Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, talte om hvor meget det haster med at genopdage Ludwig van Beethovens genialitet i år, 250-årsdagen for hans fødsel, for at løse de store kriser verden står overfor. Som hun udtrykte det i en nylig artikel: “Hvor ellers, bortset fra i klassisk musik, kan man styrke og uddybe den passion, der er nødvendig for at se ud over ens egne bekymringer, og for at håndtere de store udfordringer for menneskeheden?” Læs Zepp-LaRouches artikel, der gennemhuller argumenterne fra dem der i øjeblikket handler for at ødelægge Beethoven og selve skønheden.

Her er et afskrift på engelsk af videoen:

DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed. We have a very special presentation for today. There will be much time to discuss all sorts of matters of political importance, but certainly after this past week, one thing that can be said for certain about the United States and the rest of the world as well, is that a new standard of truth is required of us and of humanity as a whole. Humanity needs to act without the false need of catastrophe. Many times in history, people have been set in motion by something bad, only to then do something good. We’ve seen that often to be the motivation for the necessity for war. We don’t believe that that’s a standard that humanity can afford. We think that humanity should try, for a change, to think like Beethoven. That was a theme of much of the life of Lyndon LaRouche, who is generally talked about as an economist and statesman and Presidential candidate and so forth. But most people are unaware of his work in music.

Recently a volume has been published, entitled Think Like Beethoven, which has a compilation of Mr. LaRouche’s writings. I want to refer to something that he said as a way of introducing our speaker. This is in the essay called “What Is Music, Really?” This was actually a conversation that was transcribed in which the subtitle here is “The Principle of Music Is Love”:

“The essential thing is love. Music is love. The principle of music is love, mankind’s love of mankind. Of what mankind could be. And you want to do something that’s beautiful in terms of what mankind’s nature says. And if it isn’t beautiful, you don’t want to do it. You don’t want ugly things! And the characteristic of the 20th century was ugly music. From the beginning it’s ugly music. And the music has become uglier and uglier and uglier all the time. On every street, even in speaking. In writing. Also in smelling….

“That’s the problem. Mankind tends toward the wrong standards of truth. It starts with the conception that mankind is an animal, and mankind is not an animal. When you start with saying that mankind is an animal, that’s when all the trouble comes in. And the only way you can deal with music, really, is on the basis of love. The love of mankind and what mankind can do that is loving of mankind.

“Because the future is: You’re all going to die. And what is the passion which corresponds, therefore, to mankind? Since everybody is going to die, what’s the meaning of human life? Is it a fact? Not exactly. It’s the creation of a more powerful capability of mankind by purging mankind of its own corruption. Extracting mankind into the freedom from corruption. And all practical measures to craft and improve the quality of art is crap, because they are not sincere. They don’t correspond to some principle of the matter.

“And this is true: You see it in drama; you see it on the musical stage; you see it in performance of all kinds. The beauty is creativity, per se. It’s also the measure of what creativity is.”

So today we’re going to hear from the founder and chairman of the Schiller Institute, and I think that à proposition is going to be placed in front of us all. And I want to dare to anticipate that proposition by saying the following: The only way to celebrate the Beethoven year, this being the 250th birthday of Beethoven, is to do something that Beethoven would do. And we have an indication of what he would do today, from his opera called “Fidelio.” I think you’re going to be hearing a bit of this. Exonerating Lyndon LaRouche would be the kind of action that would indicate that we had actually understood how Beethoven thought. We would be doing what Beethoven would have done; thus indicating that we understood how Beethoven thought. The idea of the liberation of the human mind from its own shackles, is something that was addressed briefly by the President of the United States at Davos, when he referenced the idea of optimism and the great Dome of Florence. An idea which took 140 years to complete.

But it doesn’t take 140 years to recognize the truth. And it shouldn’t take more than a few months to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche. So, though I know that the topics may range widely in the case of the next speaker from I exactly indicated, I’m going to anticipate that she’s certainly going to more than touch on that matter. So, it’s always my honor and pleasure to present Helga Zepp-LaRouche, chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, and the founder of the Schiller Institute.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Let me welcome you, and I will try to talk about the subject which Dennis just announced. But let me situate it in a specific context. We just in the last couple of days had quite tumultuous events, where the impeachment drive against President Trump was finally defeated. He was acquitted, and he gave a rather jubilant press conference or meeting afterwards. So it is actually a moment in which one should reflect on that coup attempt, which first was done with British intelligence, the intelligence community of the United States, the heads of intelligence of the Obama administration. If one would live in a different world, one would think, “Shouldn’t it be the case that the Left opposes the CIA? Opposes the intelligence community? Shouldn’t it be that the liberals somehow have a problem if there is a coup attempt against a sitting, elected President of the United States?”

Well, but we all found out that no such thing occurs. Neither the so-called Left — if it still exists — or the Left liberals had any problem with the fact that there was overwhelming evidence that the intelligence apparatus tried to make a coup by replacing the American Constitution, turning the American republic into a British parliamentarian system; which was emphasized by Dershowitz and others. So, why is that the case?

What my presentation, which is on Beethoven and the question of culture in general, I will investigate why this is. And you will be surprised, some of you naturally know the answer already, that this behavior of the Left and the left liberals in this entire process, is the result of a gigantic — and I really mean gigantic — brainwashing effort which people are not even aware anymore of why this is the case.

What has this to do with the Beethoven year? We have a full year now of many concerts around the world. Alone in Germany there are more than 1000 concerts performing Beethoven’s music. When the first performances occurred, I had the fortune of listening one entire day in an Austrian/Swiss/German TV program to different Beethoven compositions. That is a luxury which you normally don’t have, but if you do that, and you listen for an entire day to all the different pieces — the piano concertos, the symphonies, the Missa Solemnis, Fidelio, and many others — it has an incredible effect on you. Because you are being transformed with your mind and your emotions in a completely different universe.

So, it occurred to me that this Beethoven year was a perfect opportunity, because it coincides with extremely important political and strategic decisions which have to take place. Namely, that we overcome geopolitics; that we go away from the danger of the world plunging into another World War, sleepwalking like in the First World War. That you have the absolute necessity to do what Trump set out to do in the 2016 campaign: Improve the relationship with Russia, with China. We have incredible dangers. So, it occurred to me that we should use the Beethoven year internationally to basically have many people participating in the listening of Beethoven, in the performing of Beethoven; in order to develop this unbelievable emotional strength which comes from great Classical music. And which comes more from Beethoven than from anybody else. Because it has been clear to me since a very long time, that we will politically only succeed if we combine our political efforts with a cultural renaissance of Classical music.

Now Schiller, in his Aesthetical Letters, which was his reaction to the failure and collapse of the French Revolution when the Jacobin Terror had taken over, and therefore the hopes of all republican circles in Europe that the French Revolution could replicate the American Revolution, were shattered. When that hope was shattered, and Schiller said at that time said, “A great moment had found a little people,” because the objective conditions to have a change, to have an American-like Revolution were there. But that the subject of moral condition was lacking.

So Schiller then, in his Aesthetical Letters, said that he believed that any improvement in politics could only come from the moral improvement, the ennoblement of the individual. And I believe that is absolutely true. I have made that my own creed for the last half century. That only if individuals become better human beings, that they become more noble in their emotion, their thinking more great about humanity; only then can you move history forward. Schiller, in his Aesthetical Education Letters gave the answer, that it can only be through great Classical art that that can be accomplished. Now, some people would argue, “No, what do we need Classical art for? We also have religion.” And I’m not denying that also in religion there is the command to improve. There are other people arguing, “But why do you need Classical music? I don’t know it; I don’t like it; it’s alien to me. Why don’t we just concentrate on astronomy, looking at the stars? That is also having an ennobling effect.” So, I’m not denying that either; and I don’t think there is an exclusiveness between these three questions of Classical culture, religion, and astronomy. But it is great Classical art which does something very specific in order to favor the creative faculties of the mind.

Now Schiller, and also Lyn his entire life, proceeded from that assumption. As a matter of fact, all of Schiller’s works — his poems, his dramas — were all characterized and driven by the idea that the result must be the ennoblement of the human being. And the quote you just heard from Dennis by Lyn really expresses the essence of Lyn’s entire work as well. Schiller, Confucius, and some other great thinkers had this idea that the aesthetical education is doing that ennoblement. Because if the person sinks into a great painting of Leonardo da Vinci, or Rembrandt, or listens to a Schubert song, or listens to a beautifully performed American spiritual, then you forget about your greed, you forget about your selfishness. And while thinking in the creative composition you are engaging with, you become a little bit more like that yourself. The more you make that a habit, and the less you do selfish and greedy things in between, the more you become a better person.

Just in parentheses, I want to mention that Xi Jinping, the President of China, also has many times emphasized the need to have aesthetical education, especially of students, but also of all other age brackets of society. Because if people are educated aesthetically, they develop a more beautiful mind and a more beautiful soul. And that is the source of all great works then again.

Now Trump said something just recently, namely that he wants to write an Executive Order that Federal buildings should no longer be modernist, but should be Classical. Hopefully he means Greek Classical and Renaissance Classical, and not Roman Classical, because these notions are sometimes not differentiated. But I think this is a very promising sign that first Trump talks about the Dome in Florence, now he talks about making buildings beautiful. So, we should continue on this road.

Beauty is intelligible. This is a very important point because it goes beyond opinion. People say what is my taste is my thing, and I have the right to find this beautiful, and you have another opinion. But I want to put a notion of beauty against that which is intelligible. It goes to the Italian question of the Golden Mean in Renaissance paintings and buildings, but it is also a standard of composition. It pertains to the famous debate between Schiller and Kant, where Kant in his Critique of Judgement said any arabesque which a painter throws against the wall is more beautiful than a piece of art where you can recognize the intention of the artist. Schiller got very upset about that, and wrote many of his aesthetical writings exactly to rebut this idea of Kant. He said there must be a notion borne out of reason of beauty, and then if the empirical performance and evidence conforms with that idea of reason, it is good, but not the other way around.

Since we are talking about Beethoven, and I recently wrote an open letter to defend Classical performance of Beethoven and I vowed that I would initiate a campaign to really end the acceptance of Classical music being destroyed by the modernists. And end the ugliness in music, which Lyn also did not like, as you previously heard.

I want to talk to you a little bit about “Fidelio,” because this is an opera which is very dear to my heart, and it was very dear to Lyn’s heart. The two of us really thought it was our opera, for reasons which I will come to in a second. First of all, concerning the narrative of “Fidelio,” it definitely is referring to real historical events. I think more research needs to be done, and if some of you, our listeners and audience, feel compelled to join in that, you are welcome. Because we have certain hints, but in the literature about the origins of the libretto of Beethoven’s “Fidelio” there are different views. But I think a very probable hypothesis is that it pertains the arrest and imprisonment of the Marquis de Lafayette, who as you know, was a very much an ally of the American Revolution. And in that capacity, he drew the anger of the then-British Prime Minister, William Pitt, who put pressure on the Austrian emperor to put Lafayette in jail. And there he was for several years in a dungeon. He was then freed among other things, by the courageous intervention of his wife Adrienne, who joined him in the incarceration. And then because of an unbelievable international campaign involving many VIPs appealing to Emperor Franz, he finally was released. He was released in 1797, and only five months after that, the Frenchman Jean-Nicolas Bouilly published the libretto which Beethoven then used, called Leonore, or Married Love [Léonore, ou l’Amour Conjugal].

This is, as I said, very dear to my heart, because when Lyn was put in jail innocently by the Bush Sr. Administration, I launched something called Operation Florestan. Maybe you can show this picture [Fig. 1]. This was a situation where Lyn was put in jail by a combination of the British, the Bush apparatus, and also there were clearly some collaborations with certain Soviet forces. So, when you read this article, you have to see that in 1989, the [berlin] Wall had not yet fallen, the situation was still extremely tense between the Soviet Union and the West. [See EIR article: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1989/ eirv16n11-19890310/eirv16n11-19890310_022-operation_florestan_will_save_la.pdf] So, some of these things have to be seen in the context in which they were written, but I think the setting of putting Lyn in jail innocently, deprived the American population from access to the most beautiful ideas probably ever written and thought in the history of the United States.

What we did with Operation Florestan was that we talked for about five years to thousands and thousands of VIPs. We had probably a couple of thousand signatures from sitting parliamentarians all over the world, from generals, from chiefs of staff, from bishops, from cardinals, from writers, from other notables. And we launched this campaign with the iédea that Operation Florestan, being modelled on the “Fidelio” opera and the example of Lafayette, that we would get Lyn out of jail. That was by no means certain because when Lyn was given this extremely harsh sentence, it was meant that he would die in jail. So, we launched this campaign.

Now I want to talk a little bit about the “Fidelio” to make clear why this is an absolute parallel to what happened to us. First of all, the actual narrative in the “Fidelio” opera is that Florestan is kept as a prisoner by Don Pizarro, a tyrant who basically keeps him there as a political prisoner because he fears that Florestan might reveal some very comprising truth about Pizarro. His wife, Leonore, dresses up as a man; she calls herself Fidelio. She gets hired by the dungeon guard, Rocco. And Rocco’s daughter, Marzelline, falls in love with Fidelio who she thinks is a man, despite the fact that she has a fiancé, Jaquino. In the beginning of the opera, you hear now this beautiful quartet, for which I ask our singers to get ready. This is still at the very beginning of the setting. The four characters — Leonore, Rocco, Jaquino, and Marzelline — are all singing. The beauty about this quartet is that they all sing about their hopes, their inspirations, and they are all different. But despite the fact that they are all very different, the harmonious composition is one of the most beautiful examples of the art of Beethoven. Now, let’s hear “Mir ist so wunderbar.”

[Quartet performed live]

Thank you very much. The reason why we have to do it like this is because neither YouTube nor the record companies allow you, because of copyright issues, to just use some of the performances. So, that’s why we’re doing it in a little bit of an improvised way; so please have an understanding that that’s the reason why we have to do it that way. This was obviously well done, and extremely beautiful.

Now, after this development in the beginning, Pizarro comes to the dungeon to look at the prisoners, because he has learned that the minister wants to come to inspect things. He is his political enemy. And he is afraid the minister will meet Florestan, and then he could reveal these secrets. So, he wants Florestan to be killed. So, he tells Rocco to go to the dungeon and kill Florestan. Rocco does not want to do it, but then eventually he agrees to at least dig the grave, and have then the corpse of Florestan buried. So, he takes Fidelio with him, because it is heavy work and he is a little bit old. So, Leonore and Rocco go into the dungeon, and then Leonore asks Rocco that the prisoners should be allowed to see the light of day, because they are in the dark. Then comes the most beautiful chorus, the Prisoners’ Chorus, which is very famous. If you don’t have it in your ear, you should go home and listen to the whole opera; which you should do in any case.

So then, Florestan, who is struggling in the dark, who has fever, who is feeling horrible, has this beautiful vision that Leonore comes and he sees her as an angel. This again is one of the most beautiful arias you can imagine. So then, Leonore/Fidelio asks Rocco that he allows her to give the prisoner some bread and wine. And while doing that, she recognizes her husband. So, then Pizarro arrives, and he is already moving with the dagger to kill Florestan. Then Leonore throws herself between her husband and Pizarro and says you have to first kill his wife. She threatens Pizarro with a pistol. At that point, the trumpets sound to announce the arrival of the minister. Then, basically the danger is over, and Florestan and Leonore embrace each other and then comes this unbelievable duet of joy, “O namenlose Freude!” While we are hearing this now as an audio, I want you to focus on the absolute beauty of the emotions — the joy, the limitless joy, the nameless joy which unites Leonore and Florestan. It is that emotion which is love; and it is that emotion which is pure joy. The same joy which Beethoven celebrates also in the Ninth Symphony in the Ode to Joy, especially the last movement when he talks about Schiller’s Ode to Joy and this becomes the chorus.

