Vi må organisere et Nyt Paradigme omkring menneskets skønhed.
LaRouchePAC Internationale fredags-webcast, 5. august 2016

Vi må organisere et Nyt Paradigme omkring menneskets skønhed.
LaRouchePAC Internationale fredags-webcast, 5. august 2016

Zepp-LaRouche: »Men hvorvidt de eksisterende løsninger i tide bliver gennemført, afhænger i realiteten af befolkningens moralske kvalitet; især i USA og Europa. Og da jeg er overbevist om, at der findes en evne til det gode i mennesker, appellerer jeg til jer; påkald dette i jer selv. Sid ikke som tilskuere på sidelinjen og betragt historiens gang. Vi befinder os i en brydningstid af apokalyptiske dimensioner, der formentlig er lige så betydningsfuld, som overgangen fra Middelalderen til Moderne Tid var. Vi må lade denne aktuelle, kollapsende epoke bag os og erstatte den med et Nyt Paradigme, der er mennesket værdigt, og som manifesterer menneskets sande karakter som værende potentielt skønne, kreative; som næstekærlige væsener. Mennesket har potentiale til at blive genial; mennesket er af natur godt, og den blotte kendsgerning, at så mange mennesker ikke er gode, siger intet om menneskets natur. Det siger noget om omstændigheder, der har kaldt det onde frem i mennesket, snarere end at fremme det gode.«   



International LaRouche PAC Webcast, August 5, 2016

        JASON ROSS: Hello! Thank you for joining us. This is our
regular Friday webcast at A special welcome to
our new viewers! This is our weekly roundup, where we discuss the
state of the world and our best options for changing it. I'm your
host this week, Jason Ross. We'll be joined in this episode by
two special guests, two leaders of the LaRouche movement. We'll
be hearing from Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the President of the
Schiller Institute, wife of Lyndon LaRouche, joining us from
Germany; and by Diane Sare, who is a leader of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee, joining us from the greater New York area. Mrs.
LaRouche has recently returned from a successful trip to China,
about which we will hear more very soon.
        To situate today's discussion, let me briefly discuss some
of the major developments on the subject of warfare and on
economy. On the war front, Obama is now engaged in a second war
in Libya, again without Congressional authorization or a UN
mandate. He is saying that he's attacking ISIS, which was not a
problem in Libya, prior to his disastrous war there earlier and
his attacks in Syria, creating an unlivable situation in the
entire region.
        Meanwhile, as Russia is collaborating with Syrian Armed
Forces for retaking Aleppo from precisely such types of
terrorists, this is being denounced by the media in the West as
"Russian meddling to prop up," as they always put it, "the Assad
regime," as they say "in Syria." It's part of a broader
orientation towards warfare with Russia, to prevent a new
paradigm from taking the world.
        As we've seen with the recent release of the 28 pages of the
Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, the Bush and Obama
administrations have been covering up for almost a decade and a
half now, Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11, Saudi support for
that attack. In light of this being known now, the wars in Iraq
and other places, seem even more cynical and more oriented
towards geo-politics, since we know what the real situation was,
regarding 9/11.
        And briefly on the economy: As a recent series of "stress
tests," as they call them in Europe, have shown, leading European
banks are ready to collapse. This was not really a secret before
the stress tests, but now it's being discussed more openly,
leading to a growing chorus of economists and others, calling for
precisely the kinds of measures that the LaRouches have been
advocating, namely, an end of the universal banking model, and a
return to a Glass-Steagall type separation between commercial and
investment banking. This is not to be seen as a banking reform in
itself, but to make it possible to use the banking sector for
real economic recovery.
        Briefly on the U.S. election: I can say that Lyndon
LaRouche's assessment, in the past couple of days, is that the
system is finished; that there is no solution in the game that
the American and European elites are trying to play; that the
financial sector has to be cancelled in large part, cleaned up,
as Roosevelt did. Neither of these two candidates are winning in
the United States. At most, the only success they can achieve,
would be to cause doom. Hillary Clinton? A stooge for Obama; is
going to push for increasing warfare, as expressed by her policy
of her campaign team right now. What's needed instead, is a
bulwark of positive ideas of what we ought to do.
        Let's bring in our special guest Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Thank
you for joining us tonight, Helga!

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Hello!

