Four committees have been proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche as the springboard for a campaign of action for the advancement of proposals arrived at over the two-day Schiller Institute Conference of November 13th and 14th, “All Moral Resources of Humanity Must Be Called Up: Mankind Must Be The Immortal Species!” Those policies included: a “higher resolution” of the Afghanistan crisis, both the immediate danger of famine, and the longer-term integration of Afghanistan into a functioning “world land-bridge.” The initiative was named by Zepp-LaRouche “Operation Ibn Sina”; a “no limits to growth” science policy, expanding nuclear and thermonuclear energy production, consumption, research and development worldwide; a resurgence of classical education and culture through a modern “Convivencia” of Eastern and Western pedagogical methods, in the image of Leibniz’s proposal to establish an international string of collaborative academies; and a world collaboration to not only eradicate the danger of the coronavirus, but also to establish an international health platform, including clean water supplies and healthy food, and to extend the scientific boundaries of present-day biology, chemistry and physics in order to supply medicine with the necessary conceptual breakthroughs for the new requirements for diagnosis and treatment of disease so sorely revealed to be necessary in the wake of this still-evolving pandemic.

These committees represent evolving, dynamic investigative processes, embedded in a rapidly shifting manifold of discontinuous but knowable change. For five decades, economist, statesman and thinker Lyndon LaRouche approached current history by applying a method of thinking, an epistemology, to the “hyper-geometry” of evolving political processes.

In an April 1976 article entitled “Heuristic Application of the Higher Theory of Manifolds to the Current Strategical and Subsumed Tactical Situation,” Lyndon LaRouche sought to describe to his associates why “If one proposed to force existing governments to directly implement [a certain policy], the task must seem formally an impossibility. Yet, if the possibility for a rapid succession of intermediating developments is clearly understood, no such difficulty as initially appears to prevail stands in our way.” He said:

“In any relatively short interval of development of a phase of society of a definite kind, a characteristic specific feature of that society, adducible from its mode of development, defines the approximate equivalent of a set of universal laws specific to that phase of that society. Consequently, in the experience of persons within that society, certain forms of activity as characterized by such rules, represent the effective measure of reality within that context. Consequently, certain features of life, so determined, have the significance of ‘fact’ under such conditions…. We might therefore properly term such ‘facts’ to be ‘practical facts,’ since their conditional validity is inseparable from the effectiveness of the kinds of actions they imply; they are called ‘facts’ essentially because the reactions they imply ‘seem to work’ within the framework of that phase of that particular society’s development.

“Then, however, bring that society to a point of discontinuity, such as the present…. The society has reached the point at which it can no longer exist on the basis of the previously dominant sets of institutions. As a result, what worked as reactions to events in the past, no longer works. In a very meaningful sense, the laws of the universe have suddenly broken down insofar as relations within that society approximate a set of implied universal laws of social practice. Consequently, what was effectively a ‘fact’ in 1971 [now 50 years ago—ed.] is no longer a fact today.” 

At that point, the laws governing reality must change. Inversely, in LaRouche’s Dec. 19, 2004 essay, “The Dialogue of Eurasian Civilizations: Earth’s Next 50 Years,” LaRouche efficiently forecasted the next 50 years in front of mankind, 16 of which have now occurred. “Earth’s Next 50 Years” was, however, no mere “futurology.” It was a call to action, and “a call to (intellectual) arms.” The recently concluded two-day conference of the Schiller Institute, was a process within a process conceived in the image of that LaRouche-proposed 2005 strategy for global transition. The initiatives from the conference, including the creation of the four committees intended to act upon the crisis presented in the four panels at the conference, are embedded in a war for the soul of civilization. 

At COP26, the oligarchical despots that dared to declare that $130 trillion could be amassed from private capital in order to resolve a problem that did not exist—namely, the emission of CO₂ into the atmosphere—instead created an opening, a flank, which we must now exploit. By revealing that, were the will to do so present, trillions of dollars could be deployed for the purpose of eradicating poverty, famine, disease, and therefore, war itself, the international financial oligarchy made eloquently clear, to all those not so intimidated as to be unable to see it, their Malthusian, monstrous reality barely hidden behind the mask called “climate change.”

The British expressed their displeasure at Joe Biden’s being unable to deliver what they desired for COP26, by allowing the Guardian to run a lengthy article about his apparent flatulence in the face of members of the royal family. How happy are they now, at the results of the 3-1/2 hour video conversation between Biden and Xi Jinping of China? Though the saber-rattling continues from the Pentagon and State Department, the two leaders have discussed matters, and Biden has insisted that he does not support, and that America does not support the idea of Taiwan’s independence. “One China” remains the official American policy. But the battle for a sane U.S.-China relationship is still inconclusive; a higher-manifold resolution must be supplied.

The international political battlefield is fraught with danger, as can be seen in the back-and-forth border dispute between Poland and Belarus. Angela Merkel’s 50-minute phone call to Lukashenko has infuriated the Greens and other anti-Russian German and EU elements. Discussions involving France’s Emmanuel Macron and Russia’s Vladimir Putin have also sought to de-escalate the situation in Central Europe. Meanwhile, Ukraine was allowed to join EU efforts to help postpone the certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline by at least 6 months. The immediate consequence of this will be punitive inflation of gas prices—punitive to the citizens of Europe, as Russian representatives have pointed out.

Nonetheless, why does, and will, every strategy advanced to destroy Russia and China, militarily or otherwise, only serve to significantly materially and politically destroy the Anglo-American “(shrinking) sphere of influence?” Why, in fact, must the failed but still-prevalent axioms of the international monetarist system, which died but was never buried in 2007-2008, ultimately destroy that very system itself, no matter what policy is now adopted in the short term? The reason is that the reality by which that system seemed to be governed, actually never existed; it was embedded in another, higher “manifold.” That is the manifold of physical economy which LaRouche illustrated through his “Triple Curve” heuristic graphic 25 years ago, depicting the insoluble, “explosive” contradiction between looting the physical economy and inflating the fictitious speculative monetarist bubble.

There will be no admission by the “guardians of the establishment,” probably ever, that they have no idea what is actually going on. ECB President Christine Lagarde, for example, does not say that she was mistaken on how long inflation, that is, hyperinflation, will presently continue in the trans-Atlantic system. She simply says “it will last longer than we expected”—sort of like the coronavirus, now raging in Germany, Austria, and throughout Europe, as well as in Russia. Medical personnel in Austria have just warned that “war triage” could even emerge, if a completely new approach is not taken to confronting the truth of the character of the coronavirus pandemic, and to adopting the necessary public health measures and expenditures worldwide. Victory will also require breakthroughs in the sciences of biology, medicine, chemistry and physics, for which the inspiring figures of Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie and Ibn Sina, one of the greatest physicians in all human history, will serve as metaphors for the method of scientific higher hypothesis itself.

“Hypothesis non fingo—”I don’t make hypotheses“—is the motto, known or unknown, conscious or instinctive, that dooms the leadership of the present time in the trans-Atlantic world. The”laws " and “facts” by means of which they have governed, no longer work. But, like the once-famous Wile E Coyote of cartoon fame, who keeps running off the side of a cliff without noting that he has actually left solid ground, the doomed, left to their own devices, only confront reality when it smacks them in the face. It is possible, however, as well as necessary, that the Schiller Institute’s commitment to the dignity of humanity, expressed through the anti-Malthusian resistance it has helped to spark as seen at Flop26, becomes the new hypothesis for action adopted by more and more people dedicated to make this higher, better world, not merely an intention, but a fact.