So, let’s now listen to the “O namenlose Freude!”

[Duet is played]

So after that, the minister opens all the dungeons; the prisoners come out and are free. He recognizes Florestan, his friend, then everybody joins in the great finale, the beautiful chorus, the so-called Heil chorus where they celebrate the love of mankind, the love between the two spouses, the absolute victory of freedom over tyranny, and what man can do if you have a good plan, there can be absolutely the defeat of all tyrants. This emotion, this idea that if you struggle for a good cause, and that you overcome all the difficulties that you arrive at this higher level of sublime feeling; this is expressed in this beautiful music. So, let’s hear the “Heil sei dem Tag, Heil sei der Stunde” chorus clip.

[Chorus is played]

Well, this is only the beginning, and I would really urge you to listen to a very good performance of the entire Fidelio. There is a very beautiful one with Christa Ludwig and probably many others, but I really think you should take the time to listen to the entire opera.

So, well, I had a very urgent need to go and see such an opera. It’s a very personal thing, because as you know, in a few days it is one year since Lyn has passed away. And around the Christmas period, I just wanted really badly to see a performance of Florestan. And contrary to my normal habit when I look at the reviews and critiques before I go, which I have not done for a long time, because they are all bad generally. I just went to a performance in the Darmstadt Theatre without checking it out beforehand. And maybe it was a shock, but I think it was a healthy shock, because it was so absolutely terrible that I felt to write the open letter which I mentioned earlier, and which you may have read. [https://larouchepub.com/hzl/2020/4703-year_of_beethoven-hzl.html]

Because what this opera performance did was not only to apply Regietheater to the staging. Regietheater, as you know, is this terrible thing which was developed in the 1960s and has been used ad nauseum a zillion times since, where modern Regietheater would just take a Classical composition of Schiller or Shakespeare or some other Classical poet or dramatist, and put his own projection of what he thinks is relevant and how it should be interpreted. Then you have soldiers not dressed in historical costumes, but sitting on Harley Davidsons or being Nazi officers, just to project whatever the personal opinion of the director is. And normally they have at least one naked scene in it; they copulate on the stage. There were performances which were so ugly, actually pornographic. This has been going on for more than 50 years, so it’s not exactly original. But until recently, this kind of Regietheater was limited to the staging, the words, but they never really attacked the music.

So what happened in this performance was, not only did they apply all the terrible elements of Regietheater — having film clips while people were singing, so it was completely chaotic — but for the first time, they also changed the music. Namely this grand finale, of which you just hear two minutes of the beginning, and a modernist composer with the name of Annette Schlünz, who comes from the Eisler school tradition. This is this basically going to this whole idea of Brecht and Eisler that you also can have the Verfremdung [distancing] effect which is the idea that you should no longer allow the audience to identify with the people on the stage and become elevated; but you have to interrupt this identification every five seconds by a sound or a movie clip or something which interrupts this process; which makes it absolutely unbearable. So, this woman, Mrs. Schlünz, writes in the introduction to the program that she took this music of the final chorus, repeating a beat, then stopping suddenly, introducing alien sounds, have eight vocalists distributed in the audience who then all of a sudden get up, and if you are unhappy and one of these people stands behind you, you can have a heart attack. Then trumpets from the balconies. She described that she had the fantasy of sitting at the mixing console of the music studio, speeding up the music. That when the actual joy in the chorus is expressed, according to her it becomes like a jubalization machine; like children becoming completely hyper when they lose control of their emotions.

So obviously, this woman is completely unable emotionally to comprehend the sublime notions of the music expressed that we saw with the nameless joy, or the love between the couple, or the joy of the victory over tyranny. All of this is alien to them.

Now, where does this come from? Well, this comes all from a very sophisticated, extremely huge CIA operation called the Congress for Cultural Freedom. This was an operation in the postwar period which broke up as huge scandal in 1967. Just recently, there was an exhibition at the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of this CCF in Berlin. There was an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily where the author, in a very rare moment of honesty, says — the title of the article is “How One Steals the Big Words”; meaning freedom and so forth. He says: “The worrisome quintessence of what the CIA did is that they did not sponsor some sinister right-wing ideology, but they helped the left liberalism to become the hegemonic mainstream standard of intellectuals in the West today.” That is exactly what I referred to in the beginning. Why is it that the Left and the liberals are siding with the CIA against Trump and against being on the side of the coup? This is the result of this process.

How did the CCF work? Remember that we are soon celebrating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, where the United States and the Soviet Union fought together in the fight against Nazism. This was going very deep. You will have on the 26th of April in Thurgau at the Elbe, the celebration of when the American and Soviet soldiers met for the first time. This was a very emotional event. For the Russians, this goes extremely deep, because they lost in the Great Patriotic War [World War II] 27 million people. They have absolutely not forgotten that, and they feel, when they allowed for example the German unification in 1989, all the promises were given to them that NATO would never expand to the East, never to the borders of Russia. They feel a tremendous sense of betrayal. This is a whole other story, but going back to this unified fight between the Americans and the Soviet Union, this was the case when Franklin D Roosevelt was still President; who had unfortunately a very untimely death at the end of the Second World War. When Truman came in, this was a much smaller man, and we all have heard from Lyn that he said when he was in India, and he got the news, the soldiers around him were asking “what do you think this signifies?” And Lyn said, I think we just lost a great man for a very little man.

It was the little man Truman who succumbed to the influence of Churchill in the postwar period. Therefore, this great alliance between the Americans and the Soviets was then replaced. Churchill announced in this famous Fulton, Missouri speech on March 5, 1946, where he announced practically what became the Cold War. That meant in the United States, elements of what Eisenhower would later call the military-industrial complex, which has turned in the meantime to what people mistakenly the Deep State, which is really the British subversion of the American intelligence services. They got more influence. In order to change the positive alliance between the Americans and the Soviets into a Cold War, and therefore a geopolitical confrontation, they thought that they had to change the axioms of thinking in the American people, but also in the European people. They had to change that which had allowed Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was after all very much anti-Wall Street, and they wanted to make sure that these values were absolutely replaced.

So in the United States, it was the attack on the tradition and heritage of Roosevelt, and in Europe it was especially that people thought they had to really destroy the roots of the people in their European Classical tradition. The CCF under the leadership of Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner, who at that time was the head of the Office of Policy Coordination in the State Department, were leading the effort. The CCF later was moved into the department for Covert Operations, and then proceeded to set up a huge cultural warfare in 35 countries. They set up 20 major cultural magazines; they controlled practically without exception all art exhibitions, concerts, who became a famous painter, who became a famous author or musician. Many of the people who cooperated with that were unaware of what they were part of; but some of them absolutely were aware.

The CCF was in continuation with the Frankfurt School, which had moved in the Second World War to exile in the United States. It was taken over by the U.S. intelligence services. One was Marcuse, another one was Theodore Adorno. Adorno explicitly said that it was now necessary to eliminate all

. In a piece called “Cultural Critique and Society” in 1949, he wrote that after the atrocity of Auschwitz, no one could write any poems anymore. He also had the absolutely insane idea that it was German idealism like that of Friedrich Schiller which would lead automatically to a radicalism and Nazism. So, that is something I really want to make a point for people to think. The image of man which is associated with the German Classical period, with the thinking of people like Lessing, Bach, Beethoven, Schiller, Humboldt, and many others, is an idea where man is principally good. Man is limitlessly perfectible. The aesthetic education allows for all potentialities in the human being to develop into a beautiful soul, into a beautiful mind, into genius. This idea of the potential of every human being to contribute through his or her self-perfection, to the common good of humanity is a very beautiful idea of man. And it has absolutely nothing to do with, and is the total opposite of what the Nazi ideology was, which was a blood and soil ideology. It was the racist idea that the Aryan race is superior to the colored races. That is what you find today in some people who say that China is the first time there is a threat coming from a non-Caucasian race to the West. Here you have it; that is Nazi ideology. I don’t need to tell you who says these things.

Now, one component to understand the work of the CCF was that also the CIA at that time started the idea that it is OK to lie. That if you have a national security reason or whatever you call it to be such a reason, it allows you to just say whatever you want, and to put in the world all lies possible as long as you have creditable deniability and you can pull you neck out the situation later on. Remember, more recently, Bolton basically said that it is completely legitimate to lie for such reason.

Obviously, the question of how the Classical German culture, which was probably the most culturally advanced period in the history of mankind; and I want to debate that if somebody wants to pick a fight. How did that end up in the pit of the 12 years of National Socialism, is obviously one of the most important questions. How does a great culture plunge into the depths of horrible things? This is a question which Americans had to go through in some recent administrations as well. How did the beautiful idea of the American Revolution turn into what was the policy of interventionist wars and everything we know? That transformation in Germany is a long story; a lot of things went into it. The Romantic movement which started maybe innocently as a literature movement, but became political and was taken over very quickly. The cultural pessimism which went with it; the destruction of the Classical forms through Romanticism; the actual cultural pessimism of people like Schopenhauer; Nietzsche; the different youth movements; the anti-technology youth movements before World War I. Then naturally, World War I, which was a long-orchestrated, British-steered event. The Versailles Treaty, which was completely unjust and could not function for a peace order. The Great Depression of 1929 and the beginning of the 1930s, and then finally World War II, and the takeover by the Nazis. But this is a long, complex story, with many factors going into it. A lot of manipulations. And the role of the British can be traced in many of these aspects.

So, I just say this: to say that the argument of Adorno, that it was German idealism that led to the Nazi atrocity, is just one of these absolute lies.

The CCF then proceeded to deliberately attack Classical music, Classical culture, Classical painting, Classical poetry. For example, they had an enormous repertoire. In 1952, they conducted a one-month music festival in Paris, which they called “Masterpieces of the 20th century,” with more than 100 concerts, ballets, operas, and they introduced all the modernist composers, atonal music, 12-tone music, Arnold Schönberg, Alban Burg, Paul Hindemith, Claude Débussy, Benjamin Britten. Some of these are full-atonal, some are mixed forms, but it was all meant to destroy the idea of Classical composition.

Why is this so absolutely bad? Because the idea that in a chromatic scale, all tones have an equal status, eliminates the possibility of the higher degrees of freedom, which you have if you have a polyphonic, harmonic contrapuntal composition, because it eliminates the possibility for ambiguity, for moving from one scale into another, of creating and fully exhausting a musical idea. It completely eliminates the idea of Motivführung [thorough composition], discussed so many times by Norbert Brainin, the first violinist of the Amadeus Quartet, in long, long beautiful discussions with Lyndon LaRouche: namely the idea that you have a musical idea — a poetical idea, put into music — and then, through thorough composition, you develop this, you exhaust the potential, and you come to a conclusion.

Now, that technique has been described, and should be studied, by Norbert Brainin in beautiful master classes he did with the Schiller Institute, for example, in Slovakia. Lyn has written in the book Dennis showed you in the beginning, Think Like Beethoven, how Joseph Haydn’s music was developed then by Mozart in the Haydn Quartets, reaching the complexity of the late Beethoven Quartets.

Lyn has basically said that Beethoven’s achievement in counterpoint, has never been approximated by any composer to date. I think I can absolutely agree. Lyn even said—and I know some people were upset when I mentioned this recently in a webcast—that Beethoven is the absolutely towering giant of all composers. People said, “What about Bach?” I’m not denying Bach. But I have a quote by Lyn where he says: “Beethoven marks an Everest, which dwarfs even Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Schumann and Brahms to be foothills.” Now, I’m not deprecating these composers. I just want to say that Beethoven is in a completely different league of composition, by applying this method, really in the most advanced form.

Now, Lyn wrote, over 100 pieces on music, where in this book you only find some of them. Already in 1976, he wrote a piece called “Laughter, Music, and Creativity,” which for Lyn was pretty much the same thing. He said that the 12-tone, or atonal music is a reactionary retreat led by dried-out 20th-century composers, who cannot compose. He again makes the argument, that the degrees of freedom are completely eliminated.

One important point, in my view, in this whole thing, is what the harmonic contrapuntal, polyphonic form of composition allows, it creates stress; it creates dissonance. But then, in a lawful way, in an expandable, lawful way, these stress moments get resolved, and you have the sense of completion. While in atonal and 12-tone music you have a lot of stress, for sure, but it’s never resolved. The audience is left with a complete feeling of disarray. And, therefore, exactly what the purpose and beautiful function of great Classical music is—that it elevates the emotion, that it elevates the mind, makes mankind more noble—that is completely destroyed. The whole idea of aesthetical education is denied, it’s opposed, it is meant to be made extinct. This is why this is such a devastating attack on this idea, that a moral improvement of the population can be accomplished.

What Lyn wrote in “What Is Music, Really?” which he gave as a talk on May 10, 2015, is that beauty is creativity per se, and the aim of it is to unleash the beauty of mankind. That was something that was absolutely known by many people. It was known by Confucius, who basically said that if you look at the music of a country, you can say what kind of state that country is in: whether it’s disorganized, whether it’s functioning, or not.

Now, if you apply that Confucian principle to the United States, or much of Europe today, you can say these countries don’t function very well, because their music is, for the most part, pretty horrible. It was also what Albert Einstein, for example, celebrated: Many times before he could continue working on his physical discoveries, he would play the violin, and put himself in that kind of a creative mindset.

That is why I think we cannot allow the destruction of Beethoven. This is why the defense of Classical music, of not allowing people to desecrate the greatest music ever written, that is why I wrote this appeal, asking not only all the lovers of Classical music in Germany, but actually all over the world, that we declare this Year of Beethoven, to be the end of the tolerance for ugliness.

I’m not saying we should forbid it. Let them have their atonal concerts. Let them have three people in the audience, because normal people really don’t like that kind of music, but, let them have it. I’m not for banning it. I’m just saying they should not have the right to destroy the great compositions of the Classical composers, just because they cannot write any music themselves which is beautiful.

I also absolutely want to urge you, that the Beethoven Year must also be the year of the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche. If you read what Lyn writes about music — it should be astonishing to anybody to find somebody who’s a total politician, a statesman, an economist, a scientist, and that he would also have such unbelievable knowledge of music.

I can remember one time, when Lyn was talking with Norbert Brainin for two days, when he visited us at our farm, that after these two days, Norbert Brainin said: “This man knows more about music than I do.” I absolutely can agree with that. Because Lyn knew not only the inner meanings of all the works, the historical periods, but he also knew especially what it meant to “play between the notes,” to have a sense of the inner intention of the composers, and he could communicate that in the most beautiful way.

The fact that Lyn’s ideas are being denied to the American people, and to much of the world population, because of the unjust incarceration, because of the same apparatus which was behind the coup against Trump: I think that when President Trump said a few days ago, that one must guarantee that what happened to him, with Russiagate and with the coup attempt, must never happen again — well, there is one absolutely durable way how this will never happen again, and that is the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche. Because, when that happens, it will become clear, that the apparatus of British infiltration of the U.S., of the idea to run the world as an empire based on the Anglo-American special relationship — which was put into place since Teddy Roosevelt, and which has been revived by many Presidents in the meantime — and that is the apparatus which tried to destroy the Presidency of President Trump.

So, if my husband is exonerated, for the sake of the beauty of his ideas, then a durable freedom in the United States, with the United States returning to be a republic, will be absolutely possible.

So, let’s make the Year of Beethoven, the year of the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche. [applause]

SPEED: Thank you very much, Helga. We’ll go right to questions. I want to know whether we have a copy of A Manual on the Rudiments of Registration and Tuning. OK. If we don’t have it, let me just mention something as we go to questions. Some people know that it was Lyn who commissioned the writing of A Manual on Registration and Tuning. John Sigerson was one of the co-writers of that. He’s here. Also Renée Sigerson worked on it.

