Here) that “If one looks into the security sphere, new physical principles weapons will ensure the security of any country in the near historic perspective. We understand this very well and are working on it.” That scared them enough to report it, along with the visit of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un to Russia and “what it could possibly mean.”What it all basically means—what the BRICS-Plus process, informed by the revolutionary ideas of Lyndon LaRouche can mean—is that the Sun is setting on the multiple imperialisms that have dominated too much of human life for far too long. The British are not amused, but they are also not capable of stopping the process, short of instigating thermonuclear war. As for the role of cities in acquiring greater human wealth, intelligence, and freedom, consider this.In the year 1800, some 3% of the world lived in cities. In 1900, some 14% of the world lived in cities. As of now, 55% of the world lives in cities. It is projected that by the year 2050, a least 68% of the world will be living in cities. “Together, India, China, and Nigeria will account for 35% of the projected growth of the world’s urban population between 2018 and 2050. By 2050, it is projected that India will have added 416 million urban dwellers, China 255 million and Nigeria 189 million.”Who will build these cities of the future? Where will those city-builders be born? When LaRouche proposed a revolution decades ago, of phased-in, eventually thermonuclear fusion-based economies that manufactured cities for export, built to change as they age, with modular industrial capabilities, he also conceived of workforces so conversant with the “machine-tool principle” that they were skilled in changing their very skills, to adapt and be incorporated into industries yet unknown. These are the workforces that will build the African cities of the future, not die on the shores of Libya or in the fatal seas of the Mediterranean. Whether in the form of space technology, fusion technology, high-speed rail/magnetically levitated trains technology, water and power technology, etc. It is time for the city-builders, and city dwellers, worldwide, as opposed to Mike “Mouse-o-lini” Bloomberg’s “Venetian world city-states” project, to build hundreds of cities, brimming with the optimism that only the final end of colonialism can bring the human race.
Putin Denounces Financial Colonialism vs. Africa, Expects No Change in D.C.’s Russia Policy after Elections Part 3
Part Three: We present now what is unfortunately the only reportage of some critical policy statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin at the recently concluded Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok—remarks that the powers that control our media don't want you to hear or read.Sept. 17, 2023 (EIRNS)—After his keynote address to the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) meeting in Vladivostok on Sept. 12, Russian President Vladimir Putin fielded numerous questions asked him by Ilya Doronov, managing director of the RBC TV channel. Excerpts of his responses can be found here, to three of the follow:On Africa: “What did the former colonizers [of Africa] do? Back in 1957—I was recently shown a photograph—they brought people from Africa in cages to European countries, for example, Belgium. It is an ugly sight, children put up on display in cages…. How can you forget this? Nobody in Africa will ever forget this. And now they are trying to issue commands and pursue their neo-colonial policy there. They have put all African countries in debt, which runs into trillions of dollars. In other words, they have created a financial credit system for Africa under which the African countries can never pay off their loans. These are not credit arrangements at all; it is a form of contribution if you see what I mean.”On Russia’s monetary policy: In response to the question, “How can you make any projections in a situation where you have no idea what is going to happen to the national currency?” Putin, unfortunately, endorsed the approach being taken by Russia’s monetarist Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina: high-interest rates and a floating exchange rate for the ruble. “Of course, the Central Bank had to raise the key interest rate to 12%. I think that its decision was correct, and timely too. This will mean there are fewer opportunities to take out loans, which will constrain the economy and inhibit its development to a certain extent. However, this factor has a major bearing on mitigating inflationary risks. Everything must come at the right moment…. There are no good or very good decisions here; there are only difficult decisions, and they need to be adopted promptly. So far, both the Central Bank and the Government have done so, and rather effectively.”On the U.S. presidential election: The moderator stated: “We understand that Trump could be taken into custody at any time.” To which Putin responded: "Why should we be concerned about that? I believe there will be no fundamental change in U.S. foreign policy towards Russia, regardless of who becomes President.“It is true that we hear Mr. Trump say he can resolve many serious problems, including the Ukraine crisis, in a few days. Well, that is something to be happy about. It would be good. But, in the grand scheme of things, we … by the way, despite the accusations of him having special ties with Russia, which is complete nonsense and absurdity, he imposed the greatest number of sanctions on Russia during his Presidency. So, I find it difficult to say what to expect from a new President, whoever it may be. It is unlikely, though, that any crucial change will take place because the current authorities have conditioned American society to be anti-Russia in nature and spirit; that is how things are. They did this, and it will now be very difficult for them to turn that ship around. That is the first point.“Second, they view Russia as an existential and constant adversary or even an enemy and implant this idea into the heads of ordinary Americans. This is not good because it fosters hostility. Despite this, there are many people in America who want to build good and friendly business relationships with us and, moreover, share many of our positions, primarily from the perspective of preserving traditional values. We have many friends and like-minded people there. But, of course, they are being suppressed.“So, we have no way of knowing who will be elected, but whoever it is, it is unlikely that the anti-Russia policy of the United States will change.“As for the persecution of Trump, well, in today’s conditions, in my view, that’s a good thing…. Because it reveals the rotten American political system, which should not be able to claim it can teach others about democracy.“Everything that is happening to Trump is the political persecution of a political rival. That is what it is. And it is happening in the eyes of the U.S. public and the whole world. They have exposed their domestic problems.”Image At the plenary session of the 8th Eastern Economic Forum. Photo: Alexander Vilf, RIA Novosti
Part Two: We present now what is unfortunately the only reportage of some critical policy statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin at the recently concluded Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok—remarks that the powers that control our media don't want you to hear or read.Sept. 17, 2023 (EIRNS)—The Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) held a panel discussion on Sept. 11 within the framework of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, under the headline: “Greater Eurasia: Drivers for the Formation of an Alternative International Monetary and Financial System.”One of the speakers was Sergey Glazyev, the Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics of the EEC, and Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, according to the account published by Roscongress Here. “In his speech (Glazyev) noted the successes of the Eurasian Economic Union in the transition to payments in national currencies and emphasized that this issue is especially relevant in the context of developing plans for the further development of the EAEU and its positioning in the Greater Eurasia space. Glazyev also emphasized that the creation of a new world currency is being actively discussed at key platforms of regional and interstate associations, including BRICS, whose weight in the world economy is constantly increasing.” Watch The session video, in which Glazyev speaks at 7:45 minutes, is dubbed into English The Deputy Chairman of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Alexander Babakov also spoke in support of the idea of creating a new international unit of account but emphasized that “Russia had to reduce the volatility of the ruble and pursue a monetary policy adequate to the tasks of national development,” according to Roscongress.Before the opening of the EEF, Glazyev had written on his Telegram channel on Sept. 8: “If we want to achieve macroeconomic stability and growth, it is necessary to stop the export of capital. To do this, introduce foreign exchange restrictions on capital transactions, reinstate the mandatory sale of foreign currency earnings, and begin targeted lending for investments. (This is) how China, India, and other successfully developing countries do it successfully.” Glazyev contrasted this with the current policy at the Russian Central Bank, which is “driving us deeper into the swamp of the periphery of the world economy as a financial donor, as the management of the Bank of Russia, biased by Washington financial organizations, has been doing for many years.”