Webcast med Helga Zepp-Larouche: Opbygning af en international fredskoalition

Onsdag den 21. juni 2023

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hej, velkommen til vores ugentlige dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger af og formand for Schiller Instituttet.  Det er onsdag den 21. juni 2023. Jeg hedder Harley Schlanger, og jeg vil være jeres vært. Hvis du vil deltage i diskussionen, kan du sende dine spørgsmål eller kommentarer til os på questions@schillerinstitute.org eller skrive dem på chatsiden, og Anastasia vil sende dem videre til mig.

Helga, der er meget at tale om: Der er Blinken i Beijing, afrikanske ledere i Kiev og Moskva, rygter om en optrapning fra Biden og NATO, da modoffensiven ikke går som forventet; også at præsidentkandidaterne Trump og Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. begge kommer med relativt stærke kommentarer mod krigen og udtaler sig negativt om NATO’s permanente krig. Og så er der dit initiativ til en international fredskoalition. Hvor vil du gerne starte?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det er virkelig en verden, der udvikler sig hurtigt. Jeg kan komme med korte kommentarer til alle de punkter, du nævnte. Først og fremmest lod det til, at udenrigsminister Blinkens besøg i Kina gik godt. I det mindste mødtes han med den kinesiske udenrigsminister, og derefter mødtes han med præsident Xi Jinping i en halv time, som efterfølgende sagde, at mødet var produktivt. Nu skete der desværre det, at præsident Biden, før Blinken forlod Kina, under en privat fundraising-middag kaldte Xi Jinping for en “diktator”. Og det har forårsaget en meget vred reaktion fra det kinesiske udenrigsministerium, og deres talskvinde, Mao Ning, kaldte det en absolut uacceptabel provokation.  Og spørgsmålet er faktisk troværdigheden: Hvis Blinken siger én ting, har kineserne nu gentagne gange slået fast, at det vestlige ledere siger ikke betyder ret meget. Og når Blinken så siger én ting og forsøger at – jeg ved ikke, hvad han præcist sagde; jeg havde ikke oplæsningen, men hvis præsident Biden så siger noget i den retning, sætter det igen spørgsmålstegn ved det hele. Jeg synes virkelig, det er et problem!

Samtidig er den kinesiske delegation med premierminister Li Qiang både i Tyskland og i morgen i Frankrig til en dialog mellem regeringerne, som ifølge de foreløbige rapporter vi har her fra Tyskland, ikke var dårlig, og det skyldtes hovedsageligt delegationens sammensætning, hvor udenrigsminister Baerbock og forsvarsminister Pistorius ikke deltog på tysk side, så især fra Baerbock kom der ingen besynderlige bemærkninger, så det var nyttigt for diskussionen. Så lad os sige, at der er en stærkere impuls og en erklæring fra tysk industri lige nu om, at det er helt imod deres interesse at “de-risikere”, og “de-risikere” er under alle omstændigheder bare et andet ord for afkobling, fordi den endelige effekt ville være den samme. Så jeg synes, det gik relativt godt, omstændighederne taget i betragtning.

Rapporterne fra Ukraine, som nu offentliggøres i mange vestlige medier, er naturligvis, at den såkaldte ukrainske offensiv egentlig ikke var særlig vellykket, hvilket meget alvorligt sætter spørgsmålet om at afslutte denne forfærdelige krig, som stadig koster flere menneskeliv, på dagsordenen. Og i den sammenhæng må jeg sige, at den udtalelse, som præsidentkandidat Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. udsendte, selv før hans tale i New Hampshire, at han igen citerede udtalelsen fra den tidligere israelske premierminister Naftali Bennett, som sagde, at fredsforhandlingerne faktisk var på nippet til at lykkes i marts 2022, og at det derefter var interventionen fra især briten Boris Johnson, der ødelagde det, fordi Johnson gav beskeden til Zelenskyj om, at NATO insisterer på, at krigen skal fortsætte.  Så jeg synes, det er meget vigtigt. Kennedy sagde også, at han kræver, at Biden kommer med to undskyldninger, en til det amerikanske folk, fordi han i realiteten har ført den amerikanske hær ind i en forfærdelig krig, som er helt imod det amerikanske folks interesser; og for det andet, endnu vigtigere, til det ukrainske folk, fordi det tilintetgør deres land.

Så jeg synes, det er meget vigtigt, og jeg havde ikke tid til at læse Kennedys tale, som han holdt i går, men jeg så bare nogle noter om den: Han opfordrer USA til at vende tilbage til John Kennedys fredspolitik; jeg mener, det er i bund og grund, hvad vi havde lagt frem i en appel til USA’s næste præsident for at gøre præcis dette. [https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/urgent_appeal_by_citizens_and_institutions_from_all_over_the_world_to_the_next_president_of_the_united_states] Vi er begyndt at indsamle mange underskrifter fra hele verden, fordi mange mennesker overalt i verden ønsker, at USA igen skal fremstå som en fredsmagt.  Så jeg synes, det er meget opmuntrende, eftersom man har Trump, som absolut har sagt nogle hårde ord om krigspolitikken, og som vil være kandidat, uanset hvad den juridiske forfølgelse af Trump vil være. Så efter al sandsynlighed vil man have Trump på den republikanske side og efter al sandsynlighed Kennedy på den demokratiske side, hvilket betyder, at der for første gang i meget lang tid vil være en rigtig valgkamp i USA. Så det er meget vigtigt.

Nu har jeg advaret mod at blive grebet af valgmani fra amerikanernes side, fordi, som George Washington sagde, da han forlod embedet, folk ikke skal falde i fælden med politiske partier, fordi partier har tendens til at være repræsentanter for interesser, og derfor ikke den nationale interesse, som en præsidentkandidat naturligvis let kan overvinde ved virkelig at tale for hele landets interesse, hvilket naturligvis kræver meget. Særligt fordi de vigtigste beslutninger om hvor verden vil bevæge sig hen, krig eller fred, finansielt kollaps eller et nyt paradigme for et nyt økonomisk system, efter al sandsynlighed vil blive truffet længe før den 5. november 2024, og derfor er det vigtigt at holde et internationalt fokus på, hvor verden bevæger sig hen.

Så jeg synes, det er et meget interessant miljø, hvor der findes muligheder. Selvom faren for krig fortsat er ekstremt høj, blev det diskuteret, at ikke alene har Rusland nu placeret taktiske atomvåben i Hviderusland, men USA taler også om at placere taktiske atomvåben i Rumænien og Polen. Russerne har svaret meget kraftigt nej til det, fordi det er de steder, hvor de amerikanske missilforsvarssystemer er blevet installeret, og det er meget tydeligt, at de kan omdannes fra defensive til offensive systemer på ekstremt kort tid.

Jeg kan kun sige, at krigsfaren ikke er mindre, den vokser, og det er derfor, at vores internationale fredskoalitions indsats er så {ekstremt} vigtig. Vi havde den anden, meget vellykkede diskussion – flere mennesker, flere kræfter slutter sig til. Jeg tror bestemt, at det er et modsvar, vi er nødt til at have mod denne voksende krigsfare.

Det er mine indledende kommentarer.

Det resterende er på engelsk.

SCHLANGER: And you can find the press release on the Schiller Institute International Peace Coalition at the Schiller Institute website [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2023/06/20/press-release-international-peace-coalition-holds-second-meeting/] along with a lot of other information as well as Helga’s Ten Principles for a New International Security and Development Architecture [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/]. Again, you can send your questions to questions@schillerinstitute.org

Helga, we have some questions. Here’s one from someone who describes himself as a “patriot.” He says: “Do you think that many are aware of the media manipulation that this has gone on since before World War I? But given this, how can this Coalition bring consensus?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that the discrediting of the mainstream media is growing, because a lot of people who think can really see in the first minute of listening to these media or reading them, that there’s always a spin, there is never a straight reporting of objective developments. That’s a big problem, and that’s why our websites, our webcasts and other activities we’re doing, like seminars, and this is very important, and I appeal to all of you to help spreading it, build up the viewership in the social media. Get the word around, that we do exist and our efforts exist. That’s an organizing activity which is necessary.

And I think that the Ten Principles, or the consensus of the International Peace Coalition—I think it’s possible. I don’t think it will be the lowest common denominator, because that’s what people normally think is a consensus. I think the consensus will come from the human mind being able to think a new paradigm, a completely different level, a higher level, a One, in which you have a higher power than the Many. And this is a philosophical discussion which was coming from many thinkers in the Middle Ages, but especially then in the Renaissance, the great German philosopher, Nicholas of Cusa, developed the method of the “coincidence of opposites,” the idea that the human mind can conceptualize a higher One, which is of a higher power than the Many. Now, that was Einstein’s idea that a solution can only be found on a new level, which is higher than the level on which all the conflicts arose. And in this particular case, it means to put the interests of humanity as a whole first, not “America first,” not “Germany first,” not whatever other country first, but to think about American interests, German interests, Ghana interests, Mali interests, in coherence with the interests of humanity. National interest is allowed, it’s positive, but it should not contradict the interest of humanity as a whole.

And right now, given the parameters in which we find ourselves, it means we have to have a new credit system, which gives out credit for the development of all countries—peace through development: That has been our campaign over many decades. It was originally the idea of Pope Paul VI when he put out the 1967 Encyclical {Populorum Progressio} about the development of all people. [https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html] And the actuality of that Encyclical and the fight to have peace through development is as relevant today as it always was.

So, it’s not a static idea, this consensus or this new paradigm. It’s not a static idea, but it’s a dynamic idea, because only if all countries can develop, and their respective benefit of each other to each other is working like a great Classical fugue, where all the elements, and all the musical lines, contribute to the unfolding of the totality, then you can have peace.

SCHLANGER: That answer basically answers a number of the questions we have! But I’ll go through some of these questions anyway, because there may be other aspects of it that you want to address. From Mushtaq, who is a professor in Pakistan and chairman of the Sindh Democratic Forum, writes that he believes ”National interests are the biggest block against the world peace.” But he asks for your thoughts on How to ensure that national security can coexist with the establishment of world peace? That is, is national security an impediment to peaceful cooperation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, no, not necessarily, if you approach it the way I just said a moment ago. Because, frankly—is it really meaningful to waste billions and billions, and even trillions in dollars and euros and other currencies, on this unbelievable armament and rearmament which is going on right now? The U.S. national defense budget this coming year will be $1 trillion: That’s insane! Just imagine how much the United States could be improved, if they would spend this money on national infrastructure, which is falling apart; on repairing schools, building new schools, which are in terrible condition; on the medical system—you know, many people who have mental problems have been just dumped on the streets, periodically, because it was too expensive to keep them in hospitals. Then the mass shootings—what is this the result of? It’s the lack of caring for the education of the pupils, of giving them a perspective for the future. I mean, there are so many ills in the United States which need to be urgently addressed. So the spending of $1 trillion on defense, on weapons, which are totally a destruction of physical economy, just does not make sense. Actually, one could say, it’s against the national security interest of the United States.

Now, obviously, disarmament alone, does not really work. That’s the proven history of where we are today. So I think we need to destroy weapons, we need to have disarmament agreements among nations, but it must coincide with the idea to replace this present system, where you have countries armed to the teeth, staring at each other, waiting to ruin each other, and that cannot be the stage of human development where we want to be. I think if we go to a new paradigm, and I’m absolutely optimistic that it’s possible, that you have a partnership of sovereign countries—John Quincy Adams, for example, said that. He said, the purpose of the United States is not to go abroad and find foreign monsters, but we have to have an alliance of republics. John F. Kennedy, in his famous American University speech said the same thing. He said, the idea of peace is not a {Pax Americana}, where we force with weapons with a mission of all countries to that peace, but a true peace for all time, for the future. And that’s not a utopia. I think that is eminently possible, and I think we can envision a vision, actually, whereby these weapons systems can be replaced by productive industry. Just think that if all countries would use the capacities, they’re using presently for weapons industries and for ever-new weapons systems, if all of that effort, including the creative effort going into the invention of these systems would go into solving the common aims of mankind, finding cures for presently incurable diseases; defending the planet against the danger of an asteroid strike; developing peaceful use of nuclear energy in the form of thermonuclear fusion, this would give us energy security, raw materials security; and the lack of financing has been the key element keeping these programs on a forever kind of trajectory. All of these things can be done, and many, many, many more if we would become reasonable. And since I believe that the human species is capable of reason, I think we can do it.

SCHLANGER: Now, here’s a proposal for the organizing from someone you know, Jack Gilroy, who’s a peace activist. He said, “What about taking actions against the merchants of death, the arms industry? Should people worldwide show up at the gates of the merchants of death, to expose them as war criminals who profit from death and destruction?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s an idea. I think we need some powerful demonstrations. We, in the International Peace Coalition, are discussing for example, to have a major, worldwide action on August 6, which is the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing; to have another action on November 22, which is the actual date of the assassination of John F. Kennedy; and probably there are many other incidents in between which we can discuss. I don’t know if the gates of these industries is the place to be, because they’re mostly remote, and the public would not get much out of it. But I think if we would agree in the International Peace Coalition and make that coalition grow, and then have some powerful demonstrations—maybe in Washington, maybe in other places—I think that is in my view the more promising idea, and it is extremely welcome that all of you mobilize to the hilt to make that an absolutely thundering success, which cannot be unheard of anyplace in the world.

SCHLANGER: And one of the ways you can do that is to take the copy of the press release of the International Peace Coalition from the Schiller Institute website and circulate it. Get discussions going in whatever venue you have. (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2023/06/20/press-release-international-peace-coalition-holds-second-meeting/ )

Here’s a question for you, Helga, on the situation in Germany, from Takis P., who’s an activist in Athens. He refers to Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s at Davos, where he said the war in Ukraine will last many years, and Germany will be there for the duration. And he asks, “Do Germans have no concern for the numbers of dead, the destruction of the environment, etc.?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ah! Well, I think, my feeling is that because the mass media are so absolutely controlled and in Germany, they’re probably the most controlled in any country in the world right now, that people are—that there’s a lot more opposition and concern than meets the eye. I think there is a large proportion of the population that is sleeping, or they’re so event-fixated, or interested to keep their comfort zone, that they don’t let any thought to penetrate their minds. That is unfortunately a big problem. And I find this morally completely convulsive, that from Germany, there would be again, tanks going against Russia! It’s just totally forgetting the history that the Second World War was, after all, fought by Germans—it was not entirely only caused by Germans; there’s a much more complicated picture. But it is a fact that Russia lost, there are now new figures, showing there were 27 million or even 35 million people were killed; also many Ukrainians obviously, but that is beside the matter.

I think we should have learned the lesson, “Never again! Never again war! Never again war from German ground!” I think it’s even in the constitution that Germany should not deliver weapons to areas where you have conflict. I didn’t have the time to ask legal experts to actually check that, but if any of you among the listeners have any expertise on that, you’re welcome to send in comments on that. Because I think that constitutional issue should be raised. In Italy, right now, there are some peace activists who are trying to conduct a referendum by collecting 500,000 signatures within one month, because it does go against the Italian constitution to send weapons to war zones. And I think it’s a terrible thing that the majority of the population seems to be indifferent.

There is, however, and that is also my perception, a growing number of people, below the surface, who absolutely, totally reject the present course of the government! The present German government in the latest polls has only 20% support! They should resign! They are no longer representing the majority of the people.

So, I think I can only answer you by saying, we should do everything possible to break through this dormant majority and get them to understand, if it comes to war, Germany will be annihilated in minutes. If any conflict escalates, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons would come into effect, there are thick, fat targets in Germany that would be in the first minutes eliminated, and the radiation following that would ruin much of Germany. And then the danger of a global nuclear war would be on the table in any case.

But I think we have to wake people up: I really think it’s an absolute priority.

SCHLANGER: We have one more question on the war situation from Colin H. which is something you just discussed, about tactical nuclear weapons. He says, “Isn’t it the case that by the United States talking about and threatening using tactical nukes, how can this not be expected to escalate the tensions?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Sure it does! And I can only say that the fact that we have several U.S. bases which are the organizing center, headquarters, for the present war, and if it would come to an expanding war, then these places would be target number 1! And they’re in the middle of Germany.

So, I can only say, people should wake up, because it’s very, very much on the edge.

SCHLANGER: Now, Helga, here’s a question on the economy. We haven’t gotten too many of those recently, but Terry asks: “Is there any way to restore Glass-Steagall {and} back the dollar by gold?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, absolutely! There is a renewed debate about Glass-Steagall. It erupted especially when, a few weeks ago you had the bankruptcy of several American banks: First Republic Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, some other minor banks, and the collapse of the Credit Suisse and its take over by the Union Bank of Switzerland. There was, for a short period of time, a real panic, and a Glass-Steagall debate erupted. In Switzerland, you had several parliamentarians raising it in the parliament. I think Marcy Kaptur raised it in the U.S. Congress. But then, since now, no banks are collapsing, people are “back to normal,” and that is just foolish: Because nothing of the problems that existed some weeks ago have vanished—to the contrary: The longer this bubble continues, the greater the danger is of a sudden collapse.

So I would say the debate must be spread, because the effort by the Global South countries, including Russia, China, the BRICS, there is an actual debate to create a new, international currency, not based on monetary values, but based on physical values, commodities. This is the proposal by my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, who made that proposal many years ago, and it’s as relevant today as it was then. [“On a Basket of Hard Commodities: Trade without Currency,” by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., July 18, 2000: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2023/eirv50n18-20230505/lar_trade_without_currency_offprint.pdf]

And that is being acted upon. So there is a de-dollarization going on, trade in many national currencies, and I think it’s important for people in the West to understand that this is regarded as a threat to the dollar, a threat to the euro, but the Western liberal system sits on a derivatives bubble of $2 quadrillion outstanding derivatives, in dollar denominations. Now, that is a potential bomb, which can sink the {Titanic} on which we’re all sitting. And the only way to save the West would be to have a Glass-Steagall reorganization, put the currencies back on a secure ground of physical economy, and then cooperate with the countries of the Global South in a new economic system. Now, that way, our life’s work would be saved. If it comes to a blowout, we may see the fate of what happened in Germany in 1923, with a hyperinflation or with a sudden collapse, as we have seen it tendentially in 2008. But a repetition of 2008 is not going to function, because you have right now all instruments which were used are exhausted, and used up. So to go to Glass-Steagall would be the only way right now how you can protect our life savings, our economy, and that would be the way to link up with the currencies of the Global South.

SCHLANGER: I have one more question for you, Helga, that’s on China. You’ve been doing a lot of interviews, recently, just with Global Times, again [https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202306/1292838.shtml], and you just came back from China. [https://larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2023/eirv50n24-20230616/eirv50n24-20230616_015-schiller_institute_delegation_vi.pdf] This is actually a question from last week, but W.T. asks: “Are the Chinese overly concerned with the appearance from non-governmental organizations inside China, or do they let their infrastructure projects do the talking?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the Chinese are very concerned, because if you forget the anti-China propaganda for a moment, and just look at the situation as it is: When you are in China, the world looks so completely different. The Chinese people are generally very supportive of what their government does. They think the government has done a lot of good for them, lifted people out of poverty, giving them a decent living standard, created a growing middle class. They have many friends in the world: 151 nations cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative. So, from the Chinese standpoint, the policy of the government has not changed since 40 years! But, then, all of a sudden, in the last few years, one can probably date it back to 2017, the anti-China propaganda started in the West. And it took a while before the average Chinese realized that, but now they are realizing it, and they say, “Why is that?” They really do not understand why the West has turned so radically anti-Chinese. And it is not supported by anything China does, because when you read about Taiwan, military intervention, invasion in Taiwan—if it ever comes to that, it will be in reaction to the fact that the United States pays lip service to the One China policy, which is the international policy of the UN, and then the United States turns around and delivers weapons systems to Taiwan; has state visits as if it would be a separate state; makes one provocation after the other. And if the illusion in Taiwan by certain forces that they can have independence from China would come to the point where Taiwan declares independence, then in that case, China has said they will intervene. But that will then be the reaction to activities from mainly the United States.

So China has not changed its Taiwan policy, it’s the U.S. which has changed their Taiwan policy.

I think China, given the circumstances, is doing a remarkable job, by introducing a new level of diplomacy, by keeping relatively calm, patient, offering cooperation, reaching out to all countries, including the United States, including the European countries, and trying to calm the situation. So I think China is doing a remarkable job from the standpoint of—they’re a real anchor of stability! If you look at what China does, and go to China, if you have some vacation, I would advise people to go and travel there, and get your own impression. Because the real China is very different from what the Western media say.

SCHLANGER: Helga, I know your time is limited, but do you have time for one more philosophical question?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes.

SCHLANGER: Scott B. asks, basically, what is man’s purpose in the universe. And he said, “If you get this wrong, if the philosophy is wrong, the result will be wrong.” So how would you answer this question of what is man’s purpose in the universe?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think man’s purpose in the universe is to multiply and colonize all available, reachable heavenly bodies. The Moon, for sure; I think it’s quite on the horizon, maybe in one generation, or maybe more. To have a city on Mars. If we have thermonuclear fusion, we can think about interstellar travel. If we are only 10,000 years of real development—humanity is older than that, but the last 10,000 years were really the super, qualitative development, which is amazing. There’s no reason to think that this will stop. The next thousand years will be much more interesting than the previous 10,000 years. So I have a limitless confidence in the ability of the human species to develop.

Now, that happens to be, philosophically, also in cohesion with Nicholas of Cusa, who, already in the 15th century thought that there was a coherence between the lawfulness of the Microcosm and the Macrocosm, the Macrocosm being the universe at large and the Microcosm being the human mind. Now, there is a proof that such a coherence exists, and that is the fact that the human mind can formulate adequate hypothesis. And the adequate hypothesis leads to scientific discovery about the physical universe. That discovery in science leads to a higher technology, which if it’s applied in the production process, leads to an increase of the living standard of the people: greater longevity, higher population-density, which can be maintained; and that’s a limitless process.

That’s fascinating, because that means that an immaterial idea, something which has been produced in the mind, which has no weight, no size, you can’t see it—not as an idea; you can write it down, but an idea is immaterial. But that has an effect in the physical universe of all of these consequences! That means, there is a he coherence between the laws of the mind and the laws of the universe, and that, again, means that human creativity {is} the most advanced aspect in the whole universe!

