Politisk orientering med formanden for Schiller Intituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

I en omfattende gennemgang af de sammenløbende kriser, der konfronterer menneskeheden i dag, konkluderede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at hvad der kræves, frem for panik og fortvivlelse, er en rolig overvejelse af de handlinger, som kan løfte menneskeheden ud af det neoliberale, geopolitiske tankesæt, ind i den kreative sindstilstand, der gjorde det muligt for menneskeheden at kravle ud af det 14. århundredes mørke tidsalder. Hun understregede, at kriserne der truer os i dag er resultatet af ikke at have lyttet til Lyndon LaRouche lige siden hans forudsigelse d. 15. August, 1971. Som et eksempel, refererede hun til coronavirusset som den slags trussel, forudset af Lyn i 1970’erne, der ledte ham til at etablere en arbejdsgruppe rettet mod et biologisk holocaust.

Ved hvert degenererende tilbageskridt i kvaliteten af lederskab – der i dag udstilles i monetarismen og den grønne ideologi, som dominerer den politiske diskussion i Europa og i det demokratiske partis kamp for at nominere en præsidentkandidat – fremlagde LaRouche et klart og veldefineret alternativ. I dag kan dette sammenfattes ved behovet for at indføre hans firemagtsaftale, som grundlaget for et nyt Bretton Woods-system, og hans Fire Love, baseret på betingelserne for at genoprette niveauet af fysisk økonomisk produktion, nødvendigt for at overvinde kriserne.

Hun konkluderede ved at minde seerne om Boccaccios rolle i at bevidstgøre den mørke tidsalders fordærvelse, hvilket inspirerede dem der igangsatte Renæssancen, specielt Dante og Cusanus. Det var ved at forkaste datidens dominerende aristoteliske filosofi, og erstatte denne med Platon, at moderne europæisk civilisation blev født. Der er ingen af de problemer, som i dag konfronterer os, der ikke kan løses ved at tage skabelsen af den europæiske renæssance som forbillede, baseret på en tilbagevenden til den klassiske tænkemetode.

THE EUROPEAN RENAISSANCE IS OUR MODEL TO ADDRESS TODAY’S EXISTENTIAL CRISES

Schiller Institute webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast for today, March 4, 2020, with our founder and chairman Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The obvious starting point is the issue that’s on virtually everybody’s mind — the spread of the coronavirus. People are trying to figure out how to deal with it, governments are in action. There’s a lot of panicking being spread by some people, and then there’s also a lot of disinformation. I think given the record we have, based on Lyndon LaRouche’s forecasting going back to 1971, what you have to say on this, Helga, is very significant for people. So, why don’t we start with what the recent status of this is, and how are nations addressing it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is a very serious threat. There are several renowned virologists and experts who say it is, de facto, a pandemic already. Now, I will qualify that in a second. For those people who think this is too much, or that this will cause panic, I think when you have a situation like that, it is extremely important to take a calm assessment of the situation and then move towards taking the actions necessary to combat the threat and do the kinds of things which will hopefully succeed.

Now the reason why this coronavirus is a very dangerous pandemic is it has characteristics which are more serious than previous pandemics, and it coincides with a financial system which was already bankrupt before the idea of the coronavirus appeared. Naturally, the effects both in the real economic situation and the real economy, as well as on the financial system, in all likelihood will trigger a collapse of this system. So, rather than only looking at the health aspect of the coronavirus, it is the absolute urgent moment and necessity to also move determinedly to reform the international monetary system which is bankrupt; to replace it with a new credit system which we should discuss in a second. And then use that crisis to bring about the changes in the strategic situation which will help to solve a whole bunch of other problems. President Trump reflected this in his way by saying it is an irony of the situation that because of the coronavirus crisis, forces are coming together which would normally never do so.

So, having said that, I think we should first look at the coronavirus itself. It is now officially spread to 70 countries, and it is not possible to reconstruct the origin, and who infected whom. But it has spread to what is called asymmetric transmission or community transmission, and that is now also affecting countries which do not have such a good health system as China or even the European or US have, which have big flaws in their health system already. So the danger is that all of this can continue to spread much faster. And I think there is also a vast under-reporting, because in many countries, the kind of testing which was done rigorously in China has not even started; including the United States where the first test kits were flawed and did not work, which shows you one dimension of a broken-down health system. So, it is now regarded that several countries are really hotspots. China still even so because of the energetic methods used by the Chinese government. It is spreading now more quickly in other countries other than China, and it is also in South Korea, Iran, and Italy. But the situation is serious enough that major international events are being shut down. In Germany, they shut down the Leipzig Book Fair which was supposed to open shortly, the Kraft International Conference in Munich, and even the Hanover Fair has been postponed by three months. Similarly, in France, the Louvre has been closed, and they don’t convene indoor events anymore with large crowds. That shows you that there is actually a serious concern.

I must say, however, that the reaction both in the United States and in Europe was delayed. I think measures should have been taken much clearer. I think the [German] Health Minister Spahn in earlier periods said the virus will not come to Germany; which is a rather absurd assumption. Naturally, the collapse of the health system which we have talked about many times before, is now really coming home to roost. So, the situation is that already last December, the European umbrella trade union for health workers and nurses put out an urgent complaint that because of the cuts and austerity and liberalization in the last decade — especially after the 2008 crisis — there was a severe health crisis. Not enough staff; pay for nurses and health workers has been cut in several countries; and resources have been cut down, and hospitals have been closed. That is now leading to a very critical situation.

If you look at China, which has 4.3 hospital beds per 1000 citizens, in the United States, it’s only 2.5 beds per 1000 people. So, you can actually see that China has been in a much better situation to deal with it, and they took measures that have been characterized by the World Health Organization in such a way that they said that China has established a new standard in how to deal with such epidemics and pandemics. China now has offered help to the affected countries; they have offered help to the EU, but also Iran and other countries being hit very hard. Offering their expertise from the last several months, but also masks, protective gear, and I think the European Union and others would be well-advised to take the advice and the help offered by the Chinese. This is extremely important because a lot of time has already been lost, and now it is time for the kind of international cooperation which overcomes prejudice and geopolitical stupidity. I think this is now something which should really occur immediately.

SCHLANGER: When you speak of delay, I think back to the fact that in 1971, your late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, spoke about how, if we go with the policy of neo-liberalism which came through with globalization, austerity, and so on, that mankind would be confronted with biological holocausts. This warning was made very clearly, and yet, under the neo-liberal doctrine, the healthcare system, as well as the industrial system, manufacturing, food security; all of this has been torn down. So, besides the emergency measures, we really do need this radical transformation of the monetary financial system, don’t we?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Let me stress one thing. Many of our viewers are quite aware of the fact that the name of my late husband has been slandered by many forces. But if you look at the present situation, I think it is a question of honesty to recognize that every one of his prognoses has come true. And the reason why he was so “controversial” is because he went against the powers that be, against the people who wanted to go for the complete deregulation of the markets, of the increase of the power of speculative interests in Wall Street and the City of London. When he made this historic prognosis on the 15th of August, 1971, when he said that when Nixon decoupled the dollar from the gold standard, he abandoned the fixed exchange rates, and actually destroyed the Bretton Woods system by doing so. Lyndon LaRouche said, if you continue on this trend, it will inevitably lead to a new depression, to the danger of a new fascism, or there will be a replacement by a completely new economic world order. Then he proceeded every step of the way to warn about the consequences of the extreme monetarism which had been introduced and had been escalated by warning that you cannot continuously lower the living standard of entire continents — as it was done to the developing sector in Africa and Latin America and many of the Asian countries — without causing old epidemics and new diseases to emerge. And that that was the big danger. At the end of the 1970s, beginning of the 1980s, we created something which was called the Biological Task Force, which was exactly studying the danger of the outbreaks of such new diseases. We also proposed the remedies; namely, to go into a crash program for optical biophysics, for the study of life sciences, to find cures for these new diseases. Obviously, this was not done, because it was not seen a profitable by the pharmaceutical industry and the banking interests behind them.

So, now we are at the situation where all the predictions of Lyndon LaRouche have come to the point of absolute boundary condition. This financial system is absolutely bankrupt; we have to dramatically reverse the monetary system and change it into a credit system. This is why I have issued a call for the immediate implementation of the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche. I will just briefly summarize again what they are. There has to be an immediate end to the casino economy. That means you have to have the introduction of a global Glass-Steagall banking separation in exactly the same way as Franklin D Roosevelt proposed and implemented it in 1933. Then you need new credit mechanisms; you need to bring back the issuing of credit into the sovereign power of governments, away from private interests. Which means you have to have a national bank in every country to issue credit for productive investments. Then you have to implement a New Bretton Woods system by connecting these national banks in every country which must go back to a fixed exchange rate system. They must then have long-term agreements for investments in very well-defined infrastructure projects, in industrial investments, in an increase of productivity of the economy with a special emphasis on such frontier areas as fusion, bio-optics, bio-physics, space cooperation. And we need an urgent implementation of the World Land-Bridge report, which we published several years ago; which is the idea to turn the New Silk Road into a World Land-Bridge by bringing economic development to all regions affected by crises right now. That would include: Southwest Asia, because of the refugee crisis; Africa, because of the corona crisis, but also the locust crisis, the migrant crisis.

