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.

HZL tale begynder 19:10

Den 9. marts 2023 (EIRNS) – Mandag den 13. marts mødes statsoverhovederne fra USA, Storbritannien og Australien i San Diego, Californien, for i egenskab af “AUKUS-partnerskabet” at konferere om “sikkerhed i Stillehavet”, hvilket indebærer krigsførelse mod Kina og Rusland. Højt på San Diego-dagsordenen står ubåde – fremstilling og udstationering af mange flere ubåde i Stillehavet.

AUKUS – Australien, UK (Storbritannien) og USA – er Det globale NATO’s Stillehavs-koncession, som på den anden side af kloden opretholder den ukrainske stedfortræderkrig mod Rusland, der knuser Ukraine, ødelægger Europa og en stor del af verden og i processen truer med Tredje Verdenskrig.

Det seneste eksempel på dette vanvid kommer fra et uformelt møde den 7.-8. marts mellem EU’s forsvarsministre, hvor de drøftede, hvordan de skulle rekvirere flere militære forsyninger, især ammunition, til Ukraine til en værdi af 2 milliarder euro, på et tidspunkt hvor deres nationale økonomier er ved at falde fra hinanden. Ukraine er ved at løbe tør for ammunition. EU-ministrenes plan er at få 15 våbenfabrikanter til at producere ammunitionen, ligegyldigt med alt andet. EU’s udenrigsminister, Josep Borrel, der er berygtet for sine bemærkninger fra en anden planet, anbefalede, at nationerne skulle tømme deres ammunitionslagre for Ukraine og fylde dem op i fremtiden. Når alt kommer til alt, sagde han, er EU’s “medlemsstater, heldigvis for dem, ikke i krig, så de kan vente [på leverancer af ny ammunition] … Jeg kan ikke se faren. Hvorfor er det farligt?” Han rådede EU’s nationale repræsentanter til at opretholde “en krigsmentalitet”, og dermed vil de nok kunne finde en måde at producere på.

I den virkelige verden er millioner af mennesker på gaden på grund af det økonomiske sammenbrud i Europa. I Frankrig demonstrerede mere end 3 millioner den 7. marts; mange fortsætter, og den 11. marts bliver endnu en dag med storstrejke. I Grækenland er masseprotesterne fortsat i de store byer og i hele landet over den ødelæggelse af deres nation, som kom til udtryk i den dødbringende togulykke den 28. februar. I Holland vil en demonstration af landmænd den 11. marts bringe 5.000 traktorer til Haag for at kræve, at regeringen stopper sin politik for lukning af landbruget. Bemærk: borgmesteren i Haag truer med at inddrage militæret, hvis bare to traktorer dukker op.

Under disse omstændigheder er ledelsesinitiativer altafgørende for at bringe NATO-regimet til ophør – herunder forsøget på at indføre “krigsøkonomi” – og for at iværksætte foranstaltninger til at genoprette produktionen og betingelserne for udvikling. Dette var opfattelsen af missionen blandt deltagerne i den direkte internationale diskussion, der fandt sted i går i den ugentlige briefing i nyt format den 8. marts af Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og leder, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, hvor hundredvis af deltagere fra mange lande deltog. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GmuAYoKd0Q

En indsats i USA med direkte international indvirkning er den opildnende effekt af at kræve medlemmer af Repræsentanternes Hus til regnskab, ved at insistere på at de amerikanske styrker skal trækkes ud af Syrien. Den 8. marts fik lovforslaget H.Con.Res. 21, en genbekræftelse af Kongressens kompetence med hensyn til krigsbeføjelser, 103 ja-stemmer og 321 nej-stemmer. Selv om foranstaltningen mislykkedes, er de enkelte lovgiveres afstemningsresultater nu tydelige, så dette er begyndelsen og ikke afslutningen på sagen. Hovedsponsoren for resolutionen, rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), sagde i dag til internetsitet Intercept: “Syrien er mit førstevalg. Vi tager en tur rundt i verden. Vi tager måske til Yemen. Vi kan gøre stop i Niger. Vi kan gøre stop i Sudan. Måske ender vi i sidste ende i Ukraine.”

Medsponsorerne af Rage Against the War Machine Washington og lignende demonstrationer den 19. februar meddelte i dag, at de påbegynder “Operation Warhawk Removal”.

Zepp-LaRouche talte i denne uges dialog om mange aspekter ved verdenssituationen, herunder det økonomiske sammenbrud og faren for atomart holocaust. Hun sagde: “Vi er nødt til at have en diskussion om, hvordan vi kommer ud af dette. Jeg har foreslået, siden Ukraine-krigen startede i februar – vi har haft konferencer i Schiller Instituttet siden april – at der er et presserende behov for en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur 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 påtrængende, at vi får en international diskussion om: Er den menneskelige art i stand til at undgå Tredje Verdenskrig – som denne gang ville blive atomar, og ingen ville overleve den – og kan vi udforme en orden, der giver mulighed for overlevelse og velfærd for alle nationer på denne planet?”

Invitationen er hermed udsendt til den næste internationale konference i Schiller Instituttet den 15. april.

https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20230415

Det nye år, 2023, bør blive det år, hvor menneskeheden når voksenalderen. Det betyder, at vi skal lægge de barnlige geopolitiske skænderier bag os, hvor nationer bekæmper hinanden, som om vi var forkælede unger, der kæmper mod hinanden med krigslegetøj i en sandkasse. Denne sandkasse kan blive atomar radioaktiv på et øjeblik.

Vi må huske på, at vi er den skabende art, som bærer den ophøjede opgave at fortsætte skabelsesprocessen til gavn for hele menneskeheden. Størstedelen af menneskeheden, landene i det Globale Syd og mange i de tidligere såkaldt avancerede lande ønsker at lægge krigen bag sig, hvad enten det drejer sig om faren for en ny global krig eller de mange intervenerende krige, som har kostet millioner af mennesker livet eller har fordrevet dem som flygtninge.

Lad os skabe et nyt paradigme for internationale relationer, hvor de enkelte suveræne nationers interesser respekteres, og hvor vi alle går sammen om at udrydde fattigdom og underudvikling. Lad os skabe et moderne sundhedsvæsen i alle lande, så den forventede levetid øges for alle mennesker, der lever på denne planet, og lad os skabe betingelser, hvor alle børn og voksne har adgang til universel uddannelse, så alle mennesker har mulighed for at realisere deres medfødte kreative potentiale fuldt ud.

Lad os også skabe et nyt kreditsystem til finansiering af disse mål og til at øge levestandarden for befolkningen i det Globale Syd og for de fattige i de såkaldte industrialiserede lande. Lad os endelig sikre infrastruktur, landbrug og industri på alle verdens kontinenter. Lad os skabe en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, som overvinder opdelingen af verden i blokke og forbyder alle masseødelæggelsesvåben og arbejder for at gøre atomvåben teknologisk forældede.

Lad os tænke på hele menneskearten som denne højere Ene, som er af en højere orden end de mange nationer, og lad os aldrig forfølge en national interesse, som afviger fra hele menneskehedens samlede interesse. Lad os bringe den politiske, økonomiske og sociale orden i samhørighed med naturloven, lovene i det fysiske univers, og lad os øge denne viden gennem fremskridt inden for videnskab og klassisk kunst. Og lad os tage udgangspunkt i den antagelse, at menneskets natur grundlæggende er god, og at alt ondt kommer af manglende udvikling og derfor kan overvindes!

En ny økonomisk verdensorden er ved at opstå, som omfatter langt størstedelen af landene i det Globale Syd. De europæiske nationer og USA bør ikke bekæmpe denne indsats, men i fællesskab med udviklingslandene samarbejde om at forme den næste epoke i menneskehedens udvikling til en renæssance med de højeste og mest ædle udtryk for kreativitet! 

Lad os derfor skabe en international bevægelse af verdensborgere, som i fællesskab arbejder for at forme den næste fase i menneskehedens udvikling, den nye epoke! Verdensborgere fra alle lande, foren jer! 

Den 13. december 2022 (EIRNS) – Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, holdt en halv times tale til sammenslutningen af mexicanske journalister med titlen “Peace Means Respect for the Rights of Others To Develop” (“La paz significa el respeto al derecho ajeno al desarrollo”).

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Goddag. Kære Celeste Sáenz de Miera og kære sammenslutning af journalister i Mexico:

Jeg er meget glad for at tale til jer i dag, den 13. december, og jeg takker jer endnu en gang for, at I har tildelt mig prisen for “ytringsfrihed”. Det betyder meget i disse dage, for ytringsfriheden er under angreb. Faktisk forsøger mange lande, hvis man ser sig omkring i verden, at kontrollere det de betegner som “fortællingen”. For at give et enkelt eksempel har EU, Europa-Kommissionen, netop udsendt retningslinjer til lærere i skolerne, hvori de instruerer dem i, at de skal “afvise” falske nyheder for eleverne, hvilket betyder, at de skal korrigere det, som de betragter som forkerte fortællinger, falske nyheder, men de skal indgyde eleverne den sande fremstilling.

Dette er et utroligt angreb på børns evne til at lære at tænke og have en dømmekraft til at skelne mellem rigtigt og forkert. Det er blot et af de mange eksempler, hvor man ser, at de forskellige institutioner, efterretningstjenester og andre forsøger at kontrollere informationen fra de sociale medier.

Så ytringsfriheden er genstand for utrolige angreb. Det kan naturligvis ikke adskilles fra det faktum, at vi formentlig befinder os i  det farligste øjeblik i verdenshistorien. Det siger jeg, fordi vi står på randen af en potentiel tredje verdenskrig, som ville indebære en atomkrig. Hvis det nogensinde skulle komme til en så forfærdelig begivenhed, ville det betyde civilisationens endeligt, for hvis man gennemfører en global atomkrig, skønner forskerne, at der vil følge en global atomvinter på omkring 10 år. I den periode vil stort set alle, der ikke er døde i de første timer, dø af sult i de efterfølgende år.

Det er meget tæt på. Vi er naturligvis også meget tæt på, i den mere optimistiske variant,  en helt ny økonomisk verdensorden.

Men lad mig først bruge et par sætninger på at beskrive faren. Grunden til at vi befinder os i en sådan fare, er ikke på grund af Ukraine: Ukraine er kun en brik. Det virkelige problem er, at kræfterne i det nuværende transatlantiske finanssystem ønsker at bevare kontrollen, og de er naturligvis ekstremt udfordret af Kinas økonomiske fremgang, og de forsøger at inddæmme Rusland, inddæmme Kina. Og det har stået på siden Sovjetunionens afslutning, hvor man havde et meget håbefuldt øjeblik – vi kaldte det dengang for “civilisationens stjernestund” [Sternstunde der Menschheit], for når Sovjetunionen brød sammen, ville der have været mulighed for at etablere en international fredsorden, hvilket ville have ændret hele verdensdynamikken. Men som vi nu ved, besluttede de anglo-amerikanske kræfter at forsøge at indføre en unipolær verden og brød deres løfter til Gorbatjov om, at NATO ikke ville “bevæge sig en tomme” mod øst. Der skete i stedet fem NATO-udvidelser, og med kuppet i 2014 i Ukraine blev den nuværende optrapning i realiteten sat i gang. Det er ikke engang tilladt at diskutere, at der var en forhistorie før krigsudbruddet den 24. februar i år.

Men nu er der sket noget utroligt, og det er, at Tysklands tidligere kansler, Angela Merkel, har givet to utrolige interviews, det ene til Der Spiegel og det andet til ugebladet Die Zeit, hvor hun indrømmede, at hun i virkeligheden aldrig – og naturligvis også Frankrig – aldrig havde haft til hensigt at følge Minsk-aftalen til dørs, og på den måde bekræftede hun det, som den tidligere ukrainske præsident Petro Porosjenko havde nævnt for blot en uge eller to siden, nemlig at de aldrig havde haft til hensigt at gennemføre Minsk-aftalen, og blot brugte perioden til at opbygge det ukrainske militær til NATO-standard. Det var i bund og grund det, som Merkel bekræftede.

Det er utroligt. Jeg synes, det er meget alvorligt, for det betyder, at hvad kan man i grunden tro på, hvis en vestlig politiker siger noget – og som bekendt skulle Tyskland og Frankrig være garanter for Minsk-aftalen, og vi har altid kritiseret, at de ikke ydede noget for at håndhæve den. Men nu viser det sig, at det hele var et skuespil.

Ruslands præsident Putin har naturligvis sagt, at han nu føler, at det var en fejl fra Ruslands side ikke at have grebet militært ind i Donbass allerede i 2014, og der var hardlinere på det tidspunkt, som grundlæggende havde presset på for at få ham til at gøre det. Og Putin havde indstillet sig på forhandlinger og troede på Tysklands og Frankrigs løfter om, at der ville blive en Minsk-aftale.

Jeg synes, det er virkelig utroligt, og det betyder simpelthen, at alle angrebene på de mennesker der sagde, at Ukraine-historien er mere kompliceret, og at det ikke kun er Putin, der er den onde, de [disse mennesker-red.] er grundlæggende retfærdiggjorte nu, og jeg synes, at dette bør diskuteres på passende vis i de internationale medier.

Denne situation er fortsat ekstremt farlig, fordi man har nogle fjollede mennesker i officielle militære positioner, som for nylig har haft en relativt afslappet snak om brugen af atomvåben. De forskellige russiske embedsmænd har nu sagt, at man er nødt til at genoverveje hele Ruslands doktrin, at Rusland kun vil bruge atomvåben, hvis den russiske stats eksistens er på spil, for i mellemtiden har USA flyttet en masse taktiske atomvåben ind i Europa – mange af dem i Tyskland – og det tager kun få minutter for strategiske bombefly at bære disse atomvåben ind på russisk territorium, og derfor befinder vi os igen i en situation, som den, der eksisterede i begyndelsen af 80’erne med krisen med mellemdistancemissiler, Pershing 2 og SS-20. Dengang var der hundredtusinder af mennesker på gaderne, som advarede om, at Tredje Verdenskrig var meget tæt på.

Nu er disse mennesker ikke på gaden, og det er et meget stort problem. Man kan i øvrigt også sammenligne situationen med Cuba-krisen, for disse atomvåben er kun få minutter fra Ruslands territorium, og forestil jer bare, hvad USA ville sige, hvis russerne eller kineserne havde atomvåben langs den mexicansk-amerikanske grænse.

Så fordi vi befinder os i denne utroligt farlige situation, som i øvrigt er forårsaget af, at den transatlantiske verdens finansielle system er ved at gå i opløsning, hvilket man kan se på hyperinflationen og centralbankernes absolutte paradoks: Hvis de ikke gør noget og fortsætter den kvantitative lempelse, vil hyperinflationen eskalere; hvis de forsøger at bekæmpe inflationen med kvantitativ stramning, truer de med mange gældsatte virksomheders sammenbrud og kapitalflugt ud af de nyindustrielle markeder. Så de vakler frem og tilbage, men der foreligger ingen løsning inden for systemet.

Det er derfor, at jeg allerede for et stykke tid siden har foreslået, at vi absolut må tage fat på dette problem på en grundlæggende måde, og jeg foreslog en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som skal tage hensyn til sikkerhedsinteressen for hvert enkelt land på planeten, fordi ellers, hvis man undlader at gøre dette, virker det ikke. Det historiske referencepunkt er naturligvis den Westfalske Fred, som afsluttede 150 års religionskrig i Europa. Efter Trediveårskrigen, som var højdepunktet i den krig, indså folk, at hvis de fortsatte, ville der ikke være nogen tilbage til at nyde sejren, alle ville være døde, og det er en situation, der kan sammenlignes med i dag.

Så den Westfalske Fred var ekstremt vigtig, fordi den fastlagde flere absolut vigtige principper, som var begyndelsen på folkenes internationale folkeret.

Det første princip, som de nåede frem til, var, at man for fredens skyld skal tage hensyn til den andens interesser. Jeg tror ikke, at jeg fortæller jer noget nyt, for det var det princip, som også en af Mexicos største præsidenter, Benito Juárez, eftertrykkeligt erklærede, da han sagde, at fred betyder respekt for den andens interesser, både i forhold til andre individer og også i henseende til andre nationer. Det er et meget vigtigt princip, for når man tager hensyn til den andens interesser, er det muligt at skabe en fredsorden. Det var den Westfalske Fred. Hvis man ikke gør det, som i tilfældet med Versailles-traktaten, hvor man, på trods af de komplekse årsager til at det kom til Første Verdenskrig, grundlæggende erklærede Tyskland for den eneste skyldige part, og det førte naturligvis til uretfærdige krigsskadeserstatninger, som førte til hyperinflation, som var årsag til depressionen, som medførte Anden Verdenskrig. Så hvis man ikke er retfærdig i sin fredsløsning, fører det til nye krige.

Det andet princip i den Westfalske Fred var idéen om, at man for fredens skyld må tilgive den ene eller den anden parts ugerninger for at opnå fred. For hvis man bliver ved med at gentage: “Du gjorde dette mod mig, jeg gjorde dette mod dig”, bliver det en evig cirkel, og man vil ikke kunne afslutte krigen.

Det tredje princip, som var meget vigtigt, er, at statens rolle i genopbygningen af efterkrigssituationen er særdeles vigtig. Så det førte til kameralisme og en hel skole for fysisk økonomi, som vi også må overveje.

Nu har vi haft flere konferencer i Schiller Instituttet om denne idé, og hvis man ser på konferencerne og listen over talere, som er ret imponerende, i de sidste to et halvt år, kan man faktisk se, at vi er ved at danne en alliance af mennesker, der seriøst overvejer denne tilgang. Naturligvis blev jeg af mange af dem anmodet om at udarbejde en plan for, hvordan en sådan ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur egentlig ville se ud. Og selv om jeg ikke foregiver at være den eneste, der kan definere det, har jeg lavet et udkast til ti principper, som jeg mener skal overholdes, hvis man ønsker at indføre en sådan international fredsarkitektur. Jeg vil gerne nævne dem for jer, og jeg vil gerne opfordre jer til faktisk at læse teksten, for jeg tror, at det ville være utroligt gavnligt for bestræbelserne på at bevare freden og overvinde denne nuværende krigsfare, hvis der ville være en diskussion i medierne, i den akademiske verden af professorer, af folkevalgte personer, tidligere folkevalgte, og mange lande ville bidrage med at tilspørge: kan menneskeheden faktisk udstede principper, som gør det muligt for os at overleve på lang sigt?

Jeg er meget optimistisk mht., at dette kan lade sig gøre, for vi er den menneskelige art, vi har en kreativ fornuft, men det kræver en meget bredere diskussion, end vi alene er i stand til at indlede, og derfor vil jeg bede jer om at se på disse principper, og hvis I er indforstået med dem, så giv dem videre – så meget desto bedre. Hvis I har kommentarer, er I velkomne: Vi vil oprette en underside i Schiller Instituttet, hvor vi ønsker at offentliggøre sådanne bidrag. (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/ )

Jeg vil derfor fortælle jer, hvad disse principper er, i det mindste i kort form, og jeg beder jer læse dem grundigt.

Om det første princip for hvordan en sådan sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur burde udformes, sagde jeg, at den skal gennemføres af et partnerskab af fuldstændig suveræne nationalstater, suverænitetsprincippet. I dag er det naturligvis ikke tilfældet, fordi vi har overnationale institutioner, som fratager nationerne deres suverænitet, som f.eks. i tilfældet med EU, og der kan I se, at det ikke fungerer, fordi det historisk set – lad mig sige det meget kort: Princippet om suverænitet var et meget vigtigt begreb, som skulle udvikles. Det opstod ikke oprindeligt, for i Europa havde man f.eks. pavedømmet, som er globalt, og derefter havde man imperierne, Romerriget og andre imperier, og det tog lang tid, før selv de nationale monarkier kunne håndhæve deres rettigheder over for denne overnationale struktur, pavedømmet og imperiet. Det var først i det 15. århundrede, at man på grund af den første nationalstat med Ludvig XI i Frankrig havde en suveræn nationalstat, som var kendetegnet ved, at befolkningens levestandard blev fordoblet i løbet af de 20 år, som Ludvig XI regerede. Fordi man for første gang havde det princip, at det ikke kun var eliterne, etablissementet, adelen og deres privilegier, der talte, men for første gang havde man det princip, at det fælles gode skulle øges gennem videnskab og teknologi og en stigning i bybefolkningen.

Samtidig, i det 15. århundrede, var det Nikolaus af Kues [Cusa], en af de absolut største universelle tænkere, der for første gang skriftligt fastlagde principperne for den suveræne stat i sit skrift Concordantia Catholica. Der udviklede han for første gang, at man har et gensidigt retsforhold mellem de regerede og regeringen. Det skal formidles gennem de valgte repræsentanter, og disse repræsentanter er juridisk ansvarlige både over for de regerede og over for regeringen. Så det repræsentative system er den eneste måde, hvorpå den enkelte kan deltage i regeringen. Fordi et rent demokrati ikke fungerer, hvilket allerede Platon og Thukydides erkendte, da de fandt ud af, at demokratiets modsatte side af mønten er tyranni. Så et grundlæggende demokrati fungerer ikke, fordi man ikke kan spørge en million mennesker om hver eneste beslutning, og det udvikler sig til anarki og kaos, og så opstår der naturligvis en tyran.

Det er klart, at denne repræsentative idé er ekstremt vigtig: Den kræver uddannede statsborgere, for kun uddannede statsborgere kan håndhæve dette princip. Det er den ulykke, som mange af demokratierne i Vesten er ramt af lige nu, nemlig at de formelt set er demokratier, men at de mangler uddannede borgere, bl.a. fordi ytringsfriheden og pressefriheden er stærkt hæmmet.

Det er netop derfor, at jeg lægger så stor vægt på suverænitetsprincippet, for især i krisetider er det kun den suveræne nationalstat, der kan beskytte almenvellets interesser. Det er det første princip.

Det andet princip består i, at den vigtigste prioritet må være, at disse nationalstater arbejder sammen for at overvinde og afskaffe fattigdom. På et tidspunkt, hvor 2 milliarder mennesker – nøjagtig 1,7 milliarder mennesker ifølge FN’s Verdensfødevareprogram – er truet af sult, med David Beasleys ord, som er direktør for Verdensfødevareprogrammet, når 1,7 milliarder mennesker er truet af hungersnød i verden, og yderligere 2 milliarder mennesker mangler rent vand, er det meget klart, at deres menneskerettigheder bliver berøvet på den mest påfaldende måde, fordi fattigdom er en meget alvorlig krænkelse af menneskerettighederne. Jeg er overbevist om, at det kan lade sig gøre, hvis alle nationer samarbejder om at overvinde fattigdommen, som f.eks. Kina har vist, at det kan gennemføres: Kina har løftet 850 millioner mennesker i hjemlandet ud af alvorlig fattigdom, og middelklassen vokser fra nu anslået ca. 400 millioner til meget snart at udgøre 600 millioner, og det er noget, som kan gentages i hvert enkelt land i det såkaldte Globale Syd.

Det tredje princip er idéen om at etablere et moderne sundhedssystem i alle lande på jorden. Pandemien har påvist, at udelukkende de lande som har velfungerende sundhedssystemer reelt kan gøre noget for at beskytte deres borgeres liv. Kina var igen det land, der gjorde mest, og man kunne konstatere, at i USA og Tyskland og andre europæiske nationer var privatiseringen af sundhedssektoren den grundlæggende årsag til, at de klarede sig så dårligt i kampen mod COVID. Et anstændigt sundhedssystem er også yderst vigtigt for levealderen. Hvis man dør tidligt af sygdomme, som der allerede eksisterer medicin for, hvor mange mennesker i udviklingslandene dør så ikke af sygdomme, som man nemt burde kunne behandle, hvis der var et moderne sundhedsvæsen. Det er det tredje princip.

Det fjerde princip fastslår, at i betragtning af at vi er den kreative art, den eneste kendte kreative art i universet, indtil videre, er det en grundlæggende rettighed, at ethvert menneske burde kunne udvikle sit kreative potentiale fuldt og helt. Det kræver universel uddannelse, og det forudsætter naturligvis, at man har mulighed for at tilegne sig viden om universel historie, sprog, naturvidenskab og kunst. Men uden denne uddannelse har mennesker ikke mulighed for at udnytte det potentiale, som vi alle har iboende i os, på den mest fuldgyldige måde.

