Helga gentager de seriøse advarsler fra ledende tyske eksperter indenfor smitsomme sygdomme og ser på Wuhan-modellen for at bryde smittevejene i begyndelsen. Helga beder lande om at koordinere deres indsats for at besejre denne pandemi, inklusiv at dæmme op for de økonomiske indvirkninger på den globale økonomi, men det betyder ikke at redde Wall Street! (Se hendes opdaterede underskriftsbegæring)

Helga og Harley diskuterer svindelen med her-og- nu-økonomien, og påminder folk om Lyndon LaRouches advarsel, at hvis vi fortsatte ned ad vejen mod nulvækst, ville Vesten ikke længere være i stand til at opretholde sig selv og ville sprænges indad. Hun kræver en ende på geopolitik, og at alle kræfter må være fokuserede på at løse den fælles virus- og finanskrise. Pas på dig selv, og tak for at du følger vores arbejde.

Afskrift på engelsk:

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s March 11, 2020. And now we’re very deep into a process which has been unfolding rapidly with the coronavirus, the emergence of a pandemic worldwide. And Helga, this is something that people in the West have been trying to wish away, but it’s something that’s going to be wished away: It requires a total change in thinking. Why don’t you start with your thoughts on that, because you have been very out front in the need for an emergency call to reject this old paradigm, and move to the new.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think the situation is very serious. It probably will not be possible without a lot of casualties, but nevertheless, if there are decisive measures now, and a complete change in the attitude, the damage can be minimized. Otherwise, it will be catastrophic.

Now, I think it is useful to listen to the experts from Germany who are making regular podcasts, Christian Drosten, the virologist from Berlin Charité hospital, and Professor Lothar Wieler from the Robert Koch Institute, and they put out very drastic warnings. What Drosten said is that there will be no lessening of the increasing in the spring and summer period, which some people temporarily assumed, because we will face a virus wave, and naturally, in the summer period, the virus will continue to spread to the summer hemisphere, where it will be winter, and then in all likelihood return even more, and with possible mutations in the fall, and a vaccine, as of now, cannot be expected before a year or so.

So, Merkel announced what is now commonplace among many leaders of countries, that the infection rate probably will infect 70% of the population, and unfortunately, it is absolutely not true what our Health Minister Jens Spahn still thought in January, which is really incredible, where he said that the coronavirus does not represent a danger for Germany, and that the mortality rate of the coronavirus would be lower than of the common flu — that’s what he said in January.

Now, obviously, that that was not the case was clear, already if people looked to China, which in the month of January was waging an incredible battle, and by closing down the entire city of Wuhan and Hubei province, effecting a lockdown for 60 million people, implementing it and also enforcing it and having a population which was very cooperative in doing so, according to the World Health Organization, China has set a new standard in dealing with such pandemics. And the West could have taken that as an example, but people in the West are just too arrogant, too Euro-centric, or too Western-centric, so they thought they could ignore, or even think “this is affecting China and not coming to Europe or the United States”; so they lost three valuable months, maybe not entirely, but obviously, a completely different attitude would have been necessary.

And now, it is spreading and changing by the hour, so people are completely aware of the fact that this is out of control. And I do not want to add to any panic, but it is very clear that the numbers which are announced right now are not accurate. I talked to my colleagues in France, today, and there are only a little bit more than 1,000 tests which have been made in France so far! That is not a representative figure which comes out, then. And we have some cases where people clearly have symptoms, and they try to get tests, and they were told, there are no tests in France right now, France doesn’t have the production capability and all the tests have been bought up and there simply are no tests. So, obviously, the fact that in Germany, there are only two deaths so far, as of this webcast [midday in Germany March 11 — ed], they attribute that to the very well testing — now, we have to see.

I think the lesson from Wuhan, and now that all of Italy is basically a red zone, after some very irrational behavior on the side of some citizens, after the north was locked down, you have quite an advanced situation; but I think the lesson to be learned from all of that is that is that we have to learn from China. We have to get rid of our Western arrogance, and simply look at the way how China effectively dealt with it, and then the only conclusion is, that you have to enforce these measures before you have a mass of cases. That means that if you have anywhere, a region, like some cities or areas in North Rhine-Westphalia, one should apply the Wuhan model immediately. It should be closed down, there should be a quarantine for a certain number of weeks, and these measures must be taken early on, because everything which counts in this is the speed, to take preemptive measures before the virus spreads completely out of control.

So I think we are in a very serious situation, but it’s not some moment where you can completely panic, but there are clear ways, and I think the Chinese efficiency with which they dealt with this, should be a lesson for everybody.

SCHLANGER: When you speak of the arrogance, I think you’re referring, in particular, to the continued adherence to geopolitics, to the neo-liberal model, the whole idea that the West is superior, the West has solved all the problems. Isn’t this what hampers the thinking of people at the European Union and many of the people in the U.S. Congress, and think tanks in the United States?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the reaction so far by the leading politicians, for example, the European finance ministers — the so-called Eurogroup — they have a meeting on March 16, and on their agenda is first, the European Stability Mechanism, and then something else, and then only third, the coronavirus attack, and it is very clear that the reason why the reaction was so late, and why they didn’t use the word “pandemic,” because they were more concerned about the stock market, the efficiency and the profits coming from the so-called “pandemic bond” — which is an absurdity all by itself, that you would try to finance the cost of pandemics with bonds from which people can make a profit, but only if you have the maturity of the bond. So, I think the thinking is still very much dominated by the geopolitical idea: For example, yesterday, I was listening — and one should actually stop doing that! — I was listening to the ZDF news and this moderator reported about the coronavirus crisis, but then, instead of praising what the Chinese accomplished in Wuhan, he took the occasion to blast China and attack it, or to continue to attack Russia, China, that has to stop! Because if you look at it, the only way how humanity will get out of the crisis, is international cooperation. Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, has just telephoned the Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, and the Chinese offered share their experience, to send their experts; they’re donating masks, protective suits, and tests to Italy. This is a completely different approach. And I think the West has much to learn how to respond to challenges which all of humanity is facing. And this whole geopolitical thinking is really one of troglodytes and should be eliminated completely.

SCHLANGER: We see people like U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continuing to attack China; he calls coronavirus the “Wuhan virus” — you have this kind of attitude, when in fact, what we’re seeing is a significant drop of cases in China. And you mentioned earlier the importance of President Xi Jinping going to Wuhan to talk to the people who are on the front lines. I think it’s important to report this, Helga, because it’s not going out in the Western press.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I have proposed something, which may look impossible to some people, but I dare the prediction that the situation will — because of this ineffectiveness of Western response — that the situation will soon come to the point where more and more people are recognizing that what I’m saying is the only way to address this problem. What I have reiterated is my call to have an emergency summit by Xi Jinping, Putin, Trump, Modi, as a minimum combination, to address all these problems. Because it’s very clear that we need an international cooperation concerning the coronavirus pandemic. This is already threatening the international financial system: We saw, in the last several weeks, several plunges, absolutely of the same dimension as after the 2008 systemic collapse, or after the September 11, 2001 attack; and only because the central banks have now decided to flood the markets, to lower the interest rates — like the Bank of England lowered the interest rate by a half-percent, 50 basis points, today — as if the simple pushing of liquidity would remedy any of the real, physical causes for why the system is collapsing. So, I want to have a mobilization of the population to demand that the leaders of the most important governments — of the United States, Russia, China, and India — need to discuss the Four Points which were proposed by my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, in June 2014, because you need to have an immediate end of the global casino economy, by implementing a Glass-Steagall system; we have discussed this many times on this program, but it is the only combination of measures which would address the problem. Then, you need a national bank in every country; in Germany, we could extend the functions of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau; have a national bank in every other country; have an international cooperation among these national banks, reinstate fixed exchange rates, and then have agreements about industrial development projects, like the industrial development of Southwest Asia, of Africa, and this will become then, a New Bretton Woods system. There must be cooperation with the Chinese New Silk Road to have these kinds of development plans. And we need a crash program to go into a new platform of higher productivity of the economy, joint cooperation in advanced technologies, like fusion, like biophysics, like space research cooperation. And then, such a summit could implement these measures, and then could have a series of such summits, and that way change the geopolitics, and move towards an international cooperation, a shared future of humanity.

And that shift has to occur. And I’m predicting, and I think I’m on the safe side in doing so, that the crisis will accelerate, there will be many more unfortunate consequences, and people will recognize that to establish a completely different level of thinking will be the only way out for all of mankind.

If you agree with that, you should help this mobilization. There is a resolution, which is attachéd to this webcast [https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/four_laws_new], please sign it, please spread it among your friends and colleagues, get more people to sign it: Because we need a public discussion about this, and public demand that the whole world should move into a completely new way of cooperating and solving these kinds of problems.

SCHLANGER: I’ve received a few emails from people who have asked, why do we focus on “neo-liberalism” as the problem? What does that have to do with the virus? And I think it’s important to look at what Dr. Redfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had to say about the need to rebuild the system: That the so-called “just-in-time” system, which has been accepted as an economic model doesn’t work. We need redundancy. And Helga, I think it would be very useful for you to just review again, why this neo-liberal system is the cause, or sets humanity up for these kinds of crises. Because this is what your husband was warning, going back to 1971, with the Biological Holocaust Task Force he set up, and so on.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The prognosis of Lyndon LaRouche, which he made on Aug. 15, 1971, when Nixon dissolved the Bretton Woods system by going to floating exchange rates, by decoupling the dollar from the gold-reserve standard and that way, opening the deregulation of the markets which has escalated ever since. My husband at that point had made the prognosis that if the West would continue on this road, of liberalizing the markets, of going with neo-liberal, monetarist policies, that it would end up in a new depression and the danger of a new fascism; or, one would go to a completely new economic system.

Now, that prognosis has proven to be absolutely on the mark. And the Biological-Ecological Holocaust Task Force which you just mentioned, he set up in 1974, and it was to study the effects of the policies of the IMF and World Bank on the economic system, especially in the developing sector. And in meantime, we have produced many studies, which you can all see in our archives, that if you impose such austerity or zero growth policies, especially on the developing countries, that you would inevitably cause the emergence of old diseases and new diseases, because you cannot consistently lower the living standard of entire continents, as the IMF and World Bank have done in the last 50 years, without creating conditions of breakdown. And that is exactly what you see right now: Because you don’t have only the coronavirus crisis, you have the locust situation getting completely out of control in many African states, in the Horn of Africa, and in the Arabian Peninsula and Pakistan-India, even threatening to go into China.

Then, as part of this geopolitical, liberal scheme of the West, the refugee crisis: It’s not a natural phenomenon, it is the result of the interventionist wars conducted by the Bush Administrations and Obama, with the idea that you have to spread “democracy” and “human rights” and that it’s legitimate to made interventionist wars against Iraq — doesn’t matter if it’s based on lies that there are so-called weapons of mass destruction which Nancy Pelosi, in the meantime has admitted that they all knew it was lie and they did it anyway; Iraq, Afghanistan — these are all the reasons why you have a refugee crisis. The underdevelopment of Africa is a result of these policies.

So that is why I am saying, if we don’t get rid of this paradigm, which has many elements — it has geopolitics, it has neo-liberal economic policies; but it also a Malthusian dimension to it. The Green axiom which says that nature, or some spiders or some ants somewhere are more important than human beings; and I even go so far as to say that I think the reason why there is such an absolutely bestial attitude — I mean, on the coronavirus, do you think that most African countries or Asian and Latin American countries that do not have the health systems we have, do you think they are testing their people? I don’t think so. So the figures are in all likelihood completely off, and the ability of these countries to remedy it is much, much less. And I’m absolutely convinced that there are some people who say, “Oh, there are too many people anyway,” like Bertrand Russell, who said, you need a pandemic every generation — these are quotes we have published many times! And the absolutely disgusting way how the EU is dealing with the refugee crisis, now again erupting at the Turkish-Greek border, that is a mindset which is disgusting! And it is the reflection of geopolitics, of the Malthusian idea that there are too many people anyway.

Now, Erdoğan, obviously, is playing his own, terrible games. But I think in this moment, where innocent people who have nothing, — the whole thing is that these refugees, even if they’re sitting in camps for years on end, and have begun speaking Turkish, and now Erdoğan is instrumentalizing them, that may all be true — that’s what the Greeks are saying — but what is the solution to that? You have to stop insisting that you have regime change in Syria, that has to stop. There has to be recognition that the only legitimate government in Syria is the one which the Syrian people themselves elect. There was a constitutional process under way, which is now stopped again; that has to be resumed. There has to be an end to the war. Turkey should not be backed by NATO — this is an insane idea. The U.S. special envoy for Syria James Jeffrey just demanded that NATO should fully back up Turkey against Syria, that is complete insanity: What needs to be done is you have to have peace with Syria, and then you have to have an orderly negotiation between the Assad government and the opposition, to arrange for the return of the Syrians to their own country, which is what most people want to do, anyway.

So I think all of these assumptions, that you just keep going with the policies which have proven to be a failure, that that has to absolutely stop. I don’t see a sign that the European establishment is capable of doing it. That just means we need a mobilization of the population, because this is becoming a serious existential crisis for all of us, and we have to take responsibility to put in a new paradigm — a paradigm of cooperation, and then we can solve most problems; at least over time, we can find solutions to such problems as coronavirus. But we need to change the view of the West towards China and Russia, and this whole idea that regime change is allowed under the pretext of spreading democracy and human rights, is one of these imperial, colonialist ideas which have to go.

SCHLANGER: Another perfect example of that is the expansion of sanctions against Iran and Venezuela for regime change, in the face of this growing pandemic.

I’d like to come back to one other point, which I think you alluded to earlier, which is the financial crisis: We now see, if something is going to be quarantined, we ought to quarantine Wall Street and the Bank of England. The idea that lower interest rates will solve something, but what’s going on with the repo lending, the incredible demand for liquidity without any concern for solvency, this is the other aspect of Mr. LaRouche’s warnings over many years.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I don’t know how long this will continue. And I think what the central banks are proposing is completely irresponsible, because the continuous flooding of the markets with money, and the idea to go even to negative interests rates, all of this is already eating up the savings and life’s earnings of the population, and is threatening at some point to go into a hyperinflation. So these derivatives must be absolutely written off — this is why Glass-Steagall is so crucial — and I think the whole EU program as it was announced by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in this presence of this deplorable Greta Thunberg, that has to go, too! Because you cannot have an industrial state and implement these policies. I think if you want to have hospitals, if you want to have enough intensive care units to deal with such a situation, you have to have a productive society. And that Green policy of von der Leyen it has to go. We need the full package that I talked about before: Glass-Steagall, and the return to Hamiltonian banking, which every time there was a successful economic system in history, whether it was the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, whether it was the reconstruction of Germany in the postwar period, these were the principles which were applied, and that is what is urgently required.

SCHLANGER: And while this is all going on, we have this incredible soap opera in U.S. politics around the Democratic nomination. I think it would be very useful, as we come toward the end of this webcast, for you to emphasize again, what do you think people should do, to make sure we can change the paradigm? There’s a hunger for change, people are still extremely unhappy, and now, very nervous, both because of the financial crisis and the coronavirus, what should people do? How should they respond?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Since you mentioned the U.S. situation, I think it’s a big problem, because, unfortunately Trump said he had a hunch that the mortality rates of the coronavirus is much less than what the World Health Organization was saying. Now, I think that he’s probably saying that because of the election campaign and he thinks that this will intervene. But I think the reality will assert itself very quickly: This will come as fast as it came in Europe, maybe faster even, and the U.S. right now is really unprepared! The health delivery system was taking even more than in Europe. The Democrats have this Biden now as a major candidate — I can only advise people, there is a very interesting collection of videos which was published by Consortium News, the author is Caitlin Johnstone [https://consortiumnews.com/2020/03/06/stop-calling-it-a-stutter-dozens-of-examples-show-bidens-dementia-symptoms/], and she collected about 20 or so videos of speeches of Biden where you clearly can see that he doesn’t have it any more — he’s lost it. So the idea to somebody who has clear signs of aging (to put it mildly), to think that you can run him through the Democratic Convention, the election campaign, and then win the election in November against Trump, is also a sign of extreme mental deterioration of the people who think they can do that and get away with it.

So if you look at all of these things, we need a completely new thinking: We are in a Dark Age, the Dark Age is absolutely comparable to the 14th century when the Black Death killed one-third of the European population, and people just went crazy! You see signs of this insanity, already now, and we need therefore, a completely different approach, like it came with the 15th century and the Golden Renaissance in Italy. We can talk about that some other time, but, I think people have to really recognize, we are in a Dark Age, and we have to reject all the assumptions which have led to this present situation.

And I actually would like to make one other point: I think the coronavirus will force lockdowns, it will force measures, schools and universities are already closed for several weeks in several countries; you don’t know yet what will be the effect of all of this on the financial system, on the real economy, and I think on these circumstances, where Merkel is talking about 70% of the population will become infected, and if you assume worldwide it may be 100 million people, and then, if you take present mortality rates, it will be 2-4 million people — under these circumstances, we should not have war games. And therefore, I think we need to stop the present NATO maneuver in Eastern Europe, the Defender-Europe 2020: Because obviously, the virus does not stop in front of the military. And to have these kinds of things going on, when you have an immediate health threat to the population, is really something which doesn’t make any sense. So this NATO maneuver should stop. Presently I think the highest commander of the U.S. forces in Germany is a victim of the coronavirus and is in quarantine in Wiesbaden: So, that should just give people to think that the virus does not stop in the face of the military.

And I think we should go in the direction of mobilizing for the summit: I know people think that this is too big, but sometimes, when you are in a real crisis, only if you reach a completely new level of thinking, namely the idea that all the major countries of the world — the United States, Russia, China, and India, as a minimum; and then other countries can come together with these countries — only if you change the level of thinking, and the level of approach, can you find a solution. So if you agree with that, then help us in this mobilization, because, you know, we will do other things: We will call for the rebuilding of the health delivery system, there are other things we can do. But I think because of the complexity of the world situation, the interaction of all of the elements of the breakdown, that we will not solve the problem unless we go to a completely new paradigm, a new system of international relations, and you should help us in this mobilization, and that’s the very best thing you can do for your own life and your own future.

SCHLANGER: And I would recommend, toward that end, that people circulate this webcast, get this webcast around, so people can hear the extent of the crisis and the solutions; and secondly, go to our website, and download the call for emergency summit from Helga Zepp-LaRouche, take that to your city council, to your trade union group — well, maybe you shouldn’t go too far, but you can certainly use the internet to get it around and get people signing it and support it.

So, Helga, anything else you want to add?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. I think this is a moment where people will be freaked out and it’s understandable: But sometimes a shock is also healthy if it helps you to get out of a wrong idea, and to think things through and then move ahead and find a solution. So, I would urge people to overcome your present fears and be confident that if we work together as one humanity, we can solve this.

SCHLANGER: OK, well, with that, we’ll see you again, next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

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

Her er et afskrift på engelsk af videoen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Quartet performed live]

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

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

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

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

[Duet is played]

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

[Chorus is played]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

Med mordet d. 3. januar på den iranske generalmajor Qassem Soleimani, kommandør af Revolutionsgardens Quds-Brigade, og nationalhelt i Iran, såvel som Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, vicekommandør af Iraks folkelige Mobiliseringsstyrker, gennem et droneangreb nær den Internationale Lufthavn i Bagdad, er verden konfronteret med faren for en optrapning af gengældelser og modgengældelser, som ikke blot kunne føre til krig i hele Sydvestasien men ud over denne region.

Pentagon skrev i en erklæring, der fulgte med Præsident Donald Trumps underskrift på angrebsordren, at Soleimani ”aktivt udviklede planer for at angribe amerikanske diplomater og servicemedarbejdere i Irak og i regionen”. Meddelelsen påstår, at General Soleimani og hans Quds-styrker var ansvarlige for hundredvis af amerikaneres død og for tusinder af sårede, og at angrebet havde til hensigt at afskrække fremtidige iranske angrebsplaner.

Som talskvinden for det russiske udenrigsministerium, Maria Zakharova, påpegede, var det FN’s Sikkerhedsråds ansvarsområde at lave en juridisk vurdering af angreb på landes ambassader, og at Washington ikke havde anmodet om et ekstraordinært møde i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om spørgsmålet. Tydeligvis fandt Pentagon det ikke nødvendigt at gøre dette, eftersom AUMF-loven (”Tilladelse til Brug af Militære Midler mod Terrorister”) fra 2001 tillader USA’s militær at angribe enhver bevæbnet gruppe, som anses at være en terrortrussel. USA’s udenrigsministeriums officielle betegnelse af IRGC (den Iranske Revolutionsgarde) i april 2019 som ”terrorister” — et tiltag som både den tidligere nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver John Bolton og udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo stærkt understøttede, gjorde det lovligt for USA’s væbnede styrker at angribe individer forbundet med IRGC, under en hvilken som helst omstændighed der kunne forekomme. På det tidspunkt skrev oberst Pat Lang (tilbagetrådt) følgende på sin blog:

”De neokonservative tumper (Pompeo Bolton, Hannah, osv.) tror måske at Irans reaktion på denne krigserklæring vil være underkastelse til deres vilje, men efter min mening er dette meget usandsynligt. Efter min mening er det mere sandsynligt, at IRGC vil tage denne nye virkelighed til efterretning og forberede sig på krig med USA.”

Med mordet på Soleimani er oberst Langs advarsel, om at denne betegnelse som en udenlandsk terrororganisation (af IRGC) kunne føre til krig, tættere på at blive til virkelighed. Så, selvom Bolton ikke længere er en del af administrationen, har hans konfrontationspolitik skabt en meget farlig arv — en opsætning til krig — for Trump. Og, ikke overraskende, skrev Bolton på Twitter her til morgen: ”Tillykke til alle der var involveret i at eliminere Qassem Soleimani. Længe under opsejling, var dette et afgørende slag mod Irans ondskabsfulde Quds-Styrkers aktiviteter verden over. Håber dette er det første skridt til regimeskifte i Teheran.”

Som forventet lovede Irans religiøse leder Ali Khamenei ”barsk hævn”, og store mængder mennesker forsamledes i forskellige iranske byer, imens de skreg dødstrusler mod Trump og udtrykte deres had mod amerikanere. Hvad enten meningerne om Soleimani fra andre kræfter i Vesten eller i Sydvestasien er, er det et faktum, at han sikkert har gjort mere end nogen anden til at bidrage til sejren over IS, Daesh, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, osv., og repræsenterer en nationalhelt i den iranske befolknings øjne. Hvad også kan forventes, har diverse iranske stedfortrædere i regionen omgående lovet hævnaktioner, mens den irakiske regering har bekendtgjort, at de den 4. januar vil introducere et lovforslag i det irakiske parlament for at afslutte det legale grundlag for det amerikanske militærs tilstedeværelse i Irak.