I cite this because perhaps John or Renée will say something about the occasion at which Lyn began to insist that the problem with the music he was hearing, was that it was incorrectly tuned. Many of us could not figure out what he was talking about. We knew there were different tunings, and we knew that the tuning at the Metropolitan Opera was high. But he was insisting on something that then ended up being verified by Liliana Gorini, the leader of the LaRouche movement in Italy, one of our key members there. Working with her father on this, she went to the library and discovered a document involving Giuseppe Verdi having passed a law when he was a member of Parliament, legislating that the tuning should be at A=432, which was exactly what Lyn was talking about.

I don’t tell this story to impress people. I tell it to say that there are some very fundamental matters that we want to get at with this. We don’t want to avoid controversy, is what I’m trying to say. Because, by not avoiding the controversy around this question, for example, the issue of European culture which will be one thing I will be referring to in a minute—by not avoiding that, not avoiding the controversy around what’s ugly, what “taste” is versus “good music”/ “bad music” — by not avoiding that, we might be able to reunify this nation. It’s probably the only actual, efficient way to do it.

So, it’s very important for us, in this discussion today, to take up all those questions — or begin the process of taking them up. I just wanted to say that, as we go to the questions. Again, I’ll alternate with the questions here, and then I’ll alternate with the questions that have been sent by email or YouTube, and so on.

Q: Hi Helga, this is Denise [ham]. I wanted to bring up the fact that in the Western world, in the United States, in particular, there is a war against children going on. In fact there is a book by that name and it was rewritten and updated, and 10 years later, it was The War Against Children of Color: Psychiatry Targets Inner City Youth [by Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin]. In this book it puts out the idea, that children as young as 5, 6, 7 years old, especially Black children living in poor areas, were targeted; and the idea was that they were going to grow up to be criminals, and they said this explicitly. And what did they do to stop this? They brought in Ritalin and other mind-destroying drugs.

You can imagine, we know that the human brain is not completely developed until the 24th year of life. And you have at the age of 5, 6 and 7 children being put on Ritalin, so they are being destroyed.

Also, besides that, you have this newest thing in New Jersey, and I think across the country, is that children in middle schools are being taught about “gender issues,” you know, “what sex are you?” This is destroying these children, confusing them, and it is mental rape — this is mental rape against children. Rather than having the idea of beauty, and music, of poetry, science being brought up in class — this is what you have. I would like you to address that and let us know what you think can be done about it. Thanks very much.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this is something which, if it’sis not corrected, will lead to the demise of the West. Because there is right now a huge campaign against China: That there is supposedly a fight of the systems, where the Chinese represent a threat to the value system of democracy, of human rights, of the liberal system of the West, and that that must be somehow contained and be defeated.

I can tell you that if we cannot, in the United States, or in Europe, for that matter, go back to a Classical education in science, in culture, and leave the trends you just described correctly, Denise — the absolute exposure to violence, through video games, the drugs; the addiction to digital overconsumption, children who are left by their parents and their environment to watch and play for hours and hours on their laptop, on their smartphone, on their Play Station, there are now many neurological studies which show, that when you do that, the synapses of the brain connect in a completely different way, and completely eliminate the possibility for truly creative work.

Now if you take that brain damage, which is caused by these phenomena, and also the whole idea of Ritalin, and the drug addiction, the violence — if you take all these factors together, I can tell you that our youth are not going to be an effective, competitive, or even equal, partner in the world community. Because the Asians are not doing that. I mean, sure there are some problems with the digital addiction in Asia as well.

But they are doing something we are not doing in the West, and that is, that they are reviving their 5,000-year-old ancient traditions in philosophy, painting, poetry, and are very proud to be some of the cradles of civilizations. They combine that idea of being based in the best tradition, with an absolute optimistic future orientation, which you see in terms of their ambitious programs for space colonization, for fusion research, and other breakthrough areas of knowledge.

So, I think that the West — I’m saying the “West,” because things in the United States and Europe are similar in this respect — if we do not shape up and really go back to a universal education, in the tradition of Wilhelm von Humboldt, who was the co-thinker of Friedrich Schiller; and he was one of the pillars of the German Classical period, who by the way, was extremely influential in the education system of the United States throughout the 19th century, and he had this idea that you had to have as a goal of education, a harmonious person, by teaching in certain areas which are more suitable to this effect than others: namely the command of your own high language, in the best poetic expressions, that would mean Shakespeare and other great poets who have written in English; then the universal history, natural science, philosophy; and that would then lead to the idea of the development of all potentialities, which are embedded in each child.

That was the Humboldt system, which existed in Germany, at least in some form until 1970, when it was replaced by an education reform, which consciously threw out that idea. But it is something which influenced every professor in the United States in the 19th century, who either studied in Germany or who studied with somebody who had been influenced by Humboldt. So there is an American tradition to connect to that. And I think that is what we have to fight for, because even if you don’t agree that this is what should happen, I think if the West is not going back to its own best traditions, they will just be pushed into the corner of history, and will become completely irrelevant.

Now I know that in the United States there is right now a tremendous possibility, because President Trump announced in his State of the Union address that he wants to fight for the full funding of the Artemis program: If you want to have lots of children and young people become astronauts, space scientists, and work on this perspective, you have to have an education system which goes with it, and you have to transform a lot of the children who are now in the condition you are describing, and actually get them in such a better condition; which is why we need a space CCC program [FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps], which must absolutely focus on this unified, harmonized personality, because, as Krafft Ehricke said: It is never the technology which determines whether it’s good or bad; it’s always the human being, who uses the technology. So we have a tremendous job in front of us; I think the potential is absolutely there, but it needs a real studying of what must be such a humanist education. And I think this is what only our organization can bring into this fight.

12. februar 2020 — I dag er det etårsdagen for Lyndon H. LaRouches bortgang. Vi beder om, at man slutter sig til os i refleksion over hans liv og eftermæle, og til at man tager del i at færdiggøre det uafsluttede forehavende med at rense hans navn.

Mens han sad fængslet som politisk fange for 30 år siden, reflekterede LaRouche over den sande betydning af menneskeligt liv:

Snarere end at se det dødelige liv som en række erfaringer, ser man det som en helhed. Forestil dig at stå ansigt til ansigt med spørgsmålet om respekten for det dødelige liv og spørg: ‘var det liv nødvendigt for universets samlede plan og for menneskehedens eksistens; var det nødvendigt, at jeg blev født for at leve dette liv, summen af det samlede antal år mellem fødsel og død? Udrettede jeg noget, eller repræsenterede mit levned noget der var positivt til gavn for de nuværende generationer og underforstået for de kommende generationer efter mig? I så fald, burde jeg have vandret igennem dette liv med glæde, vel vidende at hvert øjeblik var dyrebart for hele menneskeheden, fordi det jeg gjorde ved at leve mit liv var noget, der var nødvendigt for hele menneskeheden… gavnligt for hele menneskeheden.’

I sin “Food for Peace”-tale (Mad for Fred) fra 1988, tager LaRouche det samme spørgsmål op. Klik her.

I en tale den 8. februar til minde om 250-årsdagen for Beethovens fødsel udfordrede Helga Zepp-LaRouche alle amerikanere til at færdiggøre det uafsluttede forehavende med at rense LaRouches navn. Jeg vil gerne tilskynde til, at Beethoven-året også skal være året for renselsen af Lyndon LaRouche … Det faktum, at det amerikanske folk og en stor del af verdens befolkning nægtes adgang til Lyns idéer på grund af en uretfærdig fængsling, som blev foretaget af det samme ‘apparat’, der stod bag kuppet mod Trump: Jeg mener, at hvad præsident Trump sagde for et par dage siden, om at man må sikre at hvad der overgik ham med ‘Russiagate’ og med kupforsøget aldrig må ske igen – ja, så er der en absolut holdbar måde, hvorved dette aldrig vil ske igen, og det er at give fuld oprejsning til Lyndon LaRouche … Så hvis min mands navn renses [for alle anklager], af hensyn til skønheden i hans ideer, vil varig frihed i USA, hvor USA vender tilbage til at være en republik, være absolut mulig.

Se LaRouches enke Helga Zepp-LaRouches 3-minute-lange video om at rense LaRouches navn:

Hvis du ikke har gjort det endnu, er det nu på tide at underskrive andragendet om LaRouches frifindelse. Hvis du allerede har underskrevet, bedes du hjælpe med at sprede opfordringen, og få andre til at underskrive.

Jacques Cheminade, LaRouche-bevægelsens leder i Frankrig og fhv. præsidentkandidat, og Tom Gillesberg på en tidligere konference.

Den 4. februar 2020 organiserede det franske Schiller Institut et meget vellykket seminar i Paris med titlen: “Dialog mellem Kulturerne eller Handelskrig: Frankrig ved en skillevej.” Tæt ved hundrede personer – kontakter, diplomater, foreninger, iværksættere og Kinaeksperter – fyldte lokalet på rådhuset i Paris’ 5. arrondissement. Såvel Schiller Instituttets internationale grundlægger og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche som formand for det danske Schiller Institut, Tom Gillesberg, sendte varme hilsner samt meddelelser til begivenheden.

Meddelelse fra Tom Gillesberg, formand for det Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:

Jeg er ked af, at jeg på grund af sygdom ikke kan være med jer i dag, men her er nogle tanker jeg gerne vil dele med jer.

I Danmark, og i resten af Skandinavien, har vi gennem de sidste par år set en voksende kampagne i medierne – og med støtte fra efterretningstjenester og regeringsinstitutioner – for at dæmonisere Kina, i lighed med, hvad der igennem nogen tid har været tilfældet for Rusland. Presset kommer fra USA og deres kontrollanter i Storbritannien, og udøves ofte gennem “soft power” ved at sprede historier om Kina såvel som Rusland der skal vise, at de er diktaturer, som man virkelig ikke kan stole på. På det seneste er dette set i den massive kampagne imod at lade det kinesiske firma Huawei, verdens førende leverandør af G5-teknologi, levere udstyret til det nye G5-netværk i Danmark og på Færøerne. Nogle prøver endda at bruge udbruddet af en ny form for koronavirus i Wuhan som et eksempel på, hvordan Kina og dets indflydelse verden over bringer os alle i fare.

Derfor besluttede Schiller Instituttet i Danmark i 2017 at imødegå denne voksende fjendtliggørelse med et projekt for en “Dialog mellem Kulturerne”. Sammen med venner, der var aktive i det dansk-russiske samfund, arrangerede vi en koncert, hvor vi havde klassisk musik og dans fra Rusland, Kina, Afrika, Indonesien og mange europæiske lande, for at vise, hvor berigede vi alle bliver ved at få adgang til alle disse andre nationers kultur. Kinas Kulturinstitut i København var også medsponsor, og arrangementet blev afholdt i det russiske Center for Videnskab og Kultur.

Koncerten var en stor succes. Vi havde en fuldt pakket sal, og på trods af at vi fik ekstra stole bragt ind, var vi nødt til at afvise mange der kom. Publikum blev imponeret og bevæget af mangfoldigheden og skønheden af bidragene ved koncerten. Især afsyngningen af en kinesisk folkesang af en kinesisk studerende sammen med Feride Istogu Gillesberg, vicepræsident for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og hovedorganisator af begivenheden, betog publikum. Hvordan er det muligt, at en europæer kan synge på kinesisk og skabe så bevægende og smuk musik?

Siden dengang har vi haft yderligere to meget succesfulde koncerter, med fremtrædende og smuk deltagelse fra både russiske og kinesiske musikere, og musikere af høj kvalitet fra mange andre lande. Vi er blevet lovet, at den årlige koncert i 2020 kan finde sted i Kinas kulturcenters nyistandsatte faciliteter i København, som snart åbner.

Samtidigt har vi forsøgt at få information om Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet ud til offentligheden på enhver måde, vi kan. I København afholdt Schiller Instituttet et seminar sammen med ‘Confucian Business Institute’ ved CBS, og i Sverige har Schiller Instituttet samarbejdet om stiftelsen af BRIX, Bælte- og Vej-Instituttet i Sverige. BRIX har afholdt en række seminarer med pæn deltagelse fra akademikere og industrifolk, der er blevet adresseret i fællesskab af den kinesiske ambassadør og ledende medlemmer af BRIX og Schiller Instituttet. På samme tid har vi interveneret i mange møder og diskussioner om Kina, der finder sted  i Danmark og Sverige, for at sikre, at den rigtige historie om Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet – og nødvendigheden af at de vestlige landes aktivt deltager i dette store foretagende for menneskeheden – kommer ud, så de løgne og falske bagtalelser om det i ‘mainstream’ medierne bliver modsagt.

Som det ses med udbruddet af det nye koronavirus i Wuhan er der mange udfordringer, når man søger at løfte 1,4 milliarder mennesker ud af dyb fattigdom og at blive en moderne nation. På trods af fremragende nationalt lederskab, kan lokal inkompetence skabe store problemer. Men jeg er sikker på, at Kina vokser med udfordringen, og vi ser nu, at den kinesiske regering intet sparer for at besejre denne trussel imod menneskeheden bestående af sygdom og død.

Da den nationale regering først blev opmærksom på epidemien, handlede den hurtigt for at besejre den. Oplysninger om koronavirus blev hurtigt sendt ud over hele verden, og resten af verden kunne forsvare sig mod sygdommen på en måde, som den lokale regering i Wuhan undlod at gøre. Og forhåbentligt vil samarbejdet mellem Kina og medicinske forskningscentre i resten af verden snart føre til behandling og en vaccine. I mellemtiden yder Kina enorme menneskelige og økonomiske ofre for at få epidemien under kontrol, og udgør menneskehedens bolværk imod en verdensomspændende pandemi.

Forhåbentligt vil de enorme ressourcer, som nu indsættes i Kina, og med hjælp fra verdenssamfundet, bære frugt, og besejre den nye koronavirus. Og forhåbentlig bliver det et eksempel på, hvordan Kina og verden kan arbejde sammen om en endnu farligere dræber: fattigdom. Kina har vist, hvordan det har været muligt at løfte 850 millioner kinesere ud af dyb fattigdom. Og med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet har de igangsat det største udviklingsprojekt, som menneskeheden nogensinde har set. Vi behøver fuldt internationalt samarbejde for at sikre sejr over fattigdom overalt i verden, ved at anvende videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt til først at etablere den nødvendige infrastruktur, og derefter den nødvendige industrielle udvikling, til at løfte hele menneskeheden ud af fattigdom.

Men hvis Danmark og andre vestlige lande skal deltage i disse, for menneskeheden nødvendige tiltag, må vi først besejre det mentale angreb, der finder sted imod befolkningens sindelag. Kina og Rusland er ikke vores fjender, men er vores vigtige samarbejdspartnere i sikringen af den bedst mulige fremtid for hele menneskeheden. Lad os derfor erstatte den kunstigt skabte frygt og splittelse med en dialog mellem kulturerne, og lad os alle deltage i Bælte- og Ve-Initiativet. Så vil vi se en verdensomspændende renæssance af de bedste bidrag fra alle de forskellige kulturer, og vi vil se en eksplosion af menneskelig kreativitet og udvikling, der ikke alene forvandler livet på Jorden, men også vores solsystem, og det der ligger derudover, når vi får ubegrænset billig energi på Jorden ved at høste helium-3 på Månen og bruge det til fusionsenergi, som kineserne har tænkt sig at gøre.

Se på ‘Verdens-Landbroen’. Dette er det levende billede af de smukke ord, som vi hører i Beethovens 9. symfoni:

Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt!
Brüder! über’m Sternenzelt
muss ein lieber Vater wohnen.

Vær omfavnede, millioner!
Dette kys til hele verden!
Brødre, over stjerneteltet
må der bo en kærlig far.