Det femte princip er derfor spørgsmålet om, hvordan man finansierer alt dette som en helhed. Naturligvis har man brug for et kreditsystem, hvor hele formålet med kreditsystemet er at opnå det, som jeg nævnte i de første punkter. Med andre ord det fælles bedste, og at mennesket skal stå i centrum for økonomien, ikke profitmaksimering for en lille elite. Et referencepunkt er den måde, Bretton Woods-systemet var tiltænkt af Franklin D. Roosevelt. Jeg forstår, at mange lande i udviklingssektoren ikke bryder sig om Bretton Woods-systemet, men de kender ikke, hvad hensigten var hos Roosevelt, som døde på et uheldige tidspunkt, så det egentlige Bretton Woods blev gennemført af Churchill og Truman. De fastholdt den koloniale struktur, selv om det var Franklin D. Roosevelts hensigt, at hovedformålet med Bretton Woods-systemet netop skulle have været at overvinde fattigdommen og øge levestandarden massivt i udviklingssektoren. Så det angiver et referencepunkt, og mange lande i det Globale Syd, BRICS, Shanghai-samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), Den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU) og andre organisationer i det Globale Syd er i øjeblikket allerede i gang med at skabe et nyt kreditsystem, en ny international valuta, så det er faktisk på trapperne.

Det sjette princip omhandler tanken om, hvad dette kreditsystem kan bidrage til. Nemlig at skabe forudsætningen for en reel udvikling af det Globale Syd, der altid starter med grundlæggende infrastruktur og derefter går videre til industri og landbrug. I den forbindelse er den Nye Silkevej lige nu det praktiske forslag, der er på dagsordenen, og Schiller Instituttet har i lang tid arbejdet på forslagene om, hvordan den Nye Silkevej kan blive en Verdenslandbro, der til sidst forbinder alle kontinenter med tunneller og broer, så den virkelig bliver en ny økonomisk verdensorden, der gør det muligt for alle mennesker på planeten at få en anstændig levestandard.

Det syvende princip – og nu bevæger vi os nærmere ind på det filosofiske grundlag for disse mere konkrete skridt – er, at geopolitikken skal overvindes. Geopolitik var den grundlæggende årsag til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og det udgør faren for en Tredje Verdenskrig. Derfor bør vi forbyde atomvåben, for disse våben er så destruktive og dødbringende, at de absolut ikke bør tolereres. Det samme gælder for andre masseødelæggelsesvåben.

Det ottende princip er, at for at overvinde geopolitikken må folk lære at tænke i henseende til den ene menneskehed; ikke tænke i nation mod nation, blokke af interessegrupper mod andre grupper, men først og fremmest tænke som den ene menneskehed. Den kinesiske præsident, Xi Jinping, har udtrykt det med sine ord ved at sige, at vi skal have “det fælles samfund for en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden”. Jeg har foreslået, at man bør anvende Nicolaus af Cusas tankegang, der som en af sine absolut banebrydende opfattelser udviklede ideen om Coincidentia Oppositorum – modsætningernes sammenfald – hvilket betyder, at der altid er et højere Ene, som kan begribes af den menneskelige fornuft, som står over de mange, og som har en højere magt end de mange. Hvis det er meningen, at folk skal forstå, at man skal sætte den ene menneskehed først, så må man få dem til at træne sig i at lade være med at tænke “min interesse mod din interesse”, for at vende tilbage til Benito Juárez’ sætning: “Den andens interesse indebærer alle andres interesse”, hvilket betyder den ene menneskehed. Så Nicolaus af Cusas filosofiske diskussion om modsætningernes sammenfald, som er et helt, stort emne i sig selv, er en meget nyttig måde at nå frem til dette på.

Det niende princip, som jeg har foreslået, er, at vi er nødt til at give denne nye sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur en særlig uddybning. Hvordan kan vi give os selv principper, som på en måde er uangribelige? Jeg tror, og det har jeg overvejet i meget lang tid, at den eneste måde, hvorpå vi i sidste ende kan få orden i verden, er hvis vi anvender det fysiske univers’ lovmæssighed – som er virkeligheden – på den politiske, økonomiske og sociale orden på Jorden. Det er en idé, som ikke er ny. I den europæiske filosofi har der f.eks. altid været en idé om, at der findes en naturlov. Naturloven er ifølge denne tradition givet i skabelsesordenen, den står over den lov, som mennesket har fastsat. Den er på en måde indbygget i skabelsens orden. En tilsvarende idé finder man i mange store kulturer. I Indien hedder det, at vi på Jorden skal gennemføre den kosmologiske orden; i Kina benævnes det Himlens mandat, som skal styre politikken. Ideen er grundlæggende, at vi skal studere lovmæssigheden i det fysiske univers. Det gode er, at vi på grund af den moderne videnskab i stigende grad ved mere og mere om denne lovmæssighed.

F.eks. giver de store teleskoper, Hubble-teleskopet og for nylig James Webb-rumteleskopet, os et utroligt indblik i, hvordan universet fremstår. Allerede Hubble-teleskopet viste os, at der findes mere end 2 billioner galakser. Wow! Jeg synes, det er helt fantastisk, fordi det giver en fornemmelse af, at man kan studere denne lovmæssighed, og at der kan drages konklusioner om vores liv på Jorden, når det gøres. Naturligvis er der andre områder som biofysik eller det utrolige perspektiv af termonuklear fusionsvidenskab, og hvad det ville betyde, hvis det kunne gennemføres kommercielt på Jorden med hensyn til råstofsikkerhed og energisikkerhed. Men også, hvordan solen fungerer, hvordan processer fungerer i kontrollerede plasmaer. Alt dette vil give os et indblik i universets lovmæssighed og kan vejlede os i, hvordan vi bør tilrettelægge vores politiske liv.

Afslutningsvis er det tiende punkt nok det vigtigste, og jeg er også sikker på, at det er det mest kontroversielle. Fordi jeg dybest set fastholder, at mennesket i bund og grund er fundamentalt godt, og at det derfor i uendelighed er i stand til selv at perfektionere både dets kreative åndsevner og sjælens samt karakterens skønhed gennem studier, gennem opdagelser og gennem æstetisk dannelse.

Dette er et særdeles grundlæggende optimistisk billede af mennesket, som ikke alle mennesker deler. Men jeg er helt overbevist om, at Nicolaus af Cusa også på dette punkt havde ret, for han sagde, at ondskab ikke er noget, der eksisterer i sig selv, men at det er mangel på udvikling. Det tror jeg virkelig på. Hvis man giver alle børn mulighed for at få et anstændigt hjem, en kærlig familie og adgang til en uddannelse, der optimerer alle de potentialer, der ligger i barnet, er der ingen grund til, at folk skulle blive onde eller grådige eller ubehagelige, eller hvad som helst, men at de vil værdsætte deres egen kreativitet mere end alt det, vi kæmper med i dag. Hvis man ser på de virkelig kreative mennesker – læs f.eks. dialogerne mellem Friedrich Schiller og Wilhelm von Humboldt eller Albert Einstein og Max Planck – og man ser, at forholdet mellem mennesker kan blive ét, hvor den ene elsker den anden på grund af det kreative potentiale, som han eller hun udtrykker, og omvendt, og så har man et oprigtigt menneskeligt forhold.

Så jeg tror, at det er absolut muligt. Jeg reflekterede eksempelvis mange gange over  f.eks. Friedrich Schiller, efter hvem Schiller Instituttet blev opkaldt for 38 år siden, fordi jeg mener, at Friedrich Schillers menneskebillede er så ædelt, at jeg syntes, det burde have indflydelse på politik. Men Schiller mente, at fornuftets tidsalder var ved at komme, og det mente mange af humanisterne i det 18. og tidlige 19. århundrede også. Jeg spurgte mig selv mange gange, hvorfor det ikke skete? Fordi jeg værdsætter disse humanisters holdninger og synspunkter meget højt. Jeg er kommet til den konklusion, at grunden var, at videnskaben, teknologien og industrien endnu ikke var udviklet nok til at overvinde fattigdommen i kolonierne. Derfor var det ikke engang et spørgsmål, og de mest ædle ideer hos folk som Leibniz eller Schiller fandtes på idéplanet, men det materielle grundlag eksisterede endnu ikke.

Men nu mener jeg, at vi har mulighed for at overvinde fattigdommen for altid på grund af de videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt. Der er ingen grund til, at et eneste menneske skal sulte eller dø tidligt på grund af mangel på medicin. Grundlæggende kan vi opbygge en verden, hvor, hvis man ser på de seneste teknologiske gennembrud inden for kunstig intelligens og digitalisering, hvis disse nye områder bruges til det fælles bedste, vil de sætte folk fri til at bruge mere tid på deres kreative udvikling, og hvor livslang læring og livslang forskning og kreativitet vil blive mere og mere almindeligt.

Så jeg tror på  idéen om at kæmpe for, at folk indser, at udvikling er nøglen til alting: Udvikling er navnet på fred. Udvikling er navnet på at overvinde det onde, og vi er ikke bundet i en manikæisk verden, hvor det onde og det gode altid vil eksistere side om side, men at vi i sidste ende kan få menneskehedens liv til at hænge sammen med universets lovmæssighed. Og at vi derfor har en meget lys fremtid foran os, hvis vi handler beslutsomt nu.

Jeg takker jer endnu en gang for at give mig mulighed for at præsentere disse idéer for jer. Hvis I finder dem tiltalende, så slut jer til os og hjælp os med virkelig at skabe en ny økonomisk verdensorden, som er menneskehedens værdighed behørig. Jeg takker jer mange gange. [hzl]

Den 12. december 2022 (EIRNS) – Følgende erklæring fra Helga Zepp LaRouche, der støtter pave Frans’ forslag om at bruge Vatikanet som mødested for forhandlinger mellem Rusland og Ukraine om en diplomatisk løsning på krigen i Ukraine, blev offentliggjort af Schiller Instituttet i dag med henblik på international cirkulation, og er ved at blive oversat til flere sprog for at opnå den videst mulige udbredelse.

Til alle trossamfund, folkevalgte repræsentanter, samfundsorganisationer og mennesker af god vilje i hele verden

Et skridt væk fra menneskehedens atomare tilintetgørelse!

Det internationale Schiller Institut bifalder pave Frans’ tilbud om at anvende Vatikanet som mødested for forhandlinger mellem Rusland og Ukraine om en diplomatisk løsning på krigen i Ukraine. Konfrontationen mellem USA, NATO og Rusland er eskaleret til et punkt, hvor et enkelt skridt, selv en utilsigtet fejltagelse, en fejlfortolkning fra den ene eller den anden side, kunne udløse affyringen af begge parters samlede atomarsenaler, hvilket kunne føre til en global atomkrig, efterfulgt af en atomvinter på omtrent ti år, hvilket formentligt indebærer, at der efter al sandsynlighed ikke ville overleve ét eneste menneske.

Ifølge den amerikanske “Arms Control Association”, hvor højtstående amerikanske embedsmænd citeres: “Biden har besluttet ikke at efterleve sit løfte fra 2020 om at fastslå, at det eneste formål med atomvåben udelukkende er at afskrække fra et atomangreb mod USA eller dets allierede. I stedet har han godkendt en version af en politik fra Obama-administrationen, der lader muligheden for at anvende atomvåben stå åben, ikke kun som gengældelse for et atomangreb, men også for at imødegå ikke-atomare trusler.”

Som reaktion på denne ændring erklærede den russiske præsident Putin den 9. december på en pressekonference i Bishkek i Kirgisistan, at Rusland vil genoverveje sin atomdoktrin om udelukkende at bruge atomvåben, hvis den russiske stats eksistens er truet, og at Rusland kan reagere på USA’s doktrin om forebyggende angreb ved at vedtage en tilsvarende politik om et forebyggende angreb. Det betyder, at vi er et skridt fra en termonuklear katastrofe.

Vi opfordrer alle mennesker af god vilje til at støtte pave Frans’ tilbud, som er blevet stadfæstet af Vatikanets udenrigsminister, Pietro Parolin, om at bruge Vatikanet til at indlede fredsforhandlinger med det samme og uden forudgående betingelser.

Dette er ikke længere et spørgsmål mellem Rusland og Ukraine, og det har det aldrig været. Det ukrainske folk er ligesom det russiske folk ofre, og deres lidelser bør straks ophøre. Dette er blevet et spørgsmål for hele den menneskelige art, for hvis en sådan atomkrig indtræffer, vil der ikke eksistere nogen overlevende.

Vi opfordrer jer til at forenes med os i anmodningen om en diplomatisk løsning. Deltag endvidere i vores kampagne for at få sangkor i hele verden til at synge fredens kanon, “Dona Nobis Pacem”. Måtte stemmerne for fred bevæge de ansvarlige i deres hjerter og sind.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet, 12. december 2022

Kontakt Schiller Instituttet på info@schillerinstituteorg eller PO Box 20244, Washington, D.C., 20041-0244

Schiller Instituttets websted: schillerinstitute.com

Foto: Josh Sorenson, Pexels

Dec. 7, 2022 (EIRNS)—Vladimir Solovyov aired a 21-minute interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Dec. 7.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: Well, unfortunately, that’s about my German, so if you don’t have anything against it, we’ll try English. I’m sorry for being a late a couple of minutes. You know, those Russians, they’re never good on time. There’s always a problem with Russians being good on time! [laughter]

I have to say: I was quite impressed with your very tough point of view, should I say that? very revolutionary. Definitely not mainstream of current European political ideas. How come? It looks like the Dawn of Europe, the book that was written more than a 100 years ago, suddenly comes true. What are we facing right now? And what should be done, in order to save the world?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the problem is that we are, as some of the Russian officials have stated recently, we are already at a state of war between NATO and Russia, and many people in many countries are extremely worried that this may lead to nuclear war. And if it would come to that, I don’t think it would be a limited nuclear war. I think regional war, the use of only tactical nuclear weapons, I think this is all ruled out. And if it comes to the use of only one single nuclear weapon, it would have the danger of a global nuclear and that would mean the annihilation of civilization.

And for me, I think you have to start with that: This is why I have suggested principles, 10 principles for a new international security and development architecture, which is drawing very much on the example of the Peace of Westphalia which ended 150 years of religious war in Europe. And I’m really fighting very hard to put this on the agenda before it is too late.

SOLOVYOV: So what are those 10 principles? And what makes you think that current political power in Germany, but basically in U.S.A.—we realize that; whatever is there right now in Germany, it’s just a reflection, it’s just another projection of American point of view—that they will hear you? That you won’t be punished severely for your point view. Because now it’s not—it’s impossible to talk about the freedom of speech and the freedom of philosophical ideas in Europe.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I know it’s not allowed, and you are being ostracized immediately, and worse. But I think we are in a situation—I mean, this is not a tenable situation. Germany, for example, has lost all of its sovereignty with the present government, at least concerning certain ministers. We are running against a collapse in Germany: The economic situation is absolutely devastating. The result of the sanctions, which Germany imposed against Russia, on orders practically of the United States, is boomeranging, and the blowback is threatening the existence of Germany as an industrial nation. So this will become apparent in the next weeks and months.

And I think we are in an epochal change: It’s not just a war between the West and Russia, but the result of the policies imposed against Russia in particular, have led to a counterreaction: The entire Global South is in a revolutionary spirit to establish a just new economic order, and this is a revival of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was already on that course in the 1970s, and now I think it is unstoppable. You have the emergence of a completely new system, which is the BRICS, the SCO (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the Eurasian Economic Union, all of these countries are reacting to the policies coming especially from the British and the United States, and they’re forming a new world economic order.

Some people may think it is enough if you have a multipolar world; the unipolar world is definitely over. But I am of the opinion that even multipolarity is not sufficient, because it still has the potential of a geopolitical confrontation. So this is why I think the most advanced proposal to overcome that in the present world comes from President Xi Jinping, who is talking about the “shared community of the future of mankind.” My 10 principles are basically an effort to elaborate principles how we can get people to understand what the new paradigm is, in which we have to move. That is a very deep philosophical conception: I’ve been working together with my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, on that for the better part of the last 50 years. So I’m convinced that this is resonating with what the world right now urgently needs, which is a new conception—the question, really, is can we as a human civilization give ourselves an order which allows the long-term survivability of our species? So this is the biggest challenge to our intelligence you can have. And since I’m—and that’s the 10th point of my 10 principles—I’m convince that man is fundamentally good, and that the evil in the world is the result of a lack of development.

So I’m confident. I think the danger is incredibly big, but on the same time, I’m also extremely optimistic that a solution to this present calamity can be found.

SOLOVYOV: So what are those 10 principles? What are they? How dare you bring those 10 principles to the world of Schwab! Who is saying that humanity is a disease, and it’s better to be without humanity for the world! So how come that, nowadays, you’re coming with basically, let’s say “humanitarian tradition” of understanding humanity? Instead of modern liberal, Nazi view, where basically humanity should be destroyed?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the present world order, in large part suffers from the problem of oligarchism: That is not a new phenomenon. You had empires, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Venetian Empire, the British Empire, which in one sense still exists, and these forms of government were based on the idea that you have a small, powerful elite, sometimes the aristocrats, sometimes the financial elite, and that they have all the privileges and rule over backward masses of people. That system is the origin of what a former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, calls the “green delirium,” which is the idea that we are living in a world of finite resources, that you have to have management of scarcity, and all of this.

But that’s not the real universe. The good thing is that man is different from animals, because we are capable of discovering universal principles about the physical universe. This is called scientific and technological progress, and when we apply that progress in the production process, then it leaves to an increase in the living standard, the longevity of people. So, I think we have reached the point now where the evolution of mankind is at a point where we have to adjust the political and economic order to the actual lawfulness of the physical universe, if we want to survive. That is not a new idea: That was actually a philosophical conception in Europe, it was called “natural law.” You have the same idea in other cultures. In India, for example, it’s called “cosmology,” where basically politics is supposed to implement the lawfulness of the cosmos. You have the same idea in Chinese philosophy, with the “Mandate of Heaven.” So in all great cultures, you have the idea that there is a higher lawfulness which we have to respect, or bring about destruction.

So I think we are in a very optimistic change of an epoch. I would call it that mankind is about to reach the age of adulthood.

SOLOVYOV: [laughs] That is very optimistic, should I say! But by reaching the age of adult, we have to face quite new challenges. One of them is that Europe is basically put in an Iron Curtain, by trying to recognize Russia as a “sponsor of terrorism” state, they are just cutting all possible ties that have been left, and it’s leading us to a completely new scenario. Europe without Russia is basically a very small place!

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Right now, the mainstream media and the major political parties, as they are represented in the European Parliament, which made this resolution about Russian being a terrorist state, that is the surface. And if you only look at the mass media, you get the impression that that is everything there is. But we are organizing people: Look, there are demonstrations in all European countries, to end the war, to have a peaceful negotiation, use diplomacy already, and many people are demonstrating in east Germany, in Belgium, in France, in Italy, even in Great Britain. So I think, this is a very dangerous moment, obviously, but I think that as the crisis will become bigger, and you have hyperinflation, the energy prices, the food prices, I think we are heading towards a very big moment of decision. And what the Schiller Institute is trying to do, is we are organizing international conferences, which have to be virtual because of the still existing pandemic conditions, and we are trying to bring together people from all over the world.

I have initiated something which is called—I should explain—Friedrich Schiller, after whom the Schiller Institute is named, had the idea that there must not be contradiction between patriots and world citizens. So, given the fact that the danger of nuclear war makes everybody, instantly a world citizen, because the whole world is challenged, so I’ve called for a world citizens’ movement. And since I was born in Trier—which some people may recognize the importance of that—I have called for “World Citizens of All Countries, Unite!” [laughs] in which I find a certain irony.

But many people have responded. We’ve had three conferences already with many sitting and former parliamentarians, and former ministers and Presidents from Latin America, who have issued a call to all parliamentarians and elected officials of the world to join this movement, and fight essentially for these 10 principles, and a new security and development architecture.

SOLOVYOV: So you are still an optimist? Do you still think that humanity is going to survive?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, yes! You know, obviously, the danger is enormous, because if it comes to nuclear war, there will not be even an historian left to investigate the reasons why it came to this point. So I’m not unaware of the incredible danger. But I believe that the majority of the world is already creating a new system: The BRICS countries already have a GDP which is higher than that of the G7. And you saw at the recent G20 meeting, despite incredible pressure, the majority of the countries of the Global South do not want to change sides! Even the Trilateral Commission, which is really—not exactly my kind of organization—the Japanese representative of the Trilateral Commission just recently said, telling the United States and Great Britain, do not force us to choose sides between China and the United States, because if we are forced, we will choose China. This came from Japanese Trilateral Commission members!

So the spirit is really not—people do not want this geopolitical confrontation any longer. And I think there is a tremendous chance—look, Modi, who will chair the G20 in the coming year, just wrote a very beautiful statement, where he echoed essentially what I’m saying, that there are people who say that man is evil, but he says, no, the fact that there are so many aspirations in religion and philosophy that man is fundamentally good. And I think that with the leadership of India in the G20, you will see that the Global South will have a much great voice.

And we are trying to convince people in the United States and in Europe to join with that new system, rather than trying to oppose it. And, OK, maybe that will not function, but I’m optimistic that it’s the only choice: Because we have to get the United States and Europe to cooperate with the countries of the Global South and China. If the United States and China, which are the two largest economies of the world, are not working together, then no problem of the world can be solved. On the other side, if we succeed in showing that there is an advantage for everybody, to solve poverty—I mean poverty should be eliminated! It is the biggest violation of human rights you can imagine. So, all I want to say, is that what we are proposing is actually in cohesion with the wishes and desires of the world population.

SOLOVYOV: Well! But how can you imagine those guys in U.S., in U.K., in Germany, giving up the complex of superiority, where they still consider the other part of humanity, according to Kipling, half-beast, half-humans, as in the burden of the white man? So how can you imagine Americans suddenly recognizing that they’re not the chosen nation? They won’t count it! They don’t want to do it! No one ever gave up the complex of superiority before being defeated. There is no brain to apply to: Look at Biden! There is no brain to apply to! There is a number of stereotypes! And that’s about it.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, but look, Josep Borrell from the EU made this incredible statement that the EU is a beautiful garden…

SOLOVYOV: Yes, surrounded by jungle.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: And that made him the laughingstock of the whole world!

SOLOVYOV: But he is an idiot! And he represents the diplomacy of the EU! What kind of idiot right now represents the EU as the top diplomat? That’s annoying!

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. But, in a certain sense, you have to laugh about it, as many countries of the Global South are doing.

The countries of the developing sector are right now in a mood where they recognize that this is the effort to keep the colonial order. But that is not—Look, all of these countries have a different tradition. The United States, for example, made their independence in the War of Independence against the British Empire. And the Constitution of the United States was the first real republic in the history of mankind, and if you look at the principles of Benjamin Franklin, of George Washington, of John Quincy Adams—John Quincy Adams said exactly what we are saying today, that you need a partnership of perfectly sovereign republics and the United States should not go out and look for foreign monsters. And then, Lincoln had the same idea. Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he designed the Bretton Woods system, it was meant as the first priority to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing countries. Even Kennedy had a beautiful idea about the role of technology would solve all the poverty in the Third World. So there is a tradition in the United States which is completely different. The problem with the United States right now is that they have adopted the model of the British Empire as the basis to rule the world in a unipolar world, in a unipolar style. But that is not the whole United States! The people of the United States are essentially good. It is what some people call the “MICIMATT”—you know, Ray McGovern—

SOLOVYOV: Right.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s the military-industrial complex, plus the Congress, plus the media, plus Silicon Valley, but that is a small minority. They look like the all-powerful force right now, but I think this other tradition of America is there, and we are trying very hard to make a revival of the best traditions of the United States.

SOLOVYOV: I hope that you succeed. I hope you succeed! Unfortunately, our time is running out. And excuse my smile: The reason is that my wife’s name is Olga Sepp [ph], so when I see Helga Zepp, I feel like I’m talking to a relative, should I say! [laughter]

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: That’s funny!