        ROSS: As we can see in some pictures to display for you now,
Helga has just returned from a trip to China, where she was a
participant in this year's G-20 process, specifically with her
participation in the T-20 Summit, the "Think 20" Summit, which
was being held as a prelude to the Heads of State G-20 Summit
coming up in early September. As you can see, Helga was one of
the panelists at this discussion forum.
        In your speech there, Helga, you pointed out that the G-20
is the most powerful combination of nations on the planet, having
a unique and appropriate forum to discuss the existential
challenges facing civilization. You called upon the world "to
take up a new paradigm that can lay the basis for the next 100
years of the human species and beyond," and pointed to the New
Silk Road being led by China, as an "expression of that vision."
You called for that to be coupled with projects "to have the
optimal impact on the cognitive powers of the populations of the
respective countries, to facilitate the best possible increase in
the productivity of the world economy," such as through "crash
programs for the development of thermonuclear fusion power."
        So, Helga, could you please tell us about your participation
in the T-20 forum, about the responses of others to your
initiatives and discussions?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: This coming G-20 meeting, beginning of
September, which will be sponsored by China, will take place in
Hangzhou, is coming at an extremely important moment. That was
also expressed by many of the participants, representatives of
different think-tanks from mainly Asia, Europe, Australia, Japan,
South Africa, other places, India. People were expressing, to
different degrees, an awareness of the fact that you have an
absolute coincidence of many crises, and that therefore the fact
that China is the one which is designing this G-20 meeting, if
there's anybody who can come up with a positive approach, it is
China. At least that's what I would also say was confirmed by the
different speeches.
        One goal the Chinese expressed, for example, was to move the
G-20 process away from crisis-reaction, to a more doable global
governance structure. In other words, bring the world in such a
shape that you're not just running away from one crisis to the
next, like the response to 2008 — the financial crisis — or
other crises. I think that this will be very difficult to
accomplish, because to move away from crisis-reaction, to a more
global governance, a new relation among nations in the world,
would require that the trans-Atlantic countries — the Europeans
and the United States — would be willing to look at why is the
world so much in disorder.
        There was actually quite upsetness [sic] and heated
presentations by some of the participants, pointing to the fact
that you have an unprecedented coincidence of crises. The
Eurozone, after the Brexit, is on the way of disintegration.
Other countries may follow the example of Great Britain, leaving
the EU. There was much awareness of the fact that the 2008
financial crisis was never really remedied, and that we are now
in front of a new crisis, which some participants, more
privately, said they fear would be much, much worse than that of
        Then, terrorism out of control, especially in France, in
Germany, in Belgium; the whole refugee crisis; the coup [attempt] in Turkey, which had just taken place shortly before. Generally,
there were many people expressing complete outrage, or dismay,
about the fact that there is such a strong
anti-globalist/globalization movement, the rise of populist
movements. They were really upset. They said this is bringing
everything in[to] question, what we've been working for.
        But what I thought was the most striking, is that these same
speakers who were expressing quite an outrage about all of this,
{totally} lacked the ability to make the right analysis and
diagnosis of why is the world order so completely out of whack
and out of order. While people were reacting to all of these
phenomena, there was a complete lack, at least on the side of
most Europeans and most Asians other than, let's say, the
Chinese, to investigate what are the wrong beliefs, what are the
wrong assumptions. If there's not even a question of asking why
we have this accumulation of crises, then, naturally, they can't
come to decisions, and they can't come to the correct perspective
of remedy.
        The Chinese said many things which were very useful. For
example, they put a lot of emphasis on that we have to bring the
world economy on an innovation basis; that everybody must join in
the fruits of innovation, as the only basis for "sustainable"
development. But the Chinese gave this word a new meaning, and
that no one must be left behind; that also the developing
countries should have immediate access to the fruits of
innovation. That is, naturally, a very good approach, which
however I don't think will be shared by all the participants from
Europe, or, potentially, even the United States.
        I think it was a very important meeting. There is some hope,
because I think China has a clear sense that you need a new
paradigm. But everything will really depend on will the
Europeans, in time, be able to reflect on why is the EU
disintegrating; why do [we have] all of these problems, including
the non-performing debt? There was a lot of talk about the
Italian financial crisis. Will the Europeans be willing to
correct their erroneous views? I did not see much [of this] demonstrated at this meeting, but we will see. It's less than
four weeks until this Summit will take place. One thing is for
sure: the crises will get more acute as the days pass.