But the key message of all of this is, there is a solution. This solution could be implemented extremely quickly. As a matter of fact, we have also proposed that a summit should take place among the four most important powers of the world — Russia, China, India, and the United States. Not at the exclusion of other countries, but these four most important and powerful countries much come together to implement these Four Laws. That such a summit is already in the works is on a very good track. I made this first proposal on January 3rd, following the assassination of General Soleimani in Iran. A few days after that, President Putin came up with a different but similar proposal, suggesting that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council should have an immediate summit to address the basic questions facing all of humanity. In the meantime, China and France have agreed, and today, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov reported that also President Trump said he is very interested to participate in such a summit. So, that is the framework which could solve these problems very quickly. I would appeal to all people, rather than becoming anxious, becoming despaired, help us rather to bring these solutions about. I think this is the key characteristic of our organization — the Schiller Institute, the LaRouche movement — that we are fighting for actual solutions. The only solution which would function in such an extraordinary crisis, is to abandon the system which caused all of these crises, and replace it with a system which is in the interest of all nations. And move to a New Paradigm of international cooperation. So, that is eminently feasible if the political will can be mobilized. That’s why I am asking you to contact us and work together with us to create the international support for these ideas.

SCHLANGER: Now in that context, we see the crazy response of the European Union and the Federal Reserve to the crisis. Assuming that you can somehow deal with the coronavirus crisis by flooding more money into the system. The Federal Reserve dropping the interest rates and so on. That’s the continuation of the neo-liberal system; that’s what we have to change, isn’t it? That kind of thinking?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, exactly! That really shows you that there is an absolute disconnect of the present neo-liberal establishments on both sides of the Atlantic. A complete disconnect of the causes of the crisis, and what is actually needed to remedy it. I have not seen any reflection of any of the leading liberal representatives in Europe or in the United States in the Democratic Party, for that matter, nor the neo-cons in the Republican Party, who would sit back and say, “Wait a second, why is our system not functioning? Why do we have a financial crisis? Why do we have the outbreak of pandemics?” I think that unwillingness of the liberal establishment is a very good reason for ordinary citizens to really mobilize and force a change, because as it looks right now, it will not come from these elites.

SCHLANGER: I think that’s why we’re seeing a global insurgency precisely against these elites. We just saw in the United States, besides the craziness of the Federal Reserve, the election underway. The Democratic Party looks as though the establishment has decided they’re at least for the moment, going to rally around Joe Biden, who if you look at him, this is Mr. Establishment. The Obama-Clinton Democratic Party. What are your thoughts after Super Tuesday? I know it’s important. Bloomberg just announced today that he’s dropping out; $500 million for a handful of delegates. Probably the worst businessman in world history.

What are your thoughts now after Super Tuesday?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the DNC clearly wants to rig the election again; get Bernie Sanders out, who has his own massive problems without question. But to basically try to get all the other contenders to drop out and support Biden. This reflects the fact that they have absolutely not learned the lesson of 2016. They still don’t know why Hillary lost the election. As you say, Bloomberg probably paid for each vote he got $1000 to $2000 or $3000; I haven’t calculated it exactly, but it was a very expensive vote buying. So, he blew $500 million for advertisements; this is really the laughingstock, but I think a Biden candidacy would implement exactly what Bloomberg has been proposing, which is Green financing. It would be complete catastrophe.

I think we are now in a revolutionary situation, so forget about November 2020. The kinds of changes which the world urgently needs are a question of now. I think the immediacy of the situation is here. There were reports in the Italian financial press saying the only reason why there has not yet been a wide recognition that we are already in a pandemic, is because of the so-called “pandemic bonds”. This was a financial instrument developed by the World Bank after the Ebola crisis, where investors could invest in a pandemic bond, which was supposed to finance such emergencies but also yield a profit of 6.9% to 11%. And another date of maturity of these pandemic bonds is due to come on March 15th. That shows you the utter absurdity; to delay necessary measures, including informing the public in the necessary way, just to not risk the profit of some speculators. And it also shows you that the health sector is definitely not something which should be subject to financial speculators, but it should be absolutely the responsibility of sovereign governments to provide a health system for the common good of the people. I think this just shows you that the establishments at this point are incapable, unwilling to recognize the reason why the liberal system is not functioning. That means we will continue to have a very revolutionary moment. As the consequences of both the pandemic and the condition of the financial system will get clearer, I think the upheaval which we have seen in the health sector in all European countries, but also among the farmers, will just increase. And it will force the kind of solution with the Four Power, or maybe Five Power UN Security Council permanent five member agreement which we have been proposing and which now Russia has successfully put on the agenda.

So, I think that is the only thing to look at; don’t be confused. Don’t think the solution can be postponed until some date in November 2020, because the crisis is here and it requires an immediate solution.

SCHLANGER: This is to all of our viewers: This is why we have been emphasizing, “Join us now!” Don’t think you can vote in November to change something. By November, it may be too late.

On that, Helga, you’re talking about the unwillingness to change, the incapacity to change. We’re seeing a situation emerging now with Turkey, with the fighting going on in Idlib province, the possibility of a new wave of refugees into Europe. A lot of dangerous silliness coming out of the European Union. What’s going on with this situation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The problem is that Turkey is using the refugee issue to blackmail the EU. But also, they have attacked Syrian forces in Idlib, and are backing terrorist elements. Obviously, it’s really amazing. Instead of attacking Turkey for intervening again in Syria, trying to escalate the longstanding war against the Assad government, the British First Secretary of State — Dominic Raab — came out in full support for Turkey. Then, this unfortunate German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karranbauer [AKK] also threatened to increase the sanctions against Syria, and basically fully took the side of Turkey. Fortunately you have Russia in this situation, and Putin said very clearly that if Turkey enters Syrian air space and territory, it is at their own risk if they are being attacked. Russia obviously has a big role to play, Erdoğan will go to Moscow tomorrow, and he will meet on Thursday and Friday with President Putin. Obviously, if Putin and Trump would — they may be doing that already — but if they would agree on how to handle this crisis, then I think Erdoğan could somehow be contained. But what he is doing is, he is instrumentalizing these absolutely poor refugees. He has fed these 13-15,000 refugees the fake news that the border to Greece and Bulgaria would be open. Then, you had these horrendous pictures where tear gas is being used by the Greek police against these refugees. Then you have tear gas being used by the Turkish side, trying to drive these refugees over the border. These poor people, who have absolutely nothing to lose, because they are desperate; they are instrumentalized. They are absolutely in the middle of all of this, but obviously these pictures are supposed to force Europe to have another deal like the one which the EU concluded several years ago, paying 6 billion euros to Erdoğan so he would build these camps. There are all together 3 million Syrians in Turkey; there are many other people from Asia, from Afghanistan, from Iraq. Obviously, this is an untenable situation.

Turkey claims the EU did not pay the promised 6 billion euros — probably a lot of this money for NGOs and not giving to the Turkish government. This is all a completely disgraceful situation. And the situation between Turkey and Greece is super hot. There was just a delegation of the European Union — [EU President] Ursula von der Leyen, and [Charles] Michel, the head of the European Council, the head of the European Parliament [David] Sassoli, and the Prime Minister of Croatia [Andrej] Plenkovic — they all visited and gave a press conference together with Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis, who basically said what is happening is that Turkey is absolutely making an asymmetric attack on the territory of Greece, and that this cannot be tolerated. So, these European Union guests had very little to say and very little to contribute, and it just shows you one more time the utter impotence of the EU. But it also shows that if you have the statements of AKK completely echoing what the British First Secretary of State is saying, you have clearly the EU falling into the Great Game of the British again; using the Middle East as the cockpit for the Great Game. One only can say, the only counter to that is what I said earlier: You need the Four Powers — the United States, Russia, China, and India — to work together to counter these machinations.

Otherwise, I think it should be obvious that the only way you can solve this problem of the refugees and the instability is, you have to have an economic development plan for the entire region. China offered several years ago to extend the New Silk Road from Iran to Iraq to Syria to Turkey to Egypt; to connect the New Silk Road via Turkey with Europe, and via Egypt with Africa. That is something which has to start, because you have to give hope to the people. You have to give the perspective of economic reconstruction of Syria, of Iraq, of Afghanistan. If you don’t have an economic perspective, there is no way this problem can be solved. I find it absolutely criminal that some politicians still are on the line that they will not give a penny for the reconstruction of Syria until Assad is chased out of his office. I think this just completely criminal. The people who are saying that are personally responsible for the lives lost, and I think they should be treated with contempt.

