Introduktion v/ Harley Schlanger:
De voksende krigstrommer, der høres mod Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, og som kommer fra transatlantiske geopolitiske institutioner og deres politiske marionetter, såsom den amerikanske senator Marco Rubio, udgør et vidnesbyrd om den voksende indflydelse, som Xi Jinpings »win-win«-diplomati har. Det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche først identificerede som et »Nyt Paradigme«, har vundet tilhængere i hele verden med den smitsomme »Nye Silkevejsånd. Nationer i Afrika, Asien og Syd- og Mellemamerika, der er blevet udplyndret under IMF’s og Verdensbankens krav om nedskæringspolitik, vender sig nu mod BVI, der demonstrerer, at reelt økonomisk fremskridt er muligt. BVI-processen tilbyder et håb om, at fattigdom kan elimineres i hele verden på samme måde, som den er blevet dramatisk reduceret i Kina.
I stedet for at fejre denne proces eller gå med i den, så har de transatlantiske eliter gang i deres gamle tricks i et desperat forsøg på at forhindre det Nye Paradigme i at lykkes. Deres gamle paradigme, med regimeskifte og krige, med anvendelse af terroroperationer, med frihandelsaftaler kombineret med nedskæringspolitikker, der producerer morderisk økonomisk ødelæggelse, fortsætter, selv med et væsentligt svækket fundament for deres overlevelse.
I USA er operationen for regimeskifte mod præsident Trump afsløret som et kupforsøg, Made in London. Nye afsløringer fra senatorerne Grassley og Graham forventes at vise, hvor dybt involveret, folk fra Obama-administrationen – og Obama selv – var i at brygge svindelhistorien om »Russiagate« sammen. Vi er nu nærmere end nogensinde før på at knække denne operation, som ville befri præsidenten for de begrænsninger, der er påtvunget ham, og til at forfølge de mål, han førte kampagne for.
Hør Helga Zepp-LaRouches analyse af udviklingerne omkring disse spørgsmål:
(her følger engelsk udskrift af videoen):
Harley SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the
Schiller Institute. I’d like to welcome you to this week’s
webcast with the Schiller Institute Founder and President Helga
Helga, I think what we need to start with this week, is the
issue of geopolitics. You’ve always emphasized, that geopolitics
is an imperial game, it’s part of the old paradigm and the
greatest threat to mankind. This was on display yesterday in the
U.S. Senate: The Intelligence Committee has the Threat
Assessment hearing; Dan Coats, the Director of National
Intelligence, said, “Frankly the United States is under attack.”
And Marco Rubio said, “China is the biggest threat.” He said,
“it’s aggressively promoting infrastructure as part of its long
What’s behind this?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is very clear that, as it
becomes clear that China is becoming sooner or later the largest
economy in the world, it’s already bypassing the United States in
certain respects, — I mean, there is obviously a freakout on
the side of those people in the West who are sticking to the
conception of an unipolar, the idea of a Pax Americana, where,
basically the United States is the only remaining superpower.
And the fact that a nation which is after all, 1.4 billion
people, is eventually becoming stronger, especially if it has the
kind of science and technology oriented policy which China is
pursuing, it is clear that some people respond to that with the
idea to contain that country.
Now, I think it should be clear to anybody that that is a
complete impossibility, unless you go to war.
Now, China has answered to the recent attacks, which are
really ranging from Australia, to the United States, to certain
European think tanks, in a very calm way. For example, there was
a response to the formulation that China would be a “competitor”
or a “rival,” as Trump said it in his State of the Union address,
where there was a quite reasonable article in Global Times,
answering to this, and making the point that the United States
has to make an historic choice: That it is clear that the rise of
China has caused certain strategic phobias among certain people,
who recognize or help to see that China is offering a different
development model which is especially attractive for developing
countries, and that they are now reacting in this way; but that
obviously, cooperation is the only way for these two largest
countries in the world — the United States and China. And if
they find a way of cooperation, then they have a bright future.