Og den kærlige far bliver realiseret gennem vores handlinger; mænds og kvinders handlinger for at forandre verden til det bedre.

6. februar 2020 – I går blev et seminar med titlen ”Hvad er det næste skridt for Kina og Europa?” afholdt af det Danske Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS). Talerne var fra DIIS (”Danmarks Kina-udfordring”); det tyske Mercator Institut for Kina-studier (”Søgen efter Europas Kina-strategi”); det tyske Globale Offentlige Politiske Institut (”Tyskland og Huawei-debatten”) angående 5G; og det britiske Internationale Institut for Strategiske Studier (”Kina, EU’s forsvar og sikkerhed, og nyopstående teknologier”). Seminarets hovedindhold handlede om Kinas (angivelige) trussel mod Europa, og de europæiske politikeres modvilje mod at udfordre dette af frygt for at miste deres handel med kineserne.

I løbet af spørgerunden intervenerede en repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet. Efter at have tilkendegivet hvor hun kom fra, sagde hun, at talerne havde modstillet økonomisk samarbejde på den ene side, og geopolitik og strategiske interesser på den anden, men vi har en anden forestilling. Efter mordet på den iranske general opfordrede Schiller Instituttets leder til et omgående topmøde mellem Xi Jinping, Trump og Putin, hvorefter Putin havde udvidet dette til at inkludere Storbritannien og Frankrig for at forhindre en geopolitisk konfrontation. Økonomisk udvikling må være en del af dette, inklusive mere europæisk samarbejde med Bælte- og Vejinitiativet samt økonomisk udvikling i Mellemøsten og Afrika. Hvad med økonomisk udvikling som en måde at mindske strategiske konflikter på, og dermed skabe en håbefuld fremtid gennem økonomisk samarbejde?

Taleren fra MERICS, som har spillet en negativ rolle i Kina-debatten i Tyskland, indledte sine bemærkninger med at sige, at hun gerne ville vide mere om Schiller Instituttets arbejde om og med Kina. Men selvom handelsrelationer vil fortsætte, hvilket vi ønsker, så begyndte vi i 2016 at se de geopolitiske konsekvenser af Kinas investeringer i Europa, da Grækenland og Ungarn udvandede EU’s kritiske erklæring om Kinas opførsel i det Sydkinesiske Hav, fordi de ikke ønskede at ophidse Kina; og visse Bælte- og Vejprojekter her havde ikke overholdt EU’s spilleregler.

Seminaret blev sendt live, og en video kan ses på: https://www.diis.dk/node/15207, så flere personer end dem tilstede i lokalet har hørt udvekslingen. Schiller Instituttets spørgsmål begynder efter 2 timer og 35 minutter.

Schiller Instituttets danske nyhedsbrev, som indeholder Helga Zepp-LaRouches opfordring til topmødet, blev uddelt, og en række kontakter blev etableret.

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Den 7. februar 2020 – Navnet på det tyske ugeblad ‘Der Spiegel’ betyder på engelsk: “The Mirror” (“Spejlet”). Og hvad man i denne uge rent faktisk ser på forsiden af den trykte version af Der Spiegel – en person med en gasmaske, beskyttelsesbriller, øretelefoner og en rød hættetrøje – er et spejlbillede af de racistiske redaktørers grimme ansigter. Overskriften “Coronavirus Made in China” skulle faktisk have været “Det racistiske monsters [der Spiegels] grimme fjæs”.

Dette stykke ‘gule snavs’-journalistik var så slemt, at den kinesiske ambassade i Tyskland udsendte en formel klage på deres hjemmeside. Den berygtede ‘Jyllands-Posten’ fra Danmark havde en lige så modbydelig såkaldt satiretegning, der anbragte coronavirus på det kinesiske flag. Forskellige amerikanske såkaldt ‘mainstream-medier’ bruger det afskyelige, racistiske udtryk “Den gule Fare”. Hvad alle disse skildringer viser, er den grimme virkelighed af en åbenlys indgroet racisme under et meget tynd lag fernis af “vestlige værdier”.

Sagen er, at generaldirektøren for WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, gentagne gange har rost Kina for en fremragende håndtering af epidemien, og har bemærket at Kina har sat en ny standard for behandling af sådanne problemer. Andre embedsmænd i sundhedssektoren oplyser, at responsen fra den regionale regering i Wuhan og udbredelsen af information er ”moderne”, og at der er blevet offentliggjort en ekstremt imponerende mængde nye oplysninger i deres daglige opdateringer siden 31. december/1. januar.

At betegne en virus som “kinesisk” er lige så dumt som at sige, at det er en persons egen skyld, hvis han smittes af influenza eller bliver syg i almindelighed. Det kan ske overalt i verden, og det kan ske for enhver person på planeten. Læren fra dette nylige tilfælde af reaktionen på udbruddet af coronavirus er, at det viser hvem i det internationale samfund, der er i stand til at reagere [hensigtsmæssigt] på farer, der truer hele menneskeheden; hvem der er en ‘hulemænd’, og hvem der ikke er.

Hvis Europa og USA ønsker at være troværdige, når talen falder på “menneskerettigheder” og “vestlige værdier”, burde de gå sammen med Kina og samarbejde om at besejre coronavirus. Coronavirusset og det faktum, at 100.000 mennesker hvert år bliver dræbt af komplikationer fra influenza, viser hvor presserende det er at gøre nye gennembrud i den grundlæggende forståelse af livsprocesser for at overvinde hidtil livstruende sygdomme. Europa og USA bør også samarbejde med den mest fremtidsorienterede vision på den internationale dagsorden, nemlig udvidelsen af Bælte- og Vejinitiativet (BVI) til Sydvestasien og Afrika og det internationale samarbejde om ‘Rum-Silkevejen’.

Man bør helt sikkert reflektere over aktualiteten i bedømmelsen fra Gottfried Leibniz, der sagde: ”I hvert fald forekommer det mig, at forholdene hos os, hvor det moralske forfald griber vældigt om sig, næsten gør det nødvendigt, at kineserne sender os missionærer, som kan lære os den naturlige religions anvendelse og praksis… Derfor tror jeg, at hvis en vismand blev valgt til dommer – ikke angående gudinders skønhed, men de enkelte folks fortrin – ville han give ‘guldæblet’ til kineserne…”

Jeg synes Leibniz var langt klogere end eksempelvis Der Spiegel, Jyllands-Posten og the New York Times.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Den 5. februar (EIRNS) – Den “overvældende optimisme” i præsident Donald Trumps ‘Tale om Nationens Tilstand’ tirsdag aften, kombineret med hans frikendelse i Senatet ved en afstemning onsdag skaber et øjebliks optimisme, hvor der er mulighed for at strategiske og økonomiske kriser, der truer menneskeheden, nu kan løses, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche i sit ugentlige internationale webcast. Med Trump frigjort fra den seneste trussel om at blive fjernet fra embedet, opfordrede Helga Zepp-LaRouche seerne af hendes ugentlige webcast til at støtte ham i et fuldstændigt brud med de britiske økonomiske og geopolitiske doktriner, der har skabt kriserne. Hun understregede, at tiden nu er inde til at ”folk virkelig burde gå videre med LaRouches Fire-punkts program, herunder Glass-Steagall, en nationalbank, et hasteprogram for fusion og internationalt rumsamarbejde, herunder mobilisering for at få fuld finansiering af Artemis (NASA’s måneprogram, red.) presset igennem i Kongressen.” Zepp-LaRouche understregede også behovet for et hastetopmøde mellem Trump, Putin, Xi og Modi, og en rensning af hendes mands navn, Lyndon LaRouche, der døde for næsten et år siden.

Frifindelsen af LaRouche, sagde hun, vil gøre det muligt for folk at studere hans ideer inden for økonomi, historie og videnskab, at hæve sig op til det niveau af strategisk tænkning, der er nødvendigt for at drage fordel af dette øjeblik. Et af de virkelige problemer vi står over for, som kan overvindes ved at være bekendt med LaRouches metode, er, at forbindelsen mellem ‘energi-gennemstrømningstæthed’ og ‘potentiel relativ befolkningstæthed’, et af nøglebegreberne for succes i den fysiske økonomi, ikke forstås. I stedet tages væksten i aktiemarkedet og andre finansielle aktiver, både internationalt og i USA, med urette til indtægt for at repræsentere reel økonomisk værdi.

Virkeligheden er, at vi står over for en nedsmeltning af det britisk styrede transatlantiske finanssystem, kombineret med et fysisk økonomisk sammenbrud, hvilket gør det næsten umuligt for det meste af verden at håndtere kriser som f.eks. græshoppesværmene, der nu hærger i Afrika og store dele af Sydvestasien samt spredningen af den nye coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Sådanne kriser, såsom den fortsatte fare for regional og endda termonuklear krig, kræver presserende et topmøde mellem statsoverhovederne for USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien, sådan som både Helga og Lyndon LaRouche gentagne gange har opfordret til.

Optimismen, der fejer hen over USA, og præsident Trumps demonstrerede vilje til at kæmpe, har gjort sådanne politiske valg til en meget reel mulighed.

I modsætning til denne optimisme talte Zepp-LaRouche om Nancy Pelosis “Rumleskaft-øjeblik” (tysk eventyr af brdr. Grimm, 1812, red.) under præsidentens tale om nationens tilstand, hvor hun på teatralsk vis rev sin skriftlige kopi af præsident Trumps tale i stykker; fiaskoen ved Demokraternes primærvalg i Iowa; “spærreilden af racisme” imod Kina i forbindelse med den nye coronavirus, samt Bloomberg-kampagnens ‘grønne fascisme’, som eksempler på trusler der må overvindes.

Året 2020 er året, hvor det gamle system sandsynligvis vil kollapse – lad os sørge for at det bliver erstattet af et nyt paradigme, der handler i interesse for menneskehedens fælles mål, afsluttede Zepp-LaRouche.

Den 4. februar (EIRNS) – Der blev brugt over 50 millioner $ i staten Iowa af håbefulde Demokrater i det historiske første primærvalg i præsidentkampagnen i 2020. Resultatet var en total fiasko, hvor stemmeoptællingen faldt fra hinanden, og officielle resultater først blev annonceret den følgende dag kl. 17.00. Derudover rapporteres der at have været en meget lav valgdeltagelse for Demokraternes vedkommende, skønt Republikanerne havde en rekorddeltagelse, med over 97 % der støttede præsident Donald Trump.

Men mange mennesker spørger – skyldes det uheld alene? Det er velkendt overalt i nationen, både blandt Republikanere og Demokrater, at alle de demokratiske kandidater ikke alene var uinspirerede, men har kapituleret til den psykotiske anti-vækst, anti-videnskab, grønne fascistiske dagsorden. Dertil kommer, at befolkningen grundigt væmmes over de tre år hvor det samlede medie/etablissement har haft uafbrudt fokus på at fjerne præsidenten fra embedet, først med den russiske ‘and’, derefter skrønen med rigsretssagen. Meningsmålingerne for primærvalget i Iowa viste, at Bernie Sanders var i spidsen, mens det sidste store håb for Hillary Clinton-klanen og Wall Street, ‘Sleepy’ Joe Biden (som Trump kærligt kalder ham), blev forudset til at komme ind på en vag fjerdeplads.

Umiddelbart før valgdagen blev den vigtigste endelige meningsmåling i forbindelse med primærvalget i Iowa – ‘Des Moines Register-CNN poll’ annulleret. Kilder siger, at meningsmålingen var på nippet til at annoncere det samme resultat: “Bernie nummer 1, Biden på fjerdepladsen”. Så faldt selve valghandlingen fra hinanden. Inkompetence? Måske. Men Mike Bloomberg, milliardæren fra Wall Street, var slet ikke med i primærvalget. ‘Mussolini Mike’, som han kaldes, deltog for sent i opløbet til at være med i de tidlige primærvalg, skønt det Demokratiske Nationale Komité (DNC, red.) nu har ændret deres egne regler for at være sikker på, at han kan deltage i de større primærvalg, alt imens han bruger sine egne milliarder på reklamer, der angriber Trump. Som New York Daily News skriver i dagens overskrift: “Michael Bloomberg er muligvis den store vinder af fiaskoen i Iowa.”

Dette burde være et advarselssignal for Verden, og ikke kun for USA.  Bloomberg og nationalbankdirektør for Bank of England, Mark Carney, er de internationale ledere for bevægelsen ‘Grøn Finans’, som nu ganske åbent erklærer, at deres hovedopgave er at indføre disciplin i det globale økonomiske system – forretningsbanker, centralbanker, skyggebanker – med henblik på at afskære kredit til enhver branche med ”kulstofaftryk.” Som Prince Charles sagde på Verdensøkonomisk Forum i Davos: “Det er tid for både virksomheder, industrier og lande at udarbejde og indføre hvordan de vil afvikle kul og olie og overgå til netto nul …. I den finansielle sektor har mange centralbanker og finansinstitutioner forpligtet sig til at integrere klimarisiko i stresstest, tilsyn og oplysningspligt. Med disse fremskridt er der nu voksende tilslutning fra både finansielle institutioner og virksomheder om at gøre oplysningspligt obligatorisk. ”Et sådant program er for ‘Huset Windsor’ (det britiske kongehus, red.) det tilsigtede middel til at opnå deres hovedmål: at reducere verdens befolkningstal, så det svarer til jordens” bæreevne… som de anser for at være mindre end 1 milliard.

Præsident Donald Trump har afvist og latterliggjort vanviddet med at afvikle verdensøkonomien på grundlag af den “falske videnskabs” påstand om kulstofs indflydelse på klimaændringer. Dette er en central årsag til de hektiske bestræbelser i 3 år fra britiske og amerikanske efterretningstjenester for at få ham fra embedet eller i det mindste forhindre genvalg for yderligere en valgperiode. Igennem de sidste 50 år har Lyndon LaRouche været den ledende fortaler for fornuft: for at genoprette amerikansk industri og landbrug; genopbygning af nationens infrastruktur; genoplivning af det hamiltoniske kreditsystem til erstatning af de britiske monetarister; opbygning af ”Den tredje Verden” gennem infrastruktur og industrialisering; iværksættelse af programmer for videnskabeligt fremdrift gennem rumforskning og forskning i fusionskraft; og én gang for alle at sætte en stopper for det britiske imperium ved at samle de fire stormagter, Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA, om at opbygge et nyt globalt finanssystem.

I morgen, onsdag den 5. februar, slutter det treårige mareridt med inddæmning af præsidenten, når det amerikanske Senat nedstemmer bedraget med rigsretssagen. Dette betyder ikke, at Demokraterne vil opgive deres undergravende virksomhed, men det frigør præsidenten og hans justitsminister William Barr til at afsløre de virkelige kriminelle – dem der lancerede kupforsøget mod denne nation – og til at bryde med neokonservative rådgivere, der har forhindret ham i at udføre hans erklærede mål: at afslutte ‘regimeskifte-krigene’, at erstatte globaliseringen med ægte national suverænitet for alle nationer, og etablere venskabelige forbindelser med Rusland og Kina. Det er et skæbnesvangert øjeblik i historien – nyd det …ved at agere på vegne af menneskehedens fremtid.