I think what is needed right now is an urgent, international solidarity to reconstruct Southwest Asia as one region. Iran is one of the countries which has poverty out of control; coronavirus infection. President Rouhani said that is not one single region that is not affected by the coronavirus. Even some members of the government are reported to be sick. The sanctions which are imposed on Iran are killing people. I think it should stop right away, because you need a comprehensive solution. China has offered to help with the infrastructure; Russia has offered to help to build up the energy in the region. Obviously, other countries can participate in building up industry, agriculture, bringing in lots of new freshwater sources with new technologies. All of that would be absolutely feasible, but it does require that the countries stop playing these geopolitical games.

If you are for ending geopolitics because you don’t want to have refugees, work with the Schiller Institute. Because we are the organization which is doing something; we are the organization which has solutions. That is why you should absolutely join us on the spot.

SCHLANGER: I’m just going to ask you one more question, because we’re going a little bit longer than usual. But it’s really crucial, given what you just said. In the midst of this confluence of crises, instead of panic and despair, you’re talking about solutions. I found it very interesting that Donald Trump, when he was in Davos, spoke about the Dome in Florence, which you and your husband have often referenced, as an example of the merger of beauty and science that’s the proper approach. We’ve been through, as a human race, a Dark Age before, when mankind has been lifted out of that with a new renaissance. You’ve been very outspoken about the need for this, so I think it would be very useful for you to just say something about that now.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Many of you probably know this extremely important book, the Decameron by Bocaccio. He described the consequences of the Black Death in the 14th Century on the population. When you read in this book, you can actually see the parallels to the present. The irrationality which naturally comes with pandemics; the misery; how people lose any kind of empathy because sickness overwhelms people. I don’t think we are quite at that point yet in Europe, but if you look at what is happening in Africa with the locust plague destroying the basis for survival for many people, we are quickly approaching such a situation like in the 14th Century. I have said many times, you need to study how did mankind come out of the 14th Century and create the beautiful Italian Renaissance? Because that is a lesson to be learned. I can only make it very short. It was that there were a group of humanists developing who took the ideas of Dante Alighieri, of Petrarca, of the school of Padua, and basically said we have to go back to the sources. We have to go back to the original great philosophers. That was the environment which allowed — among others — Nicholas of Cusa to bring the Greek Orthodox delegation to the Council of Ferrara and Florence. They brought the entire collected works of Plato. So, Nicholas of Cusa himself was one of the absolutely outstanding thinkers; I think he was probably the greatest thinker of the 15th Century, at least for European civilization. He introduced a new kind of thinking; the thinking of the coincidence of opposites — the Coincidencia Oppositorum — that you have to think of the higher level of unity where you can solve problems which are unsolvable on the level of Aristotelian contradictions. So, it was that new thinking which, in my view, also influenced the Peace of Westphalia, coming together with the thinking of Plato, which had been lost for 1700 years in Europe. Which then led to an explosion of a new image of man, a new optimism, a new role of science and technology, a new role of the common good being introduced for the first time in the question of the state.

So, the Italian Renaissance, which laid the foundation for 600 years of European civilization, which naturally the United States is also a part of, is a model. Because if you are in a crisis — and the West is in a crisis, because we have lost the roots, we have lost the connection to our great traditions. We have to go back to exactly like the Italians went back to the Greek period, so we have to back to the Greek period, the Italian Renaissance, to the German Classical period, and other great contributions in universal history, and revive the best traditions of what we had in the past. Which means we have to recognize that the liberal way, starting — and I know I’m upsetting now again a lot of people — starting with the Enlightenment, which really was an attack on the Renaissance, and go back to the humanist image of man. The idea that man is a unique species; that we are the only creative species on the planet and known in the universe so far; and that we have these great pieces of art. Of Classical composition, Classical music, of great poetry and drama, of great painting; just classical art in general. And that we have to somehow go back to the image of man associated with these highest expressions of human civilization.

I’m absolutely convinced that if we do that in this moment of the coronavirus crisis and other very severe challenges we are confronted with, I think we can have a revival. I think we can have a true renaissance of our identity based on these great traditions. Then maybe a great crisis can turn into a great chance. I always believe that Leibniz was absolutely correct that a great evil always means that mankind has the chance to create an even higher good, exactly because of this creative identity of man.

However, I have to say one thing. I am absolutely convinced also that this requires the full rehabilitation of my late husband; because his ideas laid the foundation for this movement and for the analysis from 50 years ago being correct all the way along the way. And having provided the solutions which we urgently need today. So, I think you should join our fight for the rehabilitation of Lyndon LaRouche, because I think his exoneration would have the same intellectual spark and effect like the re-introduction of Plato in the Italian Renaissance. By getting people on a completely different level of scientific and artistic thinking. And that’s why I’m asking you to support our effort to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche.

SCHLANGER: Helga, I don’t think you have to apologize for upsetting people. Anyone who is in a comfort zone right now, is obviously hiding in their own delusions. And you’re following in your husband’s footsteps by being the person who helps to break them out of that comfort zone.

So, thank you for that, and we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, ’til next week.

Lyd:

Resumé

Coronavirus COVID-19: Det afgørende er ikke antallet af tidligere smittede men antallet af nye smittede hver dag.

Det viser, at smittespredningen er under kontrol i Kina. Den er helt stoppet uden for Hubeiprovinsen og reduceret til 100-150 nye tilfælde per dag der.  Men COVID-19 spreder sig ukontrolleret i Sydkorea, Iran, Italien, m.fl. Nu er kinesere bange for at rejse til Europa, for ikke at blive smittet der.

Finanskrak: USA’s centralbank sænkede renten med ½ procentpoint i et forsøg at pumpe flere penge ind i systemet for at undgå et krak. Men krakket er i gang og et ”Lehmann Brothers-øjeblik” kan komme når som helst.

Topmøde: Trump siger også ja til et topmøde mellem de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd: USA, Rusland, Kina, Frankrig, Storbritannien. Helga Zepp-LaRouches foreslog den 3. januar et hastetopmøde mellem Trump, Putin og Xi Jinping, og Putin foreslog derefter et møde mellem de fem permanente  medlemmer.

Valget i USA: Efter Super Tuesday: Nu er det Bernie Sanders imod etablissementets kandidat Biden efter at de andre moderate kandidater trak sig og Bloomberg faldt igennem, trak sig og nu også vil støtte Biden.

Trumps svage punkt: økonomien, fordi han påstår, at økonomien har det strålende. Hvad sker der, hvis der kommer et finanskrak og stor nedtur inden valget? Trumps redning er, hvis han lytter til LaRouche-bevægelsen og vores løsning:

LaRouches fire økonomisk love:

1. Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling
2. Nationalbank og statlig kreditskabelse
3. Investeringer som øger produktiviteten såsom store infrastrukturprojekter
4. Videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt: fusionskraft, rumforskning.

Disse løsninger gælder ikke kun USA men også Danmark og alle andre lande.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hvad sker der og hvor skal vi hen herfra? Hussein Askary, EIR’s Sydvestasien ekspert giver en opdatering om den nuværende dynamik og dennes historie. Han præsenterer også løsninger der måske kunne resultere i, at freden bryder ud her og trækker verden tilbage fra afgrundens rand.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche bragte klarhed til en situation, som har efterladt mange mennesker forvirrede, desorienterede og/eller fatalistiske, mens de prøver at forklare den strategiske fare i kølvandet på USA’s snigmord på den iranske leder Soleimani. Begyndende med Putins stærke advarsler i løbet af hans tale til nationen, påpegede hun, at der er betydningsfulde personligheder, som forstår hvorfor et hastetopmøde mellem Trump, Putin og Xi er nødvendigt, såsom den tidligere tyske forsvarsembedsmand Willy Wimmer, der sagde, at snigmordet satte verden på randen af tredje verdenskrig.

Hun gennemgik den britiske rolle i denne krises udvikling, fulgte dens rødder tilbage til midten af det 19. og det 20. århundredes imperiale geopolitik, frem til deres rolle i at forme krigsfraktionen i USA i dag. Krigskampagnen finder sted samtidigt med, at det neoliberale finanssystem accelerer mod et kollaps. I denne sammenhæng er det indtrængende nødvendigt, at vores seere og støtter forstår hvordan et samarbejde imellem stormagterne, på de strategiske og økonomiske områder, er den eneste måde hvorpå farerne skabt af imperiet kan overvindes.

