Det londonbaserede Imperium er afsløret:
Nu er døren åben for økonomisk forandring
i det transatlantiske område.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche i strategisk webcast, 26. april, 2018

Det londonbaserede Imperium er afsløret:
Nu er døren åben for økonomisk forandring
i det transatlantiske område.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche i strategisk webcast, 26. april, 2018
image_pdfimage_print

Med den velfortjente tvivl, der møder hvert eneste strategiske krav, som kommer fra City of London og dets allierede kræfter på Wall Street og i Bruxelles som følge af den igangværende afsløring af deres løgne, f.eks. om »Russiagate« og anvendelsen af »kemiske våben«, er der nu en mulighed uden fortilfælde for at bryde med det Gamle Paradigme på dets svageste flanke, nemlig, at økonomien er stærk og voksende. I virkeligheden er det eneste, der vokser, faren for et nyt blowout, med daglige advarsler om problemer i bank- og finanssystemet som følge af en uerholdelig boble, bestående af alle former for gæld. Det var et lignende sammenløb af dårlig gæld og oppustet gearing, der førte til Lyndon LaRouches profetiske advarsel i juli 2007 om et uundgåeligt, forestående blowout af finanssystemet, på et tidspunkt, hvor konsensus var, at økonomien er »stærk«.

Med fremkomsten af en model, der promoverer reel, fysisk vækst i økonomien gennem udvidelsen af Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ (BVI), har Schiller Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche understreget, at tiden nu er inde til, at det økonomiske program, som hendes mand har udviklet, kendt som »LaRouches Fire Love«, bliver gennemført. Der er ingen grund til at tolerere et nyt krak med den død og elendighed, det ville medføre, når et gennemprøvet alternativ vinder støtte blandt flertallet af nationer. Desuden er det det desperate forsøg på at redde det gamle system, der ligger bag det krigsfremstød, som kommer fra imperieflokken, som hellere vil risikere udslettelsen af den menneskelige race end den vil opgive sine finansielle beholdningers fiktive værdier.

Schiller Instituttet har lanceret en offensiv for at få sandheden ud om de finansielle oligarker og deres neokonservative krigsmagere, og for at mobilisere regeringer til at vedtage LaRouches Fire Love og gå med i BVI.

 

 

Engelsk udskrift:

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, April 26, 2018
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