That whole thing is a negentropic, self-expanding process: The Russian scientist Vernadsky basically said the Noösphere will gain more and more dominance over the Biosphere, that is built into the laws of the universe. So I think if you start to think about that, then you get very optimistic, because then you’re not an Earthling, you’re not bound by the so-called limited resources on our planet Earth (which are not limited anyway, also, because science and technology can transform them completely).

But it also means we are the species in the universe, because it is our purpose—it’s not a practical idea for your next door politician, who thinks about reelection four years from now—but it is a matter of almost scientific certainty that our Sun will be a problem in about 2 billion years, and not be safe for human beings to live on the planet Earth any more. Now, some people may think, “2 billion years, why should I bother about that?” But since we are creative, and we are intellectuals, we can think about that: What does it require to make sure that our human species survives whatever processes will go on, on the Sun, in admittedly the distant time of 2 billion years. So maybe the smarter ones among ourselves should start to think, what should be the directionality in which we pursue our present, basic research & development (R&D), in such a way that in 2 billion years, we are ready to solve that problem?

And I think that’s food for thought, but once you start to think that way, you are freed: You are internally freed, you are mentally freed, and that is why the Schiller Institute is called “Schiller Institute” because Friedrich Schiller was so much more concerned about the inner freedom, than the outer freedom. And he was very concerned about the outer freedom. But he was extremely interested in how to make man free, so that you can develop your creative potential to the fullest.

So, therefore, think about 2 billion years from now, think about not only a village on the Moon, read Krafft Ehricke’s book {Extraterrestrial Imperative}. Krafft Ehricke, the absolutely fantastic pioneer of space research, of rocket science: He had a vision about how the extraterrestrial imperative would change the identity of human beings, and I can only tell you, there is nothing more fruitful, especially for young people, than to study the books of Krafft Ehricke. Because he is one of the most under-appreciated philosopher-scientists I know of, who has produced a tremendous work, but it’s completely under-rated and not known beyond a certain circle of scientists. And we should really find the resources, at some point, to publish the entire collected works of Krafft Ehricke. And a good friend of mine, Marsha Freeman, has done incredible work to promote that, and I absolutely intend that the Schiller Institute will follow through with this.

SCHLANGER: Helga, I’m very happy we had the time for that last question, because I think you did give people something to think about, the future of 2 billion years having come into their mind today for how to act. Thank you for joining us, Helga, and we’ll see you again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till next week.




Webcast-dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Brug JFK’s vision om fred til at stoppe Tredje Verdenskrig

Den 14. juni 2023 

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag, og velkommen til vores ugentlige live-dialog med Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Det er den 14. juni 2023, og jeg er jeres vært Harley Schlanger. Hvis du har et spørgsmål eller en kommentar til Helga, kan du sende dem til questions@schillerinstitute.org, eller du kan skrive dem i chatten, og Anastasia vil sende dem videre.

I tilfælde af at du gik glip af det, havde vi en intens dialog sidste lørdag om emnet: “Verden har brug for JFK’s vision for fred!” Den fulde dialog er lagt ud på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside.

(https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20230610 )

Det var i anledning af 60-året for John F. Kennedys historiske tale ved American University, hvor han offentligt bekræftede sit engagement i at skabe et fredeligt forhold til Sovjetunionen. Og det var kun otte måneder efter, at verden næsten blev ramt af en atomkrig på grund af Cuba-krisen. Der var mange opmuntrende præsentationer og en masse interessante diskussioner, og det ville være umagen værd for folk at se det og sprede det, for det er den slags diskussioner, der burde finde sted blandt verdens ledere i dag.

(https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-university-19630610 )
Lad os begynde med nogle af de tidlige spørgsmål, der er kommet ind, og de fleste af dem er relateret til denne dialog, bekymringer om, hvordan man organiserer sig for at håndtere de kriser, menneskeheden står over for i dag. Lad mig starte med en fra Ohio, som har sendt et spørgsmål: “At lytte til JFK’s tale den 10. juni 1963 bringer stærke følelser frem hos ældre amerikanere som mig. Men unge mennesker har ingen eller kun ringe tilknytning til Kennedys præsidentskab. Hvilke råd kan du give os om, hvordan vi kan gøre det meningsfuldt for folk under 50?”

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg tror, at jo flere mennesker, der er vidner til den periode af Kennedys tid, og for hvem det betyder meget, som bliver aktive og spreder det til alle unge mennesker, de kender, så tror jeg, det vil hjælpe meget. Og jeg tror, at hvis man kunne få nogle modige unge, som faktisk har taget det intellektuelle eventyr, så at sige, til at se på det, så tror jeg virkelig, at det kunne gå viralt. For det Kennedy sagde, og det, der kommer til udtryk i denne tale på American University og mange andre taler, han holdt, det er næsten som fra et andet univers, eller i det mindste en anden stjerne, en anden planet. Det er så forskelligt fra alt, hvad man kan høre fra politikere i dag, fordi han havde en klar idé om en vision for fred, ikke kun for Amerika, men fred for verden, fred til alle tider. Og lige nu, hvor verden er på randen af Tredje Verdenskrig, og der er mange mennesker, der er ekstremt bevidste om det, og flere og flere mennesker bliver organiseret omkring det; det var en af grundene til, at mange mennesker tænker på at internationalisere fredsbevægelsen, hvilket vi har gjort med International Peace Coalition. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2023/06/07/press-release-international-peace-coalition-must-grow-to-stop-world-war-iii/]  

Men hvis man ser på det, har vi nu den mest omfattende luftmanøvre i NATO’s historie; det er ekstremt farligt. Vi sidder på en sprængfarlig krudttønde, hvor 250 jagerfly – forestil dig en armada på 250 jagerfly, der hver dag flyver over Tyskland, op til den russiske grænse, helt op til Estland eller Rumænien, og nogle af dem er potentielt atombevæbnede jagerfly. Nu skal du forestille dig den russiske rekognoscering, som allerede holder øje med en varm krig i Ukraine, hvor der i den seneste tid er sket adskillige krænkelser af russisk territorium, så de er nødt til at være i højeste alarmberedskab på grund af det; og så har du disse manøvrer, som antager, at angrebet fra et land med stærk luftmagt allerede har fundet sted. Det bringer hele situationen op på et ekstremt anspændt niveau, og en lille fejl fra en pilot eller en fejllæsning af, hvad hensigten er med en bestemt handling, kan føre til en ukontrollabel optrapning. Jeg finder det fuldstændig uansvarligt at afholde denne manøvre, som tilsyneladende har været planlagt siden 2018, men som nu finder sted i forbindelse med en varm krig midt i Europa. At have sådan en manøvre, som allerede er provokerende på grund af det scenarie, den er baseret på, så jeg tror, at mange mennesker er bekymrede over det.

Og Kennedys tale, og hvad han faktisk repræsenterer, han havde en vision, som nu potentielt er ved at blive til virkelighed. For krigsfaren er én ting, men på den anden side har vi en historisk proces i gang, som de vestlige medier absolut ikke rapporterer om, eller hvis de rapporterer om det, rapporterer de det som en trussel eller som bagvaskelse; men langt størstedelen af verden, landene i det Globale Syd, 151 nationer, er ved at danne en ny økonomisk verdensorden, og alt det man læser eller hører i medierne om, at Rusland er isoleret, det er latterligt! I dag åbnede Skt. Petersborgs Internationale Økonomiske Forum, hvor mere end 100 lande sendte delegerede, fra Latinamerika, Sydøstasien, Afrika, praktisk talt alle dele af verden havde store delegationer og højtstående personer.

Så man har lige haft et meget vigtigt, intenst møde mellem de arabiske lande og Kina, og de indgik aftaler for, tror jeg, over 10 milliarder dollars, og der er en helt ny udvikling i gang. Saudi-Arabiens energiminister blev spurgt, hvordan han forholder sig til kravene fra de vestlige lande om ikke at handle med Rusland og Kina, og han svarede: “Vi ignorerer dem bare.”
Så vi befinder os i den mest utrolige transformation i historien – de fleste mennesker i Vesten er ikke klar over det, men det betyder ikke, at det ikke finder sted.

Så Kennedy bygger i en vis forstand bro over det, fordi han i sin tale for 60 år siden havde en vision om den slags verden, der nu er ved at opstå. For folk i USA, eller for den sags skyld for folk i Europa, fordi Kennedy var meget vellidt, for eksempel i Tyskland, hvor folk var fuldstændig begejstrede for Kennedy, bygger det bro over et paradigme, som forsvandt med mordet på Kennedy og Warren-kommissionens mørklægning af mordet, og de 60 år der er gået efterfølgende. Og den bygger bro til den verden, der nu er ved at opstå. Så jeg kan blot sige, at hvis du er i en alder, hvor det stadig går op for dig, hvad forskellen var, så tag ud og organisér dig, bliv medlem af Schiller Instituttet, bliv medlem af International Peace Coalition, og fortæl folk om det. For vores kampagne for at sætte fokus på Kennedy-paradigmet er ikke slut: Vi har en kampagne i gang, hvor vi appellerer til USA’s præsident eller den fremtidige præsident om at vende tilbage til Kennedys æra, fordi det er den slags Amerika, verden har brug for og ønsker.

SCHLANGER: Her er et spørgsmål fra en tysk statsborger, som nu bor i USA: De har sendt mig en kopi af en {Politico}-artikel om den tyske kansler Olaf Scholz, der taler om, hvordan han er mere engageret end nogensinde i at vinde kampen i Ukraine. Og denne person spørger: “Hvor længe vil det tyske folk tolerere en optrapning af finansiering og støtte til denne krig i Ukraine, mens den nationale økonomi går ned?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja, det er spørgsmålet til 64 millioner euro, for det der sker i Tyskland lige nu, er helt utroligt. Jeg mener, dette land er ved at blive ødelagt! Næsten 16 % af alle tyske virksomheder er allerede i gang med at forlade landet, fordi energipriserne er blevet for høje. 30 % overvejer at forlade landet. Det betyder, at næsten halvdelen af den tyske industri er i færd med at forlade landet, hvilket betyder, at Tyskland er ved at blive afindustrialiseret for øjnene af os!  Og hvorfor? Tja, Nord Stream-rørledningerne! Hvem saboterede dem? Sandsynligheden for at Seymour Hersh har ret i, at USA plantede sprængstofferne i juni 2022, vil jeg sige er 99,9 % sandsynlig: De af jer der kan matematik, ved, hvad det betyder. At Hershs antagelse om, at det blev beordret af Biden, med stor sandsynlighed er sand. Det betyder, at det er vores allierede, som trækker os ind i denne krig, som er en stedfortræderkrig fra NATO mod Rusland – men hvem kontrollerer NATO? Det er USA og til en vis grad det britiske bidrag. Så vi er i en uholdbar situation, og eftersom du er flyttet uden for Tyskland, kan jeg kun opfordre dig til at hjælpe os med at mobilisere familie, venner og kolleger i Tyskland, hvis du stadig har det.
For det der sker lige nu er helt utroligt. Den nye forsvarsminister Pistorius sagde, at det er lige meget, om russerne nu smadrer alle disse Leopard-kampvogne, så sender vi bare nogle nye. Vi sender måske op til 100. Nu har russerne åbenbart ret stor succes med at smadre disse Leopard-kampvogne, men det er modbydeligt. Og jeg ved ikke, om den tyske befolkning er et offer, men de er også lidt dumme, må jeg sige.

SCHLANGER: [griner] Nå, her er et spørgsmål fra en kontakt i Algeriet, der spørger: “Er der nogen i Biden-administrationen, der anerkender det skift, du taler om i verden, og ser det som et potentiale for USA?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hvis sådan en person findes, har han eller hun haft stor succes med at skjule sin identitet, for jeg har ikke set den endnu. Det jeg ser er, at praktisk talt hele det vestlige etablissement, med nogle få undtagelser, som Ungarns regering, nogle få andre mennesker – men generelt opfører etablissementet i de vestlige lande sig højst besynderligt. De forholder sig til et gammelt paradigme, når det paradigme er ved at blive afmonteret og opløst for øjnene af alle, der ønsker at se det.  Og jeg har ikke set…

Se for eksempel Ursula von der Leyen, formanden for EU-Kommissionen, hun tager til Brasilien og forsøger at overbevise præsident Lula om, at han ikke skal være på russernes og kinesernes side. Og disse ledere af udviklingslandene har draget konklusionen af, hvad det vil sige at være i en situation, hvor udvikling bliver forhindret.  Så Lula tog til Kina, til Shanghai, og sammen med Dilma Rousseff, den tidligere præsident i Brasilien, blev hun indsat som ny præsident for Den Nye Udviklingsbank. Og Lula sagde, at denne bank vil blive den helt afgørende bank for det Globale Syd, og de vil udstede udviklingskreditter, så underudviklingen og fattigdommen i alle udviklingslande kan overvindes. Og der er en stemning, en klar fornemmelse af, at koloniseringen er slut!

Og jeg tror ikke, at de vestlige eliter begriber det. Jeg tror det kræver, at det Globale Syd bliver endnu stærkere, og dag for dag kan jeg sige, når jeg ser, hvad folk i det Globale Syd siger, at de bliver mere selvbevidste, de finder sig ikke i det her længere, og jo stærkere et modspil der kommer, jo bedre.  Nu tror jeg, at de først skal chokeres, for uden det tror jeg ikke, at de vil tænke intelligente tanker, men derefter tror jeg, at vi er nødt til at bevæge os mod et højere paradigme, og jeg tror, at Kina i sidste ende vil holde fast i sit win-win-samarbejde for hele verden; Xi Jinping har udarbejdet det Globale Sikkerhedsinitiativ, det Globale Udviklingsinitiativ og det Globale Civilisatoriske Initiativ som verdensomspændende forslag til at bevæge sig mod et nyt paradigme.  Og i sidste ende må vi overbevise befolkningerne i USA og Europa om, at de ikke skal konfrontere denne nye økonomiske verdensorden, der er ved at opstå, men tilslutte sig den. Jeg tror, det er den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan undgå en katastrofe.

Så det er en stor opgave, og det er derfor, vi har brug for hver eneste person. Så hvis du sidder i Algeriet, så slut dig til vores kamp. Hjælp os, bliv medlem af vores internationale fredskoalition. For vi er nødt til at gøre det til et absolut verdensomspændende fænomen, hvor folk vitterligt bliver verdensborgere, fordi vores allesammens eksistens er helt og aldeles på spil.

SCHLANGER: Her er to spørgsmål, som jeg synes er svar på den konference, vi havde lørdag den 10. juni. Eric fra Filippinerne spørger: “Hvad er den skjulte trussel mod verdensfreden?” Han sagde: “Der er al den diskussion, men ikke nok handling. Hvad er det, der holder det tilbage?”
Og så er der et spørgsmål fra Texas: “Er du bekymret for CIA i dag og muligheden for indblanding i valget i 2024?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Tja, jeg tror, at svaret på det sidste spørgsmål er ret klart. Jeg mener, præsident Trump siger nu dybest set, at USA’s retssystem er på spil, og den kendte journalist Patrick Lawrence sagde det samme med eftertryk. Jeg tror, det er rigtigt: For det de gør nu mod – jeg ved ikke, om det er CIA eller FBI eller hvem som helst – men det de gør mod tidligere præsident Trump, er virkelig udtryk for selektiv retfærdighed. For hvad skete der med Hillary Clinton? Blev hun nogensinde stillet til regnskab for Russiagate, som viste sig at være en løgn? Hvad med Hunter Bidens computer og hans affærer i Ukraine? Hvad med andre mennesker, der havde klassificerede dokumenter i deres private hjem? Jeg tror, at Pence var en af dem, og flere andre.  Så det er meget tydeligt, at dette er rettet mod præsident Trump, og at de ønsker at forhindre ham i at være en handlekraftig kandidat ved næste valg.

Jeg synes, at Trump på nuværende tidspunkt burde overveje, om han skulle have afklassificeret Russiagate-dokumenterne – og vigtigst af alt, om han skullle have givet oprejsning til min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, for det apparat, der nu går efter Trump, er nøjagtig den samme struktur, og nogle gange endda de samme mennesker, som retsforfulgte min afdøde mand, og som forsøgte at lukke vores bevægelse ned, med det Ramsey Clark havde kaldt den mest utrolige omgåelse af USA’s retssystem i historien nogensinde. Og jeg tror ikke, at det er blevet mindre, bare på grund af det der sker mod Trump lige nu.
For det der skete mod Lyndon LaRouche {var} den største forbrydelse, og ikke kun på grund af det,der blev gjort mod ham og os, men fordi det fratog det amerikanske folk muligheden for at se den eneste løsning, som ville have gjort det muligt for USA at opnå en helt anden verden.

Så Trump burde ikke have – hvis han ønskede at benåde Steve Bannon, er det én ting. Men for ikke at frifinde Lyndon LaRouche, så tror jeg, at han nu betaler regningen for at have været så kortsigtet ikke at forstå at gøre det, for det der skete med ham ville ikke være sket, hvis han havde gjort det. Men jeg synes, at situationen i USA er ekstremt farlig, og det er helt klart et forsøg på at afvikle hele det præsidentielle valgsystem, og det bør alle naturligvis være ekstremt bekymrede over.
Hvorfor sker alt dette, for at vende tilbage til det første spørgsmål? Vi er ved enden af et system, og det er sket adskillige gange i historien, 16 gange eller deromkring, at et helt system går i opløsning. Og jeg tror, at Kinas tidligere ambassadør i USA har påpeget det faktum, at 14 gange blev det til en større krig, og det er naturligvis den største fare, vi ser lige nu. Men vi oplever afslutningen på det neoliberale system, afslutningen på det kolonialistiske system, afslutningen på den unipolære verden og fremkomsten af et nyt verdenssystem, en multipolær verden, som endnu ikke er færdig – den kæmper. Den har fødselssmerterne fra en igangværende fødsel, men den er der ikke endnu. Så jeg tror, vi befinder os i en meget vanskelig og farlig situation, og derfor kan vi kun sige, at vi har brug for, at hver eneste sjæl på planeten bliver aktiv sammen med os for at forsøge at sikre, at denne periode i historien ender positivt og varer ved.

SCHLANGER: Vi har stadig et par minutter til spørgsmål. Helga, jeg har et til dig fra Takis, som gennemgår en liste over kriser, som menneskeheden står over for i dag: biokemisk krigsførelse, advarsler om en farligere pandemi, tredje verdenskrig i Europa, ødelæggelsen af Europa.  Og så kommer han til det, som han finder bekymrende, nemlig devalueringen af menneskelivet. Og han sagde: “Hvordan kan vi italesætte disse problemer med udgangspunkt i at genoprette værdierne? Hvad kan vi gøre?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg tror, at det, du beskriver, udelukkende sker i dele af verden. Det sker i høj grad i USA, og det sker i stigende grad i Europa. I USA kan du nævne den lange liste over masseskyderier, selvmord blandt unge, stofmisbrug og alle disse ting, og i Europa, hvor det er en meget farlig diskussion, er der nu en debat om aktiv dødshjælp, ikke eutanasi, men medicinsk hjælp til at begå selvmord for folk, der beslutter sig for det.  Det lyder måske som en humanitær bekymring, men hvis man kender historien om aktiv dødshjælp, især i Tyskland, så var det i Nürnberg, hvor folk advarede om, at hvis man sætter spørgsmålstegn ved det enkelte livs hellighed, så sætter man alt på højkant; jeg kender ikke dette ord på engelsk, men på et plan, hvor når man først begynder at have en nedadgående bevægelse, kan det hurtigt gå hele vejen, [glidebane], som vi så i Tyskland for 80 år siden.  Så det er meget slemt.

Men heldigvis tror jeg, at det i mange dele af verden, især i Asien, har taget en helt anden vej. Der er mange forskere i Indien, Kina og de sydøstasiatiske lande, som er absolut optimistiske med hensyn til menneskets evne til at frembringe videnskabelige resultater, til at overvinde enhver barriere, og de forbinder det med deres kulturs 5.000 år gamle historie.  Så heldigvis er der en meget stærk tendens til at gå i den anden retning, til at sætte livet og værdierne på den højeste piedestal og gøre det til grundlaget for tilværelsen.

Se, det vi nu skal gøre i Europa og USA, er at forbinde os med vores bedste traditioner: Amerika? Altså, vi havde Den amerikanske Frihedskrig: Uafhængighedskrigen var den første anti-kolonialistiske krig i historien. Gå tilbage til det. Bekæmp briterne igen, det ville være meget sundt at smide alle disse rådgivere fra Washington ud, som hvisker etablissementet i ørerne inde på Beltway. Vi har i stedet John Quincy Adams, vi har Lincoln, vi har FDR, John F. Kennedy, og frem for alt Lyndon LaRouche, Martin Luther King og nogle andre.

I Europa har vi en utrolig rigdom: Vi har Den italienske Renæssance, vi har perioden med Ecole Polytechnique i Frankrig, vi har Tyskland, vi har et væld af fremragende videnskabsfolk, opdagelsesrejsende, komponister, digtere – og alt, hvad vi skal gøre, er at genskabe forbindelsen til denne tradition. Og hvis jeg ikke havde håbet om, at det er muligt, selv på et sted så besat som Tyskland, lige nu, at Leibniz’, Schillers, Beethovens, {Niende Symfoni}s ånd, at alt dette kunne komme til live igen, ville jeg have forladt politik for længe siden.  Men jeg er helt overbevist om, at det er muligt, for den menneskelige natur er i bund og grund god, og den har behov for at se et perspektiv, og det er derfor, Schiller Instituttet er her.

SCHLANGER: Den engelske sætning, du ledte efter, er “slippery slope”, at når man først bevæger sig ud på den glidebane, bevæger man sig direkte ind i fascismens og folkemordets helvede.

