The inevitable, yet sudden firing of U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton by President Donald Trump, on September 10, offers him the opportunity to return to his campaign pledge to end the "endless wars" of his predecessors, and to pursue mutually beneficial, cooperative relations with the other great powers, Russia and China, which he promised would be a major focus of his foreign policy. It was inevitable that Trump would dump Bolton, as the renowned war hawk was betraying Trump's stated intention to not just end the wars, but also his commitment to put an end to the regime change policies and fake "nation building" which have characterized Bolton's career as an operative of the famed "Military Industrial Complex", during which he has loyally pursued the geopolitical doctrines serving the interests of the British Empire. In recent months, Bolton has been engaged directly in the sabotage of Trump's major foreign policy initiatives, at times acting as though he were the President.
This article includes contributions from Barbara Boyd
In recent discussions, Schiller Institute founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche has emphasized that there is not a single economic problem which could not be solved by U.S.-China cooperation. She noted that the personal relationship between Presidents Trump and Xi, forged during an initial summit in Mar-a-Lago, Florida in April 2017, and deepened during Trump’s visit to Beijing in November 2017, offered hope that the United States might engage in a collaborative relationship with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which could even include Chinese participation in modernizing America’s rapidly deteriorating infrastructure.
The G7 nations engaged in a three-ring circus of obfuscation, while demonstrating a convincing display of their institutional policy bankruptcy, at their August 24-26 summit in Biarritz, France, where they sidestepped discussion of the real issues facing humanity, by avoiding any discussion of the single, defining matter before mankind: The irreversible bankruptcy of the entire London-run trans-Atlantic financial system. While the circus was underway in Biarritz, the real agenda was presented quietly, without much fanfare or publicity, in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on August 22-24. There, at the annual meeting convened by the Kansas City Federal Reserve, a gang of central bankers and other financial swindlers called for a "regime change in monetary policy", in a desperate attempt to keep their empire intact. As described by the Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "The real story is that the Jackson Hole meeting declared a coup, what they themselves call a 'regime change in monetary policy'. They are openly demanding the issuance, by Central Banks, of 'helicopter money,' which would basically eliminate the last aspects of national sovereignty of governments, by giving the authority to the central banks to directly pump fiat money both into official state, but also private channels—and naturally, this is also supposed to all finance the Green Deal."
To anyone who has been paying attention to the exposure by this and other LaRouche publications of the lies spread in the media to support the fabricated narrative of Russiagate, and the anti-science fraud of man-made climate change, there were three very interesting stories in the last week which usefully put a spotlight on this process. The three stories covered different themes, but had a common thread: Lyndon LaRouche and his movement's long history of prescient analysis, which is why it remains a significant factor in shaping U.S. policy today, after LaRouche's passing on February 12, at 96 years old.
Now that legitimate warning signs are flashing that a “significant correction,” or even a global financial collapse is imminent, the usual gaggles of idiots pontificating in mainstream media venues are madly pointing fingers at President Trump. He is to blame for the crisis, they proclaim!—he is wrong for focusing on the Federal Reserve and interest rates; or else he caused the crisis by launching what they call a “trade war” against China. The empty suits in the media blather on about the danger of “inverted yields” on bond markets, while they argue about whether the U.S. or China is “winning” the alleged trade war. They put forward a blizzard of confusing talking points, ultimately designed to convince listeners that there is no alternative but to “batten down the hatches,” and “stay the course.”
The virulent blow-back against the truthful headline in the New York Times’ (NYT) lead article on President Trump’s remarks to the nation on August 5, in response to the mass killings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, reveals the desperation of those committed to removing Trump, following the utter failure of the Russiagate investigation to provide the means to do so. The headline in the first print edition of the paper on August 6 read, “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism.” This accurately conveyed the central theme of Trump’s address, in which he described the killings as a “crime against all humanity,” and said that, “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy.”
Anyone who watched the contorted and confused expressions on the face of former special counsel Robert Mueller during his testimony before two Congressional Committees on July 24, or heard his unsure, evasive, often-stumbling answers to questions, can now see why he had resisted making an appearance before Congress. Despite his resistance, Democratic Congressional leaders insisted he appear. Their purpose, in demanding that he testify, according to the anti-Trump Washington Post (WaPo), was to "give impeachment advocates fresh momentum."
When running for President in 2016, Donald Trump repeatedly ridiculed the claims of Hillary Clinton that President Obama's economic program was responsible for a robust economic recovery from the Crash of 2008. She cited the dramatic rebound of stock values, and reduction of the unemployment rate, as proofs of this claim. Trump charged that neither of these indicators was valid proof of a recovery, as stock valuations did not reflect the real economy, as a majority of Americans devastated by that crash had not recovered, with more than eight million families losing their homes; and that the unemployment figures did not reflect the real status of the workforce, as nearly a third of potentially employable people were not counted, as they were no longer looking for work, and therefore, did not show up as "unemployed" in official figures.