I betragtning af den ekstreme kompleksitet af Sydvestasiens historie i form af etniske og religiøse stridigheder, de århundrede gamle manipulationer af (primært) det Britiske Imperium med dettes ”Great Game” mod Rusland, og denne regions forvikling med alle verdens atommagter, er der ikke noget spørgsmål om at denne nuværende eskalation har potentialet til at løbe ud af kontrol, ligegyldigt hvad de kræfter involveret i kuppet mod Trump måtte tænke. Hvis der er noget man kan lære fra militærhistorien, er det erkendelsen af at krige næsten aldrig forløber som planlagt. Hvis folk ville have vidst hvordan 1. og 2. Verdenskrig ville have forløbet, ville de ikke have begyndt dem.

Før nogen yderligere optrapning mellem USA, Iran og deres stedfortrædere sker, må alle fredselskende mennesker i verden støtte op om et øjeblikkeligt topmøde mellem præsidenterne fra USA, Rusland og Kina, nu, i samme ånd som Mødet ved Elben (mellem USA og det tidligere Sovjetunionen). Det er åbenlyst, at der mellem de tre præsidenter, præsident Trump – som har lovet at afslutte alle endeløse krige og allerede har taget flere skridt i denne retning – og præsidenterne Putin og Xi, er en intention om og en evne til at omgå krigsmagernes manøvrer og etablere et højere niveau for samarbejde. Dette potentiale er grunden til at kuppet — ”Russiagate” og nu rigsretssagen — bliver orkestreret mod Trump. Det er nu tid til, at disse tre fortræffelige ledere opfylder det potentiale som historiens forsyn har skænket dem.

Den 7. dec. (EIRNS) — CGTN (China Global Television Network), den engelsksprogede Tv-station kontrolleret af Kinas Kommunistiske Parti, grundlagde d. 4. december “CGTN-Tænketanken”, som en del af CGTN’s tredje årlige Globale Medietopmøde, med over 300 repræsentanter fra den politiske verden, erhvervslivet og ledere indenfor medier og teknologi. Den nye tænketank vil have “samarbejdsrelationer med 50 velrenommerede tænketanke verden over, med målet at tilbyde indsigt i globale udviklinger og at fremme kommunikation mellem forskellige kulturer”, meddeltes ifølge en udtalelse fra CGTN, bragt af Xinhua.

Blandt de stiftende medlemmer ved mødet var Helga Zepp-LaRouche, præsenteret som “grundlægger af og præsident for Schiller Instituttet”. Andre prominente medlemmer inkluderede ledere fra institutioner dedikerede til kulturel dialog, handelskamre og lignende institutioner. Blandt disse kan nævnes Alexander Lukin, leder af Fjernøstasiatiske og SCO-studier ved det Nationale Forskningsuniversitets Højere Skole for Økonomi under det russiske udenrigsministerium, og et fremtrædende medlem af Valdai-klubben.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som ved åbningen var den eneste kvindelige repræsentant på scenen (udover ordstyreren Liu Xin, værten for CGTN-showet “The Point with Liu Xin”), berettede til amerikanske medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet, – at hun havde talt på et af arrangementets paneler og lagt fokus på den hastige opløsning af de vestlige finanssystems og den presserende nødvendighed for en ny Bretton Woods-aftale for at etablere et nyt system, i overensstemmelse med den Nye Silkevejs ånd.

Hun havde ligeså mange private møder og blev interviewet af China Radio International.

Zepp-LaRouche diskuterede her til morgen sit besøg med LaRouche-organisationens Nationale Eksekutivkomité (NEC), og meddelte at næsten alle kinesere, som hun havde mødtes med, er særdeles oprørte over de stadigt forringede relationer mellem USA og Kina, og de gemene beskyldninger mod Kina fra USA, og frygter at forbedrede forhold sandsynligvis ikke vil finde sted i lang tid fremover. Selvom de er klar over rigsretssagsforfølgelserne mod Trump, har de fleste ingen forståelse for kupforsøget og intentionerne bag. Folk er almindeligvis heller ikke klar over finanskrisens alvor og det truende sammenbrud, sagde hun.

Hvad Kinas egen situation angår, beskrev hun forskellen mellem byerne i Kina og dem i Vesten som “utrolig”. Et land med 1,4 milliarder, med omkring hundrede byer med befolkninger på én million eller derover, og trods dette “fungerer alt”. Der er rent, der bygges overalt – “ting fungerer, det er hovedforskellen.

Retningen er fremad”, sagde hun. Spørgsmålet om “kommunisme”, som mange i Vesten hele tiden kalder “en bussemand”, en “konstruktion” — det kan ikke sammenlignes med D.D.R. (det tidl. Østtyskland). Det er “socialisme med kinesiske træk” — dvs. at Kina er vendt tilbage til sine konfutsianske rødder, dets værdier, hvorimod vi i Vesten ikke er vendt tilbage til den europæiske Renæssance eller Den amerikanske Frihedskrig. Vi er ikke vendt tilbage til vores egne bedste traditioner.

“Hverken Kina eller Rusland er, som de skildres,” betonede hun.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Tidspunktet for strategisk omvæltning: Vil Europa være i stand til at hjælpe med udformningen af det nye paradigme?

Vi kan forme en ny æra for menneskeheden!

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Helga Zepp-LaRouche er grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. Vi præsenterer her hendes redigerede hovedtale fra Schiller Instituttets konference, “Menneskehedens fremtid som en kreativ art i Universet” (The Future of Humanity as a Creative Species in the Universe), i Bad Soden, Tyskland, den 16. november, 2019. Der er tilføjet underoverskrifter.

Link til grafik og fotos her:https://larouchepub.com/hzl/2019/4646-we_can_shape_a_new_era-hzl.html

Kup og kupforsøg

Jeg kan ikke indlede mine bemærkninger uden at tage fat på de uhørte begivenheder, der finder sted i USA lige nu. Hvad der sker i dette land med den såkaldte rigsretshøring er faktisk et kupforsøg mod den valgte præsident, og forsøg på regimeskifte udført af de samme kræfter, der står bag indsatsen for regimeskifte i Hongkong og i Bolivia.

Det er meget klart, de ønsker at få Trump ud af embedet med alle mulige midler. Hensigten fremstår meget klar, hvis man ser på vidneudsagnene fra sådanne mennesker som diplomaten William B. Taylor, Jr., George Kent, Fiona Hills og andre, der under ed fremsatte utrolige påstande, som absolut ikke har noget med virkeligheden at gøre. Taylor, for eksempel, løj og sagde, at præsident Trump i samarbejde med Ukraines præsident Zelensky forsinkede leverancen af tungt militært udstyr til Ukraine; og på den måde var skyld i, at mange ukrainske liv gik tabt ved ikke at afskrække den russiske aggression.

Dette er den helt omvendte situation. Hvis man tænker i baner af hvad der skete med kuppet i Maidan i 2014 – som jeg tror, Natalia Vitrenko vil tale om, eller kan besvare eventuelle spørgsmål der måtte være – er det desto mere uforskammet, hvad George Kent sagde. Han sagde, at de kræfter i Ukraine der er imod Rusland kan sammenlignes med ‘the Minutemen’ fra den amerikanske revolution, og er at sammenligne med revolutionshelte som Marquis de Lafayette og Baron von Steuben. Dette er så absolut skandaløst; det står 100% i modsætning til Lafayettes og von Steubens stolte tradition.

Hvis man i den grad vender sandheden på hovedet, og forvandler den til det stik modsatte, kan det kun betegnes som satanisk. De mennesker der begik kuppet i Ukraine, og som er Ruslands fjender, er mennesker i tradition af nazisten Stepan Bandera. Vi husker alle de berygtede ord fra Victoria Nuland, der sagde, at udenrigsministeriet brugte 5 milliarder dollars til at finansiere denne opposition i Ukraine.

Mindre vigtigt, men stadig betegnende for den nye ånd i de neokonservative og neoliberale kredse i USA, er rapporten i 2019 til Kongressen fra Undersøgelsesudvalget for Amerikansk-Kinesisk Økonomi og Sikkerhed’, der netop er udgivet, som benægter at Kina [er en] nationalstat ved at henvise til Xi Jinping som ’generalsekretær for det kinesiske kommunistparti’ og ikke længere som præsident for Folkerepublikken Kina. Dette er værre end McCarthyisme, og den eneste gode ting er, at udfaldet af dette kup ikke er givet, idet kupmagerne er under kriminel efterforskning af justitsminister William Barr; og de kan alle ende med at blive retsforfulgt og i sidste instans blive fængslet.

Se, det der foregår i USA er som sagt en politik for statskup og regimeskifte, som vi har set det i mange lande over hele verden – hvad der for indeværende sker i Hongkong og Bolivia. Hvis man sammenligner det med, hvad massemedierne i Europa siger, kunne det ikke være mere utroligt… det er virkelig en slags – jeg vil næsten sige “Goebbels-lignende” propaganda. Det er meget tydeligt, at tiden er inde for det endelige opgør. Hvad der ligger bag alt dette er, at det gamle, oligarkiske paradigme sætter [alt] ind imod fremkomsten af et helt nyt paradigme i menneskehedens historie.

Denne konference er tilegnet Lyndon LaRouche

Denne konference er viet til mindet om min afdøde mand, den store statsmand, økonom, visionære og menneske, Lyndon LaRouche. Dog ikke som noget, der hører fortiden til, men som en højtidelig forpligtelse til at holde hans ideer i live og få dem til at sprede sig, fordi de repræsenterer de uomgængelige løsninger på de eksistentielle problemer, som den menneskelige civilisation står overfor i dag. De løsninger, som han har fremsat, er absolut realiserbare, men de kræver en helt anden tankegang end de fleste europæiske regeringer og befolkninger har i dag. For at transformere denne tankegang, der kun kan føre til katastrofe, til et alternativt tankesæt hvor løsningerne kan realiseres, er forståelsen af Lyndon LaRouches videnskabelige metode absolut uundværlig.

Det er denne metode der er grunden til, at han var den mest succesrige prognosemager. Ud af de mange tilfælde hvor han fik ret, og alle hans kritikere tog fejl, lad mig vælge et af de mest vidtskuende eksempler. I august 1971, da præsident Nixon ødelagde Bretton Woods-systemet ved at erstatte det faste valutasystem med flydende valutakurser, sagde LaRouche profetisk: ”Hvis denne tendens i pengepolitikken fortsættes, vil det [enten] føre til faren for en ny [økonomisk] depression og fascisme, eller en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden.” Det er nøjagtigt det tidspunkt, hvor vi befinder os i dag.

Kontrolleret opløsning af nationalstaterne

Ved enhver given lejlighed advarede LaRouche om konsekvenserne, og selvom den transatlantiske sektor afviste hans løsninger, foreslog han hver gang et middel til at forme historiens forløb. Denne tendens fortsatte med 1970’ernes politik fra ‘Council of Foreign Relations’ med den såkaldt “kontrollerede disintegration” af verdensøkonomien, hvilket resulterede i en fuldstændig ødelæggelse af den industrielle produktion og relaterede forsyningskæder i USA, og den form for ‘chilensk’ model’, som vi i dag ser eksplodere i mange lande over hele verden.

Outsourcing af indenlandsk produktion til billige udenlandske arbejdsmarkeder; højrentepolitikken fra Paul Volcker, den daværende formand for den amerikanske centralbank, Federal Reserve; overgangen fra en fysisk økonomi til et samfund baseret på aktieværdier; Thatcherisme og Reaganomics; ophævelse af Glass/Steagall-loven; deregulering af de finansielle markeder; politikken med kvantitative lempelser efter sammenbruddet i 2007-2008; og nu, de negative renter; samt til sidst helikopterpenge og hvad direktøren for Bank of England, Mark Carney, foreslår: et paradigmeskifte med eliminering af suveræne regeringers magt og overgang til et globalt diktatur af centralbankfolk, som agter at indføre lovgivning om at kanalisere al finansiering over til grønne investeringer kombineret med bankredningspakker og brutal nedskæringspolitik, der vil føre til en massiv befolkningsreduktion.

Vi har set denne sidste fase siden midten af september. Venligst giv mig billedet med den ”tredobbelte kurve”, Figur 1. Dette er en pædagogisk graf, som Lyn udviklede i 1995, og som viser Jer det punkt, hvor de finansielle aggregater er fuldstændig ude af kontrol.

I henhold til de seneste tal fra ‘Bank for International Settlements’ steg den nominelle værdi af ‘over-the-counter-derivater’ med 20% fra 2018 til juni i år, til 640 billioner $. Den er generelt mindst det dobbelte af det officielle tal, og skal sammenlignes med en stigning i den globale handel på 3% og BNP på 2.9%.

Ifølge data fra den amerikanske centralbank, der er citeret i bloggen Econimica, er Federal Reserves aktiver steget med 300 milliarder dollars, til 4,04 billioner dollars siden 17. september. Men da megabankernes overskydende reserver, der er deponeret i Federal Reserve, er lavere end i august, betyder det, at de nyligt trykte penge er gået direkte til al slags spekulation: til aktier, obligationer, gældssekurisering, rentederivater og så videre. Derfor er den tidligere Fed-formand Ben Bernankes påstand om, at kvantitative lempelser alene ville opbygge overskydende bankreserver, og aldrig forårsage hyperinflation, helt klart en løgn. Globale finansielle aggregater er nu over 1,8 billarder $, og er på vej mod forventede 2 billarder $ ved udgangen af året.

Figur 2, Man kan faktisk se, at vi befinder os på et punkt der toppede i 2008, og så fik man sammenbruddet, og nu er vi faktisk på samme niveau, men fortsætter derudaf. Så alle instrumenterne i den ”værktøjskasse”, som den tyske forbundskansler Angela Merkel talte om i 2008, er brugt op. Hvorfor ændrede Frau Merkel sin holdning til ideen om en europæisk bankunion og en EU-indskudsgarantifond under hendes nylige rejse til Rom? Jeg tror, at Fed, Draghi, Lagarde, Carney, Scholz, Merkel, alle er de klar over, at systemet er ufatteligt bankerot. Men de er betonhoveder, huleboer, som formand og administrerende direktør for JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, netop demonstrerede i en efterligning af Erich Honecker, der den 14. august 1989 talte om, at socialismen ville eksistere tusinde år endnu, da han erklærede: “Den amerikanske økonomi er den mest velstående økonomi verden har set, og den vil være meget velstående i de næste 100 år”.

Vi skal huske på, at det tog kun to måneder, før Honecker blev væltet efter hans berømte udtalelse, tre måneder før Berlinmuren faldt, om at socialismen ville eksistere i yderligere 1.000 år.

Dette system er absolut ikke holdbart. Vi befinder os på randen af en generel sammenbrudskrise i verdens monetære system, nøjagtigt som Lyndon LaRouche advarede om. Vi er på det punkt, som han forudsagde i 1971: depression og fascisme, eller en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden.

Massedemonstrationer mod nedskæringer. Men hvem vil føre an?

Man ser lige nu oprør overalt i verden i form af massedemonstrationer mod denne politik i Chile, Haiti, Irak, Pakistan, Libanon og blandt de tyske landmænd. Dernæst havde vi, på den ene side, valgsejren til præsident Alberto Fernandez og vicepræsident Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner i Argentina mod denne nyliberale politik, og på den anden siden en gentagelse af det af udenrigsministeriet støttede Maidan-kup, men denne gang rettet mod præsident Evo Morales i Bolivia – fordi Morales turde følge det kinesiske eksempel med at løfte befolkningen ud af fattigdom ved hjælp af videnskabelige fremskridt og endda forsøgte at springe frem til de mest avancerede teknologier.

De sociale virkninger af denne neoliberale økonomiske politik ødelægger landenes sociale strukturer over hele kloden. Fordi adskillige lande i G20 faktisk forsvarer det britiske imperium – City of London, Wall Street og centralbankerne – er jeg er bange for, at løsningen ikke kommer fra G20, der som den repræsentative organisation normalt forventedes at påtage sig omorganiseringen af systemet, da den systemiske krise udbrød i 2008.

Men det gjorde de ikke; de har gjort det værre siden da med deres politik. Dette er grunden til, at Lyndon LaRouche allerede i 1997 insisterede på, at kun kombinationen af USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien som de centrale repræsentative nationer vil være stærke nok til at indføre et nyt kreditsystem, et Nyt Bretton Woods system. Det strategiske samarbejde mellem Rusland og Kina er faktisk blevet styrket til et uhørt niveau, som et resultat af den mislykkede indsats for at påtvinge en unipolær verdensorden – som den nye inkarnation af det britiske imperium efter opløsningen af Sovjetunionen – og det vil vi høre mere om fra professor Ostrovskii.

Indien er rykket nærmere, og der er flere organisationer, der har udviklet sig – i virkeligheden som en modreaktion til dette imperium, nemlig BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Bælte- og Vejinitiativet og andre. Så potentialet for et sådant samarbejde findes, men jeg er ikke sikker på, om man har en beredskabsplan til at lægge den rigtige løsning – et nyt Bretton Woods-system – på bordet, inden systemet sprænger. Man træffer alle slags foranstaltninger – bevæger sig væk fra dollaren; organiserer handel i bilaterale valutaer; opkøber guld; opretter cyber-valutaer. Men det er ikke tilstrækkeligt i forhold til problemet, fordi – og dette er ikke et punkt der kan diskuteres – hvis USA ikke er en del af løsningen, vil det kollapse. Og jeg tror ikke, at et sådant sammenbrud ville ligne Sovjetunionens opløsning. Det er mere sandsynligt, at der ud af et uorganiseret sammenbrud af det globale finanssystem ville opstå krig.

LaRouches fire love og præsident Trump

Hvad der i stedet kræves er iværksættelsen af Lyndon LaRouches fire love. Et globalt Glass/Steagall-system – bankadskillelse, hvor så godt som alle de udestående derivater og ubetalte gældsposter afskrives. De kommercielle banker ville blive underlagt regeringsbeskyttelse, og derefter oprettes der i hver nation en nationalbank i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton og Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau i Tyskland i efterkrigstidens genopbygningsperiode. For det tredje, et nyt internationalt kreditsystem; et nyt Bretton Woods. Og for det fjerde, internationalt samarbejde om et lynprogram for udvikling af termonuklear fusionskraft, rumforskning og -rejser, der fører til kolonisering af kosmos.

Jeg ved, at ledende skikkelser i Rusland og Kina er meget skeptiske over muligheden for at få USA med i den slags samarbejde jeg taler om. Jeg er bekendt med de nuværende forhindringer, men potentialet er der absolut.

Dette er hele årsagen til, at den britiske efterretningstjeneste, især GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), allerede i efteråret 2015 blev ”alarmeret” om Trump-kampagnens pro-russiske holdning og kontakter. De sammensvor sig med Obamas amerikanske efterretningsapparat, fordi de med Trump opdagede potentialet for [amerikansk] deltagelse i et nyt system med suveræne nationalstater. I henhold til retningslinjerne fra H.G. Wells ‘åbne sammensværgelse’, der er dybt indgroet i tankegangen hos det britiske imperium, som har overtaget det amerikanske nyliberale etablissement – lugtede man den trussel, som Trump kunne udgøre for deres system. I disse kredse – det angloamerikanske militærindustrielle kompleks – som Trump for nylig angreb med navns nævnelse, har man givetvis haft mareridt efter at have hørt Trumps tale på FN’s generalforsamling i år. Trump sagde:Ved at kigge rundt på denne store og flotte planet, er sandheden tydelig at se. Hvis du vil have frihed, så vær stolt af dit land. Vil du have demokrati, hold fast ved din suverænitet. Og hvis du vil have fred, hold af din nation. Kloge ledere prioriterer altid deres eget folk og deres eget land først. Fremtiden tilhører ikke globalisterne. Fremtiden tilhører patrioterne.

Denne anskuelse hænger faktisk perfekt sammen med ånden fra den Nye Silkevej, som er baseret på ideen om fuld respekt for hver nations suverænitet og accept af andres sociale systemer. Trumps erklærede syn er i harmoni med, ikke i modsætning til, Præsident Xi Jinpings vision: Et fællesskab for menneskehedens fremtid.

Imperialisterne reagerer med rædsel, søger krig

Denne form for tankegang er imidlertid en rædselsvækkende vision for kræfterne bag det britiske imperium, fordi den overvinder geopolitik, og den lægger grunden til en stræben efter det almene vel for menneskeheden.

Jeg mindes reaktionen fra Tysklands forsvarsminister, Ursula von der Leyen, dagen efter Trumps valgsejr i 2016. Hun sagde, at hun var dybt chokeret over at denne mand havde vundet. Den 1. december bliver hun formand for EU-Kommissionen. I en nylig tale i Konrad Adenauer Stiftelsen i Berlin fremstillede hun sin britisk inspirerede imperialistiske holdning ved at vende tilbage til en konfronterende koldkrigsretorik for afskrækkelse: ”Europa må lære magtens sprog. Det må opbygge sine militære muskler” Mod hvem? Imod det hun kalder ”autokratiske regimer”, hvis ”uhæmmede indkøbsture må stoppes”, i en åbenbar reference til Kina. Von der Leyen lovede også at gennemføre en Ny grøn Aftale i løbet af de første 100 dage i embedet, ved at presse på for at brandbeskatte co2-udslip, så folk vil ændre deres adfærd. Med andre ord, på et tidspunkt hvor Merkel er i færd med at overdrage de sidste rester af suverænitet over Tysklands egen økonomi til EU, til skade for den tyske befolkning, agter von der Leyen at påtvinge en grøn økonomisk politik, der vil ødelægge enhver industriel økonomi i Europa, af årsager belyst af Lyndon LaRouche, og som vi kan tage op i diskussionen.

I lyset af den forestående finansielle/økonomiske katastrofe, er det ligeså vanvittigt som ugennemførligt, når den tyske forsvarsminister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, meddeler, at hun ønsker at sende ”Bundeswehr”, Tysklands militærstyrker, til Stillehavsområdet som en modvægt til Kina, som hun for nyligt erklærede på Bundeswehrs akademi i München, hvilket passer perfekt med det koldkrigeriske syn, der blev udtrykt i det amerikanske forsvarsministeriums rapport, Indo Pacific Strategy, den 1. juni, 2019. Bundeswehr er ved at kollapse, så hvis den tyske økonomi bryder sammen, vil Bundeswehr have problemer med at udføre denne politik. Det er simpelthen rent vanvid.

Så, hvorfor sker alt dette? Er denne politik, der blot vil føre til krig med Rusland og Kina, er det i Tysklands interesse? Det er ikke andet end det britiske imperiums gamle geopolitiske dagsorden for ”the Great Game” mod Rusland, under lord Palmerston og hans efterfølger, Halford Mackinder, den officielle ophavsmand til ”geopolitik”, den imperiale ide om at den som kontrollerer Eurasiens centrale dele styrer verden på bekostning af Atlanterhavets randstater. Hvilket blandt andet var det britiske imperiums reaktion på den transsibiriske jernbane i slutningen af det 19. århundrede.