London-Based Empire Exposed: Door Open for Trans-Atlantic
Economic Change

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the
Schiller Institute. Welcome to this week’s international webcast
featuring our founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
We’re entering a very intense period of diplomatic activity,
much of it related to the advances of the New Silk Road, although
regrettably some of it is related to efforts to enforce the old
rules of the old paradigm. But I think we should start with
something that was quite interesting that came out of Germany
this week, which is a report by a parliamentary organization on
the illegality of the missile attack on Syria by the United
States, United Kingdom and France.  Helga, what is this committee
that put out this report, and what did they say?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  It is actually something called the
Scientific Research Service [Wissenschaftlichen Dienste] which is
basically experts which advise the Bundestag members on various
issues.  And they issued an opinion on the legality or illegality
of these military strikes against Syria, and they came clearly to
the conclusion that it is a violation of international law.  I
think it’s very important to discuss that: Because while
Chancellor Merkel called these strikes appropriate and necessary,
and Defense Minister Von der Leyen even said it’s a shame that
Germany was not part of it — we just were not asked but in the
future, Germany wants to play a role on a global scale in similar
functions.  And what the Scientific Research Service actually
says is that this action, which was not allowed by the UN
Security Council and is replacing the principle of legality with
a principle of subjective moral legitimacy; that this is actually
in the tradition of the gunboat-type of diplomacy before World
War I, and this also took place in some form between the World
Wars. And actually it was the horrors of World War II which then
caused the international community to establish the presently
existing international law as it is reflected in the UN Charter
and similar documents.
And actually, to abandon that body of law and go back to a
pre-World War I kind of making military strikes as you like it,
is creating a very, very dangerous precedent.  And some other
jurists commented on that, and said, by the same token any state
can attack that model and say “we have some beef with our
neighbors” and make similar military strikes and then you end up
in a completely uncontrollable situation which can quickly lead
to a new world war.
So I would really like to point you, our audience, to this
point, and it’s something we should not just let go, because
international law is something extremely precious.  And it is
also, this military strike would have been completely illegal for
Germany to participate in, because Article 26 of the Grundgesetz,
the Basic Law of Germany, prohibits the preparation of a war of
aggression, and it even says that whoever does that should have
lifelong prison sentence.
This is also violating a UN resolution from 1974, pertaining
to war of aggression.  And I think it is very important that we
not allow the world to drift into a lawless kind of situation
that whoever has the might makes the right, the law of the jungle
and survival of the fittest.  Because this is a very dangerous
path to go. And we should really remind ourselves where wars of
aggression lead to.
This Scientific Research Service also noted the fact that
this military strike was done even before the result of the OPCW
was known, aggravates the case of this violation of international
law.
So I would like to make a very big emphasis on this point,
because obviously, it is very unfortunate that Trump got pulled
into this, and obviously, the danger is, if this is let go, the
danger of a repetition and then things getting really much worse
and going out of control, this danger absolutely exists.  So I
would like you to help us to sharpen a consciousness about it and
obviously, this should be something taken up by the United
Nations based on this resolution from 1974, which I just
mentioned.  I would like you to really give some thought about
it, and not just say, “OK, we’ll just do these things,” because
there are consequences which could mean, in the final analysis,
the end of civilization.

SCHLANGER:  Also speaking of Germany, there was something
interesting on German television which raised questions about the
so-called chemical attack, and I think that’s kind of
interesting.  Is this going to have any effect in the Bundestag?
Is there much discussion of this now, as a result of this report?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, it’s another classical example:  You
had one courageous, or just objective journalist, Uli Gack, who
is the head of ZDF office in Cairo, and he was in Syria.  He
reported from there that he talked to many witnesses in Douma and
around Douma, and that they all said that there was absolutely no
chemical weapons use by the government, but that it was one of
the typical provocations from the jihadists.  And he also, in
this program, which was at prime time on the news, he quoted the
British journalist Robert Fisk from the {Independent}, who had
already made a similar observation which was published in this
newspaper.
So then, all hell broke loose, and the ZDF, the official TV
channel, distanced themselves from this report, and said this is
a “conspiracy theory”  — they didn’t say it, but other media,
{Bildzeitung} and {Focus} magazine said it, they clamped down on
this journalist and forced him to actually not pursue this any
more.  And these other media accused a very normal, actually one
of the more honest journalists, of being a conspiracy theorist.
And it’s a complete, classical example of the kind of
{Gleichschaltung} [“synchronization,” a reference to the Nazi
period] the Western media have these days.
This is not the end of the story, because the OPCW
fact-finding mission returned to Syria, and I think tomorrow
there will be the meeting of the OPCW in The Hague, where the
Russians will basically bring several new Syrian witnesses, to
testify on what they saw.  And we know what the earlier ones had
said, namely, that there was shouting by the jihadists that there
were “chemical weapons!” and then they did the filming and there
was actually nothing happening, except this staged scenario.
This is not the end of the story, but as I said, unless the
truth of this is being uncovered, the danger of a repetition is
absolutely there.