Hun opfordrede seerne til at deltage i mobiliseringen, og at mestre de store idéer der er nødvendige for at forhindre at blive fanget i de fælder, der stilles af dem der nægter at erkende, at hvis vi forbliver i deres paradigme, vil det føre til menneskehedens udryddelse.

Afskrift på engelsk:

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, January 15, 2020

With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Day of Action for a Unique Solution: Build Peace through a Trump, Putin, Xi Summit

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, welcome to our webcast today with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is Jan. 15th, 2020: Today is an International Day of Action by the Schiller Institute and LaRouche PAC, to bring together the forces in the United States and around the world to insist upon an emergency summit of Presidents Trump, Putin and Xi to address the crisis that’s emerged between the United States and Iran. Helga, this was your call: You made this emergency resolution. How would you think this is going to function? It’s going to require the American people, especially, to demand this, isn’t it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Because, as we have gone into this mobilization to try to suggest to many people in the world, and in the United States and Europe, that such a summit must occur, to get out of the danger of confrontation which is now clearly escalating, and not really resolved at all between the United States and Iran, that you have to have a different level of approaching this whole question. We were talking to many, many people in the streets, in other discussions

… remarkable confusion in the population. You had people who said, there is no war danger, Trump has it all under control; or, it’s too late anyway. So people had absolutely emotional reactions and very little understanding of why we are saying this war danger exists.

So, today as you mentioned, we have an International Day of Action: We had friends of the Schiller Institute and associates mobilizing on five continents. We were in New York, near the Trump Tower, the United Nations; many other cities in the United States, but also Stockholm, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Berlin, Paris, even in Australia; and Latin America, Lima, Peru. We tried to put this same focus on the agenda on five continents around the globe, trying to intersect with many political forces around the world, with the idea to create a chorus, a chorus of people demanding that we were on the verge of World War III, and that is not an exaggeration at all. And we absolutely must change the agenda, because if you leave things as they are right now, the danger that things could go out of control completely is imminent.

This was, by the way, not only our view: Today, Putin gave his state of the nation address before the Federal Assembly, and there he basically picked up on the same line, saying that if you look at the developments in the recent weeks in Southwest Asia and North Africa — clearly referring to Libya — that we are in a situation where a regional conflict very clearly could become something affecting the whole global security situation. And he said it’s absolutely high time that the five founders of the United Nations, start to really establish a new order which makes these dangers impossible, and start to discuss the principles on which such a new order has to be built. I don’t disagree with that: If you have a meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the important thing is that you have the three most powerful nations sitting already at the table — namely, the United States, Russia, and China. You have, then two others, France and Great Britain, which I understand Putin’s position that he would make a suggestion like that. I think given the fact that Macron, in the recent period, has made several statements and taken action to make the point that no solution can be found without Russia, I think France could even play a positive, or at least neutral role. The big question, naturally, is the British role, but having three of the most powerful nations, they would have less opportunity to do their usual kind of destabilization.

So I think the important thing about it is that Putin, obviously, in the same way, sees the danger of this escalation. Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, suggested Russia to mediate in the relationship between the United States and Iran; and so, I think that is all going in the right direction.

But, it’s really important that people do not just say, “this is my opinion, there’s going to be war, or Trump has it all under control.” I have studied, and I know you have, Harley, we have studied this matter of how the situation in Iran, in particular, could be the cockpit for a global nuclear escalation, and this is not something we are saying on the top of our head, just saying it like that, but there are certain principles: Because if you target Iran, it is really Russia and China, and anybody who has studied the history of the region, and looked at the question of geopolitics, going way back to the inventors of geopolitics — Haushofer, Mackinder, Milner — before that, you know that it’s not Iran which is at stake, but it is really Russia and also nowadays, China.

I would urge people not to be opinionated about this: Study military history, study what we have published in many articles about it in the past; study why even the use of even one nuclear weapon has immediately the danger of an uncontrollable global nuclear war. And take it seriously, because it is.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned that there are some people who think that this kind of statement from you is an overreaction. But I think we’re actually getting some very interesting reflections of people who are saying something very close to what you are: for example, Willy Wimmer, a former official in the German Defense Ministry for many years; even Wolfgang Ischinger of the Munich Security Conference, issued a strong statement talking about why Putin is the one who should be involved in this. This is actually reflecting that there are some people who see what you’re saying.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think that Willy Wimmer put out a new statement today, on the day of Putin’s address to the nation, where he said that with the assassination of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, we are on the verge of a global war, and that is completely appropriate to talk about the danger of an imminent third world war. I think this is really important, because we’re not saying this to scare people, or to just create panic. But unless you realize that that danger exists, and I think also the fact that Angela Merkel went to Moscow with Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, and then very quickly — not all of a sudden, but relatively quickly, they have now organized a conference on the Libya situation for this coming Sunday in Berlin, where Merkel has invited both Trump and Putin! Now, there is so far no confirmation that either one of them is coming. From the U.S., it’s only Pompeo and O’Brien, but I think this also reflects a recognition that you have to bring people to the negotiation table.

Now, concerning the Libya issue as such, the military leader of the Libya National Army Khalifa Haftar, has not signed the ceasefire agreement, which he could have signed in Moscow, but it’s not ruled out that he will attend the Berlin conference. But I think there is a general recognition among older people who have the experience of world war, in Europe for sure — I think in the United States it’s different for the very reason that the United States has not been involved in any international war which would have affected American soil; the United States obviously was involved in many foreign wars, but they never had the experience of having a war on American territory since the Civil War. And that is very different in Europe, where especially Germany, I think there is a deep, deep — I would almost say a genetic memory in the Germany population, at least the older ones, who know what the horrors of world war are. And I think therefore, this whole push by Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the German defense minister, to now push to send German troops to Iraq, German troops in Africa, German Navy in South China Sea — this goes very much against the experience of Germany in two world wars.

The French and the British have a slightly different attitude because of their colonialist background, but I think that there are many people who really understand that this is a very grave situation — and Wolfgang Ischinger, of all people, he’s the head of the Munich Security Conference, he’s a completely dyed-in-the-wool Atlanticist, and he says Putin is absolutely crucial to get him involved in this situation. So, this all reflects that people really got shocked when this assassination of Soleimani happened. I know some people in the United States also don’t have that same view, but this has a very erosive effect on the international order: It has a bad effect on Kim Jon Un, for sure, because he will now remember what Bolton had said about Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi, and the North Korea thing is at a halt in any case. But it also has a bad effect what should young people around the world think, if you can simply do these kinds of things.

And I’m not blaming Trump, because Trump is in a completely difficult situation, because he’s surrounded by the same people whom he had attacked not very long ago as “the military-industrial complex,” and the Articles of Impeachment could be introduced into the Senate today.

But I think it’s also very clear, we cannot continue on this line, especially because it clearly shows the hand of the British in the design of this whole escalation.

SCHLANGER: And one of the obvious points is that President Putin is very active, at this moment. You see him with the Libya situation; you see him intervened in Syria — he was just in Syria recently to meet with Assad; he’s intervening in Ukraine with Zelensky; and also now offering to mediate in Iran. One of the major points in the attack on Trump, was to keep him from working with Putin, which brings me to this question you raised about the British role: The British were caught in the act of stirring up some of the regime-change sentiments in Iran, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry called them on that. What was that about, Helga — the British ambassador in Tehran?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Before I say something about that, let me just add, that Putin, in his speech of today, also said that Russia would open all historic archives concerning the Second World War, because it was extremely important to reestablish truth and facts, instead of the lies going around the globe on these issues. Which brings me to remind people that President Trump could also release all documents, because the role of the British in Russiagate, in the whole Christopher Steele affairs — I mean, there is the weapon of releasing documents, and I think that that is absolutely crucial.

Now, the Iranian Foreign Ministry completely attacked the role of the British ambassador in Tehran, who apparently even started the demonstrations against the Rouhani government. As you remember, there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets in Tehran and other Iranian cities, after the assassination of Soleimani, but then, when the Ukrainian aircraft was shot down by mistake by the Iranians, and it now looks and that’s what the Iranians have vowed to totally investigate, you had students in Tehran and many other cities, in anti-government/pro-American stance, which apparently was led, or triggered, or at least manipulated by the British ambassador. And the Iranian government — I think Rouhani himself — said the British should not forget that they’re no longer the Empire, where the Sun doesn’t set around the globe, and they basically threatened retaliation if this would not stop.

