Royals Declare War on Humanity; Humanity’s Response—“the Bell Tolls for Thee!”


by Dennis Small, LaRouche Organization:

Now is the time for the movement founded by Lyndon LaRouche and headed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche to assemble a worldwide anti-Malthusian resistance. The indispensable concept to be supplied, that the LaRouche movement brings to this discussion, and without the which there is no hope for defeating the oligarchical enemy, is the increase of available energy, per capita and square kilometer, for the whole human race, with a particular emphasis on those areas where population growth is most clearly expected in the next fifty years—the continents of Asia and Africa. Though some world leaders are now seeking to stand up to the “carbon colonialism” of the Great Reset, and the “Ghouls Gone Wild” blood-feast at Glasgow, they lack any clear sense of an alternative, and often entertain, if only to be overheard doing so, the pagan “Mother Earth” mantra, or the “carbon dioxide is a real threat” mantra. We cannot allow the degradation of the terms of the discussion into merely seeming to discuss the truth, as LaRouche discusses in his “Riemann Refutes Euler” article.


For example, Bolivian President Luis Arce said in his COP 26 speech that “developed countries are promoting a new world recolonization process that we can call the ‘new carbon colonialism,’ because they are trying to impose their own rules of the game in the climate negotiations to continue feeding the new green capitalist system, while pushing developing nations to accept these rules of the game without any other options.” True, but then what? Clearly Bolivia has defended nuclear power as a right of all people, but then, when Arce, an economist, says, in the same speech, that “The solution is to change the model of civilization and move towards an alternative model to capitalism, the concept of living well together in harmony with Mother Earth,” the flaw, and the trap, become clear.

Unless the LaRouche notion of energy flux-density, and “the increase of the rate of increase” of energy flux-density, through advanced technologies such as nuclear and thermonuclear power, is understood, mastered, and defended in its own right, no matter how militant the message of opposition to the Great Reset may sound, it will signify nothing; the same tragedy will play out. No “redistributionist” approach will outwit, for example, Lynn Rothschid’s Council for Inclusive Capitalism, which, like Bolivia’s President, calls for “an alternative view of capitalism,”—though they mean something very “indifferent” than he.

We need to instantly change the terms of discourse, everywhere in the world, in unexpected ways. Consider how an alert organizer intersected Pope Francis’s call for prayers for Haiti, now undergoing the dissolution of the nation, and threatening the same for the Dominican Republic. Simply by placing a link to our program for Haiti, as itself a physical-economic template for how to approach solving, not only the problem of Haiti, but the problem of many other nations in the Caribbean sector, a liberated discussion of the higher resolution became possible. The function of collaboration with nations, including China, was defined. In that sense, the Pope’s call for prayer was answered: “God, help us—with our right arm.”

In the Schiller Institute’s Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites approach, for example, the Afghanistan situation can be seen, and organized, as a workshop for a collaboration of Russia, China, the United States, and India, lessening the danger of war which is otherwise worsening virtually by the hour. It is a “win-win”military strategy of engagement, without recourse to arms and war. The “Operation Ibn Sina” world health emergency intervention is no more a mere medical or “humanitarian” idea, than Ibn Sina was merely a self-taught country physician. Consider: Ibn Sina is not only claimed as a “native son” by many areas and countries in southwest Asia; he is also widely recognized in intellectual history as a pivotal figure in the dialogue between Islam and Christianity, and “East” and “West,” because of his theological and metaphysical writings, prefiguring Nicholas of Cusa in certain respects. If one bothers to think about Arnold Toynbee’s and Bernard Lewis’s gnostic emphasis and predatory approach to both Islam and Christianity, and their virulent opposition to both when it comes to the question of their shared theological mandate to “increase and multiply” the human population, then the “clash of civilizations” strategy of British intelligence, including its pagan-religious side, can more easily be seen, including in their RIIA and Prince Charles “ecocide” and “eco-army” manifestations.

“They are neither man nor woman, they are neither brute nor human—they are pestilential carcasses disparted from their souls, called ghouls.” Prince Charles at COP 26 proposed (or, more clearly, disclosed) a war on the human race that was the “fever dream” of not only his father Phillip, and Phillip’s World Wildlife Fund co-founder Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, but of the European synarchist political movements of the 1930s that had shaped both, and even the Queen, as a young child, herself. “Climate change and biodiversity loss … pose an even greater existential threat than the COVID-19 pandemic, to the extent that we have to put ourselves on a war-like footing. We know what we must do. With a growing global population creating ever increasing demand on the planet’s finite resources, we have to reduce emissions urgently, and take action to tackle the carbon already in the atmosphere, including from coal-powered power systems….”

“Our efforts cannot be a series of independent initiatives running in parallel; the scale and scope of the threat we face, call for a global systems-level solution…” Sir David Attenborough, the close collaborator of Prince Phillip and a central promoter of the “pre-Gaia” “natural religion” outlook more familiar to people through the work of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, was applauded, but not for his undiscussed views of population. They include the idea that 75% of the present British population is superfluous. (What’s he thinking about Africa?) Attenborough says, on the website of his organization, Population Matters: “All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder—and ultimately impossible—to solve with ever more people.”

Read More @