This is completely crazy to say that everything China does
— the Chinese culture, the Chinese system — all of this would
be a threat to the West. It is absolutely not the case, and
China has offered cooperation, and anything else can only lead to
Now, I would make still a big difference between how
President Trump reacts; while all of these attacks were going on,
he met with State Councillor Yang Jiechi in Washington, and they
reopened the four-level strategic dialogues, that they will
continue. And I think this is very good. But obviously, the
propaganda campaign against China right now is reaching an
absolutely unprecedented pitch.
SCHLANGER: At the same time, we’re seeing the changes going
on with Russiagate. You hear very little these days about
questions of what Russia did, what Trump did, but there are new
things emerging. I think it’s quite interesting: The Obama role
is starting to be talked about, Joe diGenova had another
statement. What’s your assessment of what’s going on with the
whole Russiagate story?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Essentially, I think what this Joseph
diGenova points out, which I think is quite relevant, that the
counter-memo to the Nunes memorandum which was basically coming
from Adam Schiff, was kept back by the FBI and the DOJ, diGenova
says, because there are certain formulations in it which need to
be redacted according to these two institutions, and he points
out to the fact that the formulation because there is a criminal
investigation going on, is very interesting. And he points to the
fact that all the culprits who were involved in this Russiagate
coup attempt eventually will face criminal prosecution. So that’s
And also the role of former President Obama is now an issue.
There was a funny email which Susan Rice sent to herself as a
kind of memo, reminder, on Jan. 20, 2017, where she reported
about a meeting involving Obama, Biden, Comey, herself, in which
this was discussed that the incoming President Trump should not
be told by the secret services, things relating to Russia,
because of the suspicion of a collusion with Russia. Now, that’s
quite incredible, that the outgoing President would instruct the
intelligence services to withhold information from an incoming
President. And this refers to a meeting which apparently took
place on Jan. 5th, and then, one day later, the four heads of the
intelligence services went to Trump in the Trump Tower, — this
was still in the transition period — and they told him about the
supposed collusion with Russia. And later, when Comey made this
big speech in front the Congress, he said this was his “Edgar
This is all now in the public domain, and I think everything
we said in the dossier on Mueller, which we published last
September, is now proven absolutely to the point by these
congressional investigations. [“Robert Mueller Is an Amoral
Legal Assassin; He Will Do His Job If You Let Him!”] So, I think
the battle where the United States will go looks much better for
Trump than the people who tried the coup against him.
SCHLANGER: To go back to what you said about the Susan Rice
memo: if you look at the Intelligence Committee hearing
yesterday, it seems as though the heads of intelligence today are
still holding to the same line that they did under Obama.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, they keep saying it, but that doesn’t
mean that these investigations in the House and Senate will not
continue. Some mills are grinding slowly, but they’re grinding.
SCHLANGER: The other big news from the United States was
the introduction of the so-called infrastructure bill. What’s
your assessment on that? It doesn’t seem to be what it was
cracked up to be.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s noted as a good thing by many
people that there is, finally, somebody proposing an
infrastructure program, because infrastructure is a phenomenon
which lasts 30, 40, 50 years, or maybe sometimes even longer, but
then eventually it ages, it’s disintegrating, and that’s what we
see in many instances in the United States — the roads, the
nonexisting fast-train system, the general condition of bridges
and so forth. So it’s a good thing that somebody talks about
But I think the way how Trump is going about it, by hoping
there will be private investors, and a lot of burdens on the
state and local governments will not function. And I think that
China has noted that point in commenting that the political
system in the United States is making it impossible. Because the
moment Trump said anything about his program, the Democrats
completely opposed it. And obviously infrastructure is in the
national interest, and therefore, should be a nonpartisan issue.
But the fact that you have this partisan system in the United
States and elsewhere in the West, as part of the so-called
“democratic” system, this prevents any progress in this respect
and therefore, it’s all the more important that a professor from
Beijing University offered to use the large foreign exchange
reserves which China has, especially in the form of U.S.