        ROSS: It seems that there was, from what you're saying, an
understanding among the people, that there is a serious financial
crisis in the works. Could you say more about the contrast
between the view of China, and the view of other leaders, that
you saw at this Summit? What more does the world need to learn
from China? What are some of the blocks that you're seeing, in
terms of people's abilities to understand things?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the Chinese approach is the
only one on the table to overcome geo-politics. The Chinese new
model of relations among nations, is reflected in many different
aspects. One of them being what they call the "One Road, One
Belt" initiative, which, for Western ears sounds a little bit
funny, but that's how they call the New Silk Road perspective,
domestically in China. That has, very clearly, the idea of a
"win-win" cooperation. They are inviting every country on the
planet to cooperate in these projects. They want to work with the
European nations. They want to work with the United States. They
want to invite all developing countries. And they explicitly do
not have a geo-political confrontation [policy] of "China vs. the
United States," or "China vs. the West," but they want to be
        It's very interesting, that one of the speakers — actually
the professor who gave the final speech — explicitly said that
this is a Confucian idea; that if you want to have benefit, you
have to make sure that the other one has a benefit as well. That
is actually what {can} constitute a harmonious development among
different nations of the world.
        I think that the idea of inclusiveness, of overcoming
geo-politics with a win-win cooperation for the extension of the
New Silk Road to every corner of the world; the idea of having an
innovation-based approach, where everybody can share the
benefits, especially developing countries, so that their
development is not being held off — I think these are all
extremely useful conceptions, which I think are in real stark
contrast to the kind of United States being the only one setting
the rules; sticking to the unipolar world, which, obviously,
means confrontation in many parts of the world.
        I must say that, unfortunately, some of the Europeans,
especially the Germans, were all on this green-economy
perspective, which really is a British policy, because it goes
back to a paper which was published by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber,
who is a leading energy advisor of the Merkel government, who
published in 2011 this paper about the great transformation of
the world economy; requesting the de-carbonization of the world
economy.  And Schellnhuber had said that the carrying capacity of
the world would only be 1 billion.  Now, what to do with the
other 6 billion people living on the planet is obviously a
question he didn't want to answer; but there is such a thing as
the correlation between the energy flux density used in the
production process and the number of people which can be
maintained.  This is one of the key principles of the physical
economy as it was developed by my husband, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.
Therefore, if you want to go to only very low energy flux
densities like solar and wind — renewable energies — but
without nuclear, which is what the German government has decided
to do; that is terrible.  So, I think that the conflict between
ideology and reality clearly was visible in this conference as

        ROSS:  You're mentioning the economic conceptions of your
husband, Lyndon LaRouche, whose ideas are becoming increasingly
well known in China.  You're also quite well known in China, and
I know that while you were at the conference, there were some
interviews that took place; I think we can show on the screen one
of these interviews that was with the {Beijing Review} which was
just published in yesterday's edition.  Could you tell us, what
is the interest in China in your activities, in the LaRouche

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, first of all, the ideas of my husband,
Lyndon LaRouche, have been studied by many scholars since at
least the '90s; maybe even earlier.  There are quite a number of
scholars who have gone in depth into the question of physical
economy, of studying the whole question of physical economy going
back to Leibniz, going back to Friedrich List, Henry C Carey.
Friedrich List is one of, if not the most known economist in
China.  I think these scholars have recognized from a very early
time, the affinity between what they call the Chinese economic
model and the ideas of Mr. LaRouche.  I personally was in China
many times since the '90s; because we had promoted at that time
the question of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, the New Silk Road.
Which at that time was declared to be a long-term strategy of
China until the year 2010; but then the Asia crisis intervened.
George Soros speculated against the currencies of the Asian
nations, bringing them down by 80% in one week in the cases of
Malaysia and Indonesia and so forth.
        So this whole process was interrupted; but now, it's fully
back on the agenda in the form of the New Silk Road/Maritime Silk
Road initiative which was announced by Xi Jinping in 2013.  This
initiative is now the most dynamic policy on the whole planet;
because more than 70 countries have joined already in different
infrastructure projects, high-tech cooperation.  It is expected
that by the end of the year, about 100 nations will cooperate
with this new economic model, which is not only infrastructure,
R&D, high-tech projects; but also has developed an entire
parallel banking system in the form of the AIIB, the Asia
Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank of the
BRICS, the Silk Road Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund.  And all
of these banking institutions obviously function completely
differently; they're not oriented towards a casino economy, but
they're oriented towards infrastructure financing, and therefore
are really the kind of industrial banking, or financing of
agriculture and other projects of the real economy, which
unfortunately the trans-Atlantic sector has completely abandoned
— especially since the repeal of Glass-Steagall.  Therefore,
it's now a very important lifeboat in case of the collapse of the
financial system of the trans-Atlantic sector; which may happen
sooner than most people think is possible.
        The good news is you have this parallel, or as the Chinese
would say, this complementary banking system; so it's not
completely without hope that the Europeans and the United States
could associate with this system, if the non-sustainability of
the present system becomes obvious — which could happen at any