SCHLANGER:  And I think also, to stick with Syria for just a
moment because it’s such a crucial issue, we have the Macron trip
to the United States, where he’s continuing to pull out all the
stops to try and get President Trump to commit the United States
to keeping troops in Syria.  What is it that Macron is doing in
this?  Why is he taking the point on this, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  It is actually the British policy.  And I
think Macron did not do himself any favor by being the spearhead.
I think he has some idea to position himself as the leader of the
European Union.  He gave a speech to a Joint Session of Congress,
which was absolutely terrible, which was made no milder by the
fact that he got a standing ovation by these Congressmen.  And
obviously, it was a complete attack on what was in the discussion
between Macron and Trump in the days before:  because he attacked
unilateralism, nationalism and obviously all things which were
aimed at the policies of Trump, naturally, he got the support of
the Democrats and the neo-cons and so forth.
I don’t think this will necessarily stick.  The problem is
that Trump does change his views, sometimes rather quickly.  But
after Macron left, I was told that Trump repeated that the aim of
U.S. policy would be to get out of Syria as quickly as possible
after ISIS is defeated.  So I don’t necessarily think that Macon
succeeded.  Even so, it was very clear that he was fully on the
geopolitical old paradigm line; and obviously, he was trying to
also bypass and outflank Merkel, who is arriving for a few hour
visit in the White House, today, actually — the meeting is
tomorrow.
So this was a terrible intervention, and one can only hope
that Trump is not going to be influenced by this, but is looking
forward at his upcoming summit with President Putin, which is
obviously much, much more important than the policy of the
European Union.  And Macron was also mentioning the initiation of
a new grouping which is supposed to be the bridge between the
Geneva process and the Astana process [of peace negotiations in
Syria].  But the European position, as we have seen it in some of
the conferences on the reconstruction of Syria, both the United
States and the EU are not giving any money for the reconstruction
of Syria: only for those areas which are not under the control of
Assad, and obviously the regime change against the Assad
government is still the policy, here, and that is very terrible,
and very bad.

SCHLANGER:  I think it’s worth noting, also, that the U.S.
Ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman gave a statement where he
reiterated that President Trump is seeking a détente policy with
Russia, and he’s very much looking forward to the meeting with
Putin.
Now, on the other side, we’re seeing a whole series of
initiatives around the New Silk Road perspective, starting with
the foreign ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
that were meeting; they have a [heads of state] summit coming on
June 9-10 in China.
You also have developments, which I’d like to get to just
get your thoughts on this, India with China:  Modi is going to
China next week; Japan and China — there’s a whole lot of
activity.  What do you make of all this, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Oh, I think that is very, very exciting.  I
was talking to some of my friends in India earlier today to get
their assessment.  And there is clearly a recognition that after
the border crisis in Doklam, between China and India, last year,
that there is a recognition that it is much more in the interests
of the two countries to work together.  Now, I think this is very
good, because there was a danger that Modi would make his next
election campaign on an anti-China profile.  But there will be a
summit in Wuhan between Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, actually
starting tomorrow and the day after that; and I think one
Professor Zhang Jiadong from Fudan University commented on this
in a very interesting way:  He said, India and China are the only
two countries that belong to the club of nations which have more
than 1 billion people; they are represent together, 40% of the
world population.  They both have continuous, 5,000-year
histories.  They have produced many contributions to world
civilization, and when they work together, being the two largest
countries on the planet, this is of extreme importance.
And the Chinese Foreign Minster Wang Yi said that what will
be discussed between Xi Jinping and Modi is the developments
which occur only once in a century.  And while I’m not sure what
he means exactly by that, I think what it refers to is the
epochal changes of strategic alignment which are going on in Asia
right now, and that is what President Xi Jinping is trying to
accomplish also with the upcoming SCO summit on June 9-10, after
the Belt and Road Initiative and the BRICS countries, now the
SCO, that all of this is supposed to lead to a completely new
model of international relations, of what Xi Jinping always calls
the “shared community for the one future of mankind.”
And I think, given the fact that between Japan and China,
there is a clear rapprochement, and  between Japan and Russia,
you can see clearly that all these Asian countries are seeking a
better way; and even if there are still some obstacles, like the
issue between India and Pakistan, I don’t think has been
resolved; and India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor is also not yet resolved; but the more these countries
are moving toward each other — and there was a very interesting
comment in a Chinese article saying that the relations between
China and Japan now could be modeled, or you could use the
parallel of the European Coal and Steel Community in the
beginning of the 1950s, which was France giving the olive branch
to Germany just five years after the Second World War.
Obviously, this is a reference to the past war experience
between China and Japan, and saying that if Germany and France
could settle their problems of world war, so can China and Japan.
I think this is going in a very, very good direction.  And
it shows you one thing very clearly:  That the future of
civilization is in Asia, and any country of the West that wants
to be part of that future, should find a good relation to this
new dynamic, because this is the forward-looking one, and not the
old paradigm as represented by some of these European powers that
just think in terms of the past.