Dette bras, ligesom Samuel Huntingtons onde bog, The Soldier and the State, hører til det påkrævede pensum for uddannelse af USA’s kampstyrker, samt underholdningslitteratur for imperiefraktionen på begge sider af Atlanterhavet. Dette er det forældede tankesæt for et system i opløsning. Det er den tilbagestående geopolitiske tankegang om, at relationer mellem nationer er et nulsums spil. Når fortalere for dette system insisterer på en ”regelret lov og orden” i stedet for international lov under FN’s charter, mener de i virkeligheden Thrasymachos’ retfærdighed i Platons ”Republikken”: At de love der gavner den stærke må gælde, og at denne magts dominerende rolle derfor må fastholdes.

Den Nye Silkevej ændrer historien

Efter at præsident Xi Jinping satte den Nye Silkevej på dagsordenen i Kasakhstan i 2013, et program der hænger nøje sammen med de udviklingsprogrammer som Lyndon LaRouche have arbejdet på siden begyndelsen af 1970’erne, er der blevet etableret en helt anderledes model for internationale relationer. Bælte- og Vejinitiativet (BVI) har udviklet sig til historiens største infrastrukturprogram. Omkring 157 nationer og 30 store internationale institutioner deltager i dette projekt, som har til hensigt at kopiere det program for at bekæmpe fattigdom, der med stor succes blev indført i Kina og andre udviklingslande.

Til trods for den voksende anti-Kina-kampagne fra de samme politikere, efterretningstjenester og tænketanke, der støtter kuppet imod præsident Trump, og som lægger en dæmper på EU, så havde Kinas Statsbaner, ifølge den kinesiske nyhedsportal Sina.com, 6.300 togrejser fra Kina til Europa i 2018, en stigning på 72 % sammenlignet med året før. Ud af disse returnerede 2.690 tog til Kina, en stigning på 111 %. Siden 2011 har Kina sendt mere end 11.000 godstog til Europa som del af BVI. I alt er 65 godsruter blevet åbnet mellem kinesiske byer, samt udvalgte ruter i 44 byer i 15 europæiske lande, sammenlignet med næsten ingen for 10 år siden (Figur 3)

Den travleste rute er Chungking-Duisburg, med 39 ankomne tog hver uge i Duisburg. Blandt byer i Europa, der betjenes af godstog fra Kina, er Hamburg, Nürnberg, Lyon, Madrid, Wien, Prag, Trieste, Budapest, Tilburg, men især Duisburg, der har fungeret som et center for godstrafik i Europa med adskillige destinationer derfra.

Foruden godstog, der kommer direkte til Europa fra Kina, bliver gods også fragtet ind på Europas landmasser via jernbaneruter fra de europæiske havne, hvoraf Piræus, Rotterdam og Hamburg i dag er de vigtigste med hensyn til søgående containere, der ankommer fra Kina (Figur 4).

Så, i stedet for at modsætte sig BVI, burde de europæiske nationer og USA benytte sig af Xi Jinpings tilbud om win-win-samarbejde, ikke kun på et bilateralt grundlag, men især om fælles operationer for store projekter, såsom den økonomiske genopbygning af det sydvestlige Asien, industrialiseringen af Afrika og Latinamerika, og ikke mindst moderniseringen af infrastruktur i USA og Europa.

Det monetaristiske finanssystem er ved at sprænges

For at tage fat på den umiddelbare fare for et sammenbrud af finanssystemet, må der gøres præcis hvad LaRouche i årtier har forlangt: Et nyt system må indføres af de amerikanske og europæiske nationer, som tilbageviser alle de ændringer af den globale monetaristiske finans- og handelspolitik efter 1971, som jeg indledningsvis nævnte. Og de må omgående indføre et nyt kreditsystem, et nyt Bretton Woods-fastkurssystem.

Ligesom det gamle Bretton Woods-system, som Churchill og Truman havde fordrejet væk fra Franklin Roosevelts intention om at afslutte kolonialisme, må det eftertrykkeligt omfatte langfristet kredit til lav rente for industrialiseringen af udviklingssektoren. Den kendsgerning at Kina, Rusland, Indien og mange andre lande allerede samarbejder med BVI, skaber grundlag for, at en sådan forandring absolut er gennemførlig. Hvis præsident Trump, der har afvist den britiske doktrin for geopolitik, kan bekæmpe det igangværende kupforsøg mod ham, og hvis justitsminister William Barr fortsætter sin efterforskning af kupmagerne, så vil det faktum, at der er en amerikansk præsident, som tilslutter sig princippet om suverænitet og patriotisme, bane vejen for at Europa slutter sig til perspektivet for en eurasisk økonomisk integration fra Vladivostok til Lissabon, som nyligt omtalt af præsident Putin.

LaRouches opdagelse

For at dette kan ske kræves den form for ændring af tankegangen i en betragtelig stor del af befolkningen i USA og Europa, som går til kernen i Lyndon LaRouches livsværk. Det kræver en afvisning af de underliggende aksiomer for den oligarkiske models tankemåde, og at erstatte dem med ideen om at mennesket adskiller sig fra alle andre arter i kraft af en åndelig egenskab, der nemmest kan betegnes kognition. Det er denne egenskab ingen dyr har, som gør mennesket i stand til igen og igen at gøre kvalitative opdagelser af hidtil ukendte fysiske principper, der øger menneskets magt over universet per person og per kvadratkilometer.

Den store russiske videnskabsmand Pobisk Kuznetsov anerkendte betydningen af LaRouches opdagelse af begrebet om potentiel relativ befolkningstæthed og den beslægtede ide om en stigning i energi-flux-tætheden i den produktive proces, som en målestok for samfundets varige bæredygtighed. Han forudså, at eftersom mange opdagelser har fået navn efter deres opdagere/opfindere, som Watt og Ampére, ville LaRouches begreb blive betegnet som ”La” i fremtidens videnskab. At mestre denne videnskabelige metode er nøglen til at forstå hans succes med økonomiske prognoser.

Med en klarhed, uforlignelig med enhver anden vestlig videnskabsperson, identificerede Lyndon LaRouche den afgørende begrebsmæssige strid mellem den åndsforladte dårskab i de rene matematiske og lineære fysiske doktriner i den euklidiske tradition af Galilei, Ptolemæus, Kopernicus, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Euler og Cauchy, op til det 20 århundredes Russell, Wiener og von Neumann, i modsætning til den platoniske tradition af den anti-euklidiske videnskab fra Cusanus, Kepler, Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz m.fl.

LaRouche pegede på betydningen af det misforståede og angiveligt selvindlysende princip om den korteste afstand for brydning af lys, sammenlignet med det fysisk eksperimentelle princip om korteste tid, og Leibniz’ udvidelse af dette til sit eksperimentelle almengyldige mindste aktionsprincip, som beviset på at enhver, virkelig ny, opdagelse af hidtil ukendte fysiske principper kun kan komme fra den anden tradition.

Grunden til at LaRouches værker er så afgørende for videnskab i dag er, at de anviser en metode til at fastlægge en vej til det næste, absolut nødvendige, højere niveau af opdagelse, ved at sætte en videnskabsmand ind i en riemannsk tankemåde, der giver en ikke-deduktiv løsning på paradokser i almindeligt anerkendte antagelser.

Lyndon LaRouche er helt enestående, ved at han har påvist overgangen mellem relativistisk fysik og det menneskelige sinds kreativitet, som sådan, og forbindelsen af dette domæne til klassiske former for kunst og statskundskab. LaRouche beviste til fulde, at det kun er gennem klassiske former for poesi, drama og musik, at disse åndsevner, der er i stand til at skabe gyldige hypoteser om nye indsigter i universets lovmæssighed, udvikles. Thi, det er i musik, poesi og drama, at de samme kampe mod reduktionistiske og deduktive begreber må udkæmpes, og det er derfor, at egenskaben ved metafor, ironi og Wilhelm Furtwänglers ide om at ”spille mellem noderne” er så afgørende for at opløfte sindet til denne højere riemannske tankemåde.

Med dette følger opøvelsen af følelserne ud af den sanselige og verdslige verden, op til niveauet af ”agapisk”, menneskekærlig lidenskab.

Mens den oligarkiske samfundsmodel og menneskesyn reducerer individet til et hedonistisk, begærligt væsen, der nemt kan manipuleres og acceptere rollen som en undersåt af Thrasymachos’ lov og ordensbaserede magt, er det den kognitive, erkendelsesmæssige, oplevelse forbundet med klassiske former for komposition, der frigør individet ved at fremmane åndens skønhed og slippe den form for agapisk menneskekærlighed løs, som er nødvendig for at vælge det Nye Paradigme for én menneskehed, og forlade den snæversynede, onde søgen efter en privilegeret klasses påståede geopolitiske interesser på bekostning af de lavere klasser.

Stiftelsen for LaRouches Arv

Det er for den rigdom, der er uden sidestykke, og betydningen af Lyns livsværk for at løse vor tids eksistentielle udfordringer samt visionen for en sand menneskelig fremtid for menneskeheden, at jeg vil bekendtgøre, at vi netop har oprettet Stiftelsen for LaRouches arv, hvis mål er at offentliggøre hans samlede værker, samt at skabe en renæssance med studier af hans ideer overalt i verden.

Jeg vil invitere Jer alle til at tage aktiv del i dette foretagende. Lyndon LaRouche var den mest menneskekærlige, agapiske, person jeg nogensinde har mødt. Han var en mand der lod forsynet råde, fordi han levede sit liv i samhørighed med historien og universets love. Han lever i evighedens samtidighed.

Et særdeles værdifuldt historisk øjeblik

Vi er ved et meget værdifuldt historisk øjeblik, og det er fuldt af utrolige udfordringer. Det Nye Paradigme, visionen om en fuldstændig ny epoke for menneskeheden, er imidlertid inde for rækkevidde. Lad os være den afgørende faktor til at virkeliggøre dette. Lad os udkæmpe denne krig for en smuk fremtid for menneskeheden med en lidenskabelig kærlighed til mennesket, ligesom Lyn havde. Han er ikke sammen med os i dag i egen person, men hans ånd er med os. Og på dette utrolige tidspunkt, fordi et imperium er ved at bryde sammen, og slår fra sig for at ødelægge verden, snarere end at tillade det Nye Paradigme at vokse frem.

Vi tror imidlertid på menneskets iboende godhed, og lad os derfor kigge frem på menneskeheden om 100 år; lad os kigge på menneskeheden med Lyndon LaRouches sind.

Vi vil have fusionskraft, energisikkerhed, råstofsikkerhed. Vi vil have landsbyer på Månen, vi vil have byer på Mars. Og vi vil have etableret et fællesskab for menneskeheden. På trods af alt det ukendte i vores meget store univers – to milliarder galakser er hidtil blevet opdaget – med denne metode vil menneskeheden blive en udødelig art.

A Three-Fold Anniversary
Address by Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Se afskriftet nedenunder)

Excerpt from video: “The Lost Chance of 1989”
Schubert/Schiller: Die Hoffnung
Michelle Erin, soprano – Margaret Greenspan, piano – Elliot Greenspan, speaker

Schubert/Schiller: An Emma
John Sigerson, tenor – Margaret Greenspan, piano

Shakespeare: Luciana’s Monologue from Comedy of Errors, Act 3, Scene 2
Leah DeGruchy

Max Caspar on Kepler as a Philosophical Mind
John Sigerson

Schiller: “Die Teilung der Erde”
Frank Mathis

Schubert/Schober: “An die Musik”
Lisa Bryce, soprano – Richard Cordova, piano

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Erklæring fra Schiller Instituttet formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, vedrørende de internationale aktionsdage 10.-15. oktober 2019

Forestil jer: Verdens ende indtræffer, men der møder ingen op! Forestil jer at teenager-klimaidolet Greta Thunberg, og alle central- og investeringsbankfolkene, hedgefonde og spekulanter, der er euforiske over den angivelige vished for at planeten vil koge over inden for 18 måneder (ifølge Prince Charles) – mens sidstnævnte er ekstatiske over astronomiske profitter, som de tror kan opnås ved ”grønne finanser”. Men så, ikke desto mindre, fortsætter verden – trods forskellige udsving i klimaet – simpelthen med at eksistere!

Denne variation af fredsbevægelsens gamle slogan: ”Antag at der er krig, men at der ikke kommer nogen”, er nyttig for at understrege den pointe, at en ideologi kun indvirker på virkeligheden, hvis størstedelen af befolkningen tror på den.

Der er ingen klimakrise. Klimadata for de sidste 500 millioner år viser, at Jordens klima har varieret kontinuerligt med en konstant vekslen mellem varme og kolde perioder. (Den sidste af disse kolde perioder sluttede først i 1850 med den ‘Lille Istid’.) Dagens klimaalarmister kan ikke basere sig på videnskabeligt beviselige fakta, men bruger klimamodeller, hvis forudsigelser allerede har vist sig at være overdrevne. Fejlen i disse modeller understreger det faktum, at klimaet er en meget kompleks størrelse, som straks må bringes tilbage på et videnskabeligt grundlag. Mens menneskeskabte aktiviteter har en begrænset effekt på klimaet, er det som IPCC gør – nemlig at ignorere den dybe indvirkning af processer i solen og i vores galakse – højdepunktet af videnskabelig inkompetence!

Dæmoniseringen af CO₂ og det resulterende mål om af-karbonisering af verdensøkonomien er lige så rationelt som at brænde hekse på bålet som et middel mod sygdom. CO₂ er ikke et forurenende stof, men er en uundværlig betingelse for livet på jorden, og især for trivslen af planter og landbrug som grundlag for menneskets eksistens. Den virkelige krisesituation er af-karboniseringen af den globale økonomi, hvilket den finansielle sektor presser på med, og som vil føre til et sammenbrud af de industrialiserede lande, ødelæggelse af udviklingslandene og massiv, global befolkningsreduktion – dvs. folkedrab.

Klimahysteriet, der er iscenesat af den finansielle sektor og de etablerede medier, er den største propagandistiske manipulation af befolkningen nogensinde; en manipulation der har fungeret så effektivt, at den nazistiske propagandamester Josef Goebbels ville have opgivet sit job på grund af sin relative fiasko i forhold hertil. Det egentlige spørgsmål der står på spil er ganske anderledes: Det neoliberale finanssystem er absolut færdigt. Årsagerne til nedbruddet i 2008 er langt fra blevet løst, men er i stedet blevet forstørret gennem elleve år med kvantitative lempelser, og renter der er sat til nul eller endda under. Hvilke planer har det finansielle oligarki? Ifølge et papir, der for nylig blev fremlagt af BlackRock på Jackson Holes årlige bankmøde, skulle centralbankerne gennemføre et “regimeskifte”, hvor centralbanker, der forbliver “uafhængige”, udsteder store mængder penge og giver dem direkte til regeringer, som kun vil bruge dem i henhold til centralbankernes direktiver. Det er samme princip, som Hitlers finansminister Hjalmar Schacht brugte til at finansiere den militære opbygning på det tidspunkt – men denne gang skal alle de penge der er skabt bruges til at gøre verdensøkonomien ”grøn”.

For de fleste mennesker der er indfanget af den neoliberale ideologi, iscenesat af de etablerede medier, er det meget svært at forestille sig, at hele grundlaget for dette system er forkert. Men denne ideologi involverer ikke kun det “regimeskifte”, der er planlagt af centralbankfolkene, men også et “regimeskifte” mod den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump, såvel som imod Rusland og Kina, som det ses i “farverevolutionen”, der nu bliver anstiftet i Hongkong. Og det inkluderer også ideen om, at det er helt normalt, at et lille lag af rige mennesker bliver stadig rigere, mens flertallet bliver stadig fattigere; at Afrika skal forblive underudviklet for evigt; at hvert menneske under alle omstændigheder er en parasit, der forurener miljøet; og at grænserne for vækst er nået. Og lad os ikke glemme de liberale ideer om, at “alting går an,” og at enhver mening er lige så god som enhver anden.

Men set ud fra universets love og menneskehedens evolution, som de er bestemmende for, er disse aksiomer lige så forkerte som de fleste af antagelserne fra middelalderen, såsom skolastik, hekseri eller flagellantisme.

Hvis vi skal slippe ud af den nuværende voksende krise, hvor alt ser ud til at løbe ud af kontrol, er vi nødt til at ændre hele vores tankegang. Vi er nødt til at finde et referencepunkt, hvorfra vi kan vurdere alle vores antagelser om menneskeheden og universet vi bebor, og undersøge deres gyldighed. Dette referencepunkt er rumforskning og rumfart.

Bemandet rumfart er det sejrende bevis for, at Leibniz havde ret i at hævde, at vi lever i den bedste af alle verdener. Naturligvis ikke i den forstand, som den kyniske Voltaire – på sin vis den tids Sir David Attenborough – angreb Leibniz’ optimistiske billede af mennesket, men i den forstand at det viser, at menneskeheden er den eneste (hidtil kendte) kreative art, der gennem opdagelsen af stadigt nye principper for det fysiske univers kan skabe grundlaget for at overvinde alle grænser.

Som Lyndon LaRouche demonstrerede i sin banebrydende bog ‘Der er ingen grænser for vækst’, (PDF) og i hele sit livs arbejde, er det de originale opdagelser af stadigt mere komplekse eksperimentelt beviselige principper for universet, der giver grundlaget for helt nye økonomiske platforme, som kan skabe midlerne til at opretholde bedre brødfødte, længere levende og bedre uddannede mennesker. På den måde er vækstbegrebet ikke så simpelt som nogle fjolser, såsom Malthus, forestiller sig; fjolser, der tænker i baner af en kausal verden indskrænket af en euklidisk aritmetik eller geometrisk multiplikation; men snarere svarende til en mangfoldigt forbundet riemannsk manifold, der udfolder sig til højere ordener, der ikke kan forstås med udgangspunkt i de lavere. Kreativ fornuft kan, som det mest udviklede element i universet, skabe nye singulariteter, der igen kan øge graden af menneskelig effektivitet i universet ud over alle grænser.

De bedste eksempler på dette er den forventede beherskelse af termonuklear fusion – hvor mennesket efterligner fusionsprocessen i Solen og derved producerer ubegrænsede mængder af energi og reserver af råmaterialer – og bekræftelsen af Albert Einsteins generelle relativitetsteori, som det for nyligt blev gjort med bekræftelsen af gravitationsbølger og billedoptagelser af sorte huller; sorte huller, som befinder sig i centrum af hver af de to billioner galakser, som Hubble-teleskopet indtil videre har været i stand til at opdage.

Den nye måde at tænke på må afvise bankfolks pseudo-religioner, etablerede medier og klima-apostle, og erstatte dem med en videnskabelig debat om eksperimentelt beviselige fakta. Artemis-programmet, der er vedtaget af præsident Trump, og som vil bringe folk tilbage til Månen i 2024 og etablere en permanent station i 2028, er lovende i så henseende, og ligeledes rumprogrammerne i Kina, Indien, Rusland og Det Europæiske Rumfartsagentur. I øvrigt viser Kinas enestående økonomiske succes og dynamikken i ‘Den Nye Silkevej’, at fokuseringen på videnskabelig innovation er mere gavnligt for de involverede lande end det neoliberale systems fokusering på profit.

Hvis det er muligt at bringe Europa og USA ind i et samarbejde med det kinesiske Bælte- og Vejinitiativ og, for USA’s vedkommende, i et samarbejde med Kina om rumfart, vil menneskeheden ikke befinde sig på randen af en klima-apokalypse, men snarere i begyndelsen af en ny æra, hvor menneskets iboende evne til fornuft frit kan udvikle sig, og vi i en vis forstand kan overgå til voksenlivet for vores art. Vi vil udforme en mere menneskelig tidsalder, og demonstrere at denne verden faktisk er den bedste af alle mulige verdener, fordi der potentielt findes et geni i ethvert menneske, og graderne af frihed i udviklingen af vores art vil stige uden begrænsning til i et omfang, hvor flere [og flere] mennesker kan realisere dette potentiale i sig selv.

Det uomgængelige skridt for at opnå denne nye tankegang er den fuldstændige renselse af Lyndon LaRouche, der blev forfulgt og fængslet i 1980’erne og 1990’erne af det Britiske Imperiums onde og desperate storinkvisitorer i deres forsøg på at blokere adgangen til hans ideer.

Vi har brug for de dristige og optimistiske visioner af tænkere som Leibniz, Schiller, Einstein, Krafft Ehricke og Lyndon LaRouche, fordi den kulturelle pessimisme fra Malthus, Nietzsche og Spengler fører til fascisme og krig, mens positive ideer om menneskeheden fører til nye renæssancer og blomstrende perioder i historien. Det er op til os alle, hvilken retning vi tager!

Af Helga Zepp LaRouche:

Under det europæisk-asiatiske økonomiske forum i den kinesiske by Xi’an holdt Helga Zepp-LaRouche følgende foredrag. De indskudte overskrifter er tilføjede af redaktionen.

For de fleste kinesere er det meget vanskeligt at forstå, hvorfor så mange af Vestens institutioner reagerer så negativt på BRI (Bælte- og Vej-initiativet), og hvorfor der her i den sidste tid oppiskes en antikinesisk stemning, og at for eksempel kinesiske videnskabsmænd og 450.000 studerende i USA sættes under mistanke for at være spioner, hvad der minder om de værste dage under McCarthy-æraen. I Europa rejser nogle sikkerhedsmyndigheder lignende beskyldninger. For den kinesiske befolkning oplever BRI’s virkelighed ud fra et helt andet perspektiv.

For folk i Kina udgør de sidste 40 års erfaringer med reform- og åbningspolitikken siden Deng Xiaoping en ufattelig succeshistorie. Fra et relativt fattigt udviklingsland – jeg har selv oplevet det i 1971, da jeg var i Kina for første gang – har Kina udviklet sig til den næststørste, ja i mange henseender endda til den største økonomiske nation i verden. 800 millioner mennesker blev løftet ud af fattigdommen; der har udviklet sig en middelstand på 300 millioner og derudover 600 millioner med en god levestandard. Moderniseringstempoet er uden fortilfælde i verden, sådan som det for eksempel kommer til udtryk i et hurtigtogsnet på allerede 30.000 kilometer, som snart har forbundet alle de store byer med hinanden.

Siden præsident Xi Jinping i september 2013 i Kasakhstan satte Den nye Silkevej på dagsordenen, har Kina tilbudt alle andre stater et samarbejde med den kinesiske succesmodel. I løbet af de kun 6 år, der er gået, har BRI oplevet en utrolig genklang; mere end 130 nationer og mere end 30 store internationale organisationer samarbejder med BRI. Det største infrastrukturprojekt i menneskehedens historie har påbegyndt seks store korridorer, bygget jernbanelinjer, udbygget havne, opført industriparker og videnskabsbyer og tilbyder for første gang udviklingslandene en mulighed for at overvinde deres fattigdom og underudvikling.