        ROSS:  It's interesting, while the Germans are bringing this
deadly Green ideology to China, at the same time you were in
China there was a conference in Hannover marking the 300th
anniversary of the passing of the great German thinker Gottfried
Leibniz.  And a number of Chinese scholars participated, and some
of their themes were on the relationship between Confucianism and
Leibniz's outlook on world affairs.  The theme of the overall
conference, as stated by one of the Chinese-born main speakers,
was about how concern for others is the necessary outlook to have
in life.
        Let me ask just one more question about the G-20; and then I
want to ask you about Deutsche Bank.  Do you see that this is the
kind of forum that can be effective in making these sorts of
policies a reality?  In other words, is the G-20 a sort of
discussion group that can make headway on getting these policies

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I don't know.  As I said, it is the
present organization of the most powerful nations.  Naturally,
there were also some representatives from some smaller countries
who were expressing that they did not feel totally represented by
this combination of the G-20; and it remains a big question.  I
think the Chinese will have the best intentions to bring in a New
Paradigm; to address the questions from the standpoint of moving
mankind into a new era at a point of utmost peril.  But I don't
know if this format will be suitable to accomplish that, given
the fact that it's one thing to have nice summits and obviously
it is important to have them; but the real questions are decided
in what will happen to the financial crisis.  As I said, to turn
the G-20 process from crisis reaction to a more stable
perspective for the entire human species would require that the
Europeans and the Americans are willing to address the fact that
their financial system is bankrupt; and implement Glass-Steagall.
Get rid of the non-performing debt; stop the casino economy —
what we have proposed.  Fortunately, there is some motion for
Glass-Steagall in the United States and also in some European
countries; but presently the G-7 governments are not expressing a
willingness to do so, so that will create a real conflict.
Naturally, on other issues which you mentioned in your
introduction, the conflict between the United States and Russia
in Syria and over the question of who is a terrorist and who not;
these are question which will be decided outside of the framework
of the G-20 summit, which only deals with economics and financial
matters.  Even if these other issues naturally impact the
financial system.
        I think it will be very important to mobilize the
populations of Europe and the United States to recognize that we
have to move into a New Paradigm of international cooperation.
Because the problems which are facing mankind right now are so
big, that I don't think — if you don't come to a solution which
is inclusive — we have to move from geopolitical confrontation
to the common aims of mankind; such as fighting  I think the G-20
probably will say something useful in terms of addressing
overcoming hunger and poverty.  From various discussions I had, I
think there will be such an agenda; but will it be realized?
Because it means to get rid of $2 quadrillion in outstanding
derivatives.  So, will these nice words be accompanied by the
actions which will make it possible?  Which is ending this
present system of globalization based on high-risk speculation;
that is the crucial question.  So, therefore, I think we should
not sit there and wait to see what happens, but we have to
mobilize the populations in the respective countries in the
United States and European nations to make sure that the existing
solutions are being implemented.  Such as the Four Laws defined
by Mr. LaRouche.
        Immediately, Glass-Steagall is the first step; then move to
a credit system in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton; then go
to a science driver based on space cooperation and colonization;
and create a new international credit system to facilitate the
kinds of projects defined in the New Silk Road.  I think we have
to mobilize the population to get active; because this is not a
moment to sit on the fence and just watch what these so-called
"elites" do, because this was another thing that came up in
various forms.  That the populations have lost trust in these
elites representing this globalization system.  Therefore, the
responsibility to remedy the situation must shift to those who
have concepts of how to get out of the situation.  Which is what
we are doing in New York with the Manhattan Project, what the
international Schiller Institute is doing; but I think we need
your support — you, who are watching us right now.  I want to
appeal to you, to get active with us to help to implement these

        ROSS:  Good!  Thank you very much for joining us, Helga. I
really appreciate your time.
        Now, we're going to be hearing from Diane Sare, a leader of
the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee and the founding director of
the Schiller Institute New York City Community Chorus.  So,
thanks for being with us, Diane.  Hello.
        Let me start by asking you to help our viewers understand
how to approach the context of the election; how we can shape
what the United States does, which in many ways, many people
think that the election is the most important way to shape that.
But in reflecting on what Helga had discussed about the potential
for the G-20 to have ideas about eliminating hunger, poverty; but
where will the ability to take on the derivatives bubble come
from?  And where will the ability to stop the push of geopolitics
and war come from?  The US is really essential to change that.
Let me ask you if you could share with us what is your
assessment, what is Mr. LaRouche's assessment about the
selection, about Hillary Clinton, about the threat of war in