Uddrag fra leder i EIRNS d. 2. og 3. februar, 2020:

Gennem mange år har den afdøde økonom Lyndon LaRouche præcist forudsagt sammenbruddet i USA’s økonomi (såvel som dem i Vesteuropa), i deres trinvise nedgang efter 1945, efter 1971, 1989, 1998, 2008 og for nyligt. Hver gang han lavede sådanne forudsigelser, fremlagde han også detaljerne for hvordan økonomien kunne blive genopbygget og omorganiseret for en klar opadgående kurs. Han forlangte genindførelsen af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-beskyttelse ved at udskille spekulative pyramidespil fra den sunde, nødvendige del af banksystemet. Ligesom med Alexander Hamiltons design af Det amerikanske System ved dets grundlæggelse, ville den nationale regering igen blive den vigtigste udsteder af lavt forrentede kreditter, og sørge for vejledende planlægning af en stor del af private kreditter gennem deltagende lån. Nationale kreditter med lav rente ville begrænse sig til produktive anvendelser og nødvendig service, såsom egentlig sundhedspleje, ikke hældt ud til kapitalfondes spekulation, som USA’s centralbank (Federal Reserve) gør dette hver dag. Investeringer ville blive øremærket til at løfte det videnskabelige og teknologiske niveau for produktion. Alt dette vil være kombineret med nationale hasteprogrammer for videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt, såsom bestræbelser hen imod koloniseringen af Mars og udnyttelsen af kontrolleret fusionskraft, som en ubegrænset og nærmest gratis energikilde for menneskeheden.

Der er meget mere at lære, men dette burde give en delvis introduktion til LaRouches plan.

LaRouches plan vil gøre det muligt at bygge alle former for moderne infrastruktur, revolutionere vores industrier, genopbygge vores byer, og skubbe grænserne for menneskehedens magt hinsides Jordens omløbsbane, og dernæst hinsides solsystemet.

LaRouche demonstrerede hvordan USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien kunne igangsætte et nyt internationalt kreditsystem efter disse principper, for at erstatte Den internationale Valutafonds bankerotte system, der er baseret på City of Londons og Wall Streets fallerede markeder. Tidligt i januar måned opfordrede Lyndon LaRouches enke, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, til et hastetopmøde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina for at tage sig af truslen mod fred, efter at USA dræbte Irans general Soleimani. Hun gjorde det til en betingelse, at dette topmøde også må arrangere indledende diskussioner for et sådant, nyt vækstorienteret internationalt kreditsystem.

Det er klart at LaRouches idéer, blot et år efter hans død, er tættere på at blive realiseret end på næsten noget tidligere tidspunkt.

Den 3. februar (EIRNS) — Indvirkningerne på handel og produktion af den nye coronavirus-epidemi i Kina rammer en global økonomi, der allerede er i recession hvad produktion, industri og handel angår, og som hvert øjeblik er truet med sammenbrud fra ubetalt selskabsgæld og derivatkontrakter, som kan bringe banksystemerne ned. I løbet af fjerde kvartal sænkede 40 centralbanker renten 71 gange og forøgede deres opkøbsprogrammer af obligationer i en desperat kampagne for at støtte aktie- og obligationsmarkeder. Federal Reserve, den amerikanske centralbank, kan ikke undslippe de “kvantitative lempelser” og daglige enorme injektioner af likviditet på interbank-udlånsmarkederne. I morges måtte Kinas centralbank gøre det samme, i størrelsesordenen 170 milliarder $. Ethvert alvorligt chok vil nu meget hurtigt kunne bringe hele det finansielle system ned.

I dag er det kun lederne af enkelte stormagter, der [stadig] tror fast på et udgangspunkt i reel, fysisk økonomisk vækst — videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt og deraf følgende forøget menneskelig produktivitet. Lederne for USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien demonstrerer dette ved at afvise alle malthusianske “nye grønne aftaler” (‘New Green Deal”) ved aggressivt at forfølge rumforskning, fremskridt inden for kernekraft i og med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins opfordring til et internationalt hasteprogram for gennembrud i fusionskraft.

Disse fire må handle hurtigt; Præsident Donald Trump bør indkalde dem til et topmøde for at iværksætte et nyt kredit- og pengesystem, og gøre det hurtigst muligt.

Kinas nødvendige (minimum) to-ugers nedlukning af forretninger og arbejde i 24 provinser kunne sammenlignes med en “strejke”, der lukker ned for 70-80 % af dets økonomi i to uger eller længere. Det er et chok. Det betyder, at alle fire af disse førende magter nu står over for faldende produktion og beskæftigelse i fremstillingssektoren. Dette omfatter i særdeleshed Indien; den amerikanske fremgang i produktionssektoren stoppede i midten af 2019. Disse lande har også alvorlige bobler af selskabsgæld; kun Kinas banker er delvist beskyttet af en Glass/Steagall-bankadskillelse.

Det alvorlige problem med coronavirus-epidemien sætter fokus på den absolutte nødvendighed af at få afsluttet det internationale valutasystems 45-årige imperium med ”flydende valutakurser”, finansspekulation og nedskæringer rettet mod industrier og husholdninger. Dette system blev skabt af finanskredsene i City of London, da dets banker i 1971-73 lykkedes med at likvidere Franklin Roosevelts pro-industrielle og progressive Bretton Woods-system. Nu barsler det med “New Green Deals”, og Davos-milliardærer og de britiske royale planlægger direkte nedlægninger af hele industrier og landbrugssektorer, hvilket truer med affolkning forårsaget af sygdom og underernæring.

I lyset af nødvendigheden af et firemagts-topmøde for at vende denne krise, mest hensigtsmæssigt på initiativ af USA, er det interessant, at RAND Corporation i en kommentar den 30. januar til en undersøgelse foretaget af RAND Europe i august 2018 kundgjorde en holdningsændring til Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ (BVI) med store projekter inden for jernbane-, havne- og energinfrastruktur i hele Eurasien. Idet han noterede sig, at udviklingslandene har behov for titusinder af milliarder af dollars i nye infrastrukturinvesteringer, sagde Hui Lu, der også stod i spidsen for undersøgelsen i 2018: “Den foreslåede investering i BVI øger ikke kun handlen i BVI-regionen, men også i områder uden for initiativet, såsom EU. Samlet set stiger de samlede handelsmængder med 329 mia. $ for BVI-regionen og 133 mia. $ for EU. En forbedring af infrastrukturen i regionen ser ud til at præsentere et win-win-scenarie med henblik på indvirkningen på handel mellem mange lande.

”Kinas egentlige bevæggrunde for BVI kan stadig være uklare, men Vesten kunne også overveje initiativets potentiale for at levere vedvarende økonomiske, sociale og miljømæssige fordele for alle, og finde måder at støtte infrastrukturforbedringer i de involverede lande.” (Se ”Økonomisk gevinst er mulig for alle involverede, hvis infrastruktur forbedres i lande, der er omfattet af Kinas BVI”, af Hui Lu, en kommentar i RAND-bloggen.)

Dette var formålet med FDR’s (Franklin D. Roosevelts, red.) originale ide om Bretton Woods-systemet. Måden at realisere det nu begynder med et hastemøde med statsoverhoveder for at afværge et nyt økonomisk sammenbrud, værre end i 2008, ved at skabe et ‘nyt Bretton Woods’.

Udgivet den 27. januar 2020 på Harley Schlangers blog på LaRouchePAC.com (www.harley.larouchepac.com)

Medens det amerikanske senat åbnede rigsretssagen mod Trump, holdt præsidenten selv i Davos en tale for den årlige forsamling af selvtilfredse eliter, milliardærer og mægtige, der regner sig selv som særligt udvalgte til at bestemme menneskehedens fremtidige kurs. Dette års konference havde i første række det formål at påtvinge regeringerne en “grøn” handlingsplan for at frelse verden fra de angiveligt menneskeskabte klimaforandringer. Ud over “kendte” grønne som den rasende teenager Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, Sir Nicholas Stern, Bill Gates og prins Charles, spillede desuden direktøren for Bank of England, Mark Carney, fremtidig ambassadør for FN for klimabeskyttelse og finans, en vigtig rolle.

Carney, der i den forløbne sommer pludseligt svang sig op til en nøglefigur for den grønne bevægelse, da han forkyndte, at bankerne skulle blokere for kreditter til alle de firmaer og institutioner, der ikke ville deltage i den grønne revolution – holdt hovedtalen. Han erklærede, at Bank of England sammen med de andre centralbanker fra nu af ville nægte kreditter til finansinstitutioner og foretagender, der ikke er CO2-neutrale – hvorved hanen ville blive drejet om for kreditter til de energikilder, der leverer størstedelen af verdens energi.

Støttet på en pseudovidenskab, der påstår, at CO2-udslippet er hovedårsagen til klimaforandringerne og at menneskeheden nærmer sig sin undergang, hvis ikke den øjeblikkeligt giver fuldstændigt afkald på fossile brændstoffer, vil Carney og hans forbundsfæller såsom chefen for kæmpefonden Blackrock, Larry Fink – der sammen med andre topbankfolk kræver et regimeskift inden for finansverdenen. Det skal ske med en kombination af skatter, økonomisk straf og statsstøtte for ueffektive, “gammeldags” teknologier, og ved at gennemføre “nul-planen” som del af en generel nedskæringspolitik.

Carney sagde i sin hovedtale i Davos, at fra nu af måtte man hele tiden stille spørgsmålet: “Hvad er Deres plan for at stoppe kulstofudledningen? Det kommer til at afgøre, hvor kapitalen flyder hen.” Bankerne vil spørge, “om De står på den rigtige eller den forkerte side”. Og han besluttede med at sige, at alt dette betød en grundlæggende omformning af finanssystemet”.

Carneys og Finks krav om et “regimeskift”, der kun, tillader investeringer i såkaldt vedvarende energi – altså tilbagevenden til en lav energistrømningsstæthed ligesom i tiden før renæssancen – er en opskrift på ødelæggelse af industrien og på folkemord. Men her hører man ingen form for selvkritiske ytringer, for dette er åbenbart den egentlige bagtanke med det hele!

For at give det hele endnu større eftertryk, forbindes dette med et radikalt politisk krav, som Finks gruppe af tidligere centralbankschefer fremsatte her i sommers på Federal Reserves møde i Jackson Hole (Wyoming): Centralbankerne skal overtage opsynet med statshusholdningerne for at sikre, at der skal tilflyde mere kredit til den grønne spekulationsboble, medens kreditter til den reelle økonomi indstilles. Dette er et frontalangreb på suveræne regeringers ret til at stille kreditter til rådighed for programmer, der øger produktionen af den reelle fysiske, økonomiske velstand, sådan som den er nødvendig for at forbedre befolkningens levestandard. I stedet for skal regeringerne blot tjene som et redskab til at betjene de bedragere, der profiterer af spekulationsboblen, medens de pålægger den brede befolkning nye, tyngende skyldsbyrder.

I Davos førte milliardærerne endnu en gang den forstyrrede teenager Greta Thunberg frem for at tilsværte alle dem, der ser kritisk på dette vrøvl. Thunberg sagde, at der ikke er nogen tid at spilde, inden otte år må der finde en fuldstændig omdrejning sted. “Vi vil ikke have, at disse ting skal finde sted i 2050, 2030 eller i 2021. Vi vil have, at de skal ske nu” sagde hun. Hun belærte de “voksne” i rummet: Vort hus brænder stadig. Jeres uvirksomhed forøger flammerne for hver time, der går.”

På spørgsmålet, om han var enig med Thunbergs drastiske tidsplan, svarede Carney bekræftende.

Trump talte et alvorsord til undergangsprofeterne. I disse omgivelsers almindelige enighed om en politik, der vil ødelægge de resterende produktive centre i verden, udløste Donald Trump bølger af hysteri, da han præsenterede en optimistisk fremtidsvision, der udgik fra betragtninger over den proces, der frembragte renæssancens kulturelle og videnskabelige landvindinger og dermed lagde grunden for den moderne civilisation. Han tog her omhyggeligt sigte på dem, der fører politik på grundlag af “klimahysteriet”.

“Dette er ikke tiden til pessimisme, dette er tiden til optimisme. Angst og tvivl er ikke gode tankeprocesser, for dette er tiden for store forhåbninger og glæde og optimisme og handling. Men for at gribe morgendagens muligheder, må vi tilbagevise de evige dommedagsprofeter og deres forudsigelser om Jordens undergang. De er arvtagerne til fortidens tåbelige spåmænd… og de ønsker, at det skal gå os dårligt, men det tillader vi ikke. De forudsagde, at der ville komme en overbefolkningskrise i 1960’erne, udbredt hungersnød i 1970’erne, og at olien ville slippe op i 1990’erne. Disse panikmagere kræver altid det samme; absolut magt for at beherske, forandre og overvåge hvert eneste aspekt af vore liv.”

Med denne spot over nutidens grønne “dommedagsprofeter”, der går ind for en moderne udgave af den malthusianske befolkningsreduktion, hentydede han (om ikke med navns nævnelse) til så grundlæggende værker som The Population Bomb af Paul Ehrlich og Grænser for Vækst af Dennis Meadows og Jay Forrester og deres kvaksalverkolleger i Romklubben(1972).

Hvad Trump ikke sagde, men hvad nogle af klimahysteriets forkæmpere formentligt godt vidste, var, hvad der var fælles for alle disse kræfter – ud over deres malthusianske had til menneskeheden – nemlig at Lyndon LaRouche i løbet af det sidste halve århundrede igen og igen kritiserede og gendrev deres ondsindede hensigter. I sin bog “Der er ingen grænser for vækst” fra 1983 påviste LaRouche at vor tids vækstfjendtlige fanatisme lige siden 1960erne fabrikeredes ved hjælp af fidusvidenskab og misvisende computerprogrammer. I vor tid fortsætter dette med FN’s klimapanels (IPCC) dommedagsprofetier, der baserer sig på den samme slags computermodeller, der igen og igen har vist sig at tage fejl.

Og endnu vigtigere: LaRouche satte den nødvendige modpol op imod disse bedragere, nemlig den sande videnskab om menneskets fremskridt. Således understregede han ofte, at vi bør kikke tilbage på renæssancens genier for at finde løsninger på nutidens kriser, og han henviste ganske særligt til Brunelleschis geniale bygning af kuplen på domkirken i Firenze, hvor de nødvendige arbejdsmetoder udvikledes under opførslen. I 1991 skrev LaRouche i en tid, hvor han var uskyldigt fængslet, i sin fængselscelle bogen “Kristendom og Økonomi”, der bærer et billede af kuplen på sit omslag.

Præsident Trump henviste i sin tale i Davos til netop den samme ting, som LaRouche benyttede som eksempel på optimisme om fremtiden.

“For århundreder siden, under Renæssancen, kikkede håndværkere og arbejdere op og byggede strukturer, der stadig berører menneskehjertet. Nogle af de bygninger, der stadig hører til blandt de største i verden, blev opført for århundreder siden. I Italien begyndte borgerne engang på et projekt, der skulle tage 140 år at opføre: Domkirken i Firenze. Et helt utroligt sted. Selv om teknologien til at fuldende projektet endnu ikke var fuldt udviklet, gik byens fædre alligevel i gang med det, i vished om at de en dag ville finde ud af det. Disse indbyggere i Firenze accepterede ingen grænser for deres store forventninger, og derfor blev den store kuppel til sidst opført.”

Trump fortsatte: “I Amerika forstår vi det, som pessimisterne ikke vil indse: at en voksende og levende markedsøkonomi, der koncentrerer sig om fremtiden, opløfter den menneskelige ånd og ansporer kreativiteten tilstrækkeligt meget til at klare alle udfordringer… De store videnskabelige gennembrud i det 20. århundrede – fra penicillin over hvedesorter med højt høstudbytte til moderne transportmidler og banebrydende vacciner – har højnet levestandarden og reddet livet for milliarder af mennesker i hele verden. Og vi arbejder videre på ting, som I vil høre nærmere om i nær fremtid, og som I, sådan som I sidder her nu i dag, ikke vil tro at vi har fundet svarene på… Men det sidste århundredes mirakler blegner i forhold til de ting, som nutidens unge fornyere vil udvikle, fordi de udretter ting, som ingen ville have anset for muligt. Vi fortsætter med at påskønne teknologi, og skyr den ikke. Når mennesker har friheden til at være opfindsomme, vil millioner af mennesker kunne leve længere, lykkeligere og sundere.”

