Webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Vi kan få en uventet overraskelse inden årets udgang
Den 2. dec. 2022 (EIRNS) – Webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche
HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag, jeg er Harley Schlanger, og velkommen til vores ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. I dag er det den 1. december 2022.
Som vi har rapporteret for nylig, vokser faren fortsat for at snuble eller fumle sig ind i en atomkrig med aldeles ukontrollerede udtalelser fra forskellige NATO-embedsmænd, amerikanske embedsmænd, som briterne støtter: Så vi vil starte med en gennemgang af dette, fordi det generelt ikke bliver afdækket på en fyldestgørende måde for det vestlige publikum. Helga, du nævnte tidligere udtalelsen fra Ryabkov: Russerne tager situationen meget alvorligt, ikke sandt?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Viceudenrigsminister Ryabkov udtalte, at han er ganske bekymret over, hvor afslappet folk taler om en begrænset atomkrig i Europa, at det er meget farligt, og det er præcis det, jeg har understreget ved de seneste taler og konferencer. Hvis man begynder at tro, at det er naturligt at bruge et atomvåben, så overskrider man virkelig grænsen. Vi har flere videoer på vores hjemmeside – og se dem venligst – hvor vi meget tydeligt viser, hvad der sker i en atomkrig [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zlyfhz7hk]. Det er civilisationens undergang, og det er det som disse mennesker er i færd med at lege med.
Det er altså ikke folk, der er sådan, det er regeringerne: Det er NATO-regeringerne, det er den amerikanske, den britiske og den tyske regering (og vi kommer til det om lidt), men det er ikke befolkningerne. Vi har i mange diskussioner, i Europa, i Tyskland – især dér, fordi jeg tror, at der er større bevidsthed om hvad krig er, end det er tilfældet i USA – folk er ved at blive ret desperate, fordi de ser hvordan flere våben sendes til Ukraine, som blev nævnt igen på NATO’s udenrigsministermøde den 29.-30. november, eller ideen om, at der ikke er nogen grænse for støtten til Ukraine, hvad det så end betyder. General Kujat (pensioneret) har dybest set ment, at hvis man påstår det, overdrager man en del af sin statsmagt til den ukrainske regering, for det er op til dem at afgøre, hvornår det er nok. Dette er ved at bevæge sig ind i en meget farlig retning.
Derefter følger disse usaglige udtalelser fra Ursula von der Leyen om, at EU vil konfiskere de russiske aktiver, som europæiske banker på en eller anden måde har fået fat i, hvilket blev imødegået meget skarpt af Maria Zakharova, talskvinde for det russiske udenrigsministerium. Hun erklærede, at de vil reagere, det er endnu ikke klart hvordan, men hvis det sker, vil de træffe lignende foranstaltninger: De kan konfiskere europæiske virksomheders ejendom: Dette er en spiral med optrapning, som helt og aldeles er imod Europas interesser.
For ganske kort tid siden så jeg yderligere en video af Scott Ritter fra en tysk platform ved navn “Counterpole” – Gegenpol – og jeg kan kun anbefale jer alle at se den, fordi han udfordrer nu den tyske befolkning for anden gang [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL6Su8YARJg] eller tredje gang på en meget direkte facon, hvor han udtaler: Hvad er denne regering? Har de været medskyldige i sabotagen af Minsk-processen? Tyskland og Frankrig havde ansvaret for at sikre, at Minsk-aftalen ville blive gennemført, og de foretog sig tydeligvis ikke noget i flere år. I mellemtiden har Ukraines tidligere præsident Porosjenko meget åbent tilkendegivet, at “de udelukkende lod som om, at de ville gå med i Minsk-aftalen, som alligevel aldrig rigtig blev gennemført, for at have yderligere fire og et halvt års tid til at træne de ukrainske tropper op til NATO-standard”.