Helga, når det gælder kultur, har jeg endnu et spørgsmål til dig, som jeg blev opmærksom på fra en person, der sendte mig en video af en person, der talte om kampen for at vende tilbage til en kammertone, stemning af C ved 256, for at få tonen C stemt til frekvensen 256 hz: Det var en stor kampagne, der blev ført af din mand, og som fik enorm respons i Italien, fordi det var kendt som “Verdi-stemningen”. Og så dukkede der lige en video op af en person, der starter med at tale om, at dette er Verdis “skøre idé”, og italienerne har taget den til sig. Og han sagde, så jeg undersøgte det nærmere, og hvad fandt jeg? Bag det stod den “skøre” Lyndon LaRouche. Og så gengav han alle bagtalelserne om Lyn.  Men jeg synes, det er interessant, at det kommer op nu, netop på et tidspunkt, hvor du diskuterer vigtigheden af at vende tilbage til den klassiske tradition. Så jeg tænker på, om du har nogle overvejelser om det?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Den kampagne var faktisk ekstremt vigtig, fordi den blev støttet af alle de store sangere på det tidspunkt – alle! Du kan se på listen over underskrifter, fra Renata Tebaldi til Cappuccilli til Carlo Bergonzi – simpelthen alle, faktisk underskrev hundredvis af topsangere fra hele verden den kampagne, fordi de var meget glade, for hvis du stemmer højere i A=440-området, og endda højere end det, er det meget dårligt for den menneskelige stemme. Og især unge sangere, der er tvunget til permanent at have deres tonehøjde i en højere stemning, mister deres stemme, fordi det skader stemmebåndene.
Det er interessant, at dette tydeligvis også var tilfældet for instrumenterne: Naturligvis er blæseinstrumenterne én ting, men for eksempel arbejdede vi og havde faktisk et meget dybt venskab med Norbert Brainin, første violinist i Amadeus-kvartetten. Og han havde en såkaldt Stradivari, og han udførte et eksperiment i studierne i nærheden af sit sommerhus i Italien, hvor han lavede en test. Og han kunne bevise, at Stradivari var skabt på en sådan måde, at den var beregnet til at blive spillet i den lavere stemning A=432, og at det at spille den i A=440 og højere skabte et stress på instrumentet, der beskadigede det på lang sigt.

Så det er et meget vigtigt spørgsmål, for man tænker måske: “Hvad betyder det, om det er lidt højere eller ej?” Men hvis man f.eks. tænker på sangernes registerskift, og hvis man har et tysk digt, der er komponeret til en sang, har komponisten – Schumann, Schubert, Beethoven – en meget klar forståelse af det, og hvis der er en højere stemning, gør man noget ved kompositionen, som har tendens til at ødelægge den. Så selv om det kan virke som et lidt indforstået anliggende, der kun er interessant for musikere, er det, hvis man virkelig begynder at studere klassisk musik og kompositionen, og undersøger hvad der skal til for at få skønheden og sandheden frem i en komposition, disse spørgsmål, der giver en indsigt i, hvad der var komponistens og digterens hensigt, de to sammen i et højere kunstværk.
Så det er slet ikke esoteriske spørgsmål, og jeg synes, det er meget godt, hvis det kommer op, for måske føler nogle musikelskende mennesker sig opmuntrede til at se på vores kampagne og finde en grund til at forny den, hvilket jeg tror ville være meget gavnligt for alle.

SCHLANGER: Det er vigtigt, at du bringer det på bane, kampen for skønhed og sandhed, som vi havde et klip med fra John Kennedy, hvor han netop pointerede, at “det er det, der gør livet på denne jord værd at leve.”  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCIg6fTPA5U] Så Helga, tak fordi du er med os i dag. Vi ser frem til dine fortsatte indlæg, og vi ses igen i næste uge.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja! Og husk nu at blive aktiv sammen med os. Det er det vigtigste, man kan gøre i et ekstraordinært historisk øjeblik som det, vi befinder os i lige nu.




Dialog i Danmark mellem Pakistans viceudenrigsminister H.E. Hina Rabbani Khar og
Schiller Instituttets stifter og international formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Den 10. juni 2023 (EIRNS)-En 15-minutters dialog til offentlig omtale fandt sted i går mellem H.E. Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistans viceudenrigsminister (Minister of State for Foreign Affairs) (siden april 2020), og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og international formand af Schiller Instituttet, i anledning af minister Khars besøg i Danmark. Pakistans ambassade i Danmark havde inviteret Schiller Instituttet til en drøftelse med hende, hvori Helga Zepp-LaRouche deltog via Zoom. Til stede var også Tom Gillesberg, formand, og Michelle Rasmussen, viceformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark.

YouTube-videoen er tilgængelig her: https://youtu.be/4GtJMFd-T0c

Følgende blev inkluderet i pressemeddelelsen udsendt af Pakistans udenrigsministerium:

“Viceudenrigsministeren talte med den danske afdeling af Schiller Instituttet om Pakistans tilgang til vigtige regionale og internationale forhold. Den internationale præsident for Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, deltog i samtalen via Zoom.”

Pressedækning: Pressemeddelelsen fra Pakistans udenrigsministerium vedrørende minister Khars rejse til Danmark og Finland, herunder hendes møde med Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, blev offentliggjort af pakistanske medier, herunder The International News og The Nation, Dispatch News Desk, samt dækning i Radio Pakistan, The Business Reporter og Urdu Point, som udelukkende nævnte Schiller Instituttet i Danmark. Den blev også inkluderet i ministeriets RSS-feed og vist på Pakistans ambassades hjemmeside i Danmark og sandsynligvis på de andre ambassader rundt om i verden. 

H.E. Hina Rabbani Khar er en ledende politiker i Pakistan, som har været udenrigsminister (2011-2013), finansminister (2008-2011) og økonomiminister (2003-2007) samt medlem af parlamentet. Hun repræsenterer Pakistan People’s Party. Minister Khar fungerer som viceminister i udenrigsministeriet næst efter udenrigsministeren.

På udenrigsministeriets hjemmeside står der: “Hendes periode som udenrigsminister huskes bedst for det “regionale omdrejningspunkt” i Pakistans udenrigspolitik, hvor hun koncentrerede sig om at opbygge bånd til Pakistans nærmeste nabolande. Dette omfattede normaliseringen af handelsforbindelserne med Indien, og en politik der rakte ud til alle politiske partier og etniciteter i Afghanistan. Hendes tid inden for finans og økonomiske anliggender omfattede Pakistans bilaterale og multilaterale økonomiske diplomati.

“Hina Rabbani Khar dimitterede fra det prestigefyldte Lahore University of Management and Sciences med en kandidatgrad i økonomi og tog senere en mastergrad i ledelse fra University of Massachusetts i Amherst.” (https://mofa.gov.pk/minister-of-state/ )

Referat af mødet:

Dialogen i går begyndte med en kort introduktion af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, fremført af Michelle Rasmussen fra Schiller Instituttet i Danmark.

Minister Khar beskrev derefter nogle af de udfordringer, Pakistan står overfor midt i den nuværende verdenskrise. Her følger en sammenfatning af nogle vigtige punkter.

Ministeren fortalte, at hun gerne ville beskrive, hvordan “resten”, som ikke er en del af “Vesten”, anskuer situationen. “Hvordan er vi endt i en verden, hvor suveræne lande bliver adspurgt: “Hvilken side er du på?”” Vi er på vores egen pakistanske banehalvdel, hvor vi allierer os med det ene eller det andet land eller den ene eller den anden gruppe af lande i overensstemmelse med vores interesser og værdier. Det, der truer os nu, er, at vi siden 1945 har fået at vide, at vi skal have frihandel, fri bevægelighed for varer, investeringer, mennesker og information, og nu får vi besked på, at vi skal opføre barrierer.

Hvert land har lært sin egen lektie af, hvordan verdens beslutninger er blevet truffet. De to interventioner, som inkluderer den der har været i Afghanistan i 40 år, har været meget bekostelige. Kameraerne bevæger sig væk, men kaos er stadig til stede. Nogle lande udtalte på FN’s Doha Afghanistan Forum, at de ikke havde fejlet – de havde haft succes med at indføre sanktioner og sikre, at de ikke havde adgang til deres reserver. Det betyder kvælning af en økonomi. Skal piger, der ikke kan gå i skole, heller ikke have mad? Er det vores reaktion på et regime, vi ikke kan lide?

Pakistan er udfordret med hensyn til at brødføde og uddanne egne børn, øge BNP og håndtere de katastrofale hændelser, som klimaforandringerne fører med sig. COVID og klimaforandringerne afslørede, at vi ikke kan sikre os selv inden for vores grænser. Det er trist og en smule umodent, at vi på et tidspunkt, hvor vi burde forberede regler for kunstig intelligens og klimaforandringer, har meget travlt med at opdele verden i stadig flere stykker.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (omskrevet): Helga takkede indledningsvist ministeren for muligheden for at tale med hende. Jeg er dybt bekymret over faren for verdenskrig, som er meget overhængende med kombinationen af Ukraine-krisen og forsøget på at etablere et Globalt NATO. Men jeg ønsker ikke udelukkende at fokusere på det.

Samtidig har vi et utroligt potentiale, fordi Den alliancefrie Bevægelse, som var mere eller mindre ude af drift – jeg kan nævne, at min mand, Lyndon LaRouche, udviklede Den Internationale Udviklingsbank i 1976, og vi førte samtaler med disse lande, som praktisk talt vedtog forslaget på deres konference i Colombo, Sri Lanka. Det fungerede ikke på det tidspunkt, på trods af at størstedelen af verden ønskede en ny økonomisk orden. Lande blev destabiliseret – Indira Gandhi (Indien), fru Bandaranaike (Sri Lanka), Ali Bhuttos tragiske historie i Pakistan.

I de senere år, primært på grund af Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet (fra Kina) og potentialet for ægte økonomisk udvikling, som China-Pakistan Economic Corredor (CPEC) i Pakistan, er der sket en genoplivning af Den alliancefrie Bevægelse og Bandung-ånden (byen i Indonesien, hvor bevægelsen blev stiftet) – at det er muligt at gøre en ende på kolonialismen én gang for alle.

Det er et enormt potentiale, for hvis man udelukkende ser på verden fra det Globale Nord og konflikten med Rusland og Kina, ser det næsten håbløst ud. Hvis verden falder i to helt adskilte blokke, er jeg enig med Dr. Mahathir fra Malaysia i, at det udgør faren for Tredje Verdenskrig.

Det Globale Syd, som repræsenterer størstedelen af menneskeheden, og hvor stemningen er optimistisk, hvilket ses af, at 30 lande har ansøgt om at blive medlemmer af BRICS, må fremstå med en meget tydeligere stemme. Som præsident Sukarno (Indonesien) og Nehru (Indien) sagde i Bandung, hvis der kommer en verdenskrig, vil den påvirke det Globale Syd lige så meget som Nord. Det giver det Globale Syd ret til at lade deres stemme høre.

Det er derfor, jeg har foreslået en global sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur med ti principper, som jeg gerne vil gøre jer opmærksomme på, fordi det skal diskuteres.

På randen af tredje verdenskrig og sammenbruddet af den atlantiske verdens finansielle system er spørgsmålet, om vi, som den eneste kreative art vi kender, er i stand til at skabe en verdensorden for alle nationers overlevelse og udvikling?

Minister Khar: Jeg er fuldstændig enig med dig. Jeg har lige talt ved European Council on Foreign Relations, og jeg fik at vide, at min tale var meget forfriskende, selv om den bare skulle have været ganske almindelig. Mens du talte, skrev jeg ned, hvad jeg vil skrive en artikel om: Syd er det nye Nord. Vi minder resten af verden om de ting, vi har lært, og som vi ikke kommer til at glemme.

Jeg betragter det som konkurrence, der ændrer sig til konfrontation og derefter måske til konflikt. Og vi mangler samarbejde, som er fuldstændig udeladt. Det er næsten, som om man ikke kan samarbejde i verden, at den splittes i to.

Jeg vil læse de ti principper, og det vil virkelig være umagen værd for os at tilegne det, og sætte det ind i vores tænkning, og introducere det til Udenrigsministeriet. Og så er der “Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen (Schiller Instituttets og EIR’s specielrapporter)”. Lad os holde kontakten. Det, vi potentielt kan se på, er måske en lektion til vores udenrigstjenestes akademi, så vi er i stand til at formidle dette til en bredere kreds.

Afslutningsvis takkede Michelle Rasmussen minister Khar for at give os mulighed for at præsentere vores synspunkter og overrakte hende tre specialrapporter, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge bind 1 og 2 og Extending the New Silk Road to the West Asia and Africa, som hun satte stor pris på. Minister Khar takkede derefter Helga Zepp-LaRouche og de to medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet fra Danmark.




Risikoen ved Vestens “Kina-strategi”?
International online-konference onsdag den 7. juni 2023 

Vi inviterer dig hermed til et onlineforum for at diskutere udfordringerne ved Vestens nuværende Kina-politik. 

Blandt talerne er 

– Helga Zepp-LaRouche, præsident for Det Internationale Schiller Institut, Tyskland 

– Zhang Jun, dekan for den økonomiske skole på Fudan Universitet i Shanghai, Kina 

– Charles Liu, Senior Fellow ved Taihe Institute, Kina 

– Ole Döring, professor ved Institut for Fremmedsprogsstudier ved Hunan Normal Universitetet, Kina

I det nuværende geopolitiske miljø bevæger vestlige ledere sig væk fra at referere til Kina som en “partner” og betoner Kina i højere grad som en “rival”. For eksempel har EU-Kommissionen for nyligt promoveret “de-risking” for at reducere Europas påståede afhængighed af Kina i visse økonomiske sektorer. USA’s “afkoblingsstrategi” søger at afskære Kina fra de teknologiske forsyningskæder. Og den tyske regering har erklæret Kina for en sikkerhedsrisiko og arbejder på en plan om at indføre import- og eksportkontrol, investeringsbarrierer og andre sanktioner mod Kina. 

Kina understreger på den anden side, at hvis landene ønsker at reducere risikoen, bør de handle mere med Kina. Hvad er mulighederne og potentialerne ved disse to synspunkter? Vestlige sanktioner mod russiske energiråvarer og varer har allerede vist den modsatte effekt og har i høj grad givet bagslag for Europa. Vil de vestlige ledere lære af denne fiasko og forhindre endnu en alvorlig fejlvurdering? 

I realiteten er Kina verdens vigtigste handels- og produktionscenter, og dets Bælte- og VejInitiativ bringer infrastrukturudvikling til de fleste lande, der har et behov for det. Vil Vesten reflektere over dette faktum og skabe et nyt paradigme for fredeligt win-win-samarbejde? Da den vestlige “fortælling” ikke levner plads til en sådan debat, ønsker vi at skabe en platform, hvor en bred alliance af internationale tænkere, iværksættere og politiske strateger kan føre en offentlig dialog.

June 7, 2023 (EIRNS)—Preliminary report on the June 7 Schiller Institute Webinar: “What Are the Risks of the West’s ‘China Strategy’”?

Stephan Ossenkopp, moderator, made some initial observations. During the last few days, the head of the BND has alleged that 40,000 Chinese students in Germany could potentially be working as spies. Authorities will closely monitor cooperation in the scientific and high-tech fields. G7 will monitor investments by member nations in China, and the EU has announced sanctions on companies which are allegedly helping Russia.

Helga: She commented on what she called an ominous new word, “de-risking.” “What is at stake is much more than the economic relation between Europe and China; it is the existence of Germany as an industrial state.” The “North” (the Atlantic nations plus Japan) is going not only against China, but against the BRICS and de facto against the entire Global South. She agrees with Malaysia’s Mahathir that this leads to WWIII. Concerning the situation in Germany, she marveled at “the amazing lack of interest” by the German government in investigating the sabotage of Nordstream. She reported a number of devastating statistics for the German economy, including that up to 46% of German industrial companies are considering relocation to US or China. She sees an impending systemic crisis, because the essential problem went unresolved in 2008. BRI gives 150 nations their first opportunity to realize their innate right to overcome poverty and underdevelopment. The Chinese economy is the world’s true growth engine. “President Lula heralded the new development bank headquartered in Shanghai as the coming great bank of the Global South.” “For Germany and other European nations, a positive future without cooperation with the Global South is impossible.”

Prof. Zhang Jun: The West tries to isolate China, but China can sustain its economic development by itself if necessary, including developing its own technologies to replace those being denied to it by the West (which may not be a bad thing; in the long run, this will prompt China to speed up its R&D.) Likewise, Western nations can find an alternative to the supply chain of China, but it will come with a high cost.

Ole Döring: He lamented the “serious, unprecedented, unfortunate and entirely unnecessary confrontation” between the West and China. Speaking of the West: “After 1989, they have entered a mind-zone called The End of History.” He referenced Immanuel Kant: “Concepts without experience are empty; experiences without concepts are blind.” He went on to say that “Contextual concepts such as race, gender and even culture have been deprived of their real meaning and have become weaponized.” “The Tower of Babel is crumbling once again.” “The West needs fresh input of realism and pragmatism in order to regain a humanistic balance. Such input can come from peoples and cultures who are eager to learn, and willing and able to share. Obviously, this makes China the number one choice as an ally….”
Döring approvingly quoted a German business leader who called for culture, science, or youth exchange with China. “However, if we use the wrong terms to describe ourselves and each other, we run a high risk, we get stuck in the past, we misjudge each other, and create avoidable misunderstandings…. Those who define human relationships as systems cut into their own flesh.”

Charles Liu: “It’s not just China, it’s the growth of Asia, the swing from the West to the East,” which “had China at its core.” “What we had in China, was the building of the most sophisticated, and the most modern, supply chain, and the logistics system, that exists in the world today.” He quoted Deng Xiaoping: “To get wealthy, you have to build a road first.” What China wants, is not to hear preaching from Europe about political correctness. China wants peace and stability, so that everybody can develop and benefit. Europe risks totally becoming a vassal of the Americans, and missing the boat of the BRI and the many benefits it brings.

Final remarks:
Ole Döring: Another “take home” from Kant: freedom means responsibility. There is no human being without education. Can we combine Kant and Confucius for education?

Charles Liu: Decoupling, interruption of supply chain, will cause social disorder, downgrading of living standards all over the world. Even without WWIII we could have a mess all over the world.

Helga: This moment of hope, when we could have a new era for mankind, could be ruined by de-risking/decoupling. Confucius’s image of “the sage” and Schiller’s Beautiful Soul are compatible visions of what is needed. Young Chinese are interested in Europe’s classical culture, we need to make the interest mutual.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 8. juni 2023 med formand Tom Gillesberg:
Mette Frederiksen vil lede verden i krig mod Rusland,
helst som NATO’s nye generalsekretær




Webcast med Helga Zepp LaRouche 31 maj: Læren af den 10. juni 1963:
Fred afhænger af at genskabe USA’s bedste traditioner

I en omfattende diskussion i dag rapporterede Schiller Instituttets Helga Zepp-LaRouche om sit netop afsluttede besøg i Kina, og det håb, der eksisterer blandt befolkningen dér for fredelige relationer med USA, på trods af de ” forværrede relationer” mellem de to nationer.

Hun indledte med at beskrive, hvordan intet af det, hun oplevede under sin rejse, passer med det negative syn på Kina, som vi hører om i Vesten.  Hun gik i detaljer med dette, da hun svarede på et spørgsmål om, hvorvidt Kina har en “dyb stat”, som skjuler sine sande hensigter.  Selv om deres stat ikke er perfekt, sagde hun, gør engagementet i det fælles bedste folk optimistiske, i modsætning til den fremherskende pessimisme blandt amerikanske og europæiske borgere om fremtiden.  Der er bekymring for, hvorvidt en krig mellem Kina og USA kan blive fremprovokeret af de kræfter, der er forbundet med Global NATO.  Hun fordømte den “dæmonisering” af Kina, som er typisk for vestlige medier og politikere, og foreslog at de, der er bekymrede for Kinas hensigter, skulle besøge landet for selv at se, hvad der foregår der.

Hun talte også om betydningen af mindehøjtideligheden for præsident Kennedys tale den 10. juni 1963, da det er en “smuk tale”, som afspejler et andet paradigme for Amerika, som de fleste unge mennesker ikke er klar over.  Som svar på et spørgsmål om, hvordan vi kan genskabe vores forfatningsmæssige friheder og umistelige rettigheder, understregede hun vigtigheden af de begivenheder, der er planlagt som en del af mobiliseringen den 10. juni.  Hvis USA ikke får disse rettigheder tilbage, konkluderede hun, vil hele verden lide under det.

Afskrift af webcast på engelsk.

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello welcome to our dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and Chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. It’s May 31, 2023, and I’m Harley Schlanger and I’ll be your host. You can send in your questions to questions@schillerinstitute.org.  

Helga has just returned from a trip to the People’s Republic of China. What an amazing time to make such a trip, as we are now, in a sense, in the midst between two paradigms: One, a paradigm of war that’s being directed by NATO, by the United Kingdom, and the United States against Russia in Ukraine, with an escalation virtually every day; and on the other side, a tremendous mobilization for a new paradigm of cooperation based on economic development. And for the new paradigm, the Chinese government is engaging in both economic and diplomatic policies toward that new paradigm. We have on the one side, the post-G7 meeting with the promise of more weapons, more money, more war; and on the other side, we’re seeing a lot of diplomacy, the Eurasian Economic Union just met, the Argentine Finance Minister was in China; there’s more talk every day of a move toward use of national currencies and away from the dollar system controlled by Wall Street and the City of London.

So Helga, I’m sure you have quite a bit to say about the trip to China. Why don’t we begin with a report from you on what you found on your visit?

 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I’m very happy, because it is really important to be able to go places; with the three years pandemic, one was practically stuck in one place. And again, what I have experienced so many times, I have to reiterate: Being in China, and I visited many institutions, and we also were invited to visit all kinds of industrial places, exhibitions, firms; and I can only say that nothing ever has happened to me in China which would fit the absolutely negative picture which is being portrayed by the mainstream media in the West. And that is really very upsetting, because, I’m not saying that China is a perfect country, but it is absolutely not what is being said in the West! It’s a country which is incredibly different from the West; people are generally very optimistic, extremely determined to accomplish things, to get things done, to continue on the road to improve the wellbeing of the people. And obviously, one of the major differences is that the role of the common good, as opposed to the extreme individualism which we find in the West historically and culturally, is much more in the genes of the Chinese for thousands of years. 

So people are in a certain sense much more determined for the good of the country, and since we have now the 10 years anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative, this has been the most remarkable infrastructure project in the history of mankind, bringing economic development to many countries, especially in the Global South; and that reflects itself in the kind of diplomacy you just mentioned, because the countries of the Global South in general are extremely thankful that China reached out and gave them, for the first time, the opportunity to overcome poverty and underdevelopment, and nobody talks about the so-called “debt trap.” People are talking about, that they have now have perspectives, that they now have railways, ports, industrial parks. 

I can only say, what I have said many times in the past, but it is first of all totally unjust what is being done, the way China is being portrayed, because if you demonize a country which has no history of military aggression; if you look at the several thousand years of Chinese history, it had maybe a few wars, but as compared to the hundreds and hundreds of wars in the West, it is an absolutely non-aggressive country; it does not try to proselytize its own model; it does not demand that other countries buy into the political system of China; it has the highest respect for the different social systems that countries choose and their right to their own path. 

And naturally, right now, people are extremely concerned about the hardening of the relationship between the U.S. and China. And however, they don’t do it from a standpoint of defensiveness, they do it determined. I watched two Chinese movies with English subtitles, which were extremely interesting: One was on the history of the emergence of the Communist Party at the beginning of the 20th century; and the other one was about the developments of the People’s Republic of China after 1949. And when you watch these movies, you get a sense of the tremendous accomplishment, how China got rid of what they experienced as a great shame, the Century of Humiliation, the difficulties in founding the first traditional republic, and then more years of civil war, and then finally the creation of the People’s Republic. And they do not want to have that kind of trouble any more! So they will defend themselves, but they’re not aggressive.

However, the fact that recently, the Chinese Defense Minister refused to meet the American Defense Secretary in Singapore, in the context of the Shangri-La Dialogue security conference, reflects a hardened mood, that they do not want to be pushed around any more. And naturally, there is a big concern about the extension of Global NATO, the fact that Japan will open up a NATO office as of now, next year, in Tokyo; these are all questions of extreme concern. 

But anyway, if people have the chance to travel to China, it’s not inexpensive, but it is something somebody should do in their lifetime, once, and open your eyes and see with your own eyes what you see. And you will find that the reality of China is very, very different than what is being portrayed in the Western media. 

And given the fact that the two largest economies, the United States and China, if they don’t work together, the whole world suffers; and the present idea, to “decouple,” as it’s being pushed in the United States, or the more sophist way of saying the same thing coming from the European Union, to “de-risk”—what a word! This is a complete stupid word-creation—would be really devastating. It would be devastating for the world economy, and it would be catastrophic for European countries, and it would imply the danger of a military escalation as Dr. Mahathir of Malaysia, in my view, completely correctly analyzed it. He said, it would be a world catastrophe, if the world would fall into two different blocs and it would lead to a world war. 

What the Chinese say to all of this, they say, well, if the countries want to “de-risk” they should do more trade with China, because China is very reliable. So if you want to de-risk then come on and trade more.

Anyway, I would have a lot to say, but maybe some of the questions will cause me to say a couple of more things.

 

SCHLANGER: That’s a good start, and we do have more questions on China. But, this idea of “de-risk,” it reminds me of “pre-bunking.” There’s a whole new Orwellian vocabulary that’s being produced to explain away the intent for war that’s coming from NATO. 

We have a question from Maria, who’s the CEO of Music Box, Inc. She asks: “Of all that you saw, what was the greatest lesson you brought back from your trip?” 

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I don’t know this Music Box, but I actually met several people from the music field, and that was, in one sense the most impressive, because they were totally excited about European Classical music. I don’t know if that pleases the questioner, because I don’t know if this Music Box involves Classical music. But, for example, there is a whole renaissance of Classical music in China. A lot of young people—several people I talked with basically said, when you go to a concert in Europe, you see Beethoven or other Classical composers, you see a lot of gray heads or white heads, because mostly old people go to these concerts. In China, it’s the young people, who are completely enthusiastic about Classical music, because they recognize the absolutely important contribution to the development of creativity that Classical music does. 

So I would say that this cultural optimism and the openness for a dialogue with other cultures, definitely was one thing which impressed me the most. 

And otherwise, I would say, it’s the attitude, who Chinese are so oriented to get things done. In a certain sense, they have all the virtues the Germans used to have, but no longer have. They are industrious, they are punctual, they are reliable, they get their work done on time, they have a tremendous work morale. As I said, these were all virtues which Germany was once famous for in the 1950s and ‘60s, maybe into ‘70s, but now the Germans, especially younger people want to have more free time, they want to have more leisure, work is less important. I mean, there is a benefit for that, but the country as a whole suffers. 

I think, to sum up those two points, what impresses me all the time, the most, and this time also, is a general positive world outlook, and an optimism which comes from that.

 

SCHLANGER: Now, here’s a question that came in from someone in San José: Are the Chinese you met worried about the possibility the Biden administration would provoke a war over Taiwan? 

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think, yes. I think the idea that there could be a war is definitely in the minds of the more—the think tanks and the people who are in the political activities. And what should they say? They look at what happened with the NATO expansions in Europe, six NATO expansions which they clearly share the view of Russia and many countries in the Global South, that it was these NATO expansions which contributed essentially to this war in Ukraine. And then they look at Global NATO. You know, NATO was originally supposed to be a North Atlantic defensive alliance against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. And when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Warsaw Pact disappeared, NATO should have dissolved. And instead, now they are talking about “Global NATO,” into the Indo-Pacific. As I said, already, they want to open up an office in Japan, and naturally the various activities of NATO-related ships and forces in the South China Sea, and the continuous provocations around Taiwan, delivering weapons to Taiwan; Pelosi being de facto an official member of the government, despite the fact that she’s from the Congress, but in terms of line of succession hierarchy, she is in the line of the government of the United States. And despite the fact that the Biden administration also gives lip service to the One China policy, which is international law, nevertheless, they keep pushing the independence of Taiwan, encouraging forces there to go in that direction; and obviously, the Chinese do regard Taiwan as being part of mainland China, and they regard this as an extreme provocation and the red line which absolutely must not be crossed. 

So I think that there is clearly a determination. There were articles, not recently, but a little while ago, discussing if it would come to a military confrontation over Taiwan, or the PLA is absolutely convinced and certain that they would naturally win any such military confrontation:  Just look at the map—Taiwan is many thousands of miles away from the United States, and just a few miles away from the mainland, so who has the logistical advantage is pretty clear. And naturally, as long as it remains conventional, nobody has a chance to mess around with Taiwan.

So, I think they are worried, and I think that that is why the relationship between China and Russia, I think is absolutely there to stay. And if you look at the economic power of China and the military power of Russia as a combination, it’s definitely something one should not mess with.

 

SCHLANGER: I’ll take up one more question on China right now from Patricia, who asks something that I hear with some frequency: Is there a deep state in China that Biden works with? And is there a front that you may have met, that seems to be more friendly, that’s a fake, but really is part of the deep state as a deception?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Uh—I think that that is completely off the wall. The Communist Party is in control of the country. They have something which is called “whole-process democracy,” and it’s actually quite impressive. I think, if you are interested to really find out about China, you should look at that more closely. Because, they have a system whereby nobody makes a career, who does not go through all the different steps of government, starting with a local level; then if you are doing well on the local level, you will go to the county level; then from the county level to a municipal level; then from there to a provincial level. And you have to go through all of these different steps of leadership to qualify for higher positions of government, or even in the party. 

And the Chinese argue that that is a much better system, than the so-called Western parliamentarian democracy, or even the Presidential system in the United States, because, in Germany, for example, we had a politician once, whose name was Franz Müntefering, and he became sort of famous, because at one point he said, “Oh, it’s completely unfair to be reminded of promises I gave during the election campaign”—meaning that, a politician can say in the election campaign whatever he wants, and then it doesn’t matter what he does afterwards. 

In China, they are very proud to say there is an accountability, not only leading into this process of elections, but especially coming out of it, and making sure that whatever was discussed at various levels of decision-making is being carried out, and carried through, and that the accountability exists afterwards. 

So, I think whoever is spreading this idea about the “deep state” in China, I think it is really not existent. And President Xi Jinping in particular, he was extremely emphatic in the early years of his office, to make a campaign against corruption. And right now, you can see, this has really gotten through all pores of society: For example, when you try to give the waitress in a restaurant a tip, they don’t take it. They are basically told, and this is part of a long campaign, not to be susceptible to money, bribes and so forth. And I have only experienced that that is, indeed, the case. 

So, I think that there are definitely many problems which still have to be tackled; I think maybe people are working really very hard, and maybe people would enjoy to go more often to theaters. But the only real criticism I have met, and I always make it a point to talk to as many people as I can, was that the government is not doing enough: That all the laws are good, that the government is good, but if some problem occurs, it just means the government should be more forceful to make things function. And that is a completely different attitude than, let’s say in Germany, where people say, “Oh, too much government, and you can’t trust the government.” It’s the opposite in China.

So, I think that that line, and whoever has peddled that, has no credibility whatsoever. 

 

SCHLANGER: Now, here’s a question from someone who is organizing with the “Urgent Appeal,” that the Schiller Institute sent out. And by the way, let me remind people, we’re taking your questions at questions@schillerinstitutel.org, and you can still send in your questions now. 

But this is someone who is circulating the statement for signatures. She asks: “Can you say what you hope to accomplish with the statement the Schiller Institute issued, ‘Urgent Appeal by Citizens and Institutions from All Over the World to the (Next) President of the United States!’ What is the intent of circulating that?” [https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/urgent_appeal_by_citizens_and_institutions_from_all_over_the_world_to_the_next_president_of_the_united_states]

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, on the 10th of June is 60th anniversary of the famous speech by John F. Kennedy at the American University, which is generally called the “Peace Speech.” And if you haven’t don’t that yet, you should read that speech, or even listen to him on YouTube, because it is a beautiful speech, where Kennedy says that the world needs peace, coming from America, but not a Pax Americana, where the United States would enforce with weapons to subject all others and that way have a “peace of grave.” But to have a peace where each country can flourish and work together. [https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-university-19630610]

And it’s a very beautiful, poetical speech. And it is so important that people listen to that speech—there are also other, incredible speeches by Kennedy, for example, one where he talks about the importance of art and culture, which I can only underwrite every word he is saying there, that it is the culture of a country which is what makes it human and what makes it beautiful. [https://www.kennedy-center.org/video/digital-stage/other/2020/an-american-pageant-of-the-arts/]

First of all, many young people have no real idea who Kennedy was, because they were born long, long after he had been assassinated, and therefore they don’t have a vivid idea any more that he represented a completely different paradigm of American politics. And this is very important, because what I want to accomplish with that statement is, as I mentioned before: We are in an unbelievable historic transformation right now, of which people in the West are hardly aware. The Global South is shifting—first of all, they have a completely new self-assurance; they have the economic ties, especially with China, but also among each other, Brazil, India, Indonesia—these are all major countries that are now rising. And the danger would be that the West remains arrogant, and basically says, “who are these people from the South? They should be submitting to the unipolar world,” because they will not.  

And it would be very dangerous if you would have a complete separation into two blocs, a Western bloc, and a bloc of Russia, China, and the Global South, because you can’t solve the problems of the world by this separation.  And if the dynamic would continue, that it would all turn anti-America, which is clearly a tendency, because the United States—there was just a report by Brown University; and they made a study and they said the interventionist wars in which the United States was involved after 9/11, resulted in 4.5 million deaths! Now, that is an unbelievable figure! [https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2023/Indirect%20Deaths.pdf ] And naturally, there are many people in the Global South also, who are not exactly friendly to the United States, and that’s probably the understatement of the year. And it would be very devastating if that would remain like that. Because I think if that is the tendency, World War III is unfortunately very likely down the road, or sooner or later.

So, since Kennedy represents a completely different paradigm of American politics, more like it was meant to be with the Founding Fathers, the American Revolution, the War of Independence against the British Empire, John Quincy Adams’ conception of foreign policy; Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and then Kennedy, who, after all, defused the Cuban Missile Crisis, together with Khrushchev, and who had a very optimistic idea about the ability of man to solve any problems through science and technology. 

So, it’s a different paradigm. And by making this appeal, by saying, that what the whole world wishes, is that the United States would go back to that kind of a paradigm, which Kennedy represented. I think that first of all, it will help to educate people around the world to look at the United States in a more differentiated way, and hopefully, inside the United States also causes Americans to review their own history. Because, as my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, emphatically always said, that things went wrong with America after the assassination of Kennedy, and especially the cover-up through the Warrant Commission. Because, if you assassinate the President of a country, which, obviously, the “lone assassin” theory does not hold for one minute, and then you have a cover-up and the institutions of that country are not able to remedy that, or find out the truth and find justice, this is an extremely—this was a break in the history of the United States. And the last 50, now 60 years, that is something one has to work through and find back to the kinds of values that existed with Franklin Roosevelt, with Kennedy, and I think that that’s the purpose. 

And I always think one should relate to the best tradition of the other, and not the worst. When I founded the Schiller Institute in 1984, the main purpose was to contribute to a just, new world economic order, and the idea that this is only possible if one has a renaissance of Classical culture and a dialogue of the best traditions of all cultures, with the idea that peace is really possible when you relate to the best of the other person, or the other country, or the other tradition, and vice versa. Because, when you bring forth what is good in the other, then that is the basis for peace.

So I hope with that, and the memory comes back, that America should become, again, a force for good in the world, and then the whole world would be peaceful, and happy.

 

SCHLANGER: OK. Happiness is important, as your husband always said, you have to “have fun.”

I have two more questions for you, Helga. One goes back to the war danger and it’s from Leo, who said: “Thank you for your good work.” He asks about NATO’s Air Defender 23 exercises coming up in about 10 days, will these be used as a cover, similar to what Seymour Hersh accused the NATO naval exercises in June 2022, to plant the explosives that blew up the Nord Stream pipelines. He said, “Could these exercises be used for a provocation?” 

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the reference to the Nord Stream pipelines, and how this maneuver was used, actually gives a reason for worry that something like that is possible.  But even without that, these Defender 23 maneuvers for sure will take place in a period of utmost tensions, already; escalated warfare, the recent new drone attacks into Moscow show—this is called a “terrorist act” by the Russians, and naturally, it’s an atmosphere of extreme tension. And even before, even without maneuvers, we had, in the last several years, so many incidents where fighter jets almost had collisions, or you had almost accidents with ships and jets. And I said: If world peace depends on the ability of a pilot to avoid an accident, you know, then we are really in bad shape! 

So, I think, that unfortunately, I have to say there is worry for this period, and we should really escalate our campaign, even if it does not look likely right now, that there must be negotiations.  And you have many forces—President Lula of Brazil, he’s all the time trying to get this peace club of the developing countries together; you have the Chinese trying to get support for their 12-point peace plan; which a high-ranking Chinese official just travelled throughout Europe, but he found very little response; Pope Francis is still very active, trying to promote the role of the Vatican for negotiations. So I think that that needs to be strengthened, and no matter what the refusal is, that is the way to go.

I can only say, we should all be mobilized, and we need a strong peace movement, a much stronger peace movement than we have right now. And the mobilization around June 10, where we have in many cities around the world, we have rallies in the morning and then at U.S. time in the afternoon, we have the conference, which I think takes place in Washington or New York.  But we have rallies around the world, so you should join them, and express your absolute determination to make the peace movement strong enough to be heard, and not to be overheard. 

 

SCHLANGER: And one of the ways you should do that is to do is to make a copy of the “Urgent Appeal by Citizens and Institutions from All Over the World to the (Next) President of the United States!” (https://assets.nationbuilder.com/schillerinstitute/pages/1092/attachments/original/1684363804/20230517_next_us_pres.pdf? ) Print it, copy it, distribute it, send it out via social media: Let’s get people talking about these ideas that Helga’s been presenting, in terms of what actually is the better tradition of the United States. 

And Helga, that brings me to the final question, from Lorry, who asks: “Will we ever get our inalienable rights and our Constitutional freedoms back in America?”

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it requires a new American Revolution. I can only say, if America does not get these inalienable rights back, the whole world will suffer.  Because, you have right now a situation where the United States is the strongest military power. Maybe Russia has certain technological advantages here and there, but the U.S. does have a mighty military complex, and not only that.

I think the whole fate of humanity depends on the answer to that question, to be positive. Because, we have a financial crisis, the Scylla and Charybdis between hyperinflation and the chain-reaction collapse is clearly presently there, and it’s reflected in the fact that the central banks are really hovering between interest rate rising and lowering and rising again. If you had a collapse of the system, I think that would mean a heightened danger of war, because I don’t think the West would disintegrate as peacefully as the Warsaw Pact did in 1991. 

So, the kind of reform and the kind of reorganization of the financial system, as part of a new global security and development architecture which the Schiller Institute has been mobilizing for, is really extremely urgent. And right now, I think a similar approach—and I can assure you quite independently of each other, because I did not consult with the Chinese before I made this proposal, and I can prove that (anyway, that’s a different matter). The Chinese government, otherwise, Xi Jinping has this triple approach of the Global Security Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative, which is all part of a  package. And that is a framework for such discussions.  And we have to convince our European countries, because I’ve almost given up the hope that you can convince the Western establishments, because they’re like the three monkeys—blind, deaf, and don’t speak. I think they’re so arrogant, and convinced that they’re superior, like Josep Borrell, that they’re sitting in a beautiful “garden” and the rest of the world is a “jungle”! I mean, the whole world laughs about that! But they don’t get it! They don’t get it! They just are completely unwilling and unable to review their own behavior and correct, if they would find it full of flaws; but it does not occur to them.

So I think we have to mobilize the citizens, and that is really a question of not only the United States needs to go back to its inalienable rights, but also all of Europe. Because Europe, right now, is not following its own interests; I think we are being forced into an unipolar world which is very detrimental to the interests of European nations. 

We need a mobilization of the state citizens, or citizens have to become state citizens, meaning they have to qualify to know what is going on and not just rely on the very evil mass media at this point, because they’re streamlined, in ways which have not happened in 80 years, in Germany, for sure. 

So, we need citizens to be awake, to study, to learn about foreign policy, to learn about economics, and take responsibility for your own country: And then, we have a chance. It means, you should work with us.

 

SCHLANGER: Well, let me thank all of you for your questions. We have run out of time and couldn’t take them all. But Helga, let me thank you: I know you’re somewhat jet-lagged, just coming back, but I’m sure everyone appreciates what you’ve contributed to the discussion, and will take seriously your appeal to join this mobilization to bring back the best tradition of America, and not just for America, but for everyone. 

So Helga, thanks again, and I’ll see you next week.

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till next week. 

 




Skriv under: Indtrængende appel fra borgere og institutioner fra hele verden
til den nuværende og kommende præsident i USA!

Underskriv venligst her på Schiller Instituttets internationale hjemmeside.

Den 10. juni er 60-årsdagen for den berømte tale af JFK på det Amerikanske Universitet, om det som han selv betegnede “det vigtigste emne på jorden: verdensfred”.

Præsident Kennedy holdt denne tale mindre end et år efter den cubanske missil-krise i 1962, midt i Den kolde Krig, men han var i stand til at få sine tilhørere til at hæve sig over den geopolitiske konflikt og til at anskue menneskehedens interesser som helhed.

I dag står vi over for en strategisk situation, der er betydeligt farligere end den, som opstod under højdepunktet af Cuba-krisen. De offensive NATO-våbensystemer er meget tættere på Ruslands grænse, end Cuba er på USA’s. 

NATO-våbnenes destruktionskraft er endnu kraftigere, varslingstiden før deres affyring kortere, og tilliden mellem lederne af de store atommagter er stort set ikke eksisterende, sammenlignet med relationen mellem Kennedy og Khrusjtjov.Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists har sat dommedagsuret til 90 sekunder før midnat, og det er måske for optimistisk.

Verden er i fare for at blive splittet i to blokke, en NATO-U.S.A.-Storbritannien-EU-blok og en blok bestående af Rusland, Kina og det ” Globale Syd”. Dette repræsenterer den akutte fare for en ny verdenskrig, som vil være atomar, og som derfor vil indebære udslettelse af den menneskelige art. Da Rusland og USA i øjeblikket råder over 90 % af samtlige kernevåben, rettet imod hinanden, og disse våben kunne ødelægge verden adskillige gange, er det et presserende anliggende for alle mennesker på jorden, at vi finder en udvej. Løsningen skal være på et plan, der overvinder geopolitik og tager udgangspunkt i den samlede menneskeheds interesse.

Vi, de undertegnede, udtrykker derfor vores håb om, at den nuværende og kommende præsident for USA finder storsindet i sig selv og indtager det synspunkt, som blev udtrykt af JFK i sin historiske tale.

Præsident Kennedy sagde den 10. juni 1963: “Hvilken form for fred mener jeg? Hvilken form for fred søger vi? Ikke en PaxAmericana, der påtvinges verden med amerikanske krigsvåben. Ikke en gravfred eller slavernes tryghed. Jeg taler om ægte fred, den form for fred, som gør livet på Jorden værd at leve og som gør det muligt for mennesker at vokse og håbe og bygge et bedre liv for deres børn – ikke blot fred for amerikanere, men fred for alle mænd og kvinder – ikke blot fred i vor tid, men fred for alle tider.«

Læs hele talen på engelsk her.

Mange vil måske mene, at det i dag er umuligt for en amerikansk præsident at fremføre en sådan tale. Og faktisk fremstilles den russiske præsident Putin i dag som mere ondskabsfuld end Khrusjtjov var dengang, og Kina fremstilles ligeledes som en stor trussel. Men præsident Kennedy roste ikke desto mindre russerne, og roste deres store bidrag inden for videnskab, industri og kultur. Han roste deres mod til at besejre Hitler i Anden Verdenskrig, hvor de ofrede mere end 26 millioner liv for denne sag. Verden har brug for en amerikansk præsident, der kan se den bedste tradition i hver enkelt nation, herunder Rusland og Kina, som grundlaget for gensidig tillid og grundlaget for fred.

Vi, de undertegnede ønsker, at Amerika igen skal være det Amerika, der blev udtrykt i denne smukke tale af JFK. Vi ønsker, at USA igen skal være et håbets fyrtårn. og et frihedens tempel. Vi mener, at dette er grundlaget for “fred for alle tider”, som JFK sagde.

Underskrivere: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet

Underskriv venligst her på Schiller Instituttets internationale hjemmeside.




Politisk orientering formand Tom Gillesberg
Fortsatte bankkriser viser, at Vesten også skal tilslutte sig
den nye kinesisk/russisk-ledte orden

Politisk orientering den 3. maj 2023 med formand Tom Gillesberg
Kontakt os: +45 53 57 00 51; +45 35 43 00 33, si@schillerinstitut.dk
Dansk: www.schillerinstitut.dk
English: www.schillerinstitute.com www.laroucheorganization.com www.larouchepub.com 




Helga Zepp-LaRouche giver interview til pakistansk tv om
“Ukraine-krisen og Kinas udenrigspolitik”

28. april 2023 (EIRNS)-Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav et interview til Pakistan TV Worlds “Views on News”-udsendelse den 27. april med titlen “Ukraine-krisen og Kinas udenrigspolitik”. Anker Jawad Tehami talte med fru Zepp-LaRouche og i studiet med admiral Farhat Hussain Khan (pensioneret), formand for Center for Aerospace and Security Studies. 

JAWAD TEHAMI:  Hello and welcome to Views on News; I’m Jawad Tehami. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping says that as a responsible nation, Beijing can’t be a bystander to the Ukraine conflict, and China always stands on the side of peace, and China’s goal position regarding the Ukraine conflict is to promote peace via talks. Now, this is what Chinese President Xi Jinping during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy which was an hour-long call. And this particular call has been termed as “meaningful” by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Earlier we saw that China released a 12-point peace proposal regarding the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, which was welcomed by both Russia and Ukraine, that urged for an immediate ceasefire and the resumption of the peace talks between the two conflict sites. [https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt_665385/2649_665393/202302/t20230224_11030713.html] However, the West, the U.S. and its NATO allies didn’t accept that particular peace proposal, rather questioned the position regarding China being a peace mediator or peace broker in this particular conflict. 

Now, specifically, talking about this phone call between Ukrainian President and Chinese President, Russia has welcomed Chinese initiative for a negotiated political settlement. The U.S. has also welcomed this particular phone call, yet, it has said that it is too soon to tell whether it will lead to a peace deal. 

On the other hand, we have seen that NATO’s chief Jens Stoltenberg has said that the U.S.-led alliance has provided over 98% of the combat vehicles. At the same time, in another major development, we’ve seen Britain’s Armed Forces Minister [James Heappey] told Parliament that the government has already started the shipment of depleted uranium ammunition to Ukraine. When the U.K. decided to provide Ukraine with the depleted uranium ammunition, it was strongly condemned by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said that Russia would be forced to act accordingly. Russian Defense Minister at the time had said that the British decision left fewer steps before the potential nuclear collision between Russia and the West. After that, Russia also decided to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the neighboring Belarus.

In today’s show we will be talking about how likely is the chance of a success of China’s mediation regarding the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, given the fact that recently we have seen a success on the foreign policy front for China, regarding the Iran-Saudi rapprochement and amid the continuity of the supply of weapons from NATO and the Western nations to Ukraine: What are the chances, is there any potential threat of a nuclear war between the West and Russia? 

To understand the entire gambit of this particular situation, we are honored to have been joined in the studio by Air Marshal (ret.) Mr. Farhat Hussain Khan; he’s president of the Center for Aerospace & Security Studies.  Mr. Farhat, thank you very much for your time for being with us on “Views on News.” We really appreciate that. On Skype at the same time, from Wiesbaden, Germany, we are being joined by Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. She is the founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. Mrs. LaRouche, thank you very much for your time, also for being with us on “Views on News” tonight. 

Let me begin with the first question towards you, Mrs. LaRouche: How important and significant was this call between the Ukrainian and Chinese President? And also Beijing saying it wants to send an envoy to Kiev, to mediate a political settlement.  How do you see that, also? 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think this is extremely important and urgent, given the fact that the world really is on the verge of a nuclear catastrophe. I think that if there’s any country which has the power and credibility to mediate this conflict, it is China. First of all, I think China proven in the past, absolutely, that it is impartial. It was able, as you just mentioned, to get the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia to the negotiation table, and now the President of Iran has been welcomed by Saudi Arabia, in a brotherly way—that’s a big jump forward.  And so I would really say that while the situation is extremely complex in Ukraine and around Ukraine, that there is a glimpse of hope, definitely. 

I think that what will come out of it, I personally think that President Zelenskyy is happy that President Xi Jinping has reached out to Ukraine in the way he did, because the Ukrainian people are the worst victims of this proxy war between the West and Russia, and they’re being slaughtered. And especially after the recent Pentagon leaks, where it came out that the United States government judged the military situation as being much worse than they were saying publicly—that, in my view, makes the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military the victims, the pawn, in a larger chess game. And the sooner that ends, the better. So I think this is extremely important.

If it will succeed? I think everybody has to be extremely watchful, because I think the United States is very factionalized. There are some people whom I would say are realists, like General Milley, who already several months ago demanded that there should be negotiations right now—and that is the military! So, there are some people who I think will be also backing this proposal, but there are also some hawks. For example, this week alone, there is a meeting of the “Free Nations of Post-Russia Forum” from the Hudson Institute and others, in Washington, even on Capitol Hill, who are talking about splitting Russia into 10 or 12 different pieces. And certain other people have talked about that the whole aim is to “weaken Russia,” to “ruin Russia,” and from the British side came not only the depleted uranium weapons, which I think is a total escalation, but also they have been pushing the Ukrainians to retake Crimea, and have what they call a ”Cuban missile crisis on steroids.” 

So this is a very complex situation, but I think if any country can do something, it is China. …

TEHAMI: … Air Marshal, your take on the phone call?


FARHAT HUSSAIN KHAN: Thank you very much. Actually, to stay right at the onset, this telephone call is very significant, even if it has made a small icebreaking. The reason being the Ukraine has taken a lot of tall in many fronts, politically, strategically, in military terms and also in the economic front of the entire world. And if you would allow me to call it, it is a mini-world war.  So any dent into pushing this crisis backward is a success. 

So therefore, we encourage it. It has been acknowledged by Russia and well as the United States, that’s one. Secondly, whenever such things happen, it is the credibility of the overture that matters. Now, look at China: go back by 20-30 years, in the entire process of world politics and the world order that we’ve been talking about, China has never been aggressive to any country, one. They have always talked of peace. When the U.S.-led coalition raised the hype of Indo-Pacific strategy to contain China, they also presented a five-point peace formula. So, Mr. Xi has demonstrated his abilities to conduct peace. That’s the viability behind the entire force. 

The other thing is, it has a relationship with Russia that can make the difference, second. 

Therefore, what is the cause of the war? The cause of the war is the Russian concern of security, that Ukraine should not form part of NATO. And there are other things also, but the prime demand here, they should not join NATO, so that we have a buffer between. So the players that are there, Russia and Ukraine, have assembly to look at in the form of President Xi as a peace mediator. 

I think while results will come later, this call, which lasted for a long time, about an hour or so, and is welcome by the players. It has greatly impacted the world environment! Look, if there is someone who can make the fact, that is Mr. Xi, and he is moving in that direction.  Of course, it’s a bloody war and has caused devastation; it’ll probably take time. But the movement forward, the presentation of the 12-points, that first point is, OK, at least de-escalate. And then stop the war, and then start to talk. What to talk about is something later, but at least, small, little steps that the environment matters, the environment that the world has perceived today, after this call, is a message of peace from China, a country that has recently put two warriors at peace, in terms of Saudi Arabia and Iran that have been fighting for the last 35 years! On various fronts, I think China has proved its credentials and it will make a lot of difference in the peace process. 

TEHAMI: Mrs. LaRouche, when we talk about Ukraine’s perspective, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at that time, when China released its 12-point peace proposal, the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, he welcomed that. Now, out of this particular call, he termed it as being “meaningful.” But we saw, on the other hand, when NATO Secretary General was in Ukraine, Mr. Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked for more weapons to continue with the war. What do we understand out of it? On one side, he wants this particular stride of the efforts that are being made by China, he welcomes those; on the other side, he calls on NATO for supplying more weapons. What do we understand out of this particular thing?


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I have not looked into the head of Mr. Zelenskyy, but he already was once ready to have peace negotiations, and that was in March 2022. This was in Turkiye, where the chances that it could have come to a negotiated end of this war were there; and then it was [then British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson who personally flew into Kiev and put pressure on the Ukrainian government to not do that. So given the fact that the Ukrainian economy is completely smashed, a lot of the infrastructure is destroyed, the economy is—I don’t know how many percent they’re still functioning, but it’s devastated, and before the war, China was the largest trade partner of Ukraine. And if Ukraine has any hope to go back to a normal life, and to have reconstruction, I think there are some people in the West who are already speculating on investment, and basically integrating Ukraine into the West. 

But the West is not so attractive right now, because if you look at the banking crisis, the United States, only six weeks after the first, Silicon Valley Bank went bankrupt, and you have a new banking crisis erupting. The UBS took over the Credit Suisse, but that is not going smoothly. So the West has severe economic problems. And frankly, what is the long term, or the medium-term perspective, would be that the Belt and Road Initiative would be extended as Eurasian perspective, in that case, Ukraine would be in a completely different position, and could become a bridge between Europe and the rest of Asia.

So if people in Ukraine think about it right, it is in their best interests that China should play a mediating role, and therefore, I personally think that President Zelenskyy is being pressured by the hawks in the West to go into the confrontation and have the military victory on the battlefield.  Now, I think that many military experts are basically saying that the chances for Ukraine to win “on the battlefield” (in quotes) are practically nonexistent, because… 


TEHAMI: Why are they less or nonexistent, for that matter, Mrs. LaRouche? Pardon me for the interruption, but why are they are less, in the chances for Ukrainian victory in battle? 


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s the estimate, and this is the view of several military experts from Germany, Italy, Switzerland, France, and the Pentagon papers have said that themselves. Because the Ukrainian population is much smaller than the Russian population. The idea that you can pump this country full of weapons, naturally, you can escalate, and then you reach a trip-wire, and then you are risking a large war, but nobody wins either.  So, I don’t think the idea of “winning” this war in Ukraine is—even in the United States several people have dropped that recently among others—Richard Haass, who is the president of Council on Foreign Relations.  So the voices who basically say, look, let’s stop this, it was a terrible thing, it should never have happened, that number of people are growing. 

So, naturally, you could fight this war forever, and have a grinding up of the population, but I think that that is not a realistic perspective. If people push the Ukrainians, for example, to use weapons which hit long into the territory of Russia, then you are in danger of crossing a red line. And Mr. Medvedev has warned, and not only Medvedev, but several Russian officials in the recent weeks, have warned dramatically that we’re inching step by step toward the great catastrophe.  And also if people are urging the Ukrainians to retake Crimea, that is another red line. 

So I think this intervention of President Xi Jinping coming into the picture, is really one second before 12. And I really can only hope that all the reasonable people in the world cooperate to make this work….

TEHAMI: Let me take Mrs. LaRouche’s view on this also: Do you think if Ukraine has finally realized that the efforts, or the strides that China is trying to put in for peace and the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict through talks, is it in a position to strike a peace deal without the influence of the West?


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, that remains to be seen. I don’t think the Ukrainian government is very independent. I think that it has more to do with what the factional lineup is in the West. For example, Mr. Macron has clearly indicated in the recent period, that he does not want to be totally in the camp of the United States. He said that in respect to Taiwan, where he said Taiwan is an internal Chinese affair and the Europeans should not get drawn by the United States into this conflict. Which many people, even in Germany, agree with him. Naturally, the United States and Great Britain say the opposite, and call the question of loyalty of the West and values of the West and all of this verbiage which is being used. But the reality is, any peace-loving person, anybody who is not a madman or madwoman, should understand that the continuation of the escalation threatens the annihilation of the human species! I have been studying this a lot, and if you listen to people like Steven Starr, who is a nuclear analyst in the United States, or other people who are studying what happens in the case of one nuclear weapon being used, the danger is almost 100% certainty that all nuclear weapons will be used. Because I don’t think that a regional nuclear war is possible: It’s the logic of nuclear war, that the entire arsenal comes into play. And that means that all life on the planet will be destroyed in a nuclear winter that follows for about 10 years after such a nuclear war. And then there will be absolutely nobody left to even study the causes, because no historian will be alive to look into the matter!

And I think if people would be aware of the fact that, given the fact that the warning time when one side would realize there is a nuclear missile launched, the warning time the leadership on one or the other side is a few minutes, somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes, when the decision has to be made, when the flight time of ICBMs is about maximum 20-30 minutes: And then, it’s all over!  That means that the warning time is so short, and if you think how many irrational people are around, and how many near-incidents have already happened, where a disaster was only avoided because one pilot was able to make a very good flight maneuver to escape a conflict—I think if people would understand how much the human species is at risk, we all would be in the streets demanding an immediate end to the war. 

Because if people, the life of the human species and the existence of the human species is so precious: We are the most creative species of all the other species, we’re the only ones that can discover things, who can make beautiful art, who can make scientific discoveries. And all of that would be lost—and for what?

So, I think the brinkmanship, or the very idea of geopolitics has to be stopped. I really think we have to move out of the idea of—unipolarity is not functioning; that has disappeared already.  But also multipolarity is not good enough, because you still have the danger of geopolitical conflict between one bloc and another bloc. And I think we have to urgently move into a new paradigm, where we think about the one humanity first, before we think about national interests.  And this is also why I think that President Xi Jinping is uniquely qualified, because he has in the recent period, not only launched the Belt and Road Initiative, but also the Global Security Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and more recently, the Global Civilizational Initiative, which is one way of putting a dialogue of cultures, or dialogue of civilizations on the table. And I think a combination of all of these approaches is really necessary to defuse this situation. 

TEHAMI: Mrs. LaRouche, as you have very comprehensively shed light on the existential threat to humanity, the threat of the use of thermonuclear weapons, now, when we specifically talk about those 12 points, the point No. 8 by China categorically says that “Reducing strategic risks. Nuclear weapons must not be used and nuclear wars must not be fought. The threat or use of nuclear weapons should be opposed….” [https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt_665385/2649_665393/202302/t20230224_11030713.html]

On the other side, we see the U.K. shipping depleted uranium shells to Ukraine, as a result of which, we saw a condemnation by the Russian President. And then, Russia also decided to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to neighboring Belarus.  

So on one side, we see the initiatives by China to discourage the use of nuclear weapons, on the other side, we continuously see the escalation on this front. How much bigger a threat of use of nuclear weapons regarding Ukraine conflict at this point in time happens to be? 


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think Ukraine would just be the trigger point. Because the United States official doctrine—and Biden, I think had promised at one point, he would change that, but then he did not—the U.S. has in their strategic doctrine the possibility of a preemptive use of nuclear weapons. And in the recent period, a few months ago, or maybe less than two months ago, Russia, or actually President Putin has said that because of this existing U.S. doctrine, because of the general strategic situation, it forces Russia to do likewise! That means, Russia has now said because the United States has the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in their doctrine, that Russia is basically abandoning its idea that they’re not using first-strike of nuclear weapons. 

Now, that is why I was making so much alarm on the question of how close we are. Because if you have the two largest nuclear powers in the world basically not trusting each other—the trust has been completely destroyed, the usual kinds of back-channels do not exist, this is why I really think we are in a situation much more dangerous than even at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, because if you look at the historical records, even when that crisis was at its high point, you had between Kennedy and Khrushchev, a quite reasonable negotiation in the background. And I don’t think that exists right now!  And that makes the situation right now much, much more dangerous, and that is why the Schiller Institute—we have been pushing the idea that we urgently need a new security and development architecture, which takes into account the interests of every single nation on the planet. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/]

Unfortunately the idea of a European security architecture, no longer looks very likely. That existed at the time of the German reunification and the end of the Soviet Union: Gorbachev talked about the “common European house”; Putin talked many times in the beginning about a security structure from Vladivostok to Lisbon. But that in a certain sense, the chemistry does not exist any more, because of so many things which have happened, especially the destruction of trust to which [former German Chancellor] Merkel and [former French President] Hollande contributed by saying the whole Minsk agreement was just a charade to gain time to arm the Ukrainian troops.

So that’s why I think we have to take it a step higher, and that is, the idea of having a security architecture which includes {every} country: Russia, China, United States, and all the other countries. And the only way how one could do that, is by having a development: I wrote Ten Principles for how such a security architecture could look like, and it’s a very comprehensive idea. But it connects to the Peace of Westphalia, which ended 150 years of religious warfare in Europe, by coming to the conclusion that if the fight would continue, there would be nobody left to enjoy the victory, because everybody would be dead. And that’s I think exactly the point that we are at, because if it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, there will be absolutely nobody who will enjoy the victory, because we all will be dead: And I think that has to be the starting point.  

We are the creative species: Can we give ourselves an order, which allows the survival of the human species? Or are we stuck in stupid geopolitical games which risk—I think war in the time of thermonuclear weapons is not an option of conflict resolution any more. And that’s why I think the 12-point proposal by Xi Jinping is the best formula to start negotiations with. It doesn’t answer all questions, yet, but the whole point is to enter discussion, to enter a process of sorting things out: Finding out what are the vital interests of the one side? What are the absolutely non-negotiable arguments on the other side? And then, to arrive a compromise at a higher level, you know, when you take a policy which benefits everybody, then you can find a peaceful solution. But I think we are really in an absolutely urgent need of that. … 

TEHAMI: Mrs. LaRouche, when we talk about the 12-point peace proposal, now, as you already mentioned in one of your takes that I just collected from your website, in which you talk about the U.S. and NATO allies rejecting this 12-point peace proposal for certain reasons. I would like you to shed a bit of light regarding that one as well.  

When we talk about China’s position on Ukraine conflict, it has neither condemned Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, nor endorsed it. And that is what exactly irritates the Western nations, particularly the U.S. 

So what does basically China have to do now, after it has set a good example, where it can act as a peace mediator, given the fact it has mediated the restoration of diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, at the same time?


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think China is a country which I think is based on a 2,500-year tradition of Confucianism. I think that plays for sort of the “genes” of the Chinese philosophy, or the Chinese people, a much deeper role than even Marxism—that’s my view. I don’t think that the Chinese would all agree with that, but that’s my conclusion. Or, they call it socialism with Chinese characteristics, and these characteristics are Confucian, in my view, in my observation. And that means that they have an idea of a harmonic development, that you have to have harmony in the family, so that there’s harmony in the state, and there has to be harmony among the states, so there’s harmony in the world.  

And that is actually a world outlook which is the reason why, after 10 years of Belt and Road Initiative, there are now 150 countries that are cooperating with China, and they feel that they have a lot of benefits by doing so. There is also a complete renaissance of the Non-Aligned Movement, which I think is a big factor in the world situation: Xi Jinping talks about that we are experiencing changes as they have not been seen in 100 years. I would say maybe even longer: Because the developing countries, the countries of the Global South do not want to continue with a modern form of colonialism, because colonialism formally ended many decades ago, but in reality it continued to exist in the form of IMF conditionalities, of the World Bank policies. But now, the BRICS countries are there, and in the recent period, 19 countries have made requests to join the BRICS—13 of them formally and 6 of them informally. But the BRICS already has, without that, more GDP than the G7. Now, if you add these 19 countries, they will be the largest economic bloc. The growth rates around these countries of China are 5% for this year; if you look at the West, it’s basically zero and with a galloping inflation. 

So it is very clearly that the momentum is going in the direction of the new paradigm. The BRICS countries have just reinvigorated the New Development Bank. [Former President of Brazil] Mrs. Dilma Rousseff is the new president of the New Development Bank, and Brazilian President Lula has just said that the New Development Bank has the great potential to become the great bank of the Global South. Now, that is a dynamic which I think that any country, including Ukraine, which sees that and says, “Look, maybe it is more advantageous if we find a way of getting to peace, becoming part of this development, and go towards a harmonic resolution of this conflict.” And I keep saying that the West should stop trying to contain China, which it will not be possible peacefully in any case, because how can you contain a country which has 1.4 billion people and which has an economic policy which is extremely successful, for 40 years!  China did not experience the kind of cycles which exist—

TEHAMI: Mrs. LaRouche, do you mean to say that the West should take the Chinese proposal for peace seriously, rather than going for containing it—a population of 1.4 billion people?


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, exactly! 


TEHAMI: Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, joining us via Skype from Wiesbaden, Germany. Thank you very much for being with us on “Views on News” tonight. We really appreciate that. In the studio we were joined by Air Marshal (ret.) Farhat Hussain Khan, President of the Center for Aerospace and Security Studies, thank you very much for your time being with us, also. It was an enlightening discussion indeed!  And with that we come to the end of today’s show. 




Politisk orientering den 14. april 2023 med formand Tom Gillesberg
Er BRIKS’ Ny Udviklingsbank enden på dollarsystemet?
Vestens løgne afsløret af Pentagon-læk.

Politisk orientering den 14. april 2023 med formand Tom Gillesberg
Kontakt os: +45 53 57 00 51; +45 35 43 00 33, si@schillerinstitut.dk
Dansk: www.schillerinstitut.dk
English: www.schillerinstitute.com www.laroucheorganization.com www.larouchepub.com www.larouchepub.com




Politisk orientering den 31. marts 2023 med formand Tom Gillesberg:
Verden vender dollaren, Vesten og dens finanssytem ryggen
og arbejder i stedet med Kina og Rusland

Lydfil:


Politisk orientering den 31. marts 2023 med formand Tom Gillesberg

Kontakt os: +45 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk Dansk: www.schillerinstitut.dk

English: www.schillerinstitute.com www.laroucheorganization.com www.larouchepub.com www.larouchepub.com




Webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche: War and Financial Collapse
— A reasonable discussion of solutions!

In the midst of the chaos of war and financial collapse, join us for a dialogue of reason and solutions, with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, moderated by Harley Schlanger.




Politisk orientering den 21. marts 2023 med formand Tom Gillesberg.
Den finansielle nedsmeltning er i gang.
Kun en Glass/Steagall-reorganisering kan redde os.

Lydfilen:




Opfordring til en international krisekonference
for at reorganisere det bankerotte finansielle system.
Skriv gerne under

Skriv under herpå Schiller Instituttest amerikanske hjemmeside.

Den 14 marts (EIRNS)

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

De rystelser i det finansielle system, der kunne mærkes rundt om i verden, og som blev udløst af stormløbet mod Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) i USA, dens efterfølgende lukning og anbringelse under konkursbehandling, er et klart signal til alle regeringer i verden om at handle hurtigt for at forhindre en gentagelse af krisen i 2008 i større skala – større og mere dødbringende, fordi alle centralbankernes såkaldte ” instrumenter” er blevet udtømt.

I betragtning af det finansielle systems ekstreme gældsætning kombineret med en derivateksponering på to billioner dollars, er ” Altingboblen” truet af den skæbne, som Wall Street-guruen Bill Gross sammenlignede med en supernova – en klart lysende stjerne, der pludselig brænder ud. Der er ingen løsning inden for systemet mellem Skylla, i form af en finansiel stramning, der udløser voksende margin calls og et run på bankerne, som det skete før SVB’s problemer, og Charybdis, i form af en tilbagevenden til QE, kvantitative lettelser – og en hyperinflation, der æder gælden op – der findes ingen løsning inden for systemet. I begge tilfælde, hvad enten det er et pludseligt sammenbrud af hele systemet eller en hyperinflationær devaluering, der ødelægger folks livsværk, er den potentielle skade for milliarder af mennesker og den sandsynlige død af millioner af mennesker uacceptabel.

Den manglende håndtering af de grundlæggende årsager til den systemiske krise i det finansielle system i 2008, og de 15 år der siden er gået med uforsvarlig likviditetsskabelse ved hjælp af kvantitative lempelser (QE) – nul, og endog negative renter på bekostning af økonomiens fysiske kapacitet – kombineret med geopolitisk motiveret økonomisk vanvid, såsom sanktioner, der rammer de vestlige økonomier i et gigantisk tilbageslag, resulterer i et sammenbrud af systemet. Hverken Schachtiansk sparepolitik eller redningspakker, “bailouts” eller “bail-ins”, vil afhjælpe situationen. Kun en afslutning på kasinoøkonomien og en tilbagevenden til sunde investeringer i den reelle, fysiske økonomi, der sigter mod at øge økonomiens produktivitet gennem kapitalintensiv og energirigtig økonomisk produktion, vil være tilstrækkeligt.

Hvis FDR var i live, ville han erklære en ferie for bankerne, gennemføre en Glass/Steagall-bankadskillelse, en New Deal og tilbyde amerikansk deltagelse i et nyt Bretton Woods-system i overensstemmelse med sin oprindelige hensigt om at yde massiv kredit for at øge levestandarden for befolkningen i det Globale Syd. Desværre kan man ikke forvente, at den nuværende amerikanske kongres har formatet eller visdommen til at gøre det samme.

Selv om bestræbelserne fra EAEU (Eurasisk Økonomisk Union), SCO (Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisation) og BRICS-Plus på at skabe en ny råvarebaseret valuta og et nyt finansielt system måske endnu ikke er nået tilstrækkeligt langt, på grund af alle mulige restriktioner og levn fra tidligere fremgangsmåder, kan begivenhedernes dramatik tvinge til at fremskynde realiseringen af de nuværende intentioner. Da den meget reelle mulighed for et ukontrolleret sammenbrud af det finansielle system kan forstærke faren for, at den nuværende stedfortræderkrig mellem NATO og Rusland, med Kina i baggrunden, eskalerer ved et uheld eller en fejlvurdering, er det nødvendigt at handle omgående.

Der må straks afholdes en krisekonference, hvor regeringerne signalerer til verden, at de vil samarbejde med god vilje om at gå over til en ny global sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, der tager hensyn til samtlige nationers interesser på planeten. Det indledende skridt i en sådan ny arkitektur bør være gennemførelsen af de Fire Love, som Lyndon Larouche foreslog: et globalt Glass/Steagall-system, et system af nationale banker, et nyt kreditsystem og internationalt samarbejde om den næste generation af videnskabelige og teknologiske investeringer, f.eks. i kernefusion og rumforskning.

Denne krisekonference skal finde sted enten som en konference i FN’s Generalforsamling eller i G20-regi. Hvis disse institutioner ikke er i stand til at reagere, må der findes andre initiativtagere, f.eks. BRICS-Plus, SCO eller en kombination af forskellige repræsentative institutioner. Når menneskehedens velfærd og muligvis dens eksistens er på spil, må alle ideologiske hindringer overvindes.

Skriv under herpå Schiller Instituttest amerikanske hjemmeside.




Politisk orientering med formand Tom Gillesberg den 10. marts 2023:
Bakhmut står for fald. Ukraine vil tabe. Er Vesten fanget i Thykadid-fælden eller skifter vi kurs?

Lydfil med talen

 




Verdensborgere foren jer! Live-dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Starter 07;35

Oversættelse uden korrekturlæsning

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hej, velkommen igen til vores ugentlige dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlæggeren og formanden for Schiller Instituttet. I dag vil vi introducere et nyt indslag. Jeg beklager, hvis vi er lidt forsinkede, men vi har arbejdet på nogle tekniske ting her. Men ved at lave en livestream får du mulighed for at kommunikere direkte med fru LaRouche med dine spørgsmål og idéer, som kan gøre dig i stand til at være en aktiv del af diskussionen. Så hvis du har et spørgsmål eller en idé, som du vil dele med Helga, kan du sende det til os på questions@schillerinstitute.org, eller du kan skrive dem i chatten, hvor Anastasia står klar.

Så, Helga, lad os starte med dig. Der har været en masse vigtige udviklinger. Hvorfor begynder du ikke med din oversigt over, hvad du ser som de vigtigste af disse?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jamen, jeg hilser jer alle sammen velkommen og inviterer jer til at stille så mange spørgsmål, som I har lyst til. Lad mig blot fremhæve et par ting, som jeg mener er de virkelig afgørende ændringer i situationen.

Her til morgen var den store historie naturligvis i New York Times, at man pludselig har fundet de skyldige i sabotagen af Nord Stream-rørledningen. Angiveligt var det en pro-ukrainsk gruppe, der lejede en yacht og derefter gjorde det med seks personer – to dykkere, to dykkervagter, en kaptajn og en kvindelig læge. Og angiveligt gjorde de det helt selv. Hvis De husker, var der, da selve sabotagen fandt sted, en masse diskussion om, at den del af Østersøen er den mest kontrollerede og overvågede, at det var fuldstændig umuligt for russerne at komme derhen på en hemmelig måde uden at blive opdaget. Det gør allerede denne forsinkede historie meget tvivlsom.

Men så her til morgen i Tyskland afslørede pludselig flere journalister sig selv, fra First Channel TV i Tyskland, Southwest Radio (SWR) og magasinet Die Zeit. Angiveligt har de i lang tid undersøgt, efterforskningen, statsadvokatens undersøgelse af dette, og de fandt ud af, at denne yacht angiveligt gik fra havnen i Rostock, at den grundlæggende blev lejet af et firma med hovedkvarter i Polen, men ejet af to ukrainere.

Det er alt sammen yderst ildevarslende, for Seymour Hersh afslørede sin undersøgelse i begyndelsen af februar, og det har skabt bølger på internationalt plan. Historien bliver ikke skubbet ind under gulvtæppet igen, for det giver simpelthen ingen mening. Seymour Hersh var mange gange i internationale medier, herunder kinesisk tv. Ray McGovern var på CGTN; og det blev opfanget over hele verden. Det lagde et enormt pres på Biden, fordi historien altid var, at Biden var på en pressekonference – et pres på Scholz, fordi Scholz var på en pressekonference med præsident Biden den 7. februar 2022, hvor Biden kom med denne berømte meddelelse om, at hvis russerne invaderede Ukraine, ville de finde måder at afslutte rørledningen på. Da en journalist spurgte Scholz, som stod ved siden af Biden, hvad betyder det, hvad siger du, når det er en tysk rørledning, der er bygget af Rusland? svarede Scholz med et fåmælt smil: “Vi gør alt sammen”, og han understregede “sammen”. Så det har rejst spørgsmålet, om de sprængte rørledningen i luften sammen? For et par dage siden, for lidt over en uge siden, aflagde Scholz et meget usædvanligt besøg i USA uden følgeskab og uden pressekorps. Han havde et en times møde med Biden bag lukkede døre under “fire øjne kun”, og det var angiveligt meget hemmeligt, og intet blev afsløret. Og så, blot et par dage senere, kommer de tilbage med denne historie.

Nu tror jeg, at dette øger sandsynligheden for, at dette er en CYA-historie, at dette er skadeskontrol, men meget dårligt. Og jeg synes, at Seymour Hersh i interviewet med CGTN faktisk ganske passende citerede Edgar Allan Poes novelle “The Purloined Letter”, som er den novelle, hvor politiet ikke kan finde et stjålet brev ved at gennemsøge lejligheden, og hvor brevet faktisk hænger åbent i en ramme på væggen. Men da disse politifolk ikke kan tænke ud af boksen, fatter de det ikke. Jeg tror, at dette er en lignende ting. Fordi Hersh sagde: “Hvordan kan det være, at når dette er så stor en historie, og præsident Biden er så magtfuld, hvorfor beordrede han så ikke bare sin efterretningstjeneste til at undersøge hele denne sag og finde de skyldige?”, som angiveligt, naturligvis, er russerne. Det er en meget mærkelig sag, og jeg tror bestemt, at det øger presset for at få en international undersøgelse, som skal omfatte Rusland, for ellers vil dette ikke forsvinde. Hvis det forbliver sådan, tror jeg, at tilsløringen kan vise sig at være mere ødelæggende end den egentlige forbrydelse.

Så jeg vil gerne lade det blive ved det, og måske har De flere spørgsmål i den forbindelse, men jeg tror ikke, at dette vil forsvinde. Og jeg tror, at hvis det ikke bliver opklaret, er det enormt erosivt for NATO’s fremtid, for hvis det viser sig, at det var USA i samarbejde med Norge, som Hersh siger, hvad skal man så bruge fjender til, hvis man har sådanne venner? Hvad betyder det for Tyskland? Tyskland har allerede æg i ansigtet, i hvert fald regeringen, fordi folk siger: “Hvad er der galt med den tyske regering, at de lader sig behandle på denne måde?” Den tyske økonomi har i mellemtiden utrolige vanskeligheder. Vi står over for en afindustrialisering, og energipriserne er en meget stor del af det. Så det er en ting, jeg gerne ville nævne.

Den anden ting, som jeg mener er virkelig meget vigtig, er, at situationen med krigen i Ukraine bliver farligere for hver dag, der går. Der er flere og flere eksperter, der advarer om, at hvis der ikke findes en løsning, kan det eskalere til tredje verdenskrig. Det faktum, at folk som Victoria Nuland, der er kendt fra Maidan-kuppet i 2014 – vi må ikke glemme hendes rolle i det – opfordrer ukrainerne til at sige: “Hvis I vil indtage Krim, er det fint nok. Vi står helt og holdent bag det.”

Det er en rød linje for Rusland. Situationen er i bund og grund ekstremt farlig. Den militære situation på stedet er en opkværnelse af den ukrainske befolkning, og lige nu er det meget svært at se, hvem der kan vinde militært. For Rusland har ikke råd til at tabe. Ukraine vil helt sikkert ikke vinde. Rusland kan ikke tabe, fordi de er en atommagt. Så det nylige forslag fra kineserne, som har fremsat et 12-punkts fredsforslag, der omfatter krav som respekt for suverænitet, territorial integritet og mange andre forslag, som alle giver meget god mening. Dette forslag blev værdsat af mange mennesker i det globale syd. Rusland hilser det kinesiske forslag velkommen som et udgangspunkt for diskussionen. Det blev straks afvist af Biden, som sagde, at det er irrationelt. Det er afvist af EU-Kommissionen. Spørgsmålet er, hvorfor der ikke skulle være en indsats fra Vestens side for at begynde at afslutte en krig, hvilket kun kan ske ved det ukrainske folks absolutte offer.

Jeg tænkte på det og skrev en artikel i sidste uge. Jeg tænkte: “Hvorfor er det sådan, at Vesten ikke reagerer på noget fornuftigt forslag?” Paven har fremsat endnu et forslag, som vi støtter og organiserer. Hvorfor gør de ikke det? Jeg genlæste en masse gamle rapporter osv., og jeg stødte igen på noget, som vi havde offentliggjort dengang, men som i det nuværende lys får en ny betydning: Det er, at der siden nogen tid – faktisk kan man gå tilbage til Brzezinski og hans planer for Rusland – men i den seneste tid har der været en hel masse diskussioner bl.a. fra den såkaldte amerikanske Helsinki-Kommission i Kongressen, hvor der blev foreslået en såkaldt “afkolonisering” af Rusland. Det vil sige, at Rusland ikke skulle fortsætte med at eksistere som én sammenhængende stat, Den Russiske Føderation, men at det skulle opdeles i mange stater, måske 10 stater. Og der var en hel række andre internationale konferencer, i Gdansk i Polen, i Warszawa, i Prag, og så sent som i december var der en konference i Washington arrangeret af Jamestown Foundation og Hudson Institute, som havde samme emne, hvor man grundlæggende sagde, at Rusland skulle opdeles i mange forskellige stater. Og i juni 2022 sagde Lech Walesa, Polens tidligere præsident, også, at Rusland bør skæres ned til kun at være 50 millioner mennesker i stedet for 144 millioner, som det er nu, og at det bør opdeles i forskellige stater.

Det skal man huske på, for hvis man kun ser på den daglige politik, glemmer folk nogle gange disse lange historiske buer. Putin og Lavrov og nogle andre russiske embedsmænd har i mellemtiden altid sagt, at målet er at nedbryde Rusland. Det blev altid skubbet til side som paranoia eller bare propaganda, men hvis man nu tænker over det, har det været på bordet. Det er en af grundene til, at Putin i december 2022 krævede juridisk bindende sikkerhedsgarantier for, at Ukraine ikke ville tilslutte sig NATO, at der ikke ville blive opstillet offensive våbensystemer ved Ruslands grænse. Og han krævede et svar fra USA og NATO. Og der kom ikke rigtig noget svar på de centrale spørgsmål, kun nogle tilbud om våbenforhandlinger, men ikke rigtig noget svar på det.

Nu viser det sig – det er i hvert fald hvad Seymour Hersh sagde – at forberedelserne til sabotagen af Nord Stream-rørledningerne begyndte ni måneder tidligere. Hvis man går fra juni ni måneder tilbage, så er det et sted i 2022, længe før Putin krævede disse sikkerhedsgarantier, og længe før det, der altid betegnes som en “uprovokeret aggression” fra Ruslands side.

Så hele historien er naturligvis meget, meget mere kompliceret. Og man kan være sikker på, at den russiske efterretningstjeneste absolut ville være bekendt med sådanne diskussioner og konferencer og hvem ved hvad mere, for at nedbryde Rusland. Det er derfor, at Putin flere gange, og Shoigu og Lavrov sagde, under hvilke betingelser Rusland ville bruge atomvåben, nemlig når Ruslands eksistens ville være på spil.

Alt det bliver naturligvis altid stryget ud af fortællingen i medierne, og derfor synes jeg, at det er meget vigtigt, at vi kigger på det hele på en frisk, at vi kigger tilbage på kronologien i det, der faktisk skete. Disse konferencer – konferencen i Jamestown Foundation, konferencen i den amerikanske Helsinki-Kommission – er offentligt tilgængelige, så det er ikke noget, der er et spørgsmål om en mening, men alle kan se og kontrollere det.

Jeg mener, at dette er meget vigtigt, for der er en anden udvikling, som jeg kun kan berøre her, og som vi kan uddybe senere: Og det er, at det, der sker lige nu, faktisk er et tektonisk skift i den strategiske omlægning. Som svar på alt dette ønsker det globale syd – som nu er den globale majoritet, dvs. det store flertal af lande i Afrika, Latinamerika og Asien – at skabe et nyt system. På grund af dollarens bevæbning – USA konfiskerede 300 milliarder dollars fra Rusland, 10 milliarder dollars fra Afghanistan og forskellige beløb fra andre lande – er disse lande nu ved at af-dollarisere sig, de skaber deres egen valuta. Det er størstedelen af den menneskelige art. Tilsyneladende har to dusin lande ansøgt om medlemskab af BRICS+. BRICS havde allerede, før dette skete, et højere BNP end G7, så der er helt klart tale om en fuldstændig omlægning. Der er tale om enorme ændringer. F.eks. er der på de to nylige konferencer, der finder sted i Beijing, sket en fuldstændig ændring i den kinesiske tone. Jeg tror, at de nu åbent siger, at USA forsøger at dæmme op for dem, at forhindre deres fremgang, og at der er en indsats for at udvide NATO til Stillehavet.

Det, jeg forsøger at sige, er under alle omstændigheder, at vi bevæger os i en anden retning, og vi må have en diskussion om, hvordan vi kommer ud af dette. Jeg har foreslået, siden krigen i Ukraine begyndte i februar, og vi har haft konferencer i Schiller Instituttet siden april, at vi har et presserende behov for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som tager hensyn til interesserne for hvert enkelt land på planeten. Jeg har foreslået ti principper for, hvordan en sådan ny arkitektur kan organiseres. Og jeg mener, at det er yderst presserende, at vi får en international diskussion om, hvorvidt den menneskelige art er i stand til at undgå tredje verdenskrig – som denne gang ville være atomar, og som ingen ville overleve – og om vi kan give os selv en orden, der giver mulighed for overlevelse og velfærd for alle nationer på denne planet. Det er det, jeg gerne vil opfordre Dem til at diskutere i dette program og andre kommende programmer og i en kommende ny Schiller-konference.

Så jeg vil gerne stoppe på dette punkt. Jeg synes, der er noget stof til eftertanke, og jeg er meget interesseret i at høre jeres spørgsmål.

SCHLANGER: Helga, der er mange spørgsmål, og jeg vil komme til dem om et øjeblik. Hvis der er andre, der har spørgsmål, kan I sende dem til questions@schillerinstitute.org. Dette er den ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, og det er første gang, vi forsøger os med livestreaming. Så hvis vi ikke kan nå at besvare alle jeres spørgsmål – og jeg kan allerede nu sige jer, at det kommer vi ikke til – men bliv ved med at komme med dem, for vi vil besvare dem.

Helga, i betragtning af det, du lige sagde i indledningen, var der to eller tre spørgsmål om det samme grundlæggende emne, men jeg tager det fra Dr. S., som lige sagde: “Hvordan kan vi få Rusland og Ukraine til at forhandle sammen så hurtigt som muligt?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Tja, i betragtning af, at Ukraine ikke rigtig er sin egen herre, men at det i virkeligheden er USA, Storbritannien og NATO, som virkelig har styret denne krig siden lang tid – længe før, faktisk, den russiske intervention fandt sted i februar sidste år – mener jeg, at der er behov for pres på NATO og USA, og det er en af grundene til, at vi støtter et tilbud fra pave Frans, som allerede for nogle måneder siden havde tilbudt Vatikanet som et neutralt sted, hvor forhandlinger uden forhåndsbetingelser kan begynde. Jeg ved, at Rusland på nuværende tidspunkt ikke ønsker at gøre det, fordi de siger, hvorfor skulle vi stole på nogen i Vesten, efter at selv Merkel og Hollande, den tidligere franske præsident, og Porosjenko naturligvis har indrømmet, at de aldrig har villet gøre alvor af Minsk-processen, men at de kun har deltaget i den for at vinde tid, for at opruste og opbygge militæret i Ukraine. Så russerne er lige nu ikke tilbøjelige til at stole på nogen i Vesten. Ukrainerne kan ikke rigtig handle, fordi de ikke er deres egen aktør. Så jeg tror, at den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan få dette løst, er, at vi er nødt til at have et internationalt kor af kræfter, som siger: Dette fører til Tredje Verdenskrig, hvis det ikke stoppes. Derfor er det automatisk et spørgsmål for alle mennesker på planeten. Derfor har vi brug for en verdensbevægelse af verdensborgere – det er faktisk det, som Schiller Instituttet er begyndt at fremme siden oktober sidste år – og vi har brug for stemmer, der siger, at vi kræver, at sådanne forhandlinger finder sted, for at skabe et internationalt miljø.

Hvis nu alle landene i det globale syd grundlæggende ville sige det, og de har allerede givet udtryk for dette synspunkt ved at nægte at fordømme den russiske invasion, fordi de ikke køber historien om, at dette var en “uprovokeret krig”; på det seneste G20-finansministermøde i Indien fordømte flertallet af disse lande ikke Rusland, fordi de ikke er enige i denne fortælling. Den begyndende fredsbevægelse, demonstrationen den 19. februar i Washington, de 50.000 demonstranter i Berlin [den 25. februar], de meget store demonstrationer i Frankrig – i går var der mere end 1. Jeg tror, at hvis alle disse mennesker, fredsdemonstrationerne i Europa, i USA og andre steder og landene i det globale syd alle ville gå sammen og sige: “Vi kræver, at denne krig stopper, vi kræver forhandlinger, det ukrainske folk er ofrene, og vi mener grundlæggende, at kun hvis vi går over til et nyt samarbejdsparadigme, kan dette problem løses”, kan vi skabe et miljø, der vil gøre det meget vanskeligt at holde denne krig i gang.

SCHLANGER: Helga, her er et spørgsmål til dig fra JT, som starter med at sige, at han bifalder dit 10-punktsprogram, der er inspireret af Westfalske Traktat. Men, siger han, han mener, at et 11. punkt er nødvendigt, fordi han tror, at folk i Vesten, i ledelsen, er bange for, at de vil blive retsforfulgt, når krigen er slut, og at de vil blive angrebet på grund af deres rolle i at fremme krigen. Han spørger: “Kunne der være et 11. punkt i dit forslag, som ville være et punkt for tilgivelse, absolution eller forsoning?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja, det er bestemt værd at overveje. Der er naturligvis en Nürnberg-statut, der siger, at hvis man forbereder en angrebskrig, er det en Nürnberg-forbrydelse, så det er en overvejelse. Men hvis man ser på den vestfalske fred, som afsluttede 150 års religionskrig i Europa, fordi alle indså, at der ikke ville være nogen tilbage, hvis krigen fortsatte, kom de frem til principper. Og et af de vigtigste principper, ud over at ethvert fredsforslag skal tage hensyn til den andens interesser, var tanken om, at man for fredens skyld skal tilgive den ene eller den anden sides forbrydelser. Og jeg mener, at det ikke kun gælder for krigsforbrydelser på den ene eller den anden side, men man kunne måske overveje det, De siger. Men jeg vil ikke besvare dette spørgsmål så letfærdigt, for jeg er nødt til at tænke dybt over det. Men der er disse to muligheder, Nürnberg-tribunalet og fremgangsmåden i Westfalienfreden: Og jeg lover Dem, at jeg vil overveje det yderligere og også åbne det for diskussion med andre mennesker.

SCHLANGER: Hvis du lige er kommet til os, så er dette en dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Det er en livestream, så jeg er nødt til at flytte spørgsmålene hurtigt, men hvis du har spørgsmål, så send dem til questions@schillerinstitute.org

Her er et spørgsmål til dig, Helga: “Hvad er holdningen hos det tyske folk til presset for at indføre tunge sanktioner mod Kina og til anti-Kina-politikken?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Tja, det er meget kompliceret, fordi der lige nu er en opdeling f.eks. mellem øst og vest, hvor mange mennesker i Østtyskland på grund af f.eks. G.D.R.s historie absolut ikke køber dæmoniseringen af Rusland. Folk i Vesttyskland er mere påvirket af de vestlige medier.

Med hensyn til Kina er det mere kompliceret, for jeg tror, at indtil der skete et skift i holdningen i sikkerhedsbladene i USA og andre NATO-lande, fra omkring 2017-2018, var folks generelle billede af Kina meget, meget mere positivt. Og den indledende diskussion om den nye silkevej, det, der blev kendt som Bælte- og vejinitiativet, var faktisk meget entusiastisk. Men så, da man havde et permanent bombardement fra massemedierne, der begyndte at fremstille Kina som “autokratisk” og et “diktatur” og alt dette – hvilket absolut ikke er sandt. Det vil naturligvis ikke blive accepteret af mange mennesker, men jeg kan fortælle Dem, at jeg har været i Kina mange gange, startende i 1971, og at udviklingen i Kina er noget, som de fleste mennesker i Vesten kun ville drømme om! De har udført et økonomisk mirakel, løftet 850 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom og derefter tilbudt den kinesiske mirakelmodel i form af Bælte- og vejinitiativet til udviklingslandene, som for første gang begyndte at se chancen for at overvinde fattigdom og underudvikling.

Så den kinesiske model er noget, man bør studere. Og hvis man gør det, vil man opdage, at den økonomiske model, især hvad angår det finansielle system, ligger meget tættere på Alexander Hamiltons amerikanske økonomisystem end, lad os sige, den nuværende City of London- eller Wall Street-model.

Så jeg tror ikke, at det tyske folk er virkelig forenet. De mennesker, der har kendskab til Kina, som har rejst der, som har gjort forretninger, som er gift med en kinesisk ægtefælle, alle disse mennesker har et yderst positivt billede af Kina. Og jeg kender mange af disse mennesker. Men hvis man kun lytter til mainstream-medierne, og man får det hver dag osv., så er det naturligvis meget sværere.

Så jeg tror slet ikke, at det er besluttet. Men jeg tror, at det tyske folk, der er under – jeg vil sige, at måske halvdelen af folket stadig sover, men der er et voksende oprør af folk, som virkelig indser: “Hey, vent lige lidt, hele denne her ting fungerer ikke. Og den nuværende politik repræsenterer ikke det tyske folks egeninteresse.” Og jeg tror, at det vil blive stærkere og stærkere, især hvis I også hjælper os med at mobilisere folk.

SCHLANGER: Helga, her er et spørgsmål fra M i Dublin, Irland. Han siger: “Som EU-borger, hvorfor er det vigtigste land i vores union”, med henvisning til Det Forenede Kongerige, Storbritannien, “så besat af at opretholde USA’s hegemoni i stedet for samarbejde og multipolaritet?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja, det er et godt spørgsmål! Jeg tror, at den eneste måde at forklare det på, er, hvis man forstår princippet om oligarki. Fordi op til det 15. århundrede var alle lande, i hvert fald i det vestlige Europa og videre frem, oligarkier, hvilket betyder et system, hvor man har en lille oligarkisk elite, som organiserer alting i overensstemmelse med deres privilegier og for at holde befolkningens masse så underudviklet som muligt, fordi det gør det lettere at regere.

Nu er der sket en ny udvikling: Den moderne nationalstat er opstået. Man havde stater, som var helliget det fælles bedste. Men jeg vil sige, at det britiske imperium f.eks. stadig eksisterer. Jeg tror, det er en stor illusion at tro, at det britiske imperium er ophørt: Det eksisterer fortsat, i en moderne form. Jeg vil sige, at de finansielle institutioner i City of London, Wall Street, er det, man kan kalde det nuværende britiske imperium, herunder dets kontrol i nogle af Commonwealth-landene. Og jeg tror, at eliten i dette imperium, i USA, vil jeg sige, at det er en blanding af Wall Street og det militær-industrielle kompleks – eller hvad Ray McGovern kalder MICIMATT, det militær-industrielle-kongres-efterretnings-medie-akademia-tænketank-kompleks – men flertallet af befolkningen, tror jeg, er normale mennesker. Og hvis jeg ikke ville tro på, at de normale mennesker generelt er gode, ville jeg have opgivet håbet for meget længe siden. Så jeg tror, at vi lige nu virkelig er nødt til at få de normale mennesker og dem i de institutioner, der repræsenterer disse menneskers interesser, til at hjælpe os med at mobilisere befolkningen, før det er for sent.

SCHLANGER: Helga, vi er ved at løbe tør for tid, men jeg har et andet spørgsmål til dig fra Jack Gilroy, som har arbejdet sammen med os om “Rage Against the War Machine”-demonstrationen og andre aktiviteter. Og han skriver, at “der er behov for at engagere generation Z i den ikke-voldelige kamp mod det dominerende militaristiske system”. Og han foreslår, at vi bruger Jordens Dag i november til at “afsløre dødens købmænd, militæret, investeringsbankfolk osv. som er en trussel mod planeten”. Hvad mener du om dette generationsspørgsmål og hans idé?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg ved, at du også arbejder med Pax Christi, og jeg mener, at det er ekstremt vigtigt, at vi, ja – at vi får folk til at forstå, hvad universets love er, hvad der er den egentlige mission, som mennesket har. Og man kan diskutere det i religiøse termer – det er derfor, at jeg i det 10. af mine ti principper sagde, at vi må gå ud fra den antagelse, at mennesket er godt af natur. Det har været det mest kontroversielle punkt. Men hvis man ser på alle de store religioner, kristendommen, jødedommen, islam og nogle af de andre religioner eller andre filosofier, så er de gode religioner altid gået ud fra den idé, at mennesket grundlæggende er godt, og at alt ondt kommer af manglende udvikling.

Det er et meget vigtigt udgangspunkt, for også hvad angår jorden, er mennesket ikke bare et dyr: Mennesket adskiller sig grundlæggende fra alle andre skabninger, fordi vi har den skabende fornufts gave, som sætter os i stand til igen og igen at opdage universelle principper for skabelsen, for det fysiske univers: Og det er derfor, at vi med den moderne videnskab nu i stigende grad er i stand til at afstemme og bringe vores politiske, økonomiske og sociale liv på jorden i overensstemmelse med skabelsens love. Og jeg tror, at det er en enorm udfordring, men jeg tror, at vi tidligere kun har kunnet diskutere det filosofisk. I den europæiske historie blev det kaldt naturlov: At der findes en højere lov end den, der er givet af mennesket. Men i dag har vi naturvidenskaben, og vi kan undersøge, hvad denne lov er, der er givet i skabelsen. Når vi f.eks. udvikler termonuklear fusion, efterligner vi fusionsprocessen på Solen. Det er en lov i universet: Så vi kan opnå energisikkerhed for hele menneskeheden, når vi først får kommerciel fusionskraft, hvilket ikke ser så langt væk længere i betragtning af de nylige gennembrud, vi har gjort – vi efterligner noget, der finder sted som en naturlig proces på Solen. Og det er blot et eksempel på, hvad jeg mener med at sige, at vi er nødt til at afstemme vores aktivitet på planeten med skabelseslovene eller det fysiske univers.

Jeg kunne give dig mange andre eksempler, hvor opdagelser, det vi gør, f.eks. inden for rumvidenskab eller rumfart, ny viden, som vi får fra James Webb-rumteleskopet, f.eks: Om den faktiske tilstand i vores fysiske univers, som består af mange, mange trillioner af galakser! Jeg synes altid, at dette er den mest forbløffende idé, men med den moderne videnskab, med Hubble-teleskopet og James Webb-teleskopet kan vi nu faktisk med videnskabelig stringens se på, hvad vores univers er. Og vi kan drage konklusioner heraf med hensyn til vores eksistens på planeten.

Så der er ingen grund til at være pessimistisk. Jeg tror, at hvis vi kommer ud af denne nuværende fare, som er en eksistentiel fare for hele menneskeheden, men der er også et nyt paradigme i horisonten, hvor vi, hvis vi foretager det skift, at vi får alle nationer til at samarbejde i stedet for at gå efter konfrontation, så er det allerede synligt, at vi er i begyndelsen af en ny civilisationsepoke: Og det er et meget glædeligt perspektiv.

SCHLANGER: Tak for dette svar, Helga. Vi er ved at være løbet tør for tid, og måske vil jeg blot benytte mig af det privilegium at besvare de to sidste spørgsmål. En person spørger: “Kan vi få en international konference for at organisere os omkring disse principper?” Det har vi jo gjort. Hold øje med Schiller Instituttets websted for at se, hvad vores næste arrangement bliver.

Og så er der en, der spørger: “Hvad med et internationalt parti omkring disse principper?”

Meld dig ind i Schiller Instituttet. Hjælp os med at opbygge denne bevægelse, som Helga lige har beskrevet, som er bevægelsen for et nyt paradigme.

Så, Helga, tak fordi du kom til os i dag. Har du nogle afsluttende ord?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja. Jeg er glad for, at der er flere spørgsmål, end vi kunne besvare. Jeg vil helt sikkert forsøge at indarbejde dem i mit næste liveprogram i næste uge, og hvis der er meget presserende spørgsmål, kan vi også kommunikere i mellemtiden i skriftlig form. Så vær venlig at holde denne dialog i gang: Jeg mener, at det er meget vigtigt at engagere så mange mennesker som muligt og blive aktive sammen med os.

SCHLANGER: Så fortsæt med at sende spørgsmålene til questions@schillerinstitute.org. Tak, fordi De kom i dag, og vi ses igen i næste uge.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Vi ses igen i næste uge.

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, welcome again to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. Today, we will be introducing a new feature. I’m sorry if we are a little late, but we’ve been working on some technical matters here. But by doing a livestream, you’ll have an opportunity to communicate directly with Mrs. LaRouche with your questions and ideas that can enable you to be an active part of the discussion. So, if you have question, or an idea to share with Helga, you can send it to us at questions@schillerinstitute.org, or you can list them in the chat, where Anastasia is standing by.

So, Helga let’s start with you. There have been a lot of important developments. Why don’t you begin with your overview of what you see as the most important of these?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I greet all of you, and welcome you, and invite you to ask as many questions as you want to do. Let me just highlight a couple of things which I think are really the decisive changes in the situation.

This morning, naturally, the big story was in the New York Times, that all of a sudden the culprits of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage have been found. Supposedly, a pro-Ukrainian group which rented a yacht and then did it with six people—two divers, two assistant divers, a captain, and a female doctor. And supposedly they did that all by themselves. If you remember, when the actual sabotage occurred, there was a lot of discussion about how that part of the Baltic Sea is the most controlled, most surveilled, that it was completely impossible for the Russians to get there in a secret way without being noticed. Now, that makes this belated story already very questionable.

But then this morning in Germany, all of a sudden, several journalists outed themselves, from the First Channel TV in Germany, the Southwest Radio (SWR), and Die Zeit magazine. Supposedly, they have been investigating for a long time, the research, the investigation of the Attorney General investigating that, and they found that this yacht supposedly went from the seaport of Rostock, that it basically was rented by a firm with its headquarters in Poland, but owned by two Ukrainians.

Now, this is all extremely ominous, because Seymour Hersh revealed his investigation at the beginning of February, and this has caused waves internationally. The story is not being pushed under the rug again, because it just does not make any sense. Seymour Hersh was many times on international media, including Chinese TV. Ray McGovern was on CGTN; and it was picked up around the world. That put an enormous pressure on Biden, because the story always was that Biden was in a press conference—pressure on Scholz, because Scholz was in a press conference with President Biden on Feb. 7, 2022, where Biden made this famous announcement that if the Russians would invade in Ukraine, then they would find ways to end the pipeline. Then, when a reporter asked Scholz, who was standing beside Biden, what does this mean, what are you saying, given the fact that this is a German pipeline built by Russia? Scholz said, with a sheepish smile, “We are doing everything together,” and stressed “together.” So, that has raised the question, did they blow up the pipeline together? Then a few days ago, a bit more than a week ago, Scholz went in a very unusual visit to the United States without an entourage, without press corps. He had a one-hour, closed-door meeting with Biden under “four eyes only,” and basically this was supposedly very secret and nothing was revealed. And then just a few days later, they come back with this story.

Now, I think this is putting the likelihood that this is a CYA story, that this is damage control, but very poorly. And I think Seymour Hersh in the interview with CGTN actually quite fittingly quoted Edgar Allan Poe’s short story, “The Purloined Letter,” which is the short story where the police can’t find a stolen letter, by searching the apartment, and the letter is actually openly in a frame, hanging on the wall. But since these police can’t think outside the box, they don’t get it. I think this is a similar thing. Because Hersh said, “How come that this is such a big story, and President Biden is so powerful, why did he not just order his intelligence community to investigate this whole affair and find the culprits?” which supposedly, naturally, are the Russians. It’s a very strange affair, and I think it definitely is increasing the pressure to have an international investigation which must include Russia, because otherwise, this will not go away. If it stays like that, I think the cover-up may turn out to be more devastating than the actual crime.

So, I want to leave it at that, and maybe you have some more questions pertaining to that, but I think this is not going away. And I think if it’s not clarified, it is tremendously erosive for the future of NATO, because if it turns out that it was the United States in collaboration with Norway, as Hersh says, then, what do you need enemies for, if you have friends like that? What does it mean for Germany? Germany has already egg on its face, at least the government, because people are saying, “What’s wrong with the German government that they let themselves be treated this way?” The German economy in the meantime is having incredible difficulties. We are facing a deindustrialization, and the energy prices are a very large part of it. So, that is one thing I wanted to mention.

The other thing which I think is really very important is that the situation with the Ukraine war is getting more dangerous by the day. There are more and more experts who are warning that if no solution is found, this may escalate into World War III. The fact that people like Victoria Nuland, of fame from the 2014 Maidan coup—we should not forget her role in that—she is egging on the Ukrainians, saying, “If you want to take Crimea, that’s fine. We are totally behind it.”

Now, that is a red line for Russia. The situation basically is extremely dangerous. The military situation on the ground is a grinding up of the Ukrainian population, and as of now, it is very difficult to see who can win militarily. Because Russia cannot afford to lose. Ukraine will definitely not win. Russia cannot lose because they are a nuclear power. So the recent proposal by the Chinese, who made a 12-point peace proposal, including such demands as respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and many other proposals, which all make a lot of sense. This proposal was appreciated by a lot of people in the Global South. The Chinese proposal is welcomed by Russia as a starting point of discussion. It was immediately rejected by Biden, who said it’s irrational. It’s rejected by the EU Commission. The question is, why would there not be an effort on the side of the West to start to end a war, which can only be at the absolute sacrifice of the Ukrainian people?

I was thinking about it, and writing an article last week. I thought, “Why is it that the West is not responding to any reasonable proposal?” The Pope has made another one, which we are backing and organizing for. Why are they not doing that? I was rereading a lot of old reports and so forth, and I came across again what we had published at the time, but which in the present light gains a new importance: That is that since quite some time—actually, one can go back to Brzezinski and his plans for Russia—but in the recent period, there were a whole bunch of discussions among others from the so-called U.S. Helsinki Commission in the Congress, proposing so-called “decolonization” of Russia. Meaning that Russia should not continue to exist as one coherent state, the Russian Federation, but it should be cut into many states, maybe 10 states. And there were a whole bunch of other international conferences, in Gdansk in Poland, in Warsaw, in Prague, and just as recently as December, there was a conference in Washington organized by the Jamestown Foundation and the Hudson Institute, which had the same subject, basically saying that Russia should be split up into many different states. And in June 2022, Lech Walesa, former President of Poland, also said that Russia should be cut down to only be 50 million people instead of 144 million as it is now, and it should be cut into different states.

Now, one has to keep that in mind, because if you only look at day-to-day politics, people sometimes forget these long arcs of history. Putin and Lavrov, and some other Russian officials in the meantime have always said that the aim is to dismantle Russia. That was always pushed aside as paranoia or just propaganda, but now if you think about it, that has been on the table. That is one of the reasons why Putin in December 2022 demanded legally binding security guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO, that offensive weapons systems would not be put at the border of Russia. And he demanded an answer from the U.S. and NATO. And there came really no answer to the core questions, only some offers of arms negotiations, but not really answering to that.

Now, it turns out—at least that’s what Seymour Hersh said—that the preparations for the Nord Stream pipelines sabotage started nine months earlier. If you go from June nine months back, that puts it somewhere in 2022, long before Putin demanded these security guarantees, and long before, for sure, what is always termed to be an “unprovoked aggression” by Russia.

So the whole story is obviously much, much more complicated. And you can be sure that Russian intelligence would absolutely be aware of such discussions and conferences, and who knows what else, to dismantle Russia. That is why Putin several times, and Shoigu and Lavrov said under what conditions Russia would use nuclear weapons, namely, when the existence of Russia would be at stake.

All of that is naturally always ironed out of the narrative in the media, and therefore I think it’s very important that we take a fresh look at this whole thing, that we look back at the chronology of what actually happened. These conferences—Jamestown Foundation conference, the U.S. Helsinki Commission conference—these are in the public domain, so this is not something which is a matter of opinion, but everybody can look and check it.

I think this is very important, because there is another development, which I only can touch upon here, and we can deepen it later: And that is the fact that what is occurring right now is, indeed, a tectonic shift in the strategic realignment. That basically, in response to all of this, the Global South—which by now is the Global Majority; it’s the vast majority of countries in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia—that want to basically create a new system. Because of the weaponization of the dollar—the U.S. confiscated $300 billion from Russia, $10 billion from Afghanistan, and various sums from other countries—these countries are now de-dollarizing, they are creating their own currency. It’s the majority of the human species. Apparently, two dozen countries have applied for membership in the BRICS+. The BRICS already, before this happened had a higher GDP than the G7, so there is clearly a complete realignment. There are tremendous changes. For example, the recent Two Sessions conferences which are taking place in Beijing, there is a complete change in the Chinese tone. I think that they are now openly saying that the United States is trying to contain them, to prevent their rise, and that there is an effort to expand NATO into the Pacific.

In any case, what I am trying to say is that we are moving in a different alignment, and we have to have a discussion of how we get out of this. I have proposed since the Ukraine war started in February, we had conferences of the Schiller Institute since April, that we urgently need to have a new international security architecture and development architecture, which takes into account the interests of every single country on the planet. I have proposed Ten Principles for how such a new architecture could be organized. And I think it is extremely urgent that we get an international discussion of, is the human species capable to avoid World War III—which this time would be nuclear and nobody would survive it—and can we give ourselves an order which allows for the survival and well-being of all nations on this planet? That is what I would like to encourage you to discuss in this program and others to come, and in an upcoming new Schiller conference.

So, I want to stop at this point. I think there is some food for thought, and I’m very interested to hear your questions.

SCHLANGER: Helga, there are a lot of questions, and I’ll get to them in a second. If there are others who have questions, you can send them questions@schillerinstitute.org. This is the weekly webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and this is the first time we’re trying livestreaming. So, if we can’t get to all of your questions—and I can tell you now, we’re not going to—but keep them coming, because we will answer them.

Helga, given what you just said in the introduction, there were two or three questions on the same basic topic, but I’ll take the one from Dr. S— who just said: “How can we bring Russia and Ukraine together to negotiate as quickly as possible?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, given the fact that Ukraine is not really its own master, but it’s really the U.S., the British, NATO, which are really running this war since quite some time—long before, actually, the Russian intervention occurred last February, I think it needs pressure on NATO, on the U.S. and that is one of the reasons why we are supporting an offer by Pope Francis, who already had offered some months ago, the venue of the Vatican as a neutral place, where negotiations without preconditions can start. I know that at this point, Russia doesn’t want to do that, because they say, why should we trust anybody in the West, after even Merkel and Hollande, the former President of France, and Poroshenko, naturally, admitted that they never meant for the Minsk process to be serious, but they only engaged in it to gain time, to arm and build up the military in Ukraine. So, the Russians right now are not inclined to trust anybody in the West. The Ukrainians cannot really act, because they’re not their own actor. So I think the only way, how we can get this resolved, is we have to have an international chorus of forces, who say: This leads to World War III, if it is not stopped. Therefore it is automatically a question of every person on the planet. That is why we need a world movement of world citizens—that is actually what the Schiller Institute has started to promote since last October—and we need voices to say, we demand that such negotiations take place, to create an international environment.

Now, if all the countries of the Global South would basically say that, and they have expressed that view, already, by refusing to condemn the Russian invasion, because they don’t buy the story that this was an “unprovoked war”; at the recent G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in India, the majority of these countries did not condemn Russia, because they don’t agree with this narrative. The beginning peace movement, the demonstration on the Feb. 19 in Washington, the 50,000 demonstration in Berlin [on Feb. 25], the very large demonstrations in France—yesterday there were more than 1.5 million out in the streets, mostly against the pension reform, but also a large part of that for peace; there were demonstrations in Italy; I think if all of these people, the peace demonstrations in Europe, in the United States, and elsewhere, and the countries of the Global South would all join in, and say, “We demand that this war stop, we demand negotiations, the Ukrainian people are the victims, and we basically think that only if we move to a new paradigm of cooperation can this problem be solved,” we can create an environment which will make it very difficult to keep this war going.

SCHLANGER: Helga, here’s a question for you from JT, who starts by saying he applauds your 10-point program inspired by the Treaty of Westphalia. But, he said, he thinks an 11th point is necessary, because he thinks people in the West, in the leadership, are scared that they’ll be prosecuted once the war ends, and that they would be under attack because of their role in promoting the war. He asks: “Could there be an 11th point on your proposal, that would be a point of forgiveness, absolution, or atonement?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, that is definitely worth considering. Obviously, there is a Nuremberg Statute that if you prepare a war of aggression, that that represents a Nuremberg crime, so that is one consideration. But then, if you look at the Peace of Westphalia, which ended 150 years of religious war in Europe, because everybody realized that there would be nobody left, if the war would continue, they came up with principles. And one of the major principles, apart from the fact that any peace proposal has to take into account the interests of the other, was the idea that, for the sake of peace, the crimes of the one side or the other have to be forgiven. And I think that not only applies for war crimes on the one side or the other, but one could possibly consider what you are saying. But, I don’t want to answer that question so lightly, because I have to give it some deep thoughts. But there are these two options, the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Peace of Westphalia approach: And I promise you, I will give it some more thought, and open it also for discussion among other people.

SCHLANGER: If you just joined us, this is a dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s a livestream, so I’ve got to move the questions quickly, but if you have questions, send them to questions@schillerinstitute.org

Here’s a question for you, Helga: “What is the attitude of the people of Germany toward the push for heavy sanctions against China, and the anti-China policy?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s very complicated, because there is right now division, for example, between East and West, where many people in East Germany, because of the history of the G.D.R., for example, do absolutely not buy the demonization of Russia. People in West Germany are more influenced by the Western media.

Concerning China, it is more complicated, because I think, until there was a shift in the attitude by the security papers in the United States and other NATO countries, starting about 2017-2018, the general picture of people of China was much, much more positive. And the initial discussion of the New Silk Road, what became known as the Belt and Road Initiative, was actually very enthusiastic. But then, when you had a permanent bombardment by the mass media, starting to portray China as “autocratic,” and a “dictatorship,” and all of this—which is absolutely not true. That will obviously not be accepted by many people, but I can tell you, I have been in China many times, starting in 1971, and the trajectory of development in China is what most people in the West would only dream about! They have performed an economic miracle, lifting 850 million people out of poverty, and then offering that Chinese miracle model in the Belt and Road Initiative form to developing countries, that started to see for the first time the chance to overcome poverty and underdevelopment.

So, the Chinese model is something one should study. And if you do that, you find that the economic model, especially concerning the financial system, is much closer to the American System of economy of Alexander Hamilton, than, let’s say, the present City of London or Wall Street model.

So, I think the people of Germany are not really united. The people who have knowledge of China, who have travelled there, who have done business, who are married with a Chinese spouse, all of these people have an extremely positive image of China. And I know of many such people. But, naturally, if you only listen to the mainstream media, and you get it every day, and so forth, then it’s much harder.

So I think it’s not decided, at all. But I think the German people, there is underneath—I would say, maybe half of the people are still sleeping, but there is a growing revolt of people who really realize, “Hey, wait a second, this whole thing does not function. And the present policies do not represent the self-interest of the German people.” And I think that will become stronger and stronger, especially if you also help us to mobilize people.

SCHLANGER: Helga, here’s a question from M in Dublin, Ireland. He says: “As an EU citizen, why is the main country in our union,” referring to the United Kingdom, Great Britain, “so obsessed with maintaining U.S. hegemony, rather than cooperation and multipolarity?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, that’s a good question! I think the only way how to explain it, is if you understand the principle of oligarchy. Because up to the 15th century, all countries, at least in the western—in Europe and beyond—were oligarchies, which means a system where you have a small oligarchical elite, which organizes everything according to their privileges, and to keep the mass of the population as underdeveloped as possible, because that makes it easier to rule.

Now, there have been new developments: The modern nation-state developed. You had states which were devoted to the common good. But I would say, the British Empire, for example, which still exists. I think it’s a big illusion to think that the British Empire has stopped: It continues to exist, in a modern form. I would say that the financial institutions of the City of London, of Wall Street, they are what you would call the present British Empire, including its control in some of the Commonwealth countries. And I think the elite of that empire, in the United States, I would say it’s the mixture of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex—or what Ray McGovern calls the MICIMATT, the military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex—but the majority of the people, I think that they’re normal people. And if I would not believe that the normal people are generally good, I would have given up hope a very long time ago. So, I think right now, we have to really get the normal people and those in the institutions who represent the interests of those people, to help us to mobilize the population before it is too late.

SCHLANGER: Helga, we’re running short on time, but I have another question for you, from Jack Gilroy, who’s been working with us on the “Rage Against the War Machine” demonstration and other activities. And he writes, that “There’s a need to engage Generation Z in the nonviolent fight against the dominant system of militarism.” And he suggested using Earth Day this coming November, to “expose the merchants of death, the military, investment bankers and so on, who are a threat to the planet.” What do you think about this generational question and his idea?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I know that you are also working with Pax Christi and I think that’s extremely important that we, indeed—that we get people to understand what are the laws of the universe, what is the actual mission that man has. And you can discuss it in religious terms—that’s why, in the 10th of my Ten Principles said that we have to proceed from the assumption that man is good, by nature. That has been the most controversial point. But if you look at all the great religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and some of the other religions, or other philosophies, the good ones always proceed from the idea that man is fundamentally good, and that all evil comes from a lack of development.

Now, that is a very important entry point, because also concerning the Earth, man is not just an animal: Man is fundamentally different from all other creatures, because we have the gift of creative reason which enables us to discover, again and again, universal principles, of the Creation, of the physical universe: And that is why, with modern science, we are now in a position more and more, to attune, to bring into accordance our political, economic, and social life on Earth, with the laws of Creation. And I think that that is a tremendous challenge, but I think, in the past, we could only discuss it philosophically. In European history, it was called natural law: That there is a higher law than that given by man. But natural law, today, we have natural science, we can study what is this law given in the Creation. For example, when we develop thermonuclear fusion, we are imitating the fusion process on the Sun. Now, that is a law of the universe: So we can gain energy security for the entire human species, once we get commercial fusion power, which is looking not so far away any more, given the recent breakthroughs we have been making—we are replicating something which is taking place as a natural process on the Sun. And that’s just one example, what I mean by saying, we have to attune our activity on the planet, with the laws of Creation or the physical universe.

I could give you many other examples, where discoveries, what we make, for example, in space science, or in space travel, new knowledge we gain from the James Webb Space Telescope, for example: About the actual condition of our physical universe, which consists of many, many trillions of galaxies! Now, I find this always the most mind-boggling idea, but with modern science, with the Hubble Telescope, with the James Webb Telescope, we can now actually look, with scientific rigor, at what is our universe. And we can draw conclusions from that for our existence on the planet.

So there is no reason to be pessimistic. I think if we get out of this present danger, which is an existential danger to all of humanity, but there’s also, on the horizon a new paradigm, where, if we make that shift that we get all nations to cooperate, rather than to go for confrontation, it’s already visible that we are in the beginning of a new epoch of civilization: And that is a very joyful perspective.

SCHLANGER: Thank you for that answer, Helga. We’re just about out of time, and maybe I’ll just take the privilege of answering the final two questions. One person asks, “Can we have an international conference to organize around these principles?” Well, we’ve been doing that. Watch the Schiller Institute website to see what our next event will be.

And then someone asks: “How about an international party around these principles?”

Join the Schiller Institute. Help us build this movement that Helga just described, that is the movement for a new paradigm.

So, Helga, thanks for joining us, today. Do you have any final words?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I’m happy that there are more questions than we could answer. I will for sure try to incorporate them in my next live program next week, and if there are very urgent ones, we can also communicate in the meantime in a written form. So please keep this dialogue going: I think it’s very important to engage as many people as possible, and become active with us.

SCHLANGER: So, keep the questions coming in at questions@schillerinstitute.org Thank you for joining us today, and we’ll see you again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.




China-Europe ties – exploring new heights

What would the future of China-Europe relations hold? Join CGTN for a forum featuring experts from both China and Europe as they dive into the opportunities and challenges of this crucial bilateral relationship. From existing challenges to opportunities for collaboration, this panel will provide valuable insights into the future of China-Europe relations.




Politisk orientering den 23. februar med formand Tom Gillesberg;
Resten af verden afviser Vestens krigshysteri og hykleri
og vil ikke fravælge Rusland og Kina

Politisk orientering den 23. februar 2023 med formand Tom Gillesberg

Kontakt os: +45 53 57 00 51; +45 35 43 00 33, si@schillerinstitut.dk Dansk: www.schillerinstitut.dk

English: www.schillerinstitute.com www.laroucheorganization.com www.larouchepub.com www.larouchepub.com




Et gennembrud i amerikansk tankegang: “Houston, vi har en løsning!

Den 19. februar 2023 (EIRNS) – Denne uge markerer en vending i verdenssituationen, hvor folk i de “fangne transatlantiske nationer” bevæger sig for at afvise den tåbelige march mod atomar ødelæggelse. Har menneskeheden brug for krig? Menneskeheden har hverken brug for eller råd til krig. Krige er blevet sværere at vinde, selv om de er blevet lettere at føre. Nu er krigens umenneskelighed i det større perspektiv blevet den daglige oplevelse af umenneskelighed i det mindre perspektiv i form af masseskyderier, mord og selvmord i USA, herunder nedskydningen af en katolsk biskop i Los Angeles i går.

Det våben vi må anvende er ikke krig eller vold, men sandheden, som kan “jage løgnens ondskab ud sindet”. Og vi skal bruge det uafladeligt. I denne uge har Schiller Instituttet iværksat en række “eksperimenter med sandheden”, en kombination af symposier, publikationer og gadeorganisering, hvorved først tusinder og siden titusinder inddrages i en folkeoplysende masseuddannelse på det højest mulige niveau, under de for nogle måske mest usandsynlige omstændigheder.

Et eksempel: I Washington, D.C., ved afslutningen af søndagens “Rage Against the War Machine”-møde, blev en samtale mellem en arrangør fra Schiller Instituttet og en tilsyneladende mangeårig modstander af LaRouche vendt på hovedet via en diskussion om, hvorfor Gottfried Leibniz, og ikke den tidlige Karl Marx, var kilden til den revolution i videnskaben om fysisk økonomi, som var det rette grundlag for at fremme menneskehedens udvikling. “Modstanderen” havde netop skrevet en bog indeholdende en diskussion om Leibniz og hans Theodicy, som organisatoren, uden at vide det, havde bragt på bane over for ham et øjeblik forinden. “Ingen har nogensinde diskuteret Leibniz i denne økonomiske kontekst med mig før”. Ved at fastslå denne uerkendte betydning af Leibniz, som også var den vigtigste filosofiske indflydelse på Den amerikanske Frihedskrig, blev de tilsyneladende “forskelle” med LaRouche, der “går næsten fem årtier tilbage”, pludselig omsat til en helt ny sammenhæng.

Denne “coincidentia oppositorum” – “sammenfald af modsætninger”, som blev løst på et højere plan – var det optimistiske syn og ønske hos de fleste af deltagerne blandt de over 3.500 mennesker, der deltog i søndagens demonstration. Den nationale, alders- og generationsoverskridende og politisk mangfoldige begivenhed var enestående. Ingen havde deltaget i noget lignende før. Det begejstrede og opløftede flere af talerne ved demonstrationen. Selve arrangementets særlige karakter neutraliserede de skrøbelige forsøg på at forstyrre, gav mange af talernes indhold en følelse af ikke blot lettelse og begejstring, men også af “noget bedre”, som forsamlingen både bebudede og repræsenterede. Der er et nyt potentielt reservoir af god vilje og solidaritet blandt amerikanerne, hvis vi ønsker det, med resten af verden.

Blandt de festlige bannere, som blev fremvist under hele livestreamingen af demonstrationen, var der et banner med et verdenskort. Det proklamerede: “Peace Through Development-Schiller Institute” med illustrationer af World Land-Bridge, North American Water And Power Alliance Project (NAWAPA), Transaqua Project for Africa osv. Et andet banner proklamerede: “Join the Chorus for Peace-Dona Nobis Pacem” med billeder af pave Frans og Brasiliens præsident Lula. Et tredje viste billeder af lederne af BRICS-landene, herunder Vladimir Putin og Xi Jinping, med overskriften: “Helga Zepp-LaRouche siger: For at stoppe 3. verdenskrig må USA tilslutte sig det nye paradigme-Schiller Instituttet.” Under livestreamet var det sidste banner særligt fremtrædende i baggrunden bag hver taler, og alle tre bannere blev fremvist under hele forløbet.

“Dona Nobis Pacem”, som blev sunget af omkring 30 medlemmer af den 70-personer store Schiller-delegation, gav genlyd, da omkring 700 mennesker marcherede fra Lincoln Memorial til Det Hvide Hus. Dette var overraskende nyttigt til at afværge i hvert fald et delvist organiseret forsøg på at forstyrre. Da andre demonstranter hørte sangen, kommenterede de til de øvrige, herunder medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet: “Det er præcis, hvad vi skal gøre”. Skab et glædeligt postyr, ja, men med et optimistisk indhold og i bel canto-form. Så giver det genlyd og udstråler derfor den optimisme, uden hvilken det ikke er tænkeligt, endsige muligt at stoppe krigen.

Selve tanken om at de ti principper for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, der bygger på ideer fra Nikolaus af Cusa fra det 15. århundrede, bliver grundlaget for en folkelig massebevægelse for social forandring, er så dristig og så indlysende rigtig, at den kan og vil kunne fungere.

NATO’s terrorbombning af Nord Stream imod Tyskland og Rusland; opretholdelsen af dødbringende “Caesar-sanktioner” mod syriske børn og familier, der går så vidt som til at bruge de nylige jordskælv som våben mod dem; den ufølsomme indrømmelse fra flere fejlagtige ledere om, at “vi aldrig har haft til hensigt at forhandle fred med Rusland, selv om vi fortalte både russerne og offentligheden det modsatte”; og den bevidste affolkning af Ukraine ved fortsat britisk/amerikansk støtte til en krig, som de ikke kan vinde, hvilket gør dem til en militær stedfortræder i en total finansiel krig mod Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og den nye globale udviklings-, sundheds- og sikkerhedsarkitektur, der er ved at blive omfavnet i Sydamerika, Afrika og Asien i en genopstået “Bandung-ånd” – alt dette afslører, at de nuværende regeringer i alle de transatlantiske nationer, hver og en, er “blevet kontrolleret på vægten og fundet utilstrækkelige”. Det råber på det nye lederskab, der dukkede op som en spirende kim ved søndagens Lincoln Memorial-møde.

I denne uge, startende med gårsdagens Washington-møde; tirsdagens (21. februar) Schiller-symposium: “Syriens sanktioner må ophæves!”; torsdagens (23. februar) “Undersøg Nord Stream afsløringerne”: Stop Nuclear World War Three!” og lørdagens kulminerende serie af verdensomspændende demonstrationer, herunder måske op til 200 demonstrationer i de næste dage alene i Tyskland, udgør samlet set et forslag til en måde at ændre hele den nuværende banale “aktivistiske politik”.

Vi kan sige farvel, hvis vi vælger det, til den mediedrevne “mangel på identitets”-politik, til venstre-højre-stilstand, til FBI’s orkestrerede “vold er din ven”-ungdomsstunts. Den tidligere præsidentkandidat Tulsi Gabbards skarpe karakteristik af realiteten af atomkrig og Helga Zepp-LaRouches overraskende præsentation på skærmen i slutningen af atomvåbeneksperten Steve Starrs skarpe videopræsentation viste både situationens alvor samt de omhyggelige foranstaltninger for at komme væk fra ragnarok. “Der kan være noget, der er for sent”, formanede Martin Luther King Amerika. Måske vil tiden i denne uge begynde at ændre sig, når vi nu skynder os at bevæge det moralske univers i retning af retfærdighed.




Webcast med Helga Zepp- LaRouche:
With NATO In Disarray, Use Hersh Revelations to Build Movement for Durable Peace

The revelation from acclaimed journalist Seymour Hersh that the U.S. was behind the explosions which hit the North Stream pipelines raises a series of issues which open the potential to end the war. As NATO defense ministers meet, there are signs of deep problems within the alliance, including the lack of an industrial base needed for the long war to weaken Russia that many had intended. Hersh’s reporting not only makes Germany a “global laughing stock” over its silence and inability to defend its security and economic interests, but makes clear this was an “act of war,” exhibiting the recklessness” of the Global NATO policy.

This is fueling a mobilization of anti-war forces, with a potential to break through the “left-right” profiles that keep opponents of the war divided. Zepp-LaRouche urged viewers to join the marches and demos in all countries. She announced that the Schiller Institute will sponsor Zoom meetings in the next two weeks, one on the broader implications of the Hersh story, the other on the urgency of breaking the sanctions policy increasing the death and suffering in Syria.

In conclusion, she reviewed her thinking behind her drafting of the Ten Fundamental Principles to create a durable peace. These are not a laundry list of policy points, but the basis of the kind of deliberative process which engages people in the manner of philosophical thinking which can produce the transformation in the population necessary for such a durable peace. She called on viewers to send her their thoughts on these principles, as part of that dialogue.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 8. februar 2023:
NATO’s bluf og løgnen om Ukraine krakelerer.
Lad os undgå verdenskrig og i stedet samarbejde.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Lydfil:




Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche




POLITISK ORIENTERING med formand Tom Gillesberg den 27. januar 2023:
Er alle hjernevaskede?
Stil kritiske spørgsmål om Ukraine og vanviddet med at sende flere våben.

Lydfil:




Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche




At erkende fejl som nøglen til genoprettelse

Den 22. jan. 2023 (EIRNS) – Har det amerikansk-britiske NATO-system fejlet? Mon dets kontrollører ville opdage det?

Det engang så stolte USA, der blev dannet i en revolution mod det, som på daværende tidspunkt var verdens ondeste imperium, ser sin økonomiske magt smuldre, sin valuta miste den fremtrædende plads, den forventede levealder falde, og dets bestræbelser på at samarbejde med Storbritannien og NATO for at knuse Rusland og inddæmme Kina vakle. Den finansielle slimskimmel, der er mest udbredt i City of London og Wall Street, nægter at slippe sit snyltende greb om den fysiske økonomi og kræver uophørlig pengetrykning og eksploderende gældsniveauer for at tilfredsstille sine krav.

Alliancen mellem USA og Storbritannien er nu som en galning, der truer Rusland: “Jeg er skør nok til at indlede direkte krigsførelse mod jeres territorium, og jeg tror I vil bøje jer. I kommer ikke “rigtig” til at bruge atomvåben!”

Har galningen ret? Bluffer Rusland?

Hvad vigtigere er: Skal hele verden holdes som gidsel i en strid om, hvem der administrerer den lille del af kloden, som det drejer sig om her? Hvem skal bestemme udfaldet? Er befolkningerne i NATO-landene parate til at tage udfordringen op?

Nogle giver udtryk for et dybfølt engagement i at overvinde sexisme, hvidt overherredømme, transfobi osv., men hvor er opstanden mod en atomkrig, der vil kunne udrydde alt menneskeliv på planeten og det meste andet liv i øvrigt?

I nogle områder er sugerør og plastikposer og gaskomfurer ulovlige, mens marihuana er OK. Man må måske ikke have lov til at bruge sine penge på mentolcigaretter, men 45 milliarder dollars sendes uden videre til Ukraine.

Der kan ikke gøres noget for at afhjælpe de katastrofale transportproblemer, og forskningen i kernefusion er sørgeligt underfinansieret, men vi har alle pengene i verden (eller som vi kan trykke) til at modarbejde Kina, som er den førende motor for økonomisk vækst på verdensplan, samtidig med at vi er på vej mod en atomudveksling med Rusland.

Der er masser af simple sammenligninger fra Anden Verdenskrig – skal vi igen høre om ” eftergivenhed” og “München” – men den mest dramatiske parallel, nemlig at tyske kampvogne bevæger sig ind på russisk territorium (som i et vanvittigt forsøg på at indtage Krim), er tilsyneladende blevet forbigået af kommentatorerne.

I visse situationer må man fastholde sine principper og droppe alle praktiske hensyn! Men spørgsmålet om, hvem der skal varetage forvaltningen af Krim-halvøen, er ikke et sådant tilfælde.

Dette vanvid – hvis det forbliver upåagtet, uanfægtet og uændret – vil betyde den frygtelige død for alle mennesker på jorden samt at intet nyt menneske nogensinde vil blive født igen.

Men sådan er vores fælles fremtid, såfremt magthaverne – som nægter at overveje en verden, som de ikke regerer, som nægter at acceptere, at verdensøkonomiens tyngdepunkt er flyttet til Asien og det Globale Syd, som lukker af for den sandhed, der indhyller dem, at deres system, deres herredømme er ophørt – hvis disse mennesker ikke bliver stoppet. Det vil udelukkende være muligt gennem en massiv og lidenskabelig indsats for en verden, der er engageret i fred gennem udvikling, i erkendelse af at alle mennesker er skabt lige og er udstyret med de kreative åndsevner, der adskiller vores art fra alt andet kendt liv, i vores evne til at ændre vores forhold til naturen, til hinanden og til fremtiden.

Se LaRouche-Organisationens interview med Steven Starr om dybden af det ragnarok, vi står over for, og det kommende interview med Paul Gallagher om den epokegørende transformation af økonomien, som vil udspringe af fusionskraft. (https://laroucheorganization.com/article/2023/01/21/interview-nuclear-expert-steven-starr-could-we-win-nuclear-war )

Den 4. februar bør du sørge for sammen med dine venner at deltage i Schiller Instituttets konference “The Age of Reason or the Annihilation of Humanity?” (Fornuftens tidsalder eller menneskehedens udslettelse). (https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20230204 )