        DIANE SARE:  Well, the so-called election is really a fraud.
I think what Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just outlined is the major
"game in town" to put it in American lingo; and the truth of the
matter is that the major player in world politics today is
Vladimir Putin.  It is not Obama; it is not the United States,
although we are, I'm afraid, a deadly menace because we have the
wrong policies.  What we've been discussing recently here in
Manhattan, because Manhattan in a sense is the center of this
electoral process; both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are
based in this area.  Both of them are highly destructive
individuals; and Americans should simply not fall into the trap
that they somehow have to choose between one or the other.  In
fact, we heard recently that only 9% of the American population
have indeed voted for one of them; so you have 91% of the
population whose "vote" is for neither.  That in and of itself is
not sufficient; we have to actually identify the root of this
evil, and we have to put the solutions on the table.

        ROSS:  Well, the Four Laws is something we've been
discussing in this broadcast today; that history isn't made only
through opposing things.  In mid-2014, LaRouche had issued this
policy document on "The Four Laws to Save the USA Now".  Let me
read a concluding section of this, and then ask you to comment on
this.  LaRouche ends:  "Mankind's progress, as measured rather
simply as a species, is expressed typically in the rising power
of the principle of human life over the abilities of animal life
generally; and relatively absolute superiority over the powers of
non-living processes to achieve within mankind's willful
intervention that intended effect."  He says, "Progress exists so
only under a continuing progressive increase of the productive
and related powers of the human species.  That progress defines
the absolute distinction of the human species from all others
presently known to us.  A government of people based on a policy
of zero population growth and per capita standard of human life,
is a moral and practical abomination."  He concludes saying a
fusion economy is "the presently urgent next step and standard
for man's gains of power within the Solar System and later,
beyond."  That's how he concludes this document that opens with
some of the necessary steps:  Glass-Steagall; national banking;
Federal credit; a commitment to a fusion driver.  And he puts
this all in the context of what economic value means to the human
        So, I was wondering, Diane, could you say more?  How do you
see the purpose, the nature of the human individual and the
relation of that to economy?

        SARE:  Well, I think the key is as Alexander Hamilton, his
understanding; and Lyndon LaRouche — I do think our viewers
should really be aware — is a great scientific thinker and has
made great unique contributions in this field.  Specifically, the
relationship of human creativity to generating the conditions
where a growing population can have a higher standard of living
from one generation to the next.  What they understood is that
the source of wealth is not money; it's not property; it's not
even labor — we are not animals.  The source of wealth is the
potential to make a creative discovery which exists in the mind
of each human individual; which transforms our relationship to
the Universe and our power over the Universe.  For any society to
be just — and that I think is the importance of Leibniz and the
relationship of Leibniz to the framers of our Constitution; for a
nation to be just, it has to embody a commitment to that
principle of creativity in the individual citizen.