SOLOVYOV: Yes, that’s quite unusual. And, I love what you’re saying! And I love your very sweet, idealistic, but very thought-through, based on the belief that human are better than they are.

The only minor thing is: The Founding Fathers of the United States, after all about democracy and “human rights,” shall we say, so they all owned slaves. So, their definition of free men, were only for WASPs, and that’s what makes us Russians being so careful when we’re dealing with the West—the definition of every word. You have to be sure that you understand words in the same way. In any other case, we’re running into problems all the time.

It was a pleasure, and I to continue our discussions in the coming future. [hzl]

Den 7. december 2022 (EIRNS) – “Jeg håber, at I får succes. Jeg håber det lykkes for jer!”

Det var de afsluttende bemærkninger fra Vladimir Solovyov, vært for “Solovyov Live”, Ruslands store tv-talkshow, der følges af millioner af seere, ved afslutningen af et 21 minutter langt interview i morges med Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. I diskussionen havde Zepp-LaRouche advaret om, at “vi allerede befinder os i en krigstilstand mellem NATO og Rusland, og mange mennesker i adskillige lande er ekstremt bekymrede for, at dette kan føre til atomkrig”. Hun hævdede, at en sådan krig ville betyde civilisationens udslettelse, og at “det er derfor, jeg har foreslået principper, 10 principper, for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som i høj grad tager udgangspunkt i eksemplet med den Westfalske Fred, der afsluttede 150 års religionskrig i Europa. Og jeg kæmper virkelig meget hårdt for at få dette på dagsordenen, før det er for sent.”

Efter at have adspurgt Zepp-LaRouche om, hvordan dette var muligt, i betragtning af den nuværende forpligtelse i Vesten til unipolær plyndring og angreb på suverænitet; og efter at have lyttet opmærksomt til hendes detaljerede forklaring om, at “der er en tradition i USA, som er fuldkommen anderledes” end den nuværende politik, en tradition, der går tilbage til Washington, Quincy Adams, Lincoln og FDR; svarede Solovyov: “Jeg elsker det du siger!”, og roste Zepp-LaRouches “idealistiske, men meget gennemtænkte” politiske forslag – samtidig med at han med forsigtighed bemærkede, at russerne skal være “så varsomme, når vi har med Vesten at gøre”.

Senere på dagen tildelte Mexicos Journalistklub deres prestigefyldte 2022-pris for “fremme af ytringsfrihed” til Schiller Instituttet og dets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, for instituttets modige kamp for retfærdighed og udvikling for alle nationer.

I sit videobudskab med påskønnelse, som blev afspillet ved prisoverrækkelsen i overværelse af en stor del af den nationale og internationale presse i Mexico samt landets øverste politiske repræsentanter, understregede Zepp-LaRouche endnu en gang, at “vi befinder os på et utroligt afgørende tidspunkt i verdenshistorien, hvor vi på den ene side er truet af en mulig global atomkrig, på den anden side af den hurtige fremkomst af en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden”. Hun tilføjede, at “Mexico kan spille en enestående rolle, ikke blot for at hjælpe med at få hele Latinamerika til at arbejde med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, men i betragtning af dets historiske og geografiske placering kan det gøre noget, som menneskehedens eksistens kunne afhænge af: at få USA og Kina, de to største økonomier på planeten, til at arbejde sammen om en fælles udvikling af det latinamerikanske kontinent og hele det Globale Syd.”

Der opnås imponerende fremskridt i retning af en sådan ny international arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling i mange dele af verden – uden for USA og Europa. Den kinesiske præsident, Xi Jinping, ankom f.eks. i dag til Saudi-Arabien for at deltage i tre beslægtede topmøder (Kina-Saudi-Arabien, Kina-arabiske stater og Kina-Golf Samarbejdsrådet). Udenrigsministeriets talskvinde Mao Ning meddelte, at besøget “vil udgøre en epokegørende milepæl i de arabisk-kinesiske forbindelsers historie”, og at “vi håber, at vi i fællesskab kan handle i forbindelse med det Globale Udviklingsinitiativ og det Globale Sikkerhedsinitiativ, gøre fremskridt med hensyn til Bælte- og Vej-samarbejdet af høj kvalitet og bidrage til fred og udvikling i Mellemøsten og i verden som helhed”.

På samme måde har den kinesiske regering netop annonceret færdiggørelsen af en 10 km lang tunnel under Yangtze-floden, som vil indeholde tre naturgasrørledninger, hvilket er en afgørende komponent i den 8.100 km lange østrute-rørledning, som Kina og Rusland aftalte at bygge tilbage i 2019, og som vil forsyne Shanghai med russisk gas inden 2025.

I mellemtiden er Storbritannien sunket ned i en depression, som ifølge Confederation of British Industry vil være ensbetydende med “et tabt årti” for den økonomiske vækst – det næstværste i Europa, kun overgået af Tyskland. Ungarn har erklæret en energikrise, da folk er begyndt at hamstre den knappe benzin og andre produkter, og forventer en 30 % mangel på de nødvendige energiforsyninger. Og i USA har FED’s desperate renteforhøjelser været med til at udløse et fysisk økonomisk sammenbrud og hyperinflation på samme tid.

Således LaRouche-faktoren. “Vi forsøger at overbevise folk i USA og Europa om, at de skal tilslutte sig det nye system i stedet for at forsøge at modsætte sig det”, forklarede Zepp-LaRouche i sit interview med Solovyov. “Jeg er optimistisk og tror, at dette er det eneste valg: Fordi vi er nødt til at få USA og Europa til at samarbejde med landene i det Globale Syd og Kina.”

Den 2. dec. 2022 (EIRNS) – Webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag, jeg er Harley Schlanger, og velkommen til vores ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. I dag er det den 1. december 2022.

Som vi har rapporteret for nylig, vokser faren fortsat for at snuble eller fumle sig ind i en atomkrig med aldeles ukontrollerede udtalelser fra forskellige NATO-embedsmænd, amerikanske embedsmænd, som briterne støtter: Så vi vil starte med en gennemgang af dette, fordi det generelt ikke bliver afdækket på en fyldestgørende måde for det vestlige publikum. Helga, du nævnte tidligere udtalelsen fra Ryabkov: Russerne tager situationen meget alvorligt, ikke sandt?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Viceudenrigsminister Ryabkov udtalte, at han er ganske bekymret over, hvor afslappet folk taler om en begrænset atomkrig i Europa, at det er meget farligt, og det er præcis det, jeg har understreget ved de seneste taler og konferencer. Hvis man begynder at tro, at det er naturligt at bruge et atomvåben, så overskrider man virkelig grænsen. Vi har flere videoer på vores hjemmeside – og se dem venligst – hvor vi meget tydeligt viser, hvad der sker i en atomkrig [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zlyfhz7hk]. Det er civilisationens undergang, og det er det som disse mennesker er i færd med at lege med.

Det er altså ikke folk, der er sådan, det er regeringerne: Det er NATO-regeringerne, det er den amerikanske, den britiske og den tyske regering (og vi kommer til det om lidt), men det er ikke befolkningerne. Vi har i mange diskussioner, i Europa, i Tyskland – især dér, fordi jeg tror, at der er større bevidsthed om hvad krig er, end det er tilfældet i USA – folk er ved at blive ret desperate, fordi de ser hvordan flere våben sendes til Ukraine, som blev nævnt igen på NATO’s udenrigsministermøde den 29.-30. november, eller ideen om, at der ikke er nogen grænse for støtten til Ukraine, hvad det så end betyder. General Kujat (pensioneret) har dybest set ment, at hvis man påstår det, overdrager man en del af sin statsmagt til den ukrainske regering, for det er op til dem at afgøre, hvornår det er nok. Dette er ved at bevæge sig ind i en meget farlig retning.

Derefter følger disse usaglige udtalelser fra Ursula von der Leyen om, at EU vil konfiskere de russiske aktiver, som europæiske banker på en eller anden måde har fået fat i, hvilket blev imødegået meget skarpt af Maria Zakharova, talskvinde for det russiske udenrigsministerium. Hun erklærede, at de vil reagere, det er endnu ikke klart hvordan, men hvis det sker, vil de træffe lignende foranstaltninger: De kan konfiskere europæiske virksomheders ejendom: Dette er en spiral med optrapning, som helt og aldeles er imod Europas interesser.

For ganske kort tid siden så jeg yderligere en video af Scott Ritter fra en tysk platform ved navn “Counterpole” – Gegenpol – og jeg kan kun anbefale jer alle at se den, fordi han udfordrer nu den tyske befolkning for anden gang [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL6Su8YARJg] eller tredje gang på en meget direkte facon, hvor han udtaler: Hvad er denne regering? Har de været medskyldige i sabotagen af Minsk-processen? Tyskland og Frankrig havde ansvaret for at sikre, at Minsk-aftalen ville blive gennemført, og de foretog sig tydeligvis ikke noget i flere år. I mellemtiden har Ukraines tidligere præsident Porosjenko meget åbent tilkendegivet, at “de udelukkende lod som om, at de ville gå med i Minsk-aftalen, som alligevel aldrig rigtig blev gennemført, for at have yderligere fire og et halvt års tid til at træne de ukrainske tropper op til NATO-standard”.

Så Scott Ritter påpeger på en meget polemisk facon: “Hvad er der galt med den tyske regering? Vidste de noget om det? Vidste de, at hele Minsk-arrangementet var en fuser for at forberede de ukrainske tropper på kampen mod Rusland? Eller, hvis de ikke vidste det, er de så en del af NATO?  Han siger i bund og grund, hvilket desværre er ret indlysende, at denne tyske regering bare tumler af sted, at de ikke tager initiativ til noget, at de reagerer; i mellemtiden er den tyske økonomi ved at blive skudt i sænk. Amerikanske LNG- [gas-] og andre virksomheder opnår en gigantisk fortjeneste, mens de europæiske økonomier bryder sammen. Vi er på vej ind i det største sammenbrud af industrien i den tyske økonomi, men derefter vil det på grund af den tyske økonomis størrelse og betydning for hele Europa føre til en gigantisk økonomisk nedtur for Europa! Ritter spørger altså ganske polemisk: Er det jeres venner? Er det jeres allierede?

Jeg mener, at det er en utrolig situation. Han siger endda i endnu skarpere toner, at disse embedsmænd, der accepterer denne politik, begår forræderi mod det tyske folk.

Det er stærke ord, men hvis man tænker på, hvad der er på spil, og hvilken utrolig propagandakrig der udkæmpes, hvor NATO-landene og de såkaldte vestlige demokratier lader som om, at de er de gode, og Rusland og Kina og alle disse “autokratiske regimer” er de onde, ser virkeligheden helt anderledes ud; befolkningen bliver imidlertid tilpasset til at følge med, men de går med til deres egen undergang. Så på en måde er det bedre, hvis folk polemisk rejser disse spørgsmål, før det er for sent, men det er en meget, meget farlig situation.

Resten på engelsk:

SCHLANGER: You mentioned von der Leyen, and one of her statements was on making Russia and its oligarchs pay to compensate Ukraine. She said, “We have the means to make Russia pay,” which sounds a lot like Biden, when he promised that the Nord Stream pipeline would not be brought online. Now, at the same time, the European Union issued a call for a special court for a war crimes tribunal to prosecute Russian senior officials. I don’t think they ever did that for the U.S. policy of Cheney and others to destroy Iraq, Afghanistan—Hillary Clinton and others in Libya—this is the height of arrogance coming from the European Commission and von der Leyen, isn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: And hypocrisy. You know, it is that an Iraqi court right now has indicted Trump and Pompeo for the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on Iraqi soil. So, at least, there is some reaction of this sort. But you are absolutely right, the blatant hypocrisy and double standard of accusing Russia and China for everything, but the West is condoning these things and covering it up, and this is definitely something we have to raise.

SCHLANGER: You had mentioned some of the problems coming out of Germany from the German government. German President Steinmeier had made some comments. There just seems to be no end to the piling on, to make it seem as though Germany is the most loyal member of NATO.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. Steinmeier is now so concerned about human rights in China, and the protests against the COVID measures. On that, I should just note, if you calculate how many people died in China, 5,700; and if you extrapolate the number of people living in China, which is more than three times, almost four times as much as the United States—if China would have had the same death ratio as the United States, they would have had 4.7 million deaths, and compare that to the 5,700. So, it is quite possible that some people are annoyed by the continued measures China is taking for its zero COVID policy, but these are a few thousand people as compared to 1.4 billion in the whole country.

And the idea that Steinmeier is so concerned about their freedom of expression, I can only laugh about that: Because one German court, and I think the Bundestag as well had made a legislation, confirmed a change in paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code, article 5, which was an attachment to other legislation, and it means a tremendous sharpening of the law against so-called “incitement.” According to that, if you cover up any war crimes, or if you say something which could lead to an increase in hatred, but, as several legal experts have noted, this is such a rubble paragraph, that it gives room for the courts and police, it opens up the floodgate to completely suppress any opinion! If you take that together with another atrocity, namely an EU guideline for teachers, whereby they’re supposed to “pre-bunk” pupils, that is, children, against Russian propaganda. Now, “debunking” means if somebody says something bad, you can always debunk it: You say this is not true, and say what you think is the truth. But “pre-bunking” means that you inoculate people in such a way that they don’t even get the idea to ask questions. So they have made a whole list of things you are not allowed to say, for example, “NATO expansion is hurting the interest of Russia”; “NATO is aggressive”; and there’s a whole list of things, or there is even a pre-history to the war in Ukraine, all of these things are supposed to be forbidden. And pupils, that is, children, are supposed to be psychologically vaccinated against any such interpretation.

Now, in my view, this is not “freedom of expression” Mr. Steinmeier, this is a dictatorship. This is mind control. And we are now doing an investigation into the various, many, many efforts to completely manipulate the debate. Many people complain about the fact that there is no more discourse, you cannot have different opinions; and I’m afraid this does not mean we are living in a democracy, it means we are living, increasingly, in an authoritarian regime.

SCHLANGER: On this note, an interesting development this last week, Nina Jankowicz, who was run out as the attempted disinformation czar in the United States, has now returned as a registered British agent. So it makes it clear where these narratives are coming from.

I’d like to bring up, on this question, the proliferation of discussion from the Pentagon and leading officials, of the threat from China. One of the topics taken up at the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, with Blinken and [NATO head] Stoltenberg joining arms on this, was the need to have a global NATO, to confront China. You have all sorts of developments around this. Helga, what do you have on that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The Pentagon must put out their annual global “China Military Power Report,” where they characterize China as a pacing threat, and they say that the idea of China that they want to have a “rejuvenation” of the Chinese nation by 2049 is a pacing threat, an existential threat to the United States. [https://www.defense.gov/CMPR/] Now, that shows you how absolutely ideological these people are. I’m familiar with the effort of China, or the programmatic intention to have this rebirth of the Chinese nation. Now what is wrong with that? China has been in history for millennia—and I emphasize, for millennia—the leading scientific and cultural nation in the world. That only stopped basically around the 15th century; and then they had the “century of humiliation,” which was the 19th century, and then they had the struggle which led to the formation of the People’s Republic of China, in 1949. And they have now defined as a goal that they want to have the rejuvenation of China by the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, by reviving the 5,000 years of history, by creating a modern socialist, culturally advanced, democratic country which is supposed to create happiness for the people.

Now, from everything I know, and I’m in contact with China experts from Western countries—from Germany, from Spain, from Italy, from Denmark, from other places. And people who are China experts, that is, not that you are blind to what is happening in China, but that you know something about Chinese history, Chinese economics, Chinese policies, that all the things that are being said about China, in terms that they want to change the world order to replace the American empire with a Chinese empire, it’s just completely wrong! It does not go along with what Chinese history is. And in a certain sense, it is their absolute sovereign right if they want to revive their tradition of being a great cultural, civilizational nation. And I think this is completely crazy, and it really something people should not fall for.

So I really think that the idea of the United States and China being in an adversarial relationship, who can it help? Not the United States, not the American people, but the British. And the British have put out another report: They have a Council on Geostrategy, it’s called. They have just put out a report, about being concerned about the Himalaya, and that has been a British Empire concern since way back, when, because of their manipulation at the point of Indian Independence, they split what are today Bangladesh and Pakistan from India; and they defined certain areas in the Himalayas as contested areas between India and China, for only one purpose—to keep stirring it up for future conflict. And in this report, they define the Himalayas as the “northern front of the Indo-Pacific” scenario. (https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/research/geopolitics-in-the-himalayas-towards-a-british-strategy/ )

This is ridiculous! The countries of Asia do not want to be pulled into this geopolitical confrontation, having to choose between the United States and China. And it is quite interesting that the Japanese representatives at the recent meeting of the Trilateral Commission, they invited the press for the first time to participate, and then, these Japanese participants said—warning from the Trilateral Commission of all places—they warned the U.S. not to force the countries of Asia to choose, because if they would be forced to choose, they would choose China.

So the sentiment of Asia is not to be pulled into this confrontation, but they want to cooperate in the BRICS-Plus, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), in all of these countries are moving under the pressure of the sanctions, with the exclusion of Russia from the SWIFT agreement, they’re now moving to create their own financial system; and the West is pursuing policies which are contrary to the interest of the nations of Europe and the United States. So we should really not fall into this trap.

SCHLANGER: I think it’s interesting: This Council on Geostrategy is essentially putting forward the old arguments from the Great Game, as you mentioned, from the mid-19th century, as part of this pivot to Asia, and we see Adm. Charles Richard, who can’t seem to keep his mouth shut on these things, once again surfacing, talking about China as the “big one,” it’s coming up soon. But at the same time, we just had this very interesting vote in Taiwan elections, where it appears as though the people of Taiwan don’t want the United States to force them to choose independence. What’s your assessment of this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: This is very interesting, because the DPP, the party of President Tsai Ing-wen, they just lost in a local elections in 21 jurisdictions, they only won 5 and Kuomintang (KMT) won 13. President Tsai resigned as the party leader of the DPP (she’s still Taiwan President), but it is very clear this was an overwhelming vote by the Taiwanese people for peace, they don’t want this confrontation. And the interesting thing is, this was not reported by the Western media at all. If you didn’t know about it, you would not find this information except as maybe a tiny note in one or two papers—but at the same time, there were massive reports about the “huge” demonstrations in China of maybe a couple of hundred people, with the white piece of paper, and it has all the signs that it was exactly like it happened in 1984 with the Tiananmen Square demonstration, that a lot of these people have been paid by foreign intelligence services. Some of them have confirmed that, already.

So you see how the manipulation occurs. But that does not change the fact that China is moving ahead. They just have sent three taikonauts to their Chinese space station, where they will be there for a short period of time with the three taikonauts who were already there. Then those three will return and new taikonauts will take over the post. Now, this is incredible, you know, and that is not reported as a great accomplishment.

And what’s even bigger, in my view, is the fact that the thermonuclear fusion research facility in Hefei just announced that they are confident that they will be able to have a continuous plasma fusion process by 2028 and that they will be able to put fusion-generated electricity directly into the grid by 2035! Now, that is an accomplishment for all of mankind, because once we have thermonuclear fusion, we have energy security on Earth, and that will mean that one major reason for war and conflict will be gone—but that is not newsworthy to these geopolitical warhawks. But that does not mean that China is not moving ahead on that, for the benefit—and they just have basically donated a tokamak fusion reactor to Thailand, for which they manufactured all the parts in China, and then is shipping it to Thailand. And that is what’s newsworthy, but that’s not being reported.

SCHLANGER: It’s mind-boggling when you look at the media, trying to find out what’s going on, and it’s nothing but a City of London/Wall Street continuing narrative.

You brought up the question earlier of mind control and the use of narratives, and censorship, and threats, open threats: that’s what the Committee to Counter Disinformation (CCD) of Ukraine is being used for by NATO to silence opposition. What do you make of the possibility that the situation around NATO unity is in grave danger. There was a former Reagan administration official, Bruce Fein, who came out this last week saying the United States should leave NATO. Do you see more of that tendency developing?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think so. Obviously, there are these demonstrations in all of Europe, in Italy, in France, in Belgium, in Germany, where people demand a stop in sending weapons to Ukraine, a stop to the sanctions, a stop to the inflation of the energy prices. So there is a lot of motion, and there is a big divide between the populations and the governments, that’s one thing. Then, there is obviously rifts in the trans-Atlantic unity. Politico for example, has an article in which they quote an unnamed EU official expressing anger about the fact that the American energy firms are becoming mega-rich, while Europe is going into a deep depression because LNG gas is being sold to Europe; it is four times as the energy prices were before, or even more.

So there are these tensions, and naturally, von der Leyen is on a rampage against Hungary. If they keep doing that, you may have Hungary exit—Hungexit, you would call it. And the EU is in general not in such a unity, whatsoever.

I think there are lone voices which make it into the news, like Oskar Lafontaine has made very sharp statements. [https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=90778] He has a new book out, in which he also demands that Europe should take its own self-interest. And there are some people who recognize that. But I think it’s far below what would be necessary. Because we are, right now, with this government—Chancellor Olaf Scholz is one thing; he has a mixed character; but I think Economy Minister Robert Habeck is completely ruining the Germany economy! If people are freezing to death in the winter, they can thank Habeck! If we get into a war with Russia, thank Baerbock: This woman, who is supposedly the foreign minister, she has no knowledge, she’s the most uninformed, most inadequate foreign minister Germany ever had! She has no knowledge of Russia, she has no knowledge of culture. She’s just a NATO tool, and the sooner people wake up to that, the better.

SCHLANGER: And then, in terms of shaping the opposition, you released this document of the 10 fundamental principles for achieving peace and security. (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/) Last week, when we talked about this, we asked people to engage with us in a dialogue, circulate it, become involved in promoting it. We’re seeing some motion on that, but how do you see this moving? It seems to be somewhat slow, but starting to move.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think many of the participants in the conferences are quite active. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/21/conference-stop-the-danger-of-nuclear-war-now/] That may not show every day, because it takes time. We have the call by Mexican Congressman Robles, calling on elected officials all over the world. (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/16/letter-to-current-and-former-legislators-of-the-world/ ) That is moving. Then, the former President of Guyana Donald Ramotar just wrote a very biting article, which I find actually useful, because he says, the former colonial powers of Europe, are now the colonies. And he basically says the same thing as Scott Ritter, but he says it from the standpoint as a former President of a developing country.

So a lot of things are happening, and I can only say, it’s important to discuss these principles, because there’s also a discussion, are these 10 principles a programmatic statement? No, they are not. They are not a program: There’s a difference between a program, where you say we want to have certain projects economically, or Glass-Steagall or whatever. These are supposed to be principles which define the orientation of the effort: Like the Peace of Westphalia accomplished the very important principle that if you want to have a peace order, you need to take into account the interest of the other. That’s a principle, that’s not a program. And the idea to eliminate poverty, to absolutely have sovereignty, and the partnership of sovereign countries, these are principles, and not a program.

So, I can really only encourage people to engage in a discussion, because, it is the question, in light of the danger of nuclear extinction and a collapsing Western system, an emerging new system coming mainly from the BRICS countries and the Global South, can we give ourselves a political order which allows the long-term survivability of humanity? And that is something everybody should be concerned with, because if you’re not concerned with it, the oligarchy, for sure, is, and you’re just leaving them the room to make the rules.

SCHLANGER: So I think the point is, the discussion goes into the philosophical realm, not the pragmatic realm, and your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, was always insisting that one of the weaknesses of people engaging in politics is that they’re looking for short-term pragmatic solutions, when, in fact, the solutions exist on a higher level.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, this is why we not only have the effort to build a world movement of world citizens, in line with Friedrich Schiller, who stated there is no contradiction between a patriot and a world citizen. And the idea that people have to start thinking about the one humanity first, to think as a world citizen, is really a very important question, because you will not be able to solve this incredible conflict if you are thinking only in terms of national or regional considerations. And that is why the adjunct campaign, if you want, is very important: Namely, we have started to have our own Schiller choruses in many corners of the world, to perform this beautiful canon “Dona Nobis Pacem”—Give Us Peace—which is not only an expression of the desire to have world peace, it’s appeals to the higher nature of human beings. And we have now choruses singing in France, in Denmark, in Germany, in the United States, and we want to encourage any choir, church choir, other choirs, to join with us and sing this canon, as an expression of wanting to have world peace and avoid the annihilation of the human species. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXMhxZ2KBlw] So, go to our website, look at some examples, and become inspired, because that is bringing in this higher quality of humanity which is needed right now.