I think this is very important: Because if you look at it, at the surface, naturally, it’s Trump, it’s Pompeo, it’s the U.S. government who’s in this showdown with Iran. But, it goes back, way back — we had talked about this already last time, but I want to repeat it — it goes back to the doctrine of geopolitics, of absolutely preventing the countries of the so-called Eurasian land-mass to cooperate economically; it goes back to the “Great Game” of the 19th century against Russia; it goes back to the Bernard Lewis doctrine, the Samuel Huntington “Clash of Civilizations,” Brzezinski playing the Islamic card — there is a long historical tradition of trying to manipulated this region. The Sykes-Picot agreement during World War I was set up to create the conditions after the war for future manipulation. So you have to take all of that into account to then see how this recent escalation was set up: I mentioned it in my statement from Jan. 3: [https://larouchepac.com/20200103/helga-zepp-larouche-statement-assassination-qasem-soleimani] that the whole setup was prepared, when Bolton, in April of 2019 put the entire Revolutionary Guard — that is, the Iranian army — on the terrorist list. Because, according to that logic, then, any kind of attack would be sufficient to make such strikes. You know, they have a long drone list anyway. So, then Trump, after the Iranians shot down the drone, I think it was June, in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said (who knows what egged him on, or what was the environment), he said, if one more American is killed, then he would consider strikes against Iran. Now, that is a difficult and dangerous thing to say for any state leader — remember, this was Obama saying this red line concerning Syria, which almost led to an attack on Syria by the United States in 2013; and we now know, through the cables which were leaked, that the British ambassador in Washington at that time, Sir Kim Darroch, he wrote in cables back to London that it just takes an attack on one more American, and then there will be war, or strikes against Iran. He also, in these same cables, wrote that it was his job, as British ambassador in Washington, to “flood the zone,” meaning that they should influence all the people Trump is talking to, that Trump would have a habit of telephoning in the evening to people in Washington and elsewhere to try to find out what their thinking was, this Darroch basically said, we have to control this entire environment; we have to whisper into Trump’s ears, so that we create a completely controlled environment. And that was the setting!

And then, if you look how, even after Bolton is out, Pompeo is essentially continuing exactly the role Bolton had before. And if you look at the speech he gave at the Hoover Institution in Stanford University on Jan. 13, it is an incredibly bloodcurdling speech, which clearly is not the same intention as Trump. But people should watch this Pompeo speech in Stanford, to get a sense of what is the environment Trump is in. [https://www.hoover.org/news/secretary-state-pompeo-addresses-stanford-universitys-hoover-institution-following-strike-irans]

SCHLANGER: I think one of the important things in Darroch’s cables, was a reaction when Trump stopped the attack against Iran, when the U.S. drone was shot down: That angered the British terribly, because they thought that was going to cause a reaction, but Darroch wrote: One more act like that could cause another turnaround for Trump.

I wanted to mention one other thing about this British ambassador to Tehran, who was apparently at one of the memorial services when he was involved in leading a walkout of students in a demonstration, very much reminded me of Victoria Nuland handing out cookies and $5 billion in Maidan square in the Ukraine situation in 2014.

Helga, one of the important things which is also part of the context for this situation, is the ongoing disintegration of the neo-liberal economic system, and this is something which there’s been very little focus on, because with the impeachment, with the danger of war, there has hasn’t been a whole lot said about it. But you’ve been following this thing very closely — what’s the latest with the helicopter money and the insane effort to try and keep this system going?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we are in clearly approaching the helicopter money phase of this meltdown of the system. Yesterday, alone, the Federal Reserve pumped into another $82 billion in repo money, and it is now reported that this will go on, probably, until mid-February at least, but it may go on until summer. Jim Rogers, who is the cofounder of the Quantum Fund — together with Soros, he’s now separated from Soros — but he said, that the debt after 2008 has “skyrocketed” everywhere, and that he foresees a “horrible end,” that the central banks will keep pumping money up to the point where many investors will say, look, we don’t want this anymore, and then there will be a big crisis, and they will pump even more money, and then it will come to a horrible end. And he said, this will be the worst thing I have ever experienced in my whole life.

Now, take it for what it is — it’s the opinion of somebody who’s part of this same system, but I think it is useful to remind people that we absolutely need the Four Laws suggested by my late husband: Glass-Steagall globally, immediately; we need a national bank in every country; we need an international credit system, a New Bretton Woods system; and if there is such a UN Security Council meeting, it’s either that body of the G20, or some combination thereof, but since they will not do it, this is why we push for the summit of Xi Jinping, Putin, and Trump, as an absolute, urgent intervention to bring the world into order, not only on the question of the war danger, but also to say this system is about to blow, we have to have this package proposed by Lyndon LaRouche.

One immediate situation is Argentina. Yesterday, the largest province of Argentina, the Buenos Aires, on Jan. 6, this happened already, they could not pay $250 million. The federal government in Argentina said they couldn’t bail out that province, either, and there’s more money coming due. And if this turns out and develops into a complete debt crisis, you will have the derivatives problem with the swaps, and this could be the trigger for the collapse of the system. And there are many other such triggers.

So that all underlines the absolutely urgent need to really go for a reform, a reorganization for this entire financial system before it is too late.

SCHLANGER: I think it’s important, also, that if you look at the fourth of the LaRouche’s Four Laws, the science-driver side of it, it’s a perfect opportunity for the United States to work with China, with the Belt and Road Initiative, with space cooperation, and also what you’ve called for, in terms of dealing with Southwest Asia, these new platforms of infrastructure. And yet, we see, again, the crazed anti-China lobby in the United States Congress and the media, saying that China’s the enemy, when, in fact, working with China would be the solution, wouldn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the whole world would greatly profit: Instead of trying to contain China, — Pence, for example, made another raving speech against China; Pompeo compared China again to, I think Stalin, or something — it’s just completely out of this world.

If you look, really, at what China is doing, naturally, they’re growing, their economy is doing better than the economies of many other countries, but why? Because they continue to put emphasis on innovation, they just announced that they have now the first smart, high-speed, autonomous railway — I find this completely fascinating, because they have prepared this new railway, which will go between Beijing for the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in 2022, to all the different cities where the actual Olympics are taking place. Normally it would take 3 hours by train to get to these places in some mountainous regions; but with this smart, fast train, it will go down from 3 hours to 1 hour and even 45 minutes. This will be a train which will have an automatic driver — there is a human in it for emergencies who can intervene, but otherwise, it’s full automated; robots will help passengers to check in; there will be G5 technology, everything will be completely digitized. And I think this is really incredible.

So rather than trying to contain that, which you will not be able to do, unless you want to have World War III and extinguish the whole human species, why not cooperate with China? China has offered this many times, and even in his recent New Year’s speech, Xi Jinping offered to all nations to participate and cooperate, and I think that’s the only way to go.

If you look at Southwest Asia, we have had many discussions, and people have a hard time to imagine, what is “building the peace.” There are left groups who are anti-war, and while it is important to be anti-war and to warn against the dangers, that is not sufficient: You have to know how to build the peace. And if we would really work together with the United States, Russia, China, India, hopefully the European countries, to reconstruct the war-torn areas of Southwest Asia, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, it would be really easy to have a gigantic reconstruction. And my husband, in a video some years ago, said, look this region has been at war for thousands of years, because we have this historic tribal, and ethnic, and religious contradictions. But is that the condition for mankind for eternity? I don’t think so. There are also incredible traditions in this region, for example, the Persian history had an incredibly rich culture! The Caliphate of Baghdad of al-Mansur and Harun al-Rashid, they turned Baghdad at that time into the most developed city of the world, around 800 BCE. They brought in all the knowledge from around the world, all the people who would bring discoveries, and technologies, they would be weighed in gold, and at that time Baghdad was the most knowledgeable and most developed city.

So there are ways how you can reconnect, with Persian history, with the whole tradition of the ancient Silk Road, which went through this entire region. So there is absolutely the possibility to create peace. It would only function if — the first condition is Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping have to take the initiative, because otherwise there is no credibility; only if the three work together is there any hope that you can accomplish that. And therefore, I would actually ask all of you, our viewers, make sure this program, and also Harley’s morning update, which he does every day, is spreading — get it to your contacts, your friends, your social media. Help us to make this mobilization. Because while we have the Day of Action today, we are not stopping at that: because you have a tremendous social ferment. For example, the Yellow Vests, the strikes in France are continuing, there will be on Thursday, tomorrow, after three days of strikes, there will be huge demonstrations in France: We will intersect them, we will bring in this perspective of the summit of the three Presidents. There will be many demonstrations in Germany, among the German farmers, and other groupings. And this will not stop.

So I’m asking you, join this international chorus, and help us to build it, of people who say, “we have to overcome geopolitics, we have to establish a higher level of reason, and that is very, very urgent,” because nobody knows if the next time you have some incident, that the whole thing can be stopped. We were absolutely close to World War III, and we are not out of the danger zone, at all: So join our efforts.

SCHLANGER: Helga, I have nothing to add to that summary. I think it’s very important that people recognize: This is a moment where action must be taken — not talk, not being a spectator. You can go to our website and get the resolution that was drafted by Helga on the call for the emergency summit, and make sure it gets out widely to everyone. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/01/09/call-for-presidents-trump-putin-xi-to-convene-emergency-summit-to-address-danger-of-war/] And have the discussions that are necessary.