Treasuries and U.S. bonds, to invest those in the infrastructure
in the United States.
This is a proposal which we have made from the very
beginning, because obviously, China has the financing, China has
the infrastructure expertise; they have built an enormous amount
of fast train systems, and other infrastructure. So I think that
that would be the only way to make this function. But I think
short of that, you need Glass-Steagall, you need a National Bank
in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, and a credit system, and
then the cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative; and then
it would function.
So that remains the task, basically in the United States,
our colleagues are encouraging state legislators and others to
make pressure from the base, so that neo-con pressure in the
Republican Party and the Democratic opposition to Trump’s
proposals are overcome, through such a program in the national
interests of the United States, which would also be a
peace-building measure. So that is the battle right now.
SCHLANGER: We also have this fairly interesting article on
Bloomberg about the Chinese economy, where they say, our models
show that it should have crashed, but it hasn’t crashed, and they
say they’re confounded by this. It’s obvious, these models don’t
work, but the Chinese are aware of that, aren’t they?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. As a matter of fact, as these attacks
against China have escalated, they had a very interesting
counterattack on “democracy,” saying that “democracy” is the
hobby-horse of many people in the West, but in reality, it is not
in the common interest, it’s basically a weapon to defend the
interest of an oligarchy. And also the West are not the only
ones who can claim to have a democratic system. And then they
say basically that this goes back to Mencius, who already
demanded that the government must follow the Mandate of Heaven,
and in China it is the highest obligation of the party to follow
the Mandate of Heaven, which means following the common good of
So, they basically say democracy is being used for regime
change, that when they target a country, they demand people
should follow “democracy,” then they play up through the
mainstream media some demonstrators and if everything goes well
it leads to regime change and if it doesn’t go well, they go for
a nice color revolution.
So I think these kinds of renewed, sharp responses coming
from China reflect the fact that they do not intend at all to be
intimidated, and that they’re quite aware of double standard of
the so-called “liberal system” which claims they’re liberals, but
then demand global hegemony and controlling the rules on a global
scale, and that this double standard is visible for anybody who
wants to see it.
So there is a new tone of self-confidence and
self-assuredness in the Chinese responses to these accusations.
SCHLANGER: And I would assume the Chinese have to be asking
the question, “What’s wrong with reducing poverty?” And here we
see this situation where poverty is growing in the West, it has
been growing from the 2001 period on, and yet, Chinese efforts to
alleviate poverty, not just in China, but also in their neighbors
and all around the world as well, is seen as somehow an imperial,
I mean — do the Chinese have a reaction to that?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. They have right now the most
impressive program to alleviate poverty inside China by 2020.
For those people who are interested in that, there is a
documentary on CGTN, the Chinese Global Television Network, where
they show how they absolutely map out every spot, every village
where you have poverty, they have a file on every family to look
at what are the reasons for it, what can be done to overcome it
— education, infrastructure, industrialization, relocation of
people to better-off areas — and President Xi Jinping is very
much hands-on. He travels to these villages — not all of them,
but some; he talks to the families; he makes it clear that it is
his personal concern that the goal of eliminating poverty by 2020
is reached. And this is very, very impressive.
There was another article in the Chinese press, where they
say, infrastructure development and poverty alleviation is also
an area of competition. And not only is the economic growth of
China absolutely incredible and outstanding, but so is the
infrastructure building and the poverty alleviation.
So the West has to basically suffer to be judged: Who is
doing more for their people, is it China, or is the West, with
their so-called austerity systems, which in the case of, if you
look at Europe, there is now a new study out by the European
Center for Economic Research [ZEW], which looked at what was the
difference, after the 2008 crisis, in those countries which an
anti-cyclical focus on basic research and development, R&D, and
they had a massive increase in productivity. The countries that
did that were Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. As compared
to those countries which were hit by with EU Troika austerity
policy — namely, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland,. Czech
Republic, Lithuania — which had to make cuts also in the basic
research and development, and as a result had a terrible collapse
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the
system of the free market, which after all is not that free,
given the fact that all central banks did was to bail out the
banks and keep money pumping for the benefit of the speculators,
so that the rich become richer, and the poor become more poor,
and the middle class is shrinking.