Her var BRI fra begyndelsen af åbent for alle denne verdens stater. Præsident Xi Jinping har ikke blot udtrykkeligt tilbudt USA og Europa samarbejde, men i utallige taler givet udtryk for, at han foreslår en helt ny model for internationalt samarbejde mellem nationerne, et ”shared community for the future of mankind”, et skæbnefællesskab for den samlede menneskehed. Og dermed har han foreslået en helt ny form for samarbejde, der overvinder geopolitikken og erstatter den med et harmonisk system for fælles udvikling til alles gensidige fordel. I denne henseende udgør BRI den absolut nødvendige økonomiske basis for en fredsorden for det 21. århundrede.

Medens Den nye Silkevej i mange lande i Asien, Afrika og Latinamerika og selv i Europa hilses som en storslået vision, som et koncept for fred gennem udvikling, sådan som pave Paul den 6. formulerede det i sin encyklika Populorum Progressio – ”Om alle folks udvikling” fra 1967, så betegner de tidligere omtalte institutioner denne politik fra Kinas side som ”konkurrence mellem systemerne”.

Mange kinesere forstår ikke, hvordan det er kommet til denne heftige reaktion, født af geopolitiske motiver, og også i Vesten har en vis tilvænning gjort sig gældende over for de forandringer, som i løbet af de sidste næsten 50 år har ændret den politiske orientering og de politiske værdier.

Det afgørende punkt er, at der i Vesten har fundet et paradigmeskift sted siden 1971, der har ført i den præcist modsatte retning af den vej, som Kina er slået ind på.

Da præsident Nixon den 15. august 1971 ophævede Bretton-Woods-systemet og dermed de faste vekselkurser og dollarens guldstandard, lagde han grunden til en tiltagende opgivelse af en politik orienteret mod den fysiske økonomi og i stedet hen imod en politik, rettet mod de finansielle interesser og i stadig stigende grad mod den størst mulige profit.

Denne tendens forstærkedes ved ophævelsen af Glass-Steagall-loven om bankadskillelse i 1999 og af den efterfølgende fuldstændige deregulering af finansmarkederne, hvilket førte til gentagne dannelser af spekulationsbobler og til sidst til bankkrakket i 2008. Og da centralbankerne absolut ikke har ændret spor ved årsagerne til dette krak, men tværtimod har befordret den spekulative kasinoøkonomi gennem fortsat ”quantitative easing”, nulrenter og nu endda negative renter, så står det transatlantiske finanssystem nu foran muligheden for et langt mere dramatisk sammenbrud end for elleve år siden.

Den amerikanske økonom Lyndon LaRouche, min nyligt afdøde ægtemand, advarede i august 1971 om, at en fortsættelse af den monetaristiske politik, som Nixon slog ind på, ville medføre fare for en ny depression og en ny form for fascisme, dersom den ikke erstattedes af en ny økonomisk verdensorden. LaRouche gik også op imod Romklubbens malthusianistisk motiverede påstand fra 1972 om, at nu var ”grænserne for vækst” nået – en vranglære, som hele den økologiske bevægelse lige indtil nu er opbygget på, og som har ført til en ”forgrønnelse” af en stor del af de vestlige partier. LaRouche svarede herpå med sin bog: ”Der er ingen grænser for vækst”, hvor han fremhæver den menneskelige kreativitets rolle som drivkraft for videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, der definerer, hvad der er ressourcer.

Han advarede også dengang om, at det værdiskift, der fulgte med denne nyliberale økonomiske politik, ville medføre en sex-, rock- og narkokultur, som ville ødelægge befolkningens intellektuelle evner og dermed ikke blot frembringe en kulturel krise, men også ødelægge samfundets økonomiske produktivitet. Desværre befinder vi os i dag lige netop på dette punkt.

Kina går den modsatte vej

Kina slog i 1978 ind på den stik modsatte vej. Det erstattede Firebandens teknologifjendtlige politik med en dirigistisk og udviklingsrettet politik, finansieret af statslige kreditter.

Det, man ikke forstår i Vesten, er den kendsgerning, at den kinesiske økonomiske model i sine grundtræk er identisk med det amerikanske system, sådan som det udvikledes af den unge amerikanske republiks finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, med dets ide om en nationalbank og statsstyret kreditskabelse. Denne ide videreudvikledes af den tyske økonom Friedrich List, der er meget berømt i Kina, og udgjorde grundlaget for Lincolns økonomiske rådgiver Henry C. Carey, og påvirkede den økonomiske tankegang i Roosevelts Reconstruction Finance Corporation, hvormed han førte USA ud af 30-ernes depression. Reconstruction Finance Corporation var også forbilledet for Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, hvormed Tyskland organiserede genopbygningen efter den anden verdenskrig og det tyske økonomiske mirakel.

Kina foretager sig altså nu om dage det, der udgjorde grundlaget for USA’s og Tysklands økonomiske succes, før de vendte sig fra denne politik og erstattede den med den nyliberale model, hvis ”succes” i dag for eksempel kan iagttages hos den største derivathandler i verden: Deutsche Bank.

Den konfucianske traditions betydning

Et ekstremt vigtigt aspekt af BRI’s succes, der kun forstås utilstrækkeligt i Vesten og efter min opfattelse ikke understreges klart nok, er det kinesiske samfunds toogethalvttusind år gamle konfucianske tradition, der kun afbrødes i de ti år under kulturrevolutionen. I Kina spiller det almene vel takket være denne tradition en større rolle end individet, der i Vesten efter Renæssancen opnåede en større betydning, der dog med det liberale værdiskift så at sige har revet sig fuldstændigt løst og har udartet sig til ”alt er tilladt”.

Den konfucianske tradition indebærer også, at udviklingen af den moralske karakter udgør det højeste mål for opdragelsen, hvilket udtrykkes ved begrebet ”junzi”, der nogenlunde svarer til Schillers begreb ”den skønne sjæl”. Det har derfor for mere end totusinde år været anset for selvindlysende i Kina, at hensynet til den offentlige moral og bekæmpelsen af slette egenskaber i befolkningen udgør forudsætningen for et højtudviklet samfund.

I Vesten går forestillingen om nødvendigheden af en moralsk forbedring fuldstændigt imod tidsånden siden afskaffelsen af det humboldtske opdragelsesideal, hvis midtpunkt ligeledes var den ”skønne karakter”. Det er altså i det højeste ud fra det udartede liberale systems standpunkt, at nogen kan betegne Kina som et ”autoritært system”, ikke set ud fra den kinesiske kulturhistories synspunkt.

Den, der vil forstå Xi Jinpings hensigter, må tage hensyn til hans svar på et spørgsmål fra otte professorer fra Det centrale Akademi for de Skønne Kunster (CAFA) for godt et år siden, hvor han understreger den æstetiske opdragelses overordentlige betydning for den kinesiske ungdoms åndelige udvikling. Den æstetiske opdragelse bør spille en afgørende rolle for den skønnes ånds udvikling, den bør fylde de studerende med kærlighed og fremme skabelsen af store kunstværker.

Allerede Konfucius tillagde beskæftigelsen med poesi og god musik en afgørende rolle ved menneskets æstetiske opdragelse, men en absolut nøgle til forståelsen af Xi Jinpings vision, ikke blot om ”den kinesiske drøm”, men om hele den samlede menneskehedes harmoniske udvikling er den lærde, der har skabt det moderne uddannelsessystem: den første undervisningsminister i Den Provisoriske Republik Kina, Cai Yuanpei. Cai stødte under sine rejser på jagt efter det bedste daværende uddannelsessystem til sidst i Leipzig på Baumgartens og Schillers æstetiske skrifter og blev gennem filosofihistorikeren Wilhelm Windelband opmærksom på Wilhelm von Humboldts dannelsesopfattelse. Han blev fuldstændigt begejstret over slægtskabet mellem Schillers begreb om den æstetiske opdragelse og den konfucianske morallære og indså, at Schiller havde præget den tyske klassiske ånd med ”stor klarhed”.

Cai anvendte disse ideer til at modernisere det kinesiske uddannelsessystem og skabte det nye begreb ”meiju” for den æstetiske opdragelse. Dermed blev den allerede hos Konfucius eksisterende ide om, at karakteren kan forædles ved fordybelse i den store klassiske kunst, forstærket, ved at der på denne måde kan bygges en bro mellem den sanselige verden og fornuften. I en artikel fra 1919 formulerede Cai tanker, der også i dag kan bygge en bro for Vestens problemer:

”Jeg tror, at roden til vort lands problemer ligger i kortsynetheden hos rigtigt mange mennesker, der vil have hurtig succes eller hurtige penge uden nogen højere moralsk tankegang. Den eneste medicin er den æstetiske opdragelse.”

Menneskehedens fælles fremtid

Det falder mange mennesker i Vesten svært at tro, at Kina kan mene det alvorligt med sin ide om et win-win-samarbejde, fordi de på grund af det netop beskrevne paradigmeskift har vænnet sig for meget til, at alle menneskelige interaktioner må være et nulsumsspil. Men vi bør her i Vesten minde os om, at det var Den vestfalske Fred – der afsluttede 150 års religionskrige – der etablerede det princip, at en varig fredsordning må tage hensyn til naboens interesse. Den vestfalske Fred begrundede den internationale folkeret og lagde grunden for FN-pagten. Det er Vesten, ikke Kina, der med begreber som ”beskyttelsesansvar” (right to protect), såkaldt humanitære krigsindgreb og regimeskift gennem farverevolutioner, sådan som vi lige nu oplever det i Hongkong, har fjernet sig fra de fastlagte principper såsom den absolutte respekt for alle staters suverænitet.

Xi Jinpings vision om ”en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden” svarer til den konfucianske tanke om alles harmoniske udvikling, en tradition, som også Cai Yuanpei har bidraget til med vigtige tanker. Han udkastede drømmen om ”et stort fællesskab for hele verden” (datong shijie), der var harmonisk og uden hære og krige, og som kunne opnås ved dialog mellem kulturerne. Han sammenlignede en kulturs optagelse af andre kulturer med åndedrættet, med menneskelegemets indtagelse af mad og drikke, uden hvilket mennesket ikke kan leve. Er kik på historien viser, at al højere udvikling hos menneskeheden altid har fundet sted gennem en udveksling med andre kulturer.

Det er betegnende, at der i Vesten så godt som ikke findes nogle egentlige analytikere eller politikere, der i nævneværdig grad er gået ind på Xi Jinpings ide om ”menneskehedens skæbnefællesskab”. Hvis det overhovedet er sket, så nævnes det kun i en bisætning, som om det ikke lønner sig at se andet i det end kommunistisk propaganda og en forkyndelse af Kinas hensigt om at spille en førende rolle på verdensscenen i fremtiden. Men det, som Xi sagde på Det kommunistiske Partis 19. kongres, var, at menneskene i Kina inden 2050, altså omtrent på 100-årsdagen for grundlæggelsen af Det kommunistiske Parti, skulle have demokrati, menneskerettigheder, en udviklet kultur og et lykkeligt liv. Og ikke blot kineserne, men alle folkeslag på denne planet.

Og dermed er det spørgsmål rejst – og besvaret positivt – der egentlig med tanke på alle de kaotiske forhold på vor planet burde beskæftige alle filosoffer, videnskabsmænd og statsmænd og –kvinder: Kan menneskeslægten give sig selv en orden, der garanterer dens overlevelse på langt sigt, og som svarer til menneskets særlige værd som kreativ art? Xis koncept for et fremtidigt fællesskab fremstiller meget klart den ide, at ideen om den fælles menneskehed har fortrinsret, og at de nationale interesser først derefter defineres i overensstemmelse hermed.

For at kunne følge diskussionen på dette plan om, hvordan denne nye orden, den ”reformerede internationale ledelse” skal se ud, må vi i Vesten vende tilbage til netop de humanistiske traditioner, som vort liberale system har skubbet til side. Tilsvarende ideer finder vi hos Nicolaus von Kues, der kun anså en fuld udvikling af Makrokosmos mulig gennem en harmonisk udvikling af alle mikrokosmosser. Eller i Gottfried Leibniz’s ide om en præstabiliseret harmoni i universet, hvor en højere orden er mulig, fordi frihedsgraderne øges gennem en højere udvikling, hvorfor vi lever i den bedste af alle verdener. Eller i Friedrich Schillers ide om, at der ikke behøver at gives nogen modsætning mellem verdensborgeren og patrioten, fordi de begge orienterer sig mod menneskehedens fælles bedste.

Slutbemærkning

Kina må hjælpe Vesten med at forstå ideen med Den nye Silkevej. Kina bør ikke reagere defensivt på de antikinesiske angreb, men bør så meget des mere stolt og selvbevidst fremhæve sin egen histories glansperioder, vigtigheden af den konfucianske morallære, det særlige ved den kinesiske digtekunst, skønheden i skriftmaleriet. Og Kina bør udfordre Vesten til selv at genoplive renæssancens humanistiske traditioner: Dante, Petrarca og Brunelleschi; den klassiske kultur hos Bach, Beethoven og Schiller og de republikanske traditioner i politikken. Kun hvis Vesten oplever en gennemgribende ”foryngelse” og genopliver ideerne hos Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List og Henry C. Carey, kan problemet løses.

Leibniz var ganske begejstret for Kina, og han forsøgte at få så meget som muligt at vide om landet fra de jesuitiske missionærer. Han var fascineret af, at kejser Kangxi var kommet frem til de samme matematiske slutninger som han selv, og sluttede deraf, at der eksisterer universelle principper, der er tilgængelige for alle mennesker og kulturer. Han anså endda kineserne for moralsk overlegne og skrev:

”I alle tilfælde forekommer vor nuværende situation i betragtning af det umådeholdne moralske forhold mig at være således, at det næsten forekommer nødvendigt, at man sender missionærer fra Kina til os for at lære os en naturlig teologis anvendelse og praksis…

Jeg tror derfor, at hvis en viis mand valgtes til dommer, ikke over nogle gudinders skønhed, men over folkeslagenes fortræffelighed, så ville han skænke det gyldne æble til kineserne…”

Den tyske middelstand, de små og mellemstore foretagender og byer som Genova, Wien, Zürich, Duisburg og Hamborg og mange andre har for længst dannet sig et begreb om de muligheder, der ikke blot ligger i en udbygning af de bilaterale forhold, men især i en udbygning af samarbejdet med den tredje verden som for eksempel industrialiseringen af Afrika og Sydvestasien.

Den begejstring, der giver sig til kende i det internationale samarbejde om rumfart, ESA’s samarbejde med de kinesiske rumfartsprojekter, ideen om internationalt samarbejde på den fremtidige kinesiske rumstation, opbygningen af en international månelandsby og planen om at gøre Mars beboeligt, understreger, At Xi Jinpings vision om et fremtidigt skæbnefællesskab for menneskeheden er rykket på nært hold.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Indhold:
Et nyt kapitel for menneskeheden:
Principper for en holdbar fremtid, af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

————————————

Links til yderligere dokumentation refereret til i nyhedsbrevet:

Hæfte: We commit to the Moon-Mars mission: the true spark for changing the culture, LaRouchePAC 2019:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Lyndon LaRouche:

1. Video: The Woman on Mars, 1988

Part 1:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Part 2:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Krafft Ehricke:

1. Forskellige artikler på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside
2. In celebration of Krafft Ehricke’s 100th birthday, 2017

John F. Kennedy:

1. Video: JFK’s full speech about space at Rice University.

Harrison Schmidt:

1. Mining the Moon, 2005
2. Will the United States join the Helium-3 fusion revolution?, 2014

I denne uges webcast gennemgik leder for Schiller Instituttet Helga Zepp LaRouche den seneste økonomiske svindel, der udgår fra Black Rock-gruppen som et eksempel på den desperate indsats for at købe  tid til forsvar for et system, som er under sammenbrud. Alt imens dets initiativtagere omtaler denne plan som en “regimeændring” i finanspolitikken, er det blot endnu et forsøg på at oversvømme systemet med “helikopterpenge” for at beskytte værdiløse aktiver på 1,5 billiarder $. Dette blev afsløret i 1990’erne af Lyndon LaRouche, der med sin “Triple Curve” udviklede det pædagogiske værktøj, der viser, hvorfor denne tilgang ødelægger den fysiske økonomi og vil føre til kaos.

Dette er baggrunden for den eskalerede destabilisering af Kina, der demonstrerer den ‘britiske hånd’ – og deres allierede som Bolton og Pompeo – i et forgæves forsøg på at forhindre Kinas opkomst og dens BRI-politik (Bælt og Vej-Initiativ). Mens Trump ønsker en aftale med Kina, sætter hans modstandere – både inden for og uden for hans administration – verden på en farlig kurs.

En markant, positiv udvikling, som hun identificerede, er dækningen i the Guardian, Washington Post og Financial Times af den middelalderlige ideologi bag økofascismen, og hvordan denne bruges til at skabe et grønt bonanza for ellers konkursramte finansfolk.

Denne udvikling er en del af en utrolig proces, der viser, at systemet ikke fungerer, og åbner udsigten til, at stigende antal mennesker kan bringes til at se, at løsningen afhænger af udbredelsen af videnskabelige ideer og stor kultur – og dette skaber grundlag for optimisme.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Her er mere af Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast fra side 2.

Renselse af Lyndon LaRouche er afgørende for at stoppe det Britiske Imperiums fremstød imod 3. Verdenskrig

Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 21. juni 2019

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag! Jeg er Harley Schlanger fra Schiller Instituttet, og jeg vil gerne byde dig velkommen til denne uges webcast. Det er den 21. juni 2019. Vi taler med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger af, og præsident for, Schiller Instituttet.

Dette er et utroligt historisk øjeblik. Der er en uge til G20-topmødet i Osaka, Japan, hvor der er potentiale for et historisk vendepunkt omkring ideen om en fire-magts-aftale om etablering af et nyt finansielt system – et ‘Ny Bretton Woods’ – en idé som Lyndon LaRouche fremsatte for næsten to årtier siden. Samtidig kommer der en utrolig krigsmobilisering fra krigspartiet, som forsøger at forsvare et bankerot system.

Men jeg synes at vi, for at starte diskussionen, virkelig skal tage fat på spørgsmålet om LaRouches frifindelse, og det initiativ der er blevet taget af LaRouche PAC og Schiller Instituttet med frigivelsen af to nye videoer; den ene hedder “LaRouche-sagen: Robert Muellers første Lejemord”; den anden er en video om mindearrangementet, der fandt sted i New York City for to uger siden. Så, Helga, vil du ikke give os en fornemmelse af mobiliseringen, der er i gang omkring frifindelsen, og betydningen af at disse to videoer bliver udgivet, rent faktisk, i dag?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: For mange mennesker vildet sikkert ikke være indlysende, men hvis Lyndon LaRouchesnavn ikke renses, tror jeg ikke, at vi kan stoppe de nuværendetrommehvirvler for Tredje Verdenskrig. At rense hans navn ogneutralisere den krigsmaskine, som driver verden mod TredjeVerdenskrig, er en og samme ting. For det er netop det apparat,der retsforfulgte min mand på trods af, at han var uskyldig i alleanklager, som nu driver verden til randen af udryddelse.I dag har vi, på samme tidspunkt i mange lande rundt om iverden, søsat en international operation med udgivelsen, i sær-deleshed, af dokumentarfilmen »The LaRouche Case (LaRou-che-sagen)«. Jeg vil opfordre alle seere, alle Jer som ser dette pro-gram, til straks at gå på vores hjemmeside, downloade videoen ogse den; send linket til enhver mulig kontakt, I har – e-mail lister,sociale medier, bare nogen I kender – og hjælp os med at sprededette internationalt (se: www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=27712).

Denne video, som viser den fuldstændig uhørte bøjning afloven i sagen mod Lyndon LaRouche, hvor vi har de absolut autoritative stemmer fra hans tidligere advokat, Odin Anderson,og USA’s forhenværende justitsminister Ramsey Clark, der kommer ind på årsagerne til, at LaRouche-sagen er det mest utrolige tilfælde af bøjning af loven og ødelæggelse af det amerikanske retssystem i USA’s historie. Nu er det vores mål at få disse videoer ud overalt, og få handlet på dem; hvilket betyder, at vi har brug for at rense LaRouches navn. Grunden til at dette er så absolut vigtigt er, at det efter min og mine kollegers bedste dømmekraft, er den eneste måde hvorpå Tredje Verdenskrig kan stoppes. Årsagen er meget enkel. Det apparat, der retsforfulgte min mand i 1980’erne, og fortsatte med det i 1990’erne og 2000’erne, er den samme maskine, som lige nu er den drivende kraft bag konfrontationen med Rusland og Kina. Blot for at nævne, hvor absolut påtrængende det er, og hvor tæt vi er på, hvad der kunne blive Tredje Verdenskrig, er det faktum, at ifølge et tweet af Trump, var ordren til at an-gribe Iran – efter at de skød den amerikanske drone ned – allerede givet; og 10 minutter før angrebet, der havde tre steder i Iran som mål, aflyste Trump angrebet. Ifølge hans eget tweet, spurgte han de relevante militære kommandanter, hvor mange dødsfald et sådant angreb på Iran ville have, og de sagde omkring 150. Så sagde han: »Dette er ude af proportion«, og han aflyste angrebet. Se, dette er en utrolig historie, for hvis det var sket, var vi måske på vej til Tredje Verdenskrig; og dette er ikke nogen overdrivelse.Trommehvirvlerne for krig var absolut utrolige. Tag blot et par skridt tilbage. Man havde artiklen i New York Times, der sagde, at de amerikanske sikkerhedsstyrker – Pentagon og såvidere – har optrappet cyber-angrebene mod Rusland bag ryggen på Trump, hvilket Trump kaldte forræderi. Så havde man historien om at det angiveligt var den iranske Revolutionsgarde, der stod bag angrebet på de to olietankskibe i Oman-bugten. Dette er efter al sandsynlighed endnu en af disse falske nyheder, en falsk flagoperation. Og det peger på det faktum,at man i USA lige nu har en dobbelt magtsituation.Som du nævnte, eller som vi vil diskutere mere, sker det en uge før G20-mødet, hvor, hvis dette blæses op, den sidste chance for fred kan gå tabt. Og på den anden side har man potentialet for at Trump mødes med Putin og Xi Jinping i særdeleshed og finder en løsning på de mange problemer i denne verden. Så vi er i en nedtælling.Men som jeg sagde, er rensning af Lyndon LaRouches navn helt afgørende; fordi den eneste måde man kan afvæbne ogneutralisere krigspartiet i USA er at gøre denne sag til det mest prominente problem. Fordi det peger på sammenhængen mellem krigspartiet i dag og det apparat som er ansvarlig for mørklægningen af 11. september samt »Russiagate«, og folk er nødt til at forstå denne forbindelse.