SCHLANGER:  And your husband Lyndon LaRouche emphasized
many, many years ago, that an India-China-Russia relationship
which the U.S. could join, would be the basis of establishing
something totally new in the world.
Now, Helga, you’ve travelled to India and China a number of
times, you’ve met with leaders in both countries.  Is there
anything that you can see that would get in the way of an
improved relationship?  I mean, isn’t this something that,
really, the time has come for this to happen?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  There is a clear understanding that it’s a
strategic necessity for the Asian countries to work together.
Unfortunately, the replacement of Adm. Harry Harris as commander
of the U.S. Pacific Command,  — his name is Adm. Philip Davidson
— he just spoke at confirmation hearings of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, which was a blood-curdling attack on Russia
and China and accusing China of all kinds of things.  So the
geopolitical thinking is not yet gone. And one could actually say
that this idea of a China-Russia-India alliance was furthered by
the behavior of the neo-cons, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan
intervention, the Libya attack; so I think these countries moved
together much more quickly than they would have normally done, as
a result of these policies of the Bush-Obama-Blair-Cameron-May
kind of policies.
And, you know, OK, you can always have a terrible incident
like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or some other pretext to cause
a new crisis; this is why I think the discussion of the legality
of these military strikes needs to be internationally discussed;
but I think if you look at the intention of the Chinese
leadership, of the Russian leadership, and as it now hopefully
looks like, also, Modi — and Japan — they are moving clearly
into a New Paradigm. And I think the New Silk Road Spirit has
caught on.  The countries of Asia have understood that this is
the moment in history where we need a completely new set of
relations if mankind is supposed to get into safe waters and have
a bright future.
I am optimistic, I’m very optimistic.  And also, with the
summit tomorrow between Kim Jong-un and President Moon Jae-in of
South Korea, this also looks very good.  And if it’s any
reflection, the head of the Olympic Committee Thomas Bach said
that he talked to both the South Korean and North Korean
governments and that they had clear intentions to join the next
Olympics and even have a joint team again. And he says, from his
discussion, he’s extremely optimistic about the intention of
these two governments.
So if you look at all of these developments, I think it is
actually very good, and some of these geopoliticians probably
will never change, because they cannot imagine that mankind can
growth out of the old kind of pettiness and rivalry and
competition; and that a New Paradigm of win-win cooperation is
actually possible.  But if the majority of mankind is moving in
this direction, I’m very confident and hopeful that this New
Paradigm will prevail.