This article by Bloomberg, which you referenced earlier, is
very interesting, because the author admits that according to his
theory, China should be collapsing, it should have meager
economic growth, but obviously the contrary is the case. And he
says that China is doing everything which according to his theory
are terrible, like state intervention, party control, — things
like that — and China is prospering. And actually, he says,
he’s not yet ready to completely overturn his theory, but he’s
willing to make corrections.
There will be a lot more corrections, because I think we
need a public debate, what are the economic criteria for a
functioning economy? And obviously, the works of my husband,
Lyndon LaRouche, and his development of physical economy, going
back to Leibniz, to Friedrich List, to Henry C. Carey, to Wilhelm
von Kardorff, who was the economic advisor of Bismarck and was
one of the key influences to bring about the industrial
revolution in Germany; as compared to the so-called free market
model, I think we have to have a real debate, what is the cause
of wealth? Is it money, or is it the idea of the creativity of
the individual, which then leads to scientific and technological
discoveries, which applied in the production process leads to an
increase in productivity, which then leads to more wealth,
longevity, and all of these things.
We need a discussion about that, because the notion of what
is economy, equating that with money, has really become one of
the axiomatic assumptions of a failing system. So we need a
debate about that.
SCHLANGER: One of the great contributions of your husband
was making the connection, between geopolitical doctrine as an
imperial doctrine, and the imposition of these kinds of economic
policies, which only work for the handful of the most wealthy.
Now, we had talked earlier — actually, it’s been a focus
of the Schiller Institute for a while — extending the Silk Road
into the World Land-Bridge, and we’re seeing that now with the
bioceanic railway, the progress in Africa. What can you tell us
about how these projects are advancing?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, I think they’re on a very good
development: There was just a reiteration in Brazil coming from
the Chinese Embassy, that the bioceanic railway, connecting the
Pacific and the Atlantic from Brazil to Peru, is still very much
on the agenda, that a feasibility study has been made. So this
is on a good trajectory, and all the projects agreed upon at the
China-CELAC meeting — the Caribbean and Latin American
countries meeting with China; and naturally, also the Africa
projects are all progressing very nicely. So I think the World
Land-Bridge is becoming a reality, very quickly, to the benefit
of all countries that participate in it.
SCHLANGER: I’d like to come back, as we wrap this up, to
the question of geopolitics. We got a question from a viewer,
who wanted to know why you always blame British geopolitical
manipulations for World War I and World War II? And they ask the
question, what did they do, and what were they responding to?
Why don’t you give us the answer to that?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: If you look at the British Empire’s policy
toward the Continent in the 19th century, they clearly were
extremely upset about the industrial revolution in Germany,
introduced by Bismarck. Bismarck, as I mentioned earlier, was a
free-trade follower in the beginning, working with the Prussian
Junkers. But then he got acquainted with the theories of Henry
C. Carey: He had this friend, Wilhelm von Kardorff who was the
head of the German business association at the time, and they
recognized the fundamental difference between what Friedrich List
had called the “American System,” and the British system.
So Bismarck changed to a proponent of protectionism, and
this led to a very quick industrial revolution in Germany. Now,
the British, through relatives in the oligarchy, manipulated so
that Bismarck got ousted, which was really a tragedy, because
Bismarck was very smart and he had basically established a peace
order on the European Continent, by having many diplomatic
treaties with every nation, and especially with Russia, he had
the Reinsurance Treaty, which was a very important element to
prevent a possible outbreak of war, in case there should be some
His successors were not so smart, so they didn’t pay
attention to this Russia Reinsurance Treaty, and then the British
started to manipulate the chessboard of the European countries,
step by step, by creating incidents to create the Entente
Cordiale; the Triple Entente; the war between Russia and Japan;
the Balkan Wars; so that basically, every country was set
already, ready to go so that the shooting in Sarajevo was only
the trigger but not the cause for World War I.
Now, what was behind that, also, was the idea of geopolitics
as it had been developed by Mackinder, Milner, and later by
Haushoffer, which was the crazy idea that whoever controls the
Eurasian land-mass is in control of the world, to the
disadvantage of the Atlantic rim countries, in that case, United
States and England. So basically, that idea that you have to
orchestrate conflict in order to prevent such a development, that
became an issue, naturally, with the Trans-Siberian Railroad,
which was built essentially in the 1890s; and the plans to build
a Berlin-Baghdad Railway, was regarded by the British at that
time, as a fundamental threat to their control of the sea trade.
Now, obviously, today, with the New Silk Road, if you think
in terms of geopolitics, you could easily arrive at the same
mistaken conclusion, and I think that is the British thinking.
And as we can see now, in the case of Mr. Rubio, or the
intelligence heads of the United States, that is their thinking.
But as I had said, many, many times, geopolitics led to
essentially all the wars in history. It led to two World Wars,
because the idea with the Second World War, was everybody who had
read Mein Kampf and knew the background of Hitler, knew that
eventually a war between Russia and Germany would result, and
there were backers who wanted Hitler to come to power — [Bank of
England Governor] Montagu Norma, in the United States, the
Harriman interests and others — so this was a manipulation where
it was clear it would result in such a war.
It should be clear to everybody who is not completely losing
his marbles, that in the age of thermonuclear weapons, you cannot
continue this game, if you do not want to risk the extinction of
civilization! And I think what China has proposed with their
“win-win cooperation,” with their offers for China and the United
States to cooperate on the basis of a special relation among
major powers, the offer for European countries to cooperate, that
is catapulting humanity to a higher level of cooperation and
reason! And I think it is so much in our self-interest — what
is the problem with the United States? It’s not that China is
rising, the problem is that the United States has moved away from
the policies of the Founding Fathers, of Lincoln, of Franklin D.
Roosevelt, of Kennedy. And the United States, indeed, could
become great again, if they go back to these policies, and then
they would not regard China as a threat. It’s only when the West
is collapsing that there is ferment to see a rising power as a
threat. But as the Chinese ambassador to Washington Cui Tiankai,
he said — and I think that that is definitely something to think
about — that in history, there were 16 cases where one nation
would rise and the dominant one up to that point would be faced
with such a situation: In twelve cases, there had been war, and
in four cases, the rising country had just bypassed the old,
dominant one and that would have been the new situation. And the
Chinese ambassador said: China does not want the twelve cases
where it led to war, but they also don’t want the four cases
where China would just take over and become the unipolar,
dominant country; but that they want to have respect for the
sovereignty of each, and that is what all the developing
countries that are participating in the Belt and Road Initiative
are experiencing. That’s why they cooperate, they have benefits
from it, and they have, now for the first time, the chance to
overcome their underdevelopment and poverty.
And I think it would be absolutely dangerous to listen to
these people who are now saying everything China represents is a
threat. Because if you look at China, it’s actually a very
well-functioning economic model: The people are happy, the
philosophy is for the common good, and it is not a threat. And I
want to keep insisting on that, because nothing would be more
dangerous than if you get into a complete anti-China hysteria,
anti-Russia hysteria, and the only consequence of that could be a
terrible catastrophe for all of us.
SCHLANGER: I think from what you just said, it becomes
increasingly clear for people, why Donald Trump’s desire to have
good relations with Russia and China, is seen as such a threat to
the City of London, and its extended worldwide interests.
Helga, that brings us to the end of the program today.
We’ll see you next week!
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till next week.