Schlanger: Videoen er tilgængelig med et link på denne hjemmeside, og den er også tilgængelig på LaRouche PAC [Https://action.larouchepac.com/exonerate]. Helga, hvad der står klart efter at have set denne video og talt med folk om det er, at selvom høringerne er fra 1995 eller 1996 – mere end to årtier gamle – er emnerne de samme, som det der sker i dag. Det er forbløffende, vil du ikke sige det?

Zepp-LaRouche: Ja, jeg mener at tribunalet, der fandt sted i 1995, hvor mange internationale VIP’er, amerikanske lovgivere gennemgik sagen og hørte vidnesbyrd fra Odin Anderson og Ramsey Clark; jeg synes at det gør det helt klart, at der må rådes bod på denne, min mands sag.

Jeg vil stærkt tilskynde folk til at se videoen om Lyndon LaRouches sag sammen med den, ganske vist, lange video af mindearrangementet, fordi man bør se de to ting sammen. Retsforfølgelsen og bagvaskelsen af min mand er i fuldstændig modstrid til hans virkelige liv og livsværk, hvilket man får et glimt af i den meget smukke video om mindehøjtideligheden. Det er i virkeligheden nøglebudskabet, som skal ud til verden. Som jeg sagde i tribunalet, var uretten mod Lyndon LaRouche ikke alene det, at han blev sat uskyldigt i fængsel; men hvad der så at sige også blev sat i fængsel, var hele tankegodset af hans ideer og løsninger til verdens kriser, og dette er endnu mere påtrængende i dag. Så igen beder jeg om, at man tager sig tid; se disse to videoer [https://action.larouchepac.com/exoneate]. Og hjælp os så med at få dem rundt om kloden ad hvilken som helst kanal man overhovedet kan, fordi det er nøglen til at løse faren for krig. Så det er min indtrængende appel til Jer alle.

Schlanger: Se, som du sagde, kunne vi have været i 3. Verdenskrig fra i aftes. Alt imens det blev undgået, fortsætter presset for denne konfrontation fra krigspartiet. Ser du nogen ændring i det, som følge af præsident Trumps beslutning om at holde sig tilbage?

Zepp-LaRouche: Det må tiden vise. Jeg synes, det er en hel utrolig demonstration af, at vi faktisk har en dobbelt magtsituation i USA. Det er blevet et emne for offentlig diskussion. Bare for at gennemgå det igen, fordi især vores internationale seere måske ikke har bemærket det på samme måde, men det faktum, at New York Times havde en artikel, i hvilken de pralede af, og de henviste til, at John Bolton sagde dette på et seminar afholdt af Wall Street Journal for et par dage siden, at USA’s sikkerhedsstyrker, efterretningstjenesten, Pentagon, optrappede den allerede eksisterende cyber-krigsførelse, som oprindeligt blev bestilt af Obama; at de optrappede dette og gik efter el-nettet i Rusland. Nu er dette ikke nogen lille affære, for naturligvis forsyner el-nettet i ethvert land energi til hospitaler, til militærkommandoen og kontrol, til vandforsyninger; så det må betragtes som en krigshandling.

Trump tweetede straks og sagde, at dette var forræderi. Han sagde også, at det på eller anden måde var falske nyheder, når hele historien blev lækket på denne måde. For eksempel påpegede professor Stephen Cohen, som er en meget kendt Rusland-analytiker i USA, det faktum, at {New York Times} efter al sandsynlighed lækkede denne historie i det øjemed at ødelægge potentialet for et topmøde mellem Trump og Putin på det kommende G20-topmøde; ligesom medierne har gjort det før ved mangfoldige lejligheder. Hver gang der er et potentiale for en løsning, lækker de noget, eller gør noget uhyrligt for at sabotere et sådant topmøde. Så dette er én ting; og det rejser helt åbenbart spørgsmålet om, at hvis præsidenten ikke er informeret, hvem er det så, der styrer USA? Det er et spørgsmål, der bliver stillet af mange menneske rundt om i verden; mennesker der bemærker det faktum, at Trump er en ting – som demonstreret af at han holdt angrebet mod Iran tilbage – men at sådanne medlemmer af hans kabinet som Bolton, Pompeo og andre, klart er ‘noget andet’. Så det er ikke klart, hvem der giver ordrerne.

Det samme synes at være sket i tilfældet med Iran – hvor, du ved, denne historie er utrolig. Iranerne, som svar på beskyldningen om at de var ansvarlige for angrebet på de to olietankskibe – for hvilket der ikke er noget bevis; flere regeringer, herunder den tyske og japanske regering, har krævet beviser, fordi denne video som Pompeo udsendte, klart ikke udgør noget bevis. Så nedskød iranerne en drone. USA sagde, at denne drone var i internationalt farvand, men iranerne har nu udgivet en video der viser, at ikke kun dronen, men også et amerikansk fly lettede fra De Forenede Arabiske Emirater, gik ind i Oman-bugten, vendte tilbage og kom derefter ind i, ikke alene internationalt farvand, men iransk territorium. Ifølge de iranske militærkommandanter sendte de flere advarsler om, at disse to amerikanske fartøjer – drone og fly – var kommet ind i iransk territorium uden at få nogen respons. Derefter nedskød iranerne dronen, men ikke flyet, som en advarsel til USA.

Dette er absolut – hvem vågner ikke op og indser, at vi er på randen af Tredje Verdenskrig? – En sådan person befinder sig ikke virkelighedens verden. Vi er tættere på Tredje Verdenskrig end på noget andet tidspunkt – jeg vil sige end på noget tidspunkt i hele efterkrigstiden. Denne fare er endnu ikke drevet over. Jeg synes det er en rigtig god ting, at Trump greb ind i sidste øjeblik, men det var 10 minutter før angrebet! Folk bør virkelig indse, at dette ikke er nogen vittighed. Men igen, på kort sigt er den eneste måde at respondere på at opretholde processen for at få renset Lyndon LaRouche. Hvis man vil stoppe Tredje Verdenskrig, så hjælp os med at få frifindelsen af LaRouche på dagsordenen internationalt; men i særdeleshed i forhold til præsident Trump, som har en meget god grund til at gøre det, fordi det ville tage sigte mod de samme kræfter som står bag ‘Russiagate’, og dem der gør det vanskeligt for ham at gennemføre hans hensigter med hensyn til at forbedre forholdet til Rusland og Kina.

Schlanger: Helga, med korruptionen af medierne i USA, hvor disse ting ikke på nogen måde dækkes i detaljer eller selv i virkeligheden, synes russerne at være mere direkte end nogensinde før i at advare om krigsfaren. Hvad kan du sige om det, som kan hjælpe med at vække folk op til at indse, hvor tæt vi er på denne situation?

Zepp-LaRouche: Præsident Putin advarer om, at et angreb på Iran vil have katastrofale konsekvenser. Han sagde også – umiddelbart efter St. Petersburg International Economic Forum – i et interview til nyhedsbureauet Mir, at situationen mellem USA og Rusland forværres for hver time der går. Jeg synes det er en fair beskrivelse, i betragtning af hvad der er blevet offentliggjort netop nu – nemlig at ‘The Joint Chiefs of Staff’ (den amerikanske overkommando for hæren, flåden og luftvåbnet, red.) for første gang i flere år har offentliggjort deres atomstrategi. Lad mig læse et citat for dig, der gør det helt klart. Dette er en gennemgang af den atomstrategi, planlægning, målsøgning, kommando og kontrol, som omfatter ideen om brug af kernevåben i enhver konfrontation. Citatet, som jeg vil læse for dig er:

“Brugen af atomvåben kunne skabe betingelser for afgørende resultater og genoprettelse af strategisk stabilitet. Specifikt vil brugen af et atomvåben grundlæggende ændre omfanget af et slag, og skabe betingelser der påvirker hvordan kommandører vil få overhånden i en konflikt. “[Fælles publikation 3-72, Atomoperationer]

Dette er utroligt! Det er ideen om, at man kan bruge et enkelt atomvåben. Som om mange eksperter, som for eksempel Ted Postol, ikke har skrevet lange og meget overbevisende artikler om, at det ligger i atomvåbnenes karakter, at det ligger i logikken af den slags våbensystemer, at når man en gang er startet på at bruge et sådant våben, vil de alle blive brugt. Det ville med al sandsynlighed betyde udryddelsen af vores civilisation.

Denne rapport var offentliggjort i en uge, og blev derefter pludseligt trukket tilbage, og det blev kun genopslået på initiativ af ‘Føderationen af Amerikanske Videnskabsfolk’, der ønskede at påpege denne doktrins faktum. Jeg tror, at alt skal ses i sammenhæng, og det understreger den absolutte nødvendighed af at neutralisere krigsfraktionen; hvis gruppering udtrykkeligt indbefatter briterne, om hvem Craig Murray, den tidligere britiske ambassadør, sagde, at for det britiske politiske system, regering og medier, er forskellen mellem fiktion og sandhed helt udvisket; og det burde vække alvorlig bekymring hos alle, fordi den britiske rolle i at anstifte alt dette er helt afgørende.

Det viser med al ønskelig tydelighed, at vi må ændre paradigmet; at krigsfraktionen skal stoppes; at Trump må sættes i stand til at gennemføre sine intentioner om at forbedre relationerne med Rusland og Kina, som han mange gange har sagt. Det er i virkeligheden dette, som jeg beder Jer, seerne, om at hjælpe os med at kommunikere ud: Fordi jeg tænker, at faren er virkelig som den var det i 1914. Uden en dybtgående mobilisering af mennesker over hele kloden, men især i Vesten, i Europa og USA, er vi i stor fare for – som søvngængere – at gå ind i en ny krig, præcis som det skete i 1914. Så kom med i vores mobilisering for at forhindre netop dette.

Schlanger: Hvis vi går tilbage til spørgsmålet om rensning af Lyndon LaRouches navn, så var det netop under lignende omstændigheder i slutningen af 1970’erne under Carter Administration, med galninge som Brzezinski og andre, der pressede på for krig, at Lyndon LaRouche intervenerede med SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), og operationen imod ham kom som en konsekvens af Ronald Reagans vedtagelse af hans politik. Jeg synes, at dette er en anden parallel, der er ganske slående for at få folk til at forstå, hvorfor angrebet i dag er en parallel til, hvad der blev gjort imod Lyn i 1980’erne.

Zepp-LaRouche: Den eneste måde, hvorpå man i dette sene stadium af det strategisk spil, så at sige, kan komme ud af denne situation, ville være den slags samarbejde mellem – ikke kun USA og Rusland, som min mand i sin tid foreslog det mellem USA og Sovjetunionen – men som i særdeleshed også omfatter Kina og Indien. Fordi hans argument var, at der er behov for [enighed mellem] de fire mest magtfulde lande i verden for at afslutte det britiske system af imperialistisk kontrol over verden. Dette er yderst vigtigt. Det ville dybest set betyde, at der under G20-mødet forhåbentligt vil finde et topmøde sted, som der er planer for; men vær på tæerne, for i ugen op til G20-topmødet må vi forvente en indsats for at destabilisere dette potentiale indtil sidste øjeblik; som vi netop har set det med dette aflyste angreb imod Iran. Forhåbentlig kommer det til et topmøde mellem præsident Trump og Xi Jinping, og det ville ikke alene [kunne] afslutte handelskrigen, men barsle med en omfattende aftale. skulle forhåbentlig også komme et topmøde mellem Trump og Putin. Og hvis det skulle gå rigtig godt, ville der være et topmøde mellem de fire ledere. Husk på, at efter St. Petersborgs Internationale Økonomiske Forum og SCO’s [Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisation] topmøde i Bishkek et par dage senere, mødtes de tre ledere – Putin, Xi Jinping og Modi – allerede i Bishkek; og sagde at de ville mødes igen i Osaka på G20-mødet.

Så det bedste der kunne ske ville være, at de inviterer præsident Trump til at deltage i dette topmøde, og at Trump accepterer det. Fordi medmindre der er enighed om at tage fat på det meget presserende spørgsmål om det truende sammenbrud af det finansielle system, og en overgang til en Ny Bretton Woods-aftale, som især ville tage sig af det nødvendige kreditsystem til industrialisering af udviklingslandene, samt afslutte det system med kasino-økonomi, som vi har nu, ved at etablere et nyt kreditsystem og indføre et nyt paradigme. Jeg tror vi vil diskutere spørgsmålet om et nyt paradigme lidt mere, men der er brug for en helt anden tænkning om hvordan disse strategiske spørgsmål gribes an, for hvis vi forbliver indenfor området af geopolitik, som i forestillingen om at Europa skal blive en stærk, forenet bastion mod andre stærke kræfter – USA, Rusland, Kina; og hvis USA mener, at Kina og Kinas fremgang må inddæmmes – hvis man bliver hængende i den slags tænkning, så er det kun et spørgsmål om tid, før hele denne strategiske situationen vil gå helt grassat og komme ude af kontrol. Så lad os mobilisere for at sætte spørgsmålet om en ‘fire-magts-aftale’ for G20 på dagsordenen, og hjælp os med at mobilisere for det, fordi dette kan være den sidste chance for at gøre det. Fordi det står meget klart, at vi både strategisk, militært, men også med hensyn til den økonomiske situation sidder på en krudttønde. Derfor har vi brug for en akut ændring i hele tilgangen…

Zepp-LaRouche: Folk husker muligvis Martins Niemöller ord, som lød: Først kommer de efter dine naboer, så kommer de efter sigøjnerne, og så kommer de efter jøderne. Ja, man kan blot tilføje: “De er allerede kommet efter Lyndon LaRouche; de kom efter USA’s præsident; og nu må du hellere hjælpe os med at ændre hele denne dynamik”. Så bring venligst disse videoer rundt, og studér dem. Mange mennesker har været bange for at gå ud med ideen om at LaRouche repræsenterede magtfulde begreber, som er nødvendige for at løse verdens kriser. Hele retsforfølgelsen blev gjort med kun ét formål: At forgifte brønden, at gøre folk bange. Men at overvinde frygten, lige nu, for at slutte sig til Lyndon LaRouche og den bevægelse han skabte, er hvad der gør forskellen mellem krig og fred. Så gå med i vores mobilisering ….

# 1: Oversigt: Den enkeltes rolle i historien. Klik her.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche. En person kan ændre historien, og den mest magtfulde kraft i historien er ikke våben, penge eller hære: det er ideer. Lyndon LaRouche udnyttede denne indsigt og brugte den til at ændre verden. I dag ses frugterne af hans årtier lange organisering, sammen med mange kolleger og hans kone Helga i potentialet for internationalt samarbejde, som eksemplificeret af det kinesiske Bælte- og Vejinitiativ. For at undgå den truende mørke tidsalder, som atomkonflikten mellem USA og Rusland udgør, er det vigtigt med en forståelse af den nødvendige renæssance.

# 2: LaRouches ufuldendte krig for en ny økonomisk verdensorden. Klik her.
Dennis Small. Historien om kampen for en retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden (NWEO), baseret på nord-syd-samarbejde og udvikling, er et perfekt eksempel på hvordan ideer, og faktisk udelukkende ideer, skaber historien. De ideer, omkring hvilke de første kampe for en NWEO blev udkæmpet, især i perioden 1979-1983, og begrebet om hvordan man fører denne krig, blev udviklet af Lyndon LaRouche.

Han påviste, at denne politik ville være til gavn for både nord og syd. Hans metode var at fremlægge de underliggende filosofiske begreber og det videnskabelige fysisk-økonomiske grundlag for at bevise, at en sådan tilgang rent faktisk kan fungere. De politiske relationer mellem de store hovedpersoner i denne kamp, Mexicos José López Portillo og Indiens Indira Gandhi, blev også bevidst fremmet af LaRouche. Og da en flanke opstod, da Ronald Reagan overtog præsidentskabet i USA i januar 1981, kastede LaRouche sig over den for at bringe de kræfter, der rent faktisk kunne besejre fjenden og vinde den strategiske krig, ind i kampen. Dette er genstand for en lektion i uafsluttet krig.

#3: Lyndon LaRouches unikke bidrag til videnskaben om universel historie. Klik her.
Will Wertz. I et essay han skrev, som blev udgivet i foråret 1993 med titlen »Om Gud«, skrev han: »Hvis vi måler historien med standarden, at hver person er imago viva Dei, får vi en komplet anderledes opfattelse af historien, end det, som er beskrevet i vores tåbelige lærebøger fra universiteterne og lignende steder«. I et efterfølgende essay, udgivet i tidsskriftet Fidelio i efteråret 1993 med titlen »Historie som videnskab«, fortsatte Lyndon LaRouche: En rigoristisk definition af begrebet »historie« begynder med det faktum, at den fortsatte eksistens af den menneskelige art er styret af et princip, som ikke eksisterer for andre arter.«

#4 (18. maj): Italiensk Videnskab og Kultur. Klik her.
Liliana Gorini og John Sigerson. LaRouches ideer afspejler i Italien et fremskridt for den videnskabelige og kunstneriske revolution i det 15. århundredes florentinske renæssance. Dette fremskridt omfatter en tilbagevenden til en naturlig musikalsk stemning, hvilket Giuseppe Verdi krævede for mere end et århundrede siden; Italiens nylige skridt til at gennemføre LaRouches forslag om en Glass/Steagall-banklovgivning, en tilbagevenden til Hamiltons principper om økonomisk politik; og Italiens dristige beslutning om at tilslutte sig Kinas Bælte og Vejinitiativ for verdens udvikling.

Klassisk musik: Den tyske dirigent Furtwängler blev den ledende inspiration for LaRouches insisteren på at musik ikke udfoldes i lyd, men i det riemannske komplekse domæne.

5. Det amerikanske system, LaRouche-Riemannsk økonomi, og et Måne-Mars projekt. Klik her. Den findes nederste på siden.
Ben Deniston og Paul Gallagher. Den 23. marts 1983 traf præsident Reagan en beslutning – trods stærk modstand fra sine rådgivere – om at gøre LaRouches strategiske forsvarsinitiativ (SDI) til USA’s politik. Det var en del af LaRouches rumprojektforeslag for en ny æra af potentielt set ubegrænset fremskridt.

Alle kan også ses på LaRouchePAC’s hjemmeside. Klik her.

I denne uges webcast diskuterer Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, hendes seneste rejse til Kina, hvor hun deltog i konferencen om dialog mellem asiatiske civilisationer, den 15.-16. maj i Beijing, med præsident Xi Jinping som hovedtaler. Zepp-LaRouche og vært Bill Jones diskuterer, hvad der faktisk står på spil i den såkaldte handelskrig mellem USA og Kina, og hvordan det er muligt at løse den, så begge nationer vinder ved det. Hun advarer om, at det ikke er nogen fordel for Vesten at forsøge at indeslutte en nation som Kina, der har givet så mange bidrag til den menneskelige civilisation. Den eneste vej fremad, som vil være til gensidig gavn for begge lande og deres befolkninger, er et samarbejde og en overvindelse af de vestlige neokonservatives strategi for ‘sammenstød af civilisationer’ – “Clash of Civilizations”.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav d. 10. maj et fortræffeligt 42 minutters video interview til GBTimes.com redaktør Asa Butcher. GBTimes.com er en multimedie hjemmeside med base i Finland, der er etableret til at fremme en dialog mellem Kina og Europa. GBTimes.coms grundlægger, direktør Zhao Yinong, sendte en skriftlig kondolence ved Lyndon LaRouches død, og underskrev erklæringen til at rense ham fra de falske anklager der ledte til hans uretmæssige fængsling (1989-1994).

Her følger interviewet på engelsk:

GBTimes: We’ll begin. I’m going to focus on the Belt and Road Initiative today, following on from the Forum in Beijing last week. If you could describe your feelings on the outcome of the Forum that concluded last week in Beijing.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, I think it was very a really important progress as compared to the first Belt and Road Forum. The first Belt and Road Forum was filled with optimism and the knowledge of all the participants that we were experiencing the birth of a new system of international relations — that was already extremely important. But I think the Second Belt and Road Forum saw a consolidation of that, so you have actually a new system of international relations which is overcoming geopolitics, and I think this is one of the most important outcomes, apart from, naturally, the enormous economic development which was presented. But I think the idea that you have a system which has a win-win possibility for everybody to cooperate, is the way to overcome geopolitics, and that is the remaining danger, which after all, caused two world wars in the last century. So this is a real breakthrough for humanity.

GBTimes: There’s been a growing criticism and backlash against the BRI. Do you think this is misunderstanding, suspicion toward this new system? What are your thoughts on that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s actually a temporary phenomenon, because the funny thing was, here you had the largest infrastructure program in history, ever, with enormous changes for Africa, for Latin America, for Asia, even for European countries, and the Western media and think-tanks pretended it did not exist for almost four years! And then, all of a sudden, they realized, “Oh, this is really growing so rapidly; it is including more than 100 countries.” So they started what I think was a coordinated attack, slandering the Belt and Road Initiative, with arguments which I think can all individually can be proven to be a lie. It comes from the old geopolitical effort to control the world by manipulating countries against each other, and with the Belt and Road Initiative, I think that possibility is vanishing, and that’s why they’re so angry and hysterical.

GBTimes: What could China do to reduce this demonization of the BRI?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think China is already doing a lot. For example, even {Handelsblatt}, which was very negative towards the Belt and Road Initiative in the past, they had to bring an article which brought out the fact that the whole argument that China is putting the countries of the third world into a “debt trap” is not holding. For example, the IMF just released figures that there are 17 African countries which may not be able to pay their debt, but China is only engaged in 3 of them, and all of the others have huge debts to the Paris Club and to other big Western banks — so, who’s putting whom into a debt trap?

All of these arguments will be very easy to counter-argue, and the more China makes known its beautiful culture, people will be won over. Because the beauty of Chinese painting, of Classical music, it will win over the hearts. And the most people understand what China is actually doing, the less these attacks will be possible to maintain.

GBTimes: The attacks are more on China than on the Belt and Road Initiative, you say?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, yes. They’re on China because China is the major motor behind it. And some of the attacks were that China is supposedly an autocratical dictatorship, and surveillance state and all of these things. But first of all, concerning surveillance, I think the NSA and the GCHQ have outdone anybody already. And naturally China has a system which uplifts the morality of the people: This is based on the Confucian tradition, and for some of the very liberal people in the West, that is already too much, because it disturbs their idea that everything goes, everything is allowed, and from that standpoint, any kind of emphasis on morality is too much for these people.

GBTimes: Isn’t sometimes criticism of new ideas and initiatives healthy? It’s what we understand here in the West, we don’t openly unquestionably accept new things. We do question, and we are a little bit cynical sometimes.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s superfluous. It’s a waste of energy and it distracts people from accomplishing what needs to be accomplished: Namely, to overcome poverty in Africa, in Latin America, even in Europe. You know, Europe has 90 million poor people, and I have not seen a plan by the European Union to overcome poverty by 2010, which China intends to do with its own poor people.