SCHLANGER: And also, in the Schiller Institute website, while you’re there, download Helga’s 10 principles for peace that she drafted as part of the followup to the meeting on Nov. 22 (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/). And you can also watch that video, because it’s very relevant for this discussion

Get involved in the discussion, send us your thoughts! You can always contact us through https://schillerinstitute.com.

Helga, anything else?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. But I think we’re going now into Advent, the Christmas period, where people are distracted by a lot of running around, shopping. And I am afraid that we are in for a surprise: There are now reports, both from Col. Douglas Macgregor (ret.) who said that he sees signs for a coming Russian offensive. Then there are Western reports about satellite pictures that 500,000 troops are amassing and a lot of activity is indicating that a new Russian offensive may be in the works. Various Ukrainian officials have said that they want to “take back” Crimea; British think tanks have said it should happen this year. So, I’m not so sure that we will have a peaceful Christmas, but that we may go into a period of heightened danger to civilization. And that’s why the idea to have an end to this war, to have negotiated solutions, diplomacy, is more urgent than ever. And obviously, the catalogue of a new security architecture is really what is required.

SCHLANGER: You can join us in building that new security architecture. And again, if you’re not a member, become a member of the Schiller Institute! (https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/membership)

So, Helga, thanks for joining us again this week. And if all things work out, we’ll see you again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

Torsdag den 17. november 2022

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag, velkommen til den ugentlige dialog med Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Jeg er Harley Schlanger, og det er torsdag den 17. november 2022. Helga, i de sidste par dage i den forgangne uge, så det ud til, at vi har undveget et potentielt atomprojektil med missilhændelsen i Polen. Jeg er endnu ikke sikker på, at de fleste mennesker er klar over, hvor alvorligt dette er, men jeg tror, at det er meget vigtigt for dig at forklare folk din opfattelse af, hvad der foregik i forbindelse med denne hændelse.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg mener, at vi virkelig alle bør studere denne hændelse, fordi den anskueliggør, hvor hurtigt vi på grund af dumhed, provokationer, overreaktioner, en kombination af alle disse ting, kan komme i en situation, hvor man har en fuldbyrdet NATO-Rusland-konfrontation, for det var det, der var på nippet til at indtræffe.

I tirsdags kom nyheden om, at et missil havde ramt et sted i Polen, og straks var der en hel række medier og nogle politikere, der påstod, at dette var et russisk angreb på Polen, et NATO-medlem. Folk begyndte endda at tale om NATO’s artikel 5, dvs. den forsvarsmæssige betingelse, hvor hele NATO skulle have forsvaret Polen. Nogle af medierne, især de britiske medier, Daily Telegraph, The Mail, gik grassat og talte om et russisk angreb på Polen; Bildzeitung og flere tyske medier gik helt amok med overskrifter som “Putin leger med Tredje Verdenskrig”. Sådan lød overskrifterne onsdag; endog i en lederartikel. Dette på trods af at præsident Biden allerede tirsdag aften, naturligvis grundet tidsforskellen, havde sagt meget klart, at der ikke var noget bevis for, at der var tale om et russisk missil, men at mistanken var, at det var et ukrainsk luftforsvarsmissil, som på den ene eller den anden måde var endt i Polen.

Så på trods af at USA’s præsident og efterfølgende Pentagon benægtede, at det var et russisk missil, bragte medierne stadig overskrifter, endog om morgenen onsdag, hvor der blev rapporteret om sagen. Zelenskyj og Kuleba insisterede naturligvis hele dagen på, at det uden tvivl var et russisk missil, og da det blev tydeligt fastslået, at det ikke drejede sig om et russisk missil, sagde Kuleba, at det var en “konspirationsteori” at påstå dette.

Det er utroligt, men det er på en måde forståeligt – Ukraine er én ting. Men så fremturede nogle vestlige politikere, f.eks. fra det tyske liberale parti, FDP, [Marie Agnes] Strack-Zimmermann, formanden for forsvarsudvalget, og Lamsdorff, de påpegede alle sammen, at der ikke var nogen tvivl om, at det var et russisk missil. Så det som disse mennesker talte om, var muligheden for en militær konfrontation mellem NATO og Rusland i denne ekstremt anspændte situation. Det viser, at de ikke spekulerede på, om vi havde beviser, om de var blevet verificeret. Ved vi det?” De anmodede ikke om en undersøgelse, men de hoppede blot til konklusionen og gav Rusland skylden.

Jeg mener dette må analyseres, for det viser simpelthen, at i tider med utilsigtede hændelser eller forhold, kan det gå galt, hvis vi ikke bevæger os i en anden retning og udvikler en sikkerhedsarkitektur, hvor en sådan potentiel udslettelse af menneskeheden kan forhindres; Dette bør virkelig udgøre et varselssignal for alle, der ikke er fuldstændige idioter, om at vi helt klart skal gå i den retning, som Schiller Instituttet har påpeget siden april i år, nemlig at vi har brug for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som tager hensyn til alle verdens landes interesser, baseret på principperne i den Westfalske Fred.

Der er i kølvandet på sagen naturligvis krav om en grundig undersøgelse. Nu er der ligefrem røster, der taler om, at det måske var en provokation. Der er endda politikere i Polen, som udtaler, at Warszawa er nødt til fuldstændigt at genoverveje sin strategi i forhold til Ukraine. Så jeg er ikke i stand til at besvare disse spørgsmål nu, for det er naturligvis af største vigtighed, og man skal være ekstremt grundig for at finde ud af præcis, hvad der skete.

Nu var det sandsynligvis, som alle tegn vidner om, et sovjetisk produceret russisk missil, som Ukraine bruger, men hvem der affyrede dette missil, og var det et uheld, eller var det en provokation, det er endnu uvist. Jeg finder politikernes opførsel absolut skandaløs, og de medier der løj, på trods af at det fra USA’s præsident allerede var blevet afkræftet; jeg synes, at folk egentlig burde smide disse aviser væk og i virkeligheden indse, hvor farlige de er som et redskab til geopolitisk krigsførelse.

SCHLANGER: Da det først blev klart, at det ikke var et russisk affyret missil, er det interessant, hvordan diskussionen fortsatte: Stoltenberg sagde, at det fortsat er Ruslands skyld. Der var denne skøre Anne Applebaum fra Atlantic Council, der sagde, at det er ligegyldigt, hvad der skete: Det er Ruslands skyld. Der fulgte et yderligere skift til dette argument om, at vi nu er nødt til at spendere flere penge på Ukraine, de har brug for et bedre luftforsvarssystem. Helga, du har en Schiller Institut-konference på vej den 22. november, som virkelig får større betydning nu som følge af denne hændelse, ikke sandt? [“Stop faren for atomkrig”: https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20221122]

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jo, for det viser ganske enkelt, at vi, som vi drøftede på den sidste Schiller-konference den 5. november, hvor denne ekstremt vigtige korte video blev fremvist, virkelig er ved at finde ud af, hvad der rent faktisk ville ske under atomare krigsforhold: Når denne tingest først er udløst, har man højst 10 minutter, eller absolut maksimalt 10 til 15 minutter, før et angreb meddeles, og i bund og grund er atomvåbenarsenalet ramt; 2 minutter til at identificere det, 30 sekunder til at den amerikanske præsident kan beslutte, hvad han skal gøre – nogle få minutter – hvis vi kommer ind i denne form for dynamik, så burde folk have søvnløse nætter, indtil vi har afklaret sagen.

Næste tirsdag, den 22. november, afholder vi den tredje Schiller-konference, som er et resultat af initiativet fra latinamerikanske kongresmedlemmer. Det startede i oktober, og derefter havde vi meget hurtigt endnu en konference, og nu har vi den tredje, men i mellemtiden har disse kongresmedlemmer, især to fra Mexico, udsendt en international opfordring til alle valgte embedsmænd på internationalt plan og deres vælgere om at etablere en ny fredsbevægelse af verdensborgere. [“Hastesag: Stop faren for atomkrig!” https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/16/letter-to-current-and-former-legislators-of-the-world/] Det faktum, at hvis man udkæmper en atomkrig, er det et anliggende for hele menneskeheden, fordi det kan føre til den fuldstændige ødelæggelse af hele civilisationen, og det gør automatisk enhver borger til en verdensborger, der har ret til at rejse sig og erklære, at “dette må stoppe, så vi har brug for en anden politik”.

Således vil vi have adskillige parlamentarikere fra Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Brasilien og også nogle folk fra Europa med; også nogle af de mennesker, der lige nu demonstrerer for en afslutning på denne krig og indledende fredsforhandlinger. Det bliver virkelig et meget betydningsfuldt møde med to paneler, for det udvikler sig meget hurtigt, og vi er nødsaget til at have to paneler. Jeg vil virkelig opfordre alle jer, der er bekymrede over faren for atomkrig, til at deltage i denne konference, for vi er nødt til at lægge et meget virkningsfuldt alternativ på bordet, hvilket er præcis hvad jeg tidligere omtalte: Vi er nødt til at tvinge verdens regeringer til at udarbejde en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, som ikke udelukker noget land. For hvis man udelukker nogen, selv om det er en såkaldt autokratisk stat (hvilket man også kan sige meget om), skal der tages hensyn til alle, ellers fungerer det ikke!

Det er den store lære fra den Westfalske Fred, hvor folk erkendte, at man er nødt til at tage hensyn til alle landes interesser, hvis en fred skal være varig. Når man ikke gør det, som det skete med Versailles-traktaten, fører det til den næste krig: Det var den store forskel mellem den Westfalske Fred og Versailles-traktaten, at den ene fred etablerede international ret som et fungerende organ af lovmæssighed, mens Versailles-traktaten netop var kimen til den næste store verdenskrig, der skulle opstå.

Vi vil diskutere dette, og vi vil også præsentere brugbare foranstaltninger, der kan iværksættes for at afholde en sådan traktatkonference. Så I burde virkelig deltage.

SCHLANGER: Man kan tilmelde sig på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside (https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20221122); der er en boks og en tilmeldingsformular, som I kan udfylde.

Resten er på engelsk:

Now, you were mentioning the importance of the motion from Ibero-America, from especially the Global South: It’s interesting that this incident in Poland occurred during the G20 conference, where there were clearly tensions between the Global South and these so-called G7 nations. What’s your sense of what came from there, because there were a number of meetings between leaders—Xi Jinping was very active. How do you think that conference went overall?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it showed several things. First of all, the developing countries, but especially the host country Indonesia, they were very concerned that the so-called Western countries would not just come and complain, and harass and attack. But they wanted to have a constructive approach, focussing on the real challenges which are a threat to humanity, which is naturally, the world food crisis. Beasley, from the World Food Program, said this is the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II, what we’re experiencing right now. So they succeeded to a very large extent.

There was still an effort to condemn Russia and so forth, but it did not really function, because I think it has dawned on at least the more intelligent people, that there is no way how you can go back to the unipolar world. The multipolarity has become a reality; the Global South is playing a much bigger role, they want to overcome colonialism in its new form. And I think that that is a completely new dynamic. That does not mean that everybody in the Western establishment immediately will adapt to that, because they’re arrogant, and if you listen to [EU foreign policy chief] Josep Borrell, who thinks only Europe is a “garden” and the rest is a “jungle,” naturally your ears are so full of flowers and whatever your garden is growing that you can’t hear what people are saying!

But the reality is that there is a new reality, a new realignment, where 130, 140 countries have allied with the Belt and Road Initiative. They’re forming new systems with the BRICS countries, many more countries are applying to become members of the BRICS—Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey—so there is a lot of motion to actually build a completely new system based on sovereignty, the five principles of coexistence, the tradition of the Non-Aligned Movement, and that is really the new dynamic.

Other than that, I think quite important was the first physical meeting between President Biden and President Xi Jinping, at least since Biden has been President, and according to Foreign Minister Wang Yi, this meeting was a breakthrough. We have to see; I’m always of the opinion, let the deeds follow the words. But I think the fact that these two people met for more than three hours is very important, and one can only hope that this will constitute a lasting shift toward cooperation and an ending to this extreme confrontation which was going on.

Xi Jinping also met with about a dozen or more leaders, with Macron, with Albanese from Australia, with Rutte from Holland, and many others. And especially the meeting between Xi Jinping and Macron reestablished the intention that the two countries should work together. Then you had the Scholz visit to China earlier.

So there are clear motions that there is a recognition that you don’t get around China, because China is the locomotive of the world economy. And all the other Asian countries, as well! The only place where there is growth is Asia—it’s not Europe, it’s not the United States.

It was quite interesting that the Indonesian President Joko Widodo proudly announced the opening of the Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway at the occasion of Indonesia being the host country of the G20. I think this is important, because the developing countries look for cooperation with those countries that bring them real development. They don’t want to have just “democracy” and Sunday sermons, they want to have development, and they go to the countries that bring them that.

In that sense, it would be the best, and that is the whole aim of the Schiller Institute, we want the United States and European nations to cooperate with the Global South. There has to be an equal footing, and the demands from the developing sector that they want to overcome their poverty, that’s legitimate! And if Germany and France and Japan, and other so-called “industrial” countries, that are almost formerly industrialized countries by now, they have to listen and they have to come down from their high horse, and they should not think they are so superior to everybody else—and that, in any case, will not be accepted any longer.

So, I think with all caution, and the Polish missile event shows you that caution is adequate, nevertheless, I think this G20 meeting did reflect a change in the realities of the world, and that’s a little step in the right direction.

SCHLANGER: The final communiqué, in which the G7 nations wanted it to be a condemnation of Russia, and it was obviously a compromise. The final communiqué said, “Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine…” not even condemning Russia. And it mentioned that “There were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions.” [http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/en/u82esHnvQFdHOjV25AJg73rnLGEe8cK6.pdf] So, clearly if there was an attempt behind the scenes to bully, it didn’t work.

Helga, going into this conference, you had a role to play: You were able to bring to full consciousness the whole question of the Non-Aligned Movement, the anti-colonial movement. Why don’t you give us a little sense of what you did?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I participated in a very interesting conference celebrating the 66 year commemoration of the Bandung-Belgrade-Havana conferences, and celebrating a revival of the Spirit of Bandung. This was a very interesting week-long conference: It started in Jakarta; it went to Bandung, it went to Surabaya, and then from there to Bali. I unfortunately only participated online, but nevertheless, it was really expressing the absolute desire of the developing countries to end colonialism, and that spirit was very, very strong.

Now, some people also expressed that they think the West is hopeless, that you have to have a unilateral agreement, just don’t bother about the West any more. Now, I have argued many times that I don’t think that is realistic, because if you do not integrate at least the United States and hopefully many European countries, at least the continental European countries, it will not work! First of all, I don’t think the West would collapse as peacefully as the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991. And we can’t have a bloc-building either: You can’t have a Global South plus Russia and China, and a West, which decouples—I don’t think that that will work. And I find it quite interesting, I just read an article by Andrey Kortunov from the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), who basically said the same thing. He thinks that to construct any kind of world order without the United States will not function, and unfortunately, that’s what it is—or not “unfortunately.” [https://www.rt.com/news/566635-andrey-kortunov-american-attempts/ ]

But we have to getting the United States, despite what Ray McGovern calls the MICIMATT, Wall Street, the big banks, BlackRock, the whole conglomerate of economic-financial interests and the military-industrial complex conglomerate, that is one reality, but that is not the entire United States: We have farmers, we have people who are the real people and they have obviously had a voice in the recent period, in the campaign for Senate of Diane Sare in New York.

But I think just the last word on the G20, the Non-Aligned Movement, I think the momentum is in Asia. I was also able to give several interviews, Chinese TV, commenting on all these things. So my overall impression of all of that is, the Westerners, so-called, would be really advised to stop being so arrogant and just start to cooperate with the countries that clearly have the historic momentum. If they don’t it will be at their own expense, and in the worst case, Europe will go to the sidelines of history and become a relic of one of these civilizations that didn’t make it.

That’s not what we should aim for, so I’m more for a revival of the spirit of Leibniz, that Europe and China should work together, and develop all the countries in between: So that’s my view.

SCHLANGER: Things are not so good in Josep Borrell’s “garden.” The latest report from the European Central Bank shows that there is an extreme period of crisis coming with the economy. The idiocy of the Green partners in the German coalition government, Baerbock and Habeck, are pointing toward accelerated deindustrialization. What does it look like in Europe right now?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We are going into a real hard fall and winter: The prices of food and energy are already skyrocketing. Fuest, who is the head of the Ifo economic institute in Munich just said that in the medium term this is risking Germany as an industrial location; the Mittelstand will be wiped out if the policies of these Green ideologues, these absolutely anti-human, anti-growth people, [Foreign Minister] Baerbock and [Economic Minister] Habeck, if that is not quickly replaced, Germany will cease to be an industrial nation.

And the ECB just put out a report saying that they’re between a rock and a hard place, between quantitative tightening, threatening collapses and bankruptcies; and quantitative easing, which threatens hyperinflation. There is no solution within that system. This is why we are saying, we absolutely need to have a new credit system, Glass-Steagall, national bank, going back to the principles as the Bretton Woods system was intended by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and unfortunately never implemented because when FDR died, Truman and Churchill who then finally designed the Bretton Woods. This is why many developing countries don’t even like the word “Bretton Woods.”

But as Roosevelt intended it, to overcome the poverty and increase the living standard of the entire world population, that has to be put on the agenda, but naturally, I don’t think it will function with this present leadership of the EU, because von der Leyen and ECB President Lagarde, and these people, they are really the hard-core neoliberal—they’re like the Honeckers of the neoliberal system. So, with them it will not function. We need some other motion.

SCHLANGER: Especially given the context of the war danger, as well as the hunger crisis that David Beasley talked about, maybe you want to say something more about that; but clearly, the question of a failing architecture, which as you say, is not going to fail peacefully, but could drag the world into war, does raise the question of what your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, dedicated the last 50 years of his life to, which is the creation of a new paradigm. And I think it’d be worthwhile just discussing finally how this would work to further the so-called “advanced sector”: the bankruptcy reorganization, the credit system—this is something that’s not even discussed. We just had an election in the United States, and none of this was discussed!

Maybe you want to say something about the lack of a “red wave” in the United States, in this context?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the expectation that the Republicans would take over with a sweeping victory did not come true. Then Trump’s candidates didn’t win in many places. Now the big talk is about Florida Governor DeSantis, who is really linked to the neoliberal Austrian school of economics.

Right now, I think the United States, it really shows that what my late husband had said about the party system, that it does not function—he actually called it the “potty system.” And, of course, George Washington at the end of his term, warned against the parties, saying they tend not to be in the interest of the nation, but in the lobby interests, the specialist groups. There is really no fundamental difference, because if you now look at what Bannon as an adviser to Trump is now doing in Mexico, lining up with the extreme rightwing forces of Latin American continent.

I think we need, really, a revival of the American tradition, and the only thing one could see in this recent election campaign was the fantastic campaign of Diane Sare, who, however, was completely defrauded of her vote! That should also be noted: There’s this big story, you can’t say there was vote fraud in 2020. Well, there was vote fraud for sure against Diane Sare. We have screen shots where she had at a certain point over 50,000 votes, and then a few hours later, the screen shot shows she had only 29,000 votes. She had collected more than 66,000 signatures to even be on the ballot! So they didn’t even give her a third of those votes, which is completely hilarious! She had all these groups that were supporting her.

In any case, what that signifies is that there is a huge divide between the population and the governments, and that is becoming very clear in Europe as well, where you have more and more large demonstrations: People taking to the streets because they don’t feel represented by the government, or the parties like the Free Democratic Party, which really showed its colors in the missile crisis. Who wants to be in the hands of people like this German MP Strack-Zimmermann? This is a Halloween kind of an idea.

What is really required is a completely different system, whereby the common good is again on the agenda, and more and more people from the so-called “normal people” have to take responsibility and qualify themselves to know what should be the economic policy, the foreign policy, the security policy, education. And that requires exactly what we are trying to do to create a movement of world citizens who basically say: We will not allow our fate to be ruined by those few billionaires who are controlling all the corporations; you know, BlackRock is just one example, Vanguard, these things are like vultures that are trying to suck the juice out of the economy, at the expense of the people. That has come to a breaking point, and we need, really, a mass movement of true state citizens. And one occasion where that will be discussed is this coming week at the next Schiller conference. So again, I invite you to participate.

SCHLANGER: Those people who want to know how there’s no contradiction between being a patriot of your nation and a world citizen, should register for the conference. It’s Nov. 22, and registration is available at the Schiller Institute website: https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20221122

Helga we’ve run out of time, so thank you very much for joining us today, and we’ll see you hopefully again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till next week.

Kommer senere på dansk:

Nov. 14, 2022 (EIRNS)—An eight-minute video special by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, with a headline “German Expert: G20 Summit and Unprecedented Challenges” was broadcast today by CGTN with the following description: 

“With a purpose of collective action and inclusive collaboration among major developed countries and emerging economies around the world, the 17th G20 Summit will take place from 15-16 November 2022 in Bali. What are the unprecedented challenges that world leaders will find answers for at this year’s assembly? Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute, to explore more!” 

Se videoen her.

In the video (see below for the full text), Zepp-LaRouche asserts that the G20 summit occurs at a moment of unprecedented challenges to mankind—the proxy war in Ukraine, which could escalate to nuclear war; inflation which originates with QE decisions pumping trillions of dollars into the survival of an ailing system since 2008, now causing massive protests against inflation in Europe; the energy crisis, which has to do with Germany’s exit from nuclear and fossils energy sources as well as the impact of anti-Russian sanctions on gas supplies delivered to Europe and other parts of the world; the three years of pandemic; the threat that 1.7 billion humans will not have an adequate food supply and 2 billion have no access to clean water.

All these challenges threaten mankind as a whole, Zepp-LaRouche state. Therefore the question is whether the leaders who attend the G20, as the most important international forum for discussion of cooperation, will act constructively. Ten leaders of the G20 are from the West, the other ten are from the East and the Global South. Will the Bali Summit follow leaders with constructive proposals for a shared future of mankind like Xi Jinping today, or historic leaders, like President Sukarno at the Bandung Non-Aligned Movement summit in 1955 or José López Portillo’s UN General Assembly address in 1982; or will they follow the destructive course of the Western geopoliticians?

What the world needs is a new security and development architecture that takes into account the interests of every nation to stop war; a new and just economic order to solve the world financial crisis; a doubling of food production to end starvation; and to build a modern health system in every country to forestall the threat of pandemics, Zepp-LaRouche concluded.

Her er afskriftet på engelsk:

{{Helga Zepp-LaRouche:}} This year, when the G20 meets in Bali, Indonesia, on November 15th and 16th, the world faces unprecedented challenges in human history.  As President Xi Jinping recently emphasized, he called on all countries to uphold the common values of humanity, peace development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom, further mutual understanding, and form close bonds with other people.  And he said, let us concentrate all our forces to face all kinds of global challenges.  

The gremium [consultative body] which should be best suited to address and find solutions for those challenges is, or should be, the G20, the group of leading industrial and emerging countries, which since September 2009, are the central forum for international economic cooperation.  This was decided at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, by the heads of government in response to the financial crisis of 2008.

This year, the G20 will meet in Bali, Indonesia, on November 15th and 16th, also in memory of the history Bandung Conference. 

What are these “unprecedented challenges” these leaders should address and find answers for? To name only the most urgent ones:

First, the military conflict over Ukraine, which is not a war between Russia and Ukraine, but a proxy war between NATO and Russia, which has the potential to get out of control, and in the worsecase, escalate into a global thermonuclear war. 

Second, we see an explosion of inflation rates, for which the war in Ukraine is only one aspect. The sanctions against Russia have completely backfired: The economies of Europe and Germany are hit by a tremendous blowback. The prices of food are skyrocketing, energy prices are becoming unpayable, many energy-intensive firms are going bankrupt, such as bakeries; restaurants are giving up.  More and more desperate people are taking to the streets, in France, in Belgium, in Holland. The farmers are radicalizing.  In Italy, tens of thousands are demonstrating against the war danger. 