Is there anything further you want to add, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think, today is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, and King was one of the people who knew that peace is only possible through development. He was about to push that for the entire world, not just for the United States, when he was assassinated. He should have been President of the United States, and as my husband should have been President of the United States, but it’s these ideas which will determine if the human species will exist in the future or not. So, shape up and get on that level of thinking.

SCHLANGER: OK, Helga. Thank you very much, and we’ll be back next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hopefully.

I denne uges webcast fremhævede Helga Zepp-LaRouche sin appel for et hastetopmøde mellem præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi med henblik på at nedtrappe spændingerne i Mellemøsten og skabe en omfattende fredsplan for regionen. Mens chokket fra USA’s droneangreb, der dræbte den iranske general Soleimani, skubbede verden i retningen af en endnu større konflikt, skabte det samtidig et nøgternt øjeblik, som gjorde det entydigt klart, at en omfattende fredsplan bør være prioriteten, og dette kan kun ske gennem samarbejdet mellem USA, Rusland og Kina.

Helga henviser også til Patrick Lawrences nyeste artikel i Consortium News, hvor han kalder droneangrebet for en ”paladsrevolution” af medlemmer fra udenrigs- og forsvarsministerierne. Læs hele artiklen her.

PATRICK LAWRENCE: The Iranian General’s Intent

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

2. del:

3. del:

Lyd:

I Helga Zepp-LaRouches nytårswebcast indledte hun med at gennemgå de mest markante udviklinger i de seneste uger, og hvad de betyder for det kommende år. Hun fremhævede det positive potentiale for uddybning af samarbejdsrelationer mellem præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi:

1. Udsigten til at forholdet mellem Trump og Putin kan forbedres ved Trumps deltagelse i begivenhederne omkring fejringen af 75-årsdagen for sejren over fascismen. Også samtaler om våbenbegrænsninger vil få betydning, idet Rusland nu kan indsætte det hypersoniske missilsystem Avangard i operationel tjeneste, hvilket gør eksisterende amerikanske modstrategier forældede;
2. Et forbedret forhold til Kina, begyndende med fase I af handelsaftalen. Dette gøres til skydeskive for geopolitikerne, der ser Kinas opkomst som en trussel, med præsentationen af den britiske krigsplan i seneste udgave af the Economist.

Hun talte også om de beskidte tricks, som demokraterne laver for at afsætte præsidenten ved en rigsretssag, hvilket sætter partiets fremtid på spil; og om Damoklessværdet, der hænger over det finansielle system, som kræver gennemførelsen af LaRouches fire love for at undgå et krak.

Afslutningsvis talte hun om, hvordan disse farer og muligheder bringer os til at anerkende de absolut enestående bidrag fra Lyndon LaRouche, især hans videnskabelige bidrag, der har tilbagevist den imperialistiske neomalthusianisme, som nutidens fascistiske geopolitikere presser på med. Hans ‘There are no limits to growth’ (Der er ingen grænser for vækst) er vigtig læsning for dem, der mener det alvorligt med at overvinde den anti-humane grønne politik, som økonomiske nøglefigurer såsom Carney og Lagarde presser på med.

Fra os alle i Schiller Instituttet ønskes I et spændende nytår.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Video:

2. del:

3. del:

Lyd:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video 2. del (40 min.)

Lyd:

Selv med den næsten totale mørklægning i de etablerede medier af den reelle karakter af det kup, der pågår mod præsident Trump, er sandheden ved at komme ud. Helga Zepp-LaRouche fremhævede betydningen af Scott Ritters artikel i Consortium News denne uge, som viste, hvordan en relativt ung mand – den ”anonyme whistleblower” – blev placeret af John Brennan og andre i en position, hvorfra han kunne manipulere USA’s politik over for Rusland og Ukraine, og samtidig undergrave Trumps bestræbelser på at ændre USA’s politik ved at koordinere med kupmagerne fra Obamas efterretningsteam.

Ritters artikel skal læses sammen med den tale, som justitsminister Barr holdt, hvori han anklagede dem der presser på for en rigsretssag for at være en del af et ”oprørsk kup”, samt de opdaterede udsagn fra Barbara Boyd, Bill Binney og Larry Johnson, for at få begreb om hvorfor det nu er muligt at realisere Schiller Instituttets mål om at knuse kuppet og bringe USA ind i det nye paradigme.

I løbet af sin webcast langede hun ud imod den hidtil usete optrapning mod Kina; præsenterede den sande historie om hvad der foregår i Xinjiang-provinsen, idet hun gik tilbage til hvordan Brzezinski spillede det ”Islamiske kort”. Derved imødegik bagvaskelserne imod Kina; forklarede hvordan “repokrisen” er et symptom på sammenbruddet i det økonomisk/finansielle system, som kun kan vendes ved at iværksætte Lyndon LaRouches politik; og latterliggjorde EU’s erklæring om en ”klimakrise”, som en del af en fuld offensiv til midlertidigt at redde bankerne, og samtidig ødelægge hvad der er tilbage af den fysiske økonomi.

De objektive betingelser er til stede, konkluderede hun, for et stort øjeblik med global transformation. Hvad der er nødvendigt er, at I, seerne, spiller jeres rolle som aktive og velinformerede borgere, ved at gå sammen med os for at sikre at det sker.

På trods af PR virksomhedernes heftige bestræbelser for det militære industrielle kompleks—også kendt som “massemedierne” – på at forhindre, at sandheden om hensigten bag regimeskiftet bliver kendt, kommer sandheden frem. Som Helga Zepp LaRouche specificerede i sin analyse af uroen og omvæltningerne der fejer hen over kloden, er sammenbruddet af det Gamle Paradigme, det der ligger bag de desperate handlinger udført af dem, der står bag farverevolutioner, samt oprør mod regeringer, fx i Chile, Ecuador, Colombia og Frankrig, hvor folk protesterer mod nedskæringer.

Zepp LaRouche hævder, at man ikke kan forstå absurditeten i anklagerne i “Russigate” eller “Ukrainegate” uden at kende til den historiske baggrund. Dette kommer nu frem i anklagerne mod Trump for “magtmisbrug” med hensyn til Ukraine – der vil komme mere ud, når undersøgelserne af Horowitz, Barr og Durham bliver frigivet. Hvad det vil vise, er, at de samme netværk bag Maidan-statskuppet i Ukraine i februar 2014 er i centrum for kup-bestræbelserne mod Trump, og de fortsætter med fuld intensitet på trods af faren for, at deres handlinger kan føre til en krig mellem USA og Rusland.

Et vigtigt moment for at imødegå dette vanvid, var den ekstraordinære konference hos Schiller Instituttet den 16. – 17. november i Bad Soden, Tyskland, hvor aktivister fra mere end 30 lande mødtes til en mindehøjtidelighed for Lyndon LaRouche. Helga understregede, at præsentationerne på konferencen demonstrerede Lyndon LaRouche’s unikke vision for fremtiden og den videnskabelige og kulturelle metode, han anvendte for at gøre de igangværende kampe forståelige og derfor mulige at vinde.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Vi fejrer i dag et tredobbelt jubilæum: 30-årsdagen for Berlinmurens fald; Friedrich Schiller, den store tyske frihedsdigters 260-års fødselsdag; og 35-årsdagen for grundlæggelsen af Schiller Instituttet. Og når sådanne tre jubilæer falder sammen, er det faktisk værd at se tilbage på, hvordan de hænger sammen.

Nu om dage kan mange mennesker ikke engang huske murens fald, fordi de enten ikke var født endnu, eller fordi de var for unge til at følge med i det. Men det er virkelig vigtigt at lære lektien om hvad der skete dengang, og hvad der gik galt, i forhold til den situation som vi har i dag.

Jeg kan huske mange af begivenhederne, som om det var i går, fordi vi ikke bare stod på sidelinjen og så på, men vi befandt os midt i disse begivenheder og prøvede på at forme dem med vores ideer.

Der gives næsten ikke eksempler på en større forskel mellem den officielle fortælling om, hvad der skete i forbindelse med den tyske genforening og murens fald, [og hvad der egentligt skete]: Den officielle fortælling er en ting, og hvad der virkelig skete er noget ganske andet. For hvis man lytter til den officielle fortælling, så var dette demokratiets sejr over kommunismen, friheden over diktaturet, og Fukuyama, historikeren, sagde to år senere, da Sovjetunionen faldt sammen, at dette var slutningen på [verdens-]historien. Og opfattelsen var generelt, at hele verden ville tage den vestlige model for “demokrati” til sig, herunder menneskerettigheder og det parlamentariske system, og at det simpelthen bare ville gå den vej.