So I think it’s a waste of energy, and it comes from what I call, when people put on geopolitical spectacles and have neocolonial headphones, then they see and hear the world quite differently from what it is, namely, they only project their own views.

GBTimes: Having been writing about China for the last 5-7 years, it has made a dramatic entrance onto the world stage, when I started writing about it many years ago. And the speed of its arrival, the size of the investments, it can scare a lot of countries — just family and friends who don’t know much about China, they want to know about my job where I’m introducing China to the West, as this bridge. There’s a lot of a misunderstandings. Do you think some of it comes from this ignorance? And how could that be changed?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I have the feeling that everybody who was in China, either as a tourist or as a business person, investing or trading, they all come back and they have a very, very positive view. People are impressed about what they see, the really incredible fast train system. Then, if you go in the region of Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Guangdong, Macao, Hong Kong, this is the powerhouse of the world economy, not just the Belt and Road Initiative.

Compare that with the decrepit infrastructure in the United States or many parts of Western Europe, for example. Less than two years ago, I was in Zhuhai at a conference, and we visited this bridge between Hong Kong and Zhuhai and Macao, linking this entire triangular: And this bridge was built, I think, in six years or eight years, including planning! Now, in Germany, we have a famous bridge between Mainz and Wiesbaden, which has been in repair for almost six to eight years, and it’s still not ready!

So, I think if people go to China, they come back and they are completely impressed, because they see that in China, people have now virtues, like industriousness, ingenuity, creativity — these are all values we used to have in the West, like when the Germany economic miracle was made in the postwar reconstruction, these values and virtues were German. But now, no longer. Now, we have all kinds of other crazy ideas, and therefore China is taking the lead.

So the people who go to China come back with a positive image, and those who have not been, naturally, they’re scared by the negative reports in the media. So the more people can actually go and form their own image, the better.

GBTimes: I have myself, I’ve seen a disconnect between China and Chinese society, and then the role of the Chinese government, the more negative side that gets covered about in the Western media. Do you think, for instance, with the BRI is just a way to legitimize the Chinese leadership in the world, and to raise it up to the same level that is given to the other countries? Do you think that’s acceptable?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it is a challenge. Some of the Western institutions talked about that there is now a competition of the systems, meaning the Chinese state model and the Western free market model. And in one sense, it is true; the only problem is that if you have the neo-liberal system, especially after the crisis of 2008, only favoring monetarist interests — the banks, the speculators — and the gap between the rich and the poor becomes ever wider, naturally, then, if you have a country where that is not the case, namely, China having a policy which is oriented toward the common good, an increasing well-to-do middle class of 300 million people, which in 5-10 years will be 600 million people, and obviously the vector of development is upward, naturally that is regarded as a threat by the neo-liberal establishment, which only takes care of its own privileges.

So in a certain sense, the challenge does exist, but I think there is the possibility of a learning process, so one can be hopeful that even some elements of the Western elites will recognize that China is doing something right.

GBTimes: What do you think China could learn from the Western mode? And vice versa, what do you think the two could learn from one another?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think China can learn a lot from the West, but I’m afraid to say, not from the present, contemporaries, or, there is very little to learn. Naturally, ESA cooperating with the Chinese space agency, there is a lot of exchange possible. But in terms of general, cultural outlook, I think China has to go back about 200 years to find positive things in Europe, or the United States, for that matter. You know, European Classical culture can be an enormous enrichment for China, but these are composers who are Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, or great poets. But these are all things which, unfortunately are not dominating the cultural outlook of most Europeans and Americans today. So there has to be a dialogue across the centuries, and then both sides can profit from each other.

GBTimes: In a sense, you’re very pessimistic about the Western stands at the moment. Do you think China is the only option available to the West at the moment?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, I’m not pessimistic, I’m just saying that you see that some of the elites, or so-called elites, are hardened in their view. You have others who are absolutely recognizing that the whole mankind needs to cooperate together in new ways, for example, Switzerland. You know the President of Switzerland, who participated in the Belt and Road Forum just signed a memorandum of understanding, not only for Switzerland, but for a whole group of Central and Eastern European countries, which Switzerland is representing in the international organizations.

So there is a big motion. You have Italy signing a memorandum of understanding with China, on the development of Africa. Greece wants to be the gateway between trade from Asia, through the Suez Canal all the way into Europe. Portugal and Spain want to be the hub for the Portuguese- and Spanish-speaking people around the world.

So there is a lot of dynamics and motions, I’m just referring to some of the monetarist views and those people who talk about the “rules-based order” all the time, but what they really mean is austerity.

So, I’m not talking about the West in general. I think the West — I’m an optimist about the potential of all human beings — I’m only talking about certain parts of the establishment in the West.

GBTimes: You mentioned Italy and Switzerland. How significant is it that they signed up to the BRI now?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this is extremely important. First of all, Italy, as you know, is the third largest economy in Europe. The north of Italy is highly industrialized and has a lot of industrial capability; many hidden champions actually are in northern Italy. So, if such a country is now, as the first G7 country, officially joining with a memorandum of understanding, this can become the model for all of Europe. And Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte who just participated in the Belt and Road Forum came back and said exactly that: That Italy plans to be the leader in bringing about a better relation between China and Europe. So I think this is extremely important.

And Switzerland, even if it may be a small country, they are independent; they are sovereign, they are not part of the European Union. And President Maurer just declared, or his spokesman, that they do not need advice from the European Union because they can make their own policy. So, I think this is all a new, healthy spirit of self-consciousness and self-assertion, which is very good, and can be indeed a sign of hope for everybody else.

GBTimes: How do you see it impacting Europe, their participation in the BRI, in the short term, and perhaps in the longer term?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, there are different learning curves: Some are quicker, others are slower. For example, the so-called four big countries — that does not include Italy — that did not send heads of state or government, but only ministers, Spain, France, Germany, and I think Great Britain, by not sending their heads of state sort of expressed their reservation. But then even the German Economic Minister Altmaier, who on the first day of the Belt and Road Forum basically said, “we have to have transparency and rules,” with the usual kind of arguments, but the next day, he said something much more positive. He said: Oh, this was much better than I expected, the Chinese are actually trying to solve problems, and I will come back in June with a large delegation of businessmen. So, I actually find this quite good. It shows that eventually, I think, I hope, reason will prevail.

GBTimes: I think some of the obstacles for Western countries, is like Turkey refusing to participate because of the Uighur problem; that there are other issues that aren’t related to the Belt and Road, that China has to overcome first.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: All of these problems will eventually be solved, because I think the key to solving of any regional, ethnic, historical cultural problem is development. If people actually see the advantage of turning non-developed countries or areas into prosperous ones, into having more youth exchange, young people understanding each other, people-to-people exchange, dialogue of cultures, bringing forth the best tradition of each culture; plus, naturally, real improvement of living standards, longevity, I think that even if not all develop with the same speed, we are at a tremendous change of an epoch of human civilization. The idea of these local and regional conflicts will eventually not be there any more.

If I just can point to the fact that now the eight radio-telescopes working together, being able to make, for the first time, images of the black hole in a galaxy which is 55 million light-years away, proving that Einstein’s theory of general relativity was actually correct — now, that, for me is the sign of the future: Because this image could not have been made by one country alone. It needed telescopes sited in Chile, in Spain, in the United States, in the Antarctic, and you needed the whole world actually working together to make such a technological breakthrough possible.

I think that that will be the kind of relationship people will have to each other in the future, and I think this is what Xi Jinping really is the kind of thing he means when he says, “a shared community for the one future of humanity.” Because the common interest will eventually come first, and then everything else will fall into place.

GBTimes: Another one of the criticisms was currently “all roads lead back to Beijing” rather than a multilateral approach to BRI, where it’s between other country, it always leads back to China at the moment. Do you think that is a problem?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I don’t know. First of all, I think Russia has a big influence, I think the African countries are becoming much more knowledgeable and confident about their own role. There are many Africans who speak that, in the future, Africa will be the new China with African characteristics. So, I think it’s all changing very quickly, and those people who complain that there is too much Chinese influence, well, then they should bring in their active, creative contribution, and define what the new platform of humanity should be.

And I think China has said many times, and I have absolutely every confidence that that is the case, that they’re not trying to export their social model, but that they’re just offering the experience of the incredible success of the last 40 years of the form in opening-up, and basically tell developing countries, “Here, if you want to have our help in accomplishing the same thing, we are willing to provide it.” And naturally, the countries of the developing sector, which had been neglected, or even treated negatively by colonialism, by the IMF conditionalities, when they now have the absolute, concrete offer to overcome poverty and underdevelopment, why should they not take it?

So, I think all these criticisms are really badly covered efforts to hide their own motives. I really think China is doing the best thing which has happened to humanity for a very long time, and I think the Belt and Road Initiative is the only long-term plan for how to transform the world into a peaceful place. And I think that should be applauded and people should have a cooperative approach.

GBTimes: My next question was going to be, how confident are you that the BRI will pay off for China, but I get the sense that you’re very confident.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, I think it already paying off! First of all, it makes it more easy for China to develop its own western and internal regions, because they are now sort of integrated into the Belt and Road transport routes to Europe, to Central Asia, integrating the Belt and Road Initiative with the Eurasian Economic Union, and hopefully eventually also the European Union. So I think it is already bringing benefits to China.

And from an economic standpoint, the more a country exports high technology goods and technologies, the more than becomes a motor to develop one’s own industry even to high levels. So it’s like a self-inspiration, so to speak, and that is already paying off. That’s what any country should do.

GBTimes: You mentioned technology: It’s also the digital Silk Road, Digital Belt and Road. Of course, China has a lot of control over its internet, on the Great Firewall: How much of a barrier do you think that will be for countries to build relationships via the Belt and Road Initiative?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: You mean the G5 question and Huawei?

GBTimes: Well, partly that, too, but also the control of the internet inside of China, which is difficult for Western companies to do business, to establish themselves, as there are a lot of controls there. Do you think that could be a barrier, as part of the digital Belt and Road, that’s also being discussed.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think there can be ways of making arrangements which are satisfying to everybody. This whole question of “digital control” and so forth, is highly exaggerated, because, if you look at who is controlling the internet, you have the big firms, Apple, Google, Facebook, and they are very linked with the Western government’s. You know, in a certain sense, after the scandal of the NSA listening into everybody’s discussions, which erupted a couple of years ago and which was never changed or remedied or anything, we are living in a world where that already happening. And I think China is not doing anything more than the NSA or the already mentioned GCHQ doing that in the West.

So I think the fact that China has a competitive system, to this Western system is what causes all of this debate. Because the people who had the control of the internet first, they should like to keep it that way, and they regard China as a competitor, which they don’t like, but that’s a fact of reality now.

GBTimes: One question I have is why do you think the Belt and Road Initiative is needed, when there’s the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, now? Do you think the two are mutually exclusive, or do they work together?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, I think the Belt and Road Initiative has many financing mechanisms. You have the AIIB, you have the New Silk Road Fund, you have a lot of the Chinese banks themselves which are doing the investment. I have been advocating for a very long time, that the West should modify its own credit institutions to work on a similar principle. Now, that would be actually very possible, because the American System of economy as it was developed by Alexander Hamilton, who created the first National Bank as an institution for issuing credit, that is actually very close to what China is doing. As a matter of fact, I would even go so far as to say, that the Chinese economic model is much closer to the American System, as it was developed by Alexander Hamilton, and then revived by Lincoln, by Henry C. Carey, by Franklin D. Roosevelt; so if the United States would say, we create our own national bank; and Germany, for example, would say, we go back to the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the Credit Institution for Reconstruction, which was used for the reconstruction of Germany in the postwar period, which was also a state bank, — or it still is a state bank — then you could have a new credit system, whereby each country would have their own national bank; you would have clearing houses in between them to compensate for duration of investment, or the differences between small and large countries with lots of raw materials, or not so much — you need these clearinghouses. But you could create a new credit system, a New Bretton Woods system with fixed exchange rates, having a stability in the system which the Western system presently does not have.

So, I think that the more countries go to these kinds of credit financing of projects the more stable this new system will become.

GBTimes: Do you think the United States will ever become part of the Belt and Road Initiative, under the Presidency of Donald Trump, or perhaps whoever is voted in next

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: That’s actually the big question, you know: Will the rise of China be answered by the United States, either with a war, the Thucydides trap which some people have mentioned as a danger? There were in history twelve cases where a rising power overtook the dominant power up to that point, and it led to war; and there were four cases where it happened in a peaceful way. Now, China, first of all, has offered that neither of these two options should occur, but they have offered a special great power special relationship model, based on the acceptance of the other social model’s sovereignty, non-interference. And I think Trump with his America, First policy is more inclined to respond to such a model than the previous administrations of Obama and Bush, who had these interventionist wars in the Middle East and everywhere else for exporting their system of so-called “democracy” and human rights.

So I think President Trump has said very clearly that he wants to have a good relationship with China. He calls President Xi Jinping his friend all the time. And I think the present trade negotiations actually, in my view, demonstrate that the United States would suffer tremendously, if they would try to decouple from the Chinese economy. They probably would suffer more than China, because China is much more capable, in my view, to compensate for the loss of the relationship with the United States.

But I think that the hopefully reasonable way would be to say, “OK, let’s use the foreign exchange reserves of China which they have in terms of U.S. Treasuries; let’s invest them through an infrastructure bank in the United States, to help to modernize American infrastructure.” And that would be an urgent need, because if you look at the U.S. infrastructure, it’s really in a terrible condition, and President Trump, who is talking today, I think, with the leading Democrats Pelosi and Schumer on a new infrastructure legislation; the sums which are discussed here, from what I have heard so far, are so small! First of all, the Republicans don’t want to have Federal spending; the Democrats are talking only about “repair,” and small issues.

So, what is lacking in these discussions is a grand design, where you would take the approach China has taken for the modernization of its infrastructure: To have fast train systems among all the major cities, to have slow-speed maglev trains for intra-urban transport. Now, you could take that same approach and modernize the entire infrastructure of the United States. And if China would, in turn, off that U.S. companies would integrate more into the projects of the Belt and Road around the world, it would be beneficial for both. Some American companies are already doing that, like Caterpillar, General Electric, Honeywell, but that could be a real incentive for the United States to go in tis direction.

Hopefully it will happen that way, because if not, I think a clash between the two largest economies would be a catastrophe for the whole world: So, let’s hope that the forces of good will all work together to get to this positive end.

GBTimes: Let’s talk about the Schiller Institute itself as a think tank. What is your day-to-day role in the promotion of the Belt and Road Initiative? How do you work to support it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, you know, this all goes back to the life’s work of my husband, who died recently: Mr. Lyndon LaRouche; who spent, actually, the last 50 years, to work on very concrete development projects. The first such project we presented in ’76 in Paris. This was a comprehensive plan for the infrastructure development of all of Africa. Then we worked together with the President of Mexico José López Portillo on a Latin American development plan — this was ’82. We worked with Indira Gandhi on a 40-year development plan, and also in the beginning of the ’80s, we developed a 50-year development plan for the Pacific Basin. And then, when the Berlin Wall came down, and the Soviet Union disintegrated, we proposed to connect the European and Asian population and industrial centers through development corridors, and we called that the Eurasian Land-Bridge.

So we have been engaged in these kinds of big projects for the transformation of the world economy for the last decades, and naturally, we proposed it to China in the beginning of the ’90s. I attended a big conference in ’96 in Beijing, which had the title, “The Development of the Regions along the Eurasian Land-Bridge.” And China, at that time, declared the building of the Eurasian Land-Bridge the long-term strategic aim of China by 2010. Then, naturally, came the Asia crisis in ’97, so the whole thing go interrupted.

We were very happy when Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road in 2013, because, in the meantime, we had kept working for this. We had {many} conferences, actually hundreds of conferences and seminars all over the world. So this is has been one major point of what the Schiller Institute has been doing for the last decades. So naturally, we are very happy that now, what was only planning on our side is now being realized by the second largest economy in the world, and therefore, it becomes reality: And that makes quite happy.

GBTimes: Is there anything else you’d like to add? I’ve asked my questions and a lot more. Is there anything we haven’t touched upon, you’d like to talk about?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We could talk a little bit more about the culture of the New Silk Road.

GBTimes: Please — in what way?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that the New Silk Road, or the Belt and Road Initiative, it’s not just about economics and infrastructure. But I think equally important, if not more important, in my view, is the cultural side of it: That it could lead and will hopefully lead to an exchange of the best traditions of all cultures of this world. And by reviving the best traditions, like Confucianism in China, Beethoven in Germany, and Schiller; Verdi in Italy, and so forth and so on, it will ennoble the souls of the people, and I think that that is the most important question right now, because I agree with Friedrich Schiller, according to whom this institute is named: That any improvement in the political realm can only come from the moral improvement of the people. And therefore, I think it’s also very interesting to me that President Xi Jinping has emphasized the aesthetical education as extremely important, because the goal of this is the beautiful mind of the pupil, of the student.

Now, that is exactly what Friedrich Schiller said, who in the response to the Jacobin Terror in the French Revolution, wrote his {Aesthetical Letters} in which he develops his aesthetical theory, which I find is in great cohesion with what Xi Jinping is saying; and that has also to do with the fact that the first education minister of the Chinese Republic studied in Germany, and he studied Schiller and Humboldt; his name was Cai Yuanpei — I’m probably pronouncing it wrong again — but he was the first president of the Beijing University, and I think there is a great affinity, a much greater affinity between the thinking of the aesthetical education as it is discussed by Xi Jinping and as it does exist in the Schiller-Humboldt tradition in Germany, in particular. I would just hope that that kind of a dialogue could be intensified, because then I think a lot of the prejudices and insecurities about the other culture would disappear, and you would bring back and bring forth the best of all sides.

GBTimes: How could this be accomplished, do you think? What sort of forms?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: You can organize conferences, you can more consciously make the poetry known — I think poetry is very, very important, which is naturally not so easy, because as Schiller said, you have to be a poet in two languages to do justice to the poetry of one language. You could have more conscious theater performances, not just as an entertainment but involving students, children, adults, and make more exhibitions, make more deep-level understanding of the other culture.

I think China is doing an enormous amount of that, but I would have still some suggestions to make it more than entertainment, because many people go to these things, and they don’t quite “get it” what it’s all about; and then, it was nice, but the deeper philosophical, poetical, musical meaning could be made more pedagogically intelligible, and I think that would be a way of opening the hearts of more people, because they would recognize what treasures are there to be discovered.

GBTimes: Do you have any closing words on the Belt and Road you’d like to share with our readers?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we are probably the generation on whom later generations will look back to, and say, “Oh! This was really a fascinating time, because it was a change from an epoch to another one.” And I have an image of that, which is, this change that we are experiencing right now, is probably going to be bigger than the change in Europe between the Middle Ages and modern times. In the Middle Ages you had people believing in a whole bunch of axioms, the scholastics, Aristotelianism, witchcraft — all kinds of strange beliefs — and then, because of the influx of such thinkers as Nicholas of Cusa, or the Italian Renaissance, the modern image of man, of science and technology, of the sovereign nation-state, all these changes happened, and they created a completely different view of the image of man and of nature, and the universe, and everything we call “modern society” was the result of this change.

Now, I think we are in front, or the middle of such an epochal change, where the next era of mankind will be much, much more creative than the present one, and that’s something to look forward to, because we can actually shape it, and we can bring our own creative input into it. And there are not many periods in history when that is the case: So we are actually lucky.

Se interviewet på GBTimes.coms hjemmeside her. 

Den 29 april (EIRNS) – Er mere end 130 regeringer, 37 stats- og regeringschefer, alle større internationale og finansielle institutioner og 5.000 virksomheder på én konference tilstrækkelig til at overbevise om, at der er ved at opstå en ny økonomisk orden? Den ekstraordinære deltagelse af regeringer, stats- og regeringschefer – et betydeligt antal af dem der indtil for nylig blev betragtet som “skeptikere” og “kritikere” af Bælte & Vejens store infrastrukturprojekter – og virksomheder på det andet Bælte- og Vejforum for internationalt samarbejde sammenlignes med de største internationale møder i historien. Det var allerede beviset på, at Bælte- og Vejinitiativet (BVI) har udviklet sig betydeligt siden det første Bælte- og Vejforum i 2017 og nu er et ustoppeligt nyt paradigme for økonomien. Visse myter om “tilbageslag” og “kritik” i Asien, som er blevet spredt, faldt også til jorden.

“Udviklingen i den seneste periode gør det meget klart, at den dominerende dynamik i verden i dag er Bælte- og Vejinitiativet”, erklærede Schiller Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche i en diskussion med Europæiske kolleger i dag. Hun er, sammen med sin mand Lyndon LaRouche, en intellektuel forfatter af denne dynamik fra 1980’erne og frem. “Dette”, sagde hun, “er det vigtigste initiativ med hensyn til infrastruktur uden fortilfælde, hvad angår et nyt sæt af relationer, hvad angår nye kulturelle relationer og en ny ånd af Silkevejen, at det simpelthen er det vigtigste punkt på dagsordenen, og at det er den eneste langsigtede strategiske plan til at føre verden ind i et nyt paradigme. Og interessant blev dette i store træk sagt på den måde af den schweiziske præsident, Ueli Maurer, der kommenterede, at dette var Schweiz’ langsigtede, strategisk plan; så han underskrev en hensigtserklæring med Xi Jinping. “Den italienske premierminister, Giuseppe Conte, der underskrev en hensigtserklæring med præsident Xi i Rom i sidste måned, sagde stort set det samme, i glæde over at Italien havde “banet vejen for andre europæiske nationer, som nu vil indgå aftaler” med Kinas Nye Silkevej.

Det mest presserende spørgsmål, sagde hun, er et samarbejdsforhold mellem USA og Kina. Amerika, som ikke var repræsenteret på højt niveau på forummet, har brug for Bæltet & Vejen. Men begge behøver noget andet. “Jeg tror hvad der hovedsagelig mangler, er en umiddelbar tilgang til Lyndon LaRouches ideer, mest af alt for USA’s befolkning, men langt videre, for hele verden. Og jeg har sammenlignet det med den indflydelse, som indførelsen af Platon havde i forbindelse med kirkerådene i Ferrara og Firenze, hvilket udløste eksplosionen af den Italienske Renæssance. For hvis Nicholas af Cusa ikke have bragt den græsk-ortodokse kirkes forskere, Bessarion og Plethon, som alle var de førende lærde i Platon; og bragte de samlede værker af Platon, der var gået tabt i Europa i 1700 år – der var måske et par eksemplarer i nogle klostre, men ingen kunne læse dem mere, fordi folk ikke kunne forstå græsk mere – så det var faktisk, da den græske ortodokse kirke bragte Platon på banen. Heldigvis var der Medici’erne, der finansierede et storstilet program til at oversætte værkerne, og det var begejstringen for Platon, som gjorde den Italienske Renæssance, til hvad den udartede sig til.