In many German cities, people demonstrate to stop the sanctions, to reduce prices.  More fundamentally, the policies of money printing by the central banks, the policy of so-called “quantitative easing” (QE), whereby they have pumped trillions of dollars and euros into the financial system, has created this inflation.  One can see the clear correlation between the QE and prices going up. 

Third, for the energy price crisis, there are different factors. Germany’s exit from nuclear energy, for which no adequate replacement has been organized.  Now, the exit is also from fossil fuels. Then, there has been a lack of investments in energy flux dense energy types.  And even in France, which has a strong nuclear energy sector, they were pushed to put money into renewables, neglecting the maintenance of nuclear plants.  Then, the sanctions against Russia as the main source for deliveries to Europe, which resulted in a new dependence on U.S. LNG, which makes energy much more expensive, and naturally, a price explosion as a result of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. 

Fourth, then there is world food crisis. According to figures from the World Food Programme, 1.7 billion people are threatened with famine, {2 billion people have no clean water, which has a life-shortening effect, because diseases can spread easily.} 

There is the COVID-19 pandemic and threat of other pandemics looming. After almost three years of the pandemic, if one compares the statistics of death by continent or country, one can see a correlation between the different responses by the governments and the death rates, and the lack of modern health systems in the majority of countries around the world. 

So, our civilization indeed faces an unprecedented combination of challenges, of which the first one, the war danger, could threaten the very existence of mankind.  But, also the other dangers, hyperinflation, energy shortage, world famine and pandemics, are such then one should assume that the governments would feel the urgent obligation to work together to solve them. 

But will they?

As of now, ten participating countries belong to the camp of the West: Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, South Korea, and the EU.  

Another ten countries are those who are working with the countries of the Global South, who are really the most affected by all the calamities mentioned above: China, Brazil, Argentina, India, Russia, Indonesia, Türkiye, South Africa, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. 

So, the big question for the billions of people in the Global South is, can these leaders stop their geopolitical confrontations for the sake of the shared community of the future of mankind? 

Look at what great leaders said at previous similar forums: 

“It is a new departure in the history of the world that leaders of the Asian and African peoples can meet together in their own countries, to discuss and deliberate upon matters of common concern.” [Indonesian President Sukarno, Bandung, April 18, 1955]

How will the speeches of the leaders at the G20 summit measure up to what other great leaders said at other, less-challenging occasions? Such as the famous address by [Mexican] President López Portillo at the United Nations General Assembly in 1982: “We cannot fail. There is good reason to be alarmist. Not only the heritage of our civilization is at stake, but also the very survival of our children, of future generations, and of the human species.”  [Mexican President José López Portillo, October 11, 1982; https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1982/eirv09n39-19821012/eirv09n39-19821012.pdf]

The fate of maybe billions of people will depend on what these leaders will do. Hopefully, all of them, or at least a powerful group of nations will agree on a joint program which will solve the existential challenges of humanity:  

To stop the war, a new global security and development architecture, which takes into account the interests of every country on the planet. 

To solve the financial crisis, agree on a new world economic order and a new credit system.

To stop the energy crisis, end the sanctions and cooperate on energy security. 

To stop the world famine, double food production worldwide. 

To stop the spread of pandemics, build a world health system, a modern health system in every single country in the world.

Let’s hope that this moment of unprecedented challenges has founder leaders that have the greatness to save humanity! 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: [English 7:30]

Hello.  I greet you wherever you may be.  What brings this meeting together, which is actually a sequel meeting to one we had on October 7th, where with the distinguished Congressmen and -women from Latin America, it was clear to us that we had to do an extra effort to mobilize the world population to the danger in which we are.  And, I think that one of the most disturbing facts about the present situation is that for those who have looked at the danger of nuclear war and the escalation, who are realizing that the vast majority of human beings on this planet have no inkling on what kind of a powder keg we are sitting.  If you think back to the early 1980s, when we had the medium-range missile crisis in Europe between the SS-20 and the Pershing II being directed against each other with only a few minutes’ warning time, you had hundreds of thousands of people in the street warning of World War III.  And today, when the situation is so much more dangerous, there is very little.  There are some demonstrations, but not in any correspondence of the possibility of the extinction of the civilization, which is what we are talking about if only one nuclear weapon would be used.  Just to give you a sense, we have today, the 27th of October until October 30th—another three days—you have simultaneously the entire NATO and the entire Russian armed forces being involved in their annual nuclear exercise.  That means the arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers are right now rehearsing a nuclear war.  Because that is the basis of the Steadfast Noon maneuver, the NATO maneuver which is exercising the readiness of their nuclear arsenal.  Given the fact that the main target is Russia, they are rehearsing a nuclear war against Russia.  That means that the entire arsenal of B-52 bombers have been brought from the United States to the European theater.  At the same time, the Russians also have their regular maneuvers called “Grom,” which is the Russian word for thunder.  They are also involved in a large maneuver, including the live missile launches. 

Given the tension, this is not just a routine maneuver, even though it has been declared by both sides to be that.  But this is in the middle of a situation in the Ukraine war which is getting more dangerous by the day; this is in the context of all kinds of maneuvers.  For example, remember that Russian Defense Minister Shoigu just a few days ago had called all his colleagues—the Defense Ministers of the U.S., U.K., France, and Turkey—warning them that they had intelligence about the Ukraine preparing a dirty nuclear bomb which then in a fake operation would blame Russia for.  Naturally, this was denied by the Ukrainian side, but just yesterday Shoigu continued this series of phone calls by calling the Indian and Chinese Defense Ministers, also discussing this situation.

Now, only a very short time ago, President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, in a meeting with the Australians, had basically called for preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Russia, which then was pulled back.  His aides said he didn’t mean it that way.  Stoltenberg, the NATO General Secretary, said that a victory of Russia in Ukraine would be a defeat of NATO, and therefore could not be tolerated.  President Biden on October 6th in a more or less private meeting, had warned about the use of tactical nuclear weapons from the side of Russia would could lead to an Armageddon, which then also was corrected.  Defense Minister Shoigu said that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is absolutely not on the table, and not even on the horizon.  Naturally, all of this takes place in the context of which side has what nuclear doctrine.  It is an absolute fact that the Russian nuclear military doctrine provides for the use of nuclear weapons only in the case that the territorial existence of Russia is at stake.  That obviously is not the case under normal circumstances.  While on the other side, since the Bush administration, the United State has a first strike doctrine.  That is something which is absolutely not discussed, and I think we have to discuss it because ever since the U.S. has the prompt global strike doctrine, it does have the element of a first strike use.

Now, when President Biden came into office in January 20, 2021, he promised that he would clarify that, and correct the U.S. doctrine to the sole purpose only that only in order to deter a nuclear attack, or if necessary, retaliate against a nuclear attack, would the United States use nuclear weapons.  So, I think we need to have a very broad discussion among military experts.  Is it acceptable to be part of NATO when the policy of NATO is a first strike policy?  That is not some theoretical question very far away.  We should note the fact that in February 2021, it was the leader of the Strategic Command, Admiral Richard, who had advised the Pentagon to change the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons from “not likely” to “likely.”  So, that was the response.  Just last week, the United States ship {USS West Virginia} ballistic missile submarine surfaced in the Arabian Sea.  Now, Russian expert Alexander Timokhin, wrote in the magazine {Vzglyad} which is the Russian word for view, that the very unlikely occurring of that U.S. submarine surfacing—normally these submarines don’t like to be seen and their location is supposed to be a secret—would have been a demonstration on the side of the United States that they are capable of delivering a first strike to disarm the Russian nuclear arsenals in a preemptive way and prevent Russian retaliation by putting such missiles on a flat trajectory rather than a ballistic one, and therefore shortening the flight time significantly, thereby depriving the Russian side of going for a counterstrike.

I don’t know.  This all is very worrisome, and I think we do need a public debate about that, because if we are that close to the mistrust and the assumption that this could happen and the Russians have this doomsday strategy whereby if the Russian leadership would be eliminated in a first strike, then they have an automatism which would set into motion all the nuclear capability even if the Russian leadership is already eliminated. 

I think all of these developments are really a reason to have a total alarmist situation.  What is at stake is the existence of the human species.  We have discussed at the previous meeting on October 7th that the fact that if there would be a nuclear war, and it is the agreement of all competent military experts that there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear war, if one single nuclear weapon is used, the entire arsenal will be used, and that will be the end of civilization.  Because a nuclear winter would kill off in all likelihood those few billion who would survive the actual nuclear war.  It would probably be the end of the human race, or at least in the form we know it now.  If some miserable people would survive in the following years, one should remember the word of John F Kennedy who said that those who die in the first hours will be lucky compared to those who manage to live on for a couple of weeks or months or years.

Therefore, because it is the existence of all of civilization which is at stake, we discussed that that by definition makes it that every person on this planet is a world citizen, and has to think like a world citizen.  We have been catapulted to be representative of the one humanity, whose existence is at stake right now.  This is why we want to escalate this mobilization.  We want to bring it into all countries, and we want to evoke from a group of nations whatever it may be, that they must address this condition.  We must have an emergency session of the UN General Assembly or another occasion would be at the upcoming G-20 meeting in Indonesia in mid-November.  But a group of nations has to come forward and offer an alternative to this danger.

The Schiller Institute has mobilized since the outbreak of this war, to have an international conference to have a New Paradigm, to have a new international security and development architecture which takes into account the interest of every single country on the planet; which means a European security architecture clearly has failed.  If you don’t include countries which right now are supposed to be completely excluded, and there is actually an effort going on to decouple the United States and Europe and some of their few allies from Russia, China, the BRICS countries, the SCO.  That will not work.  You cannot split the world in two places and think that with all the problems we have that there can be a solution.  We need a motion to put on the table for a new international security and development architecture, a new world economic order which addresses also the fact that the trans-Atlantic financial system is in a hyperinflationary blow-out.  We have seen in the case of Great Britain and the unfortunate fate of the short-term Prime Minister Liz Truss, that the effort by the central banks—in that case, by the Bank of England—to go for first quantitative easing, pumping money, then seeing that this leads to inflation; then going to quantitative tightening, then realizing that may lead to a collapse of the stock and bond markets, then going back to quantitative easing.  This is not going to be a viable solution.  If the European Central Bank is doing the same thing in the next several days, they will have the same experience as the Bank of England had.  We are at the end of the system, and we need a new monetary system, a new credit system which allows us to overcome poverty for every person on this planet.  We need to have a new conception of how to organize the affairs so that every country on this planet can develop its fullest potential.

So, this is what we want to instigate a broad discussion about, and as Dennis was saying, it was Schiller’s conviction that you can be a patriot of your country, and act as a world citizen at the same time, acting in the interest of all of humanity.  We have reached in the history of mankind that point where either the human species makes that evolutionary jump to think in terms of the one humanity first, and then puts the national interest second.  It’s OK to have a national interest, but it should never be contrary to the interests of humanity as a whole.  We are calling to organize a movement of world citizens of all countries to unite, because that may be the last resort to stop something which not even an historian would be left over to comment on.  We want to invite all of you to participate and help to spread that effort.  Thank you.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Abonnenterne fik også følgende EIR artikle om den ukrainske sortliste: 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Den 11. august 2022

“VI KAN IKKE ACCEPTERE BEGRÆNSNINGER AF YTRINGSFRIHEDEN”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche åbnede sin webcast i dag med en lidenskabelig appel til borgerne om at slutte sig til hende i en kampagne for at ændre de fortællinger, som de vestlige regeringer og deres åbenlyse censur fremfører, og som er beregnet til at beskytte deres kollapsende system.  Uoverensstemmelsen mellem det som folk ønsker, og det som regeringerne gør, peger i retning af et intenst efterår, især i Europa, da de europæiske regeringer begår økonomisk selvmord under pres fra USA, Storbritannien og NATO, ved at fortsætte krigen mod Rusland og bevæge sig i retning af at afkoble deres økonomier fra Rusland og Kina.

Størstedelen af resten af verden bevæger sig i en anden retning, nemlig i retning af økonomisk samarbejde.  Denne nye retning er blevet formet af hendes afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouches, livslange virke.  Det er derfor ikke overraskende at observere, at kampagnen for at stoppe enhver bestræbelse for overvejelser blandt nationer, der føres af det ukrainske “Center for bekæmpelse af Misinformation”, har været rettet mod hende og Schiller Instituttet, såvel som dets samarbejdspartnere.  Hun opfordrede seerne til at tilslutte sig vores mobilisering mod en sådan censur og til at støtte Schiller Instituttets kampagne for et nyt Bretton Woods og en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur.

Den 8. august, 2022

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, leder i den tyske avis Neue Solidarität.

Hvis verden virkeligt trængte til noget fuldstændigt unødvendigt, så var det Nancy Pelosi’s besøg i Taiwan. Dermed er den akutte konfrontation mellem USA og Kina nu blevet føjet til den ekstremt farlige og eskalerende krise i Ukraine, og dynamikken i den geopolitiske konfrontation mellem de førende atommagter med henblik på en nuklear tredje verdenskrig er blevet yderligere optrappet. USA har dermed officielt begravet sin traktatfæstede tilslutning til ét-Kina-politikken, som også er bekræftet i FN’s Generalforsamlings resolution 2758, og har sendt et umiskendeligt signal til de kræfter i Taiwan, der arbejder for Taiwans løsrivelse.

Dermed overskred Pelosi bevidst en rød linje, som Kina har sat, fordi hun besøgte Taiwan, ikke blot som formand for det amerikanske Repræsentanternes Hus, men også i sin egenskab af den næstvigtigste person efter vicepræsidenten   og dermed som repræsentant for den amerikanske regering. For Folkerepublikken Kina, som har lidt under en lang historie med imperiekrige og indtrængen i det 19. århundrede, som landet kalder “ydmygelsernes århundrede”, og som ligeledes har måttet afværge mange udenlandske destabiliseringer i det 20. århundrede, før det opnåede national suverænitet, krænker dette Kinas centrale interesser.

For at give læseren et groft overblik svarer det nogenlunde til, at den russiske premierminister Mishustin rejser til delstaten Sachsen for at opfordre delstatsregeringen dér til at erklære sig uafhængig af forbundsregeringen i Berlin.

Alligevel havde utallige officielle erklæringer fra den kinesiske regering og medierne længe advaret om, at forsøg på at støtte Taiwans uafhængighed gennem våbenleverancer og iøjnefaldende foranstaltninger som f.eks. åbning af en slags halvambassade i Washington ville bringe det langsigtede mål om fredelig genforening i fare og fremskynde en tvungen genforening.

Det er kun takket være den åbenbart grænseløse arrogance, der har været fremherskende i Vesten i et stykke tid, at alle advarsler fra Kina om, at landet med alle midler vil modsætte sig de amerikansk støttede forsøg på løsrivelse, blev ignoreret af Pelosi. Ingen burde have været overrasket over, at det kinesiske militær reagerede med manøvrer i seks zoner omkring Taiwan, nogle med skarp ammunition og affyring af missiler, som teoretisk set kunne have ramt mål i Taiwan. Som militærets hjemmeside rapporterede, omfattede disse manøvrer øvelser bl.a. blokadeøvelser, angreb på mål i Det Kinesiske Hav og på taiwansk territorium, kontrol med luftrummet og troppernes kampdygtighed. Det var med andre ord en manøvre med henblik på en militær overtagelse af Taiwan.

Forudsat at der ikke sker yderligere provokationer, vil Kina ikke have travlt med at gennemføre disse manøvrer for alvor, da Kinas konventionelle militære overlegenhed er overvældende i betragtning af landets geografiske placering – USA er 11.000 km væk. Kina kan tillade sig at udvise enorm tålmodighed, fordi en fredelig genforening med Taiwan kun er et spørgsmål om tid.

Men da præsident Biden i begyndelsen af sin embedsperiode sendte stadig tydeligere signaler om støtte til Taiwans uafhængighed og til sidst meddelte, at USA ville forsvare Taiwan mod fastlandet efter en “invasion”, dukkede der talrige artikler op i de kinesiske medier om, at militæret let ville kunne vinde en konfrontation med USA. Men Daniel Ellsberg, der afslørede Pentagonpapirerne, mindede om John Foster Dulles’ planer om at bruge atomvåben i tilfælde af en militær konfrontation om Taiwan og henviste til Rand Corporation’s undersøgelse om emnet med titlen “The Taiwan Strait Crisis – A Documented History” (Krisen i Taiwanstrædet – en dokumenteret historie). Ellsberg appellerede til nutidens potentielle whistleblowere om at rapportere om debatter i Pentagon om brugen af atomvåben.

Kinas beslutsomhed kommer også til udtryk i afbrydelsen af forskellige militære og diplomatiske forbindelser på det civile område. Der kommer ikke flere militære udvekslinger mellem militærpersoner, ikke flere konsultationer om maritim sikkerhed, ulovlige indvandrere, international organiseret kriminalitet og narkotikahandel eller klimaændringer. Kina er også begyndt at indføre sanktioner over for Taiwan, f.eks. mod eksport af sand, som Taiwan ikke kun har brug for til byggesektoren, men også til sin førende position på verdensplan inden for produktion af halvledere, dvs. chips af enhver art.

Et af de vigtigste aspekter af Pelosi’s rejse var hendes stort set oversete møde med Mark Lui, formanden for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC), som kontrollerer 53 % af verdensmarkedet i form af kontrakter med virksomheder, der producerer chips i andre lande. Biden-administrationen har fra starten forsøgt at lokke TSMC til at investere i USA, bl.a. ved at hjælpe virksomheden med at købe jord i Arizona i 2021 for at bygge et anlæg der, som efter planen skal stå færdigt i 2024. Hvis der sker en genforening af Taiwan med fastlandet, vil disse planer blive skudt i sænk i utide.

Den usaglige tyske udenrigsminister Annalena Baerbock kunne naturligvis ikke lade være med at tage den amerikanske regerings parti i konflikten og støtte Taiwan i tilfælde af en militær aktion, hvilket blev kraftigt afvist af det kinesiske udenrigsministerium. Den kinesiske ambassadør i Storbritannien, Zheng Zeguang, advarede om, at planlagte Taiwan-besøg af britiske parlamentsmedlemmer ville blive mødt med de samme foranstaltninger. Tyskland vil ikke få det bedre, hvis otte medlemmer af Forbundsdagens menneskerettighedsudvalg holder fast i deres planer om at besøge Taiwan i oktober. Den kinesiske ambassade i Berlin har nu advaret europæerne om at overveje, om de fortsat vil støtte “USA’s farlige og provokerende handlinger” og “trække verden ind i en sump af konfrontationer”.

Det er mildt sagt. Verden er ved at kaste sig ud i et kaos uden fortilfælde med trusler om massearbejdsløshed, forarmelse af store dele af samfundet, hyperinflationær ekspropriation af befolkningens opsparing, sociale konflikter af ufattelige proportioner, sult og fattigdom i verden, nye flygtningekatastrofer og krig, der kan blive til en atomkrig, hvor alt liv på jorden vil blive udslettet i en atomvinter.

Det er på høje tid, at en bred diskussion i befolkningen tvinger den såkaldte elite til at genoverveje de seneste årtiers mange forkerte beslutninger og ændre kurs i retning mod det fælles bedste. Når selv den tidligere leder af sikkerhedskonferencen i München, Wolfgang Ischinger, kan tale om, at NATO også har begået alvorlige fejl, og at det afgørende syndefald var de ubegrænsede tilbud til Ukraine og Georgien i Bukarest i 2008 om at blive optaget i NATO, hvorfor kan man så ikke drage konsekvenserne heraf?

På konferencen den 9. april fremsatte Schiller Instituttet et omfattende forslag om, at vi har et presserende behov for en ny global sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, der tager hensyn til alle landes interesser. Præsident Xi Jiping har fremlagt meget lignende idéer med sit globale udviklingsinitiativ og globale sikkerhedsinitiativ.

Sammen med Lyndon LaRouches forslag, der blev fremsat for mange år siden, om at erstatte det håbløst bankerotte transatlantiske finanssystem med et nyt Bretton Woods-system, der har som sit primære mål at overvinde fattigdommen på denne planet for alle mennesker, er dette programforslag, der kan overvinde krisen, og som mange nationer nu igen vender sig imod i traditionen fra den alliancefrie bevægelse. BRICS, Shanghai-samarbejdsorganisationen, Den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, ASEAN, OIC, AU og andre organisationer i det globale syd er alle i gang med at søge at realisere en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden.

I stedet for at optræde som håndlangere for superbøllen og dermed muligvis bidrage til menneskehedens største katastrofe i et  allerede håbløst forsøg på at inddæmme Rusland, Kina og de alliancefrie stater, bør tysk og europæisk politik igen huske på sine bedste traditioner og trække på vores videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt for at bidrage til at løse verdens gigantiske problemer.

Modige og selvtænkende mennesker må nu sætte sig op mod  de budskaber, der er orkestreret af medierne og efterretningstjenesterne, og som sætter konfrontation på dagsordenen og lader som om, at selv atomkrig er noget, man kan vænne sig til. Vi har brug for samarbejde i stedet for konfrontation, diplomati i stedet for sabelraslen, civiliseret omgang med hinanden og med andre nationer i stedet for trusler om, at vi ønsker at “ødelægge” dem.

Men frem for alt har vi brug for en vision om, hvordan menneskeheden skal udvikle sig. Vil vi være en barbarisk art eller en kreativ menneskehed, der udvikler de muligheder, der ligger i vores natur som fornuftsvæsener?

Hvis du hører til den sidstnævnte type, så slut dig til os.

Foto: Taiwan Presidential Office, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Den 29. juni (EIRNS) – På et møde i præsident James Monroes regering den 7. november 1823 argumenterede den daværende udenrigsminister John Quincy Adams, kraftigt imod den unge amerikanske republiks foreslåede strategiske alliance med Storbritannien, som var blevet foreslået af den britiske udenrigsminister George Canning. “Det ville være mere ærligt og værdigt”, argumenterede Adams, “at erklære vores principper udtrykkeligt over for Rusland og Frankrig, end at komme ind som en slæbebåd i kølvandet på den britiske skibsfører.”

Mens vi nærmer os 246-årsdagen for uafhængighedserklæringen denne 4. juli, er det stadig den centrale politiske krig, der udkæmpes i USA i dag: mellem dem, der vil følge Storbritannien i forsvaret af deres bankerotte, transatlantiske finanssystem og deres ønske om krig på den ene side, og dem, der lokaliserer USA’s identitet og interesser i det amerikanske system med højteknologisk, økonomisk udvikling og tilhørende internationalt samarbejde, som Lyndon LaRouche mest forbilledligt har anbefalet  i den moderne tidsalder.

Det førstnævnte politiske udsyn, kom på dramatisk vis til udtryk i forbindelse med den faretruende fiasko, som NATO-topmødet i Madrid, Spanien, den 28.-29. juni udgjorde. NATO brændte på mødet alle resterende officielle broer til Rusland, proklamerede et nyt strategisk koncept om konfrontation med både Rusland og Kina, og annoncerede i øvrigt øgede militære indsættelser i hele Europa for yderligere at omringe Rusland – alt sammen under rammerne af fuld opbakning til Kiev-regimet i Ukraine. (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-strategic-concept.pdf)

Den ” krigsherre “, der definerer denne politik for et nukleart opgør med Rusland, er Storbritannien, hvis nye chef for generalstaben, general Sir Patrick Sanders, talte på Royal United Services Institute’s Land Warfare Conference den 28. juni, for at annoncere en politik om at være “utvetydigt parat til at kæmpe for NATO’s territorium”, da “hvis vi ikke formår at afskrække [Rusland], er der ingen andre alternativer, i betragtning af omkostningerne ved et potentielt modangreb og den dertil knyttede nukleare trussel”.