SCHLANGER:  President Trump had a little bit of fun with
this, when he made fun of the media for saying that there would
never be any progress with North Korea.  And he said, look, you
don’t know what’s going to happen — it may not work, but he’s
very happy with the response from Kim Jong-un.  And then he just
sent a team to China to discuss the trade agreement which
includes the top trade officials.  And what he said, which I
think shapes their outlook, is that he has great respect for Xi
Jinping and a great friendship.  Do you have any thoughts on what
might happen with these discussions going on between the U.S. and
China?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  That’s difficult, you know, because I think
from the Chinese side, you have Vice Premier Liu He, who is the
most important economic advisor of Xi Jinping.  And he has been
elevated recently into the Politburo and the State Council; he
will represent the potential of the Belt and Road Initiative.  On
the side of the American delegation, for sure Mnuchin — we had
criticism of him, and [U.S. Trade Representative] Lighthizer also
has not exactly been on the line of what Trump’s election
promises really were; even so, he has mentioned the American
System at one point.
I don’t know. I would imagine that China will propose the
way to overcome the trade deficit, in the way Wang Yi, the
Foreign Minister, had suggested; and also, Prime Minister Li
Keqiang — namely, that other than tariffs, you could also
increase the trade between the two countries, and have joint
ventures in third countries; and in that way, balance the trade
deficit by just increasing the trade.  And I would imagine that
the Chinese, for sure, will reiterate this proposal.  Then, how
these two or four delegates from the United States (it’s not so
clear) will respond, we don’t know.  One can only hope they
recognize the potential that American industries would benefit
greatly from participating in such joint ventures in third
countries along the Belt and Road.  And naturally, U.S.-Chinese
relations could also benefit a lot, if the United States would
allow Chinese investments in the buildup of U.S. infrastructure.
Now, we have to see how that develops.  I’m optimistic that
the Chinese will not miss the opportunity to make such proposals,
and that is why the Schiller Institute is so important, that we
make these ideas more known inside the United States, so that
more and more people recognize the potential which would lie in
the U.S.-China cooperation in the Belt and Road Initiative.  So
you should join the Schiller Institute and help us to make these
ideas more known.

SCHLANGER:  We do know there’s support for expansion of
U.S.-China trade, at least in states such as Alaska, West
Virginia;  Houston, Texas, where there have been delegations to
China and from China to the United States, to talk about specific
investments.
While we’re talking about investments, we have to pick up
this whole question of the financial crisis, which we should
never lose sight of:  because behind the whole strategic
confrontation is the collapse of this financial system, which is
being held together by unbelievable amounts of new funny-money
and fake credit which is just building up debt.
Helga, there were more warnings coming out from the U.S.
Federal Reserve, a couple of officials.  There’s talk about the
interest rate problem, a shakeup at Deutsche Bank.  What do you
see on this financial picture:  It’s really quite shaky and it
seems like now is the time there should be a new concerted effort
around your husband’s basic Four Laws.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, it’s the strategic powder keg we are
sitting on.  If one of the three governors of the Federal Reserve
is already warning that the wave of corporate insolvencies, which
has increased over last year by 60%, is so severe that it could
cause a new banking crisis.  Well, the Fed is not known to make
alarmist statements, but they generally use a language to calm
down the markets and respect the so-called “psychology of the
markets.”  So if such a warning comes from the Fed, it should be
really taken seriously.
And you know, there are also new articles about Deutsche
Bank — the IMF called Deutsche Bank the riskiest bank in the
world.  They have 42 trillion in derivatives contracts
outstanding!  Now, some of these contracts balance each other
out, so it may not be 42 trillion, but this is 15 times the
German GDP, so this not a small amount. And one day, we could
wake up, or in the middle of the day, have a complete repetition
of 2008, on a much larger scale.
Obviously, we need the Four Laws of my husband Lyndon
LaRouche, and especially, the emphasis should be not only on
Glass-Steagall, a National Bank, credit system, but especially on
the fourth law:  Because unless you have a complete push for
innovation and qualitative breakthroughs in applying new
universal principles in the economic platform, as my husband as
discussed it in many of his writings, you will not pull out the
terrible shape of the economies of the trans-Atlantic system,
especially in the United States, Southern Europe — I mean, there
are some real problem cases where you need an emphasis on such
things as thermonuclear fusion, space cooperation, and apply the
most advanced new physical principles in the economy, if you want
to save the situation.
And that is not being discussed in any way or shape in
Europe or in the United States, so let’s just really emphasize
that, and help us to make the mobilization for the implementation
of these Four Laws, not only in the United States but also in
Europe.  The country which is closest to that is China:  Xi
Jinping just met with an economic group, and, again, emphasized
the need to warn and safeguard China against financial risk.  And
China is obviously de-emphasizing any kind of speculative
activity.  But Wall Street and the City of London are very far
from such reason in their practice.