“Og jeg tror, at der i Bælte- og Vejinitiativets opblomstring er mange gode ideer og mange vigtige begreber, men at den dybere forståelse af hvad der kræves udelukkende findes i LaRouches værker. Derfor er frifindelsen så absolut vigtig, naturligvis bortset fra det faktum, at hans modstandere er krigspartiet”. Lyndon LaRouches frifindelse, konkluderede hun, “er den afgørende brik til at gøre verden til et sikkert sted.”

Under gennemgang af de vigtigste begivenheder i ugen kom Helga Zepp-LaRouche gentagne gange tilbage til den uforenelige opsplitning mellem den imperialistiske natur af det kollapsende system, som driver verden mod krig, og det nye paradigme, der over de sidste halvtreds år er blevet bragt i fokus af Lyndon LaRouche. Dette kan ses tydeligt i NATO’s leder Stoltenbergs pro-krigsaktiviteter, i hans bestræbelser på at få Trump til at angribe Rusland og Kina – hvilket Trump ikke gjorde – og senere hans tågetale til Kongressen, som blev modtaget entusiastisk af depraverede kongresmedlemmer; i modsætning til talrige tegn på øget samarbejde indenfor den nye 4-magts-konstellation: for eksempel fremskridtene for Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, præsident Xis seneste besøg i Italien og Putins kommende besøg der, samt i samarbejdet i rummet, herunder at Trump genoptager en Måne-Mars-mission for USA.

For at uddybe pegede Helga på flere ironiske sammenstillinger: Trump der arbejder for en handelsaftale med Kina, mens krigspartiet i USA optrapper sit pres mod Kina; opfordringen fra den franske finansminister LeMaire til at Europa bliver det “nye imperium”, mens EU står over for en række eksistentielle kriser, fra Brexit til faldende produktionstal, der netop er blevet udgivet i Tyskland, og håbløst bankerotte finansielle institutioner.

Alt imens anti-Trump-kupmagerne fortsætter deres bestræbelser på at fjerne præsidenten med uendelige undersøgelser, understregede Helga betydningen af at afsløre den britiske karakter bag Russiagate som det mest effektive middel til at tydeliggøre denne kamp, og til at bringe flere borgere ind i organisationsprocessen.

Her er begyndelsen af Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast:

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag, jeg er Harley Schlanger fra Schiller Instituttet. Velkommen til vores ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og præsident. I dag skriver vi den 15. marts, »idus martiae.« Der sker meget i Italien og der tales om »idus martiae« og Julius Cæsar. Italienerne satser stærkt på at arbejde med Kina. Helga, du deltog i denne uge i en meget betydningsfuld konference med repræsentation fra den kommercielle sektor i Italien, men også fra regeringen. Jeg synes vi skal starte der, fordi dette har givet anledning til en fortsat panik blandt unilaterale, geopolitiske kræfter i Den Europæiske Union, der forsøger at holde Kina ude. Så hvad laver italienerne? Hvad er det, der foregår?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Som du måske ved, kommer præsident Xi Jinping på officielt besøg i Italien den 22. og 23., altså i næste uge. Det er kommet frem, at italienerne og kineserne i anledning af dette besøg vil underskrive en hensigtserklæring (MoU) om at samarbejde omkring Bælte og Vej Initiativet (BRI). Dette har forårsaget stor uro; Financial Times flippede ud, Garrett Marcus – som på en eller anden måde står [USA’s nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver John] Bolton nær i Det Hvide Hus – sagde i hovedtræk, at italienerne absolut ingen gavn vil have af dette, og at det vil ødelægge deres image i verden i meget lang tid fremover. Så det kom temmelig rettidigt, at vi havde denne begivenhed i Milano, som var en begivenhed arrangeret i fællesskab mellem Movisol, som er Movimento Solidarita – LaRouchebevægelsens italienske søsterorganisation, ledt an af Liliana Gorini – og regionen Lombardiet. Emnet var netop Italiens samarbejde med Bælte og Vej Initiativet. Arrangementet havde længe været planlagt, så det er helt tilfældigt, at det fandt sted lige før Xi Jinpings statsbesøg.

Den første taler ved denne begivenhed var Michele Geraci, som er ministersekretær i ministeriet for økonomisk udvikling, og han er en person, der ved meget om Kina, hvor han i ti år virkede som professor. Han er nu leder af den italienske regerings ekspertgruppe angående Kina. Han gav en præsentation, hvor han nedtonede postyret omkring denne hensigtserklæring ved at gøre opmærksom på, at den ikke vil ændre noget; den vil ikke ændre Italiens alliance med NATO eller EU. Den betyder blot, at Italien vil få øgede eksportmuligheder på det hurtigst voksende økonomiske marked i verden, som udgøres af Kina. Italien prøver udelukkende at indhente det forsømte i forhold til andre europæiske lande, som Tyskland og Frankrig, der allerede har meget mere handel med Kina. Så han gav et meget roligt og optimistisk billede af, hvordan dette vil gavne udviklingen af havnene Trieste, Genova, Palermo – samt udviklingen af anden infrastruktur. Han sagde, at det ikke betyder, at Italien opgiver andre projekter, fordi disse alle er nye investeringer. Kineserne vil bygge nye kajpladser i nogle af disse havne, så kineserne investerer i ny-etableringer, som vil øge den italienske økonomis produktivitet; der er altså ingen grund til at være bekymret. Så efter min mening var det meget informativt.

Efterfølgende holdt jeg en tale, hvor jeg i hovedtræk sagde, at alt dette foregår i en større sammenhæng, fordi det, der sker, tydeligvis er, at den kinesiske regering forsøger at skabe et nyt paradigme, som Xi Jinping altid kalder »et samfund med en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden« eller »menneskeheds skæbnefællesskab« (人类命运共同体 – red.). Og de forsøger at opbygge et nyt sæt internationale relationer, som vil overvinde geopolitik. Jeg nævnte det faktum, at der historisk findes 16 tilfælde, hvor en sekundær magt ville overtage den hidtidigt dominerende magts rolle, at det i 12 tilfælde førte til krig, og at det i 4 tilfælde betød, at den anden magt trådte i stedet for den første magt og overgik den uden krig. Jeg understregede det faktum, at den kinesiske regering og især Xi Jinping har gjort det klart adskillige gange, at det ikke er intentionen at erstatte USA’s dominerende rolle i verden, og at de naturligvis heller ikke vil have en krig; men at de tilbyder en helt ny måde at relatere til hinanden på, som grunder på hensyntagen til den andens suveræniteten, på hensyntagen til forskellen mellem de sociale systemer, og på simpelthen at samarbejde på win-win basis.

Jeg udpegede følgende bemærkelsesværdige fænomen; efter Xi Jinping for omkring fire år siden annoncerede Bælte og Vej Initiativet i september 2013 i Kasakhstan, har dette historiens største infrastrukturprogram udviklet sig meget hurtigt. Nu er der 112 lande, der har forskellige grader af samarbejde og yderligere 30-40 internationale institutioner. I omkring fire år skrev de vestlige medier og de store tænketanke nærmest intet derom; de forbigik det eller lod som om, at dette historiens største infrastrukturprojekt ikke var til. Derefter, efter omkring fire år, begyndte alle medier og alle tænketanke på en tydeligvis koordineret måde pludselig et angreb mod Kina, hvor det udlagde BRI som ren kinesisk imperialisme: kineserne forsøger bare at få landene ind i gældsfælden; det er et autoritært system. I en vis forstand er det meget klart, at dette er en geopolitiske refleks, der er udløst af, at verden er i hastig forandring, og at magtcentret allerede er flyttet til Asien, idet Kina har påtaget sig lederskabsrollen i denne udvikling.

Så jeg synes, at den indlysende løsning på denne krise – og en stor beskyldning er naturligvis også, at Kina splitter EU, opdeler EU. Der er faktisk allerede 13 EU-lande, som har underskrevet MoU’er med Kina, og Italien bliver det første G7 land. Det er derfor, at de er så rystende nervøse over det. Det er klart, da det er den tredjestørste økonomi på kontinentet. Jeg understregede kraftigt, at de ikke behøvede Kina til at opdele EU; Den Europæiske Union er opdelt helt af sig selv. Se på splittelsen mellem nord og syd på grund af EU-Kommissions brutale nedskæringspolitik, som helt forarmede Grækenland, Italien, Spanien og Portugal. Der er en åbenlys kløft på dette punkt og en anden omkring problemet med immigration, som Øst- og Vesteuropa er helt uenige om. Faktisk har Kina mange gange argumentet for – og jeg er helt enig – at et samarbejde omkring Bælte og Vej Initiativet faktisk er måden, hvorpå Europa kan forenes, forudsat at f.eks. Frankrig og Tyskland ville anerkende, at det også er ensbetydende med en enorm forretningsmulighed for dem at deltage.

Hvis alle disse europæiske lande kort sagt ville sige, at det er i vores bedste interesse at samarbejde, ikke kun i multilaterale handels- og investeringsaftaler på det eurasiske kontinent, men især om at udvikle Afrika sammen, som er den eneste menneskelige måde at håndtere flygtningekrisen på – det kunne føre til en meget god udvikling. Men EU vil holde et topmøde om dette emne den 21. marts, og man har allerede udarbejdet en 10-punkts handlingsplan; det er klart en indsats for at imødegå denne indflydelse fra Kina. Så vil man holde et topmøde mellem EU og Kina i begyndelsen af april, og det er meget klart, at EU-Kommissionen er på en helt anden kurs end Italien. Men lad os nu se. Jeg tror, at Xi Jinpings besøget vil lykkes, og det på ny vil vise enhver, hvordan et samarbejde er i alles bedste interesse….

Se mere i videoen ovenover.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche hilste det entusiastisk velkommen: Italiens beslutning om at underskrive en hensigtserklæring (MOU, Memoranda Of Understanding) med Kina om at deltage i Bælte- og Vejinitiativet (BVI), da dette viser, at City of Londons geopolitiske netværk har mistet deres evne til at diktere politikken i Europa. Den italienske beslutning vil fremskyndes af Xi Jinpings kommende besøg i Italien. Og mens forfatterne af falske nyheder hos Financial Times og andre medier ser dette som en trussel og citerer ledende neokonservative, der autoritativt kræver at dette stoppes, er der tolv andre EU-medlemmer, som har underskrevet aftaler med Kina, og dermed sluttet sig til mere end 150 andre nationer. Den unipolære verdens dage er overstået!

Det er stadig en farlig verden, som det fremgår af skvalderen fra den amerikanske øverstbefalende for NATO i Europa, Gen. Scaparrotti, der advarede Senatet om, at der skal gøres mere for at imødegå “russisk aggression”. De samme netværk, der presser på med strategiske provokationer mod Rusland og Kina, er blevet mere åbne omkring, hvordan de har til hensigt at bruge den “Grønne New Deal” til dramatisk at reducere befolkningen, og de optrapper deres planer om at vælte Donald Trump, da hans strategiske orientering er en hindring for disse planer.

Geopolitikerne og deres unipolære verdensbillede må og skal afgørende besejres. Dette kan mest effektivt gennemføres ved at bringe USA ind i det nye paradigme gennem en afvisning af geopolitik. En stor flanke, der kan fremskynde denne proces, er Lyndon LaRouche, som har været den førende modstander af de britiske imperialistiske kræfter i det sidste halve århundrede. Vores opgave er at opfylde LaRouches mission om at besejre dette imperium, og bringe USA ind i fællesskabet for en fælles fremtid.

Det underliggende tema for Helga Zepp-LaRouches strategiske præsentation i denne uges webcast fra Schiller Instituttet er, at i takt med at sammenstødet mellem det gamle og nye paradigme bliver mere og mere åbenbart, er det alene den kvalitet af tænkning, der karakteriserer menneskelig kreativitet, som kan bringe verden til at virkeliggøre de fælles mål for menneskeheden, som det nye paradigme repræsenterer.

Ingen steder var dette mere åbenlyst end i kontrasten mellem begivenhederne i Hanoi, hvor præsident Trump mødtes med Nordkoreas præsident Kim og det ubehagelige cirkus i Washington DC med den beskidte advokat Michael Cohen og de dumme demokrater, der savlede i håbet om at Cohens løgne vil bane vej for en rigsretssag mod Trump. Trump agerede i sine samtaler i Hanoi eksplicit ud fra en samarbejdsvillig strategisk alliance med Rusland og Kina, samt med Sydkorea og Japan, mens pro-kup-styrkerne i Washington gjorde det Britiske Imperiums beskidte arbejde med at holde menneskeheden som gidsler for deres døende system.

Helga præsenterede hvad der kræves for at flytte menneskeheden, ikke blot for at undgå atomkrig, men for at skabe en fremtid der er drevet af den mest spændende udforskning af universet. Med henvisning til de smukke ideer om at lade fremtiden forme nutiden, som hendes mand diskuterede i sin bog, “Der er ingen grænser for vækst”, udstedte hun en passioneret opfordring til mobilisering for at vinde denne kamp.erliggende tema for Helga Zepp-LaRouches strategiske præsentation i denne uges webcast fra Schiller Instituttet er, at i takt med at sammenstødet mellem det gamle og nye paradigme bliver mere og mere åbenbart, er det alene den kvalitet af tænkning, der karakteriserer menneskelig kreativitet, som kan bringe verden til at virkeliggøre de fælles mål for menneskeheden, som det nye paradigme repræsenterer.

Læs begyndelsen af Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast nedenfor.

Bekæmp det morderiske Britiske Imperium – opløft menneskeheden til et nyt niveau af kreativ tænkning

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hej, jeg er Harley Schlanger fra Schiller Instituttet. Velkommen til vores internationale strategiske webcast i dag, den 1. marts 2019. Grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, vil slutte sig til os.

Disse sidste dage skiller sig ud ved dybden af det politiske rænkespil, forskydninger i alle facetter af det strategiske billede, og på en måde ser vi sammenstødet mellem de to paradigmer i et meget skarpt relief. Jeg tror at det rigtige sted at begynde, er hvad der skete i Hanoi, topmødet mellem præsident Trump og Nordkoreas formand Kim Jong-un. Helga, hvad er din udlægning af hvad der skete der?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg synes det var et skridt fremad. Jeg mener, at både vurderingen fra Trump og også fra den nordkoreanske side er, at de to sider er kommet tættere på hinanden end de var før topmødet. Klart nok opnåede de ikke at få det mulige forventede gennembrud, men i et komplekst spørgsmål som Nordkorea og Sydkorea, som involverer alle de andre strategiske spillere – USA, Kina, Rusland – er dette ikke nødvendigvis en katastrofe, og vel ikke helt uventet at man ikke opnår et gennembrud af den størrelsesorden i løbet af et eller to møder. Så jeg synes, at det er interessant at se, at begge sider – Trump og Kim Jong-un – udtrykte ønske om at fortsætte forhandlingerne. Hvis man ser på kontrasten, hvor absolut hysterisk de vestlige medier er, så sagde de: “Åh, man ser at dette var en fuldstændig fiasko for Trump. Han troede selvfølgelig, at han bare kunne forhandle en forretningsaftale, og han ved bare ikke, hvordan man gør disse ting.”

Der var en helt anderledes reaktion fra Rusland, fra Kina, fra Sydkorea, fra Japan; som alle udtrykte den absolutte overbevisning om, at dette er det rette spor, og at det skal fortsætte. Jeg tror absolut, at det er tilfældet. Jeg mener, at de helt utrolige omstændigheder, som viser hvor modbydeligt og absolut ondskabsfuldt det gamle paradigme forsøger at bekæmpe muligheden for, at Trump kan få en aftale om atomafvæbning af Nordkorea med Kim Jong-un, var den Senatshøring med den tidligere Trump-advokat Michael Cohen, der var planlagt til at finde sted præcist samme dag. Hvis man så ser på hvordan dette blev orkestreret, at denne fuldstændige slimede original, Michael Cohen, brugte alle slags ord mod Trump fra plattenslager til racistisk og værre endnu. Helt absurd blev dette, naturligvis af de internationale vestlige mainstream-medier, fremstillet som om at Trump kun holdt Nordkorea-mødet for at aflede opmærksomheden fra det meget vigtigere spørgsmål om Michael Cohens høring; lige nøjagtig det modsatte var tilfældet. De besluttede at bruge Michael Cohen-historien til at skabe det mest ugunstige miljø for et så vigtigt møde at finde sted.

Denne hændelse alene burde sige folk hvad der virkelig foregår, fordi der førhen var en uudtalt – eller måske endda udtalt – regel om, at når en præsident eller et statsoverhoved fører vigtige diplomatiske forhandlinger i udlandet, blev det respekteret, og intet ville blive gjort som kunne forstyrre det. Denne hændelse viser virkelig, hvor nedbrudt enhver adfærdskodeks, enhver civiliseret adfærd hos Trumps modstandere er, eller snarere modstanderne af det nye paradigme, og ideen om at man rent faktisk kan have en verden, hvor konflikter bliver overvundet gennem forhandlinger. Jeg synes det viser os hvor barbarisk tonen er blevet, og jeg mener, at det bør falde tilbage på de mennesker, der har udført det. Så med hensyn til situationen omkring Nordkorea som sådan, tror jeg ikke det er en katastrofe. Jeg tror, at processen vil fortsætte, og den russiske talsmand for Vladimir Putin, Peskov, sagde faktisk, at denne diplomatiske situation mellem de to lande igen er et bevis for, at man ikke opnår fremskridt på en trinvis måde. Det er faktisk det der er tilfældet, fordi verdenssituationen er så kompleks, at man er nødt til at finde løsninger, der tager højde for alle problemerne, ellers gør man ikke fremskridt nogen steder.

SCHLANGER: Lad mig for et øjeblik vende tilbage til denne sammenstilling mellem Trump, der udfører diplomati på højt niveau, og Demokraterne i Kongressen, der bruger Michael Cohen – ikke bare til at distrahere fra hvad Trump gør – men for at afsætte ham fra embedet. Trump pointerede på pressekonferencen bagefter, og også i sine diskussioner der førte op til mødet, at han arbejder sammen med Rusland, arbejder sammen med Kina, med Japan og Sydkorea. Efterfølgende talte han med lederne fra disse lande, så det er klart, at der er et løbende samarbejde på højeste niveau blandt de vigtigste nationer i verden. Dette er ikke alene noget som modstanderne af Trump, – ‘Never Trumpers’ – ignorerer, men noget de forsøger at stoppe. Det synes jeg virkelig, som du siger, står i skarpt kontrast til den måde, som dette har udspillet sig på i løbet af de sidste par dage.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Undskyld; jeg fik ikke fat i din pointe.

SCHLANGER: Altså, min pointe er, at det demonstrerer kuppets natur. Det handler ikke om noget, som Trump gjorde i relation til Rusland; det handler om, hvad Trump forsøger at gøre med hensyn til at forandre det strategiske paradigme.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja, vi har diskuteret dette mange gange. Det er hele Russia-gates natur. I det øjeblik Trump i valgkampen i 2016 indikerede, at han gik ind for at forbedre forholdet til Rusland, og hvad han efterfølgende gjorde for at forbedre forholdet til Kina i startfasen af hans administration; dette er faktisk det absolut værste mareridt for den geopolitiske fraktion på begge sider af Atlanten. Fordi, når først man har en konstellation med USA-Rusland-Kina – og muligvis Indien og andre nationer – hvis de samarbejder, går hele det britiske rænkespil i vasken. Jeg synes, at Trump under disse omstændighederne gør et fantastisk job, hvis man tager i betragtning de kræfter, som han er oppe imod….

Se resten på videoen.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

(Vi er i gang med at oversætte talen til dansk.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed the seminar via video conference from Germany. In addition EIR Economics Editor Paul Gallagher by pre-recorded video from Virginia, and Hussein Askary in person addressed the seminar in Copenhagen. Diplomats from nine countries attended the seminar, as well as members and contacts of The Schiller Institute.

TOM GILLESBERG: Helga Zepp-LaRouche was very beautifully introduced, I think, by Hussein Askary, in his presentation going through the fantastic road. She as the founder of the Schiller Institute has taken upon herself as the “Silk Road Lady” in bringing about this Belt and Road policy, the New Silk Road policy. So we are very proud and very happy to be able to have her on here live to discuss what is in the situation the world is in right now, after the U.S. midterm elections, and here, the day before we’ll have the G20 summit taking place in Buenos Aires.

So, Helga, thank you for being here with us. The word is yours.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I want to say hello to you and I’m very happy to be able to speak to you, even if it’s only via video. Obviously, we have reached a very important point in history, and for once, I have to agree with President Macron of France, who just said that the upcoming G20 meeting better produce some real results, or else, such a gathering of the heads of state would be even counterproductive.

Now, I agree with that.

We have made a campaign for the last several weeks and actually months, that basically what should be the outcome of this G20 meeting. Given the fact that we have both war danger, as was demonstrated very acutely again in the case of the incident in near the Kerch Bridge in the Black Sea, and the general situation between the major nuclear powers is not exactly a calm one, so we have the danger of nuclear war, potentially. Then, we have the immediate danger of a repetition of the financial crash of 2008, except this time, it could be much, much worse, because all the parameters are much worse than in 2008.

In light of these two existential crises, we have defined what should be the outcome of either the G20 meeting or, at least, of those heads of state where one can expect they can go in the direction of establishing a new paradigm: And that refers to President Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, Prime Minister Modi, and possibly others, Prime Minister Abe, and maybe some other heads of state and government. And what we defined as the absolutely necessary outcome, is that they establish a New Bretton Woods system to replace the presently completely bankrupt financial system, with a New Bretton Woods, which would be in the position of the old Bretton Woods system, however it would include the added features which Franklin D. Roosevelt originally wanted, namely, to end colonialism for the developing sector, which then, unfortunately was not implemented, because Roosevelt died, and the Bretton Woods was established by Truman and Churchill, at least under their political guidance.

And obviously, a New Bretton Woods would only function if it is accompanied by Four Laws which were defined by Lyndon LaRouche already in 2014, as the absolutely necessary changes in the financial and economic system, being: first, the implementation of Glass-Steagall banking separation; secondly to go to a national bank, to bring the power of credit generation back under the control sovereign powers, under the sovereign control of governments; and thirdly, to create an international credit system; and fourthly, to increase the productivity of the world economy by going for a crash program for a fusion economy and establish more close international space cooperation to get the necessary increase in the productivity of the world economy.

Given the fact that it cannot be expected that all countries of the G20 will agree with that — I can easily imagine that those which are absolutely tied to the City of London and the opposition to Trump coming from Wall Street, that there will be some countries that will absolutely oppose such a solution. And therefore, we have proposed that it can only be the cooperation of those countries which are powerful enough to resist the power of these financial centers, London and Wall Street, and that can only be: President Trump, President Xi Jinping, President Putin, and prime Minister Modi, the four powers together, which represent both the largest nuclear powers, the largest economies, the largest populations, that they have to work together.