Så Scott Ritter påpeger på en meget polemisk facon: “Hvad er der galt med den tyske regering? Vidste de noget om det? Vidste de, at hele Minsk-arrangementet var en fuser for at forberede de ukrainske tropper på kampen mod Rusland? Eller, hvis de ikke vidste det, er de så en del af NATO? Han siger i bund og grund, hvilket desværre er ret indlysende, at denne tyske regering bare tumler af sted, at de ikke tager initiativ til noget, at de reagerer; i mellemtiden er den tyske økonomi ved at blive skudt i sænk. Amerikanske LNG- [gas-] og andre virksomheder opnår en gigantisk fortjeneste, mens de europæiske økonomier bryder sammen. Vi er på vej ind i det største sammenbrud af industrien i den tyske økonomi, men derefter vil det på grund af den tyske økonomis størrelse og betydning for hele Europa føre til en gigantisk økonomisk nedtur for Europa! Ritter spørger altså ganske polemisk: Er det jeres venner? Er det jeres allierede?
Jeg mener, at det er en utrolig situation. Han siger endda i endnu skarpere toner, at disse embedsmænd, der accepterer denne politik, begår forræderi mod det tyske folk.
Det er stærke ord, men hvis man tænker på, hvad der er på spil, og hvilken utrolig propagandakrig der udkæmpes, hvor NATO-landene og de såkaldte vestlige demokratier lader som om, at de er de gode, og Rusland og Kina og alle disse “autokratiske regimer” er de onde, ser virkeligheden helt anderledes ud; befolkningen bliver imidlertid tilpasset til at følge med, men de går med til deres egen undergang. Så på en måde er det bedre, hvis folk polemisk rejser disse spørgsmål, før det er for sent, men det er en meget, meget farlig situation.
Resten på engelsk:
SCHLANGER: You mentioned von der Leyen, and one of her statements was on making Russia and its oligarchs pay to compensate Ukraine. She said, “We have the means to make Russia pay,” which sounds a lot like Biden, when he promised that the Nord Stream pipeline would not be brought online. Now, at the same time, the European Union issued a call for a special court for a war crimes tribunal to prosecute Russian senior officials. I don’t think they ever did that for the U.S. policy of Cheney and others to destroy Iraq, Afghanistan—Hillary Clinton and others in Libya—this is the height of arrogance coming from the European Commission and von der Leyen, isn’t it?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: And hypocrisy. You know, it is that an Iraqi court right now has indicted Trump and Pompeo for the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on Iraqi soil. So, at least, there is some reaction of this sort. But you are absolutely right, the blatant hypocrisy and double standard of accusing Russia and China for everything, but the West is condoning these things and covering it up, and this is definitely something we have to raise.
SCHLANGER: You had mentioned some of the problems coming out of Germany from the German government. German President Steinmeier had made some comments. There just seems to be no end to the piling on, to make it seem as though Germany is the most loyal member of NATO.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. Steinmeier is now so concerned about human rights in China, and the protests against the COVID measures. On that, I should just note, if you calculate how many people died in China, 5,700; and if you extrapolate the number of people living in China, which is more than three times, almost four times as much as the United States—if China would have had the same death ratio as the United States, they would have had 4.7 million deaths, and compare that to the 5,700. So, it is quite possible that some people are annoyed by the continued measures China is taking for its zero COVID policy, but these are a few thousand people as compared to 1.4 billion in the whole country.
And the idea that Steinmeier is so concerned about their freedom of expression, I can only laugh about that: Because one German court, and I think the Bundestag as well had made a legislation, confirmed a change in paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code, article 5, which was an attachment to other legislation, and it means a tremendous sharpening of the law against so-called “incitement.” According to that, if you cover up any war crimes, or if you say something which could lead to an increase in hatred, but, as several legal experts have noted, this is such a rubble paragraph, that it gives room for the courts and police, it opens up the floodgate to completely suppress any opinion! If you take that together with another atrocity, namely an EU guideline for teachers, whereby they’re supposed to “pre-bunk” pupils, that is, children, against Russian propaganda. Now, “debunking” means if somebody says something bad, you can always debunk it: You say this is not true, and say what you think is the truth. But “pre-bunking” means that you inoculate people in such a way that they don’t even get the idea to ask questions. So they have made a whole list of things you are not allowed to say, for example, “NATO expansion is hurting the interest of Russia”; “NATO is aggressive”; and there’s a whole list of things, or there is even a pre-history to the war in Ukraine, all of these things are supposed to be forbidden. And pupils, that is, children, are supposed to be psychologically vaccinated against any such interpretation.