Hvad ligger der bag denne afstandstagen?

Den optimisme, der præger Trumps tale i Davos, stemmer overens med hans engagement for et samarbejde med den russiske præsident Putin for at overkomme de strategiske kriser i verden og samarbejdet med Kinas præsident Xi Jinping om at overkomme spændingerne mellem de to førende økonomiske magter. Og det er ikke tilfældigt, at de, der udnytter klimahysteriet til at retfærdiggøre et “regimeskift” i finanssektoren, også forsvarer Londons imperialisme. De forsøger at sabotere Trumps forsøg på et fredeligt samarbejde med Rusland og Kina ved at ville fortsætte de “endeløse krige”, som Trump kæmpede mod i 2016, og som også vil være en væsentlig del af hans valgkamp i 2020.

Det er ingen overraskelse, at det er de samme grupperinger, som agerer gennem et forbund mellem de britiske og de amerikanske hemmelige tjenester i omkredsen af Bush og Obama, som også organiserer regimeskift-operationen imod præsident Trumps embede, sådan som det nu sker med det forsøg på afsættelse, der drives frem af USA’s senat og hviler på falske anklager, udklækkede af disse netværk. Truslen fra præsident Trump og hans sandsynlige genvalg mod den sammenbrydende verdensorden, som disse netværk fik gennemført efter den kolde krig, bliver endnu mere påtrængende, når Trump i sine taler griber tilbage til ideer, der hænger sammen med LaRouche. Længe før Trump blev et mål for deres netværk, fordømte og forfulgte de LaRouche. Men trods årelange fordømmelser og angreb vækker LaRouches ideer yderligere genklang, fordi de genspejler de højere principper, som inspirerede Amerikas grundlæggere under deres udarbejdelse af De forenede Staters forfatning.

Det fortløbende forsøg på at få afsat Trump er ikke andet end et angreb på disse principper, udført til tjeneste for disse eliter, der har forsamlet sig i Davos for at organisere den største befolkningsreduktion i verdenshistorien. Derfor reagerede de så hysterisk på Trumps tale, medens medierne fortav de ovennævnte kernepunkter og forkastede dem som eksempler på “blind optimisme”. Deres største frygt er, at de mennesker, der medvirker som borgere i udformningen af deres stat for at regeringens politik skal genspejle deres virkelige interesser, vil kunne afvise magthavernes farlige pessimisme, der går ud på at undertrykke deres indflydelse.

Anmærkning:

Videoen af Trumps tale i Davos, som begynder 9 minutter ind i videoen:

København, den 26. januar – den 22. januar afholdt det danske Uddannelses- og Forskningsministerium den anden årlige rumkonference med omkring 300 deltagere i Eigtveds Pakhus ved Udenrigsministeriet. Den specielle gæstetaler var Danmarks eneste astronaut, Andreas Mogensen, der fløj på en mission til ISS i 2015. Den første del af konferencen handlede om partnerskaber i adskillige emner mellem universiteter, offentlige institutioner og private virksomheder. Under præsentationen om forskningspartnerskab i rummet, sagde taler Thomas E. Andersen, at rumforskning var vigtig for verdensfreden og påpegede, at Andreas Mogensen rejste til ISS ombord på et russisk rumfartøj.

I spørgetiden understregede en medarbejder fra Executive Intelligence Review og Schiller Instituttet, at hvad Andersen sagde om betydningen af rumforskning for freden, var meget sandt – at samarbejde mellem de fire førende rumnationer, U.S.A., Rusland, Kina og Indien, er afgørende for verdensfreden, hvad enten det er i Mellemøsten eller andre steder. Hun fremviste og læste op af teksten på en af valgplakaterne fra de uafhængige kandidater fra Schiller Instituttets Venner under det sidste valg:

“Helium-3 fra Månen til ubegrænset fusionsenergi på Jorden: Samarbejde, ikke krig, mellem U.S.A., Rusland og Kina”, og spurgte om de i deres partnerskab havde drøftet udvinding af helium-3 fra Månen. Andersen svarede, at det havde de ikke, men at han vidste, at ressourceudvikling var et vigtigt emne i Luxembourg og kunne inkluderes i det danske partnerskab, hvis der var interesse for det.

Desværre handlede den anden del af konferencen om, hvordan rummet kan hjælpe med den grønne omstilling. Astronauten Andreas Mogensen henviste kun til den grønne dagsorden et par gange, men primært gav en præsentation om Det Europæiske Rumagenturs (ESA’s) programmer.

Talerne af forskningsministeren og en repræsentant fra FN’s Kontor for Anliggender i det ydre Rum (UNOOSA) var ren hjernevask fra den grønne dagsorden.

EIR’s og Schiller Instituttets medarbejder talte kort med astronauten og skabte mange kontakter, inklusive flere der var imod den grønne dagsorden.

Idet rigsretssagen er ved at falde fra hinanden, vendte de britisk-amerikanske kupmagere mod Præsident Trump og de amerikanske vælgere sig forudsigeligt mod avisen New York Times for at give en forpremiere på John Boltons ”erindringer”, i forsøget på at pumpe liv ind i deres forsøg på regimeskifte i USA. I sit ugentlige webcast påpegede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at dette er et tegn på desperation, da deres retssag effektivt er blevet tilbagevist af Trumps juridiske repræsentanter, og en betydelig del af befolkningen er rasende over det forfatningsstridige angreb på præsidentembedet, og de stigende vanskeligheder de har med at dække dagligdagens nødvendigheder.

Den største fare som de imperiale kræfter bag kuppet står over for, har været Trumps forpligtelse til at ville skabe bedre relationer til Rusland og Kina. Ikke overraskende bliver Bolton, en af dem der er bittert imod et sådant skifte i USA’s strategiske politik, nu omfavnet af demokraterne, der ellers tidligere stemplede ham som en uærlig krigsmager. Dette seneste udbrud på vegne af krigsfraktionen sker, mens præsidenten fremlægger sin fredsplan for Mellemøsten, som LaRouche har beskrevet som et muligt første skridt hen mod en udvidet forhandlingsproces – en proces der må inkludere palæstinenserne, såvel som russerne.

Med socialt kaos verden over og en stadig truende fare for krig, opfordrede hun seerne til at blive aktive i kampen for at besejre geopolitikerne med et stormagtsmøde, der kan garantere sikkerhed og økonomisk samarbejde. Et vigtigt aspekt af denne aktivitet må være en genoplivning af den klassiske kulturs rolle som et middel til at opløfte befolkningen.

TRANSCRIPT

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is January 29th, 2020. And as most of you are well aware, we are in the midst of this crazy impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. There have been some significant developments in the last hours, the last couple of days, including the resurfacing of John Bolton, courtesy of the lying New York Times. Helga, what do you make of this situation, where it’s headed now?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the emergence of Bolton, while naturally its designed to put the nail in the coffin for the impeachment of Trump, is also a sign of desperation. Because they could not prove the case, there is no criminal act which they could attribute to President Trump. But Bolton who obviously was guided to write this book — it’s supposed to come out and spill the beans about what Trump supposedly did in the phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. Now, this is obviously an act of desperation on the side of the Democrats, because, if you remember, they used to attack Bolton as a liar, as a completely untrustworthy fellow, but now they are relying on him as the key witness.

Where this will go it’s too early to say. It’s Wednesday. Friday is the vote. If the Senate will allow more witnesses, in which case it would open up not only the potential to have Bolton testify, but the Trump team could bring into the Senate hearing all the other crucial people — Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the so-called “whistleblower,” and many others. Adam Schiff, for example, they could bring out the entire British involvement in the coup attempt against Trump from the very beginning, the Christopher Steele dossier, the FISA Court, all of these things which were mentioned in the Horowitz report. So it could become a big mud fight. And if the Democrats succeed in getting Bolton as a witness, then maybe you have to have the whole truth out. That was the view of President Trump in the beginning. He said, let’s have a big discussion. Later he changed it and said it may be bad for the country to drag this out indefinitely. But if it comes down to that, then maybe the whole truth has to come out.

McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, said he doesn’t have the vote to block the witnesses. This is today, we have to see how this goes until Friday. But I think it is very clear that this is not functioning with the American people. We have picked up an increasing mood of the American population, that they really are enraged. And if you need one proof, yesterday, Trump appeared at a rally in south New Jersey, and there were 175,000 people registered to go to this rally. Naturally not so many could, but that shows you there is a tremendous ferment, and south New Jersey, that is where the so-called “deplorables” live, this is a poor working-class area and obviously this is where Trump is resonating very big in the population.

So, I think we are probably in the end stage of this coup attempt, despite the fact that the Democrats have stated their intention to keep dragging this on. Maxine Waters, for example, said they will continue this impeachment throughout the election campaign; but I think the Democrats are playing a very risky game, because the population is really sick and tired of this whole story.

I think it is becoming very clear this is a coup. There is another very interesting blog piece by Pat Lang, who says that in his former capacity as a person working for the CIA or the military in the dark field of covert operations, he recognizes that there was a continuous political campaign against Trump from day one, and if one operation doesn’t function, they pull up another one: This was Russiagate, then Ukrainegate, now the impeachment, and the Bolton thing being the latest such operation. So it is really a battle where the role of what some people mistakenly call the “deep state” — it really should be better called the Anglo-American British Empire intelligence apparatus — the role of these forces is becoming very, very open. And I think that that may change the character of politics not only in the United States, but internationally, for good.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned that the case was not proven by the Democratic managers. In fact, I think Trump’s attorneys did a very good job of countering it. One of the most significant was the testimony of Alan Dershowitz, who made the point this was not just against Trump; it’s against the Constitution, it’s against the American Presidential system. I think that was quite significant, don’t you?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Dershowitz is not a Trump supporter, he is a Democrat, and he had been very critical of Trump in the past. But he argued very strongly on the question that what is at stake here is the American Constitution: That this is a blatant attempt by the Democrats to turn the U.S., as a republic based on the Constitution, into a British Parliamentary system, that this goes completely against the will of the framers of the Constitution. He takes apart these arguments by the Democrats very efficiently. For example, this ominous notion, which they all of a sudden treated as if this would be the final proof of Trump’s crime, that in the discussion with Ukraine that he pursued a quid pro quo. Now Dershowitz says, so what about it? Even if everything Bolton is saying would be true, this does not constitute a crime, because a quid pro quo is what every head of state uses in any negotiation with any other state, so it is nothing special; it is what normal negotiations among states are. And I think these kinds of arguments which demystify the ghosts which are being created artificially, like this ominous quid pro quo, that he takes it down and takes it apart as a constitutional lawyer, I think is very, very useful. Because there is a lot of confetti spread around and thrown around to have a voice arguing for constitutional matters is extremely useful.

SCHLANGER: I think one of the things that came out from Dershowitz and others is this argument that a policy disagreement is not the basis for impeachment. And Helga, from the beginning we have been emphasizing that you have to look beyond the so-called facts of the case, because the facts of the case don’t exist. But what does exist is this coup, and we see this again in terms of the re-emergence of Bolton who has been opposed to what President Trump was trying to do in working with Russia.

How do you explain this to the American people? I think this is something that has not been fully explained fully enough by the President’s team, but I think we’ve done the job. How would you explain it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Trump — who obviously is not a simple person, he has many sides to him; he does use a language which antagonizes a lot of people — and therefore it is actually very important to note the fact that, despite the fact of all these things which one can argue “is this the style I like, is it not the style I like” — the point is the biggest mortal danger to the existence of the British Empire is the demonstrated willingness by Trump to seek a better relationship with Russia and China. And that has to be understood, because that is the most important. He has made clear that, given the opportunity, he is absolutely easy with Putin; this was demonstrated especially in the Helsinki summit, despite all influences around him to the contrary. He does want to have a positive relationship with China. He still calls Xi Jinping his “good friend.” He praises the great culture of China. And from the standpoint of the British Empire this is the end of them, because once they lose the ability to manipulate the great powers in a geopolitical manner, one against the other, then they will absolutely vanish. And given the potential which we have helped to create in terms of having a summit of these major powers, they are really in a panic.

So, I think it is important for the people who support Trump, especially in the United States, people should really think through, the world is in a terrible condition. We are sitting on a powder keg of a potential blowout; there are many problems we can address as we continue to talk. And there is no way how to solve these problems, unless you have a new level of politics which overcomes geopolitics, and that requires that at least the three Presidents of the United States, Russia and China work together and work out solutions for the world’s problems. If that does not occur there are incredible dangers.

So, the people who are anti-Russian but pro-Trump, or people who are pro-Trump and anti-China, they should really rethink their prejudices. Because a lot of what people think they know or what their dear opinion is, is the result of psychological warfare coming from the mainstream media and other operations. And the fact that Trump wants to have a positive relation with Russia for the sake of world peace, positive relations with China, is the most important factor of the strategic situation and it really explains almost every other aspect of the strategic situation.

SCHLANGER: We see this very clearly in the reaction of Adam Schiff, with trying to use Bolton as the key witness. Schiff, in his presentation as a Democratic manager, constantly stressed, we’re at war with Russia. And he lied about this, he made the whole case again, the Mueller case on Russia;, and it showed that this is a pro-war faction in the Democratic Party that’s opposing Trump.

In this context you mentioned the British Empire, the geopolitics: We’ve now seen at least the beginnings of the so-called “deal of the century,” of a peace plan for the Middle East. From what you’ve seen so far, what’s your analysis of this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I mean we knew this was in the makings, it shows the handwritings of Jared Kushner. It is a first step and I think if you look at the international reactions, which I will mention in a second, it shows it has at least the potential to start a negotiation process. If you look at the proposal itself, naturally it was proposed between Trump and Netanyahu, who faces criminal trial back at home, so he was probably very happy to have that occasion. And it gives Israel practically everything they would possibly ask for: It reaffirms Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel; it says the settlements are okay in the West Bank; the Golan Heights, the Syrian territory, belongs to Israel, so it has all of these things. It gives security guarantees to Israel fully.

The interesting thing is, that it does talk for the first time about the U.S. promoting a Palestinian state. Now the Palestinian Authority was not involved in the discussion, so they even rejected this plan before it was published, because they said all the decisions made before, point in the direction that it does not represent any Palestinian interest. President Abbas called for an emergency summit of the Arab League, which will take place on the Feb. 1. Naturally, the proposed Palestinian state, from a territorial standpoint, is extremely meager. It basically cuts out a lot of the interesting parts. To make it viable, will be very difficult. The proposed money over a certain period of time of $50 billion is not a hell of a lot.

So I think the reactions to it — I would like to mention a couple of them — first of all, Netanyahu will immediately leave Washington and go to Moscow to discuss with Putin. Various Russian spokesmen, Lavrov, Peskov, Kosachev, the head of the International Relations Committee of the Federation Council, they all said they would study it, we will look at it intensively; and negotiations have to be based on the involvement of the so-called “quartet” — the quartet meaning the United Nations, the EU, Russia, and the U.S. In any case it’s an international approach and even the EU foreign representative, Josep Borell, said it has to be based on respect for all the UN resolutions concerning Israel-Palestine, and the representative of the UN General Secretary said, it has to be in respect of all UN resolutions, including the one that Israel has to go back to its pre-1967 borders. So that naturally is not what’s here proposed, but that is the reaction from international forces.