        ROSS:  You know, maybe Helga might actually like to speak on
this, too.  When these proposals get made, for example the
proposal by Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche on having an emergency
recapitalization of Deutsche Bank on condition that the role of
that bank would change in a different context of economic
activity.  Sometimes, some of our supporters have a very
difficult time believing Mr. LaRouche would ever call for the
helping of a bank as it seems.  Would either of you like to say
more about that proposal and about what is the true role of the
banking sector in a productive economy?  Why would we need say,
for example, Deutsche Bank?  What role can banking play usefully?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think we were all very surprised at the
waves of almost hatred came out when we made this proposal.
People reacted in the strongest terms, saying "Let them go
bankrupt!  Why should we save this bank?  Or, why should we save
any bank, for that matter?"  Which naturally has to do with the
fact that the populations who have been victimized by these
policies for the last really decades, but especially after the
2008 crisis; experience that the rich becomes more rich, and that
the middle class vanishes — becomes poor; and that the number of
poor becomes bigger and bigger, and their livelihood is being
eaten away.  People just have a sense to just get rid of these
banks.  But naturally, the question is, what happens if you have
an uncontrolled collapse?  That is what we are looking at right
now; where it's staring at us that you could have right now a
collapse of the system which would create instant chaos.  And
that chaos is probably as dangerous as the danger of
thermonuclear war; because once you have a collapse of
production, supply, there is no food anymore in the store.  Which
could happen if one of the "too big to fail" banks would go
bankrupt.  You have now so many mines, it's like a minefield with
a thousand possibilities to blow up.
        The idea to have an orderly process of unwinding these very
complicated instruments — the derivatives have so many
counterparties that you need an approach.  You need to have an
approach to bring some kind of orderly reorganization in this to
prevent a chaotic collapse.  We are not proposing to save
Deutsche Bank or any other bank for that matter, as they are; but
the idea is to put a control commission or insolvency commission
or some kind of administration in there which does an orderly
unwinding of these outstanding debts and their complicated
involvements with many international contracts.  Nobody has an
overview anymore about these matters, not even the central banks
have an overview.  Then put a different business plan in such a
bank; the reason why we were referring to Alfred Herrhausen, who
was the last decent industrial banker of Deutsche Bank, is
because you need to get people an idea of what we are talking
about.  There was once a different kind of banking philosophy,
namely that banks are not a thing in themselves, but they should
be the servants of industry, and agriculture and trade.  Right
now what you have is, the bankers think they are the kings of
Olympus; that they should have bonuses of two to three digit
million sums every year.  For what?  I cannot see that they do
any work which is productive; but they somehow have developed
that they should have all of this wealth and bonuses and
millions.  And that the effects of their policies should be
discounted.  But there was once an idea of banking — in Germany
it was such bankers as Herman Abs; the postwar reconstruction
period which contributed to the economic miracle of Germany in
the postwar period.  Or Alfred Herrhausen, who had the idea that
banking must provide for the well being of the people; that the
idea of giving credit is to promote the productive part of the
economy and to further productive relations among different
nations.  That is what we have to get back to; but people have
such a short memory that nowadays people have no memory of how it
was.  How was the Franklin D Roosevelt Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, which was exactly such a mechanism, that you have a
certain state role in providing for the productive capacities of
        That was also the philosophy in the reconstruction of
Germany after the Second World War; and Herman Abs and Alfred
Herrhausen are the kinds of bankers who should be a role model,
because banking is necessary.  You have to have some kind of
distribution of credit lines, because we have to reconstruct the
real economy; so the idea to just close down the banks is an
impulse which is understandable, but it does not address the
problem.  Because we have to rebuild the economy, we have to have
a banking system where credit lines are given for those kinds of
things for which you would invest if the economy would be in good
shape.  You have to have physical principles, you have to have
the idea that these credit lines should increase the productivity
of the industrial capacities and the labor power.
        We have a gigantic job of education to do, because the
dumbing down of the labor force as part of the general population
has become such a crucial factor.  That you have many people, who
maybe they can write and read comics, but they are functionally
illiterate from the standpoint of comprehending difficult texts
or difficult physical conceptions of the economy.  There are many
people in the youth age who, from the standpoint of industry, are
completely unemployable.  What you need is a kind of approach
like the CCC program of FDR; where you have training programs.
You have to increase that creativity in the population which
makes them want to know new things; to be part of an
innovation-based economy.  Which is why I was emphasizing the
Chinese; fortunately, they have this idea.  They put an enormous
amount on the best qualification of their youth, their students.
They have the idea of not using up old industries from the
so-called West; but they want to leap frog always to most
advanced technology.  They have an enormous emphasis on the
development of thermonuclear fusion power of other advanced
scientists.  And among the scientist community, there is a
general understanding; if you want to get something done in
science, go to China.  It's no longer go the United States or go
to Europe; and that has everything to do with the Green policies
and these ideological policies, which have more to do with
control rather than promoting excellence or scientific progress.
        So, I think that the idea of going back to the paradigm of
Alfred Herrhausen is much more a pedagogical device; because you
have to get people to understand that banking is necessary, but
it must be based on completely different principles.

        SARE:  I'd just like to follow up with what Helga said in
terms of the US elections and people's hatred for Hillary
Clinton; which is similar to their hatred for bailing out banks,
although in the case of Hillary, they're more correct than they
might realize.  We just had here, as people know, the Democratic
Party convention; where even in the somewhat scrubbed coverage
that you saw, you could see huge numbers of people who were
frowning, scowling, who had signs up about not having a war —
"Walk the Walk".  There's a great deal of anger at Hillary
Clinton.  People perceive her correctly as a stooge of Wall
Street; as she identified herself last year, when one of my
associates — Daniel Burke — asked her at a meeting whether she
would support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.  She refused
to answer.  Mr. LaRouche said that was the beginning of her
disintegration; although it was not the beginning of her becoming
a stooge, of selling her soul to the Devil, so to speak, and her
decision to work with Obama.  I just want to fill this out,
because there's not a difference between someone who would
support these criminal bail-outs and bonuses that Helga was
talking about for these bankers, these speculators who have
destroyed the entire trans-Atlantic economy and the living
standards of all the people here; but also those who are pushing
war.  In the recent days, several of Hillary's spokespeople have
come out calling for the overthrow of Assad explicitly.  She
herself has commented that she knows for a fact that Vladimir
Putin is somehow behind the hacking of the emails among the
Democratic National Committee.  How she knows that, what her
evidence is, I have no idea.  She has not been forthcoming on it.
        There's an op-ed in the {New York Times} today titled
"Spooks for Hillary", written by Michael Morell, who describes
himself as a 33-year career CIA operative.  In fact, he was the
Deputy Director during the September 11th attacks.  First of all,
that in and of itself I would say, is a complete indictment of
his own powers of morality and judgment; because as we know from
the 28 pages that were just recently released, both the CIA and
FBI had quite intimate knowledge of the activities of the people
who became the hijackers on that day.  They were tracking many of
them two and three years before the September 11th attacks; and
they decided not to pursue these leads, because Saudi Arabia was
an ally of the United States.  So, first of all, who would want
to be publicly associated with such criminal agencies and brag
about that as if that gives them any kind of authority?  Then, he
goes on to say that the reason he's endorsing Hillary is because
"Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought bin
Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important
colleagues on the National Security Council.  During the early
debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she
was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach.  When some
wanted to delay the bin Laden raid by one day because of the
White House Correspondents' Dinner, she said 'Screw the White
House Correspondents' Dinner!'|"
        So according to this CIA careerist, who presumably was
involved in the cover-up of the Saudi role in 9/11 and the
activities of the hijackers going into this, Hillary Clinton is
the qualified candidate.  Then he goes on to attack Vladimir
Putin and says Putin is manipulating Donald Trump.  It's
outrageous.  Seymour Hersh has exposed the Osama bin Laden
[inaud; 47:36] as a complete media-video-public relations stunt
done by Barack Obama; where the location of Osama bin Laden was
revealed by a Pakistani physician who wanted to get the reward
that was being offered by the US State Department.  So, they had
all of the details of his whereabouts; the security was taken
down so we could march in and film the capture and killing of
Osama bin Laden.  And Barack Obama could take credit for it.
        So, you have Hillary Clinton on record as backing that
premeditated assassination of Osama bin Laden; you have her on
record giggling after Qaddafi was killed, saying "We came; we
saw; he died" or whatever it was.  This is a form of pure evil;
it's a terrible sell-out of the American people.  And it is
actually a cover for Obama continuing his war policy now; which
you referenced at the beginning of this discussion — the new war
in Libya.  Where apparently, Obama gave a speech yesterday,
claiming that the United States is conducting the most precise
air campaign ever waged.  We're invited by a Libyan government
that has not even been officially confirmed by its own
parliamentary rules.  This is a war that has not been approved by
Congress; and Obama is engaging in this against our Constitution.
You then had the questions of who we're supporting in Syria; the
alleged "moderate" Syrian rebels, one group of which that we are
claiming to be an ally — this al-Zenki group, who just
decapitated a 12-year old and filmed it.  And now it's been found
that they used poison gas in an area; and when our State
Department spokesman, Mark Toner was asked about this and whether
we would continue to provide funds to what I would class a
terrorist organization, he said well, one incident here and there
doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist group.  So, if you're
using chemicals to exterminate groups of people, or beheading
children, don't worry; you most like will not lose your funding
from the US State Department.
        This is what Hillary Clinton actually represents.  What Mr.
LaRouche further stressed — which I think is the important
question for Americans and the viewers — is we have to look at
what action created Obama.  How do we get the Obama Presidency?
What was the role of the British monarchy, through certain of Her
Majesty's creatures like George Soros; the Jew who claimed that
the high point of his life was working for the Nazis in Hungary,
taking all of people's possessions as they got herded off to the
boxcars for the concentration camps?  People know that Soros
played a major role in funding the Obama campaign; he has given
Hillary Clinton's campaign millions of dollars, and that would
imply ownership of this.
        I would just say that it is really high time for the
American people to stop going along with these kinds of criminal
policies.  There is an entirely New Paradigm out there which is
largely the creation, the work of Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche has been
the inspiration of this.  The United States could choose to leave
the insanity of — frankly, the way the United States is
functioning, it's almost like we're in a real live Pokemon Go
game, which they're calling an election.  We could actually step
out of that and into reality.  I would say that people should
know that within the next couple of days, we're going to be
launching a campaign here in Manhattan, producing several
thousand copies of a broadsheet which will have the documentation
on Hillary Clinton's criminal background and her commitment to a
war drive against Russia and China; which I think will have quite
an impact here.  The material in that will be available on the
LaRouche PAC website very soon.