Now, in my view, this is not “freedom of expression” Mr. Steinmeier, this is a dictatorship. This is mind control. And we are now doing an investigation into the various, many, many efforts to completely manipulate the debate. Many people complain about the fact that there is no more discourse, you cannot have different opinions; and I’m afraid this does not mean we are living in a democracy, it means we are living, increasingly, in an authoritarian regime.
SCHLANGER: On this note, an interesting development this last week, Nina Jankowicz, who was run out as the attempted disinformation czar in the United States, has now returned as a registered British agent. So it makes it clear where these narratives are coming from.
I’d like to bring up, on this question, the proliferation of discussion from the Pentagon and leading officials, of the threat from China. One of the topics taken up at the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, with Blinken and [NATO head] Stoltenberg joining arms on this, was the need to have a global NATO, to confront China. You have all sorts of developments around this. Helga, what do you have on that?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The Pentagon must put out their annual global “China Military Power Report,” where they characterize China as a pacing threat, and they say that the idea of China that they want to have a “rejuvenation” of the Chinese nation by 2049 is a pacing threat, an existential threat to the United States. [https://www.defense.gov/CMPR/] Now, that shows you how absolutely ideological these people are. I’m familiar with the effort of China, or the programmatic intention to have this rebirth of the Chinese nation. Now what is wrong with that? China has been in history for millennia—and I emphasize, for millennia—the leading scientific and cultural nation in the world. That only stopped basically around the 15th century; and then they had the “century of humiliation,” which was the 19th century, and then they had the struggle which led to the formation of the People’s Republic of China, in 1949. And they have now defined as a goal that they want to have the rejuvenation of China by the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, by reviving the 5,000 years of history, by creating a modern socialist, culturally advanced, democratic country which is supposed to create happiness for the people.
Now, from everything I know, and I’m in contact with China experts from Western countries—from Germany, from Spain, from Italy, from Denmark, from other places. And people who are China experts, that is, not that you are blind to what is happening in China, but that you know something about Chinese history, Chinese economics, Chinese policies, that all the things that are being said about China, in terms that they want to change the world order to replace the American empire with a Chinese empire, it’s just completely wrong! It does not go along with what Chinese history is. And in a certain sense, it is their absolute sovereign right if they want to revive their tradition of being a great cultural, civilizational nation. And I think this is completely crazy, and it really something people should not fall for.
So I really think that the idea of the United States and China being in an adversarial relationship, who can it help? Not the United States, not the American people, but the British. And the British have put out another report: They have a Council on Geostrategy, it’s called. They have just put out a report, about being concerned about the Himalaya, and that has been a British Empire concern since way back, when, because of their manipulation at the point of Indian Independence, they split what are today Bangladesh and Pakistan from India; and they defined certain areas in the Himalayas as contested areas between India and China, for only one purpose—to keep stirring it up for future conflict. And in this report, they define the Himalayas as the “northern front of the Indo-Pacific” scenario. (https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/research/geopolitics-in-the-himalayas-towards-a-british-strategy/ )
This is ridiculous! The countries of Asia do not want to be pulled into this geopolitical confrontation, having to choose between the United States and China. And it is quite interesting that the Japanese representatives at the recent meeting of the Trilateral Commission, they invited the press for the first time to participate, and then, these Japanese participants said—warning from the Trilateral Commission of all places—they warned the U.S. not to force the countries of Asia to choose, because if they would be forced to choose, they would choose China.
So the sentiment of Asia is not to be pulled into this confrontation, but they want to cooperate in the BRICS-Plus, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), in all of these countries are moving under the pressure of the sanctions, with the exclusion of Russia from the SWIFT agreement, they’re now moving to create their own financial system; and the West is pursuing policies which are contrary to the interest of the nations of Europe and the United States. So we should really not fall into this trap.
SCHLANGER: I think it’s interesting: This Council on Geostrategy is essentially putting forward the old arguments from the Great Game, as you mentioned, from the mid-19th century, as part of this pivot to Asia, and we see Adm. Charles Richard, who can’t seem to keep his mouth shut on these things, once again surfacing, talking about China as the “big one,” it’s coming up soon. But at the same time, we just had this very interesting vote in Taiwan elections, where it appears as though the people of Taiwan don’t want the United States to force them to choose independence. What’s your assessment of this?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: This is very interesting, because the DPP, the party of President Tsai Ing-wen, they just lost in a local elections in 21 jurisdictions, they only won 5 and Kuomintang (KMT) won 13. President Tsai resigned as the party leader of the DPP (she’s still Taiwan President), but it is very clear this was an overwhelming vote by the Taiwanese people for peace, they don’t want this confrontation. And the interesting thing is, this was not reported by the Western media at all. If you didn’t know about it, you would not find this information except as maybe a tiny note in one or two papers—but at the same time, there were massive reports about the “huge” demonstrations in China of maybe a couple of hundred people, with the white piece of paper, and it has all the signs that it was exactly like it happened in 1984 with the Tiananmen Square demonstration, that a lot of these people have been paid by foreign intelligence services. Some of them have confirmed that, already.
So you see how the manipulation occurs. But that does not change the fact that China is moving ahead. They just have sent three taikonauts to their Chinese space station, where they will be there for a short period of time with the three taikonauts who were already there. Then those three will return and new taikonauts will take over the post. Now, this is incredible, you know, and that is not reported as a great accomplishment.
And what’s even bigger, in my view, is the fact that the thermonuclear fusion research facility in Hefei just announced that they are confident that they will be able to have a continuous plasma fusion process by 2028 and that they will be able to put fusion-generated electricity directly into the grid by 2035! Now, that is an accomplishment for all of mankind, because once we have thermonuclear fusion, we have energy security on Earth, and that will mean that one major reason for war and conflict will be gone—but that is not newsworthy to these geopolitical warhawks. But that does not mean that China is not moving ahead on that, for the benefit—and they just have basically donated a tokamak fusion reactor to Thailand, for which they manufactured all the parts in China, and then is shipping it to Thailand. And that is what’s newsworthy, but that’s not being reported.
SCHLANGER: It’s mind-boggling when you look at the media, trying to find out what’s going on, and it’s nothing but a City of London/Wall Street continuing narrative.
You brought up the question earlier of mind control and the use of narratives, and censorship, and threats, open threats: that’s what the Committee to Counter Disinformation (CCD) of Ukraine is being used for by NATO to silence opposition. What do you make of the possibility that the situation around NATO unity is in grave danger. There was a former Reagan administration official, Bruce Fein, who came out this last week saying the United States should leave NATO. Do you see more of that tendency developing?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think so. Obviously, there are these demonstrations in all of Europe, in Italy, in France, in Belgium, in Germany, where people demand a stop in sending weapons to Ukraine, a stop to the sanctions, a stop to the inflation of the energy prices. So there is a lot of motion, and there is a big divide between the populations and the governments, that’s one thing. Then, there is obviously rifts in the trans-Atlantic unity. Politico for example, has an article in which they quote an unnamed EU official expressing anger about the fact that the American energy firms are becoming mega-rich, while Europe is going into a deep depression because LNG gas is being sold to Europe; it is four times as the energy prices were before, or even more.
So there are these tensions, and naturally, von der Leyen is on a rampage against Hungary. If they keep doing that, you may have Hungary exit—Hungexit, you would call it. And the EU is in general not in such a unity, whatsoever.
I think there are lone voices which make it into the news, like Oskar Lafontaine has made very sharp statements. [https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=90778] He has a new book out, in which he also demands that Europe should take its own self-interest. And there are some people who recognize that. But I think it’s far below what would be necessary. Because we are, right now, with this government—Chancellor Olaf Scholz is one thing; he has a mixed character; but I think Economy Minister Robert Habeck is completely ruining the Germany economy! If people are freezing to death in the winter, they can thank Habeck! If we get into a war with Russia, thank Baerbock: This woman, who is supposedly the foreign minister, she has no knowledge, she’s the most uninformed, most inadequate foreign minister Germany ever had! She has no knowledge of Russia, she has no knowledge of culture. She’s just a NATO tool, and the sooner people wake up to that, the better.
SCHLANGER: And then, in terms of shaping the opposition, you released this document of the 10 fundamental principles for achieving peace and security. (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/) Last week, when we talked about this, we asked people to engage with us in a dialogue, circulate it, become involved in promoting it. We’re seeing some motion on that, but how do you see this moving? It seems to be somewhat slow, but starting to move.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think many of the participants in the conferences are quite active. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/21/conference-stop-the-danger-of-nuclear-war-now/] That may not show every day, because it takes time. We have the call by Mexican Congressman Robles, calling on elected officials all over the world. (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/16/letter-to-current-and-former-legislators-of-the-world/ ) That is moving. Then, the former President of Guyana Donald Ramotar just wrote a very biting article, which I find actually useful, because he says, the former colonial powers of Europe, are now the colonies. And he basically says the same thing as Scott Ritter, but he says it from the standpoint as a former President of a developing country.
So a lot of things are happening, and I can only say, it’s important to discuss these principles, because there’s also a discussion, are these 10 principles a programmatic statement? No, they are not. They are not a program: There’s a difference between a program, where you say we want to have certain projects economically, or Glass-Steagall or whatever. These are supposed to be principles which define the orientation of the effort: Like the Peace of Westphalia accomplished the very important principle that if you want to have a peace order, you need to take into account the interest of the other. That’s a principle, that’s not a program. And the idea to eliminate poverty, to absolutely have sovereignty, and the partnership of sovereign countries, these are principles, and not a program.
So, I can really only encourage people to engage in a discussion, because, it is the question, in light of the danger of nuclear extinction and a collapsing Western system, an emerging new system coming mainly from the BRICS countries and the Global South, can we give ourselves a political order which allows the long-term survivability of humanity? And that is something everybody should be concerned with, because if you’re not concerned with it, the oligarchy, for sure, is, and you’re just leaving them the room to make the rules.
SCHLANGER: So I think the point is, the discussion goes into the philosophical realm, not the pragmatic realm, and your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, was always insisting that one of the weaknesses of people engaging in politics is that they’re looking for short-term pragmatic solutions, when, in fact, the solutions exist on a higher level.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, this is why we not only have the effort to build a world movement of world citizens, in line with Friedrich Schiller, who stated there is no contradiction between a patriot and a world citizen. And the idea that people have to start thinking about the one humanity first, to think as a world citizen, is really a very important question, because you will not be able to solve this incredible conflict if you are thinking only in terms of national or regional considerations. And that is why the adjunct campaign, if you want, is very important: Namely, we have started to have our own Schiller choruses in many corners of the world, to perform this beautiful canon “Dona Nobis Pacem”—Give Us Peace—which is not only an expression of the desire to have world peace, it’s appeals to the higher nature of human beings. And we have now choruses singing in France, in Denmark, in Germany, in the United States, and we want to encourage any choir, church choir, other choirs, to join with us and sing this canon, as an expression of wanting to have world peace and avoid the annihilation of the human species. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXMhxZ2KBlw] So, go to our website, look at some examples, and become inspired, because that is bringing in this higher quality of humanity which is needed right now.
SCHLANGER: And also, in the Schiller Institute website, while you’re there, download Helga’s 10 principles for peace that she drafted as part of the followup to the meeting on Nov. 22 (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/). And you can also watch that video, because it’s very relevant for this discussion
Get involved in the discussion, send us your thoughts! You can always contact us through https://schillerinstitute.com.
Helga, anything else?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. But I think we’re going now into Advent, the Christmas period, where people are distracted by a lot of running around, shopping. And I am afraid that we are in for a surprise: There are now reports, both from Col. Douglas Macgregor (ret.) who said that he sees signs for a coming Russian offensive. Then there are Western reports about satellite pictures that 500,000 troops are amassing and a lot of activity is indicating that a new Russian offensive may be in the works. Various Ukrainian officials have said that they want to “take back” Crimea; British think tanks have said it should happen this year. So, I’m not so sure that we will have a peaceful Christmas, but that we may go into a period of heightened danger to civilization. And that’s why the idea to have an end to this war, to have negotiated solutions, diplomacy, is more urgent than ever. And obviously, the catalogue of a new security architecture is really what is required.
SCHLANGER: You can join us in building that new security architecture. And again, if you’re not a member, become a member of the Schiller Institute! (https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/membership)
So, Helga, thanks for joining us again this week. And if all things work out, we’ll see you again next week.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.