Obviously, that potential exists. And since President Trump has again and again reiterated, in the election campaign and again after he became President, that he wants to improve the relationship with Russia, and the entire Russiagate was launched in order to prevent that from happening. Now, Russiagate, by now, is pretty much discredited, and despite the tensions with China on the trade issue, there are positive signs that both China and the United States may be willing to find an agreement to overcome the present war of tariffs.

That potential clearly exists, and it is very obvious, that on that hangs the question, will mankind be able, in light of existential dangers, be able to give itself a governance, structure of government, which allows the long-term sustainability of the world population. And that that is a very acute question you could see, for example, by the fact that the present Chinese ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai just yesterday issued a very clear warning that the world must learn the lessons of the Great Depression of the 1930s, resulting in World War II, and he warns that the inability to resolve the present tensions could lead to a new world war, and a new financial crisis worse than the Depression of ’30s.

The same Ambassador Cui, already in a speech about a year ago in New York, had basically posed the question: What is going to be the relation between the United States and China? He said that in history, there were 16 cases where the dominant power was replaced by a rising power — referring obviously to the present situation between the United States and China — and that in 12 cases, this led to a big war; in 4 cases, it led to a situation where the rising power simply replaced the up to that point dominant power, and it did not lead to war. And he emphasized that China does not want, at all, either, naturally the situation of war, but it also does not attempt to replace the United States as a dominant power in the world, but that the policy of China is propose a completely new set of international relations of a win-win cooperation between sovereign powers and respect for the sovereignty of the other, respect for the different social system of the other country without interfering into the internal affairs, and simply have a cooperation for the mutual benefit of all participating in this new system.

And that is, in my view, what we have seen in reality in the last five years, since President Xi Jinping proposed the New Silk Road in Kazakhstan in September 2013. And we have seen the enormous development of the New Silk Road in the meantime, including more than 100 countries and having completely transformed the spirit in Africa, which has been caught by the Spirit of the New Silk Road due to massive investments in infrastructure, industrial parks, energy projects and similar things. The same is true for almost all of Latin America, many countries in Asia and even some Europe countries which are absolutely seeing the advantages of cooperating with this new system.

Now, it took the West, or better, Western think tanks and media, almost four years before they even admitted that this was going on. I mean, this was going a spectacle: Because here you have the largest infrastructure project in history, ever, already now about 30 times as big as the Marshall Plan, and the Western media would not take note of it! Then, about a year ago, they realized this was absolutely unstoppable, so they started a whole barrage of slanders and attacks on this New Silk Road, and quite telling, was that the channel of the Anglo-American establishment, the New York Times, over the last weekend and the weekend before, had I think altogether some 10 or 12 articles on the New Silk Road, in which they admit, basically, well, it’s unstoppable, it’s here, the West was completely wrong by thinking that if you offer to China to be a member of the WTO and join the free trade system, that eventually China would take over the Western liberal system, Western democracy, or, if they would refuse that, they would simply collapse under the burden of an autocratic leadership.

And the New York Times begrudgingly admits that this was a wrong estimate, that China had not adopted the Western democracy model, and it for sure has not collapsed. But it has the astounding recording of 40 years of uninterrupted economic growth rates, which have completely transformed not only China, but also much of the world economy, and that China now has a middle-class, well-to-do part of the population of 400 million, and this will be doubled in the next 10 years. And basically, the Chinese model is attractive to many countries in the world.

They basically say, as a conclusion, that the only way to deal with that is the effort to contain China, and if need be, confrontation and even war. And some American general has already said a couple of weeks ago that a war between the United States and China is more likely in the next 50 years, than not.

So this is obviously the famous “Thucydides trap”: This refers to the situation in ancient Greece, the rivalry between Athens and Sparta, which led to the Peloponnesian War, and as a consequence — which people don’t usually mention, when they talk about the “Thucydides trap” — the demise and collapse of ancient Greece.

That is the obvious question: Can the West relate to the fact that China is rising, that there is nothing you can do about it, because, first of all, China was a country which was the leading economic and cultural power over many centuries for the last millennia, with only a very short interruption. And it is deciding to go back, not to replace other countries, but to take a leading role on the world stage. And since the Chinese government has a policy which allows it to do that, mainly by putting the emphasis on continuous innovation, of leapfrogging to the most advanced technologies, of putting a lot of emphasis — they have the most advanced fusion power research program; they have a very, very advanced space exploration program; and they are putting a lot of emphasis on education, excellence in education for the young people, combined with Xi Jinping emphasizing the need to have especially an aesthetical education of the youth, and also the older people. Because aesthetical education goes in the direction of the beauty of the mind and the beauty of the soul.

And given the fact that China has a population of 1.4 billion people, the idea of the West that it would be possible to contain this without war is ludicrous. And if it comes to war, it should be noted that there are many military experts who make the point that once you start to use only one nuclear weapon, it is the logic of nuclear weapons, in complete contrast to traditional, conventional weaponry, that all weapons will be used. And that would obviously would mean the annihilation of human civilization.

So, this paradox obviously exists, and it is the view of the Schiller Institute that it can only be overcome by winning the West, winning countries of the world over to join in the new paradigm in a win-win cooperation.

Now, that the danger of war is very real, we just saw in the incident involving provocation by Ukrainian warships in the Black Sea, close to the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Bridge. And some people in Ukraine already having proposed some weeks ago, that the newly built bridge between Russia and Crimea, should be blown up. This was obviously an incident a couple of days ago [Nov. 25], whereby Ukrainian warships did not follow the rules which are otherwise established between Russia and Ukraine, to announce their intention to pass through the Kerch Strait; so they will held up by the Russian military; the crews were basically arrested and interrogated, and in the meantime, written material has been found with this crew, which instructs them not to announce themselves, to go to this point of the Kerch Strait in secrecy, clearly indicating a provocation.

What happened, was, immediately, the war-hawks, like NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, immediately said NATO fully on the side of Ukraine; and some other hawks, immediately, like representatives of the Integrity Initiative — about which I will same something in a second — immediately said that NATO should send a whole flotilla into the Sea of Azov.

Now, this was absolutely denounced by President Putin yesterday, who waited a couple of days, and then basically said this was a clearly preplanned provocation, and the big fault lies with the nations of the West, who, without thinking immediately take the side of Ukraine. And in his typical Putin humor, even said, if Ukraine would demand to eat babies for breakfast, the West would immediately agree.

And this was also strongly denounced by the former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, who had also been the Chief of Staff of the German military before that, Gen. Harald Kujat, who denounced Stoltenberg, and said he made a grave mistake: That in an incident like that, it is of the utmost importance that it be investigated and the other nations should not beat it up, but try to deescalate the whole situation. Fortunately, most of the West European governments did, because they obviously realized that a war between Ukraine and Russia could completely go out of control in no time and lead to a World War III.

So I think that this incident, in which the danger is not yet over because Poroshenko announced martial law in parts of Ukraine, and our dear friend Natalia Vitrenko, a Ukrainian politician, warned that this means Poroshenko is actually establishing a dictatorship in Ukraine — martial law, eliminating all kinds of civil rights, being an extremely hot situation.

Now, who is the instigator of this whole provocation? If you look at the fact that just recently, a couple of days ago, it was revealed that there is this thing called “Integrity Initiative.” This is a very strange institution. It’s basically run out of British embassies all over the world, and it is actually a subdivision of British intelligence. One of their spokesmen, Edward Lucas came out in the context of this Ukraine crisis, and immediately said: This is completely like Nazi Germany attacking Poland in 1939, and demanding an immediate escalation, sending warships into the Black Sea, in a clear provocation.

What is this Integrity Initiative? The new British Chief of General Staff Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith said Russia is a greater danger to the U.K. than ISIS or al-Qaeda, in a completely war-mongering statement. So what this Integrity Initiative outfit does, is they have defined so-called “cluster groups,” in all kinds of countries; and if you look at their website and look at the names of the people involved, it is the Cold War faction all over the world. For example, in the United States, it involves Ian Brzezinski, the son of infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski, of the {Great Chessboard} infamy, and this Ian Brzezinski is a leading member of the Atlantic Council, which can be really regarded as one of these subdivisions of the Anglo-American empire, or the British intelligence. And in Germany, it involves Gen. Klaus Naumann, who is famous for his Cold War attitudes towards Russia. So it is this apparatus which is basically sticking to the idea that you need to have a geopolitical confrontation with Russia and with China. And this is the faction which brings about the war danger in the closest fashion.

Now, we have to get over the idea that the world forever needs to be divided into geopolitical blocs, where you have one nation, or one group of nations being in complete conflict with another group of nations. And unfortunately much of the European Union thinks that way; Macron thinks that way; Mrs. Merkel in the same way. When Macron recently demanded the establishment of a European army, to be able to defend Europe against Russia, China and even the United States, he said! That is typical for this kind of thinking, which under conditions of a financial breakdown crisis and general tensions is exactly a prescription for the danger of a repetition of the two catastrophes of the 20th century.

Now, the alternative is fortunately, also very clearly there. I already mentioned the New Silk Road Spirit having transformed Africa, where people for the first time have the legitimate hope that with the help of China, and now, more and more other countries, such as India, Japan, Indonesia, Turkey and many others, having recognized that Africa, which will have 2.5 billion people by the 2050, and as Xi Jinping at the Johannesburg BRICS summit in September correctly noted, Africa having the biggest development potential of all the continents on the planet, that one can say that Africa will be the “new China with African characteristics.” That you will have a very young population, which if they are educated and provided with the necessary infrastructure investments, can really become the most productive continent on the planet.

That obviously, is a nightmare for those people who have tried to suppress the development of the developing countries, such as the IMF, with their “conditionalities,” which was the real debt trap. You know, the IMF conditionalities basically made sure that the developing countries would remain indebted, and that they were not allowed to use their income for either investment in social expenditures, education, infrastructure, but that they had to pay debt as a priority, and that was one of the main means how the development of these countries was suppressed.

And naturally, you had the very unholy role of the World Wildlife Fund, preventing infrastructure, for the sake of snails rather than human beings. And you had the whole unholy ideology of the Club of Rome that supposedly the resources on the planet were limited, and therefore development of the developing countries had to be suppressed.

When China launched the New Silk Road, all of that went out of the window, because, now, for the first time, there is the real possibility to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing countries, and that has been understood by the countries of the Global South — these are all the major organizations, such as the G77, the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), Mercosur [Mercado Común del Sur], the African Union, all of these organizations are now basically inspired by the New Silk Road idea.

And even in Europe, this is dramatically quickly changing: You had the 16+1, Eastern and Central European Countries plus China, which very happy to be hubs between Europe and Asia, in the Silk Road development. You have Greece, which is completely transformed because of Chinese investments in Piraeus and other infrastructure projects. The new Italian government had completely changed: They no longer listen to the EU in respect to China. The leading ministers, like Giovanni Tria, and the undersecretary for Economic Development Michele Geraci, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, himself, they all basically look to cooperation between China and Italy, not only for mutual investments, but especially to invest in joint projects in Africa. And one of the most glorious examples, is the agreement between China and Italy to jointly work together with the countries of the Lake Chad Basin Commission to implement the Transaqua project, which I’m sure Hussein already talked about.

But then you have also Spain, where President Xi was just there on a state visit, and having very far-reaching cooperation agreement between China and Spain, emphasizing the 2,000 years of cultural ties between the two countries. And then Xi Jinping will also go to Portugal when he comes back from the G20. And between Portugal and China there is an absolute agreement that Portugal, also, will become the hub — Spain and Portugal will not only be the hub for the Eurasian connection of the New Silk Road, but also the hub for all the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking throughout the world. So this is what the Schiller Institute emphasized in our “World Land-Bridge” report, to work on the so-called Atlantic route, and in this way, combining the Caribbean, Central America, South America, with those Portuguese- and Spanish-speaking countries and therefore Europe.

So the World Land-Bridge is coming into being. And we had just had a very interesting and hopeful even in Hamburg, between China and the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce, where, with the exception of one Greenie, who was completely beside himself, but all the other speakers were more or less very optimistic in talking about how Hamburg is the natural link not only for the land connection — and I think per week now, 23 trains are coming from China into Hamburg — but obviously, also a crucial aspect of the Maritime Silk Road, given the fact that Hamburg is the largest port in Germany.

This is all very, very interesting. Then, I should not forget to mention Switzerland, which is also onboard. Austria: Austria’s new government even has it in its coalition treaty that Austria wants to become a hub for the New Silk Road. So I think the development is actually, objectively very, very promising. But obviously, a lot more has to be done, because if you reflect on what I said in the beginning, what should become the outcome of the G20, a New Bretton Woods system and a new system in order to safeguard our nations against the danger of a new financial blowout, that has not yet been accomplished.

Otherwise, objectively, despite all the dangers I’ve referred to, I think we can be very optimistic, because a new system is within reach. And I just want to say, that economic development absolutely must be combined with a Classical Renaissance. Because, if you look at the values of the West right now, — I want to identify very briefly what I mean by that — the neo-liberal or liberal philosophy or ideology which has taken over in the West, it is correctly rejected by Russia and by China — it’s the principle “everything is allowed.” You have not two genders, but now you have about 49 genders; you have pornography without limits; children can go on the internet and see the worst-possible atrocities, the violence which is now, unfortunately having roots in the United States — you have the mass shootings in the schools almost every day. In the United States, there were already more than 300 mass shootings [this year]. You have the opioid epidemic in the United States. You have an increase of [inaudible 35:42] alcoholism, drug addiction; longevity in the United States has gone down for the first time in the last two years! If there is any parameter for a collapsing economy it is that the life expectancy goes down.

And in Europe, we are not that far behind, if you look at the violence in the schools in Germany, just to name one element. I think we are in an absolute dire need to have a Renaissance of human culture, of Classical culture, of Classical music, poetry, and other areas of art.

This has been understood in China. I mentioned already Xi Jinping’s emphasis on the need for aesthetical education, and the main Chinese speaker at this Hamburg conference yesterday, Vice Premier Liu He, who is the main economic advisor of Xi Jinping, he deviated from his written text and said that he wanted to share a story with the audience, that during the Cultural Revolution, when he was young, he had to hide in one of the hutongs in Beijing — these are the old buildings — and he had to listen in secrecy to the Violin Concerto in C-minor of Felix Mendelssohn, and that meant that he fell completely in love with Classical music and he has pursued that passion ever since.

I think this is very promising. Because as you know, we are convinced that human nature is that all human beings essentially are good, that man has the limitless capability to self-perfect, not only in terms of intellect, but also that the aesthetical education means that you can educate your emotions until you can blindly follow them because they would never tell you anything different than what reason commands. This is the Friedrich Schiller’s definition of the beautiful soul. He says, necessity and passion, free will and duty all fall in one, and this is the condition where man is truly free: Because you do with passion what is necessary, because you cannot think in any different way other than on the level of reason.

And I think that is not a utopia, but that is something which can be absolutely accomplished and is inherent in the philosophy of Confucius, who also had almost the same idea of aesthetical education as Friedrich Schiller, that is, through music, through poetry, through learning [inaudible 38:49], that you can actually transform the character of people to become beautiful characters, and to becoming wise and serve the common good.

Now, I think that if mankind is supposed to reach the New Paradigm, not only will the relations among nations be like that, that each nation will refer to the best tradition of the other and be enriched by discovering the beauty of the most advanced culture of the other nation, but that that will increasingly become the nature of relations among nations: that we will stop behaving like little four-year-old boys, kicking each other in the shins, meaning, conducting war and things like that, and we will become adult as a human species and renovate our relations, like the astronauts, who all, — all the astronauts who have been in space, who were on the ISS, they all report the same thing: That once you are in space, you recognize that you can only cooperate on the basis of reason, because otherwise you won’t exist, and that when you look at our little, blue planet from space, you recognize that there is {so} much to be discovered! First of all, there are no borders, there are no races, there is only one humanity, and you recognize that our universe is so huge! And that we as a human species have to cooperate, to be able to have a sustained existence in this universe, over the next thousands and thousands of years.

And the Hubble telescope discovered that we presently know of the existence of 2 trillion galaxies! Now, that is boggling the minds — if I try to think of the Solar System, the Milky Way, the galaxy, that is already gigantic. But the idea of 2 trillion galaxies, that shows you that we as a human species have just made the first baby steps in the direction of the perfection of our species.

Anyway, I just think we are at the change of an epoch. I think we have a very good chance to leave the epoch of geopolitics behind us, that we can really create a system of governance which makes the coexistence in peace and development possible for all of humanity. And I would encourage you to be optimistic about it, and join efforts with the Schiller Institute, because this has been our perspective for the past 40 or 50 years — in the case of my husband, 50 years — and I think we are on the verge of seeing the realization of that vision.

Thank you. [applause]

Leder fra LaRouchePAC den 11. oktober (EIRNS) – Verden er ved et vendepunkt, med et finansielt sammenbrud der tegner sig så tydeligt, at selv Den Internationale Valutafond advarer om en sandsynlig ny “stor depression”. Sammenholdt med den netop udgivne rapport fra IPPC (Internationale Panel for Klimaændringer), der kræver en folkemorderisk afindustrialisering og affolkning af planeten, så kunne behovet for en hastig forandring til et helt nyt paradigme ikke være mere tydelig, som Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i sin internationale webcast i dag.

“Der er brug for et nyt Bretton Woods-system; der er brug for Glass-Steagall; vi er nødt til at slippe af med kasino-økonomien; vi skal have kredit til finansiering af realøkonomien, og vi skal grundlæggende have et nyt kreditsystem til at finansiere investeringer på multinationalt plan blandt alle verdens lande for at bringe verden ud af denne fare for en økonomisk depression” erklærede Zepp-LaRouche. Og tiden for handling er inde nu, på grund af det truende økonomiske sammenbrud og de samtidige bestræbelser fra det britiske imperiums side på at så økonomisk og politisk kaos, især i USA, hvor ‘pøbelens’ vold, finansieret af George Soros, i de seneste uger har haft til formål at udløse en “farverevolution” imod præsident Donald Trump for at sikre, at han ikke kan følge op på sit løfte om at have gode forbindelser til Rusland og Kina samt genindustrialisere USA.

Trump har korrekt sagt, at demokraterne er blevet “vanvittige og skøre”, hvortil Zepp-LaRouche tilføjede, at de voldelige drengestreger omkring bekræftelsen af dommer Brett Kavanaugh for Højesteret viser, at demokraterne har “mistet enhver sans for grænser! Dette er en helt hysterisk situation og meget farlig … det geopolitiske etablissement gik helt amok. Faktisk optrappede de deres kampagne, både mod Rusland og Kina, på hidtil usete måder. Og dette er et spørgsmål om krig eller fred. Folk bør forstå, at demokraterne virkelig er blevet vanvittige i spørgsmålet om Rusland og også Kina, og at de ikke bør falde i denne fælde, fordi “det ville betyde tredje verdenskrig.”

Zepp-LaRouche påpegede, at de finansielle eliter selv efter sammenbruddet i 2008 ikke drog nogle konsekvenser af deres egne fejltagelser og fortsatte med den samme vanvittige politik, hvilket har skabt betingelserne for et nyt, værre, nedbrud, som bekymrer selv IMF’s administrerende direktør Christine Lagarde. Men chancen for at IMF “reformerer” sig selv er nul, advarede Zepp-LaRouche. “IMF er virkelig en bankerot organisation”, og det blev udtalt af min mand, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., i 1975, da han foreslog at erstatte denne IMF med en international udviklingsbank, som ville give langsigtet kredit med lav rente til udviklingsprojekter i udviklingssektoren. “Hvis det var blevet gjort, ville vi ikke have et flygtningeproblem”, bemærkede Zepp-LaRouche. “Vi ville have velstående lande over hele kloden; men nu med Den Nye Silkevej går politikken i den rigtige retning.”

I stedet fortsatte de imperialistiske bankfolk med “bare at pumpe penge ud – kvantitative lempelser. Og nu har centralbankerne grundlæggende opbrugt og udtømt alle disse instrumenter.” Deres forsøg på at tæske lande til underkastelse, som det gøres med Italien, vil komme til at give bagslag. “Jeg tror ikke man bør glemme, at begge den italienske regerings koalitionspartier, Lega og Five Star Movement-partiet, har Glass-Steagall – ikke kun på deres partiprogram – men også i koalitionsaftalen …. Hvis nogen udefra skubber dem ind i et sammenbrud, vil jeg ikke udelukke muligheden for … eller rettere sagt er det ganske sandsynligt, at de vil indføre Glass-Steagall som selvforsvar … der er brug for Glass-Steagall; vi er nødt til at slippe af med kasinoøkonomien ”

Virkeligheden er, at der “lige nu finder et oprør sted i hele verden … imod denne forfejlede neoliberale politik” observerede Zepp-LaRouche. Opstanden er af en sådan karakter, at et politisk “jordskælv” er sandsynligt, når næste valg til Europa-Parlamentet finder sted til april. Men Zepp-LaRouche advarede om, at vi ikke kan vente til april, fordi “krisen er over os nu”.

Den netop offentliggjorte IPCC-rapport om at fjerne kul som brændstof fra planeten, er til dels en reaktion på dette oprør, men især “en desperat indsats fra imperiets styrker mod Trump … især rettet imod Den Nye Silkevej, imod Bælt- og Vejinitiativet …. Og det er en indsats for virkelig at stikke en kæp i hjulet på denne dynamik,” forklarede Zepp-LaRouche. “Hele diskussionen om hvorvidt menneskets CO2-udledning forårsager klimaforandringer er fuldstændig absurd, men også meget farlig, for, som man kan se, er befolkningen hjernevasket.” Pointen er, understregede hun, “at dette intet har at gøre med reelle problemer. Dette er en massepsykose, og det drives af hedgefondene, af Wall Street, fordi handlen med CO2-udledningskvoter er kvaksalveri.”

Og “at pålægge en global kulstofafgift , som der også bliver presset på for, vil betyde, at de (globalisterne, red.) atter har et godt instrument imod national suverænitet, for når man engang er enig om, at de nationale økonomier skal underkaste sig krav med hensyn til deres CO2-udledning, går man igen i retning af globalistisk øko-fascisme. Det er ikke videnskabeligt. Jeg synes det er det modsatte: Det er oligarkisk, og det er en indsats, der virkelig – efter min mening – primært er rettet mod Den Nye Silkevej, men naturligvis også mod Trump, imod Tyskland og mange andre lande.”

Og Zepp-LaRouche konkluderede: “Vi må have den modsatte tilgang: Vi skal være optimistiske om menneskets evne til at overgå til fusionskraft, at udvikle helt nye videnskabelige metoder til energi, sikkerhed for råvarer og rumrejser.”