        ROSS:  I'd like to just ask Helga if you have any other
remarks you'd like to add?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think most people have a sense that
things are really getting out of control.  That the coincidence
of all these things happening at the same time gives many people
the feeling that there's nothing one can do; that there's an
unbelievable process of disintegration going on.  Naturally, if
you look at the two candidates of the United States, there is a
rather perplexed reaction in the rest of the world that the
United States should not have come up with some better
candidates.  The rest of the world looks at the European Union
and says the European Union is no longer a model; it used to be a
model of integration for ASEAN, for Latin America, for the
African Union.  But no longer; the elites obviously can't handle
the situation that is credited by the people and so forth.  So,
while I could describe these symptoms more, I would like actually
to say that we are in a moment which is really an extraordinary
moment in history.  At this T-20 conference, one Chinese speaker
said this is moment like 1989; referring to the point when the
Berlin Wall came down, which was the prelude to the German
reunification and the collapse of the Soviet Union.  So, it's one
of these monumental, apocryphal moments in history, where it is
impossible to make a prediction.  We cannot responsibly tell you
this will be the outcome of this period of history.  All I can
say is — and Jason, since you mentioned Leibniz, who was an
important influence in the American Revolution, the Declaration
of Independence, the whole idea of the pursuit of happiness goes
back to Leibniz.  He said something which I think we should think
about, and that is that the nature of human beings is such, and
the nature of creation is such, that when man is confronted with
a great evil, there is a capacity in him that brings forth an
even greater good.  I think it is very important that each of
becomes conscious about that; and you consciously actualize that
greater sense of good in yourself, each of us in ourselves.
        Because I am absolutely certain that the solutions are at
hand; it's not a reason to be desperate.  Because it would be
relatively easy to implement Glass-Steagall; you just have to
move it from the Glass-Steagall formulation in the platforms of
the Democratic and Republican Parties, to move it into actuality.
And do a similar reform in Europe and then have the United States
and Europe join with this parallel economic system which I
described before with the AIIB, the New Development Bank, and so
forth.  Then move to a New Paradigm; do what Franklin D Roosevelt
did with the New Deal, with the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, with the rebuilding of the economy in the '30s.
This can all be done today.  So, it's not that we are without
solutions; we have a clear perspective, because you have all of
these nations working together already in different degrees on
this "win-win" perspective for a New Silk Road.
        So, a lot depends upon the subjective; because it's not that
we have an objective breakdown crisis, we have that.  But if the
solutions which exist can be implemented in time, really depends
upon the moral quality of the population; especially in the
United States and in Europe.  And since I believe there is this
capacity for the good in human beings, I appeal to you; invoke
that inside yourself.  Don't sit on the fence and watch history.
We are in an apocryphal change, which is probably at least as big
as the transformation from the Middle Ages period to the new
modern times.  We have to leave this present collapsing epoch
behind us and replace it with a New Paradigm which is worthy of
the dignity of man and is the true character of human beings as
being beautiful potentially, as being creative, as being loving.
The human being is potentially a genius; human beings are good by
nature, and just the fact that today so many people are not good
doesn't say anything about the nature of man.  It says something
about conditions which have evoked the evil in people rather than
promoting the good.  I think history is not determined by
objective factors; we don't have what the Communists used to call
a "histo-mat" — historical materialism — or "dia-mat" —
dialectical materialism.  I think that the subjective factor in
history is much more important, and many times really decides it.
I want to say that both to give you confidence about the nature
of man; but also to appeal to you to get active with us.  So,
contact us and we will move mountains.

        ROSS:  Many opportunities to do good right now.  Thank you
both for joining us; and thank you, viewers.  To find out more
about these things, "The Four Laws to Save the USA Now" — the
document by LaRouche as displayed during this webcast — is
available through a link in the video description, and at  Please subscribe to this channel if you
haven't already; "like" this video.  If you have questions or
comments, leave them; and {donate} to LaRouche PAC.  We rely
entirely on the support of individuals like you to finance our
operations and to achieve this victory.  So, help; let's win this
one.  Thank you for joining us.

0 Kommentarer

Skriv en kommentar

Din e-mailadresse vil ikke blive publiceret.