“Slæbebåden” i den eskalerende konflikt blev spillet af USA’s nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver Jake Sullivan, der samme dag fortalte journalisterne, at NATO’s nye strategiske koncept “vil beskrive den trussel, som Rusland udgør, i klare vendinger”, og at Kina også udgør en “mangesidet udfordring”. Derfor, sagde han, “vil USA og NATO forstærke deres styrkeposition på den østlige flanke” – dvs. øge tilstedeværelsen af tropper og udstyr i den østlige del af Europa betydeligt, i en kampstilling mod Rusland.

Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov drog den eneste mulige konklusion. Ruslands argumenter gennem år og endda årtier, om behovet for at respektere “princippet om sikkerhedens udelelighed” – dvs. at alle nationers sikkerhedsinteresser skal respekteres og opfyldes – har været “forgæves”. Da Ruslands bekymringer “fuldt ud ignoreres på arrogant vis”, vil Rusland drage de nødvendige konklusioner.

Men det er ikke slutningen på historien – langt fra.

I Europa står nationer som Tyskland over for 15-25 % nedbrud af deres fysiske økonomier i år, da det antirussiske sanktionsregime – som er påkrævet af de desperate bestræbelser på at holde det bankerotte transatlantiske finanssystem i live – fører til drastiske nedskæringer på energi, fødevarer og andre vigtige nødvendigheder. Politisk set er krisen ved at nå kogepunktet i befolkningen. I syd vender mange nationer sig mod de muligheder, der åbner sig med Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ, og med den bebudede udvidelse af BRIKS-gruppen. Og i USA finder en oprørsk befolkning politiske svar på deres fortvivlede forvirring, i aktiviteter som dem, der udføres af LaRouche-partiets kandidat til posten som amerikansk senator fra New York, Diane Sare, og i Schiller Instituttets netop udsendte “Call for an Ad-Hoc Committee for a New Bretton Woods System”, hvis forfatter og første underskriver er Helga Zepp-LaRouche. https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/call_for_an_ad-hoc_committee_for_a_new_bretton_woods_system

Frem for alt er der en voksende anerkendelse – både i USA og i udlandet – af den amerikanske statsmand og økonom Lyndon LaRouches unikke budskab. Som det blev udtrykt meget velformuleret i et Telegram-indlæg den 27. juni af Sergey Glazyev, medlem af det russiske Videnskabernes Akademi og minister med ansvar for integration og makroøkonomi i den Eurasiske Økonomiske Kommission:

“For et kvart århundrede siden beviste vor tids dybeste tænker, L. LaRouche, det uundgåelige i det vestlige finanssystems kollaps, der er bygget på finansielle pyramider og bobler, den generelle afskrivning af gæld og nulstilling af derivater. Han opfordrede til, at der skabes et nyt finanssystem, som skal tjene behovene for en udvidet reproduktion af realøkonomien.”

Skal USA så være en slæbebåd i kølvandet på den britiske krigsherre? Ikke hvis Lyndon LaRouche har noget at sige om det.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

May 25, 2022 (EIRNS)—Michelle Rasmussen, vice president of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, opened the online seminar this afternoon:

Your Excellencies and diplomats from many countries on four continents, guest speakers, members and friends of the Schiller Institute, ladies and gentlemen,

Welcome to this seminar sponsored by the Schiller Institutes in Denmark and Sweden, which is also being live streamed on YouTube. The title is, “We Need a New International Security and Development Architecture, Not a Strengthening of Geopolitical Blocs. NO in the Danish June 1 referendum about abolishing the EU Defense opt-out, and NO to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.” I am Michelle Rasmussen, vice president of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, and I will be the moderator today.

After the start of the war in Ukraine, a dramatic shift in defense policy has been proposed in three of the Nordic countries. Denmark is having a referendum on June 1 about joining the EU’s military activities, and Sweden’s and Finland’s governments want to join NATO. We think that it is necessary to discuss these issues from a higher standpoint.

Our keynote speaker, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and international chairwoman of the Schiller Institute stated on May 19, that this is the most dangerous moment in world history. There is war in Europe, and many experts are warning that if the war were not ended soon, and a diplomatic solution crafted, and if those advocating increasing the geopolitical confrontation were not politically defeated, the war could escalate to, even, nuclear war. At the same time, the world economy is in crisis.

While the dangers are great, there is hope, because there are solutions in the form of a new security and development architecture, including proposals by the late Lyndon LaRouche, the founder of our political movement, Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute,for a security agreement modeled on the Peace of Westphalia, combined with increased economic development cooperation between countries.

We have called this meeting to discuss:

• What caused the current extremely dangerous military, and economic crisis.

• Why strengthening the EU military arm with Danish participation, and Sweden and Finland joining NATO would only exacerbate geopolitical conflict, and

• What are the principles upon which we can create a new security and development architecture, for the benefit of all nations and people.

We want to ensure that both the dangers and solutions are known, and that an effective movement is built to stop a further escalation of this war and its economic effects, and prevent future wars and economic destruction. Somehow, humanity must create the conditions where war is not an option, in this era of nuclear weapons.

————–
Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynote

May 25, 2022 (EIRNS)—Here is the Keynote of Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche: We Need a New Security And Development Architecture for All Nations, Not a Strengthening of Geopolitical Blocs: Why Sweden and Finland Should Not Join NATO, and ‘No’ in the Referendum in Denmark to Join EU’s Military,” the online seminar in Denmark and Sweden today. She was introduced by Schiller Institute in Denmark Vice President Michelle Rasmussen, who moderated the seminar.

The video is available here: 
On the international Schiller Institute YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/8Dt9D_D_U4U

On the Danish YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/1Pji0vjD9Kg

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Hello, good day, Ladies and Gentlemen: As Michelle just said, I have stated that we are facing the most dangerous crisis in the history of mankind. Now, why am I am saying that? Obviously, that includes two world wars in the 20th century, the Cuban Missile Crisis, so it’s a big order. Well, the first reason is the most obvious, for the very first time, we are facing the real danger of a global nuclear war, and if it would ever come to that, it for sure would mean the annihilation of the human species.

In the recent period, the illusion has developed that a limited nuclear war can be fought, and won, or that protracted, hybrid nuclear/conventional war can take place. This was the subject of a maneuver in January of this year, called “Global Lightning,” which had the idea that you have some nuclear bombs, neutron bombs, space war, cyberwar, and this would go on for weeks. Now, the famous nuclear arms specialist, former MIT Prof. Ted Postol has developed all the arguments why this is completely ludicrous, that why, if one uses only one single nuclear weapon, it is the logic of nuclear war, that all will be used.

In the recent months, since the war in Ukraine started, you hear from all kinds of politicians and journalists and who knows who else making reckless talk, saying things like “even if there is the risk of nuclear war, we have to send heavy weapons to Ukraine. We can’t be blackmailed.” Or, “it won’t happen, because nobody would be so foolish to do this.” Well, I don’t think that that is a convincing argument.

The second reason why I am saying we are in the worst crisis ever, is that we experience a civilizational breakdown, the end of an entire system. Now, this has many elements. We have an immediate danger of an escalation of the war, as a result of the present chicken-game policies conducted by NATO against Russia. We are facing a hyperinflationary blowout of the Western neoliberal financial system, which was long in process, even before the war in Ukraine started. We are looking at a world famine, which according to the United Nations is threatening 1.7 billion people with starvation. That is 20% of the entire human species. The pandemic is not over, and all of this is threatening social chaos as a result, and that chaos, all by itself, could threaten to plunge the world into a war.

If one listens to the Western media, and all kinds of politicians, it is naturally all to be blamed on Putin. He is being given all possible names right now, that he has caused an “unprovoked war of aggression”; that he responsible for world famine; that he is the cause of inflation; and so forth and so on. If you say any argument for the real causes of the present situation, you are immediately accused of fake news, you are called a “Putin agent,” it is denounced as Russia propaganda.

Well, it has very little to do with Ukraine. In reality, this present confrontation is about the world order. It is a fight between an unipolar world, which is really a world empire based on the “U.S.-British special relationship,” whereby the Anglo-American hegemon insists that only the so-called “rules-based order” which they have defined is valid; versus a world in which the rise of China and countries associated with Russia and China insist on their own right for economic development.

We are right now at the most precarious moment: The neoliberal system is collapsing. It is not strong enough any more to enforce its will, but the new order is not yet clearly defined. Naturally, in the officially allowed discussion, it is being said that this is a fight between the “democracies” and the “autocratic regimes.” Well, right now, if you listen to what certain politicians and people like Stoltenberg are saying, we are heading toward a potential total decoupling between the West, plus the Five Eyes, plus Japan, Australia, and South Korea, versus a part of the world which includes Russia, China, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS, plus many countries that are now trying to become part of the BRICS, which is most of the Global South.

In frantic trips, Blinken is running around the world, trying to convince people to join the faction of the “democracies.” President Biden right now is in Asia, doing the same thing. Chancellor Scholz just went to Africa, von der Leyen to India, all in an effort to isolate Russia and China, but it’s not working: Because India, Indonesia, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, and many others do not want to be pulled into a geopolitical confrontation between the two sides. And what we are actually experiencing is a real renaissance of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Well, we should not overlook, given the American policies, the role of the British, which is “Global Britain,” which is really a new word for the British Empire, which contrary to the views of many, has only changed its shape, but not its essence. Take, for example, an article by Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which happens to be the oldest official think tank associated with the Royal household, and the British military. They describe themselves as the “world’s oldest and leading U.K. defense and security think tank.” They’re proposing a “Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids,” which could result over the Ukrainian attempt to retake Crimea, which would make it easier, in their view, to settle the Ukraine-Russia war. And this is the stunning proposition in this article, which has the headline, “This War Still Presents Nuclear Risks—Especially in Relation to Crimea,” which was published on May 20 by the RUSI think tank. [https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/war-still-presents-nuclear-risks-especially-relation-crimea]

Chalmers discusses how Russia could be forced into a nuclear confrontation, by sending evermore sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, from which it would ultimately back down. Chalmers describes NATO’s strategy over the last three months as that of “boiling the Russian frog.” You all remember the picture—according to the story, I don’t think it’s actually true—but according to the story, if you throw a frog into boiling water, the frog it will jump out; but if you put the frog into the water pot, when the water is cold, and then you slowly increase the temperature, the frog ends up being boiled without noticing. So he talks about “boiling the Russian frog” by progressively increasing “size and sophistication of the weapons they have been prepared to supply to Ukraine.” Because of those weapons, “the next period will see Ukraine reversing most of Russia’s recent territorial gains, including Kherson and even Mariupol.” That, however, would not occasion a nuclear threat, nor would Ukraine, using those weapons and territorial gains to destroy bridges, railheads, storage sites, and airbases inside Russia. But should Ukraine move to retake Crimea, strike a “tempting target,” of the Kerch Bridge for example, now, that could lead to a “Crimea Missile Crisis,” Chalmbers argues. “A specific threat to use nuclear weapons in relation to Crimea … might be viewed by Putin as a way to restore some of his coercive power, even if he (and the U.S.) doubted whether he would deliver on such a threat…. If a red line were not accepted by Ukraine, Russia might then feel that it had to consider a series of further escalatory options, such as putting its nuclear forces on higher alert.” They are already on alert. “Faced with the alternative of the likely loss of Crimea, Putin might believe that Ukraine (with U.S. encouragement) would be likely to blink first. It would be a moment of extreme peril, with all the parties seeking to understand the intent of each other even as they looked to pursue their national interests.

“Precisely because of the peril inherent in such a situation, a nuclear crisis of this sort could make it easier for leaders to make difficult compromises. Provided that the war was ended and the blockade of Odesa lifted, Ukraine’s leaders might be willing to postpone a settlement of the Crimea question. For Putin, the failure of the invasion, and the subsequent success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, would have been a massive humiliation. But he would at least be able to argue that the might of the Russian strategic arsenal had, at a moment of great national weakness, successfully deterred NATO’s designs for dismembering Russia. This could be enough for both sides to avoid the worst outcome of all.”

I mean, this is complete insanity, you know! Saying that one has to threaten to retake Crimea, and then get all the nuclear weapons on the highest alert, and then we can sit down and settle. So he calls that a Crimea Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids.

Now, that policy of “boiling the Russian frog,” that has not started three months ago, but that has been the method since 1990, when on Feb. 9, 1990, James Baker III promise to Gorbachev, that NATO would not move one inch eastward. In the entire Yeltsin period, there was a policy to reduce the former superpower into a raw materials exporting nation, with the “shock therapy” of Jeffrey Sachs, and between 1991-1994, the industrial potential of Russia was reduced to only 30%. There is a very important book by Sergei Glazyev, which describes the 1990s, with the title Genocide: Russia and the New World Order, because that is what was imposed on Russia at that time.

Now, the crime of Putin is that he tried to reverse that, and had some success with it. The answer was color revolutions, regime change, humanitarian wars, like the 20 years in Afghanistan, where as a result of the hasty retreat of NATO and the U.S. in August, now, there are 24 million people at starvation levels in Afghanistan, exposed to COVID, measles, polio, without adequate medicine. So, if one would have equally detailed TV coverage of Afghanistan for 20 years, like we see it now with Ukraine every day, maybe the world would have been equally upset—or, maybe not, because the Afghanis are not white.

Then you had the Iraq War in 2003, about which Nancy Pelosi admitted publicly that all responsible people knew ahead of time that there were no weapons of mass destruction. You had Libya. Hillary Clinton, during the Durham investigation in the United States, had to admit that the entire basis of Russiagate were all lies. Did one see anything about that in the mainstream media? Absolutely not! At least not in Europe. Then there was Syria. Then you had the 2014 Maidan coup, about which Victoria Nuland bragged, $5 billion were spent by the State Department on NGOs, and, let’s not forget, the Azov Battalion, which media in the West are now saying, there are no Nazis in Ukraine—but it is a documented fact that there are.

Now, Putin, as a result of this “boiling the Russian frog,” over almost 30 years, on Dec. 15 demanded legally binding security guarantees from the United States and NATO. He has not received an answer from the U.S. or NATO on the core demands, only on arms control, but that was not the essence of what he was demanding. The head of the Russian Security Council, Nikolay Patrushev, said that Russia had no other way, because they were threatened in the existence of the statehood of Russia, when they made what they call the “special military operation” in Ukraine. And one can absolutely argue that Russia was in a situation, according to UN Charter Article 51, which is a question of self-defense and not of aggression.

Now, we are facing with Finland and Sweden, the sixth expansion of NATO. That is the answer, which Stoltenberg even brags about. He says, “Putin wanted less NATO, now he gets more NATO.” So the boiling temperature is just being increased.

One has to take this insane policy of causing a Crimea Cuban Missile Crisis, together with another British policy, which was exposed in a paper by the Henry Jackson Society in 2020, which they put again on the front page of the Henry Jackson Society website, which means it’s ongoing policy of that think tank. It is a report outlining a strategy to use the infamous “Five Eyes” alliance—U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand—as the instrument to force through the decoupling of the West from China. This rabidly anti-Russia, anti-China neocon think tank is run by British intelligence, through among others, the former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove, who is the main brain of Russiagate, which was completely discredited as a lie; and he was one of the founders of the Henry Jackson Society and is one of its principals today.

So, even the attempt to decouple China from the international system, before consummated, could detonate an economic nuclear bomb upon the entire world economy. China is not just the world’s largest trading power: It’s currently generating the highest rate of scientific and technological development on the planet, a productive power which the developing sector nations and the collapsing Western nations urgently require if they want to survive. But actual nuclear warfare could also be the result, because part of the Henry Jackson Society strategy is to build up ties with Taiwan leading to its separation from China. China has made abundantly clear that it will respond with overwhelming military force to any attempt to split Taiwan off from the rest of the nation of China. This is as dangerous a proposition as a NATO-backed Ukraine moving to retake Crimea. So, when President Biden made a gaffe in answer to a reporter on his recent trip to Japan, “Would the United States defend Taiwan militarily?” Biden said, again, “Yes.” And he had to be correct, again, by the White House.

Now, the Chinese already had editorials where they said, this is not a “gaffe,” this is a signal of what is the real intention of the United States. And Chas Freeman, who was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and he was the official translator for President Nixon in his 1972 trip to China, and a career diplomat, he warned, and called it a colossal mistake for Biden to have made such a stupid statement.

President Biden is currently championing these precisely British strategies on his current trip to Asia. Fresh from celebrating the expansion of NATO, Biden is to unveil a grandiose Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) during his stop in Japan as the highlight of the trip. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated bluntly on Wednesday, May 18, that the message of the IPEF is that “democracies and open societies of the world stand together to shape the rules of the road. We think that message will be heard everywhere. We think it will be heard in Beijing.”

Fifty-two U.S. Senators sent Biden off on his trip with instructions that Taiwan be incorporated as one of the “countries” participating in the IPEF, which is clearly not acceptable from the standpoint of China, because it is a violation of the One China policy.

Now, just today, if you open the media, if you look at the TV, if you look at TV or newspapers, a huge scandal story about pictures from the supposed labor camps in Xinjiang, were “investigated” by a group of international media, that 1 million Uighurs would have been tortured, beaten in labor camps, forced labor, and so forth. Naturally, our so-called Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock immediately had an outcry demanding a transparent clearing up of the accusations. Calls that all relations with China should be cut—after cutting relations with Russia—and that all trade with China should be stopped, now, let’s look at it realistically: China in 2021 was the third largest partner for the EU export of goods, 10.2%, and the largest partner for the EU import of goods, 22.4%; for Germany, it was the largest trading partner for goods in 2021, with a volume of trade of over €245 million. To cut that would mean total economic suicide, which is already happening with the relations with Russia.

What is the source of this incredible story? The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the leading newspapers in Germany, says, all the photos and data have been made available through Adrian Zenz, a German anthropologist, and longtime Xinjiang observer. Now, this Mr. Adrian Zenz claims that he got all of that from an “unnamed source” who had access to cyber, cyberwar spying and whatnot. Well, that’s a very dubious observation. But Adrian Zenz is not an unknown entity: The blog, The Grayzone, and the very respected investigative journalist Ajit Singh and Max Blumenthal already wrote articles in 2019, after he had come up with a similar story about genocide in Xinjiang, that Mr. Zenz is a “far-right fundamentalist Christian who opposes homosexuality and gender equality, supports ’scriptural spanking”’ of children, and believes he is ‘led by God’ on a ‘mission’ against China.,” because the end-times are near and the rise of the anti-Christ is also coming. He is on a complete rampage, saying that [there is genocide in] Xinjiang because of a collapse of the demographic curve of the Uighurs, and Lyle Goldstein, who is professor at the Naval War College in the United States, says that such a statement is “ridiculous to the point of being inciting to those who lost relatives in the Holocaust.”

There is ample evidence that there is no “demographic collapse” of the Uighurs in Xinjiang: Just the opposite. There is a 2019 study in the British medical journal Lancet, which talks about a massive improvement of life expectancy among the Uighurs, a demographic growth rate which is much higher than that of the Han Chinese, an improvement in maternal health, in infant mortality, and all of this represents “a remarkable success story.”

Zenz’s so-called testimony comes from Uighur exiles who are cultivated by the U.S. State Department. Zenz served as a fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, D.C., which is a right-wing lobbying group born out of the National Captive Nations Committee. Now, that is a very, very interesting connection, because that was founded by Ukrainian nationalist Lev Dobriansky, who is heading this institution whose co-chairman was Yaroslav Stetsko, who was a leader of the OUN-B militia, which is the Nazi group that fought along with German Nazis during the occupation of Ukraine in World War II. Stetsko and his wife had a residence in Munich during the entire postwar period, and led from there the “Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations.” After he died, Mrs. Stetsko went to Ukraine and rebuilt the OUN-B, the Bandera organization, in the tradition of the ideas of Stepan Bandera. Now, that is a direct connection to that apparatus, which was heavily led by the Western secret services—Bandera himself joined the MI6 in 1947, and the BND in Munich had a close, at least “knowledge” about these people (to say the least).

Zenz was also deployed by the Jamestown Foundation, a neocon think tank in D.C., which was founded by CIA director William Casey as an extra-governmental channel to pay Soviet dissidents.

If Germany or other European nations fall for this intelligence operation, which is exactly what the Henry Jackson Society talked about, namely the “Five Eyes” at work, if they follow this, it would be complete economic suicide. Now, even Henry Kissinger, at the age of 99 years, is more reasonable, and at Davos, he said the world has at maximum a window of two months to end the Ukraine war through negotiations, and he appealed to Ukraine that they should agree to a territorial compromise to get peace.

At the Schiller conference on April 9, we presented a completely different approach: There is an alternative to the complete decoupling between the so-called “democracies” and the Global South on the other side. The new system is already emerging rapidly. There are many countries which at the recent foreign ministers’ meeting of the BRICS, want to be part of: Argentina, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and many others. You have the BRICS enlarged, you have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, almost all organizations of the Global South that want to be part of a new international security and development architecture, which basically is the combination of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, together with two other proposals by President Xi Jinping: The Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative, which is actively being implemented.

Now, what we need is such a conference, for a new international security and development architecture, in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia. Now, the Peace of Westphalia was the recognition of all war parties that if they would continue the war, no one would be left to enjoy the victory, because they would all be dead. And that is why they developed the principle that any peace must be based on the interest of the other. The security interest of every country on the planet, which today would mean a security architecture emphatically involving Russia and China. And such a conference, must address the causes for such a war danger: Because it is not enough at this point to be against the war. You have to solve the problem that the collapse of the neoliberal financial system is in progress.

Lyndon LaRouche has a unique record that he foresaw what is happening today, the present crisis, already in August 1971, when Nixon ended the old Bretton Woods system, by replacing the fixed-exchange-rate system, with a floating exchange-rate system, and LaRouche predicted at that time, that if you would continue on that road, it would lead to a new depression, the danger of a new war, and fascism. And that is exactly where we are today.

LaRouche proposed Four Laws to solve the crisis. The first step, a global Glass-Steagall banking separation system, must end the casino economy. There must be capital and exchange controls to prevent the speculative manipulation of currencies, which we see right now in much of the world.

Every country must have a National Bank to make credit generation again the question of the sovereign government, and not that of private bankers, in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton. Then, these National Banks must be connected through a credit system which provides long-term, low-interest credit for real investment in the physical economy.

Also, the Fourth Law is that we must have a crash program for fusion technology, which in the recent period has made tremendous progress, and the commercial use of it is visibly on the horizon. Because we need a massive increase in the productivity of the world economy because just the fact that 1.7 billion people are threatened with starvation, that 2 billion have no clean water, is the proof that the present level of productivity has fallen way below the level of maintaining the present world population of 8 billion people.

And there must be international cooperation, not only for fusion technology, but also for space technology and space travel, because that is the vanguard of scientific and technological realm today.

So we are right now confronted with a situation where the leading governments and institutions are challenged: Are we able to solve the problems of the world, are we able to address the problems which threaten the very existence of mankind, or not? Now, the Schiller Institute has proposed for more than 30 years, first, the Eurasian Land-Bridge; the New Silk Road, and in 2013, we proposed the “New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” Please show the slide: Now, this is a blueprint how we can overcome world poverty, how we can eradicate underdevelopment forever, and how can we create a new, modern world health system for every country in the world, which is the only way how we can overcome old and new diseases, this pandemic and threatening new pandemics.

This is absolutely possible, and this is the vision of how the world will look in a few years, anyway, if we avoid the present danger of nuclear war. The development of infrastructure connecting all continents is the natural way how infrastructure development will continue, provided there is peace. So I think that is something we need to put on the agenda for discussion, and the reason why, despite the incredible danger, one can be optimistic, is because we are the human species, we are capable of reason, and we are not barbarians.

Thank you.

Rasmussen: OK, we have 10 minutes now questions to Helga. … We have a question from Elena. While we’re waiting for Elena, we have a question from Jens Jørgen Nielsen, one of our speakers.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Thank you for a very good presentation. I essentially agree with you. I have one question. As you may know, I live in Denmark, where we will have a referendum in a week’s time, about the European Union: We are discussing in our country for the time being, the role of the European Union and whether it should have an army, how should we have security. I would like a few words: How do you think about the European Union in this context? Because I am somehow skeptical, but I would like to hear your opinion on the European Union and the development right now of the European Union in this context? And also specifically the question of the European military arm, which is the subject of referendum? And the policy toward Ukraine and Russia?

Zepp-LaRouche: When there was a referendum about the EU Constitution in France and Holland 2005, which was defeated, because the majority voted against it. And then they shifted it to the Lisbon Treaty, because by not calling it a “constitution” but by calling it a “treaty,” it did not require a vote. So this was decided in great secrecy, but we were extremely closely watching it at the time. And if you look at the Charter of the EU as it was agreed upon in Lisbon in December 2007, it is practically interwoven with NATO, in such a degree that the Article 5 of NATO practically also involves the EU. In other words, when you join the EU, you are practically also part of whatever NATO does. And the character of NATO has also dramatically changed, in the last 30 years, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In the time of the Soviet Union, it was a defensive apparatus against the Warsaw Pact. But in the recent period, it has turned into a completely anti-Russian Russophobe alliance, and therefore, when, in November 2013, when the Ukraine government under Viktor Yanukovych refused to join the EU Association Agreement, it was clear that if Ukraine would join the EU, it would give NATO access to the Black Sea, and that is why he opted out in the last moment.

So, I think that that is an important thing to keep in mind. And the fact that Ursula von der Leyen is at the forefront of all of the policies which I described as British, in my various examples, such as the fight of so-called democracies and so-called autocratic regimes, when she is talking about that every day: She went to India talking like that.

I think the present EU has completely lost touch with the interest of its member-states. I think they have become a gigantic waterhead of a bureaucracy in Brussels which makes for the most part completely ridiculous decisions and orders and rules which are absolutely contrary to the interest of the member countries. And I actually have called for Germany to move out of the EU, because we don’t need a bureaucracy to have a unified Europe! We could have a Europe of the Fatherlands, in the spirit of Charles de Gaulle! We could work together for a join mission to contribute to shaping a new world order in a positive way: We could do that by having national sovereign governments just working together. You don’t need this bureaucracy. That is my view, and I would just advise anybody who has an interest in their own sovereignty to not join this colossus.

Rasmussen: Elena, why don’t you ask your question now?

Elena: Thank you so much. I find everything that Madam Helga said very, very interesting. And of course, at the moment, as I am very interested in the situation between Ukraine and Russia, my optimistic feeling is that Russia is going to come to a solution with Ukraine. Because as I have heard today, Putin has been somehow winning in the territories. So most likely something good will happen.

However, I think what Madam said is so beautiful, I would like to have something to read if possible. Because my connection was not very good, and I was not able to hear well. However, I would be very grateful if Madam could let me have what she said in a written form, that I can read and study. And I can write an article about what she has said, what are the goals of this new architecture and let other people to know about it.

Rasmussen: Elena we will have a transcript of Helga’s comments, and we can send those to you and all the participants. And also the video of this conference will be available to send around.

We have one more questioner, Kwame. We can take a short question.

Kwame: I’m a Swede. Thank you for a nice presentation. My question, because I don’t know: Would you say that China is united and in full control of the Chinese Communist Party? Or, are there some Chinese oligarchs that have good connections with their American counterparts? As for they send some money into the [inaud 51:09] laboratory, maybe to somehow get them connected to the globalists in the Western hemisphere. So, my question is, does the Chinese Communist Party have full control of the country?

Zepp-LaRouche: I would say, absolutely yes. And I just should say something, because right now, when you say “Communist,” some people fall completely into a coma and have hysterical outbursts. I mean, the Communist Party of China is, in my view—and I don’t even think that they would agree with that—but I think they’re 90% Confucian, in the tradition of the ancient Chinese traditions and philosophy, which influenced Chinese policy for more than two millennia. And naturally, there is an element of Marxism and communism, but it’s a meritocracy.

The way people look at the CPC in the West is completely uninformed, and I can only—my best way of answering is that I was in China for the first time, in 1971, in the middle of the Cultural Revolution, and I could travel around in Shanghai, Tientsin, Qingdao, Beijing, I could visit the countryside: And I saw a country which was really distraught! People were poor, the conditions were very terrible. The beautiful garden of the Summer Palace had been painted all red by the Revolutionary Guards. In any case, this was 51 years ago, and when you go to China now, it is so developed! They have 40,000 km of fast train system, of which nobody in the United States or Europe can even dream, because we have nothing like that! China has made an incredible development: 850 million people have been lifted out of poverty. And I could say many, many more things.

Deng Xiaoping coined the term “judging truth from facts.” And if you look at the facts of the gigantic development of China in the last 40 years, in particular, then this Communist Party has done something right. And if you travel to China, and study Chinese history, and meet people in all ranks of life, professors, students, people living in the countryside, other professions, you go to restaurants, and you see how people live, you find a population which is primarily content. They’re optimistic: They’re not like the Europeans and they’re for sure not like the Germans, who are completely pessimistic, and think nothing can function and you can’t do anything anyway. No. That is not the view in China. They are optimistic; they have, to a very large extent, trust in the government. And I think that the Chinese model, which the West is now regarding as a big competitor and threat, the Chinese model is doing something right, which the West is not doing right! And rather than opposing it, we should go to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and say: We should respect each other, even if the other one has a different social system, and even if the other one has a different way of doing things, according to their history, and their tradition. And I think then, we can absolutely peacefully live together. And that is my stated view, and I think all the slanders about China are really absolutely unfounded, and in particular, this present campaign by this very dubious Adrian Zenz, we should squash before it really takes hold.

Rasmussen: All right, thank you very much Helga! We really appreciate your very in-depth discussion.

Den tyske regerings og den tyske forbundsdags uansvarlige og farlige beslutning om at give efter for presset fra den amerikanske regering, NATO og krigsmagerne i deres egne rækker og levere tunge våben til Ukraine skal omgående omstødes! Det er en akut trussel mod Tysklands eksistens, fordi det gør os – sammen med USA, Storbritannien og andre NATO-lande, som også forsyner Ukraine med et omfattende våbenarsenal, uddanner ukrainske tropper i deres egne lande og ifølge Figaro-journalisten Malbruno også i Ukraine – til krigsdeltagere og betyder et yderligere skridt i optrapningsspiralen mod en atomar tredje verdenskrig! I stedet skal Tyskland og Frankrig med al deres styrke kæmpe for en øjeblikkelig våbenhvile og en diplomatisk løsning!

Biden-administrationen forsøger at skjule sin involvering i stedfortræderkrigen mod Rusland i Ukraine ved gentagne gange at understrege, at den militære løsning i Ukraine ikke er på bordet, fordi man ikke ønsker at udløse en tredje verdenskrig. Men i betragtning af de store våbenleverancer, diverse former for militærstøtte for 14 milliarder dollars i de seneste to måneder og nu yderligere 33 milliarder dollars og videregivelsen af efterretninger til det ukrainske militær, hvilket regeringens talsmand Jen Psaki åbent indrømmer, er USA i realiteten en krigsførende part.

Bruce Fein, ekspert i forfatningsret og tidligere vicestatsadvokat i Reagan-administrationen, er af den juridiske opfattelse, at USA og NATO-medlemmerne allerede er blevet krigsførende. Formanden for Komitéen for Republikken, John B. Henry, hvis medlemmer omfatter kendte tidligere amerikanske diplomater og regeringsembedsmænd, hævder, at denne omstændighed giver Putin ret til i henhold til international lov at iværksætte militære aktioner mod USA og disse stater.

Efter at kansler Scholz den 22. april havde nægtet at levere tunge våben til Ukraine, fordi han ville gøre alt for at forhindre en optrapning, der kunne føre til en tredje verdenskrig, var denne hensigt  ophørt allerede tre dage senere. Forsvarsminister Lambrecht meddelte i tide til det store møde på Ramstein Air Base den 26. april, hvortil den amerikanske forsvarsminister Lloyd Austin havde inviteret militærrepræsentanter fra 40 lande, at koalitionen dagen før havde besluttet hurtigt at hjælpe Ukraine med Gepard-luftværnskampvogne. Så meget for kanslerens erklæringer og Tysklands suverænitet: De betyder åbenbart – intet.

Austin meddelte på Ramstein Airbase, hvor “hovedkvarteret for United States Air Forces Europe” og “Air Forces Africa”, “Allied Air Command Ramstein” (et NATO-agentur) samt “US Air and Space Operation Center”, hvorfra kampdroneoperationer i Mellemøsten og Afrika styres, at der fremover vil blive afholdt sådanne møder hver måned for at optimere og koordinere våbenproduktionen i de forskellige staters våbenindustrier.

Det er interessant, at det største og mest moderne amerikanske militærhospital med ni operationsstuer og 4.500 værelser også ligger der, og at det i vid udstrækning er finansieret af Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland. Der træffes tydeligvis vigtigere beslutninger i Ramstein end i Berlin, herunder om Tyskland vil være part i krigen mod Ukraine eller ej.

Selv om NATO og de vestlige regeringer hidtil har vendt det døve øre til Putins advarsler om at overskride røde linjer, og selv om han gentagne gange har vist, at han bakker sine ord op med handling, bør vi denne gang åbne ørerne vidt op. På et møde med lovgivere i Sankt Petersborg, dagen efter Lambrechts meddelelse den 27. april, sagde han, at i tilfælde af ekstern intervention og skabelse af en uacceptabel trussel mod Rusland, ville modangreb blive iværksat med “lynets hast”. Rusland har våben til dette, som ingen andre har i øjeblikket, og de vil blive brugt. Alle beslutninger var allerede blevet truffet.

Samme dag, den 27. april, bragte Wall Street Journal en artikel med titlen “US Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War”, hvori den tidligere assisterende minister for flåden Seth Cropsey argumenterede for, at USA burde forberede sig på at vinde en atomkrig, hvis det ikke ønskede at tabe den. Amerikanske krigsskibe skulle udstyres med atomvåben og ødelægge de atomdrevne russiske ubåde, som var hovedgrundlaget for Ruslands andenangrebsstyrke. En lignende vanvittig fantasi lå allerede til grund for den amerikanske manøvre “Global Lightning”, der blev gennemført i slutningen af januar, hvor en blandet form for konventionelle og nukleare krigsmetoder blev øvet i en manøvre, der strakte sig over en længere periode.

Denne idé om, at der kan være begrænsede atomkrige, som kan “vindes”, og at der kan anvendes mindre atomvåben, som er “brugbare”, er vanvittig. Atomvåbenekspert Ted Postol har – senest i en dialog med Robert Scheer – fremført en absolut overbevisende argumentation for, hvorfor brugen af blot et enkelt atomvåben uundgåeligt vil føre til en generel atomkrig, hvor alle eksisterende atomvåben vil blive brugt. Og alle de politiske hoveder, der i disse dage uforsigtigt taler om behovet for at levere tunge våben til Ukraine, selv om risikoen for atomkrig ikke kan udelukkes, hører hjemme på en lukket afdeling og ikke på politiske ansvarsposter.

Postol beskriver virkningen af atomvåben:

“Vi taler om en ildmur, der omslutter alt omkring os med en temperatur som solens centrum. Eksplosionen af atomvåben ville bogstaveligt talt forvandle os til mindre end aske. Jeg kan ikke understrege stærkt nok, hvor effektive disse våben er. Når de detonerer, er de fire eller fem gange så varme som solens centrum, som er 20 millioner grader Kelvin. I centrum af en detonation af disse våben er der 100 millioner grader Kelvin.

Folk kan ikke forestille sig omfanget af denne varme. Jeg har gentagne gange skrevet artikler om konsekvenserne af atomvåbeneksplosioner i byer. De er så alvorlige, at de er uden for menneskelig fantasi…. Jeg har simpelthen ikke ord nok til at advare om farens virkelige omfang.”

Postol fortsætter med at beskrive, at et enkelt atomvåben er tilstrækkeligt til at udslette et byområde med en radius på 5-8 km, dvs. ca. 200 km2, og at det kun kræver 20 % af de amerikanske ICBM’er at ødelægge ca. 1000 af de russiske landbaserede ICBM’er, og at 80 % af sprænghovederne derfor kan bruges til andre formål, f.eks. mod mål i Rusland, Kina eller Tyskland. Han sagde, at Rusland havde etableret en slags automatiseret reaktion på grund af sit mindre effektive varslingssystem, hvis det russiske lederskab skulle blive dræbt i et overraskende amerikansk atomart førsteangreb. Ruslands beklagelige manglende evne til at forbedre sit tidlige varslingssystem havde resulteret i et “dommedagsvåben”, som gør situationen meget farligere, fordi selv en fatal fejlfunktion kan udløse en atomkrig.

Det burde være klart for enhver tænkende person – men de 586 medlemmer af Forbundsdagen, der stemte for leveringen af tunge våben til Ukraine, er tydeligvis ikke blandt dem – at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland dermed bliver deltager i en krig, og at vi dermed bliver et mål i tilfælde af krig. Ramstein, Stuttgart, Wiesbaden, Büchel, Pirmasens, Baumholder, for blot at nævne nogle få mål, vil brænde op.

I stedet for at begå sit eget selvmord og fremme menneskehedens undergang i en misforstået loyalitet over for alliancen skal Tyskland arbejde for en øjeblikkelig våbenhvile og for diplomatiske forhandlinger. I stedet for at lade os blive pisket op til et had mod Rusland (og Kina) af krigsglade kontraktjournalister og andre krigstosser, bør vi tænke os om endnu en gang. Det er ikke afspændingspolitikken, der har ført til den nuværende krise – vi skylder den den fredelige genforening af Tyskland – men NATO’s femdoblede fremrykning mod øst og den politiske og militære elites stædighed med hensyn til at reagere på Putins krav om juridisk bindende sikkerhedsgarantier.

Vi er i øjeblikket vidne til en vending af tidevandet, men ikke på den måde, som “fortællingerne” fra mainstreampolitik og medierne vil have os til at tro. Forsøget på at opretholde en unipolær verden, hvor kun USA og Det Forenede Kongerige bestemmer, er mislykkedes. Størstedelen af verdens nationer er i gang med at opbygge en verdensorden baseret på de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, som giver mulighed for økonomisk udvikling for alle.

Tyskland er bare ikke suverænt, men  et besat land, så længe vi tillader det at være det i vores bevidsthed. Vi må  arbejde for en reel fredsløsning nu, for en diplomatisk løsning og derudover for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, der sikrer menneskehedens overlevelse.1 Vær med til at blive aktiv for dette!

zepp-larouche@eir.de

Anmærkninger:

1 Læs venligst bidragene til internetkonferencen “Creating a new security and development architecture for all nations”. Du kan finde dem på Schiller Instituttets websted.

2 Opfordringen “Til en international konference for at skabe en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer!” kan findes på

Vores hjemmeside, hvor du kan underskrive den online.

Billede: Olaf_Scholz_press_conference_(2022-02-15) Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons.jpg

23. april 2022 (Neue Solidarität) — Hele ti dage efter Schiller Instituttets banebrydende konference, som fokuserede på opbygningen af en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, fremlagde Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i sin åbningstale til dette års Boao Forum et forslag til et globalt sikkerhedsinitiativ, som udtrykte nøjagtig den samme opfattelse: at der kun kan være tale om omfattende sikkerhed, som gælder for hele verdenssamfundet, og som bygger på FN-pagten og de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens og fælles udvikling. Mens de nationer, der er enige i dette synspunkt, samler sig om Kina, er Vesten samtidig i færd med at lægge den verdensorden, der udviklede sig efter Anden Verdenskrig og igen på ny efter Sovjetunionens ophør, i ruiner. Vi har et presserende behov for en reel offentlig diskussion i Tyskland om, hvordan vi skal forholde os til disse ændringer, hvad vores egne interesser er, og hvordan vi kan forsvare dem.

I den informationskrig, der har raset i medierne og blandt politikerne i et stykke tid, men især siden krigens udbrud i Ukraine, er det naturligvis kun Putin, der er pariaen, hvilket Jen Psaki, talsmand for Det Hvide Hus, aldrig bliver træt af at påpege. Enhver, der vover at tale om, at krigsudbruddet har en forhistorie, bliver øjeblikkeligt diskvalificeret som Putin-agent og får af hensyn til demokratiets og ytringsfrihedens alt for store gode blokeret sine konti på de sociale medier, selv kendte journalister som Pepe Escobar. Alligevel er det tydeligvis det blinde raseri mod Putin og Rusland, der i øjeblikket tordner som en murbrækkerkugle mod verdensordenens institutioner. Dette skete for nylig på G20-finansministrenes møde, som fandt sted inden for rammerne af halvårsmødet i IMF og Verdensbanken i Washington. Ifølge Deutsche Presse-Agentur forlod den amerikanske finansminister Janet Yellen og hendes britiske kollega Rishi Sunak, Christine Lagarde, Jerome Powell og flere andre demonstrativt rummet, da den russiske finansminister Anton Siluanov sluttede sig til dem via video og truede derved eksistensen af G20-institutionen, som netop blev oprettet for at de vigtigste stater kunne løse problemerne i fællesskab.

Derfor nægter Indonesien, som i øjeblikket har G20-formandskabet, at give efter for presset fra USA og Det Forenede Kongerige om at udelukke Putin fra at deltage i det kommende G20-topmøde på Bali i november. Hvis stormagterne ikke kunne sætte sig til bords i lyset af de dramatiske problemer i verden, og hvis ikke alle statsoverhovederne kom til topmødet, ville det slet ikke være nødvendigt at afholde det, kommenterede Rizal Sukma, der er seniormedlem af den indonesiske tænketank Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Det betyder, at stormagterne er ligeglade med situationen for folk i vækst- og udviklingslandene.”

Dette er netop den underliggende følelse blandt en lang række udviklingslande, som ikke er villige til at følge strategien om isolation af Rusland og nægter at blive trukket ind i en konfrontation mellem USA og Rusland. Rusland er langt fra isoleret, men omfatter også de folkerige BRICS-lande (Brasilien, Rusland, Indien, Kina, Sydafrika), SCO (Kina, Indien, Kasakhstan, Kirgisistan, Pakistan, Rusland, Tadsjikistan, Usbekistan) samt Indonesien, Mexico, Saudi-Arabien, Nigeria, Tyrkiet, Sydkorea og andre. Mere end halvdelen af de afrikanske stater ønsker også at forblive neutrale. Det er takket være de hårde sanktioner mod Rusland – der udtrykkeligt har til formål at “ødelægge Rusland”, som bl.a. den franske finansminister Le Maire udtrykte det – at Rusland nu forhandler med mange af disse lande om de nærmere bestemmelser for et nyt finanssystem. Dette varsler begyndelsen til enden på dollarens dominans som verdens reservevaluta.

Den mest vidtrækkende strategiske omlægning siden Anden Verdenskrig finder i øjeblikket sted, og den narrede seer af alle de særlige særudsendelser om Ukraine bemærker absolut intet og skal naturligvis heller ikke bemærke noget som helst. I modsætning til den officielt tilladte fortolkning er der ikke tale om en konfrontation “mellem demokratier og autokratiske regimer”, men mellem de tidligere kolonimagter og de lande, der var deres ofre. Og sidstnævnte, hvor næsten en milliard mennesker allerede var ramt af hungersnød før krigens udbrud og nu 1,7 milliarder som følge af sanktionerne mod Rusland og Belarus, tænker mere på de handlinger, der vil sikre deres overlevelse end på tomme ord som demokrati og menneskerettigheder der ikke mætter, og hvis praktiske anvendelse i øjeblikket kan ses i Afghanistan, hvor 24 millioner mennesker risikerer at dø af sult efter NATO’s tilbagetrækning.

I stedet har præsident Xi Jinping nu gjort global fødevaresikkerhed til en topprioritet og mobiliserer alle ressourcer til at øge Kinas landbrugsareal og fremme videnskabelige gennembrud inden for frøudvikling. Allerede ved udgangen af 2021 havde Kina iværksat over 1 500 teknologioverførsler på verdensplan inden for kornproduktion, husdyrbrug, vandforvaltning af landbrugsjord og fødevareforarbejdning. Rusland har nu øget sin gødningseksport til Indien, verdens næststørste producent af ris og korn, så Indien kan øge sin eksport til 22 mio. tons ris og 16 mio. tons korn.

Forlængelse af krigen

Nato og USA har konsekvent afslået at reagere på Putins gentagne og igen den 17. december fremsatte, afgørende krav om retsligt bindende sikkerhedsgarantier. Som den schweiziske militære ekspert Jacques Baud rapporterede, begyndte den ukrainske militæroperation i Donbass natten mellem den 16. og 17. februar med en 30-dobling af beskydningen, hvilket OSCE’s overvågningsgruppe også rapporterede på det tidspunkt. Som følge heraf vedtog Dumaen, det russiske parlament, en resolution til præsident Putin, hvori han opfordredes til at anerkende de to selvudråbte folkerepublikkers uafhængighed. Den 21. februar underskrev Putin en venskabs- og bistandsaftale med de to republikker, som giver dem mulighed for at anmode om assistance i tilfælde af et angreb. Så det var slet ikke tilfældet, at Putin startede en aggressionskrig mod Ukraine ud af det blå.

Det spørgsmål, der bør undersøges indgående, er Figaro-journalisten Malbrunots vurdering efter sin rejse til Ukraine, at det er USA, der bestemmer i krigen i Ukraine. “Jeg så det med mine egne øjne,” sagde Malbrunot.

Nu har udenrigsministeren i Tyrkiet  –  som trods alt er medlem af NATO – Mevlüt Cavosoglu beskyldt visse NATO-lande for at ville forlænge krigen i Ukraine for at svække Rusland. Den tidligere chef for det italienske luftvåben, general Leonardo Tricarico, udtrykte det endnu skarpere og sagde til italiensk tv, at præsident Biden, Blinken, Stoltenberg og Boris Johnson ikke engang havde sagt ordet “forhandlinger”. “Jeg ved, hvad jeg siger: Biden ønsker ikke fred,” sagde Tricarico.

Et resultat af hele udviklingen er, at forholdet mellem Tyskland og Rusland er fuldstændig ødelagt. Måske er det værd at huske på den amerikanske geopolitiske ekspert George Friedmans udtalelse i en tale i 2015 til Chicago Council of Global Affairs: For USA, sagde han, var det den oprindelige frygt for, at tysk kapital og teknologi ville blive kombineret med russiske råstoffer og arbejdskraft, fordi denne kombination var den eneste magt, der kunne true USA. USA’s strategi er derfor at skabe et antirussisk bælte gennem et intermarium (landene fra Polen til Bulgarien), som afskærer Tyskland og Rusland fra hinanden. Det var netop i denne ånd, at fru Baerbock for nylig rejste til de baltiske lande, hvor hun besøgte mindesmærket for kommunismens ofre, men fandt det ikke i overensstemmelse med tidens ånd at mindes nationalsocialismens ofre.

Det er denne geopolitik, der var årsag til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede. Derfor er det globale sikkerhedsinitiativ, som Xi Jinping netop har foreslået, og som skal omfatte alle stater i vid udstrækning, af største strategiske betydning. Han understregede ikke blot, at de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens og ånden fra Bandung-konferencen er mere relevante i dag end nogensinde før, men han gav også udtryk for netop den optimisme, der er så hårdt tiltrængt i dag:

“Et kig på historien lærer os, at jo vanskeligere tingene bliver, jo vigtigere er det at bevare tilliden. Problemer skal man ikke frygte, for det har været det ene problem efter det andet, der har været drivkraften bag det menneskelige samfunds fremskridt. Ingen vanskeligheder kan nogensinde stoppe historiens hjul. Stillet over for mange udfordringer må vi ikke miste tilliden, vakle eller trække os tilbage. I stedet skal vi styrke vores selvtillid og gå videre mod alle odds.”

Det fremgår af disse sætninger, at Xi Jinping er en ven af Leibniz’ tanker, hvis idé om “den bedste af alle verdener” netop er, at alt ondt i verden kan skabe et endnu større gode, og at den enkeltes modige indsats for at overvinde problemer øger frihedsgraden i universet.

Hvis vi i Tyskland ønsker at finde en vej ud af den yderst farlige situation, hvor geopolitiske eventyrere med deres krav om flere og flere offensive våben til Ukraine, så krigen kan fortsætte “til den sidste ukrainer”, i sidste ende øger faren for atomkrig, så må vi tage Xi Jinpings initiativ alvorligt. Hvis vi insisterer på dette helt nye paradigme, vil vi også gøre USA en større tjeneste end at ende i en atomvinter på grund af en misforstået alliancetilhørsforhold. Kun hvis USA, Rusland, Kina og Europa deltager i en fælles sikkerhedsarkitektur, kan vi permanent undgå denne fare.

zepp-larouche@eir.de

Billede: www.fmprc.gov.cn

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Følgende er et uddrag af en tale, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet, holdt på instituttets internetkonference den 12. december 2020. Vi udgiver den nu i håbet om, at det kan hjælpe til at bringe parterne i den nuværende krise sammen.

Som jeg sagde, er det overordnede tema for denne konference begrebet Coincidentia Oppositorum, modsætningernes sammenfald. Dette begreb blev udviklet af Nikolaus af Kues (Cusanus), den vigtigste tænker i det 15. århundredes Europa, som var den første til at udvikle principperne for den moderne suveræne nationalstat, der regerer med de regeredes samtykke, og hvor der skal være et gensidigt forhold mellem regeringen, folkets repræsentanter og de regerede.

Den Cusanianske tankemetode

Han er også faderen til den moderne naturvidenskab. Han udviklede en ny tankegang med helt nye tanker, og han sagde meget selvsikkert, at han foreslog noget, som intet menneske nogensinde havde tænkt før. Og denne metode ligger også til grund for alle de filosofiske skrifter og den økonomiske metode, som min afdøde mand Lyndon LaRouche og hans fysiske økonomi anvender.

Det er i bund og grund tanken om, at den menneskelige fornuft har evnen til at finde en løsning på et helt andet og højere niveau end det, hvor alle konflikter og modsætninger er opstået. Det handler om evnen til at tænke en enhed, der er af større størrelse og magt end de mange. Hvis du træner dit sind til at tænke på denne måde, har du en ufejlbarlig nøgle til kreativitet, og du kan anvende denne tankegang på stort set alle områder af din tankevirksomhed.

For at nærme sig modsætningernes sammenfald må man begynde med at forkaste den aristoteliske metode. Aristoteles siger, at hvis noget er A, kan det ikke være B på samme tid. Men sammenfaldet er heller ikke A plus B divideret med to eller en anden algebraisk eller aritmetisk beregning. Nikolaus udviklede dette koncept i flere af sine skrifter, men mest omfattende i De Docta Ignorantia (Om den lærde uvidenhed), og dette blev straks angrebet af Heidelberg-professoren og skolastikeren Johannes Wenck i en afhandling De Ignota Litteratura (Den uvidende lærde). Nikolaj svarede på dette nogle få år senere, fordi han ikke straks modtog denne skrivelse, i et lille skrift, som jeg anbefaler til alle, Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae (Forsvar for den lærde uvidenhed). Heri beklager han sig over, at den aristoteliske tradition i dag – dvs. dengang – er fremherskende, som betragter modsætningernes sammenfald som kætteri, fordi denne skole fuldstændig afviser denne tilgang som noget, der er helt i modstrid med dens intentioner. Disse hensigter var faktisk af oligarkisk karakter, hvilket han ikke siger der, men det var pointen. Derfor, sagde Cusa, ville det være et mirakel, og det ville vende op og ned på deres tankegang, hvis de forlod Aristoteles og nåede frem til et højere perspektiv.

I modsætning til den aristoteliske metode, som er fanget i kampen mellem modsætninger, ser synspunktet om modsætningernes sammenfald på processen fra et højere niveau. Dette blev behandlet i den korte video, som I så i begyndelsen [af konferencen], hvor jeg begrunder, hvorfor Lyndon LaRouches samlede værker skal udgives: Synet på tilfældigheder er som at se på det, der sker, fra et højt tårn. Herfra ser du jægeren, den jagede og jagtens proces. Det giver dig et helt andet synspunkt, end hvis du selv er jægeren eller den jagede eller konstant løber rundt med næsen mod jorden.

Men det kræver en enorm indsats at nå frem til dette niveau af tænkning. Man kan ikke bare tænde for den, det er en intellektuel kamp. Men hvis du kan mestre det, har du mulighed for at åbne områder, som ellers ville være helt lukkede. Nicholas peger på, hvordan tænkere som Avicenna tyede til negativ teologi for at få sindet ud af vanen med at klamre sig til illusoriske sandheder, der leveres af sansernes sikkerhed. Men den mest skarpsindige, siger Cusa, var Platons argumentation i Parmenides-dialogen, som måske er den mest sofistikerede af alle Platons dialoger.

Platons Parmenides-dialog

Parmenides var lederen af den eleatiske skole, som var reduktionistisk i sin metode og lærte, at tingenes essens kun kunne nås gennem tankens proces uden nogen henvisning til materielle ting. Men denne essens skulle være af den strengeste enkelhed, uden mangfoldighed og variation, og frem for alt uden forandring og bevægelse. Al den mangfoldighed, som sanserne giver os, og den forandring, som den indebærer, var kun et skuespil, sagde Parmenides, en ren illusion, og derfor kunne mangfoldighed og forandring aldrig tilhøre essensen eller deltage i den.

I dialogen lokker Platon nu Parmenides til at afsløre netop dette grelle paradoks i hans tankegang, nemlig at han har udeladt princippet om forandring.

I Platons tradition er denne “forandring” imidlertid ikke en lineær udvidelse af et euklidisk rum, men en kontinuerlig række af nye aksiomatisk-revolutionære opdagelser, der resulterer i en række af opdagelser af universelle fysiske principper, som uddyber kendskabet til det fysiske univers og fuldender de kreative evner hos alle mennesker, der gør dette fremskridt. Nikolaus siger på et tidspunkt, at gennem denne uddannelse kan ethvert menneske spore hele universets udvikling op til dette punkt i sit sind. Dette sindets mikrokosmos, som er i harmoni med makrokosmos – universet – gør potentielt hvert enkelt menneske i stand til på forhånd at vide, hvad den næste opdagelse skal være for at fortsætte den lovlige skabelsesproces.

Dette er meget vigtigt, fordi det er meget nært beslægtet med begrebet relativ potentiel befolkningstæthed, som Lyndon LaRouche har udviklet, da det også giver os et mål for den nødvendige næste opdagelse.

For Platon er hver eneste af disse opdagelser resultatet af en tilsvarende opdagelse, som det menneskelige sind kan frembringe på en “intuitiv” måde. Derfor understregede Einstein også: “Fantasi er vigtigere end viden. Viden er begrænset, men fantasien omfatter hele verden.” Den stimulerer fremskridt og skaber udvikling.

Platons svar på Parmenides er derfor hans ontologiske begreb om tilblivelse som det menneskelige sinds evne til konstant at generere sådanne hypoteser, eller hypotesen om den højere hypotese, hvor den altomfattende forandring er den Ene, som på et højere niveau omfatter de Mange.

Cirklens kvadratur

Nikolaus brugte den samme tankegang, da han løste et problem, der havde givet mange tænkere og matematikere søvnløse kvaler siden antikken, nemlig problemet med cirklens kvadratur. Archimedes, en tidligere matematiker, havde forsøgt at løse problemet ved hjælp af udtømmelsesmetoden, ved at indskrive og omskrive et stadigt stigende antal polygoner på cirklen. Den fejlagtige antagelse er, at omkredsen af de to polygoner i sidste ende vil falde sammen med cirklen. På denne måde fandt Archimedes en brugbar tilnærmelse til tallet Pi (π), men i virkeligheden blev problemet ikke løst. Cusa siger nemlig, at jo flere hjørner en polygon har, jo længere væk fra cirklen bevæger den sig.

Det krævede Cusas revolutionerende tænkning at løse problemet med cirklens kvadratur ved at gøre det klart, at en cirkel ikke kan konstrueres geometrisk baseret på den aksiomatiske antagelse af selvindlysende punkter og lige linjer, men at man må bruge en aksiomatisk anderledes geometri, hvor den cirkulære effekt erstatter den euklidiske selvindlysende antagelse af punktet og den lige linje. Dette såkaldte isoperimetriske princip om cirklens forrang gør det klart, at man kan gå fra cirklen til polygonen, men ikke omvendt. På denne måde leverede Nicholas et afgørende bevis for forskellen mellem matematikkens område, der er begrænset til kommensurable ting, og det område af inkommensurable ting, der er fuldstændig afgrænset fra dette område.

Denne udvikling fra Archimedes’ forståelse af cirklens kvadratur til Cusas overlegne forståelse illustrerer også den rolle, som menneskets opdagelse af et allerede eksisterende universelt princip spiller – overgangen fra dets eksistens som potentielt, men tidligere skjult for menneskelig viden, til “realiseringen” af dette princip gennem menneskelige opdagelser. Denne kontinuerlige opdagelsesproces er ontologisk primær, dvs. at den Ene er primær i forhold til indholdet af alle de mange.

Bernhard Riemann, hvis videnskabelige metode navnet på LaRouche-Riemanns økonomiske model delvis er baseret på, uddyber den samme tanke i et dokument, som Lyndon LaRouche citerer, On Psychology and Metaphysics, ved at beskrive den menneskelige sjæl som et lager af kompakte, tæt og forskelligt forbundne idéer, “åndsmasser”, eller som Lyn kaldte dem “tankeobjekter”. Hver ny tankemasse af denne art er i resonans med alle de tidligere ophobede tanker og er gensidigt relateret til dem, så meget desto mere som der er et indre slægtskab mellem dem. Riemann siger også, at disse kompakte åndelige masser fortsætter med at eksistere, selv efter at det menneske, der skabte dem, er død og bliver en del af det, han kalder jordens sjæl.

Menneskeheden som en geologisk kraft

Den væsentligt samme idé blev udtrykt af Vladimir Vernadsky i et foredrag i Paris i 1925, hvor han beskrev den menneskelige art og den kollektive menneskelige ånd som en “geologisk kraft” i universet. Ifølge Wernadskij beviser hele universets historie, at denne “noosfære” i stigende grad vil få overtaget over biosfæren. Og denne anti-entropiske karakter af den menneskelige ånds kreativitet som den mest avancerede del af og drivkraft i det fysiske univers er grunden til, at der er optimisme for menneskehedens fremtid.

Det betyder, at flere og flere mennesker i alle forskellige nationer og kulturer vil være i stand til at hæve sig over fornuftssikkerhedens infantile niveau og overvinde fejlslagne ideologiske traditioner – som f.eks. sofisternes retoriske skole, der ikke er optaget af sandhed, men af at vinde enhver påstand, som sofisten fremsætter for at fremme sin egeninteresse.

Begrebet om modsætningernes sammenfald kan nu anvendes på den nuværende strategiske situation og faktisk på alle områder af menneskelig viden. Menneskehedens interesser defineres således ikke som interesserne for de mennesker, der lever i dag, her og nu, men når man tænker på alle fremtidige generationers interesser. Dette er i bund og grund den samme idé, som er udtrykt i fortalen til den amerikanske forfatning: at det fælles gode skal tjene ikke kun nutiden, men alle fremtidige generationer. I dag skal man relatere det til hele verden, til hele menneskeheden.

For at få en forståelse af, hvad det betyder, kan man anvende det, jeg lige har sagt, teoretisk på den nuværende verdenssituation: Så er hver nation et mikrokosmos, og ifølge Nikolaj af Cusa er fred i makrokosmos kun mulig, hvis ethvert mikrokosmos har den bedst mulige udvikling og ser det som sin egen interesse, at alle andre mikrokosmos udvikler sig. Det vil sige, at man ikke tager udgangspunkt i en nations eller en gruppe af nationers “geopolitiske egeninteresse” og sætter den i modsætning til alle andres formodede interesser, men følger en anden opfattelse, der forkaster denne aristoteliske modsætningsmetode. Hvis man tager Platons begreb om forandring og tilblivelse som det ontologiske primærpunkt, kan man se udviklingen af ethvert mikrokosmos som i en kontrapunktisk, fugal komposition, hvor udviklingen af hver tone og idé bidrager til den fremtidige udvikling af alle de andre.

Der er allerede eksempler, hvor man kan se en tilnærmelse af, hvordan det kan fungere. Den ene er det internationale samarbejde om den termonukleare fusionsreaktor i Frankrig i Cadarache, ITER, et samarbejde mellem 34 nationer, som alle drager fordel af opdagelserne. Og i dag er der naturligvis også det mulige internationale samarbejde inden for rumforskning og rumfart: Der er i øjeblikket tre meget fascinerende missioner til Mars, som alle vil ankomme til Mars om få uger – og ville det ikke give mening at lave denne forskning sammen? Så er spørgsmålet ikke, hvem der bliver den første til at plante sit flag på Mars, eller hvem der bliver den første kvinde eller mand til at sætte sine fødder på Mars, men spørgsmålet er: Hvordan erobrer vi solsystemet med henblik på menneskelig bosættelse?

Vores solsystem er utroligt stort. Jeg ved ikke, om du måske har kigget op på stjernerne for nylig, på Mælkevejen, men den er meget større end det, vores galakse er kun en af to billioner galakser, som Hubble-teleskopet har opdaget indtil nu!

Tænk et øjeblik over menneskehedens eksistens på lang sigt. Menneskeheden har eksisteret i et par millioner år, men faktisk ved vi kun en lille smule om de sidste 5000 år, og en lille smule mere gennem arkæologi, men det er virkelig kun en meget kort periode. Ønsker vi nu, at menneskeheden skal være en udødelige art? Eller ønsker vi, at menneskeheden skal være ligesom en af de mange andre arter, der kommer og går? Når der kommer store perioder med udryddelse af arter, forsvinder de, men det gør ikke noget, da evolutionen så producerer andre arter med et højere stofskifte. Og gør det så virkelig noget, hvis menneskeheden også forsvinder en dag i processen? Det tror jeg ikke. Fordi jeg mener, at menneskeheden er helt unik, uanset hvad vi ellers finder i universet, hvis der findes andet intelligent liv et eller andet sted. Vi er den eneste kendte kreative art indtil videre.

Om nogle få milliarder år vil solen ophøre med at fungere på en sådan måde, at vi kan leve på jorden, og senest da vil det være et spørgsmål om overlevelse for vores art at kolonisere rummet og gøre andre planeter beboelige for menneskearten. Jeg tror, at det er muligt, hvis vi bevæger os væk fra den nuværende tilstand, hvor vi opfører os som småbørn, som små drenge, der sparker hinanden over skinnebenene, og hvis vi udvikler vores fulde potentiale ved at samarbejde med andre mennesker og andre kulturer og opfylde menneskehedens langsigtede skæbne til at være den art, der bevidst skaber forandringer i universet, og på den måde opfylder vores sande skæbne som menneskeart.

Jeg tror, at det er op til os at foretage denne forandring og på den måde skabe evnen til at komme ud af denne krise i live og lykkelige. Og det var det, jeg ville sige.

17. marts 2020 — Med en kombination af foranstaltninger uden fortilfælde i moderne tid har præsident Putin nu reageret på Vestens skærpede sanktioner for at forsvare den russiske økonomi mod forsøg på at ødelægge Rusland, Putin og det “russiske system”. På et møde med premierminister Mishustin og en række beslutningstagere, der tilsammen kan betragtes som et krigskabinet, annoncerede Putin, Mishustin og finansminister Siluanov foranstaltninger til nationalisering og kapitalkontrol.

Vi befinder os nu i ukendt farvand og dermed – afhængigt af, hvordan Vesten reagerer – i begyndelsen af en udvikling, hvor der enten vil ske et fuldstændigt sammenbrud af verdens økonomiske og finansielle system eller endog komme en ny verdenskrig, eller der vil blive etableret et nyt paradigme i de internationale forbindelser. Offentliggørelsen af Schiller Instituttets nye andragende, hvori der opfordres til en ny konference i traditionen fra den Westfalske Fred, kunne ikke være kommet på et mere belejligt tidspunkt.1 For det burde stå klart for enhver tænkende person, at en fortsættelse af den optrapningsspiral over for Rusland, som USA, Storbritannien og EU nu udøver, indebærer risici, der kan løbe helt løbsk i løbet af meget kort tid.

NATO’s største fejltagelse var og er at antage, at det kan fortsætte udvidelsen mod øst og indespærringen af Rusland i det uendelige uden at det fører til modforanstaltninger. Alligevel havde Putin allerede på sikkerhedskonferencen i München i 2007 slået alarm, hvilket alle undtagen de døve burde have hørt, nemlig at en unipolær verdensorden ikke var acceptabel for Rusland. Putin havde den 17. december begrundet sine krav til USA og NATO om juridisk bindende sikkerhedsgarantier – efter i alt fem udvidelser af NATO mod øst – med, at han ikke havde mere plads til at trække sig tilbage. Otte års militære angreb på Donetsk- og Luhansk-republikkerne fra ukrainske styrker, hvor 14.000 russisktalende blev dræbt, blev stort set ikke omtalt i de vestlige medier. Putin fik ikke noget svar på kernen af sine krav.

Den økonomiske pendant, sanktionerne, er en form for krigsførelse med det erklærede mål at ødelægge ikke blot Putin, men også Rusland og det “russiske system”, som den franske udenrigsminister Le Drian erklærede med et så uforfalsket had, at han blev piftet tilbage af Macron og måtte trække sin udtalelse tilbage. Lignende udtalelser var allerede blevet offentliggjort den 25. januar og igen i slutningen af februar af to unavngivne repræsentanter for Det Hvide Hus. De sagde, at formålet med den amerikanske politik var at forhindre enhver økonomisk diversificering af Rusland væk fra olie og gas og at nægte landet adgang til udviklede teknologier. Det samme sagde Ursula von der Leyen.

De vestlige centralbanker reagerede på krigens start ved at konfiskere over 300 milliarder russiske aktiver og bekendtgøre sanktioner i samme stil som dem, der blev anvendt mod Iran, dvs. også ekstraterritorial anvendelse af amerikanske sanktioner mod tredjelande, samt udelukkelse af Rusland fra status som “mest begunstiget nation”. I den imperialistiske fraktions husorgan i USA, Atlantic Coucil bloggen, afslører “eksperterne” Brian O’Toole og Daniel Fried sig under titlen: “Hvad er der tilbage at sanktionere?” (“Hvad kan vi ellers sanktionere?”) og giver sig hen til fantasier om, hvordan den økonomiske krigsførelse mod Rusland kan optrappes. De amerikanske og europæiske sanktioner havde overgået alle forventninger, på blot to uger havde de kastet den russiske økonomi ud i en depression, isolationen betød en katastrofe for den russiske befolkning, men yderligere optrapninger til en fuldstændig finansiel embargo og et fuldstændigt forbud mod alle transaktioner, import og eksport var på vej. Dette er Vestens sidste skridt for at afskære Rusland fra den globale økonomi.2

Tror forfatterne af denne politik virkelig, at alle stater, der ikke tilhører Vesten, dvs. inklusive Kina, vil underkaste sig dette diktat på samme måde, som det i vid udstrækning var tilfældet med Iran? Hensigten er tydeligvis at skabe så meget økonomisk kaos i Rusland, at Putin forhindres i at fortsætte sine militære aktioner i Ukraine, og at bringe den russiske befolkning i en sådan nød, at folk fra sikkerhedsapparatet vil afsætte Putin, eller at “det russiske system” vil bryde sammen, som Le Drian udtrykte det.

Putin har nu reageret på dette på en økonomisk måde, der passer til hans strategiske tankegang. På det nævnte møde annoncerede han en pakke af foranstaltninger til forsvar af den russiske økonomi. Fra nu af vil udenlandske virksomheder, der trækker sig ud af Rusland uden en forståelig grund, blive overtaget af en “ekstern (dvs. russisk) ledelse”, og der vil blive indført streng kapital- og valutakontrol. Desuden betales gæld til udlandet nu kun i rubler (som i mellemtiden er blevet massivt devalueret), men disse kan kun veksles med russiske aktiver, der er blevet konfiskeret af de vestlige centralbanker. Udenlandsk valuta, der er tjent gennem eksport, skal stilles til rådighed for den russiske centralbank. Putin udstedte ligeledes en række foranstaltninger for at forsvare den indenlandske økonomi, såsom et seks måneders moratorium på alle betalinger i landbrugssektoren for at sikre en uforstyrret produktion.

Den amerikanske regerings talsmand Jen Psakis var overrasket over, at disse foranstaltninger havde bragt os tilbage til “1917”, dvs. den russiske revolution. Faktisk er det imidlertid lykkedes Vesten gennem sin økonomiske krigsførelse at sætte repræsentanterne for den liberale økonomiske teori, som stadig har haft en betydelig indflydelse siden Jeltsin-perioden, skakmat. Meget tyder på, at Vestens sanktionsraseri vil vise sig at være en absolut boomerang for det transatlantiske finanssystem, som allerede er på randen af at implodere, og i stedet vil fremme fremkomsten af et alternativt finanssystem.

Sergei Glazyev, tidligere rådgiver for præsidenten, økonomiprofessor og medlem af det russiske videnskabsakademi, var relativt afslappet med hensyn til sanktionernes virkninger. Efter det sovjetiske systems sammenbrud vil der opstå en ny økonomisk orden, og det amerikanske system er nu ved at bryde sammen, Vesten er ved at ødelægge sig selv gennem de sanktioner, som det har indført. Det var nødvendigt at slippe af med dollaren, fordi en valuta, som man ikke kunne arbejde med, og som kunne indefryses i morgen, var værre end ubrugelig. Situationen er ikke let, men russerne bør ikke gå i panik, for Rusland har ingen grænser for økonomisk vækst og kan med de rigtige makroøkonomiske politikker opnå en økonomisk vækst på mindst 10 % om året og det allerede i år. Glazyev har skrevet en bog om årsagerne til den kinesiske økonomiske models succes og har længe foreslået, at Rusland indfører sin egen version af denne model.

Ideen om at isolere Rusland fuldstændigt og dermed “ødelægge det russiske system” er snarere et produkt af Vestens arrogante fantasier. Et stigende antal stater nægter at deltage i en ny blokdannelse og tilbyder sig i stedet som mæglere, f.eks. Pakistan, Indien, Tyrkiet, Israel, Sydafrika, Argentina, for blot at nævne nogle få. På kort sigt vil konsekvenserne af krigen i Ukraine og sanktionerne mod Rusland og Belarus dog få katastrofale konsekvenser for landbruget på grund af stigende priser på energi, gødning, pesticider osv. og dermed for sulten i verden, som truer ca. 400 millioner mennesker i år.

Der er også fare for, at konfrontationen mellem USA og NATO, med EU som et vedhæng, og Rusland kan eskalere til en større krig, herunder muligheden for en atomkrig. Men selv hvis der “kun” sker et værre finansielt sammenbrud end det i 2008, kan verden blive kastet ud i et kaos, som kan blive undergangen for en stor del af menneskeheden.

Kun ved at give fuldstændig afkald på geopolitisk konfrontation og i stedet etablere en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der tager hensyn til interesserne for alle stater på denne planet, kan denne fare overvindes endegyldigt. Schiller Instituttets andragende i denne henseende, som foreslår en ny konference i den Westfalske Freds tradition, tjener til at samle alle de kræfter rundt om i verden, som er interesserede i et nyt politisk paradigme. Vi har et presserende behov for en ny model for forbindelserne mellem verdens nationer, som gør det muligt at løse menneskehedens eksistentielle problemer i fællesskab, som f.eks. at overvinde sulten i verden, pandemier, energi- og råvaresikkerhed gennem udvikling af nye teknologier som f.eks. fusionsenergi og rumforskning.

Det bedste, De, kære borgere og læsere af disse linjer, kan gøre for at genoprette verdensfreden og overvinde den økonomiske og finansielle verdenskrise, er at underskrive denne underskriftsindsamling og hjælpe med at sprede den så meget som muligt blandt Deres bekendte, i de sociale medier og i alle tænkelige fora.

I modsætning til, hvad medierne og mainstream-politikerne forsøger at fortælle os, er hverken Rusland eller Kina vores fjender, men vi må stå sammen som menneskehed, hvis vi skal overleve denne krise.

zepp-larouche@eir.de

Fodnoter:

1. se her.

2. se her.

Download (PDF, Unknown)