Imidlertid advarede jeg i mange taler i 1990 om, at hvis man agtede at presse en ligeså falleret vestlig liberal model ned over det sammenbrudte kommunistiske økonomiske system, vil man over en vis periode kunne opleve et opsving, men at det til sidst ville føre til et meget, meget større sammenbrud af systemet. Og jeg tror, at det er præcist der hvor vi er i dag.

Hvis man betragter verden rundt om på hele kloden, har man et system i fuldstændig uorden: Se på massedemonstrationerne i Chile, i Irak, i Libanon, se på de ‘gule veste’ i Frankrig; se på hvad der foregår med Brexit; de tyske landmænd er i totalt oprør. Efter min mening er det faktisk første gang i historien, at det sker samtidigt i alle hjørner af verden. Og jeg tror virkelig, at det i dag er sandt hvad Leibniz sagde i slutningen af 1600-tallet: Han sagde, at hvis hele verden på et tidspunkt bliver domineret af utilitarisme, vil det komme til en verdensrevolution.

Det vestlige etablissements intentioner i ’89 – og især efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud i ’91 – om at påtvinge verden en unipolær orden, hvilket var denne idé om “demokrati-som-det-eneste”, har åbenlyst givet tilbageslag. De prøvede at påtvinge denne unipolære verdensorden med regimeskifte-operationer, med farverevolutioner, med interventionskrige; og ideen om at historien op til dette punkt, i det væsentlige, kun drejer sig om den atlantiske sektor. Men tilbageslaget mod denne indsats for at påtvinge en unipolær verden har ført til fremgangen for en hel række forskellige nationer, Rusland, Kina, Indien, og andre asiatiske nationer. Det har ført til en helt anden selvforståelse i Afrika. Det har øget kløften mellem de rige og de fattige på en sådan måde, at det ikke længere er bæredygtigt. Middelklassen forsvinder.

Så hvis man tager dette i betragtning, og spørger sig selv hvordan vi er nået til den såkaldte ”enden på historien”, demokrati overalt, og så de gigantiske omvæltninger, som finder sted lige nu?  Nuvel, ’89 var det man på tysk med rette kunne kalde en “Sternstunde der Menschheit”, hvilket betyder en enestående chance [for forandringer] i historien, en “stjernestund for menneskeheden.” Og det var et af disse store øjeblikke, hvor man faktisk kunne forme historien, fordi kommunismen var forsvundet, og man kunne have indført en fredelig verdensorden i det 21. århundrede. Og den vision havde vi:

Allerede i ’84, da Sovjetunionen afviste hans tilbud om SDI (Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ –red.), efter at præsident Reagan havde gjort det (SDI) til den officielle amerikanske politik, forudsagde Lyndon LaRouche, at hvis Sovjetunionen ville fastholde deres daværende politik, hvilket var en indsats for militær dominans, og ‘primitiv akkumulation’ imod deres egen økonomi, ville Sovjetunionen kollapse i løbet af fem år. Og det skete: Lyndon LaRouche, der også iagttog de økonomiske vanskeligheder i Comecon-landene, forudsagde i 1988 den snarlige tyske genforening, samt at det [gen-]forenede Tyskland skulle udvikle Polen med vestlig teknologi som en model for at omdanne hele Comecon.

Da muren faldt – i grunden efter de tiltagende mandagsdemonstrationer – var vi faktisk de eneste, der havde en forestilling [om det]. Husk tilbage på den utrolige glæde – folk dansede på Berlinmuren, da den blev åbnet, og det var et utroligt øjeblik med en potentiel forandring i historien. De officielle dokumenter fra den tyske regering, der blev offentliggjort et par år senere, viser, at til trods for at tysk genforening var det primære mål for tysk politik, havde man ingen beredskabsplan! De troede i virkeligheden ikke, at det nogensinde ville ske! Ingen troede for alvor på, at Sovjetunionen ville forsvinde. Men vi havde en idé om det, og hr. LaRouche foreslog første gang i 1988, at det genforenede Tyskland skulle udvikle Polen, og jeg skrev en løbeseddel, der blev offentliggjort i midten af november 1989, “Kære Tyskland, gå videre med selvtillid,” og jeg foreslog nøjagtigt dette, at vi med vestlig teknologi skulle udvikle Polen og de andre Comecon-lande.

Dette var naturligvis endnu ikke blevet til politik, men Helmut Kohl, Tysklands kansler på det tidspunkt, tog et første ‘baby-skridt’ i retning af suverænitet, ved den 28. november, et par dage efter min løbeseddel, at offentliggøre et 10-punkts program, som endnu ikke var ideen om genforening, men en konføderation af de to tyske stater.

To dage derefter, den 30. november, blev Alfred Herrhausen, lederen af Deutsche Bank på det tidspunkt, myrdet af en meget tvivlsom – sandsynligvis ikke eksisterede – ”tredje generation” af terrororganisationen Røde Armé Fraktion. Det er i det mindste et spørgsmål, der stadig skal undersøges af historikere. Men det var et budskab til Kohl, “vov ikke på at gå i retning af tysk suverænitet.”

På det tidspunkt kom der en voldsom reaktion: [Den daværende britiske premierminister] Margaret Thatcher igangsatte denne kampagne for “Det fjerde Rige”; den franske præsident Mitterrand krævede, at Tyskland skulle opgive D-marken og indføre Euroen; Bush Sr. krævede selvbegrænsning af Tyskland gennem yderligere integration i NATO og EU, accept af Maastricht-traktaten, og dermed det regime med nedskæringer der nu fører til sprængningen af EU, spændingerne mellem øst og vest, nord og syd.

Vi foreslog den produktive ‘Paris-Berlin-Wien-trekant’, som var ideen om at bruge vestlig teknologi til at transformere landene i Østeuropa, og dybest set bruge deres produktive potentialer til at modernisere og integrere med Europa. Det første sådant forslag offentliggjorde vi i januar 1990, og da Sovjetunionen kollapsede i ’91 udvidede vi straks idéen om den produktive trekant til hele Eurasien for at forbinde de produktive befolkningscentre i Europa med dem i Asien gennem udviklingskorridorer, og vi kaldte det for ‘Den eurasiske Landbro’, Den nye Silkevej. Dette skulle også [danne basis for] den fredelige verdensorden i det 21. århundrede.

Naturligvis brød de neo-konservative, som ønskede at påtvinge deres unipolære verdensorden, løfterne de havde givet til Gorbatjov, om, at NATO aldrig ville blive udvidet til Sovjetunionens grænser. I ’91 offentliggjorde CIA ifølge en tysk avis en rapport om, at Rusland havde en bedre uddannet arbejdsstyrke og flere naturressourcer end USA, og at landet derfor ville blive en konkurrent på verdensmarkedet, hvis man tillod økonomisk udvikling. Derfor skulle den økonomiske udvikling afværges.

Hvad der trådte i kraft var chokterapien fra Jeffrey Sachs, den samme Jeffrey Sachs, der nu befinder sig midt i den grønne klima-finansieringssvindel.
George Soros var involveret i en enorm hjerneflugt fra Rusland og de øvrige tidligere sovjet-lande, og i Tyskland forsøgte de virkeligt at sprænge potentialet for et godt forhold til Rusland på det tidspunkt. Den 8. marts 1990 var den sidste samling i DDR’s ‘Volkskammer’ [parlamentet i Østtyskland]. De skabte ‘Treuhand Anstalt’, som senere skulle blive til den største industrielle bedrift i verden. Og de skulle angiveligt beskytte DDR’s statsejede ejendom, men et ‘koldt kup’ blev udført: Allerede den 26. juni 1990 offentliggjorde De Maizière-regeringen vedtægter, der alene handlede om “privatisering” og “omorganisering” af de statsejede industrier.

I august 1990 blev Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, som var en meget god og effektiv industrialist, udpeget til at foretage en omlægning af førnævnte ‘Treuhand’, og han havde en fremragende forståelse af kravene til realøkonomien, så han satte genopretning før privatisering med det primære formål at beskytte arbejdspladserne fra de tidligere statsejede virksomheder. Straks kom han under ondskabsfulde angreb fra de britiske og amerikanske investeringsbanker, der beskyldte ham for at blokere for udenlandske investeringer. Den 1. april 1991 blev han skudt af den samme tvivlsomme, sandsynligvis ikke eksisterende, “tredje generation” af ‘Rote Armé Fraktionen’ af den terroristiske Baader-Meinhof-gruppe. Han blev erstattet af Birgit Breuel, en datter af Alvin Münchmeyer, hvis bank har en meget dyster historie, idet den var med til at finansiere NSDAP [nazist-partiet] i 30’erne sammen med Harriman i USA og Montagu Norman, bankdirektør for Bank of England.