I think it’s useful to start a negotiation process provided that the Palestinians agree to that, which they have not so far. But I want to say very clearly, that it is good to give security guarantees for Israel. That is absolutely crucial. But I think there is not going to be a peace in the region, in Southwest Asia, if you don’t give security interests to all relevant parties, and that includes emphatically Iran. If people go back in history and look at which peace treaties functioned and which didn’t, you have the Peace of Westphalia which explicitly formulated the principle that for the sake of peace, you have to take into account the interest of every other, and that’s why the Peace of Westphalia was such a groundbreaking work and led to the whole development of international law; as compared, in total contrast to the Versailles Treaty, which going against all historical evidence, presumed Germany was the only guilty party for World War I, all the reparations had to be paid by Germany, and that laid the ground for the developments which then led to the Great Depression of 1929 and naturally the emergence of the Nazis, and it led to World War II. If you don’t have a peace which takes into account the interest of every party, it cannot function.

And most importantly, you have to look at the region as a whole. You have to look at Afghanistan—a mess; Iraq—pretty bad; Syria—totally destroyed from the senseless war; Yemen. You can even go into North Africa: Libya. Look at the result of what President Trump clearly wants to end, namely, these endless wars. Therefore, if you want to reconstruct this area and have a durable peace, what you need is an economic development for the entire Southwest Asian region, and that can only happen if all the great powers work together. I think the immediate perspective is given, because the Chinese have offered to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Syria, to extend the New Silk Road. Also the Arabs have many interests of cooperation along the Silk Road with China. That is the only way how you can have the hope to calm down this region. And rather than trying to continue geopolitical games, I think all the great powers—Russia, China, India, the United States, European countries—they should all join hands and reconstruct this area, and then you can have the hope for peace.

So, I think the extension of the New Silk Road from China via Iran, Iraq; into Turkey, Syria; into Egypt, all the way to Africa, developing Africa in the same way. Then, through Turkey, extend the New Silk Road to Europe, to the Balkans; to connect via the Central Asian corridors — If you have a total peace plan like that, I think it can be really the basis for peace.

And I would hope now, this is now a first step. It needs to have more steps. But I think it’s a negotiation basis, and people should take a positive attitude, and then, hopefully, it can lead to the result of a real peace in the region.

SCHLANGER: As we’re discussing these things, there’s been something that has just emerged as a strategic concern in the last days, really last weeks: the spread of the coronavirus out of China. President Trump, in a comment a couple days ago, praised the Chinese for the way they’re handing it. The anti-China lobby is going crazy against China. What’s your assessment of where we stand in dealing with this virus?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, one of the leading Chinese scientists, who is charge of managing this crisis, said that he thinks the peak of the epidemic may be in ten days from now. That would be a very good news. China has done a very big job, by putting about 60 million people into quarantine. In major cities, people are being told to stay home. They have a letter out for the elderly, that they should especially not leave their apartment, because they are more at risk than other people. I think it is an incredible job. There was just a meeting between President Xi Jinping and the leadership of the WHO, the World Health Organization. They praised China, by saying they did an absolute fantastic job, by also giving a standard of how to deal with such a crisis. From an objective standpoint, there is no question that China is handling this extremely well, building three hospitals of more than 1,000 beds in a week — I don’t know what other country could do that at this point.

As you mentioned, there are also some really degenerated minds, who have absolutely no respect for human life. One is the unspeakable Danish newspaper Jyllands-Post with its cartoon, which showed the Chinese flag with the stars in the flag being replaced by the coronavirus. China protested very strongly, and basically said that this is a complete contempt for human decency, and should not be regarded as a cartoon. I think our colleagues from the Schiller Institute in Denmark also put out a similar statement, absolutely condemning the degenerate mindset coming from such “cartoons.”

Other than that, if this Chinese scientist is correct, then hopefully this could be resolved very soon. Naturally, doomsday-sayers, who say the economic impact could be a trigger for the world financial collapse. I don’t think that is more than a cover story, for the fact that this financial system is bankrupt as it is.

SCHLANGER: These very same central bankers and financiers, who have bankrupted the financial system, are circulating this new report from the Bank for International Settlements, talking about the “Green Swan.” They are now saying that the scapegoat for the crash will be man-made climate change. Obviously, this is another aspect of the cover-up, isn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. The “Black Swan” is a synonym for the big financial crash, for the “everything bubble” to collapse, which we are very close to. So, to blame the climate crisis for such an event is ridiculous. The effort to impose green financing, and in that way destroy the basis for industrial economy is a danger to the financial system, if it needed another one, other than the one caused by the insane bailouts and quantitative easing policies.

So, I think this is an absolute lie. I think we are entering a period, where not only a crash is hanging on the horizon, but the effects of this financial policy are causing the entire society, in many countries, to disintegrate. I only want to mention two situations: One, I think now eight weeks of strikes in France; this is not reported at all, but I know about it from our French colleagues. These demonstrations and strikes are becoming more violent all the time. That is the result of the government policy, because the French police have the policy of throwing out sort of a net, isolate different groupings, and basically drive them into violent reactions.

This doesn’t only come from antifa and Black Bloc, but it comes from the Yellow Vests. For example, you have lawyers who are so absolutely furious about the attack on them, that they have thrown down their robes by the hundreds. Tax accountants who throwing their tax codes on the floor. This is really getting out of proportion. And the government of Macron is making absolutely no concession, but keeps absolutely with the line of BlackRock, which is really what this pension reform is driven by.

You have a similar situation now in Germany, where the German farmers, who are now basically fighting for their existence, they have now changed their tactic. They do flash-mobs at political meetings: All of a sudden, you have 250 tractors showing up; they block the warehouse deliveries from the large food chains. They say they are now being destroyed, between a rock and a hard place, because the food chains lower the prices for their products way below the parity price — you can forget, not even the producer’s price. And then you have the European Union legislations which make it impossible for these farmers to continue to farm.

So, we are looking at a real social explosion, not only in places like Chile and Lebanon and Algeria, but also, increasingly, in the European countries. I can only see this continuing, because if people like [European Commission President Ursula] von der Leyen implement their green legislation, thereby raising the prices for everything—electricity, transport, food—then this social ferment will just explode, because many people are already at the end of their means.

I think this is going to require our intervention, globally, to impose what we have proposed many times, the full package of LaRouche: the Four Laws, Glass-Steagall, national bank, New Bretton Woods, crash program for fusion and space cooperation to increase the productivity of society, and cooperate with the New Silk Road. That is the solution, but we need more people to help us in this mobilization. So, go to the links provided at the end of this webcast. Subscribe to our Alerts and other publications. Sign our petitions and mobilize together with us. I think that’s the only answer you can give.

SCHLANGER: There’s another aspect to this situation, which you’ve addressed many, many times: which is, the social explosion, the social ferment, and social disintegration are occurring at the same time as there’s a cultural collapse, which is engineered by the same British Empire, destroying the image of man. You’ve just written an article on this; you are quite prolific on this. What do people need to know about how we reverse this cultural collapse?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I launched a campaign which I called an “Open Letter to the Lovers of Classical music.” I deliberately do not address this letter only to people in Germany, but I really want to address it to everybody who thinks that Classical music is important for the mental health and creativity of people.

We will put the link of this Open Letter below, so please download it, read it, circulate it, comment on it, because I want to generate a debate. There was this unbelievable assault, where some so-called modern composer dared to change the finale of Fidelio in a performance in Darmstadt. What came out was absolutely horrible ugliness. So, please read my letter and circulate it.

But it points to something which I think is really of a general nature. If you look at what is happening in the United States, you have the drug epidemic, you have the school shootings; you have a lot of violence as a potential breaking out very quickly. In Germany, you now have churches being robbed. People are stealing the sacral instruments for the church service, pictures from the walls. You have attacks on first responders, on the police — I mean, this getting very, very ugly. I think what all of these symptoms—which I could tell you a long, long, long list of, but you probably all know it—all of these are symptoms of a decaying, collapsing society, like the end of the Roman Empire, or some other cultural collapses.

This very dangerous and this is why I take this attack on Classical music as extremely important to be countered. Because if you look at Europe, Europe is in terrible condition right now; political unity doesn’t exist. We just found that the German government already in 2018, at a conference in Berlin on Africa, deliberately countered the proposal which was adopted in 2018 in Abuja, Nigeria, by the governments of the Lake Chad region demanding implementation of the Transaqua project, which we have discussed many times on this show; and Germany gave only Greenie arguments, basically perpetuating the colonial world-outlook toward Africa, condoning the disgusting policy of the EU against the refugees from Africa and Southwest Asia, which is really a murderous policy. The Pope called these camps for refugees “concentration camps,” which I think is absolutely on the mark.

So, if you look at all of these things, the only positive thing which Europe still has — other than its potential to be an industrial powerhouse, if we change our ways; but that is not in the cards right now, if you look at the EU—so the only thing which we is our great Classical tradition: The Italian Renaissance, which indirectly President Trump referred to in his speech in Davos, by pointing to the Cupola of the Florence Duomo, by mentioning the beautiful Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, by referring to the European cathedrals. That ennobled view of man, including the German Classical period, the German, Italian, and other Classical music in general, these are the most precious heritages of Europe which we could contribute to the shaping of a New Paradigm in the world.

And if you have, right now, as a continuation of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) operation, the ongoing destruction of Classical music, with disgusting Regietheater; you can’t go into a German theater any more, since quite a while, without people copulating on the stage, being naked, doing absolutely obscene things. András Schiff, the great pianist, wrote an article recently, where he said that in New York people are talking about this kind of theater as “Eurotrash.” What this unspeakable so-called composer did in this re-write of the finale of Fidelio is nothing but Eurotrash; and that is a mild expression for what was presented there.

We have to defend Classical Culture. We have to go back to the idea that we need beauty in art. I fully agree with Friedrich Schiller, who in a letter exchange with his friend Christian Körner, said that art which is not beautiful, is no art, it’s trash (those are my words, not those of Schiller).

So, I would really ask all of you who have any sense that we cannot allow the continuation of this destruction of great culture to go on, that you should join with us, and that we really create a Renaissance movement as a counter to that. This is completely in the spirit of my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche. His spirit is alive, especially as all of his prognoses in respect to the financial system, the strategic situation, become more obvious; there is a growing recognition of the increasing intellectual role of the work of my late husband. I want to encourage to always include the demand for his exoneration, because people have to have unmediated access to his works, because it is that, what great minds have written, what great composers have composed, which gives us the inner strength to get out of this crisis of humanity. So, help us in really making this Renaissance movement.

SCHLANGER: We also have the benefit that this year is the 250th anniversary celebrating the birth of Beethoven. Your husband gave us the marching orders: “Think Like Beethoven!” which is the way out of this

So, Helga, thank you for joining us today, and we’ll see you again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till next week.

31. januar 2020 — Vi har lige erfaret, at det kinesiske nyhedsagentur Xinhua skrev om vores koncert “En Musikalsk Dialog mellem Kulturer”, som fandt sted den 29. november 2019. Koncerten blev arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet, Russisk-Dansk Dialog, Det Russiske Hus og Det Kinesiske Kulturcenter i København.

Her er et link til koncertsiden med videooptagelsen og programmet: EN MUSIKALSK DIALOG MELLEM KULTURER den 29. november 2019

Her er billeder og Google-oversættelser af dækning på:

1. Xinhuas hjemmesiden
2. MSN’s kinesiske hjemmeside
3. www.dzwww.com fra Shandong, Konfutses hjemby.

I bunden findes den kinesiske tekst.

1. Xinhuanet:

 

Den 25. januar (EIRNS) – Forslaget den 15. januar fra den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin om et topmøde i 2020 mellem stats- og regeringscheferne for de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd (USA, Rusland, Kina, Frankrig, Storbritannien) – for at konferere om at sikre global fred, afspejler forslaget fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 3. januar, der nu cirkulerer internationalt gennem Schiller Instituttet og andre netværk. Hun opfordrer til et hastemøde mellem præsidenterne Donald Trump, Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin på grund af den øjeblikkelige fare for konfrontation mellem Iran og USA, og desuden for ”at etablere samarbejde på et højere niveau” for at kunne håndtere alle kriser ordentligt.

Selvom de to forslag er forskellige hvad deltagende nationer angår, er konceptet om et topmøde det samme, og en sådan aktion er afgørende på dette tidspunkt i historien. Nu er tiden inde til at alle nationer og borgere organiserer for, hvad der skal være indholdet på et sådant topmøde. Hvad skal der være på dagsordenen? Dette er stedet og tiden for LaRouches politik og principper i forbindelse med hans syn på, at “udvikling er forudsætningen for fred”: Et nyt Bretton Woods-system, der gennemfører hans “Fire love” fra 2014 gennem så konkrete tiltag som samarbejde med Bælte- og Vejinitiativet.

Efter alt at dømme er Putin gået ud over propagandafasen med blot forslag om et topmøde, og ind i den aktive organiseringsfase. Potentielle tidspunkter for et sådant topmøde blev påpeget den 24. januar af den russiske ambassadør i USA, Anatoly Antonov. TASS rapporterer i dag, at Antonov sagde, ”et sådant møde kunne arrangeres, enten før genforhandlingen af NPT-konventionen (atomar ikke-spredningstraktat) i maj måned, eller før eller under fejringen af FN’s 75-års jubilæum (i september under FN’s generalforsamling). “Jeg tror, at gennemførelsen af dette initiativ ville være meget nyttigt for international fred og sikkerhed.” Da Putin gentog sit forslag den 23. januar i Israel, sagde han, at Rusland vil sende meddelelser til lederne uden forsinkelse.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede under drøftelsen af situationen i dag, at et sådant topmøde er presserende, og at selv om folk kan have kritik mod den ene eller anden af de “Fem” [faste medlemmer af] FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, er det dynamikken der tæller. For eksempel har den franske præsident Emmanuel Macron gentagne gange understreget, at det er vigtigt at involvere Rusland i overvejelserne for at løse store kriser. Kansler Angela Merkel tog for nylig initiativ til samarbejde med Rusland og andre magter ved at afholde Berlin-konferencen den 19. januar samt andre foranstaltninger for at søge løsninger på Libyen-krisen.

Vores opgave er at ophøje folk til at forstå, at vi kun gennem internationalt samarbejde kan løse de problemer, vi nu står overfor, og at det må ske med udgangspunkt i den politik, der på enestående vis er foreslået af Lyndon LaRouche. Mange mennesker holder sig tilbage, fordi de bogstaveligt talt “ikke ved hverken ud eller ind”, eller fordi de har opgivet at forandre verden. Men nu er øjeblikket inde til at tage fat på alle relevante “spørgsmål”, i bredeste forstand, som mennesker måtte have, og indgyde optimisme. Præsident Trumps tale i Davos den 21. januar hjælper med til at åbne døren for netop en sådan tilgang.

Den 24. januar (EIRNS) – Kina og Frankrig hilser præsident Vladimir Putins forslag om et topmøde med stats- og regeringscheferne i Rusland, Kina, USA, Frankrig og Storbritannien velkommen – de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd – med henblik på at diskutere, hvordan man sikrer global fred.

Præsident Emmanuel Macron sagde i går på ‘World Holocaust Forum’ i Jerusalem: ”De fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd bærer i dag et historisk ansvar. Kære Vladimir, jeg støtter dit forslag om at samle os alle sammen. Jeg vil gerne have, at vi når dertil, da det er os, der er garanterne for verdensfreden.”

Talsmand for det kinesiske udenrigsministerium, Hua Chunying, sagde ligeledes i dag, at ”global ustabilitet og usikkerhed øges, mens multilateralisme og FN’s rolle står over for klare udfordringer. Kina støtter Ruslands initiativ til at afholde et topmøde med FN’s Sikkerhedsråds faste medlemmer”, og tilbyder at koordinere aktiviteterne i forbindelse dermed.

Og i USA tweetede den demokratiske præsidentkandidat Tulsi Gabbard den 23. januar: ”Min personlige forpligtelse over for jer er, at jeg på den første dag af mit præsidentskab vil kontakte lederne af Kina og Rusland for at sætte et topmøde op med henblik på at afslutte den nye kolde krig og atomvåbenkapløb, som uundgåeligt vil resultere i et atomart holocaust”. Dette er et ekko af Helga Zepp-LaRouches opfordring den 3. januar til et sådant trepartsmøde for at undgå krig og iværksætte massiv økonomisk udvikling.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Et åbent brev i Beethoven-året til de tyskere (og andre), der holder af klassisk musik:

Menneskehedens værdighed er givet i jeres hånd, Bevar den!
Den synker med jer! Med jer vil den sig hæve.
      – Friedrich von Schiller

Læs også: ‘Alle mennesker bliver brødre’:
Den årtierlange kamp for Beethovens niende Symfoni, af Michelle Rasmussen

Her er den engelske udgave af Helga Zepp-LaRouches artikel:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Her er den oprindelige tyske udgave:

Von der Unfähigkeit, Musik zu komponieren

Ein Offener Brief an die Klassikliebhaber Deutschlands im Beethoven-Jahr:
Die Grenze des Zumutbaren ist endgültig überschritten!

Alt imens 190 milliardærer og deres lakajer i erhvervsliv og institutioner er forsamlet i Davos og presser på med en grøn fascistisk dagsorden, greb den amerikanske præsident Trump ind med et anderledes sæt af grundregler. Mens hans tale fremprovokerede hysteri, hvor nogle beskyldte ham for “meningsløs optimisme”, priste han Firenzes borgere, der handlede med fantasi og dristighed ved bygningen af den store kuppel – en bedrift, som Lyndon LaRouche ofte omtalte som et eksempel på ånden i menneskelig kreativitet og engagement i fremskridt, der resulterede i renæssancen – og understregede dermed atter, hvorfor oligarkiet er opsat på at afslutte hans præsidentskab.

Helga dækkede en række emner, fra krigsfaren til den stigende sandsynlighed for et økonomisk sammenbrud, og vendte tilbage til nødvendigheden af et hastetopmøde mellem de tre præsidenter som et skridt i retning af et nyt paradigme for at overvinde farerne. Hun opfordrede tilhørerne til at slutte sig til os for at ændre dagsordenen, med henblik på at bringe menneskeheden tilbage til videnskab og kultur for at imødegå krig og ødelæggelse. Udnyt muligheden i dette jubilæumsår for Beethoven til at opdage den sande skønhed i den menneskelige kultur.

Den 18 januar. I timerne efter mordet på Qasem Soleimani, Irans vigtigste general og i praksis nummer to i den iranske regering, ved et droneangreb nær Bagdads lufthavn, holdt verden vejret i nogle timer. For de fleste tænkende mennesker stod det klart, at vi befandt os på kanten af en potentielt ukontrollerbar eskalation. Derefter fulgte den iranske regerings »moderate« reaktion  –  et raketangreb på en militærbase i Irak, der benyttedes af de amerikanske tropper, hvor der takket være den iranske advarsel til den irakiske regering ikke var nogle amerikanske tropper, der mistede livet  –  og for mange mennesker var krisen så overstået. Mit krise-opråb fra den 3. januar omhandler, at kun et topmøde mellem de tre vigtigste kernevåbensmagters regeringschefer  –  præsident Putin, Xi Jinping og Trump  –  vil kunne skabe grundlaget for en overvindelse af den akutte fare og for en varig fredsløsning i Sydvestasien. Venner af Schiller-Instituttet har viderebragt dette under en international aktionsdag den 15. januar i form af meddelelser, pressekonferencer og interventioner i dusinvis af byer i Nord- og Sydamerika, Europa og Australien til mange hundrede institutioner med den hensigt at skabe et verdensomspændende kor af mennesker, der vil kræve et sådant krisetopmøde.

 Men under denne mobilisering for sådant et nødtopmøde mellem de tre præsidenter optrådte der et andet fænomen: Den allerstørste del af befolkningen i de forskellige lande har absolut intet begreb om den akut eksisterende fare for, at den strategiske situation nu som før kan eskalere til en tredje verdenskrig. Slige advarsler er ikke andet end »forsøg på at skabe panik«, Trump har »styr på det hele«, eller »det er alligevel for sent, den tredje verdenskrig finder sted alligevel«: Hele spektrumet fra virkelighedsfornægtelse til pessimistisk resignation udgjorde folkets røst, der i mindre grad udgår fra nogen gennemtænkt analyse, men snarere fra ideologisk motiverede antagelser eller fra en mere kontemplativ end en aktiv politisk holdning.

 Men opretholdelsen af verdensfreden i brintbombens  tidsalder er det vigtigste eksistentielle tema for menneskeheden overhovedet. Det drejer sig altså ikke om at fremkalde panik, men om uden illusioner at gøre sig farerne klart for så konsekvent at søge efter veje til at sikre en varig fred i verden. Lad os engang tænke tilbage på dengang under Cubakrisen  i oktober 1962, hvor verden efter udstationeringen af amerikanske mellemdistanceraketter på et NATO-støttepunkt i Tyrkiet, og den derpå følgende transport af sovjetiske mellemdistanceraketter mod Kuba befandt sig på randen af en atomkrig i 13 dage. Hvilket offentligheden var fuldt bevidst om – men hvor kommunikationen mellem præsidenterne Kennedy og Khrusjtjov og militære eksperter på begge sider, og dermed krisestyringen, befandt sig på et helt andet niveau end i dag, hvor der mellem juni 2019 og 15. januar 2020 har været omfattende »radiotavshed« mellem USA og Rusland.

Under missilkrisen i 1983, da Pershing II og SS20-missilerne i Europa befandt sig i et konstant affyringsberedskab med en flyvetid reduceret til tre minutter, talte politikere som Helmut Schmidt gentagne gange om faren for 3. Verdenskrig , og der var hundredetusinder af mennesker på gaderne, der protesterede mod denne fare.

I dag er den strategiske situation langt mere kompleks og farlig, men offentlighedens bevidsthed om det, eller endda bare en debat af det, er praktisk talt ikke-eksisterende.

Det grænser til en hån og en fordummelse af befolkningen, når vestlige tænketanke, politikere og medier taler om behovet for at forsvare de demokratiske landes »regel-baserede orden« imod diktaturer og autokratiske regimer i verden. Det vigtigste skridt i retning af dagens strategiske kaos var Tony Blairs tale i Chicago 1999, hvor han udskiftede den internationale lov, der er fastlagt i FN-pagten med »Blair-doktrinen«, dvs. retten til såkaldt »humanitære interventioner«, som i USA igen førte til »Responsibility to Protect«-doktrinen (Forpligtelsen til at beskytte). Som Rusland og Kina imidlertid har insisteret på, og som Trump selv fremhævede i sin FN-tale i 2019, er det alene respekten for absolut suverænitet, der garanterer en fredelig sameksistens mellem staterne.

Blair-doktrinen dannede baggrunden for de efterfølgende interventionskrige, der alle var baseret på løgne, og som førte til regimeskifte, farverevolutioner, kaotiske tilstande og tab af millioner af liv, hvilket vi i dag oplever i Sydvestasien. Under påskud af at forsvare demokrati og menneskerettigheder fortsætter repræsentanter for denne »regel-baserede orden« med en politik med at »regimeskifte« regeringer, der ikke ønsker at underkaste sig diktaterne fra en »unipolær verden«, hvad enten det er den britiske ambassadør i Iran, der var modig nok til at lede studerendes demonstrationer mod Rouhani-regeringen (!) eller tænketanken for den tyske regering, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik (Det Tyske Udenrigsråd, DGAP), der skriver: »Først Hong Kong og derefter Taiwan – demokratiet indtager Kina.« Det har længe været åbenlyst, at regimeskifte-operationer mod stedfortræder-stater ultimativt er rettet imod regimeskifte i Rusland og Kina.
Når man dertil lægger de af USA indførte og af dets forbundsfæller accepterede ændringer i militærdoktrinerne, altså USA’s »Prompt Global Strike«-doktrin der indførtes nogenlunde samtidigt med Blair-doktrinen, opbygningen af et globalt raketforsvarssystem, som Rusland ser som en klar inddæmningspolitik, USA’s ensidige opsigelse af INF-aftalen om mellemdistanceraketterne, USA’s ensidige udtræden af JCPOA-atomaftalen med Iran, NATO’s udvidelse østpå og for eksempel den provokerende planlægning af den forestående NATO-manøvre »Defender Europe 2020«, hvor der sidst i februar skal sendes op til 40.000 soldater til Polen og De baltiske Lande, og hvor Rusland omvendt installerer nye våbensystemer, der svækker USA’s raketforsvarssystem voldsomt, så bør det stå klart for enhver, hvor usikker verdensfreden er. 

 Og når geopolitikerne taler om kappestriden mellem de vestlige demokratiers højt priste idealer og de autoritære diktaturer, så er dette også drevet af panik over, at det transatlantiske finanssystem står foran et »frygteligt sammenbrud«, sådan som George Soros’ tidligere kollega Jim Rogers for nyligt udtrykte det. Kinas program med Den Nye Silkevej, som 157 lande efterhånden samarbejder med, er derimod yderst succesfuldt trods alle advarselsråb.

Den iranske revolutionsgardes nedskydning af det ukrainske fly ved en fejltagelse oven på mordet af general Soleimani, bør få det til at stå klart for enhver, hvor stor ret den tidligere øverste general i Bundeswehr Harald Kujat har, der gentagne gange har advaret om faren for en atomkrig udløst af uheld, af cyberangreb, hacking, tekniske svigt eller af misforståelser.
Præsident Putin reflekterede over denne fare i sin nylige tale om nationens tilstand og fremsatte et ekstremt vigtigt forslag. Putin understregede:

»Vi kan se, hvordan uforudselige og ukontrollerbare forhold udvikler sig i verden, sådan som det i de sidste uger og dage har fundet sted i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, hvordan regionale konflikter hurtigt kan udvikle sig til fare for hele det internationale samfund. Jeg er overbevist om, at det er på høje tid med en alvorlig og direkte diskussion om grundprincipperne for en stabil verdensorden og om de øjeblikkelige problemer, menneskeheden står over for…… De stater, der stiftede De Forenede Nationer bør gå foran som et eksempel. De fem atommagter bærer et særligt ansvar for menneskehedens eksistens og efterfølgende udvikling. Disse fem nationer bør begynde med at gennemføre forholdsregler, der kan tilsidesætte forudsætningerne for en verdensomspændende krig og udvikle tilløb til at sikre den stabilitet på planeten, der kan tage fuldt hensyn til de politiske, økonomiske og militære aspekter af de moderne, internationale forhold«.
Denne alvorlige diskussion af de principper, som en varig orden for hele menneskeheden må hvile på, er bydende nødvendig. I stedet for at holde fast i Geopolitikkens og i den nyeste tid også »Geoøkonomiens« tilbageskuende og farlige begreber bør de europæiske stater tage del i Den nye Silkevejs store muligheder.

Blot to eksempler på, hvad dette kan medføre: Kina har i de forløbne 40 år ikke blot bragt 850 millioner af sine egne borgere ud af fattigdommen og givet udviklingslandene et perspektiv for håb om at overvinde deres underudvikling. Kina har i det samme tidsrum virkeliggjort det største skovplantningsprogram i menneskehedens historie. Den nationale folkekongres forpligtede i 1961 alle kinesere i en alder fra 11 år og opefter til hvert år at plante tre nye træer, hvad der har haft til følge, at Kina har plantet flere træer end hele resten af verden tilsammen; alene mellem 2000 og 2010 plantede kineserne 56 milliarder træer.

De principper, som verdensordenen nødvendigvis må opbygges på, er menneskehedens fælles mål. Den liberale elite i Europa og USA ville gøre klogt i at nytænke præmisserne for deres eget, mod profitmaksimering indrettede system og et samarbejde med Den Nye Silkevejs program om økonomisk opbygning af Sydvestasien og Afrika. Det Europæiske Industri- og Handelskammer i Beijing frygter, at Europa blot vil blive et påklistret, ubetydeligt marked i den ene ende af Eurasien, dersom det ikke indtager en konkurrencebetonet rolle til Den nye Silkevej. Lige det modsatte er tilfældet: Europa har kun et fremtidsperspektiv, dersom det opgiver geopolitikken og i stedet samarbejder aktivt med Rusland, Kina og USA på grundlag af principperne of den menneskelige verdensorden.

Det er derfor nødvendigt, at alle kræfter i Europa, der er interesseret i at sikre verdensfred, støtter op om et hastetopmødet mellem Putin, Xi Jinping og Trump.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Dokumentation:

I stedet for klimaovertro:
H.C. Ørsteds videnskabelige metode
fra arkivet i anledning af 200 år for Ørsteds opdagelse af elektromagnetisme

Lydfil:

Magnettog over Kattegat: Tom Gillesberg på Radio 4
Den 20. januar 2020 kontaktede programmet 4- toget på den nye nationale radiostation Radio4 Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og tidligere kandidat til Folketinget, og interviewede ham i 18 minutter om at opføre en magnettoglinje på tværs af Kattegat (en del af Toms slogan til Folketinget i 2007 var »Efter finanskrakket – magnettog over Kattegat«). Dette skete dagen efter, at regeringen besluttede at videreføre en forundersøgelse af bygningen af en kommende Kattegatbro, men i modsætning til den forrige regering, inkludere en togforbindelse.

Tom Gillesberg havde mulighed for at diskutere mange ting, deriblandt: Kina og Japan udvikler nye magnettog; Den Nye Silkevej; fordelen ved at gå til et højere teknologisk niveau; at tænke ud fra fremtidens teknologier og ikke reparere tidligere teknologier; at broen kunne betale sig selv ved at øge produktiviteten i den samlede økonomi; at han kunne forudsige det økonomiske nedsmeltning i 2008, fordi han lyttede til Lyndon LaRouche; behovet for videnskabelig og teknologisk fremskridt, inklusive fusionsenergi, i stedet for at blive et friluftsmuseum med forældede teknologier som træflis og vindmøller. Efterfølgende sagde en af værterne, »Jeg håber, at DSB lyttede med. Det var oplysning, om noget.«

Her er interviewet på 4-Togets podcast. Interviewet er fra tidspunktet 6:21 til 25:11:

Her er vores optagelse mens vi lyttede til interviewet:



Interviewet med Tom Gillesberg er også tilgængeligt på www.radio4.dk/programmer/ . Kik efter program 4-togets podcast side den 20. januar 2020 time 2, tidspunktet 6:21 til 25:11.

Fra Transport og Boligministeriet pressemeddelelse den 19. januar 2020:

Billedet fra Transportministeriet.

Regeringen vil fortsat undersøge en fast forbindelse over Kattegat

Regeringen har besluttet at videreføre den igangværende forundersøgelse af en fast forbindelse over Kattegat, som blandt andet ser på mulighederne for en kombineret vej- og jernbaneforbindelse. Transportministeren offentliggør i dag delkommissorierne for de videre undersøgelser.

19. januar 2020

Regeringen ser store perspektiver i en fast Kattegatforbindelse, som vil kunne binde Øst- og Vestdanmark tættere sammen og forkorte rejsetiden mellem landets to største byer med op til halvanden time for både bilister og togrejsende. Regeringen har derfor videreført forundersøgelsen af projektet på finansloven, ligesom regeringen i dag offentliggør delkommissorierne for undersøgelserne.

Regeringen er optaget af, at vi med forundersøgelsen får belyst de klima- og miljømæssige aspekter ved at anlægge en fast Kattegatforbindelse.

– Det er afgørende, at vi undersøger en kombineret vej- og jernbaneforbindelse og ikke bare en ren vejforbindelse, som den forhenværende minister oprindeligt ønskede, siger transportminister Benny Engelbrecht ….

Resten af pressemeddelelsen kan læses her.