SCHLANGER:  I was just reviewing some reports over the last
couple of days on this, and one of the things that many
economists do acknowledge, is that with all the pep talk about
how great the economy is doing, that there’s wage stagnation, the
lowest labor participation rate level in four decades; and then,
they always come back to this question of productivity — there’s
no productivity gains. And what you just said, the Chinese
clearly have a sense of what happened with the United States with
NASA under John Kennedy: Their space program is oriented toward
the highest technology, the rail system and so on. And it seems
as though this should be a no-brainer for people in the United
States, just to look at our own history, and realize that this
works.
So, just to reiterate what Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, the
Schiller Institute is mobilizing internationally for the Four
Laws, but especially at this point in time, we’ve got to get
President Trump to go back to his thinking from his campaign,
both about the alliance with Russia and China; but also about
support for Glass-Steagall and a real infrastructure program.
And Helga, just to finish this, we’ve seen the Congress
complete botch any effort by the President to get an
infrastructure plan going.  Do you think this would be an
obviously winning strategy for anybody, to go into the 2018
election with a real infrastructure plan?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think that the dynamic which is
taking place in Asia right now, which we mentioned earlier, I
mean, this will shape history for the better.  I’m absolutely
convinced that what is happening between China and Africa, China
and Latin America, China and Eurasia, many European nations are
already completely onboard the New Silk Road development in terms
of infrastructure:  The Eastern European, the Central European
countries, the Balkans, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria,
Switzerland — all of these countries — even Belgium and
Holland, the Scandinavian countries, they all have recognized the
great potential in the infrastructure cooperation of the New Silk
Road.  And I think right now, the biggest problem in some
countries, like Germany and the United States, is the fact that
the mass media have not given justice to what is actually
happening:  You have the largest infrastructure program in
history which is already — people debate whether it’s 12 times
or 20 times the size of the Marshall Plan, but it’s open ended!
It’s a complete transformation of the planet, where obviously,
our vision, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” is
being realized by the majority of nations, absolutely, with a
fast speed.
And people are trying to sit on that and play the old
geopolitical games, by saying this is just an effort by China to
take over the world — I mean, that is just — first of all, it’s
not true, and why would all these countries, would they not be
happy to overcome poverty, underdevelopment, and so naturally
they go for this.
And right now, the biggest problem is that the average
people in Europe and in the United States just do not know this
scope of the changes taking place in the world right now.  So I
can only say:  Help us to spread these ideas.  Because we are, as
a humanity, really facing a test.  If we continue moving NATO to
the Russian border, having a race for new weapons, which is still
the danger, because this new Pacific Command commander Philip
Davidson, he just said China is ahead in certain areas, and now
the U.S. has to catch up with hypersonic weapons, and cyber
weapons, and whatnot:  I mean, we have to get rid of that kind of
thinking!
And just think, if the previous administrations of the
United States wasted $7 trillion on wars in the Middle East and
in North Africa, which have just caused misery, cost millions of
people’s lives, have caused a refugee crisis — can you not just
think of investing that kind of money in infrastructure, in the
common good of the people, in education?  Give people a sense of
the future and hope, inspire young people to not have the drug
epidemics destroy their minds, raising the suicide rates,
violence.  You know, don’t you think it’s time that mankind
should really move into a new Renaissance and work together as a
human species?
And I think this is what’s happening.  So let’s reach out to
more countries and more layers in the countries of the West, to
understand what this New Silk Road Spirit is all about.
So again, join the Schiller Institute and help us to spread
these ideas.

SCHLANGER:  Helga, I think you just made it very clear.
Thanks for joining us this week, and we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, till next week.

0 Kommentarer

Skriv en kommentar

Din e-mailadresse vil ikke blive publiceret. Krævede felter er markeret med *

*