Hvad der skete, var en gigantisk ekspropriation af den østtyske befolknings ejendom. Pludselig betød alle disse menneskers livsværk intet; det blev erklæret værdiløst; og dette er et chok, som disse mennesker i det tidligere Østtyskland ikke er kommet sig over den dag i dag. Og jeg vil sige, at denne ekspropriation har spillet meget ind på det faktum, at vi nu har fået fremkomsten af Alternativet for Tyskland (AfD), en populistisk organisation som imidlertid har en masse af alle de onde elementer, højreekstremisme, hvis ikke værre – fascistiske elementer – i sig.

Se, etablissementet udnyttede grundlæggende det faktum, at kommunismen var forsvundet, og der skete noget nyt. Da Sovjetunionen stadig eksisterede, så oligarkiet i Vesten stadig et vist behov for videnskabelig og teknologisk fremgang, for dybest set at holde trit med våbenkapløbet i Den kolde Krig, af årsager, der allerede var blevet formuleret af Machiavelli: At man altid skal forblive på samme teknologiniveau som ens modstander, eller være foran.

Men med Sovjetunionens sammenbrud gik det britiske imperium ind i en absolut ubændig deregulering af de finansielle markeder, og de gik tilbage til den gamle oligarkiske tankegang om befolkningsreduktion, og at holde befolkningen i tilbageståenhed, og især efter at det lykkedes at eliminere Glass/Steagall-loven i USA i 1999, fik vi en fuldstændig, uhæmmet deregulering af de finansielle markeder på bekostning af industrien og velfærden, til fordel for spekulanternes profitmaksimering.

I juli 2007, da den anden ejendomsmarkedskrise brød ud – faktisk en uge før – optog Lyndon LaRouche en verdensberømt video, hvor han sagde, at ”Dette system er absolut færdigt, og alt hvad vi vil se nu er, hvordan de forskellige aspekter kommer til at manifestere sig”. Og som et resultat af det faktum, at folk ikke lyttede til ham, fik vi så det store systemiske nedbrud i 2008. Intet blev gjort af centralbanker for at eliminere de grundlæggende årsager til dette nedbrud, og derfor står vi nu, ca. 11-12 år senere, overfor en endnu værre krise, fordi det eneste man lavede var kvantitative lempelser, nulrenter, negative renter, og i dag ser man et sammenbrud af hele systemet, i meget, meget værre grad end i 2008.

Men i mellemtiden udviklede sig også en anden tendens: I forbindelse med vores forslag til den ‘Eurasiske Landbro’, arrangerede vi konferencer og seminarer på fem kontinenter. I ’96 var der en stor konference i Beijing, hvor jeg forelagde vores forslag om at bruge den Eurasiske Landbro som hjørnesten for en ny verdensøkonomisk orden, og på det tidspunkt erklærede Kina, at den Eurasiske Landbro skulle være det strategiske mål inden år 2010. Men så kom naturligvis krisen i Asien i ’97. I ’98 kom den russiske statsbankerot, og disse lande – de asiatiske lande – blev tvunget til at udvikle et alternativ for at forsvare sig selv. Og siden da har der udviklet sig en hel række organisationer: BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Global South; og Schiller Instituttet fortsatte med at afholde konferencer med forslag om, at den Eurasiske Landbro skulle blive til en ‘Verdenslandbro’, der forbinder alle fem kontinenter.

I 2013 i Kasakhstan annoncerede præsident Xi Jinping så den Nye Silkevej. Og i de forløbne seks år siden da, er dette blevet det største infrastrukturprojekt nogensinde i historien. Det har allerede fået tilslutning fra 157 nationer og 30 store internationale organisationer. De har skabt et nyt paradigme, der er baseret på respekten for national suverænitet og ikke-indblanding i de andres landes sociale system. Det er en model for samarbejde, som ifølge præsident Xi Jinping er åben for samarbejde med enhver nation på planeten.

Når man ser rundt omkring på kloden er der demonstrationer i mange lande, mange af dem er større end ‘mandags-demonstrationerne’ i DDR. i ’89, og nogle af dem er ikke så fredelige som de var. Vi konfronteres også med eksistentielle farer: Det udgår især fra narkokartellerne, hvis man betragter situationen i Mexico, eller hvis man ser på de overvejende Soros-sponsorerede farverevolutioner, såsom i Hongkong og andre destabiliseringer rundt om i verden. Det er i realiteten de samme kræfter, der står bag kuppet mod præsident Donald Trump, siden 2016. Men der er også en modbevægelse. Den kriminelle efterforskning af kupmagerne mod Trump ledes af justitsminister William Barr.

Så 30 år efter murens fald er vi præcist på det punkt, som jeg har påpeget i mange taler, at hvis man påtvinger det liberale system, så vil man få et langt større sammenbrud, og det er præcis, hvad vi ser i dag. Men vi har også den nye konstellation med Bælte- og Vejinitiativet og præsident Trump, som mange gange har sagt, og bevist gennem sine handlinger, at han ønsker at forbedre forholdet til Rusland og Kina. Så faktisk oplever vi lige nu den store chance igen i 2019, men hvad der [nu] må ske, for at tage ved lære af hvad der gik galt for 30 år siden, er, at de fire [stor-]magter – USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien – skal gennemføre Lyndon LaRouches recept:

– Vi skal have en global Glass-Steagall, adskillelse af bankerne. Kasinoøkonomien må slutte, og dette bør ske inden sammenbruddet for alvor kaster verden ud i kaos.
– Derefter har vi i brug for en nationalbank efter Alexander Hamiltons principper i ethvert land.
– Der er brug for en ny Bretton Woods-aftale, et nyt kreditsystem til at finansiere internationale projekter under Bælte- og Vejinitiativet.
– Og vi er nødt til at have en forøgelse af produktiviteten i økonomierne gennem et fælles lynprogram til realisering af fusionskraft, samt internationalt samarbejde om rumfart og -forskning.

Nu må disse lande – de fire stormagter – gå sammen med andre lande om den økonomiske genopbygning af Sydvestasien, som er blevet ødelagt af disse interventionskrige; og vi har brug for industrialiseringen af Afrika, fordi dette er den store udfordring for hele menneskeheden. Vi må få bugt med geopolitik, og vi må samtykke i hvad præsident Xi Jinping har foreslået igennem mange år: Et fællesskab for hele menneskehedens fremtid.

Dette skal dog kombineres med en renæssance af klassisk kultur, og det er derfor at Schiller Instituttets rolle og ideerne fra Friedrich Schiller er så absolut uundværlige. Det var principielt for Schiller Instituttet, da det blev grundlagt i 1984, at en ny økonomisk verdensorden i virkeligheden kun kan lykkes, hvis den kombineres med en klassisk renæssance. Vi har brug for en dialog mellem de bedste traditioner indenfor alle kulturer, og for europæisk civilisation betyder det, at det smukke menneskebillede, som det blev udtrykt af Friedrich Schiller, og som det blev fejret af Beethoven i ‘Ode til Glæden’ i den niende symfoni, må blive grundlaget for vores uddannelsessystem og vores sociale liv. Fordi hvert menneske, ifølge Schiller, har potentialet til at blive en smuk sjæl, og hans definition af dette er, at ethvert menneske potentielt kan blive et geni. Han har en idé om, at ethvert menneske har en ubegrænset evne til selvforbedring, intellektuelt og moralsk.

Så hvis man ser på det, har den liberale model ikke bare fejlet økonomisk, men også kulturelt. Hvis man ser på narkotikaepidemien, for eksempel i USA, grimheden i ungdomskulturerne, volden i den såkaldte ”underholdning”, skoleskyderier og lignende ting, er det meget, meget tydeligt, at hvis Vesten ønsker at overleve, er der brug for en æstetisk uddannelse. Præsident Xi Jinping har sagt ved mange lejligheder, hvor vigtig han betragter den æstetiske uddannelse, fordi den fører til et smukt sind og en smuk sjæl, og det er kilden til skabelsen af store kunstværker.

Så, I USA og Europa må vi til at genskabe de bedste traditioner for humanisme og klassisk kunst; i traditionen fra den italienske renæssance, de tyske klassikere, musikken fra Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Verdi og andre. Dette er ikke en mulighed: Det er en nødvendighed. Civilisationer er forsvundet, og hvis man går til museerne, er de fulde af eksempler på nationer, kulturer og civilisationer, som moralsk var for anløbne til at klare sig. Europa og USA kunne muligvis helt forsvinde! Og dette siger jeg ikke som en pessimistisk prognose, men som et incitament for os til at ændre vores vaner og antagelser. Vi er nødt til at genskabe vores civilisation baseret på de høje idealer fra de store digtere, som Schiller, hvis 260 års fødselsdag vi fejrer i dag.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd: