Momentum ligger derfor i Asien, og det er grunden til, at Schiller Instituttet insisterer på, at USA og de europæiske nationer simpelt hen bør alliere sig med de asiatiske lande for at udvikle planeten, overvinde fattigdom, få win-win-samarbejde mellem alle verdens nationer og opbygge et nyt fællesskab, et nyt samfund, for menneskehedens fælles fremtid. Dette ligger så meget inden for rækkevidde, at, hvis blot folk kender til dette Nye Paradigme, der nu vokser meget, meget hurtigt frem, vil de omgående blive optimistiske! Det skyldes udelukkende manglende kendskab til det, der foregår i disse dele af verden, og det er årsagen til pessimisme og til, at mange mennesker ikke kan se nogen måde, hvorpå det kan ændres.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Vi befinder os i en meget dramatisk situation, og jeg mener, det er på høje tid at overveje det nødvendige behov for at rette de neoliberale politikker, for, hvis dette ikke sker, kan der kun komme kaos som resultat, og derfor er Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love endnu mere presserende nødvendige i hele det transatlantiske område end nogensinde før.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Introduktion: I løbet af weekenden bøjede USA’s vicejustitsminister Rod Rosenstein sig for presset og udpegede Justitsministeriets generalinspektør til at efterforske, om FBI og Justitsministeriet (DOJ) infiltrerede eller overvågede Trump-kampagnen under valget i 2016. Rosenstein tilføjede, at, hvis en efterforskning afgør, at dette skete, ville de »skride til passende handling«. Nye afsløringer peger ikke alene på den rolle, som er blevet spillet af FBI/DOJ-korruption og -forbrydelser, men også på overtrædelser fra CIA’s side, og især fra John Brennans side, i koordinering af en operation mod Trump-kampagnen sammen med en udenlandsk magt – Det britiske Imperium, gennem dettes efterretningsgrene, GCHQ og MI6.

De britiske netværk og Obamas netværk bag Russiagate opererede på vegne af et globalt bank-/finanskartel, centreret omkring City of London og Wall Street. I takt med, at dets beskidte tricks med at køre et regimeskifte-kup mod præsident Trump i stigende grad afsløres, bliver det ligeledes åbenbart, at dets globale spekulationskasino har direkte kurs mod et spektakulært kollaps. De tyer nu til deres gamle beredskabsstyrker – ved at bruge kup, stedfortræderkrige, terrorisme, sanktioner og afpresning – til at forsøge at bluffe sig igennem.

Men denne gang er tingene anderledes, med det Nye Paradigme, der vil erstatte den finansielle elites og dens geopolitikeres gamle paradigme, og som vinder i styrke. Mandag sagde Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der har anført kampen for dette Nye Paradigme, at, for at stoppe kuppet i USA, er det nødvendigt at gennemføre Lyndon LaRouches Fire Nye Love (til nationens – og verdens – redning) og at mobilisere for, at USA og andre, inkl. Tyskland, tilslutter sig den Nye Silkevej. »Denne krig kan vindes«, lød hendes ord. »Vi er nået langt, og der er flere kampe, der skal udkæmpes; men historien vil blive formet af Lyndon H. LaRouches ideer.«

Fr. LaRouche vil stå i spidsen for denne kamp med sin ugentlige webcast, kommende torsdag, 24. maj. Lyt med, og bliv en del af den bevægelse, der vil forme fremtiden.

Her følger engelsk udskrift:

The Worm Has Turned: Will Obama Administration Join Leading Brits
         On Trial as the Real “Collusion” Is Exposed?

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the
Schiller Institute.  Welcome to this week’s international webcast
featuring our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
We are in the midst of a series of unfolding developments,
and we’ll address them in the context of the discussion today.
There are a number of things happening, each of which is very
significant and we don’t full readings yet.  But we want to start
with what I think is something that most people are not aware of:
And that is the coming earthquake that is hitting Europe, in this
case from the Italian election.  The new government is being put
together, and there’s a complete freakout from the European
Union, for good reason.  Helga, what is the significance of these
Italian developments, in the context of the overall strategic
situation?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  We have now, a new prime minister, who
is a politically unknown law professor, but the real freakout is
because of the mooted new Finance Minister Paolo Savona, who is a
well-established economist.  He was completely for the euro in
the beginning, but then, when he saw what the consequences were
for Italy of the single currency, he became completely anti-euro,
and he has demanded a “Plan B” for Italy, meaning leaving the
euro; and also he has called the euro a German prison for Italy,
and he has given it some worse names.
So the freakout is quite incredible.  All kinds of people,
politicians, media have threatened Italy with financial warfare.
One guy said the markets will teach Italy a lesson and bring it
back to the path of virtue.  One of the key anchors of the 2nd
channel in Germany, Claus Kleber, who is a real specimen of his
profession, to put it very diplomatically, he basically said one
should use the gag bit — this is a torturous bit for horses
which no honest horseman would ever use, because it’s really
torturing horses — so he said one should use that for Italy to
basically discipline them.
This is incredible.  Here are people who are all the time
making thee hugest complaint about lacking democracy in China and
whatnot, and they’re openly calling for regime change and using
warfare techniques against one of the European Union members.
Now, I think if Savona indeed becomes finance minister,
people are in for some surprises, because this is an experienced
person, he’s not a lightweight, as the media were saying about
Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte.  And given the fact that this all
occurs — this is not an isolated phenomenon.  It’s not Italy
causing the financial crisis.  This is a long arc of revolt
against the neo-liberal policies which were expressed in the
Brexit, in the election of Donald Trump, in the “no” to the
Italian referendum changing the Constitution last year, in the
Austrian election, and now in the Italian election — these are
all the results that the populations do not want to submit any
longer to these completely unjust austerity regimes, which only
benefit the banks, the speculators and the rich, at the expense
of the masses of the population.
So this is a very important moment, and rather than being
completely shocked about it, and having hysterical tantrums.  I
think the chance should be used to take the positive elements of
the new coalition in Italy — they have, after all, both of them
in their party platform and now also in the coalition contract,
two of the basic laws of Lyndon LaRouche: Namely, the
implementation of Glass-Steagall, and secondly, the creation of
National Bank for investments in the real economy.  So, rather
than being hysterical about, one should take this as a golden
opportunity to get rid of the kind extremely dangerous
speculative excesses, and go for a unified Glass-Steagall
separation of the banks as a first step, and start to save the
system in this way.
In one sense, this crisis around Italy can be a real chance
to make the urgent change in this direction.

SCHLANGER:  Helga, I would just like to make a point of
something you brought up, which is that the people who are
arguing against these policies are essentially saying that the
voters have no right to express an opinion if it goes against the
policies of the bankers.  And this is really important, because
the line from the media is that we’re in the midst of a robust
recovery, things are improving, the European economy is
improving.  But the voters are voting to show that they don’t
believe that.  And there are some important developments; there
are some continuing problems with the Macron government in
France; Deutsche Bank continues to be at the front end of this
list of most dangerous banks.  I’d like you to just emphasize
this point that the real economy is what’s behind the revolt, and
that’s why the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche are so crucial.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  There is an economic website which warns of
the consequences of the corporate debt bubble, which is much,
much worse than in 2008, and they’re warning of a new financial
crisis of “biblical dimensions.”  Now, I don’t know  — “biblical
dimensions,” that’s the Deluge, or some other fundamental crises
like that.  And then you have the ongoing crisis around
Argentina, the currency of Turkey is falling, forcing the central
banks to reverse their interest rate policies, so this is all
extremely fragile.
And very indicative that there is an understanding that some
changes must be made, is what just happened at Deutsche Bank.
Two years ago, my husband Mr. LaRouche, when the Deutsche Bank
was already in a severe crisis, demanded that Deutsche Bank
should change its entire policy since ’89, since the
assassination of Alfred Herrhausen, and go back to the Herrhausen
model of industrial banking.  At that point, many  people thought
that this would never happen, that Deutsche Bank is a hopeless
case.  But while I don’t want to make a final judgment on it, it
is a fact that last month, the leadership of Deutsche Bank kicked
out its CEO John Cryan.  And then, in {Handelsblatt}, the chief
economist of Deutsche Bank, David Folkerts-Landau gave a long
interview where he described how it was a big mistake for the
last two decades, to have shifted the entire profile of Deutsche
Bank into a complete investment bank, going into the derivatives
trading.  And while he makes some correct points, namely that
Merrill Lynch was brought in, and a team which basically allowed
a reverse takeover of Deutsche Bank so that it became completely
foreign controlled and directed to high-risk speculation — I
think they still have a portfolio of something like $42 trillion
in derivatives outstanding; that’s the largest derivatives bank
in the world.
What just happened, is today there was a shareholder
meeting, and they apparently tried to kick out also Paul
Achleitner, the supervisory board chairman of Deutsche Bank. The
only thing I can comment on this Folkerts-Landau is that as
several insiders told us, he was one of them, who changed the
bank’s profile into the direction of this investment banking
only.  So he was not criticizing that for the last two decades,
and {Spiegel Online} even says that it was the last effort by
Achleitner to have some kind of show so that he would not be
kicked out by making this {mea culpla} self-criticism.
I think that that is true, and the new chief executive is a
person called Christian Sewing, who has been in the bank since
’89, and it is being said that he will totally concentrate and
put the priority on investments in the real economy inside
Germany — so, turning the Deutsche Bank back into a commercial
bank at the service of industry.  So one has to see if that
actually happens, but I think the shares were already below EU10,
and that is the red line when Deutsche Bank is danger to go
bankrupt.
Anyway, I’m just saying this:  We are on the verge of new
financial crisis.  We are sitting on a volcano. The Vatican’s
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith put out a couple of
weeks ago a paper where they said that derivatives are a ticking
timebomb and they condemned derivatives trading as morally and
economically completely unacceptable, because it just makes the
rich richer and at the losses of everybody else.  So, between
these warnings — also Thomas Hoenig, the former FDIC vice
chairman, Sheila Bair, — there are many people warning of this.
And the Italian developments, as I said, indeed, mean the
absolute opportunity to get rid of the excesses of the
derivatives trading, go for banking separation, and the more it
is being done in a coordinated fashion, the better, and it must
occur really quickly.

SCHLANGER:  And Helga, speaking of Germany, the Chancellor
of Germany is in China.  Any chance that the weakened and
beleaguered Angela Merkel will come back with a New Silk Road
Spirit?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well — [laughs] I don’t think so.  I think
what she will come back with is, you know, the Chinese, as they
did with the Trump administration, they promised more opening up
for finance, for cooperation concerning e-cars and similar
things, automatic cars; so I think they will come back with some
kind of a package.  But as long as Merkel has this attitude —
she made this statement which is quoted everywhere, that she
regards the rise of China as the biggest challenge for the
remaining years of her being in the office of Chancellor.
Now, she is typical of the people who on the one side
naturally see that without China nothing functions any more in
the world.  But she is also a really hard-core geopolitician in
her attitude towards Russia, and she always regards China at the
same time as a rival, so it’s a mixed situation.  I would be very
happy if she comes back brimming with the New Silk Road Spirit,
but I have my doubts.

SCHLANGER:  Now we come to probably the most complex of the
situations, which is that in the United States, where it was just
announced this afternoon by President Trump that he is cancelling
the summit with Kim Jong-un.  But this is occurring at a very
interesting time, where the whole British role in Russiagate, in
the attacks on Trump, is in the open.  Why don’t we start with
that?  Because this is something that we have been fighting for:
We’re going back to the dossier that we put out on Robert
Mueller, going back to the investigations that we launched, and
we insisted that you have to look at not just Christopher Steele
as an isolated case, but as a British-directed assault against
the United States:  This is moving fairly quickly, isn’t it,
Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  As a matter of fact, if you look at
the recent tweets by President Trump, they are quite to the
point, namely that he said the “Russiagate” turned into
“Spygate,” that there was absolutely no proof of a collusion with
Russia, but that all the people involved in the coup, basically,
that they created a spiderweb of collusion between the heads of
the intelligence agencies of the Obama administration with
British intelligence, and that there was ongoing effort, even
before any investigation officially started, by British
intelligence figures to connect with all kinds of persons in the
Trump election team, to try to somehow involve them in some kind
of a connection with some Russians.  And all of this is coming
out now.
So there was long before the Trump election victory, or even
the nomination, the clear effort by British intelligence to lay
leads, to create paper trails to manufacture and orchestrate the
situation, whereby the so-called “collusion” with Russia was
supposed to be hung on the Trump campaign, and Trump himself.
And this is all now coming out.
This is now subject to public discussions, for example, on
Monday, President Trump met with several intelligence heads — I
think it was [FBI head] Wray and Rosenstein from the Department
of Justice in the White House.  And today, as a follow-up of
that, Chief of Staff John Kelly is meeting with the CIA, the FBI,
the Department of Justice, together with congressmen — for
example, Congressman Nunes, Senator Grassley — and they’re now
having access to all the document, including the memorandum of
Mueller, the memo defining the scope of Mueller’s investigation.
This will all now be made available to the investigative
committees in the Congress.  And obviously, this is all criminal
violations of law and the Constitution, so this is big!
I think Trump may absolutely be right when he says that this
may become the biggest scandal in the history of America. And
what is now clear, is that there was a task force involving an
institutional group of people, who orchestrated all of this, in
an election campaign, and Trump said, what was done against
Bernie Sanders also was done on a much larger scale against him.
When all of this comes out, I think the world will really be
a different place, and I think if President Trump is freed of
this spiderweb, I think you will see, he will be in a much better
position to carry through with his intentions than you have seen
it so far.

SCHLANGER:  What you’re describing is technically called
“entrapment,” that the FBI — or, actually, John Brennan,
Clapper, and then bringing Comey in later, were involved in
created Russiagate as a collusion with the British intelligence
services, the GCHQ, which is signals intelligence; the MI6, MI5.
The key people that are being named now, like Stefan Halper,
Mifsud, Downer, the current Australian High Commissioner to Great
Britain — all of them are tied to MI6, MI5, private agencies.
This was brought up by Sen. Rand Paul at the hearings, when he
asked Gina Haspel whether or not the CIA was involved in getting
evidence from Britain.  So, a lot of this is coming out.
To what extent, Helga, is this then connected to the
financial crisis?  Make the connection for people, because
there’s still some confusion about how the financial crisis is
then intersecting this operation against Trump because of Trump’s
willingness to work with Russia and China.  I think it’d be very
important for you to give people an understanding of that.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  You know, the big question is indeed the
fact that China is rising and that China has a strategic
partnership with Russia and that the New Silk Road is now
involving 140 nations.  And, as many statistics have proven, the
New Silk Road dynamic is creating already a completely new
paradigm:  You have economic growth, you have a dynamic in
science and technology, innovation.  So the real momentum in
many, many fields is with these alignments among Russia, China,
now India, Japan, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the
BRICS, the China-Latin America CELAC connection; the Chinese
investments in Africa, so this has created a completely different
dynamic in the world.
And then you look at the condition of Wall Street, the
condition in the City of London, and the absolute turmoil in the
European Union, so the geopoliticians, basically, they see the
rise of China and they are absolutely desperate to keep their
model.  But they’re incapable of recognizing what are the causes,
and therefore, they will not be able to correct their policies.
As I said earlier, the attacks on Italy right now, they
completely fail to even ask the question, why is it that the two
euro-critic parties had the best results?  It is the same reason,
and I want to repeat this — it is the same reason, why the
Brexit occurred, why the people in the Midwest voted for Trump
and against Hillary Clinton; and there is an absolute, hysterical
effort by the people who have made their gigantic, virtual
fortunes — sometimes it’s not so virtual, but sometimes it’s,
indeed, just virtual fortunes — with this highly speculative
system, the neo-liberal system connected with wars based on lies,
with so-called “humanitarian interventions,” regime change, color
revolution.  That whole model right now, is really what is not
functioning any more.
President Trump won the election because he promised that he
would not do these foreign wars any more, and you can see that
there are all the time efforts by neo-con elements in his
administration to lure him back.  And therefore, I think also the
cancellation or postponement of the summit with Kim Jong-un is
really unfortunate, because it would have been really better to
make one, clear step for peace, and obviously there were also
difficulties, in terms of what are the procedures for the
denuclearization.  But, Kim Jong-un, he released the American
hostages.  Today the international press was invited to see the
destruction of the nuclear test site.  So there are clearly signs
of goodwill, and therefore, I think it’s very regrettable that
this meeting was postponed.  But hopefully it will come back on
the agenda.
But the connection is really the fight between the old
paradigm, which is not functioning, and the New Paradigm, which
is focussed on the common good of the people on economic growth.
And just as an additional element, China just completely
abandoned their two-children policy, by saying that there
involved a change in the view about population: That in the past,
when they adopted the one-child, and then two-child policy,
thought that additional children are a burden in an economy with
limited resources; but that now, they have changed their view and
they see each new child, especially every young person, as a
tremendous asset of creative power, of additional richness of the
entire society.
So, look at the difference in the values, and then you can
really see that this is a fundamental fight for, can mankind
govern itself in a reasonable way?  And the danger of a financial
collapse hangs over the world, at least concerning the
trans-Atlantic part very much.  So I think, LaRouche’s Four Laws
are the absolute urgent question of the hour.
SCHLANGER: It’s important to see, also, in terms of these
two paradigms, you look at what just happened near by old
hometown of Houston, Texas, where, in Santa Fe high school you
had another one of these mass shootings.  These are almost
commonplace in the United States right now; whereas in China, you
have this total emphasis on education, on science.
This goes back to one of the fundamental economic
breakthroughs of your husband, this concept of potential relative
population density.  And of course, as opposed to what people
like Prince Philip, the genocidal Consort of Queen Elizabeth (if
he’s still breathing), has been committed to his whole life.
Helga, in this sense, I assume you see this change in China
as an absolutely significant recognition of, again, the
difference between the two paradigms, but also your husband’s
view of this concept of potential relative population density.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  The Chinese have clearly totally
changed, starting with Deng Xiaoping and his reforms after the
Cultural Revolution; but especially in the last five, six years
with the leadership of Xi Jinping, there has been an absolute
understanding about the fundamental issues of life — I mean, he
has given the task to the Chinese scientists to find out how the
human mind works, what is the origin and importance of life in
the universe; what are the laws of the universe.  And he has
encouraged especially an emphasis on innovation, on creativity in
the education as the source of wealth.  And when they now see the
connection between qualitative advances in the knowledge about
physical laws and the ability to have more people, and more
people, again, leading to more creativity, I think they are
absolutely on the right track.

SCHLANGER:  Well, we didn’t have a whole lot of time to talk
before the program, so I want to make sure if there’s something
else that you wanted to bring up, you have a chance.  Is there
anything else on your radar screen?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes:  there is actually a petition on the
website of the White House.  This was initiated by the President
of the American University in Moscow, Professor Edward Lozansky,
and Jim Jatras, and they call for an early summit between
President Trump and President Putin, by making essentially the
same point that we have been making for the last several months,
that, given the fact that President Trump is still so much up
against neo-cons in the Republican Party, he’s really done a
remarkable job under the circumstances, where you have the entire
intelligence apparatus not only of what they call the “deep
state,” which is really an incorrect characterization, because
the role of British intelligence {is} absolutely crucial to
understand what makes this Empire tick.
So, in order to cut through that, and given the fact that
the entire Russiagate operation was aimed to prevent a good
relationship between Russia and the United States, which Trump
all the time said would be a “good thing and not a bad thing,”
and he tries to do it; so the way to cut through this whole thing
would be to have this summit, which they talked about — Trump
and Putin on the telephone a couple of weeks ago, and do this as
quickly as possible.
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/president-donald-trump
-should-hold-early-summit-russian-president-vladimir-Putin]
So there is this petition, and I would call all of you who
are listening, or watching, to sign this petition that such an
early summit would take place.  Because I think it is an
absolutely important initiative, and if this petition has more
than 100,000 by June 30, then the White House will have to
respond to it, and will respond.
Otherwise, naturally, there are many, many things, and I
would again invite you, join us, join the Schiller Institute.
Make sure this webcast becomes more known and is being spread,
because we are in an urgent need for a political discourse: Where
should mankind go?  And how can we organize the world so that
it’s safe and beautiful for everybody to live in?

SCHLANGER:  OK, that’s good advice, and I’ll just second
that: Joining the Schiller Institute is absolutely crucial
expression of your own human sentiments.  Many of our listeners
have joined, but we want to have a real membership drive, and
expanding this webcast is one way to do it.  So, I would urge
everyone to think, over the next days, of what you can do to make
sure this movement succeeds and advances, that the New Silk Road
Spirit can be brought into every household throughout the
Atlantic region, which otherwise is left with nothing but
collapse and depression.
So, Helga, thanks for joining us, and we’ll be back next
week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, good-bye.

Introduktion: I oktober måned, 2009, talte Lyndon LaRouche på Forum for Dialog mellem Civilisationer på øen Rhodos, hvor han fremlagde konceptet om, at en aftale mellem fire, ledende magter – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – kan danne grundlaget for at skabe et nyt, globalt kreditsystem til at erstatte det håbløst bankerotte, transatlantiske finanssystem, der på spektakulær vis krakkede det foregående år. I løbet af de seneste år er dette potentiale, under ledelse af Kinas præsident Xi Jinping, begyndt at antage konkret form. Med valget af Donald Trump til præsident i 2016, og som for en stor dels vedkommende skyldtes hans afvisning af hans forgængeres politikker for krig og finansspekulation, sås det, at han var parat til at tage skridt til at bevæge USA til at gå med i denne aftale.

Dette alene forklarer de desperate handlinger imod ham, med begyndelse i de svindelagtige Russiagate-beskyldninger, som var brygget sammen af britiske efterretningsnetværk og Obamas efterretningsfolk. Det forklarer også indsatsen for en skarpere konfrontation mellem USA og Rusland og Kina, inkl. Spripal-affæren og anklagerne om de kemiske våben i Douma, under falsk flag. De seneste, farlige handlinger fra Israels Netanyahu-regering mod Syrien, Iran, Libanon og palæstinenserne, og den fortsatte folkemorderiske krig, som saudierne fører imod Yemen, er alle en del af den samme deployering for at bruge krig til at stoppe konsolideringen af LaRouches idé om en Firemagtsalliance.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche har sagt, at det eneste, der kan stoppe denne dynamik for de Fire Magter, der har vundet frem omkring Kinas lederskab og Bælte & Vej Initiativet, er krig. Krigsfremstødet, der kommer fra Storbritannien, må nedkæmpes! Hør fr. LaRouche kommende torsdag for den seneste opdatering om denne kamp, og hvad du kan gøre for at sikre, at Imperiet og dets geopolitiske vanvid bringes til en afslutning.

 

Engelsk udskrift:

  British Push Mideast Wars to Derail Emerging Four-Power Cooperation

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, May 17, 2018
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the
Schiller Institute. Welcome to this week’s international webcast,
featuring our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
Over the last weeks Helga has been emphasizing the
deployment by British Imperial geopolitical interests out to
wreck the promising potential that’s emerged in
Eurasia, and especially around the recent developments of a
potential peace agreement with North Korea.  Helga’s repeatedly
emphasized that this looks a lot like sleepwalking into World War
I and in fact, with the events that just took place in Gaza, in
the last couple of days, the massacre there by Israeli soldiers,
the threat for the situation to break out of control, obviously,
Helga, this looks like this is a potential kind of pre-war kind
of deployment to disrupt the emergence of this four power
agreement.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, I think what has happened around
Gaza in the last days is really a tragedy.  Obviously, it
coincided with the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem,
which I think was an unnecessary and provocative thing to do.
But the situation in the Gaza is an open-air jail; it’s a new
Warsaw Ghetto.  If you look at what has happened there — OK, I’m
not excluding, that there are some violent Hamas elements, who used
the fact, that people are generally upset about the conditions.
Basically, you have a very tiny area, of the size of the
city-state of Bremen in Germany, which is very small, where 2
million people are crowded.  They have no money for food, they
have only a few hours of electricity, they have no clean water,
and no medical supplies, which now, after 61 people were shot and
killed, and 2,700 wounded became a real nightmare, because you
had all these wounded people who were not treated.
So people have been demonstrating, and the Israeli IDF and
special snipers shot into the crowd, which was completely
unnecessary.  If you want to dissolve a crowd, you can use water
throwers, you can use such other means — you don’t have to shoot
people dead.  So, this has inflamed the situation and as I said,
after a day of mourning and funerals, now the thing is not
stopping.  The Israelis are firing airstrikes at installations of
the Hamas in Gaza.
This could easily lead to an escalation where you have a war
between Israel and Hamas, Hezbollah, potentially Iran, and then,
from there it goes to a big war. This is a terrible situation.
And I should remind people that what is happening in this area,
even though it’s not in the spotlight of the mass media, when you
had the Oslo Agreement, which was in 1993, already at that time,
the Palestinians were supposed to get only 25% of the territory
of Palestine, and the Israelis would get 75%.  But in the
meantime, 60% of the so-called West Bank of Jordan has been
occupied by settlers, so there’s only 40% left, and this is
really becoming a very dire situation, and obviously the aim, and
several people have said that, the aim is to demoralize the
Palestinians in such a way that they give up and just quit, which
won’t happen.
You have a situation, where the Jewish population is
becoming quickly a minority and you cannot maintain a rule a
hostile population which outnumbers you in such ways:  We saw
that in other occasions, such as in South Africa, it didn’t
function, and it will not function here.
So even if you don’t have an escalation to a big war, you
have Hell!  And I have been saying this, and naturally my husband
has been saying it for decades:  You need economic development.
Because if you have a lot of young people in Gaza and elsewhere,
who are growing up, being 14, 15, 16, and already at that time
have the feeling they have no future, it is a chain of violence,
an escalation of violence is pre-programmed.
We have been making the point, the whole time, that while
you have Christian fundamentalists in the United States who think
that an early Middle East war is a good thing — I have heard
such people talking like that.  The reality is that the Middle
East, Southwest Asia, has been the playground of British
Imperialism, and at a certain point also French Imperialism,
which basically have treated this region as a region for proxy
wars for their own geopolitical interests.  This was demonstrated
in the Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, which carved up this region in
ways which was the seed for future conflicts.  And right now, you
can see very clear, the aim is to get a confrontation with Russia
— Iran — but, Russia, China, and that way prevent the
possibility of a cooperation in a New Paradigm.
My husband has said this many times; emphatically he has
made speeches about it at international forums, that the only way
how you can break this terrible nightmare of violence and horror
is by having a Four Power agreement among the United States,
Russia, China, and India, and that way, you have enough people
and enough military, political, and economic power to end the
British Empire and their ability manipulate the situation.
This has to be put on the agenda, because if it’s not, the
danger is, that this thing spirals out of control, and already
now it’s a terrible nightmare and a tragedy for the people who
are suffering these situations.

SCHLANGER:  You mentioned the Sykes-Picot Agreement which
was a perfect example of the British geopolitical deployment that
led to World War I, and then the immediate period afterwards
where the British were moving in, to try to replace the
collapsing Ottoman Empire and establish what the British call the
“Middle East” today, a bridge that they could control between
Asia, Africa, and Europe.
These geopoliticians are on the march, they’re threatening
— in Israel you have threats against Lebanon, Israeli strikes
on Iranian positions in Syria.  But, Helga, I think the important
thing for people to understand, is you emphasis and your
husband’s emphasis on a bigger picture agreement, which would be
that of the great powers.  None of these small states can
maneuver effectively within this.  How is this that you could get
an agreement?  Isn’t this a perfect opportunity for Trump and
Putin to get together and sit down and talk about it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  I think that that particular move.
They did agree on the telephone to have an early summit.
President Trump even invited Putin to come to the White House.
And given the extremely difficult factional situation in the
United States, and anti-Trump, Russiagate coup attempt, which is
completely falling apart, but it’s still not officially
acknowledged, and it needs to be gotten through in terms of
putting the culprits of this coup in trial instead.
Given these difficult and complex situations, I think that
if this summit between Putin and Trump would take place as
quickly as possible, and take all the time needed to discuss and
develop flanks to the situation, I think that is the one thing
which could cut through all of this and create new options.  I
think we should all wish, and speak out, that such an early
summit would occur.

SCHLANGER:  We also see the great potential on the Korean
Peninsula, somewhat set back by these comments by Bolton, the
national security advisor, comparing North Korea to Libya, which
is an unmistakable reference for anyone in North Korea that the
threat that, when Qaddafi went along with an agreement to get rid
of his nuclear weapons, less than a decade later, Obama, Cameron,
Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton went in and destroyed the country.
What’s your sense of where things stand now, following the
statement from North Korea of the cancellation of the North
Korea/South Korea summit that was supposed to take place, I think
today; what’s your sense of where this is heading?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it is a dangerous phase.  It’s not
yet hopeless, because after this North Korea/South Korea summit
was cancelled, the State Department said the United States still
assumes that the summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un will take
place on June 12 in Singapore.  And there were rumors in the
Japanese papers that maybe even Xi Jinping would participate in
such a summit.  So this is not yet off the table.  And the Deputy
Foreign Minister of North Korea, whose name is Kim Kye-gwan, he
made a very clear distinction between the statements and the line
of Pompeo and Trump; and Pompeo was in North Korea came back and
reported very respectfully and very positively about Kim Jong-un
and Trump clearly has taken up a very respectful tone towards Kim
Jong-un as well.  However, Bolton — and this Deputy Foreign
Minister made this distinction very clearly — Bolton in, I don’t
know if it was just being unclever or deliberate, I have no way
of saying, but to tell the North Koreans that the model of the
denuclearization proposal by Kim Jong-un will following the Libya
model!–I mean, you cannot say something worse.  Because if you
remember, Libya, Qaddafi, turned over all of Libya’s nuclear
weapons and then the result was, he was overthrown and killed,
and the country has been in complete chaos ever since, basically
ungovernable to the present day.
This Deputy Foreign Minister basically said they will never
accept such a model, obviously, and that North Korea is proposing
something which is not to be taken as a weakness, but it is
actually an effort by Kim Jong-un to solve a very untenable,
terrible situation, but it’s not a sign of weakness.  And it
cannot be done by unilateral commands from the side of the United
States, but it has to occur in a trustful atmosphere of dialogue
and cooperation.  So, since I think that President Trump is
intending to do that, I don’t think it’s completely in danger,
but there clearly is a cloud over the horizon.
And obviously the events in the Middle East also have a
peripheral impact, namely the question which is being raised by
many people, if the United States can rip apart the nuclear
agreement with Iran, which was a negotiated agreement, it took 12
years, many nations were involved, the United Nations approved
it, so if you unilaterally get rid of such an agreement, you
know, it also puts a question of doubt on the reliability of the
United States in general.
All of this means we are really in a very dangerous
situation.  And, for example, there was just a new poll, where by
now, 57 % of all Russians are convinced that the crisis in Syria
will lead to a global war.  Now, I hope not, but the air is full
of worry, about war, and people who are concerned about this,
they should help us to mobilize to bring in the alternative:
Which is the cooperation among nations for a win-win cooperation
overcoming geopolitics.  And the potential clearly is there.  I
think a lot of good things have happened: The rapprochement
between China and Japan; careful steps in this direction between
China and India; clearly a good relation between Japan and
Russia; Trump clearly has stated his intention to keep, despite
all trade issues, a good relationship with “his friend Xi
Jinping,” as he always calls him; and there is the pending summit
between Trump and Putin.
So all the potentials are clearly there, but it is also
clear that as the Western financial system is in absolute mortal
danger of a new blowout, the risks to the situation cannot be
overstated, and make every intervention in the direction of
solving these problems with the Four Laws proposed by my husband,
extremely urgent.  So I would call on all of you that you should
get in contact with us, you should become a member of the
Schiller Institute, you should help us to put the Four Laws of
Lyndon LaRouche on the agenda, because they’re not only needed in
the United States, they’re equally needed in Europe and other
affected by the effects of the trans-Atlantic financial system.

SCHLANGER:  This just highlights the difficulty of existing
in between two paradigms:  On the one side you have the old
geopolitical, unilateralist paradigm, which is an imperial
paradigm, of war, of proxy wars, of false flags, of terrorism, of
bail-outs, of austerity; and that’s being rejected by the world’s
population.  But we haven’t yet seen the full consolidation of
the New Paradigm, and that’s what the work of the Schiller
Institute has been from the beginning, to bring this New Paradigm
into existence.
On that, also the Iran situation is sort of hanging between
these two paradigms; it’s not clear where that’s going.  But,
Helga, there’s been some discussion among Europeans as to whether
or not the agreement can be salvaged.  What do you know about
that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, the Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif
travelled to China; he travelled to Russia and then to Brussels,
because all of these countries — that, is Russia, China, Germany
France, and Great Britain, and the EU basically have stated that
they want to try with all possible means to maintain the Iran
nuclear agreement, even if the United States pulled out
unilaterally.  It is not clear if that will function.  Naturally,
the fact that Russia and China are backing it is a very important
point.
However, if the U.S. would impose secondary sanctions on
European firms that maintain business with Iran, I don’t know
what will happen:  Because the European Union foreign policy
representative Federica Mogherini said that they will pull out
some regulations which were voted in, or accepted in the ’90s,
but they were never used, to protect such firms from sanctions.
Now, I have a hard time to imagine how that will function, given
the fact that international banks are operating internationally,
so if the United States would impose these secondary sanctions,
it could cause absolute havoc in the whole situation.
The Europeans have now said that they demand additional
negotiations with Iran, this time not concerning the nuclear
program, but concerning the Iranian missile program, which is
also something which President Trump had mentioned, and he said
all the time that he would come up with a better deal — well, I
hope that this better deal is a comprehensive solution for the
whole region.
We have discussed this many times, but I want to reiterate
it: That if you want to solve the problem in the Middle East, or
in Southwest Asia, you have to take into account the security
interests of every country and every single party, and that
emphatically includes not only Israel, but it includes Iran, it
includes the Palestinians; it includes every country.  And
equally important is that you need to have economic development:
You have right now several situations which are turning into a
nightmare.  One is Yemen.  You know, you have {the} largest
humanitarian catastrophe of the planet right now taking place in
Yemen.   You have the situation in the Gaza Strip. And naturally,
you have all the areas which have been destroyed by these wars:
The situation in Afghanistan remains quite out of control, even
so, there are hopeful signs that this could be turned around.
Now, what you need, is, if you have a very complex situation
like that  — and obviously, the many things which have happened,
the terrorisms, many wars — emotions are hurt, people have an
incredible accumulated rage:  You need something big, and the
only way how you could get it, is if you had all the neighbors,
Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, the United States, and
hopefully European nations all agreeing that the only way how
this can be solved, is, you have to have the extension of the New
Silk Road into the region and develop every country as part one,
integrated, industrial infrastructure development program.
There are already the beginnings of that.  When President Xi
Jinping was  three years ago in Iran, he agreed already with
President Rouhani at the time, that the New Silk Road would be
extended into Iran.  You had the Afghanistan President demanding
that the New Silk Road should be applied in Afghanistan; and at
the recent Wuhan meeting of President Xi Jinping and India’s
Prime Minister Modi, they agreed that China and India would
cooperate in bringing the Silk Road into Afghanistan, by
building, as a first step, a large train connection between
Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyrzstan, Iran, China, and that way
start to connect Afghanistan to the Silk Road.
That same approach must be taken for Iraq, for Syria, for
the situation in Yemen, and naturally Egypt will have to play a
very important role as a bridge between Asia and Africa.  I think
Egypt is absolutely thinking in this direction, already.  And
however, naturally, these are gigantic projects and they cannot
be done by any one country alone; even if China has a special
envoy for Syria, they have said they want to play a leading role
in the reconstruction of Syria.  You have the earlier commitment
of Russia to supply energy, of Iran to help in the industrial
development.  But that needs to be presented as a comprehensive
proposal.
And I’m sure that there are people in Israel, as well, who
will not agree with the present course of Netanyahu — who, by
the way, faces his own problems and may look into not such a
bright future for his own political career — but there are
people in Israel who agree, that you need to come out of this
terrible paradigm of the present configuration.  And if there
would be an agreement, between Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin and Modi,
and then other leaders joining with them, to go in this
direction, even this very difficult situation of Southwest Asia
could be approached and a solution could be found.  But it does
require an extraordinary intervention.

SCHLANGER:  And just to inform our new viewers, and as well
as to remind our regular viewers, we produced that blueprint, the
report that we’ve done on the New Silk Road coming into Africa
and West Asia, and that’s available through the Schiller
Institute. [“Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa:
A Vision of an Economic Renaissance”
http://newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com/extending-new-silk-road-
west-asia-africa/]
And it is a comprehensive picture of what the Chinese have
proposed, and what they’re actually already doing, moving the
earth, creating jobs, educating people, and doing the job
training that’s necessary.
As long as we’re continuing to review the danger spots,
there’s one other one that won’t go away, and that’s the
situation in Ukraine, where you had just this week the raid on
the offices of RIA Novosti; you have various kinds of threats
coming from Poroshenko, and the neo-Nazis in the security
agencies in Ukraine.
You also have this very interesting development of a new
bridge opening connecting Russia to Crimea, and this being a
cause for some wild Ukrainian fascists, calling for blowing up
the bridge because this is an attack on Ukrainian independence.
Helga, what’s the situation on the ground as far as you can
see in Ukraine right now?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  This raid on the offices of RIA Novosti is
very serious, because they arrested the office chief Kirill
Vyshinsky; they compared RIA Novosti with Goebbels — I mean,
talking about the free press, you can really say that in Ukraine
right now, the situation is quite dire.
Mrs. Merkel, the German Chancellor, will go to Sochi, Russia
to meet with Putin and this will be one of the subjects of
discussion; naturally, the other crisis spots as well.  So, I
think if one could somehow put pressure that the Minsk Agreement
is being put back on the table, which right now it is obviously
not, because Kiev is absolutely not cooperating, and you have the
law by Poroshenko to solve the situation in East Ukraine by
military means.  So this is definitely another extremely
dangerous situation.
But, because it is so dangerous, I think more people are
waking up to that, and that may be a first step to hopefully
prevent something which could easily become World War III.

SCHLANGER:  And the Ukraine issue brings up another aspect
of Russiagate.  I was just doing some review of this in the last
couple of days, and I noticed something that I had forgotten,
which is that John Brennan, the former CIA director who is at the
center of much of the operation of Russiagate against Trump, that
Brennan had made a secret trip to Kiev shortly after the
overthrow of Yanukovych, and put in motion U.S. support for the
criminal regime that came in.  So this new discussion coming up
around Brennan in the Mueller, this is quite interesting what
Sen. Rand Paul brought up.
Helga, do you think this adds to the weight against Mueller?
The judges are turning against him, there are exposés of the FBI
and overall corruption.  Where is this thing heading?  Why hasn’t
it been shut down by now?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it could be shut down quickly,
because the latest twist is, I just read an article that Mueller
is now suspected of having had collusion with a Russian oligarch,
which I’d find a little bit humorous, if the situation weren’t so
serious.
But I think this letter by Sen. Rand Paul is really
important:  He wrote a letter to Gina Haspel, the newly nominated
head of the CIA, demanding that she should turn over all
information the CIA has, as to was there any investigation; did
the CIA bug the Presidential candidates in 2016, not just Trump
but every other candidate, as well? And did they work, given the
fact that the CIA is prohibited by law from surveilling
Americans, did they ask other intelligence services from other
countries to cooperate with them in doing that?  And I think he
hinted also to British intelligence directly.
And then, in an interview with NBC, he even went further,
and also brought up in this context, the visit by Robert
Hannigan, the then-head of GCHQ, the British equivalent of the
NSA, to the United States to brief Brennan about all of this.
So this is now coming out in the mainstream media that there
was such a collusion with British intelligence, and this is
really a very good thing, because obviously, this is completely
illegal, unconstitutional; it may be even criminal.  And the more
quickly these things are being followed up, the better.
Also Congressman Nunes, the head of the House Intelligence
Committee, basically said that it’s now 100% certain that there
was absolutely no collusion of the Trump team with Russia.  And
he said that given the fact that those who pretended that there
was such a collusion knew that it did not exist, why was this
whole operation instigated in the first place?
I think this question must be answered:  Because this was a
coup attempt against an elected President of the United States,
and it has shed light on exactly who are the forces of the Empire
— we call it the British Empire, because it is in the continuity
of the British Empire — but all the people who have come out
quickly against Trump on the side of those who accused, have also
shown their true colors.
So, if the United States should get back to its
constitutional form, there were demands that the entire FBI, and
Department of Justice must be cleaned out and reorganized afresh.
I think all of this is necessary.
And Trump must be freed from this, because this ongoing
situation is the only reason why the relationship with Russia,
with China, and naturally, in an indirect form in the Middle
East, why these situations are so dangerous.  If world peace is
supposed to be saved, the British coup must be uncovered
completely.  All the culprits must be held accountable.  And then
Trump can actually do what he promised he would do — and most of
it actually went in a good direction, and even some of the
critics have to see that.
However, the one Damocles Sword which is hanging over this
is the danger of a financial blowout. And we need to have this
debate on not only Glass-Steagall, but go to Hamiltonian
economics and apply the Four Laws of my husband, Lyndon LaRouche,
as an absolutely urgent matter of priority.

SCHLANGER:  And Helga, in conclusion, I’d like to pose
something to you, that comes back to this question of Hamiltonian
economics, which is, that as all of these war provocations are
progressing, as the British are pulling every string that they
have, the Chinese are continuing with very bold plans around the
New Silk Road.  The New Silk Road Spirit, as you called it, is
catching around the world.  And even the efforts of some who
sabotaged the U.S.-China relationship around trade, around
tariffs, and things of that sort, seems to be moving in a
potentially good direction, with the visit of another team of
Chinese officials to Washington.
How do you think this can affect the overall situation —
the Trump-Xi relationship?  Isn’t that really one of the keys to
breaking through the New Paradigm?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  If the proposal by Li Keqiang, the
Chinese Prime Minister, would be taken up, that the way to
balance the trade between the United States and China is not by
imposing tariffs, but by increasing trade, by increasing
investments in third countries, that way it could be done in a
much more elegant way.  And there are plenty of opportunities:
The United States could join with China in investments in Latin
America; in, as I said already, the Middle East; other Asia
countries.  And there is a new Chinese offer now to India, that
rather than being a rival in African investment, that given the
fact that Chinese has a big expertise in building infrastructure,
where India is really lagging behind, that they should join
efforts, and India should bring in the kinds of things they can
do well, and China would provide the large-scale infrastructure
without which all of these investments don’t function.
Now, for the United States, they could also be a part of
that.  And I think that, to look at the world in a
non-geopolitical way — I know that this is almost impossible for
some people to imagine, because they are so trained that the
world is a zero-sum game, that if China rises, the United States
goes under — this is just not the case, the Chinese want to have
for the situation.  China has made many times the point that they
do not want to replace the United States as an unipolar, dominant
force, but they want to have a new type of relations among major
powers.  And that involves dramatically, the idea of joint
economic projects in third countries, joint ventures, and
re-define entirely how you go about it.
If you look at it from a longer arc of history, it is not
natural that people solve conflict with weapons or wars.  This
always what I call the infant diseases of mankind.  Like little
boys who kick each in the shins when they are four years old, or
even seven years old.  Eventually, you can become an adult, and
you have cherish the creative mind of the other person and work
together like Max Planck and Einstein; like Schiller and
Humboldt; you can have a relationship to other countries where
you address the creative potential of the other and that enriches
in turn, your own potential.
I think the future of humanity, which is after all the only
species capable of creative reason, of making fundamental
discoveries about universal principles of the physical universe,
again and again, and that way develop more knowledge about our
planet, the universe in which we are living, about the principles
of science and technology, which we then apply in the production
process which leads to an increase in productivity, which leads
to an increase in living standards, an increase in longevity, —
this is what we are!  We are not animals. We are human beings,
who are the only species, at least known so far, in the universe,
which can relate to their create power as their identity.
And if we take that approach, then, to have many nations,
and to have many cultures all based on their cultural tradition,
all based on their sovereignty, they can work together to a
higher level of reason, and that is the {only} way how mankind
will survive!  I think we are at a crossroads: If we decide to
stay with geopolitics, in this world, this will lead to World War
III, for all we know, the extinction of our species.  On the
other side, the New Paradigm is already working, 140 countries
are already cooperating, and I think we need a mass movement of
people who say, mankind has reached a new era and we must
consciously form our future, our “shared community for the future
of mankind,” as Xi Jinping always calls it.
I think we need a discussion on these.

SCHLANGER:  I think you just made a compelling case for
people to give up sleepwalking, and to instead catch the New Silk
Road Spirit.  So, Helga, until next week, thank you, and thank
you for joining us.
And take up this challenge, those you watching this:  Take
up the challenge to become active with the Schiller Institute.
Thank you, and see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.

I betragtning af tilstanden i hele Mellemøsten, efter de destruktive krige i Irak, Syrien, Yemen, Afghanistan, er det selvfølgelig meget klart, at det eneste, der virkelig vil løse problemerne i dette område, ville være det, jeg har sagt så mange gange før: Der er brug for en forlængelse af den Nye Silkevej ind i hele dette område, fra Afghanistan til Middelhavet, fra Kaukasus til den Persiske Golf, og for at have en udviklingsplan for alle disse lande som en integreret plan. Dette ville kun kunne fungere, hvis Rusland, Kina, Indien, Iran, Egypten, USA og forhåbentlig europæiske lande, alle aftaler, at dette område må opbygges økonomisk. Den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan få fred i det område og virkelig blive terrorismen kvit, er, hvis man har et perspektiv for et håb om fremtiden.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Blot 73 år efter Anden Verdenskrig, hvor folk responderede til denne forfærdelige katastrofe med det højtidelige løfte, »Aldrig mere«, står vi atter en gang på randen af en mulig varm krig.

Med den ene provokation efter den anden, der er mere gennemskueligt falsk end den foregående, fortsætter City of Londons imperie-oligarkers krigsparti og deres Wall Street-neokonservative/neoliberale partnere deres bestræbelser for at sabotere muligheden for det Nyt Paradigme, som vokser frem i Eurasien til, i åndeløst tempo, at blive en verdensomspændende bevægelse. Til trods for, at det nu er afsløret, at alle svindelnumrene under falsk flag, med Russiagate, Skripal-forgiftningen og de kemiske våben i Douma, har deres oprindelse i britiske efterretningskredses syge hjerner, så er de atter i gang, denne gang med Netanyahu, der hævder, han har »bevis« for, at Iran aldrig afsluttede sit atomprogram, i et forsøg på at få USA til at gå i fælden med endnu en katastrofal krig i Mellemøsten og en mulig atomar konfrontation med Rusland. Mange i Vestens regeringer er nu atter trådt ud på denne glatte glidebane, som Nürnbergprocessen advarede om, gennem at overtræde folkeretten og de principper, der er fastlagt i De forenede Nationers charter.

Men deres magt svinder i takt med, at de i stigende grad er blevet tvunget til at agere i deres eget navn, og således afslører sig selv. Deres evne til at bevare kontrollen har også været for nedadgående, pga. udfordringen fra den Nye Silkevej og det Nye Paradigme, som den repræsenterer. I løbet af de seneste uger har diplomatiske og økonomiske begivenheder og topmøder i høj grad fremmet dette Nye Paradigme. Det strategiske partnerskab mellem Rusland og Kina og integrationen af Bælte & Vej Initiativet og den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union har skabt håb for især udviklingslandene, der ser en chance for, for første gang, at overvinde fattigdom og underudvikling.

Den bedste måde at mindes tabene, lidelserne og heroismen hos de personer, der mistede livet i den Store Patriotiske Krig, er ved at skabe en ny æra for menneskeheden, der sætter konceptet om én menneskehed i første række og på denne måde skaber en ny, international orden, der for altid overvinder geopolitik. Imperialisme må besejres som et levn af et dyrisk menneskebillede og erstattes med det ædle billede af mennesket som den eneste, hidtil kendte, skabende art i universet.

Lad os fejre menneskehedens fremtidige ånd, der så smukt er udtrykt i Ode til Glæden af Friedrich Schiller og Ludwig van Beethovens 9. symfoni:

»Alle mennesker forsones … Favnet være millioner! Glædens kys til hver især! Brødre – over stjerners hær må der bo en mild forsoner.«

Engelsk udskrift: 

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, May 3, 2018
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The Empire Based in London Won’t Give Up:
They Must, and Can Be Defeated

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the
Schiller Institute. Welcome to this week’s Schiller Institute
international webcast, featuring our President and founder Helga
Zepp-LaRouche.
There’s been an incredible density of events over these last
days, both with the motion toward the New Paradigm and the New
Silk Road, but also another one of a string of war provocations,
this one coming from Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
with threats to Iran.  Helga, why don’t we start there, because
this is an extremely dangerous development, what Netanyahu did.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  It’s quite significant that even a
German politician, Mr. Rötgen, who is otherwise quite a hawk,
accused Netanyahu of having committed a conscious fraud and
effort to fool the international community by claiming that Iran
would still be involved in a secret nuclear program.  Now, in the
meantime, the International Atomic Energy Agency has come out and
said that there is absolutely no truth to it, that they conducted
ten different reports, that Iran is fully compliant with the Iran
agreement on nuclear weapons, and that there is absolutely
nothing new in the material presented.
This was said even by a whole series of former security
officials from Israel itself.  So the question is, what is the
purpose of this? Which is clearly a provocation.  And there were
these missile attacks in Syria, where it’s not yet entirely clear
where they came from, but it’s not to be excluded that they did
come from Israel.  And obviously, Netanyahu now has a bill in the
Knesset which in the first reading got an absolute majority,
which would empower Netanyahu to go to war.  There is opposition
in the Knesset against that, because the term “extreme
circumstances” is not specified, and therefore, it’s a sort of
{carte blanches} because he can always declare “extreme
circumstances.”
This is very, very dangerous.  This is obviously a power
game, not really regarding the Middle East as such.  Naturally,
Iran is the thorn in the flesh of Netanyahu, but I think the way
to look at the situation is that the Middle East is once again
the theater for a proxy war, where the real issue is the
confrontation against Russia and China.  Because, rather than
getting caught up in every single provocation, I would encourage
you, our viewers, to think about the strategic long arc of
developments.  I could take it back all the way to the collapse
of the Soviet Union, but let’s start with the election of
President Trump, who, in the election campaign had promised that
he would improve the relationship with Russia, and then
subsequently, he did not stay with the anti-China line, which he
had had in the election campaign, but started to develop a very
good relationship with Xi Jinping, with China.  And from the
standpoint of the geopolitical faction of the Western world,
basically situated in the City of London and their junior partner
in Wall Street, this idea that you would have a good
understanding between the United States President, and the
governments of Russia and China, is a nightmare, because it would
absolutely eliminate the possibility of their divide and conquer,
and playing geopolitical games.
I would say, the origin of all of these developments,
starting with the Russiagate against Trump, which is now
completely out of the window because there was no Russiagate.
Then at the point when the British origin was in the center of
attention in the Congress and various investigative committees,
they looked at the role of the British collusion in the coup
attempt against Trump, then you had the Skripal affair; which, by
the way, now has completely died out, it has disappeared from the
British media, as Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova
pointed out yesterday, that there is more mention about the
Skripal affair in the British media.  Then, when that fell apart,
you had the so-called chemical weapons attack by the Assad
government, which then turned out didn’t even take place — it
was a complete smokescreen by the British-controlled White
Helmets organization, that fell apart.  Now, you have the
supposed Iranian nuclear program, which also is a fraud. And then
you have, naturally, the developments in Ukraine, where
Poroshenko yesterday announced a military solution for the
liberation of the Donbas.  And there, you have the same group of
organizations involved, which we have pinned down and published
in the past many times.
The whole thing is really one long arc, aimed at the
containment of Russia, the containment of China, and it is quite
interesting that Foreign Minister Lavrov just gave a long, very
important interview to the Italian media, where he said that
every time President Trump impulse to improve the relationship
with Russia, the Russophobia mafia inside the United States is
creating some kind of a provocation again, and that many of the
problems of the world remain unresolved because they would
require a positive cooperation between the United States and
Russia.
People have to really understand, all of these things, while
they have some merit in themselves, some logic, some historical
or ethnic causality, they’re nevertheless being played on the big
chessboard in the larger game, the containment of Russia and
China.  And that obviously, is an impossibility, and therefore,
you have these tensions and very dangerous developments, almost
on a daily basis.

SCHLANGER:  That review is very useful for people, because
you can look at each individual event, but the connection is
what’s important.  And of course, it’s broader than just a
regional war in the Middle East:  If something happens against
the Iranian agreement, that’ll have an implication for what
otherwise looks so positive in terms of the Korean situation,
doesn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, yes.  I think that the North Korea/South
Korea process is one of the most joyful things which are
happening right now.  Many of the details are not so well known,
so let me just mention, that in the meeting between Kim Jong-un
and Moon Jae-in, the latter, the South Korean President brought a
brochure and also gave a memory drive to Kim Jong-un with a
full-fledge development plan for North Korea, which apparently
involves, among other things, two railway lines to be built in
the southern and northern coasts of North Korea, connecting both
with the ancient Silk Road, but also with the Trans-Siberian
Railway through Russia.
This is very positive.  There has been a CIA team in North
Korea for a week, inspecting various sites, and [National
Security Advisor] Bolton commented and said these are all signs
of good will.  And also that three Americans will be released by
North Korea.  President Trump has expressed he is looking forward
to meeting Kim Jong-un very soon; Kim Jong-un, on the other side,
also wants to meet with [Japanese Prime Minister] Abe, and
President Moon of South Korea offered to broker such a meeting.
And then, [Chinese Foreign Minister] Wang Yi is today in North
Korea.  So these are all very, very good developments, because if
the North Korean situation comes towards a peace treaty and
potential unification under Korean sovereignty, this would a
very, very important milestone for all of humanity.
But naturally, as you say there is a danger, because
Netanyahu, among other reasons — namely that he wants to push
the Iranian influence out of Syria — timed his statement
obviously with the deadline of May 12th, which is when the
decision in the United States will be taken to either renegotiate
or cancel the Iranian nuclear agreement, or extend it.  And
obviously, Netanyahu wanted to create a hype so that the United
States would insist on renegotiation, which from the standpoint
of the Iranians is a cancellation and would throw the whole
situation immediately into a very dangerous destabilization; and
may actually lead to the desire of the Iranians to then scrap the
whole deal and go back to building nuclear weapons.
Obviously, if that happens, this could have the danger of
threatening the North Korean situation, because, remember, Kim
Jong-un went into this absolutely intense nuclear testing and
missile testing, because he looked at the Middle East and came to
the conclusion that the only way for him to prevent from
happening to him what happened to Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi,
would be that North Korea is a full-fledged nuclear power and
therefore, there would be a defense against such things.
If he would think it doesn’t matter, even if you have an
agreement with the United States, they can throw it out at the
next occasion, I think this is a very, very dangerous thing.  So
I hope that President Trump is not overlooking that, because
there is very clearly an effort to play on that, to also ruin the
North Korea/South Korea agreement again.
These things hang altogether.  And I can only say, the
International Atomic Energy Agency did say that there is absolute
compliance on the side of Iran, and even [Federica] Mogherini,
the foreign minister of the European Union basically reiterated
that, and said that the International Atomic Energy Agency is the
only institution which should be consulted concerning these
questions, and if there are problems they should be brought to
them, because they are equipped to deal with it, and not some
wild, independent action.
So this is the field of tension in which all of this is
taking place.

SCHLANGER:  And there’s a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy
here that the neo-conservatives play on, which is, once you cut
off negotiations and diplomatic discussion, you create what they
call a “rogue state.” And they say the “rogue state” is dangerous
because it doesn’t adhere to principles, when, in fact, the West
is the one forcing the fear, producing the fear that leads to
backing away and developing weapons.
Now, I think this is also important in the broader context,
where you’ve been pointing out the importance of the meeting
between [Indian] Prime Minister Modi  and President Xi Jinping of
China.  This has extraordinary implications, not just for those
two countries, but going into another part of the Mideast, where
there’s been wars, namely Afghanistan.  What can you tell us
about the progress on that front?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  This is really, maybe as important as the
Korea development, because there was the effort to play India in
the so-called Indo-Pacific combination, meaning Japan, Australia,
New Zealand, India, against the New Silk Road and against China.
And for historical reasons, there is a strong British
geopolitical influence in parts of the establishment in India,
which has been susceptible, and it was played upon by the
neo-cons and the British, to say India is the largest democracy,
therefore, they don’t believe in communist China, they believe in
the Western world, and should work with them.
And in a certain sense, it looked for a while as if this
would function; but after the border incident in Doklam, where
both India and China realized how devastating it would be for the
two largest countries in the world if they would get again into
some kind of a military conflict, there obviously was a
rethinking in India, where most people around Modi are now moving
in a direction of working with China.
That does not yet mean that India is supporting the New Silk
Road, because of the issue of Pakistan is really a sticky one for
India; and China is building this very important economic
corridor, from China to the Arabian Sea coast of Pakistan, which
Indian is completely objecting to. And therefore, at the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting, the Indian Foreign
Minister did not sign the New Silk Road resolution.  But they now
work together on the China-Nepal-India corridor, which is also
part of the New Silk Road, in reality.
Therefore, now you this meeting between President Xi Jinping
and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Wuhan, and the two leaders
had six discussions over two days.  And just to realize, India
and China are not only the two population-richest countries —
they have together 2.6 {billion} people, that’s 40% of the entire
human population of the world — but they also have the longest
continuous cultures, more than 5,000 years old, who have, over
the course of universal history, contributed an enormous amount
of knowledge, of poetry, of art, and are both sort of creators of
the human civilization.
What is very exciting is that they agreed in this context,
to have a joint development between India and China, in
Afghanistan.  They will build a railroad from Afghanistan to
Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, China and therefore tie Afghanistan
into the Belt and Road Initiative, which is obviously very
important for Afghanistan.  The President of Afghanistan Ashraf
Ghani had requested several months ago, that the only way to
solve Afghanistan’s problems would be as part of the New Silk
Road, but it also is a way of bridging, so to speak, the
India-Pakistan conflict, because there are obviously close
relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan; China has a better
relationship to Pakistan; and if they now develop Afghanistan
together, it touches on this higher level of reason, what we
always have said the New Silk Road establishes:  that you need a
concept where everybody benefits, where you have a higher level
of cooperation, which is capable of overcoming ethnic and
historical and other conflicts.
So if India and China can work together in Afghanistan for
the improvement of the situation there, this is a typical example
of how the New Silk Road is also a peace initiative which can
solve all kinds of problems.  So I think this is a very, very
good development also.

SCHLANGER:  The Pentagon just released a report on
Afghanistan which said after 16 years, the situation is worse
with the continuous war, and the U.S. deployment, the NATO
deployment. And so, this is the only alternative.
Now, this brings up to me a very important point:  We’ve
just been reviewing in the last couple days, the role that your
husband has played in bringing forward this idea of the Four
Powers.  And it’s interesting, his first actual formulation of
the idea of a Four Power agreement — Russia, India, China, and
the United States  — was in December 2008, right after the crash
in September 2008.  And Helga, I know you’ve been to India,
you’ve been to China repeatedly,  you’re now seeing this
potential becoming real.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  I think it’s really very good,
because I remember when my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, first said
these ideas, like a Four Power agreement, everybody was quite
full of disbelief, how could this ever be.  But Lyn, at that
point, said that given the fact that we are dealing with an
empire, which we say the British Empire, which historically is
correct, because as my husband also has developed many times this
empire, the idea that there is an empire with an oligarchical
elite ruling over a preferably backward mass of people, is not
something new.  It’s something that goes way back, even to the
Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire; then it moved to Venice, and
then it moved to the Dutch-British. And in a certain sense, it’s
like a chameleon:  it remains the same, or a slime mold, which
remains the same in character, but the colors are different
So, people nowadays say, “oh, the British Empire no longer
exists,” but if you look at it from the standpoint of the
geopolitical politics of the financial architecture which rules
the world, which has tried in the past to keep parts of the
developing sector backward and underdeveloped, and which,
especially in the last 20 years, made sure that the rich would
become richer, and the middle class would die out, and the poor
would become poorer, you can see clearly that this is an empire
in a modern form.  It’s quite powerful,  it used the IMF, it used
the World Bank, it keep development in the Third World down. And
only after China emerged and offered cheap credit and actually
donations and infrastructure, did this dynamic start to change.
But my husband basically at that time said, given the fact
that this financial oligarchy is really running so much of the
world, and if you look at the private security services which are
a sort of modern mercenary forces, defending this financial
structure, then he said that you need the four most powerful
sovereign nation-states in the world to ally together to defeat
it.
As I said, people were full of disbelief when he said it,
but if you look at it now, Russia and China have a strategic
partnership which is absolutely solid, and I think there to be
forever — I don’t think it can ever go away.  Then, with the
recent development between China and India, India is moving
closer; India has a very good relationship to Russia, anyway.
And with the potential of President Trump, despite the present
trade negotiations, he just put out a tweet saying he looks
forward to seeing President Xi Jinping in the near future and
that he always  will remain his friend; and also the prospective
of an early meeting between Trump and Putin — I think we are
very close to this combination, where we could really move the
world in a completely different way, in a New Paradigm, where
geopolitics stops!
I mean, in any case, let me just say this, because it’s
obvious that behind all of these affairs which we named — the
Russiagate, the Skripal case, the chemical weapons, now the
Netanyahu case — is obviously an effort to keep the status quo,
to prevent the emergence of China as the rising power, to keep
the illusion that you can contain or regime-change Russia.  But
anybody who thinks that you can keep the status quo, when the
whole world is already moving in the direction of cooperation,
win-win, working together, this is just completely impossible.
So those people in the West who are pushing these
provocations, and also ordinary citizens, you should think:  Can
you imagine how the future should look like, let’s say, in 10, 20
years from now?  Either we have World War III, or will have had
it already, or, we will move into a completely new set of
relations among nations, where the common interest, or as Xi
Jinping always calls it, the “shared community for the future of
humanity” comes first, and then after that you have national
interest.
It is an existential question for humanity that more and
more people start to think, how should the world look like in 10
years, in 20 years, and if you are of the opinion that we must
develop a new face in the evolution of mankind, where we stop
geopolitics, we stop war, and have a New Paradigm, you should
become active.  You should join the Schiller Institute, because
we are trying to cause such a change in the thinking of the
people, and we need many people to help us in this effort:  So,
I’m really appealing to you, join the Schiller Institute and work
with us, because the potential has never been so great, to move
to much, much, much more beautiful period in human history.

SCHLANGER:  And we’ve been talking about the Four Power
proposal of your husband, Lyndon LaRouche.  He also has the four
basic laws which address the economic crisis.  People should not
take their eye off the economy!  There are some new reports
coming out, former FDIC vice chairman Thomas Hoenig, Sheila Bair,
very prominent in her fight against derivatives, and now Nomi
Prins has a new book out:  Obviously, Helga, you ignore this
financial side of things to your own detriment, because this is a
crucial aspect of the strategic situation.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think we have mentioned this already in
this webcast, but I want to say it again, because Nomi Prins has
this book out, {Collusion:  How the Central Bankers Rigged the
World} — I have not read the book yet, but I have an initial
report about it — where she describes how the quantitative
easing of the central banks, to the advantage of the speculators
in the last 10 years, has created a situation where we are in a
bubble 40% worse than in 2008, which could explode at any moment.
We have talked to some well-placed people in the financial
community who are quite worried that what could happen — and I
think people should take this warning very seriously — that if
the proponents of the old, collapsing financial Western system
realize that this is end-game, that they can’t really prevent
this from happening; that China is rising, that the other
countries are rising with China, that they may actually
deliberately trigger a financial crash, to pull the rug out from
underneath President Trump, destabilize him, blame him, in order
to bring the neo-cons back into power in Washington.
I think that is for sure one of the biggest hidden dangers.
And therefore, the only solution how you can prevent that is the
immediate implementation of Glass-Steagall, but also the whole
package of Lyn’s Four Laws:  a National Bank in the tradition of
Alexander Hamilton; a credit system; a crash program to increase
the productivity of production and the labor force through
fusion, for space cooperation; but also join the New Silk Road,
join the Belt and Road Initiative, and participate with China in
the buildup of infrastructure in the United States, have joint
ventures in third countries.  You need the full package.  Only
Glass-Steagall is not enough.  We need the absolute return to a
sound financial and economic system based on the tradition of
Alexander Hamilton.  And whenever that was applied, as in the
postwar reconstruction of Germany, you had economic miracles, and
this can be replicated any time.
I would again urge you, this is the Damocles Sword which is
hanging over the world, so join our efforts to have a global
Glass-Steagall, because we don’t need speculation.  If we put all
our resources into real production, productive jobs, education,
there are so many important things to be done, that everybody can
have a benefit, and I don’t think we need mega-billionaires,
because I think people should have a decent income, but they
shouldn’t be excessively rich and the majority of the people
poor, and we really need to change that.

SCHLANGER:  Especially when they become rich by creating
things that nobody needs.
Just to conclude, I think it’s important to give people a
sense of the broader scope of what’s happening around the New
Silk Road.  We’re almost the only ones who are reporting on some
of these things, but maybe you have something you’d like to add
— the developments now from the Dominican Republic, on top of
what Panama is doing, which is in our own hemisphere in the West.
Peru has just moved ahead with some agreements with China, and
now Portugal, with the Maritime Silk Road:  The Chinese are
definitely on the move.
So, what do you have from the U.S. Congress?  The Senator
from Florida, whom Donald Trump calls “little Marco Rubio” threw
a fit, saying that China’s about to take over the Western
Hemisphere.
Instead of embracing these initiatives, you see the
hysteria.  But I think, Helga, I think it’s important for you to
emphasize the scope of this development, how it is, as you said,
“unstoppable.”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  I’m very convinced that this genie is
out of the bottle, never to return. Because it is simply
appealing to the best inspiration and aspiration of the people.
If you look at the world map, the majority of the countries are
already onboard: That’s why I think it’s unstoppable.  And if you
look at Europe, for example, it’s Eastern and Central European
countries who are working with the Silk Road, the Balkan
countries; Italy, Spain, Portugal, all want to be hubs of
development, not only on the Eurasian connections, but also to
the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries in Asia and Africa
and Latin America.  Then Switzerland is onboard.  And Austria,
where the new government has adopted a clause to cooperate
strategically with the New Silk Road, and now, they announced
that they want to take leadership in Europe, to bring the
European Union into connection with the Chinese New Silk Road.
And even Holland and Belgium, the Scandinavian countries — so if
you look at the map, it is really the majority of countries which
are not part of it.
That’s why I’m absolutely optimistic that if you help us to
spread the news that there is a new era of civilization which is
not based on war, subversion, regime-change, coups, but to the
advantage of the other in the spirit of the Peace of Westphalia,
I think the Spirit of the Silk Road is contagious, and it will
catch on:  So, help us to spread this word.

SCHLANGER:  And one of the ways you can help us is to go on
the New Paradigm Schiller Institute website, and we should have
there a box for people to sign up to become members, at whatever
monthly rate you can afford.
[http://newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com/sign-up/] But this is

the most important organization in the world right now, informing
people about these developments, and as Helga keeps emphasizing:
We need your support!  We need your involvement.  So go there,
and sign up and become a part of this.
Helga, is there anything else you want to cover today?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think people should really have the sense
that we are on the verge of a new hot war, and I would not
underestimate that danger.  The Ukrainian development is
extremely dangerous.  If there is a war between Israel and Iran,
it does have the potential to immediately escalate — so don’t be
complacent.
But, on the other side, I think we have never been so close
to putting all of this behind us, because once the Four Power
agreement comes into being, there is no problem on the planet
which cannot be solved.  So, don’t sit on the fence:  Become
active, and help us to turn this into a winning direction.

SCHLANGER:  Thank you Helga, and we’ll see you again next
week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, I hope so.  See you then.

 

Med den velfortjente tvivl, der møder hvert eneste strategiske krav, som kommer fra City of London og dets allierede kræfter på Wall Street og i Bruxelles som følge af den igangværende afsløring af deres løgne, f.eks. om »Russiagate« og anvendelsen af »kemiske våben«, er der nu en mulighed uden fortilfælde for at bryde med det Gamle Paradigme på dets svageste flanke, nemlig, at økonomien er stærk og voksende. I virkeligheden er det eneste, der vokser, faren for et nyt blowout, med daglige advarsler om problemer i bank- og finanssystemet som følge af en uerholdelig boble, bestående af alle former for gæld. Det var et lignende sammenløb af dårlig gæld og oppustet gearing, der førte til Lyndon LaRouches profetiske advarsel i juli 2007 om et uundgåeligt, forestående blowout af finanssystemet, på et tidspunkt, hvor konsensus var, at økonomien er »stærk«.

Med fremkomsten af en model, der promoverer reel, fysisk vækst i økonomien gennem udvidelsen af Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ (BVI), har Schiller Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche understreget, at tiden nu er inde til, at det økonomiske program, som hendes mand har udviklet, kendt som »LaRouches Fire Love«, bliver gennemført. Der er ingen grund til at tolerere et nyt krak med den død og elendighed, det ville medføre, når et gennemprøvet alternativ vinder støtte blandt flertallet af nationer. Desuden er det det desperate forsøg på at redde det gamle system, der ligger bag det krigsfremstød, som kommer fra imperieflokken, som hellere vil risikere udslettelsen af den menneskelige race end den vil opgive sine finansielle beholdningers fiktive værdier.

Schiller Instituttet har lanceret en offensiv for at få sandheden ud om de finansielle oligarker og deres neokonservative krigsmagere, og for at mobilisere regeringer til at vedtage LaRouches Fire Love og gå med i BVI.

 

 

Engelsk udskrift:

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, April 26, 2018
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

London-Based Empire Exposed: Door Open for Trans-Atlantic
Economic Change

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the
Schiller Institute. Welcome to this week’s international webcast
featuring our founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
We’re entering a very intense period of diplomatic activity,
much of it related to the advances of the New Silk Road, although
regrettably some of it is related to efforts to enforce the old
rules of the old paradigm. But I think we should start with
something that was quite interesting that came out of Germany
this week, which is a report by a parliamentary organization on
the illegality of the missile attack on Syria by the United
States, United Kingdom and France.  Helga, what is this committee
that put out this report, and what did they say?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  It is actually something called the
Scientific Research Service [Wissenschaftlichen Dienste] which is
basically experts which advise the Bundestag members on various
issues.  And they issued an opinion on the legality or illegality
of these military strikes against Syria, and they came clearly to
the conclusion that it is a violation of international law.  I
think it’s very important to discuss that: Because while
Chancellor Merkel called these strikes appropriate and necessary,
and Defense Minister Von der Leyen even said it’s a shame that
Germany was not part of it — we just were not asked but in the
future, Germany wants to play a role on a global scale in similar
functions.  And what the Scientific Research Service actually
says is that this action, which was not allowed by the UN
Security Council and is replacing the principle of legality with
a principle of subjective moral legitimacy; that this is actually
in the tradition of the gunboat-type of diplomacy before World
War I, and this also took place in some form between the World
Wars. And actually it was the horrors of World War II which then
caused the international community to establish the presently
existing international law as it is reflected in the UN Charter
and similar documents.
And actually, to abandon that body of law and go back to a
pre-World War I kind of making military strikes as you like it,
is creating a very, very dangerous precedent.  And some other
jurists commented on that, and said, by the same token any state
can attack that model and say “we have some beef with our
neighbors” and make similar military strikes and then you end up
in a completely uncontrollable situation which can quickly lead
to a new world war.
So I would really like to point you, our audience, to this
point, and it’s something we should not just let go, because
international law is something extremely precious.  And it is
also, this military strike would have been completely illegal for
Germany to participate in, because Article 26 of the Grundgesetz,
the Basic Law of Germany, prohibits the preparation of a war of
aggression, and it even says that whoever does that should have
lifelong prison sentence.
This is also violating a UN resolution from 1974, pertaining
to war of aggression.  And I think it is very important that we
not allow the world to drift into a lawless kind of situation
that whoever has the might makes the right, the law of the jungle
and survival of the fittest.  Because this is a very dangerous
path to go. And we should really remind ourselves where wars of
aggression lead to.
This Scientific Research Service also noted the fact that
this military strike was done even before the result of the OPCW
was known, aggravates the case of this violation of international
law.
So I would like to make a very big emphasis on this point,
because obviously, it is very unfortunate that Trump got pulled
into this, and obviously, the danger is, if this is let go, the
danger of a repetition and then things getting really much worse
and going out of control, this danger absolutely exists.  So I
would like you to help us to sharpen a consciousness about it and
obviously, this should be something taken up by the United
Nations based on this resolution from 1974, which I just
mentioned.  I would like you to really give some thought about
it, and not just say, “OK, we’ll just do these things,” because
there are consequences which could mean, in the final analysis,
the end of civilization.

SCHLANGER:  Also speaking of Germany, there was something
interesting on German television which raised questions about the
so-called chemical attack, and I think that’s kind of
interesting.  Is this going to have any effect in the Bundestag?
Is there much discussion of this now, as a result of this report?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, it’s another classical example:  You
had one courageous, or just objective journalist, Uli Gack, who
is the head of ZDF office in Cairo, and he was in Syria.  He
reported from there that he talked to many witnesses in Douma and
around Douma, and that they all said that there was absolutely no
chemical weapons use by the government, but that it was one of
the typical provocations from the jihadists.  And he also, in
this program, which was at prime time on the news, he quoted the
British journalist Robert Fisk from the {Independent}, who had
already made a similar observation which was published in this
newspaper.
So then, all hell broke loose, and the ZDF, the official TV
channel, distanced themselves from this report, and said this is
a “conspiracy theory”  — they didn’t say it, but other media,
{Bildzeitung} and {Focus} magazine said it, they clamped down on
this journalist and forced him to actually not pursue this any
more.  And these other media accused a very normal, actually one
of the more honest journalists, of being a conspiracy theorist.
And it’s a complete, classical example of the kind of
{Gleichschaltung} [“synchronization,” a reference to the Nazi
period] the Western media have these days.
This is not the end of the story, because the OPCW
fact-finding mission returned to Syria, and I think tomorrow
there will be the meeting of the OPCW in The Hague, where the
Russians will basically bring several new Syrian witnesses, to
testify on what they saw.  And we know what the earlier ones had
said, namely, that there was shouting by the jihadists that there
were “chemical weapons!” and then they did the filming and there
was actually nothing happening, except this staged scenario.
This is not the end of the story, but as I said, unless the
truth of this is being uncovered, the danger of a repetition is
absolutely there.

SCHLANGER:  And I think also, to stick with Syria for just a
moment because it’s such a crucial issue, we have the Macron trip
to the United States, where he’s continuing to pull out all the
stops to try and get President Trump to commit the United States
to keeping troops in Syria.  What is it that Macron is doing in
this?  Why is he taking the point on this, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  It is actually the British policy.  And I
think Macron did not do himself any favor by being the spearhead.
I think he has some idea to position himself as the leader of the
European Union.  He gave a speech to a Joint Session of Congress,
which was absolutely terrible, which was made no milder by the
fact that he got a standing ovation by these Congressmen.  And
obviously, it was a complete attack on what was in the discussion
between Macron and Trump in the days before:  because he attacked
unilateralism, nationalism and obviously all things which were
aimed at the policies of Trump, naturally, he got the support of
the Democrats and the neo-cons and so forth.
I don’t think this will necessarily stick.  The problem is
that Trump does change his views, sometimes rather quickly.  But
after Macron left, I was told that Trump repeated that the aim of
U.S. policy would be to get out of Syria as quickly as possible
after ISIS is defeated.  So I don’t necessarily think that Macon
succeeded.  Even so, it was very clear that he was fully on the
geopolitical old paradigm line; and obviously, he was trying to
also bypass and outflank Merkel, who is arriving for a few hour
visit in the White House, today, actually — the meeting is
tomorrow.
So this was a terrible intervention, and one can only hope
that Trump is not going to be influenced by this, but is looking
forward at his upcoming summit with President Putin, which is
obviously much, much more important than the policy of the
European Union.  And Macron was also mentioning the initiation of
a new grouping which is supposed to be the bridge between the
Geneva process and the Astana process [of peace negotiations in
Syria].  But the European position, as we have seen it in some of
the conferences on the reconstruction of Syria, both the United
States and the EU are not giving any money for the reconstruction
of Syria: only for those areas which are not under the control of
Assad, and obviously the regime change against the Assad
government is still the policy, here, and that is very terrible,
and very bad.

SCHLANGER:  I think it’s worth noting, also, that the U.S.
Ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman gave a statement where he
reiterated that President Trump is seeking a détente policy with
Russia, and he’s very much looking forward to the meeting with
Putin.
Now, on the other side, we’re seeing a whole series of
initiatives around the New Silk Road perspective, starting with
the foreign ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
that were meeting; they have a [heads of state] summit coming on
June 9-10 in China.
You also have developments, which I’d like to get to just
get your thoughts on this, India with China:  Modi is going to
China next week; Japan and China — there’s a whole lot of
activity.  What do you make of all this, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Oh, I think that is very, very exciting.  I
was talking to some of my friends in India earlier today to get
their assessment.  And there is clearly a recognition that after
the border crisis in Doklam, between China and India, last year,
that there is a recognition that it is much more in the interests
of the two countries to work together.  Now, I think this is very
good, because there was a danger that Modi would make his next
election campaign on an anti-China profile.  But there will be a
summit in Wuhan between Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, actually
starting tomorrow and the day after that; and I think one
Professor Zhang Jiadong from Fudan University commented on this
in a very interesting way:  He said, India and China are the only
two countries that belong to the club of nations which have more
than 1 billion people; they are represent together, 40% of the
world population.  They both have continuous, 5,000-year
histories.  They have produced many contributions to world
civilization, and when they work together, being the two largest
countries on the planet, this is of extreme importance.
And the Chinese Foreign Minster Wang Yi said that what will
be discussed between Xi Jinping and Modi is the developments
which occur only once in a century.  And while I’m not sure what
he means exactly by that, I think what it refers to is the
epochal changes of strategic alignment which are going on in Asia
right now, and that is what President Xi Jinping is trying to
accomplish also with the upcoming SCO summit on June 9-10, after
the Belt and Road Initiative and the BRICS countries, now the
SCO, that all of this is supposed to lead to a completely new
model of international relations, of what Xi Jinping always calls
the “shared community for the one future of mankind.”
And I think, given the fact that between Japan and China,
there is a clear rapprochement, and  between Japan and Russia,
you can see clearly that all these Asian countries are seeking a
better way; and even if there are still some obstacles, like the
issue between India and Pakistan, I don’t think has been
resolved; and India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor is also not yet resolved; but the more these countries
are moving toward each other — and there was a very interesting
comment in a Chinese article saying that the relations between
China and Japan now could be modeled, or you could use the
parallel of the European Coal and Steel Community in the
beginning of the 1950s, which was France giving the olive branch
to Germany just five years after the Second World War.
Obviously, this is a reference to the past war experience
between China and Japan, and saying that if Germany and France
could settle their problems of world war, so can China and Japan.
I think this is going in a very, very good direction.  And
it shows you one thing very clearly:  That the future of
civilization is in Asia, and any country of the West that wants
to be part of that future, should find a good relation to this
new dynamic, because this is the forward-looking one, and not the
old paradigm as represented by some of these European powers that
just think in terms of the past.

SCHLANGER:  And your husband Lyndon LaRouche emphasized
many, many years ago, that an India-China-Russia relationship
which the U.S. could join, would be the basis of establishing
something totally new in the world.
Now, Helga, you’ve travelled to India and China a number of
times, you’ve met with leaders in both countries.  Is there
anything that you can see that would get in the way of an
improved relationship?  I mean, isn’t this something that,
really, the time has come for this to happen?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  There is a clear understanding that it’s a
strategic necessity for the Asian countries to work together.
Unfortunately, the replacement of Adm. Harry Harris as commander
of the U.S. Pacific Command,  — his name is Adm. Philip Davidson
— he just spoke at confirmation hearings of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, which was a blood-curdling attack on Russia
and China and accusing China of all kinds of things.  So the
geopolitical thinking is not yet gone. And one could actually say
that this idea of a China-Russia-India alliance was furthered by
the behavior of the neo-cons, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan
intervention, the Libya attack; so I think these countries moved
together much more quickly than they would have normally done, as
a result of these policies of the Bush-Obama-Blair-Cameron-May
kind of policies.
And, you know, OK, you can always have a terrible incident
like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or some other pretext to cause
a new crisis; this is why I think the discussion of the legality
of these military strikes needs to be internationally discussed;
but I think if you look at the intention of the Chinese
leadership, of the Russian leadership, and as it now hopefully
looks like, also, Modi — and Japan — they are moving clearly
into a New Paradigm. And I think the New Silk Road Spirit has
caught on.  The countries of Asia have understood that this is
the moment in history where we need a completely new set of
relations if mankind is supposed to get into safe waters and have
a bright future.
I am optimistic, I’m very optimistic.  And also, with the
summit tomorrow between Kim Jong-un and President Moon Jae-in of
South Korea, this also looks very good.  And if it’s any
reflection, the head of the Olympic Committee Thomas Bach said
that he talked to both the South Korean and North Korean
governments and that they had clear intentions to join the next
Olympics and even have a joint team again. And he says, from his
discussion, he’s extremely optimistic about the intention of
these two governments.
So if you look at all of these developments, I think it is
actually very good, and some of these geopoliticians probably
will never change, because they cannot imagine that mankind can
growth out of the old kind of pettiness and rivalry and
competition; and that a New Paradigm of win-win cooperation is
actually possible.  But if the majority of mankind is moving in
this direction, I’m very confident and hopeful that this New
Paradigm will prevail.

SCHLANGER:  President Trump had a little bit of fun with
this, when he made fun of the media for saying that there would
never be any progress with North Korea.  And he said, look, you
don’t know what’s going to happen — it may not work, but he’s
very happy with the response from Kim Jong-un.  And then he just
sent a team to China to discuss the trade agreement which
includes the top trade officials.  And what he said, which I
think shapes their outlook, is that he has great respect for Xi
Jinping and a great friendship.  Do you have any thoughts on what
might happen with these discussions going on between the U.S. and
China?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  That’s difficult, you know, because I think
from the Chinese side, you have Vice Premier Liu He, who is the
most important economic advisor of Xi Jinping.  And he has been
elevated recently into the Politburo and the State Council; he
will represent the potential of the Belt and Road Initiative.  On
the side of the American delegation, for sure Mnuchin — we had
criticism of him, and [U.S. Trade Representative] Lighthizer also
has not exactly been on the line of what Trump’s election
promises really were; even so, he has mentioned the American
System at one point.
I don’t know. I would imagine that China will propose the
way to overcome the trade deficit, in the way Wang Yi, the
Foreign Minister, had suggested; and also, Prime Minister Li
Keqiang — namely, that other than tariffs, you could also
increase the trade between the two countries, and have joint
ventures in third countries; and in that way, balance the trade
deficit by just increasing the trade.  And I would imagine that
the Chinese, for sure, will reiterate this proposal.  Then, how
these two or four delegates from the United States (it’s not so
clear) will respond, we don’t know.  One can only hope they
recognize the potential that American industries would benefit
greatly from participating in such joint ventures in third
countries along the Belt and Road.  And naturally, U.S.-Chinese
relations could also benefit a lot, if the United States would
allow Chinese investments in the buildup of U.S. infrastructure.
Now, we have to see how that develops.  I’m optimistic that
the Chinese will not miss the opportunity to make such proposals,
and that is why the Schiller Institute is so important, that we
make these ideas more known inside the United States, so that
more and more people recognize the potential which would lie in
the U.S.-China cooperation in the Belt and Road Initiative.  So
you should join the Schiller Institute and help us to make these
ideas more known.

SCHLANGER:  We do know there’s support for expansion of
U.S.-China trade, at least in states such as Alaska, West
Virginia;  Houston, Texas, where there have been delegations to
China and from China to the United States, to talk about specific
investments.
While we’re talking about investments, we have to pick up
this whole question of the financial crisis, which we should
never lose sight of:  because behind the whole strategic
confrontation is the collapse of this financial system, which is
being held together by unbelievable amounts of new funny-money
and fake credit which is just building up debt.
Helga, there were more warnings coming out from the U.S.
Federal Reserve, a couple of officials.  There’s talk about the
interest rate problem, a shakeup at Deutsche Bank.  What do you
see on this financial picture:  It’s really quite shaky and it
seems like now is the time there should be a new concerted effort
around your husband’s basic Four Laws.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, it’s the strategic powder keg we are
sitting on.  If one of the three governors of the Federal Reserve
is already warning that the wave of corporate insolvencies, which
has increased over last year by 60%, is so severe that it could
cause a new banking crisis.  Well, the Fed is not known to make
alarmist statements, but they generally use a language to calm
down the markets and respect the so-called “psychology of the
markets.”  So if such a warning comes from the Fed, it should be
really taken seriously.
And you know, there are also new articles about Deutsche
Bank — the IMF called Deutsche Bank the riskiest bank in the
world.  They have 42 trillion in derivatives contracts
outstanding!  Now, some of these contracts balance each other
out, so it may not be 42 trillion, but this is 15 times the
German GDP, so this not a small amount. And one day, we could
wake up, or in the middle of the day, have a complete repetition
of 2008, on a much larger scale.
Obviously, we need the Four Laws of my husband Lyndon
LaRouche, and especially, the emphasis should be not only on
Glass-Steagall, a National Bank, credit system, but especially on
the fourth law:  Because unless you have a complete push for
innovation and qualitative breakthroughs in applying new
universal principles in the economic platform, as my husband as
discussed it in many of his writings, you will not pull out the
terrible shape of the economies of the trans-Atlantic system,
especially in the United States, Southern Europe — I mean, there
are some real problem cases where you need an emphasis on such
things as thermonuclear fusion, space cooperation, and apply the
most advanced new physical principles in the economy, if you want
to save the situation.
And that is not being discussed in any way or shape in
Europe or in the United States, so let’s just really emphasize
that, and help us to make the mobilization for the implementation
of these Four Laws, not only in the United States but also in
Europe.  The country which is closest to that is China:  Xi
Jinping just met with an economic group, and, again, emphasized
the need to warn and safeguard China against financial risk.  And
China is obviously de-emphasizing any kind of speculative
activity.  But Wall Street and the City of London are very far
from such reason in their practice.

SCHLANGER:  I was just reviewing some reports over the last
couple of days on this, and one of the things that many
economists do acknowledge, is that with all the pep talk about
how great the economy is doing, that there’s wage stagnation, the
lowest labor participation rate level in four decades; and then,
they always come back to this question of productivity — there’s
no productivity gains. And what you just said, the Chinese
clearly have a sense of what happened with the United States with
NASA under John Kennedy: Their space program is oriented toward
the highest technology, the rail system and so on. And it seems
as though this should be a no-brainer for people in the United
States, just to look at our own history, and realize that this
works.
So, just to reiterate what Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, the
Schiller Institute is mobilizing internationally for the Four
Laws, but especially at this point in time, we’ve got to get
President Trump to go back to his thinking from his campaign,
both about the alliance with Russia and China; but also about
support for Glass-Steagall and a real infrastructure program.
And Helga, just to finish this, we’ve seen the Congress
complete botch any effort by the President to get an
infrastructure plan going.  Do you think this would be an
obviously winning strategy for anybody, to go into the 2018
election with a real infrastructure plan?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think that the dynamic which is
taking place in Asia right now, which we mentioned earlier, I
mean, this will shape history for the better.  I’m absolutely
convinced that what is happening between China and Africa, China
and Latin America, China and Eurasia, many European nations are
already completely onboard the New Silk Road development in terms
of infrastructure:  The Eastern European, the Central European
countries, the Balkans, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria,
Switzerland — all of these countries — even Belgium and
Holland, the Scandinavian countries, they all have recognized the
great potential in the infrastructure cooperation of the New Silk
Road.  And I think right now, the biggest problem in some
countries, like Germany and the United States, is the fact that
the mass media have not given justice to what is actually
happening:  You have the largest infrastructure program in
history which is already — people debate whether it’s 12 times
or 20 times the size of the Marshall Plan, but it’s open ended!
It’s a complete transformation of the planet, where obviously,
our vision, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” is
being realized by the majority of nations, absolutely, with a
fast speed.
And people are trying to sit on that and play the old
geopolitical games, by saying this is just an effort by China to
take over the world — I mean, that is just — first of all, it’s
not true, and why would all these countries, would they not be
happy to overcome poverty, underdevelopment, and so naturally
they go for this.
And right now, the biggest problem is that the average
people in Europe and in the United States just do not know this
scope of the changes taking place in the world right now.  So I
can only say:  Help us to spread these ideas.  Because we are, as
a humanity, really facing a test.  If we continue moving NATO to
the Russian border, having a race for new weapons, which is still
the danger, because this new Pacific Command commander Philip
Davidson, he just said China is ahead in certain areas, and now
the U.S. has to catch up with hypersonic weapons, and cyber
weapons, and whatnot:  I mean, we have to get rid of that kind of
thinking!
And just think, if the previous administrations of the
United States wasted $7 trillion on wars in the Middle East and
in North Africa, which have just caused misery, cost millions of
people’s lives, have caused a refugee crisis — can you not just
think of investing that kind of money in infrastructure, in the
common good of the people, in education?  Give people a sense of
the future and hope, inspire young people to not have the drug
epidemics destroy their minds, raising the suicide rates,
violence.  You know, don’t you think it’s time that mankind
should really move into a new Renaissance and work together as a
human species?
And I think this is what’s happening.  So let’s reach out to
more countries and more layers in the countries of the West, to
understand what this New Silk Road Spirit is all about.
So again, join the Schiller Institute and help us to spread
these ideas.

SCHLANGER:  Helga, I think you just made it very clear.
Thanks for joining us this week, and we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, till next week.

Jeg ville ønske, at fornuft ville indtræde i hovedet på nogle af de europæiske regeringer, og at de simpelt hen ville gå sammen i fællesskabet. Jeg har ikke set noget tegn på dette. Faktisk har den tyske EU-kommissær for budget og menneskelige resurser, Günter Öttinger, netop sagt, at Europa ikke bør være »fort Europa«, men at vi bør bringe udvikling til Afrika. Men så sagde han, at vi bør gøre dette for ikke at overlade det afrikanske kontinent til kineserne, som blot ville forfølge deres egne, egoistiske mål. Og så længe denne idiotiske tankegang er fremherskende, tror jeg ikke, der findes nogen løsning.

Folk bør indse, hvad det er, Kina gør, og holde op med at have disse fordomme. For, hvis man sammenligner den moralske kvalitet af det, Kina gør for sit eget folk og for andre nationer, så er det himmelvidt overlegent i forhold til det, Vesten foretager sig.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

12. april, 2018 – Følgende budskab fra Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche blev oplæst den 9. april i anledning af en mindebegivenhed i New York for Martin Luther Kings berømte »Jeg har været på bjergets top«-tale.

»Præcis på det tidspunkt, hvor, takket være Kinas Nye Silkevejsinitiativ, i hvilket 140 nationer deltager, og hvor i særdeleshed udviklingslandene har håb om at overvinde fattigdom og underudvikling, som Martin Luther King kæmpede for mod slutningen af sit liv, har fortalerne for det oligarkiske system lanceret en række provokationer, som kunne få uberegnelige konsekvenser.

Samtidig med, at I samles her i aften, er faren for en krig, endda en atomkrig, i løbet af de seneste timer vokset. FN har mødtes for at diskutere Syrien. Selve eksistensen af verdens civilisation afhænger nu af, om verdens ledere i Kina, Rusland og USA i særdeleshed, nu sammen finder en vej ud af det gamle paradigme for krig og geopolitik.

Der er en igangværende bestræbelse på vegne af fortalerne for det gamle paradigme for at optrappe en konfrontation med Rusland og Kina for at skabe et klima, hvor det angiveligt skulle blive umuligt for USA at arbejde sammen med Rusland og Kina for at adressere menneskehedens eksistentielle spørgsmål.

Og dog, i den Kolde Krigs mørkeste dage, i 1963, fandt præsident John F. Kennedy, som netop med nød og næppe havde undgået en atomkrig over missilkrisen på Cuba, en udvej. Sovjetunionen og USA skulle i fællesskab udforske rummet. Han sagde: menneskeheden må gøre en ende på krig, eller også vil krig gøre en ende på menneskeheden.

For halvtreds år siden sagde en stor mand, pave Poul 6, at økonomisk udvikling er det nye navn for fred. Den eneste måde at højtideligholde 50-året for mordet på Martin Luther King er ved at erkende kampen mellem det gamle paradigme, hvis fortalere dræbte dr. King, og det nye paradigme. Og dernæst gøre alt, der står i vores magt, for, at dette dyrebare øjeblik, hvor alle hans drømme kunne gå i opfyldelse, ikke forpasses.«

Foto: Martin Luther King holdt sin sidste tale den 3. april, 1968, den berømte ’I have been to the mountain top’. Hør hele talen her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfwGLxRJU8

Martin Luther King blev myrdet den 4. april, 1968.  Æret være hans minde.

I skrivende stund, hvor denne meddelelse går ud ved middagstid på USA’s østkyst den 10. april, er der »rød alarm« over muligheden for, at en generel krig i de kommende dage bryder ud pga. en række provokationer, der kommer fra Det britiske Imperiums højeste niveauer. Med forsøget på at give Rusland skylden for den angivelige forgiftning af den britiske dobbeltagent Skripal og hans datter, og som kollapsede, da eksperter fra UK’s laboratorium for kemiske våben i Porton Down ikke kunne bekræfte, at stoffet, der blev brugt mod Skripal og datter, kom fra Rusland, blev de Londonbaserede »Hvide Hjelme« udkommanderet og hævdede – uden beviser – at syriske regeringsstyrker brugte kemiske våben i Ghouta. Dette udløste krav i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om aktion mod Syrien, men også mod Iran og Rusland – et krav, der kom fra briterne, franskmændene og USA’s neokonservative.

Tredje provokation var raidet mod præsident Trumps personlige advokat Michael Cohens kontor, baseret på en henvisning fra den særlige anklager Robert Mueller, relateret til anklagerne imod Trump fra pornostjernen Stormy Daniels. Selv om Muellers efterforskning af Cohen intet har at gøre med beskyldninger om, at Trump indgik et ’aftalt spil’ med Putin for at vinde valget i 2016, så er kilden til alle tre provokationer den samme – de er alle en del af kampagnen fra City of Londons imperiekræfter og deres neokonservative allierede på Wall Street, for at forhindre Trump i at lykkes med sit kampagneløfte om at afslutte krige for regimeskifte og skabe en positiv samarbejdsrelation med Ruslands præsident Putin.

En publikation fra LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite kaldte raidet mod Cohens kontor for »et direkte forsøg på at afpresse denne præsident [Trump] ind i den krig, han blev valgt til at stoppe«. Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde om denne situation, at vi »sidder på en krudttønde«.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af videoen: 

 

 

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, April 12, 2018
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

– British False Flag Provocations Put War Danger –
– at “Red Alert” Level –

Harley SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the
Schiller Institute and welcome to today’s international webcast
featuring our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
Since Monday, our organization has been on a Red Alert
status, given the escalation of the danger of an all-out breaking
out, following the most recent provocations coming from the
British Empire.  Helga, in an earlier statement this week, said
we’re sitting on a powder keg, and this has to do with the
threats to go to war against Syria, to attack or even punish
Assad, even possibly to punish the Russians, as President Trump
indicated in a tweet earlier this week.  So, we’re still sitting
on a powder keg, and Helga, despite being ill, is here for a
brief period, so she can give us the picture and the strategy for
the mobilization to stop this escalating war danger.  So Helga, I
turn it over to you, now.

HELGA  ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah, we are indeed in a very
dangerous situation, which could get out of control in no time.
And just to underline that point, this tweet by President Trump
which made the headlines internationally everywhere, namely,
Russia, the missiles are coming.  That turns out to be a reaction
to a fake news! The background of this story is, that about a
week ago, the Russian ambassador to Lebanon, gave an interview
where he supposedly said that any attack on Syria would be
answered by a full military reaction by Russia.
Now, it turns out that that interview which appeared on
Hezbollah TV [Al Manar] and was translated into Arabic was
mistranslated, and referred to an earlier remark which General
Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of Staff of the Russian had made,
where he said, that if there is an attack on a Russian soldier in
Syria, that Russia would react.  So, it was not that any attack
on Syria would be met with a Russian retaliation, but if the
lives of Russian soldiers would be attacked, which is a huge
difference.
But obviously, that was the trigger point for Trump to send
out this tweet.  But it also shows you that in this environment
of complete orchestration of fake news, false flag attacks,
secret service manipulation of all kinds, how easy it is to stage
an incident and how things can get out of control.
We are right now not off the war danger.  It’s still unclear
what will happen.  Yesterday at the White House briefing,
apparently it was said that “all options are on the table.”
Theresa May meets with her cabinet  — supposedly according to
media reports, which are not very reliable, but it’s the only
source we have on that  — to decide if the British would
participate in a U.S. military attack.  Now, the U.S. warship
{USS Donald Cook} is 100 km from Tartus, which is the Russian
military port in Syria, and another U.S. warship has left
Norfolk, and is on the way already since several days.
Now, since Russia has full air control over Syria, and Syria
has also extremely effective missile defense systems, if there is
a U.S. missile attack on Syria, it could be right in a
confrontation between the two nuclear powers, the United States
and Russia.  So I can only urge you, all of you who are watching
this program, you should join our mobilization.  In every
parliament in the world where you are, get your congressman, get
your deputy to intervene and make sure the respective governments
are completely distancing themselves, that there is a public
debate and investigation.  And we must really have a total
mobilization against this war danger.

SCHLANGER:  It’s really important, I think that people also
have a sense of the continuity of this threat, because what we’ve
been covering here in the last few weeks, it started with the
fake news from Theresa May and Boris Johnson, in which they
accused the Russians of trying to poison a former spy, Sergei
Skripal and his daughter.  When that fell apart, when the British
chemical warfare experts said they could not determine that the
origin of this chemical weapon was from Russia, as soon as that
falls apart, we see an escalation with the so-called chemical
weapons usage in East Ghouta, in Douma, Syria.
Now, it occurs also at precisely the point that Donald Trump
said he’s prepared to pull the United States troops out of Syria
entirely! So, as some of the Russians are saying, I think it’s
worth, Helga, for you to go through some of what the Russians
have been saying on this, including Putin — but that they’ve
said that it’s very obvious that this is a scripted assault
against Russia and against Trump.
So what are we hearing from the Russians?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  The Deputy Chief of the General Staff of
Russia just reported that Russian ABC specialists have been or
are in Douma, and they inspected both the material of the
so-called chemical weapons and also the patients in the hospital,
and they confirmed what earlier representatives of the Red
Crescent Society had said, that there was absolutely no trace of
chemical weapons, and also no sign that patients in the hospital
had been injured by such a weapon.
Now, that is, again, pointing to the fact that the entire
information about this so-called incident came from the White
Helmets, an organization which is entirely funded by the British
government and in part, also by the [State Department] USAID.
And various whistleblowers have documented that this is an
organization which is very close to the jihadists, and that they
have completely staged this affair.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov also said that Russia had
signs of a planned provocation for the past month, and that they
have given this information to both the UN Security Council and
the OPCW, so that it was known that this was in preparation; and
also that the jihadists had, in various cities, dug tunnels under
cities, out of which they then operated with explosive materials,
mixed with chemical weapons.  This thing is such an obvious case
of a false-flag operation, that, if this is being used for a
pretext to launch an attack, then we’re really in World War III,
because this is obviously designed to target Russia.  And I would
even say, it did not start with the Skripal case, it started with
the Russiagate against Trump which fell apart completely.
Now the Skripal case also has fallen apart, because the OPCW
was just in Salisbury.  They investigated the material which was
used in the Skripal attack, and they said they were not able to
identify either that it was Novichok — they didn’t mention that
name — nor the origin of it.
Now, the OPCW, that’s their whole purpose of existence, has
been visiting every country, every laboratory, so they have
samples of every chemical substance, of every nerve gas, so they
could compare it, and obviously, they could not identify that it
comes from Russia, so it doesn’t come from Russia. So this case
is also falling apart.
So I think it’s really important that people see the
continuity, as you say, of these lies, which are designed to be a
war preparation for a war against Russia.  There is no other
explanation possible.

SCHLANGER:  And it’s a war against Russia that’s designed to
sabotage President Trump’s policy of working with Putin, working
with Russia, cooperation against terrorism.  And also, as Trump
noted in one of his tweets, economic cooperation.
There’s also, General Mattis, the U.S. Defense Secretary,
who us urging caution, saying we have to wait until we can see
that there’s some evidence of this.  Mattis came out after the
April 2017 false flag against, which led to a U.S. attack, and
said there was no evidence of chemical weapons, or that it was
the Assad government.  So we’re seeing a certain amount of
backing away; and very importantly, the former British Ambassador
to Syria, Peter Ford, and also the former United Kingdom
Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, both of whom have been
very outspoken on this, warned that this is a crazy escalation to
war.
What should people do?  You have voices coming out now,
there are people who want to know what to do.  What are we doing
as part of our mobilization?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  We have various appeals, one in Germany
which you will find in German on our website there
[https://bueso.de/alarmstufe-rot]; we have one on the American
site of our colleagues from LaRouche PAC
[https://larouchepac.com/sites/default/files/
20180410-enough-final.pdf] and both of these appeals should be
used to mobilize every parliament around the world.  In the
United States, our colleagues there are mobilizing.  They have
already distributed tens of thousands of leaflets; they have
contacted everybody in the Congress; they have a general
mobilization.  They’re doing similar things in Europe.  But I
think we really have to take it very seriously
The former German highest military officer, Gen. Harald
Kujat, gave three interviews today to different TV stations,
where he made the point, which I can only fully endorse, that we
are confronted with a political class which is incapable of
calculating the consequences of their deeds, and that therefore
the danger is that they will sleepwalk into a Third World War,
just as it happened in the case of the First World War.  And I
may not shar all the reasons why this is so; he says this is an
unfortunate combination of an inexperienced French President; a
Prime Minister in Great Britain who has tremendous domestic
problems; an erratic American President, but then he blasts the
German government, that rather than trying to calm the situation
down, that Merkel is actually heating it up!  I mean, this is
incredible!  Germany was destroyed two times in the world wars,
and now we have a Chancellor, who is immediately defending May in
her accusations; who is immediately condoning that Assad must be
the guilty one.  And General Kujat puts Merkel on the spot, and
says, she should intervene [against war].
Now, I think the problem is that these politicians are
really incapable of recognizing what they are doing, and
therefore I think we need to really have a full-fledged
mobilization, in depth, of all the parliamentarians of every
country where you are:  You should use these materials and demand
that all the governments are completely coming out against this,
that they should denounce the false-flag operations.
And we should not forget, there is a German judge whose name
is Peter Vonnahme, who was a judge in a Bavarian court until
2007; and he pointed to the fact that there is a continuity in
all of these provocations, with the obvious aim of regime-change
in Russia.  And then he points to the fact, asking, have people
forgotten the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which led to the Vietnam
War?  Or the case of the so-called babies ripped out of the
incubators in Kuwait, which led to the pretext to attack Iraq [in
1990]? Or the “yellowcake” case in the case of Niger, where
Saddam Hussein supposedly bought yellowcake uranium, which was
another pretext for a war against Iraq [2003]?  Or, the so-called
“Operation Horseshoe” incident, which led to the Kosovo
intervention [1999]?  Now, all these things were orchestrated and
fabricated, and I think we must have a discussion, who is doing
that?  It’s not enough that Tony Blair apologized for the Iraq
war — I mean, these wars have cost {millions} of people their
lives! And I think it is high time that these people are being
called to justice, because this is just too much, and has been
going on for too long.

SCHLANGER:  I’m glad you mentioned Tony Blair, because he’s
one of the people saying that Theresa May doesn’t have to go to
the Parliament, and she should immediate join the coalition with
Macron and Trump, and start bombing in Syria.  So Blair is a war
criminal, whose time has come to be brought before a tribunal.
Now, the picture wouldn’t be complete without us just
getting into this question of going back to what you said was the
initial phase, which is Russiagate.  There was a development,
right in the middle of the Syria mobilization, with the Southern
District of New York U.S. Attorney launching an FBI raid against
Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, for something
that was referred by Mueller, which has {nothing whatsoever} to
do with Russiagate.
Helga, how do you see this?  we’ve basically said, this is
part of a blackmail operation against Trump.  How do you see this
functioning?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it discredits Mueller even more,
because it’s very obvious that this whole Russiagate is falling
apart, or has fallen apart, and now he has shifted what clearly
is not in his mandate [as Special Counsel], by going into a
fishing expedition on a so-called sex story that Trump was
supposedly involved in with some pornographic movie star.  And
obviously, this is so out of order, that I think it should fall
back on Mueller.
It is also very important, what the famous Harvard lawyer,
Alan Dershowitz said, that this is a complete violation of the
U.S. Constitution, the Fourth and the Sixth Amendment.  I think
he is a Democrat, but he blasts the silence of the Democrats and
even the silence of the ACLU, that they do not react.  And he
says, “this is black day for the client-lawyer relations,” and
obviously, it’s one of the many things which absolutely must be
clarified.
Now, we should note the fact that Congressman Nunes had to
go so far as to threat impeachment against FBI Director Wray and
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, because they were
blocking to submit data and documents to the Congressional
oversight committees.  Now, they finally did give two pages in a
relatively unredacted form, which referred to the origins of the
Trump investigation.
So, I think there will be more about that, but I can only
reiterate my call:  We should absolutely mobilize with the
Schiller Institute.  Join the Schiller Institute, become an
active member.  It is very important that we build a movement to
improve relations among nations, to create a New Paradigm, to
have absolute condemnation of this war danger, and establish a
decent relationship with Russia, China and among all nations on
this planet, which is absolutely possible, as we have discussed
many times on this show.
But it requires more people to become active, and therefore,
I again invite you: Join the Schiller Institute and help us in
this mobilization.

SCHLANGER:  And we’ll be putting a number up on the screen
for the White House, so people can make calls to the White House.
And also to the Congress [Capitol Hill Switchboard:
202-224-2131], because there are congressmen, such as Thomas
Massie [R-KY] and others, who are demanding that nothing be done
without the Congress being consulted.
I just wanted to throw one other thing in, which is that in
spite of the danger of the situation, it’s good to see there are
some people who are keeping their sense of humor:  Maria
Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry,
said about Trump’s tweet about “smart” missiles, that if they’re
really “smart” they’ll go after the terrorists who are the ones
responsible for the false flag chemical weapons scare.
Helga, thanks for taking the time and making the effort,
even though you’re ill, to join us today, and to bring this
forward:  We are still on a Red Alert, and it’s very significant
that you took the time and put this out.  Is there anything you
want to add?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  No, I think that’s what we have to do.

SCHLANGER:  OK, very good. So we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  OK, till next week.

Introduktion:

Den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump, den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin kunne, i løbet af de næste par måneder, sammen træffe en række af de absolut vigtigste beslutninger, som ville indvirke på menneskeheden, siden renæssancen i det 15. århundrede. Den mulige løsning på Korea-spørgsmålet er blot et enkelt eksempel. De rette beslutninger, truffet af disse tre nationer og deres allierede i de næste par uger, kunne, i den nærmeste fremtid, begynde at fjerne fattigdom, kolonialisme og krig fra planeten. Løsningerne for at fjerne dette tredobbelte onde ligger både i stjernerne og i os selv.

Britiske imperiekræfter har midlertidigt mistet kontrollen over den svigtende transatlantiske, geopolitiske proces. Nu forsøger de at genvinde fordelen. Ligesom med den britiske efterretningsagent Christopher Steeles Russiagate-svindel, er det nu svindlen med »Rusland forgiftede Sergei Skripal og hans datter«, der efter planen skal drive en kile ind mellem præsident Trump og Vladimir Putin. Hvis denne bestræbelse lykkes, vil alt det arbejde, der er udført af Devin Nunes’ Husets Efterretningskomite og andre, for at afsløre den korrupte rolle, som FBI, Justitsministeriet, Udenrigsministeriet og andre har spillet i det britiskkørte kup imod det amerikanske præsidentskab i 2016, have været forgæves.

Evindelig krig, som de amerikanske administrationer Bush 41, Bush 43 og Obama var fortalere for, kan nu erstattes med en ny økonomisk platform og en ny kulturel platform.

Lørdag, 7. april, er Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche hovedtaler på denne konference, der skal samle amerikanerne omkring dette optimistiske perspektiv. En vedtagelse af de økonomiske forholdsregler og standpunkter, der kendes som LaRouches Fire Love[1] samtidig med en accept af det stående, kinesiske forslag [om USA’s deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej] ville give grundlaget for at skabe en hurtig forøgelse i amerikansk, produktiv beskæftigelse, levestandarder og uddannelse af ungdommen i USA.

Grundlaget for en dialog mellem de »tre store« præsidentskaber er indeholdt i et dokument af Lyndon LaRouche fra marts, 1984, med titlen, »Udkast til aftalememorandum mellem USA og U.S.S.R.«[2]

Indledningen lyder således:

»Det politiske fundament for varig fred må være: a) Alle nationalstaters ubetingede suverænitet, og b) Samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater med det formål at fremme ubegrænsede muligheder for at blive delagtig i fordelene ved teknologisk fremskridt, til gensidig fordel for enhver nationalstat, og alle nationalstater.

Det mest afgørende aspekt ved en aktuel implementering af en sådan politik for varig fred er en dybtgående ændring i de monetære, økonomiske og politiske relationer mellem de dominerende magter og de relativt underordnede nationer, som ofte klassificeres som »udviklingslande«. Med mindre de uligheder, der stadig dvæler i kølvandet på moderne kolonialisme, gradvist afhjælpes, kan der ikke være nogen varig fred på denne planet.«

Sidstnævnte tema vil blive behandlet på mødet 7. april i en præsentation af Jason Ross, medforfatter af Schiller Instituttets Specialrapport, »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika: En vision for en økonomisk renæssance«.[3] Med en befolkning på størrelse med Indiens og med den yngste befolkning i noget kontinent i verden, ville Afrikas fysisk-økonomiske udvikling gennem fælles arbejde, udført af USA sammen med Kina, gøre de gamle koloniregimers racister tavse for altid. Verdens to største økonomier kunne, ved hjælp af Sun Yat-sens og Abraham Lincolns »Tre principper for folket«[4], udgøre spydspidsen for en anti-koloniudvikling og fjerne den fattigdom, som er udløser af racisme og krig.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale:

 

 Schiller Institute Conference with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
        New York City, April 7, 2018

A DIALOGUE OF THREE PRESIDENCIES:

BENDING THE ARC OF THE MORAL UNIVERSE TOWARD JUSTICE 

DIANE SARE: Good afternoon.  I’m Diane Sare with the
Schiller Institute here in Manhattan and at the conference
called “The Dialogue of Three Presidencies:  Bending the Arc of
the Moral Universe toward Justice.”
Fifty years ago this year, our nation suffered two major
assassinations:  The first, on April 4th, 1968, was that of
Martin Luther King, Jr.,[5] who was gunned down while he was
participating in organizing for a sanitation workers’ strike in
Memphis, Tennessee; then, on June 6th, Robert Kennedy — the
second Kennedy to be assassinated — who was likely on a
trajectory to become the President of the United States.  I think
it’s very important to reflect on that change in the United
States 50 years ago.  I was very struck a few weeks ago, having
heard about a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping, where he
spoke in China of the Century of Humiliation.  Starting in 1840,
the Opium Wars against China, which were absolutely devastating
and destructive, run by the British Empire — which is still the
enemy of civilization today; to the Japanese occupation in the
1940s, under which 35 million or more people died.  What
President Xi said to these young people is that, in effect, we
have to take this as a source of strength; that our sacred honor
is that we will never allow ourselves to be humiliated in such a
way again.  And that we will never impose such humiliation upon
any other human being.
So, I was reflecting on the last 50 years in this country,
what we have tolerated.  And before I came here today, I was
reading a little bit from Martin Luther King’s book about the
process leading into his leadership of what became the Montgomery
Bus Boycott.  He described that the unity of the people —
because people may know, it wasn’t just that Rosa Parks refused
to move to the back of the bus and got arrested and somehow there
were demonstrations.  People went on for nearly a year, refusing
to ride the bus.  That meant that people with the postal service
were organizing all these elaborate carpools; and people in their
60s and 70s were walking 12 miles a day to not take the bus.  And
I was thinking to myself, how many Americans today would be
prepared to walk 12 miles a day until we got the Manhattan subway
system fixed, for example?  Or until we found out who actually
was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks?  Or until the torture of
people, which is completely degrading to man as in the image of
God?  How many Americans would be prepared to do that kind of
hard work over an extended time?  I began to think that this is
the — when Lyndon LaRouche a few years ago, we did a series of
memorial concerts on the 15th anniversary of 9/11; and he talked
about the humiliation of Americans not having done anything.  I
thought that’s kind of an odd term; what does he mean
“humiliation”?  When I was reading what Dr. King had to say this
morning, I thought, “Well, of course.  We should be humiliated.”
In a sense, we should be ashamed that we have allowed our nation
to be in the shape that it is, and not have acted sooner.  If we
would take this opportunity this year, to come to that conclusion
firmly as strongly as Xi Jinping means it in China, then there is
absolutely nothing that can stop us.
The person whom I am about to introduce, has been a very
important leader for 40+ years, 50+ years, in that fight.  It is
a very challenging world right now.  The American people clearly
rejected a continuation of British imperial perpetual war and
Wall Street bail-out policies when they rejected the election of
Hillary Clinton.  Because President Trump represents an
opportunity, as this conference is called “Three Presidencies:
Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping.”  Because there is a potential
represented by this administration to end the long reign of the
evil British Empire; everything is going a bit crazy.  I heard
this morning, apparently there was a car that plowed into a crowd
in Muenster, Germany, killing several people and injuring many
others, today while we’re here.  In the United States, we are
bombarded; the American news media is violent in its coverage,
because what it does to you is, it causes whipsaw.  You’re
reading one thing one day, another thing the other day. President
Trump says he wants to get the troops out of Syria; and then we
hear, “The White House says the troops must remain in Syria.”
Well, who is the White House?  It’s apparently not the same thing
as President Trump.  So, this causes a great deal of confusion
and anxiety among the American people.
Mrs. LaRouche, who not only is the founder and chairwoman of
the international Schiller Institute, is also a brilliant writer
and scholar.  She is an expert on Nicholas of Cusa, who wrote a
very important paper called “The Coincidence of Opposites.”  So,
I am confident that her address to us here today, will help all
of us to make sense of the situation and give us an idea of how
we can conduct ourselves to end this 50 years of humiliation in
the United States.  So, with that, I’d like to introduce Helga
Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I want to say “Hello” to you, and I’m
very happy to talk to you, at least via video, so I can share
with you my ideas.
I think in the recent weeks, many people in many countries
have been very distraught about the so-called Skripal affair.
This was the assassination attempt, the poison gas attack on the
former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Immediately,
the Theresa May government accused Russia that they did it.  I
think that this particular situation has demonstrated in a way we
have not seen it ever, what is the role of the British Empire,
the British government, British policies in the present
escalation against Russia, and in a certain sense against China.
This affair was immediately made an issue of NATO, of the
European Union.  Many EU members immediately declared
unconditional solidarity with Theresa May, and they agreed on the
formulation that there is no other plausible explanation than
Russia did it.  I think this reaction is very telling, because it
shows on the one side, the degree of British control in NATO, and
in part in the European Union.  Fortunately, about half of the
European Union members did not agree.  But it also demonstrated
the incredible Orwellian character of the present Western
democracies of the so-called “liberal” Western system.  Because
the idea that you immediately abandon the principle that {in
dubio pro reo}, that the innocence is relevant until proven
guilty; that this was abandoned and that truth was replaced by a
consensus among countries.  If that is the principle of
international policy, then we are all in very bad shape.
The immediate danger is naturally that this thing is not
just leading to mass expulsions of diplomats.  The United States
expelled 60 diplomats; the British expelled a similar number, and
Germany four.  Altogether, I think 23 diplomats in the other
European countries.  But obviously, this has the implication of
leading to a broader escalation of confrontation with Russia and
possibly even war; because this is a prewar propaganda.  If you
look at the timing of this affair, first of all the two Skripals
fortunately seem to be in much better condition.  That raises a
whole bunch of questions because if it was Novichok nerve gas,
then the question is, how did the British have so quickly an
antidote that they are now happily surviving?  Or, maybe it was
not Novichok.  How could they come so quickly to the conclusion
that it was Russia, when Scotland Yard said it would take several
weeks to find out what really was the nerve gas agent used in
this attack.
The timing was at a point where, in the United States, the
whole focus of Congressional investigations of the House
Intelligence Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, similar
committees in the Senate, was about the role of the British
Empire in the Russia-gate affair, or the Trump-gate, or the
Mueller-gate, depending on how you want to call it.  The focus of
several committees started to really put into the limelight the
role of Christopher Steele, the so-called “former” MI6 agent, the
role of the British government, the collusion not with Russia but
with the British in the whole attempt to make a coup against
President Trump.  So, that was very convenient, because all of a
sudden, it was the Russia issue again.  May, in these days, you
could always say that the days of Theresa May seemed to be
numbered; because she was in such an unstable position.
Now, cui bono?  Who has the motive?  In whose interest
would be such an affair?  Well, Russia really has no motive; why
would this occur just weeks before the Presidential election in
Russia?  Would Putin really want to have such notoriety just
before the election, and just before the World Soccer World Cup?
So, also Russia would have had many opportunities to kill
Skripal; he was, for many years, in a Russian jail, he lived for
many years in Great Britain without any problem.  Nevertheless,
despite that, Merkel and Macron, half of the EU immediately came
out saying, “No, it is the only plausible explanation that it was
Russia.”  Boris Johnson gave an interview to a German radio
called Deutsche Welle, where he said that he had absolute
scientific proof from the scientists of the Porton Down
laboratory, who had definitely said that they had 100 % proof that
it was Russia.  In the meantime, the scientists refused to
provide the after-the-fact evidence, and the head of the lab, Mr.
Aitkenhead, said that they could identify that it was Novichok;
but that they absolutely could not identify the source of the
origin of this poison gas.  This was a very lamentable situation,
so the Foreign Office immediately deleted the tweet in which this
was stated; which now has Boris Johnson’s stand there as a liar.
That does not prevent the Theresa May government from continuing
to push the lie that Russia did it.
Many officials in Russia — Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov; Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman [Maria] Zakharova, the head of foreign intelligence
[Sergey] Naryshkin — the all pointed to the fact that the {cui bono} and
the likelihood, and who has the capacity and motive, actually
points to British intelligence.  This whole operation — and this
was pointed out by many experts and commentators — this
absolutely parallels what the British did in the Iraq case in
2003; where also MI6 produced a dossier supposedly proving that
Saddam Hussein was in the possession of weapons of mass
destruction which could reach every city within 45 minutes around
the globe.  That Saddam Hussein supposedly had absolute
connections with al-Qaeda; which was a blatant lie, because
Saddam Hussein used to throw al-Qaeda people into jail and other
things.  But this was then used as a pretext.  So, Colin Powell
gave the famous speech in the United Nations motivating U.S.
participation in the Iraq War.  Then, the war against Iraq
occurred, with many hundreds of thousands of people losing their
lives as a result.
This is what some people in Russia in the meantime have
called “Goebbels” propaganda.  Why is there such a demonization
of Russia?  Why is there a demonization of President Putin coming
essentially from the same people who are also demonizing
President Trump and President Xi Jinping?  This is the same
foolishness which already led to the Second World War and which
could easily trigger a Third World War.  There is the danger that
these war-mongers are repeating the same methodological mistake,
stupidity, which led to two world wars.
What is behind that is a mixture of desperation because the
financial powers of the City of London and their Wall Street
backers and collaborators see clearly that their system is
failing.  Obviously, they have a complete fear that this would go
with a complete loss of their political and financial power.  But
it is also an obsession that their schemes will function, and if
they just have enough containment and escalation then their
system will be proven superior.  They are confronted with their
system not succeeding, but failing; they don’t have the intended
unipolar world, but they are confronted with the emergence of a
completely New Paradigm in the world.
If you want to understand why Russia is such a focus of
Russophobia right now, you have to take the situation back to the
end of the Soviet Union.  Because in the United States, at a
point when the Soviet Union started to disintegrate and there
would have actually been the possibility for a peace order for
the 21st Century, you had in the United States the consolidation
of the neo-cons.  They revived the American Century doctrine,
which originally was formulated by Walter Lippmann in 1943, when
he published a book with that name which then became the entire
basis for the post-war order; the legitimacy of NATO, the whole
Cold War.  It was the idea to revive that with the project for a
new American Century and the idea that you would replace the two
superpower system with an unipolar world based on the
Anglo-American special relationship, and a neo-liberal monetarist
system.  This was essentially a continuation of the idea that you
would control the developing countries, keep them in relative
backwardness, and deregulate the financial system in order to
bring back the power of Wall Street and the City of London, and
basically control the world that way.
In 1989, when the German reunification happened, this was
actually combined with the promise that NATO would never expand
eastward.  You have to remember that the Soviet Union agreed to
the dissolution of the GDR and German reunification without the
use of force.  You could say, in light of the history of the
Second World War, where the Soviet Union had suffered tremendous
losses of life and naturally had a very terrible memory of Nazi
Germany that it was extremely generous of the Soviet Union to
agree to that.  The promise was clearly given not to expand NATO
eastward; this was emphasized many times by the former American
ambassador in Moscow at that time, John Matlock.  In the recent
publications of the archives from George Washington University,
it was also clear that this was, indeed, a promise made.
In 1990, the General Secretary of NATO at that time, Manfred
Wörner, made a speech in Brussels which is worth remembering.  He
at that time said, “The goal for the next decade is the creation
of a European security structure, including the Soviet Union and
the states of the Warsaw Pact,” and that the Soviet Union would
play an important role in the construction of such a security
system, and that he would understand the wish of the Soviet Union
not to be excluded from Europe.  “The West cannot answer to the
erosion of the Warsaw Pact with a weakening or dissolution of
[NATO]”; and therefore, “the only answer is the creation of a
security framework which includes both alliances” and which
includes the “Soviet Union into a cooperating Europe….  The
very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the
territory of the Federal Republic [of Germany] gives the Soviet
Union firm security guarantees,” Wörner said.
This is all proven by these new documents which have been
published that the West obviously, or the neo-cons and their
British partners, were clearly promoting a different policy and
making fake promises.  On the surface, the offer to the Soviet
Union continued.  Still in 1994, President Clinton said the NATO
expansion is not anti-Russian; it means inclusion instead of
exclusion.  But then, things became more dramatic.  In 1999,
there was the famous Tony Blair speech in Chicago, which was the
definite elimination of whatever relic of the Peace of Westphalia
system existed; and by that, also the elimination of the
principles of the UN Charter — namely, guaranteeing the
sovereignty of every country.  This was clearly a foreshadowing
of what Blair did later in 2003 with the Iraq War.  What replaced
the idea of respect for the sovereignty of countries was the idea
of “humanitarian” interventions.  Naturally, then in 2001 with
the September 11th attack, which was a complete assault on all
civil liberties and civil rights which had been fought for, for
decades.  And it imposed an international regime with the pretext
of the war against terrorism.
What followed then was regime change, color revolution.  You
had the Orange Revolution in 2004 in Ukraine; you had the Rose
Revolution in Georgia.  In the meantime, both the Russian and
Chinese militaries respectively stated that they regarded color
revolution as an absolute total form of warfare.  Naturally, the
Maidan coup against the Ukraine government belongs in this chain.
Also, already in 2002, the United States abandoned
unilaterally the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty, and
proceeded to build up a global ABM system, which Russia had said
at the very beginning, they could not tolerate the Phase 3 and
Phase 4 of it to be implemented, because it would completely
undermine the strategic stability and therefore be a threat to
the security interests of Russia.
In the 16 years of Bush, Jr. and Obama, these
interventionist wars continued.  Bush declared the “Axis of
Evil,” and the various wars in the Middle East and northern
Africa started to eliminate governments which were not agreeable
to this idea of a unipolar world.  The world was slowly and
steadily going to more Hell, more refugee crises, more misery;
millions of people dying in the Middle East and northern Africa.
Then, in 2013, the world suddenly changed for the better.
President Xi Jinping announced a new model of international
relationships in Kazakhstan — the New Silk Road.  In the
tradition of the ancient Silk Road, which was an incredible
exchange not only of goods, technologies, cultures, ideas, but
also laid the foundation of a dialogue among nations; this New
Silk Road took on a development which is unprecedented I think in
all of history.  In the last 4.5 years, this new Spirit of the
New Silk Road started to catch on, so that by now, more than 140
countries are cooperating in Asia, in Latin America, in Africa,
even in Europe, with the New Silk Road.  You have a tremendous
sense of optimism in Latin America, where practically all Latin
American countries are now building and planning to build
bi-oceanic projects; bi-oceanic railway between Brazil and Peru,
bi-oceanic tunnels between Argentina and Chile, and many other
projects.  So, the Spirit of the New Silk Road has definitely
caught on in the Caribbean and Latin American countries.  It is
for sure the case in the Asian countries, and many corridors are
being built.  Africa has completely changed with the building of
railways from Djibouti to Addis Ababa; all along the eastern
African countries, the western African countries.  If you look at
the map of Chinese investments in railway systems and industry
parks and hydropower in many other agricultural projects, there
is a completely new spirit and self confidence among the Africa
nations that they can now overcome poverty and under-development
for the first time, in the near future.  Even in Europe, where
the EU has been absolutely blocking any cooperation, the New Silk
Road Spirit has absolutely caught on.  You have the 16+1 Eastern
and Central European countries; you have the Balkan countries.
Italy is now engaged together with China in a major project
called Transaqua, which will change the lives of 12 African
nations and bring industrialization into the heart of Africa. But
also, Portugal and Spain want to be the hubs not only for the
western end of the Eurasian part of the New Silk Road, but to be
also a hub for the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries in
Africa and Asia and Latin America.  So, the New Silk Road Spirit
is absolutely on the agenda.  Also in Switzerland, in Austria,
and even in Holland, Belgium, and some of the Scandinavian
countries.
This is based on the idea of a win-win cooperation of
respect for the sovereignty of the other country and respect for
the other social system.  This has been an incredible
development.  It’s already 12 times larger than the Marshall Plan
was, but the amazing thing is that for 4.5 years where this
project is now progressing, the Western mainstream media and
Western politicians have virtually ignored it; they have not
reported it, and only in the recent period have they suddenly
realized this is unstoppable.  What is now occurring is a flood
of attacks from the main think tanks, saying this is just an
authoritarian effort by the Chinese to replace the Anglo-American
imperialism with a Chinese one, and they want to take over the
world.  It was quite a sudden change in the coverage and in the
comments.
A similar shock happened when they realized that Russia was
absolutely not a regional power as Obama had told, but that
basically it was about to become, under the leadership of
President Putin, a major power again.  So therefore, when Trump
suddenly won the election, the same apparatus which is now behind
the Skripal affair — British intelligence in collusion with the
intelligence heads of the Obama administration — started a
policy of a coup against President Trump.  There was an article
in January 2017 by the British paper {The Spectator}, which said
that President Trump would be gotten out of the White House
either through a coup, impeachment, or an assassination attempt.
That was obviously the policy which these people followed, and
the aim clearly was to prevent President Trump — who had
promised in the election campaign to improve relations with
Russia and bring it back on a stable and good basis — to prevent
Trump from doing it by saying, “If you dare to speak to President
Putin, that just proves you are a Russian agent.”  It took indeed
until the G-20 meeting in Hamburg last year, before Putin and
Trump had a personal meeting and actually hit it off very well.
Also, between President Trump and President Xi Jinping,
contrary to what Trump had said in the election campaign where he
was actually on a quite strong China-bashing mode, he received
President Xi Jinping in April last year at his private residence
in Mar-a-Lago.  And they established a very good positive
relationship between the two of them.  Then, when President Trump
went to Beijing for a visit in October last year, President Xi
Jinping returned this and gave Trump what they called a “state
visit plus.”  President Xi Jinping had the Forbidden City closed
down to visitors for an entire day, and gave a huge long history
lecture on Chinese history to President Trump and his wife.  They
established and deepened their relationship.
In the meantime, also Russia and China established the
deepest strategic partnership in their history.  Putin gave a
speech on March 3, 2018 to the Federal Assembly, where he
announced new weapons systems; basically, a long-range missile
which does not follow the ballistic curve, but is highly
maneuverable. Then also, a nuclear-powered cruise missile which
the West absolutely does not have, and a nuclear-powered
underwater drone which is quicker than above-water ships, and
laser weapons.  This combination of these and other weapons means
that all of sudden, the entire global ABM system the United
States had proceeded to build is obsolete.  President Putin said,
well, the West refused to even respond to all the offers made by
Russia since 2002; but now, they have to respond.  It is quite
amazing that, except the demand of four American ambassadors,
they have not yet responded.  Western media tended to belittle
these new weapons systems, or ignore them for the most part.
[Chinese Foreign Minister] Wang Yi and the Chinese Defense
Minister Wei Fenghe just attended the very large 7th Moscow
International Security Conference, which was attended by 900
guests and 700 media.  Wang Yi said that Russia can pursue its
own interests and play a larger role in the international and
regional stages.  The Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe said he
came in order to send a signal to Washington that the
Russian-Chinese alliance is absolutely the strongest and that
there is a very close cooperation between the Russian and the
Chinese armed forces.
All of these things have to be seen as a dynamic process,
where we are now on the verge also of a full-fledged trade war.
Admittedly, the trade deficit of the United States with China is
untenable; but when President Trump said that he wants to impose
tariffs first on $60 billion trade deficit, and then on another
$100 billion trade deficit, this was met by an unusually sharp
response from the Chinese.  Global Times wrote yesterday that
China will not submit to the U.S. trade intimidation; that China
is prepared to react with a full list of their own tariffs on
American imports; that the trade war will cause pain for China,
but the Chinese society will rally and unite around the
government and the Party; and that they will also present a
detailed plan to respond, and then the Americans would have to
choose if they back their President in doing so, or if they hold
him accountable for the consequences.  China Daily even
mentioned that the Chinese countermeasures could include the
dumping of U.S. Treasuries, of which they have $1.4 trillion as
securities.
All of this comes at a moment where, at any moment, we could
have a new financial crash much worse than that of 2008, because
all the central banks did absolutely nothing to remove the root
causes of the crisis of 2008.  They just did quantitative easing,
zero interest rates, and naturally many corporations took that
gratis money to buy back their own stocks so that their stock
exchange values would go up, but the corporate debt would
increase.  Now, as the Federal Reserve is trying to increase the
interest rate, the blow-out of these corporate debt situations
could trigger a complete systemic collapse.  That is just one of
the many facets of this crisis.
An insider in the banking system, a well-placed one, told us
very recently that there is actually the possibility that some of
the financial forces could even deliberately trigger a crash
which they know is inevitable to come, as a deliberate plan to
pull the rug out from underneath President Trump; to bring back
the neo-cons, and that way to solve the problem which they could
not solve with the failed Russia-gate attempt. One thing is very
clear.  If that would happen and the neo-cons would get fully
back in the United States, World War III is as good as secure and
certain.
In the middle of this Skripal affair, President Trump and
President Putin telephoned; and President Trump absolutely
refused to send out tweets on this affair or otherwise join in
the present Russia bashing.
I want to make the strong point that there is a solution to
all of the problems I just mentioned.  That is, that there are
many possibilities.  For example, when Presidents Trump and Putin
will have a summit in the near future, they could discuss this.
Also, the Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang had recently pointed
to the fact that there is actually another way to solve the trade
deficit; namely, by massively increasing the trade.  President Xi
Jinping has offered to the whole world, including all the
European nations and the United States, that they should
cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative.  China could decide
and choose not to dump U.S. Treasuries as a punishment for the
U.S. trade measures, but they could invest the $1.4 trillion in
U.S. Treasuries in infrastructure in the United States.  Diane
mentioned the Manhattan subway system in her remarks, and if you
look at the infrastructure — not only in Manhattan, but in all
of the United States — the condition of the highways, the
absolute absence of a fast train system; it is very clear that
the United States urgently needs investment in infrastructure.
President Trump had promised in the election campaign that he
would invest $1 trillion in infrastructure build-up; but so far,
he has not been able to find any financing, because the private
investors want an 11 % to 12 % return and a complete return of
their capital within 10 years.  Which means it is not possible to
finance it through private investment.  The neo-cons in the
Senate and in the Congress do not want to spend it in the Federal
budget.  The idea to distribute it to the regional and state
governments is just not practical.
So, if on the other side, China, which has a fantastic fast
train system of I think 25,000 km of fast train, and is planning
to connect every major Chinese city with a fast train system and
build 40,000 km of fast train systems by 2020; China could help
to build such a fast train system in the United States and
connect every major city with a fast train system going 350 mph
and in that way, completely transform the infrastructure of the
United States.  This would help not only to overcome the trade
deficit, but it would open the way for joint ventures between the
United States and China in third countries.  In Latin America
where, contrary to what former Secretary of State Tillerson had
said, China is not trying to build an imperial system in Latin
America.  But China and the United States could join hands in
building up the industries of the Southern Hemisphere.  Also, the
same could happen in Asian countries along the Belt and Road; and
also naturally in Africa.  It could happen in the reconstruction
and economic build-up of the war-torn region of Southwest Asia,
and naturally of Africa in general.
This could even include Great Britain eventually, if they
change their government and if they get their crimes cleared up
which they clearly have committed.  But it would mean absolutely
the necessity to reform the financial system of the United States
and Western Europe.
My husband, Lyndon LaRouche, has already developed several
years ago a package which together would absolutely remedy the
situation.  It would mean that the United States should go back
to a Hamiltonian banking policy, to a banking system in the
tradition of Alexander Hamilton; including the Glass-Steagall
banking separation of Franklin D Roosevelt.  Then, have a
national bank, a credit system, then have a crash program for
thermonuclear fusion and joint space cooperation with other
countries in order to increase the productivity of the economy in
a qualitative way.
What people really don’t realize, or most people don’t
realize, is that the present Chinese model of economy and the
early U.S. republic model are very similar.  They’re based on
Hamiltonian principles.  In China, they have now made a huge
effort to eliminate the speculative area, to forbid Chinese
investors abroad to invest in speculation.  It is very clear that
China, even if they don’t call it way, is actually very close to
the American System.  And it is no coincidence that the most
popular economist in China is Friedrich List, the German
economist who was sort of the predecessor to Henry C. Carey, and
who wrote important writings about the different between the
British and the American systems.  Germany also has a tradition
of that; namely, the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the Credit
Bank for Reconstruction, which was based on the Roosevelt
Reconstruction Finance Corporation and was the basis for the
German economic miracle in the post-war reconstruction.  So, also
in Europe, you have some relevance and memory of this system.
Now after Xi Jinping had announced the New Silk Road, the
Schiller Institute and our organization published a study which
we had worked on for 26 years with the name “The New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” which is actually the absolute
blueprint and outline for an international economic cooperation
of all nations overcoming geopolitics.
Now just imagine if we could mobilize the American people to
exert pressure on President Trump and give him backing, and he
would accept the offer of Xi Jinping to cooperate with the New
Silk Road in this way and also the European countries would
eventually recognize — most of them are doing it already — but
even the remaining ones would recognize that the cooperation with
Russia, with China and the other nations who already have jointed
the Belt and Road initiative–that this would be much more in
their self-interest, than the present course of the British
confrontation with Russia and with China.
If such an international economic cooperation could be
realized, it would also be the realistic basis for a global
security architecture which would include among others also
Russia and China.  It would then require that we do exactly what
Xi Jinping has said many times, that mankind needs to move in a
new phase of international cooperation, what he calls the “shared
community of the future of mankind” or a “community of destiny,”
then we could start to focus on the real problems, the common
aims of mankind.  We could build a system to make nuclear weapons
obsolete, a new form of the SDI, what my husband had proposed, in
the end of the 1970s and then it was in the works for several
years; and then on March 23, 1983, President Regan had announced
the SDI as a way for both superpowers to cooperate to make
nuclear weapons obsolete. I think in light of the present danger
of a new arms race and the already-existing arms race and the
danger that this gets out of control, we need such an approach as
a new SDI; and also a new SDE [Strategic Defense of the Earth],
because the planet as a whole is threatened by dangers from
space, from asteroids, from comets, which could really extinguish
life on this Earth.
We should instead concentrate on the common aims of
mankind–the alleviation of poverty, the creation of a living
standard for a decent life for every human being on this planet,
and a system of earthquake precursors and joint space research
and travel.  We should concentrate on space colonization as the
necessary and possible next phase of the evolution of the human
species. I think that if we combine that with a dialogue of
cultures where each nation would emphasize and revive the best
traditions of its own culture, and then have a dialogue among all
of these nations and cultures, we could absolutely create the
basis for a new Renaissance.
Skeptics would say that this is completely unrealistic.  But
I’m saying that the fact that you have these three
Presidents–President Putin, who is obviously recognized and
loved by the Russian people, and has just been reelected with an
overwhelming majority; with Xi Jinping, who is an exceptional
leader who obviously is equally loved by the Chinese population,
and basically they decided to eliminate the limits to his term in
office so that he can guide China in these very, very important
coming years; and President Trump, who is absolutely not what the
media are making out of him, but who has shown again and again
that he has outflanked a pretty difficult factional situation in
his own party, and naturally with a Congress and a Senate which
are very obstructive for the most part.  I think that if the
three Presidents join hands and do what they clearly did very
successfully so far, in the attempt to solve the crisis of the
Korean Peninsula, I absolutely think this is a realistic option.
However, we should not sit on our hands, but we should
really get into an international mobilization to propose this
agenda, and do everything in our means to make it possible.  It
is the life of civilization which depends on it.
Thank you. [Applause]

SARE:  Thank you. We can now take questions from the
audience here. Please say your name, and if you represent an
institution or a press agency, please state what you’re
representing as well.

Q:  I would like to ask you a question on behalf of Weiwei
TV. As you may know, President Donald Trump has already
instituted trade policies on China and China made a serious
response.  So I would like to know how you see the relationship
between the United States and China? And what direction do you
think this relationship is going to?  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think that we have a very serious danger,
because if it comes to this trade war, as I mentioned, you have
already a collapsing financial system of the trans-Atlantic
region.  And a trade war could easily be one of the elements
triggering a complete meltdown of the financial system and that
would obviously be much worse for the West than for China, which
has taken certain measures to eliminate speculation and put the
whole Chinese economy on a solid ground.  Nevertheless, the
consequences of a financial crash would be potentially extremely
dangerous.  As I said, if the neo-cons would come back and Trump
would be ousted in this context, we would be back to Hell in no
time.
On the other side, the trade war has not yet started.  So
far, it’s just lists, and there is room to put on the agenda a
different proposal.  I think Prime Minister Li Keqiang already
pointed to it, to increase the trade in joint ventures in third
countries.  I think that the more people talk about this idea of
U.S. investments in infrastructure and, for example, Xi Jinping
could reiterate the proposal for the United States to join the
Belt and Road Initiative, I think the trade war can still be
avoided. But it does need determined action.
And I think that the possibility exists simply because the
relationship between Xi Jinping and Trump has so far lasted over
a year, and they have telephoned around many crises; and
basically the Korea situation is on a very good course.  There
will be a summit between [Shinzo] Abe and Trump, who also wants
to play a positive role.  There will be a meeting between Putin
and Trump, hopefully very soon; and Kim Jong-Un and Trump. So I
think there is a diplomatic framework where many initiatives can
be made, and I think the New Silk Road is definitely the answer
to solve all of these problems.

Q:  Hello.  I think what you have said today is just
enlightening.  My name is Alan S.  I’m a screenwriter and
producer of a World War I mini-series, called “The 42nd Rainbow
Division.”  I think history is our greatest weapon and if we
start actually thinking back to what Russia actually did, for not
only World War II, but also World War I.  We would have lost both
world wars. And actually the United States wouldn’t have even
been in World War I, because we would have lost it before we even
got in.  They were a huge ally.
I think history needs to be taught to the young and that’s
why I’m doing this series, is because the younger generations
don’t realize that Russia has been an ally. And now we’re
vilifying Russia and making them into a villain when it should be
the opposite.  How do we actually teach this to the young?  The
younger generations are our hope and they’re our future.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think we need to change the narrative of
the neo-cons. Because when the Ukraine crisis started to develop,
President Putin said if it would not have been Ukraine, they
would have found another way to escalate the confrontation with
Russia. And I think that this is absolutely the case.
I think to change the narrative of the Ukraine, because this
is really when the total escalation against Putin as the demon
started, is a very urgent matter because right now President
Poroshenko has announced that he wants to basically have a
military solution for the east Ukraine, which could easily
provoke a war with Russia.
I think the narrative has to be replaced by the truth.  The
truth is that Victoria Nuland bragged that she and the State
Department spent $5 billion in building up NGOs to cause regime
change in Ukraine.  The former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt–even he
admitted that the Ukraine crisis started with the EU expansion
summit of Maastricht in 1992, when the eastward expansion of the
EU was decided, and the crisis was triggered when the EU wanted
to have the association of Ukraine (basically at the end of 2013,
which was the point when President Yanukovych decided he couldn’t
do it because it would have given NATO access to the Black Sea;
it would have flooded Russia with EU products.  This then
triggered the Maidan, which was immediately supported by these
NGOs financed by Nuland and the West, supported by neo-Nazis
which were then causing the violence, and finally the coup in
February 2014, imposing a fascist government as a reaction to
that. And the threat to forbid the Russian language, the people
in the Crimea decided to hold a referendum and they voted to be
part of Russia, so Crimea was not annexed, but it was a vote for
self-determination of the Crimean people.
I’m telling you all of this because part of the demonization
of Putin, is the Ukraine story and what he supposedly did with
Crimea, and all of this is not true.  I think we have to really
make an effort, to maybe produce many more movies and maybe we
can work together to this effect because we have documented many
of these wrong narratives and we must make them known. Because if
the mass media are just portraying this idea that Russia is about
to do everything, and behind every —  it is worse than the
McCarthy period and people are just hyped up which can only be
characterized as a prewar propaganda. Because why do you build up
an enemy image, because you want to make war against this nation.
This is a mortal danger in which the whole world is. And I think
this Skripal affair–the fact that it backfired, the fact that
the British were caught lying, is really also a chance.
I would suggest that we work together on making more movies.
We have already put out a lot of them, but I think we need and
call upon all of you to help to distribute them, and make them
known to as many young, middle-aged, and old people as we can.

Q:  Mrs. LaRouche.  Thank you very much for your speech.  I
think everyone here–we’re very pleased to hear what you said. My
name is Amber J. I’m political activist right now working with
several groups for supporting Trump and also for the midterm
election.  And also, I’m working for fighting for
Chinese-American minority civil rights kind of thing.
I have a question — I believe everybody came to this
conference understands your speech and understands the principle
of three countries cooperating with each other.  But there are
some Trump supporters, they stand for Trump because Trump is
starting a trade war right now.  How would you persuade those
Trump supporters to understand this win-win cooperation between
these three countries, to maximize the effort for these three
countries to cooperate together?
And also I believe a while ago, I heard India and Japan and
probably the U.S.A. talking about starting another kind of
international cooperation in terms of the infrastructure.  That
is the kind of thing similar to the Silk Road, the One Belt, One
Road.  How would you like to define that, or could you say about
something about it?  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think this is again another narrative
which needs to be replaced by truth. And that is, what is
actually the Chinese policy?  Part of this problem is that for a
long period of time the Western media and certain political
circles in the United States have also painted a very negative
picture about China.  I think Chinese-Americans, and you yourself
could help to correct that.
I must say, my image of China is incredibly positive;

because I was there for the first time in 1971.  This was in the
Cultural Revolution.  And this was an unbelievable experience
because at that time, the country was completely distraught.
People there were unhappy.  The Red Guards took people out of
their homes in the night.  They painted all the cultural
buildings, the Summer Palace and other places in Beijing, with
red paint.
Anyway, I’m just reporting that to say that when I returned
to China after 25 years, in 1996, already with the idea of the
Eurasian Land-Bridge, the idea of the New Silk Road, where I
attended a major conference on that subject in Beijing as a
speaker, the country had already been completely transformed as a
result of the policies of Deng Xiaoping.
But if you now go to China, it is unbelievable.  The country
is prosperous; there is a large well-to-do middle class.  People
are optimistic about the future.  They have an absolute vision, a
self-confidence about China, about eliminating poverty by 2020.
President Xi Jinping has a hands-on policy, going to the
villages, talking to individuals; finding out what measures must
be taken to eliminate poverty.
It’s just such an incredibly optimistic situation–where
also, culturally, China is pursuing the revival of Confucianism.
Xi Jinping personally has made a big emphasis that Confucian
philosophy is being taught on all levels of society.
I think that if people, especially in the Chinese-American
community would amplify our efforts to show the real, true
picture of China, I think the Trump supporters would absolutely
understand, that it {is} in the best interest for the United
States and China to cooperate.  If you think about it, if the two
largest economies in the world cannot cooperate, the danger of
world war is very big.
Many people have talked about the Thucydides trap.  This
refers to the rivalry between ancient Athens and Sparta, which
led to the Peloponnesian War, and the final disappearance of
Classical, ancient Greece.  If there would be a Thucydides trap
between the United States and China; if the United States would
react to the rise of China by a military confrontation, the world
as a whole would not survive it.
China has (especially the Chinese ambassador in Washington,
Cui Tiankai stressed that it is not the intention to replace the
U.S. as the strongest power, but to have a special great power
relationship, where both of them respect the sovereignty of the
other, respect the different social system of the other, and then
join hands and cooperate in all strategic matters.
I think there must be a very big mobilization where the
image of China in the United States is being straightened out,
because once people know the beauty of Chinese culture, the
optimism of the Chinese population, everything will change.
It is right now that the United States has a big moral and
cultural crisis.  You have for the first time the life-expectancy
going down.  For two years in a row, you have the life-expectancy
of all categories of life in the United States shrinking.  If
there is any parameter for a collapsing economy, it is the
life-expectancy. And that is naturally due to the new opium
epidemic, the rate of suicides because of depression, alcoholism,
and the terrible culture of death, which expresses itself in the
youth culture, violence of the video games, in the whole
entertainment industry, which is contributing to these many
school shootings.
You do have a cultural problem.  And I think you have to go
back to the philosophy of Benjamin Franklin, the founder and
father of America, who used to be a complete Confucian
philosopher.  He recognized the wonderful aspects of the moral
philosophy of Confucius and modeled his own moral system on the
basis of Confucius.  There are many parallels.  You have the
Confucius tradition with Benjamin Franklin, and in China, you
have the American System of Alexander Hamilton in the early phase
of the American republic, and now, in the Chinese model.  And you
have many similarities which, once you see, you can see that
there are universal principles uniting these two countries, which
are much more deep and much more important than the superficial
conflicts.
I would say the best thing one can do to intervene in this
situation is, we have proposed the project for the China
investment in infrastructure.  This has been picked up by a
Chinese professor recently, John Gong.  It has been covered by
CGTN TV.  There is a very famous Trump supporter in California,
who just made a similar proposal.  I think that has to be talked
up. I think we have to talk up the idea of overcoming the danger
of a trade war, by putting instead on the table Chinese
investment in infrastructure, U.S. and China joining in joint
ventures in third countries, and start a real cultural dialogue,
so that the two people start to know each other and know the best
of each other. And that way we can overcome this crisis.

SARE:  Helga, I have a question which I think is related.
You may want to say more.  It comes from Sr. Pat C., of the
Dominican Sisters of Peace who is also a member of the alto
section of the Schiller Institute chorus.
She writes, “In your view, what concrete actions now will
help catalyze the transition from a competition of nations to
cooperation and mutual respect?”
I think you largely have addressed that, but there may be
more that you want to say.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think that the knowledge about the
incredible dynamic of the Belt and Road Initiative, once people
know that, it changes there view.  For example, take the case of
Austria.  Austria is a small country, but they want to take a
leading role in becoming a hub for the New Silk Road.  They just
had a conference planning to broaden the gauge of the railway
from Vienna all the way to Moscow, so that they can be better
integrated in the container trains and similar things.  All the
Balkan countries are completely on board.  The Eastern European
countries, the Central European countries are all planning to be
hubs and bridges.
The excitement in Africa– I mean, if people would know,
there is a completely different spirit!  No longer do the
Africans want to be receivers of donations.  They want to be
treated as equal partners. They want to have investments, and the
spirit of the New Silk Road has absolutely changed the
self-esteem and self-confidence of all the African leaders and
many of the people.
Just take this case of the Transaqua project.  Transaqua is
a project which was originally proposed by Bonifica, an Italian
engineering firm, already more than 30 years ago. And the
Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement were campaigning for
that for decades, because it is one of the key projects for the
entire continent.  What it would essentially mean is that you
would take about 3-4% of the water from the tributaries of the
Congo River, at a 500 meter height, and then by gravitation, you
can bring this water through a system of canals all the way to
Lake Chad, which is now dried out to less than 10% of its
original volume.  This affects the live immediately of 40 million
people in the Lake Chad Basin.  When you bring this water back
into Lake Chad, not only do you fill up this lake again, and
create large volumes of water for irrigation for agriculture; you
also create an inland shipping system for 12 countries in the
heart of Africa; you create hydropower; you create a system of
industry parks, of industrialization. So you bring in the
industrialization in the middle of Africa, and that with all the
other infrastructure projects, will mean Africa has a future.
By the year 2040, there will be 2 billion people living in
Africa, and they need these jobs, they need education, they need
the kinds of projects, so that people are no longer marching
through the Sahara and dying of thirst, which is happening now
more than people even dying in the Mediterranean–it’s just not
being reported.  These young people would instead help in the
building up of the African continent.
This is such a fantastic development, and if the Americans
would know about it — I mean, I’m only talking about the tip of
the iceberg — but if people would see the sheer volume of change
and the magnitude of change which is already happening, they
would become absolutely optimistic and change their view, and
recognize that in the history of mankind, geopolitics is
something that absolutely has to be overcome, if we are supposed
to survive as a human species.  In the age of thermonuclear
weapons, if you do not overcome geopolitics, we are going to be
the destruction of our own species; and nobody in their right
mind can really want that because even those warmongers, who are
pushing it, would be eliminated themselves, too.
I think that the moment has absolutely arrived.  If we go
into a mass advertising campaign, a mass education campaign,
about the existence of this New Paradigm, I think it can
absolutely inspire the Americans and make the change which is
necessary in the short term.

Q: Hi, I am an American citizen and a Confucian, I believe
in Confucianism.  I’m an independent scholar of language and
civilization.  I was an instructor of Chinese at Harvard
University, in the Department of Eastern Language and
Civilization.
I have the same idea as you that America needs to join
China’s One Belt and One Road plan.  I grew up 10 years ago,
during the age of reform of China. I worked as at the FESCO, the
Foreign Enterprise Service Corporation.  I think more than 20
years ago, many American, European and Japanese companies
invested in China, and gave us was a better economy, and I think
it was very important.
Now, I think in the 21st century, China’s economy is much
improved.  It’s time to bring China’s investments into America
and to help America’s economy.  That’s why in 2016, I was for
Donald Trump.  I want to work with American people; I want to be
the bridge to connect China and America, to bring China’s
investment into America, to best help America’s economy.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Very good!  So many you can join with the
Schiller Institute to help us, to get this message out widely.
Because you know, already now the states which are doing large
business with China, see the advantage.  When President Donald
Trump was in China last November, he had with him delegations
from several states — West Virginia, Alaska, and some others.
And in the case of West Virginia, he brought back trade deals
and investment deals worth $83 billion!  And the governor of West
Virginia is completely optimistic that this will give back hope
to all the people in West Virginia.
And there are many projects, for example, one very exciting
idea is that Beijing, and the region of Hebei province and
Tianjin, this is a region of about 130 million people, and there
is a now a huge project whereby this region will be changed,
where the heavy industry, which still has some environmental
problems, causing smog and pollution is now being outsourced into
Hebei province and modernized; a new city is being built, I think
its name is Xiong’an, which is in the middle between Beijing,
Tianjin and Hebei, and it’s completely modernized.  Beijing on
the other side, will have lots of research and development, which
is much cleaner for the environment, and all of this is supposed
to be connected through an infra-urban modern transport system,
including modern maglev.  And the recent “Two Sessions”
conference and the National People’s Congress in China, the party
discussed building a new maglev system of 600 kph speed, for the
connection between the cities, and an inter-urban slow maglev
system of 160 kph.
This is very good for urban transportation, because the
beauty of the maglev system is that it accelerates immediately:
You are in a few seconds at full speed, with the slow maglev
you’re only going 160 kph, which is enough for inner city
transport; and they want to connect this entire region with this
modern transport system, so that essentially no job will be more
than 20 minutes away from the home of the working person.  So you
save all this commuting time.
And my idea is that this model of the Tianjin-Hebei-Beijing
region could be a model for the modernization of New York, New
Jersey, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the Midwest, and you actually
do something like that inside the United States.  And I think
President Trump is a developer; he knows about infrastructure,
and I think we just have to make sure that the Trump supporters
know about these plans, and that we create an environment where
this is actually intersecting the present crisis and danger of a
trade war.
If you move quickly enough, and get the Trump voters all
inspired with this idea, I think we can do a miracle. And I
definitely believe in miracles, as long as we do them ourselves.

Q: [follow-up] Thank you very much.  I totally agree with
you.  I believe that to bring China’s investment and enterprise
is more important in the trade market.  And secondly, I was a
professional Chinese instructor:  I want to educate more
Americans and Chinese people to understand each other, and make a
friendship to develop together.

Q: I’m José V.: I’m here from New York City.  Earlier you
touched upon the youth culture and the culture of death, and I
was hoping you could touch more upon that, because in my
experience — and I’m only 19 myself, too — but from what I see
of people around me, but also my nephew who will be turning 15
this year, I see he’s more interested in violent video games and
yelling into the microphone to imaginary people who aren’t there,
and spending a lot of money on things that will never really help
him out in life: for example, he brought a $300 belt buckle,
because it said somebody’s name on it, I think it’s Gucci. He’s
more interested in reading violent comic books that display gore
and showing people’s insides — I don’t have to go into that, you
know about that.
My question is, how do we overcome this violence?  How do we
overcome this culture of death, and how do we overcome this
culture of violence?  And more importantly, how do we stop
getting young people wanting to escape from reality by taking
drugs and whatnot?  So that’s my question.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think what we need for that is a mass
movement for development.  Because, first of all, I studied this
question some years ago, when we had some guests and the children
who came with the guests asked me if I knew about Pokémon, and
naturally I had never heard about Pokémon.  And they said:  Oh,
it’s beautiful, it’s violent, it’s fighting.  So I was so shocked,

I started to look into it, and I discovered Pokémon as a sort of

introduction drug to video games, and then naturally, the
evolution, where these video games come from.
Well, they were developed by the military in the postwar
period, because people had recognized in the Second World War,
only 15% of the soldiers were ready to shoot the enemy, because
human beings have a sort of natural barrier inside them, which
they don’t want to overcome, and when they kill somebody it goes
against that.  So many people have a healthy block, — or had a
healthy block. So the military developed these quickly changing
targets, like in target practice, not having just one target but
having many, and they change and move, so that you would learn to
shoot quickly — shooting, shooting, one shot after the other —
in order to train people to overcome the normal adrenalin shock
which happens if you shoot at another person; if you are not
brainwashed, then you have an adrenalin reaction and you start
shaking and so on.  So they wanted to get away from this, by
having these video simulations, where people would learn to
shoot, to increase the killer ratio of the soldiers.
So this is the basis for these video games which then became
commercial.  And while, in the military, and obviously it’s a
terrible thing in the military also, but at least you have an
officer, you have some guidance, you have military discipline;
but when these video games, which have become more insane over
the decades, if they are accessible to young children, and these
young children have not had any kind of an inoculation through a
humanist education, through the recognition of beauty in
Classical culture, through moral guidelines given to them by
their parents, but where you have a culture where everything is
allowed, everything goes — movies become more violent, more
perverse, more pornographic; even snuff movies, where killing is
being filmed, or at least the illusion that people are killed is
being filmed, this is really deadly stuff!  This destroys the
cognition of anybody, but especially of young people.
And when young people, then, children, pupils, students,
become autistic because they are only living in their social
media, and have completely lost the ability to relate to each
other, this is the death of a culture.  And I think this is
what’s happening in the United States.  You would not have these
unbelievable numbers of mass school shootings:  Like after
Columbine in 1999, there were 38 mass shootings. And after the
Parkland shooting, you had 50 alarms in the schools per day,
where pupils would see another pupil having a weapon, or having
crazy messages.
Now, obviously, this brings us to the question of, who is
promoting this?  President Trump had a meeting in the White
House, where he met with the pupils of the school in Parkland,
and the producers of these videos.  So obviously, President Trump
is aware of it, and I think we have to strengthen his resolve to
move against it.  And it happens to be that the Parkland
incident, in particular, was also the work of the FBI, because
they established a system which is run by some uneducated call
center, and so, many of the hints which were clearly given
before, were missed.  And it now turns out that in the Orlando
case, the father of the shooter was a longtime FBI informant.  So
there is a lot of these things to be pursued.
But I think the key thing is a mass movement for
development.  Because, if young people have no hope for the
future, and have no perspective, because it’s now the common view
that the coming generations will be worse off than the present
one — this is the first time ever this has happened; because
it used to be a moral standard for families, for everybody, that
you work so that your children will have a better life than
yourself.  And this has been abandoned for the first time.  So
what will young people have as a perspective?  Well, they have no
future.  And that is a huge difference!  And I can assure you,
I have seen it in all cases: There is a gigantic difference
between the optimism of the youth in China, and the pessimism of
the young people and the population in general in the United
States, and in countries like Germany, for example.
So the absence of a vision, where the future of a nation, of
the world will be, is what is feeding this kind of culture of
death, because then it doesn’t matter, life doesn’t matter, life
is worth nothing, whether you shoot somebody or not it makes no
big difference.
So I think a mass movement for the kind of economic
development which we were talking about before, is an absolute
ingredient, so that people have a reason to study, to develop
their minds, to develop their cognitive powers, to be productive.
If you have the feeling that you can be an astronaut, that you
can be a scientist in the realm of a thermonuclear fusion
economy; that you will travel to the Moon Village in your
lifetime, you have a motivation to study!  And I think without
such a motivation, it is very, very difficult.
So I would not look at it as a separate issue:  I would look
at it as an integral question to the whole discussion we are
having here.

Q: Thank you for your work, today, and throughout all your
time.
I’m Father Richard D., Franciscan Servants of God’s Grace.
My question to you, is we know that the President has written a
book showing that his way of dealing with a problem is to take an
{extreme} view, so he has room to compromise, to come back to
what he actually wants.  Do you believe he’s doing this with the
international trade situation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I don’t know; it may be.  Because I think
President Trump has said of himself many times, that he knows how
to make deals, that he would get better agreements that most
other people.  And it may very well be that such an idea exists,
that he makes big announcements of tariffs and so forth, and then
in reality, he’s negotiating and has his ambassador and other
people, trade negotiators, making such a discussion.
I don’t know.  I find it a little bit risky, because I saw
some Chinese articles where they said that some people may think
that they can get a better result this way, but that China will
not be intimidated into making compromises and basically will
answer back.
I don’t know.  I think it is not necessary.  I think this
particular idea that you make a huge attack, and then you go for
something less, is still, in my view, — and as you probably have
realized, I’m very positive about the potential of President
Trump; I’ve stuck my neck out a year ago, when I said that if
Trump is able to put the relationship with Russia and China on a
positive basis, he will go into history as one of the greatest
American Presidents, and I stuck my neck out.  And I’m repeating
this, here.  So, as you can see, I’m very optimistic and positive
that it could happen.
But I also think that this particular style of negotiation
is very dangerous, especially in an environment which is fraught
with dangers as I touched upon in my earlier remarks.  A much
better way, in my view, would be to just say, “We want the United
States and China to work together on a New Paradigm.” There is
already the Belt and Road Initiative. The United States could
have some program, they could call it the American Silk Road, or
the American FDR Revival, or the American Founding Fathers
Celebration, if they don’t want to be part of something which
already has been put out by China, it doesn’t matter, as long as
the content of the policy is the same on.
And I think the potential for things to grow into a higher
level of reason — I mean, here we are talking about the one
humanity.  I mean, I think the spiritual dimension, if you want,
has to be brought into this matter, because man is different from
all creatures, because we are gifted by God with creative reason.
And you don’t have to be a Christian, you can be a Confucian
philosopher, you can be a Buddhist, you can be just a good
person, to understand that we have reached a point in human
history, where we either recognize that we are all part of the one
humanity, or we will not make it as a species.
Since Diane mentioned earlier Nicholas of Cusa, I can only
say, that Nicholas developed a way of thinking which  — she
mentioned in the Docta Ignorantia, the “coincidence of
opposites,” which is the idea that because we are capable of
creative reason, we can think the One as having a higher quality
and a higher power than the Many: The one humanity being first,
and then the many nations being also important, but being not in
contradiction to the progress and wellbeing of the one humanity.
So I think if we understand that it is really the question
of addressing that in us, which makes us human, the creative
potential, then I think we can just find a way of shaping a New
Paradigm where mankind is defined from a common future, how do we
want to be existing as a human species, in 100 years from now, in
1,000 years from now, or even in 10,000 years from now?  Because
we can think the future!  No dog, no donkey, not goose can
think the future.  If you tell a dog, “Let’s have a walk
tomorrow,” the dog will hear the word “walk,” which the dog
probably knows, and jump to the door and wag its tail, and be
happy.  But if you say “tomorrow,” it doesn’t mean anything to
the dog!
But I think we need to raise the level of our communication,
and just really do our duty as a human species, and prolong our
existence indefinitely, by working together.

Q: My name is J.  I’m the author of two books, Evidence Not
Destroyed, and Spread Real Love.  I want to thank Mrs.
LaRouche; I want to thank this organization.  You’re some fine
people.  As I travel around America, I see many things:  I just
had to buy a new car, because the one I had had over 205,000
miles on it; and the one before that had 186,000 miles on it. But
I’m going around the countryside, and other countries, also,
spreading, putting this literature out for so many years.  And
I’m impacted with this organization.  It has some very find,
smart brains, that are sitting here in this auditorium today, and
I just thank God for you.
And when we come to a situation like we have today, I want
to know how we can go forward?  How we can promote civilization?
How we can carry on?  But if we have learned anything from our
history, we have to look back and look at our history, and look
at our results.  We have something that’s so profound here
today; we don’t get this kind of information on the TV no more. I
used to watch so much news, but now, they say the news is not
absolutely real! They say something about “fake” — I heard that
over and over again, so I turned my television off from the news.
And when I can come and get this type of real information, in a
setting like this, it makes one want to go forward.
So I’m here to help anyway I can.  I’ll put another 100 and
some thousands miles on the car I just bought, to get this
information out to the people, because if you don’t get it, the
news is not going to give it to you correctly, the way it should
be given.  So, I’m just thanking each one, and all of you that’s
working — just as I am;  Matt Guice, I’ve been working with him
since the ’90s; Lynne Speed and Dennis Speed, I’ve been working
with these people since the early ’90s.  And I’m so proud.
One thing, let me say, I think the reverend right before me,
a religious man — I sit in a church now, and I’m the only deacon
there!  Why is this?  Look where we’re going?  Why is that? We’re
reforming, we’re conforming, we’re complying to every situation
that’s not good.  And I think we have some real strength here,
and we can do some great things.  The main thing is, keep going
forward.  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think people have to be courageous,
because the paradigm shift which occurred in the United States,
which you, Diane, referenced in the beginning, which really
started with the murder of John F. Kennedy and then the murder of
Martin Luther King, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy, you
know, we had several years ago, a Mozart Requiem performance in
Vienna, in the suburbs of Washington, and also in the Boston
Cathedral, commemorating the paradigm shift which has occurred in
the last 50 years of America, where, the fact that the Kennedy
murder, and also the murder of Martin Luther King, was really not
avenged — or,  not avenged, but not even investigated, and the
real culprits made known and punished, which has led to people
becoming depressed.  I said many times, the Americans almost have
become like the Germans, because if you ask a German person to do
something, 99 % of the people say “Oh, you can’t do anything,
anyway,” so people are really depressed, and feel that they are
powerless in the face of what is happening.
And that has happened to America as a result of these
unclarified murders.  And since we have this event today, because
of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther
King, I think it’s a very good moment in history, to say, we will
not allow the murderers of King to be successful in eliminating
the hope which he represented.  I mean, Martin Luther King was
murdered at a moment when he had started to pick up many of the
same issues which are now being, in reality, changed by China.
Because he had started not only to take up the question of
economic justice inside the United States, but also he had
started to take on the question of jobs and overcoming poverty in
developing countries.  And that is what China is doing, exactly
today. And in the same way as the Schiller Institute has been
campaigning for, and LaRouche and his movement have been working
for, for almost half a century, is now becoming a reality.
So there is reason for optimism.  And I think that the best
thing we can do in a moment like this, thinking about the memory
of Martin Luther King, is to say, we will pick up the torch, we
will not allow the American people to be passive and desperate
and ignorant and all of these things, but we will all turn into
active members of the Schiller Institute, help to spread the
message; make the Schiller Institute a Renaissance movement, a
moment fighting not only for the economic buildup of the United
States, but also for a cultural Renaissance.  I think the two
things absolutely have to go together.
So I would encourage all of you to absolutely work with us,
because I think the solution to all of these problems are
absolutely within reach.

SARE:  As the next person is coming up I would just tell
everybody, during the break you will have the opportunity to do
exactly what Mrs. LaRouche has said, which is to become a member
of the Schiller Institute at our literature table.  And to
purchase copies of these very important, world-changing reports:
This is the one she mentioned, “The New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge,”  which we produced right after Xi Jinping
announced it. And this report, of which Jason Ross is a coauthor
on “Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa: A Vision
of an Economic Renaissance.”

Q:  Hi, I’m Donald C.  My quick question is about the
liberals.  How are they teaching curriculums to our kids, and
they’re not giving them the chance to learn the right stuff, and
they’re just forcing the kids what their beliefs are?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, that is a big problem, because it
started with John Dewey, to basically develop this liberal
pragmatic idea of education.  And unfortunately, you have
generations of people who have gone through different phases of
such elimination of Classical literature, of natural science, so
it is a real problem.  And I would think that the best way to
proceed on that, is if you look at the kind of materials which we
present in the present [What Is the New Paradigm?] class series,
which you can find on the LaRouche PAC site, and you can register
to be part of it, this is the kind of curriculum which was
developed especially with the ideas of my husband, Mr. LaRouche,
who did an incredible job, because he revived the best traditions
of the 2,500 years of European civilization, the traditions in
science which were the source of qualitative progress, the great
Classical arts; and this is something which is not taught in
American schools, for the most part.
And I think we have to form, basically, educated people, who
then hopefully, we can influence this present administration to
change that.  I think President Trump has repeatedly shown, at
least for certain areas, an understanding; he talked about the
American System of economy; he talked about Lincoln and Carey, he
talked about Hamilton. So in the economic field there is
definitely something there, which we can build on.  I think there
are many other people are equally concerned about the condition
of the school system.  But I think the best thing is that you
register for these classes [http://discover.larouchepac.com/]. And
if you haven’t already done it, you can also watch some of the
previous classes in the series.[6]  Get yourself absolutely a firm
grip on universal history, of the great advances in science and
culture, and then, you know, basically help us to organize
change.
Because it will come from many places.  There are many
people are realizing that at this point it is the scientists, the
engineers and such people, who will be much more important in the
shaping of things, than many politicians who are part of a party
system and partisan, and therefore, don’t really regard these
issues are the important ones.
But the best advice I can give you right now, is if you join
with our efforts, we find ways to address all of these issues,
and build a growing movement to demand such a change.

Q: Thank you very much.  Your comments were very insightful.
I believe in the paradigm where the United States, Russia and
China, essentially a triumvirate is essentially going to lead the
world, hopefully forward and out of the morass that we’ve been
in. Especially over the prior eight years before this current
President came into office.
The question, I want to ask is, what do you perceive would be
the case — because I don’t believe this economy in this country
would have lasted another year, under the current policies.  We
would have had a significant economic drop which would have led
to, since this country’s GDP is 25 % of the world’s, would have
had a worldwide, negative impact.  Having said that, what do you
perceive would be the consequences in this country, or the for
that matter the world, on the movement forward that has occurred,
if President Trump did not have the position he has?  He may be
President, but he may have a weakened political system, in the
sense of a House and the Senate: Would we be able to move
forward?  And what would be the consequences, and under what
conditions could we move forward?  Could this economy continue to
grow if he can’t implement his policies?  What would be the
international consequences of that, from your perspective?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the strongest situation is Trump’s
relation with his voters.  That despite all of the attacks by the
FBI, by the British, by the heads of the intelligence services
from the Obama administration, — I mean, he had a pretty tough
environment, and nevertheless, he goes back to his voters, he
holds a rally, and the support for him is actually growing in the
polls.  So I think that that is for sure, a very strong point
which we should build on, because if we keep strengthening that,
and if we keep informing the Trump voters on all the issues we
are discussing here, that can actually help to outdo the Congress
and the Senate.
And since there is a midterm election, there is actually a
very good moment to do that.  I mean, the danger is naturally
that Trump could be convinced that to take an anti-China stance
would help him in the midterm election.  I mean, I’m not sure;
I’m not close enough to the situation to make a judgment on that.
But I think the strong point is, Trump is close to his
voters, the voters still recognize what a change he means, and I
think that we need to have a mass mobilization — I think there
is no shortcut from that; because the danger is very acute. What
I said in my initial remarks, when we talk to some really
well-placed figure in Europe, who said that there is a discussion
to pull the rug out from under Trump with a new financial crash,
and if you think that this is a conspiracy theory — well, maybe
before the Skripal case, you also thought that such things are
conspiracies, but we have just seen a classic example of how you
can manipulate a whole international community of nations to go
into an attack on Russia, based on a lie!  So these things do
happen and they can happen.
Now, there are also many warnings.  Just today, I think some
representative of the firm of Guggenheim put out a warning on
this corporate debt question that a financial crash can happen
at any moment.  And basically, you have the European banking
system, the Italian banks are in terrible shape, you have a
policy where the trigger point of a collapse of the financial
system is many-fold.  It’s also like a minefield where it’s not
clear which mine will trigger the explosion, but once it happens,
you could have a systemic blowout, much worse than that of 2008.
Because the central banks have done absolutely zero, to eliminate
the root causes of the crash of 2008.  They have, instead, used
the so-called tools and instruments — namely quantitative
easing, negative interest rate, money pumping — but this has
reached the point where now the Fed is forced, or think they are
forced, to increase the interest rate, because a negative
interest rate is very bad for the real economy, it’s bad for the
savings of the people, it’s bad for life insurance, it’s bad for
real investment; and the hyperinflationary consequence of such
money-pumping is already visible on the horizon in the form of
the totally overvalued stock market, in the form of real estate
prices, in the form of many other such phenomena.  So the Fed
needs to increase the interest rate, but that is already bringing
the immediate potential for a new crash.
If that happens, I think we are in {real} trouble: So our
whole point, is we need the implementation of Glass-Steagall, and
the Four Laws developed by Lyndon LaRouche, before the crash
happens.  I think this is also a subject — there are these four
dialogues which have been established between President Xi
Jinping and Trump; one of them concerns the dialogue on economic
matters; China has put a lot of emphasis on the dangers to the
international financial system, at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou
[in 2016] and on other occasions.  So I think that this question
needs to be urgently addressed, also between the United States
and China in these negotiations.
And then, if you put the whole package together, the Four
Laws — Glass-Steagall, a National Bank, a credit system in the
tradition of Hamilton, a crash program for the increase in the
productivity of the labor force, and then joining hands in the
Belt and Road Initiative — all of these measures together are a
very, very practical and realistic way to overcome these dangers.
But it is very urgent, because we are sitting on a powder keg,
and I think it can be done, but we need a lot of people of good
will to become active with us.

SARE:  Helga, we’re just about up on time. We have two more
questions.  Do you want to take both, or one, or?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, maybe both together, and then I’ll
answer both.

Q: Hi Mrs. LaRouche.  My question to you is, is that right
after the shooting at Parkland, [Broward County] Sheriff Israel
was all over the news speaking about going to all members of
Congress to use the Baker Act, to detain and profile people that
have experienced some sort of depression.  And that’s of great
concern to me, because there are many people who have experienced
that, and I feel this country is becoming more like Germany back
in World War II.  So I’m kind of scared, and I’d like to know,
what’s your opinion on it?  Thank you.

SARE:  OK, next question.

Q:  Hello, my name is Steve S.  I would just like to ask,
how much of a role do you think that psychological warfare plays
in everything that’s going on?  And how can we counter it?  Are
there people out there who specialize in psychological warfare? I
hear people talk about history being erased; you know, the
projection of violence through videos and commercials and that
matter.
So, a lot of people are very confused, as well as myself,
even when you find something that you believe in sometimes, it’s
presented in a way that you accept it in the beginning, and then
it comes out to be a lie. And right now, clearly, lie is just
pounding on the truth.  I mean, you have one truth, but you have
so many lies that it seems too overwhelming to survive.

SARE: Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the concerns that both of you
expressed is very real.  I mean, it is the fact that the West is
already living in a police-state.  Just take the recent example
of the Facebook firm, Cambridge Analytica — they sold data on 50
million people for commercial purposes, for election manipulation
and who knows for what else?  If you go on the internet and you
go on any website, you immediately have the advertisement for the
next years of your life of whatever you looked at.
So we are already in a completely surveillance state, where
the NSA and the British equivalent, the GCHQ, are monitoring
everything — your phone, your smart TV, your laptop — it’s
omnipresent.  And obviously this needs to be reversed.
In the time when I was growing up, being a young person, we
had a big concern about data protection.  It was a civil right to
make sure that your privacy was protected.  All of this has gone
out of the window!  And also, naturally, the big change came on
September 11th.  Because September 11th was the pretext for a lot
of the elimination of civil rights which used to be a
constitutional right up to that moment.
And therefore, I think the inquiry of what really happened
on September 11th, is still one of the big tasks to be solved,
because it led to police-state measures inside the United States.
It led to a similar kind of change internationally. And right
now, you have the ongoing trial of the families of the victims of
the World Trade Center suing the government of Saudi Arabia for
their role in the September 11th attacks.  And the Saudi
government tried to appeal against the lawsuit, and a court in
New York overruled that, so the court case can go ahead.
Now, this goes very slowly, but this is a very important
aspect; because eventually, we have to go back to a
constitutional state.  So you are quite right to be concerned,
because there is a lot of this going on.
Again, I think there is no shortcut:  We need more people
taking an active role, and force the coming Congress to pass laws
to protect the rights of the people again. This is absolutely
possible.  The whole argument, for example, that you cannot
control these things, or not control the internet, is absolutely
not true:  You can block certain things, you can prevent things,
you can make laws which prohibit the profiling; you can make laws
which it a criminal act to do all of these things you are worried
about.  So it’s not a self-evident development.
But I think it does require that more people become state
citizens:  A state citizen, I would define a somebody who takes
responsibility not only for his life, his family, his country,
but for the outcome of human history.  And I think to be such a
world historical individual in a moment like that, where the
options are so rich, and so beautiful that there is no reason to
despair, but it is really the individual decision, to be part of
the solution which can and will make the difference. [applause]

SARE:  Thank you.  That was very beautiful and appropriate.
Do you wish to say anything else to us?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, just be happy, and be productive, and
feisty, and courageous, and then you can do everything you plan
to do.

SARE: Thank you very much! [applause]

 

[1] http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/category/nyheder/alle-kategorier/oekonomi/larouches-fire-love-feature/

[2] Kan læses på engelsk her: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2018/eirv45n06-20180209/22-28_4506.pdf  Dansk oversættelse er undervejs.

[3] Læs en dansk introduktion til rapporten af de to forfattere, Jason Ross og Husein Askary, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23600

[4] Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg-tale: » – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth«.

[5] Martin Luther Kings berømte tale ’I have been to the mountain top’ fra 3. April, 1968, kan læses her: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm

[6] Se lektionerne i dansk oversættelse her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/category/lpac-new-paradigme/

Introduktion: Den hysteriske og bidende retorik mod Rusland, der kommer fra Storbritanniens imperiale oligarker og deres efterretningstjenester og kanaliseres gennem Theresa May og Boris ’BoJo’ Johnson, narrer ingen. Alt imens nogle regeringer underdanigt er gået med i de farlige provokationer, så er andre, inklusive USA, blot kommet med symbolske handlinger. Mange nationer synes at ligge mere på linje med tankegangen hos den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov, der om May-regeringens ubegrundede beskyldninger i Skripal-affæren sagde, at det er »kun alt for åbenlyst, at vore britiske kolleger har mistet deres realitetssans«.

De ledere, som derimod ikke har mistet deres realitetssans, har i stedet været engageret i et imponerende opbud af diplomatisk og økonomisk aktivitet og har indgået aftaler om at deltage i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ (BVI). Parallelt med disse bestræbelser er et russisk initiativ for at bringe fred i Syrien og arbejde sammen med Syriens naboer. De britiskdirigerede geopolitikere har uden tvivl bemærket, at, i takt med, at dette initiativ går fremad, har præsident Trump gentaget sit kampagneløfte om at afslutte al amerikansk militær involvering i Syrien og har gentaget sit ønske om et topmøde med Putin i den nærmeste fremtid.

Det, der ligger bag de britiske angreb mod Putin og Rusland, er ikke den svindelagtige påstand, at Putin beordrede forgiftningen af en tidligere russisk efterretningsofficer, lige så vel som at Mueller-efterforskningen intet har at gøre med »russisk indblanding« i det amerikanske valg. Målet for disse provokationer er det Nye Paradigme, der er knyttet til BVI, som City of London og dets Wall Street allierede korrekt har identificeret som efterfølgeren til deres fallerede system. Hvis USA tilsluttede sig Rusland, Kina og Indien sådan, som Lyndon LaRouche opfordrede det til i kølvandet på krakket i 2008, ville det være umuligt at forhindre fremvæksten af det Nye Paradigme.

 Her følger engelsk udskrift:

 

 

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger

from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to this week’s Schiller Institute

webcast for April 5, 2018, featuring our founder and President

Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

In the last couple of weeks, Helga has spoken about the

potential for a backfire as a result of the Skripal affair, that

Theresa May and her somewhat unhinged Foreign Secretary Boris

Johnson have been using as a way of attacking both Russia and the

United States.  Now, we’ve seen this play out in a very big way

in the last couple of days:  The fact that they came out in their

own name, and the name of their intelligence services and their

government, to attack Russia, has in fact, put “egg on their

faces” as some have said.  So, Helga, why don’t you catch us up

on what’s happened in the last days, because this is quite

significant, in terms of shaping the strategic relationships?

 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  I think it is incredibly

serious, because now you have a situation where I think the whole

group of nations which committed themselves to sort of

unprincipled solidarity with May and Johnson, they really have to

reflect on what has actually happened.  Just to mention some of

the recent developments:  The head of the research lab Porton

Down, Gary Aitkenhead, came out actually and said they could not

find any proof that the origin of this nerve agent was Russia;

that they could establish that it was Novichok, or belonging to

the group of Novichoks, but that they could not say that it came

from Russia.

This has led to quite a series of events.  One was that the

Foreign Office removed the tweet in which they had said very

clearly that there was no doubt that the origin was Russia, and I

think they even mentioned that the scientists of the Porton Down

lab had said so.  So, they were obliged to remove the tweet,

because that also is evidence that Boris Johnson was lying,

because he had said that he had heard from the scientists that

there was absolutely unrefutable proof that this came from

Russia.  This is the first thing.

Then the London {Times} had a comment about this, where they

say that the statement by Aitkenhead is threatening to bring down

the international coalition against Russia.  Well, that’s indeed

the case, because now naturally everybody is reviewing this, and

I think in the case of the German government, for example, they

gave a  press conference afterwards, in which journalists were

asking, did this statement mean that you’ve changed your

perspective?  And they basically refused to do so, which shows

you really the absolute grip in which these people are in, namely

the grip of the British Empire.

So, I think this is now backfiring very clearly.  The role

of the British government and the British Empire, for that

matter, is completely exposed, but they are not stopping the

confrontation with Russia, so that some of the Russian responses,

for example, people speaking at the Seventh Moscow Conference on

International Security which is now taking place in Moscow,

[Sergei] Naryshkin, who is the head of Russia’s foreign

intelligence [SVR], he said that this is basically as serious as

the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.  Others were saying, this time

these idiots went way beyond any line, and that is clearly the

case.  But you also have a whole series of people who are saying,

look, we cannot continue like that, we have to resume a dialogue

with Russia; we have to go back to straighten out the relations.

And I want to really point to the fact that, despite the

fact that naturally the United States expelled 60 Russian

diplomats, which is clearly part of this escalation, that

President Trump himself, who did not at any point use this

incident to attack Russia as the origin.  And I think this stands

clearly out.  And people who are always totally freaked out about

Trump, they should really review this and ask if their

perspective and their optical approach actually the correct one?

Because in many cases, it turns out that Trump is actually the

one who is not going for confrontation, and some of the people

who are so much for “democracy and human rights” that they can’t

even walk straight, because they’re so heavily burdened with

their responsibilities, that they are the actual warmongers.  So

I think this is really something to reflect about.

But I think the kind of procedure that NATO, however, the

European Union, the German and French government, they were all

immediately jumping on this, without evidence, condemning Russia.

And I think if you look at this, when the dust settles down, it

{is} a blow to the whole Western system, because if there is not

an establishment of scientific fact, first, and the condemnation

first so that basically Russia is declared guilty, and then maybe

you find the evidence sometime down the road, or not, I think

this does big damage to the Western system, because if you play

with these things lightly, it is contributing to the

discreditation of the governments that did that, and that is not

a good thing.

 

SCHLANGER:  Well, minimally, we could say this is a rush to

judgment, but more importantly, this is part of an established

pattern of British intelligence.  We’ve seen it with the repeated

charges, without evidence, that the Assad government was using

chemical weapons against his population; and of course, the

famous case of Tony Blair and Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,

which turned out to be another fabrication of the highest levels

of British intelligence.

But there’s another aspect of this which I think you may

want to comment on, which is the case of David Kelly, because

this also hits at home, where there was opposition from within

the scientific community in the United Kingdom against the

actions of the government and the intelligence community.

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  This is clearly a pattern.  And

before the statement by the head of the Porton Down lab came out,

the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, had

actually said that he had from high-level sources in the

intelligence community or the science community, that the

scientists would not basically produce the evidence — and they

didn’t.  And [Porton Down weapons inspector] David Kelly, at the

time of the Iraq war, had basically blown the whistle, saying

there were no weapons of mass destruction, and then he found an

early death under extremely dubious circumstances which were said

to be a suicide, but nobody really believes that.

So, I think this is really something — if you think the

Iraq War was based on lies, and I think Willy Wimmer, the former

vice president of the OSCE and former state secretary to the

minister of defense, pointed to the fact that the Iraq war, after

all, has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Europe, in the

Middle East, in North Africa, and that the Chilcot Commission,

which from our standpoint was a relative cover-up, but

nevertheless, pointed to the fact that Tony Blair had willfully,

intentionally exaggerated the danger coming from Iraq and Saddam

Hussein at the time. And then [Bush Secretary of State] Colin

Powell used the MI6 “dodgy dossier” [on Iraq’s alleged WMD] from

that period, to argue in the UN for the U.S. joining the Iraq

War.

I mean, the fact that governments can do these things which

cost — really — if you look at the totality of these wars,

millions of people’s lives, and then, it just goes by and there

is no accountability.  And it’s a complete hypocrisy and

duplicity, when the people who are saying that they are the

defenders of human rights and democracy, then go around and make

these interventions into sovereign countries, which have these

horrible results.  And then they are self-righteous and pretend

that they are the good ones, and the Russians and the Chinese are

the bad ones.

I think we need to have, really, a review of this, because

this cannot continue.  It is very dangerous to world peace.

 

SCHLANGER:  And another aspect of this is that this was a

major feature of President Trump’s election campaign in 2016,

where he, at a very important debate in South Carolina, openly

accused George W. Bush of lying to create the Iraq War, and he

said that his administration would oppose these kinds of wars.

Now, this week the President announced that he’s preparing

to remove U.S. troops from Syria, despite demands from some in

the military, and the CIA, that the U.S. remain in Syria.

Helga, this is a fairly significant departure from the

standard Bush/Obama policy of pursuing these wars, isn’t it?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Oh, yes!  And, again, you can see certain

representatives of the U.S. military and others, who say, “no,

no, we still have a lot of fighting to do against ISIS,” but

Trump I think is clearly sticking to guns, and he has promised to

stop the interventionist wars, and I think he is going very far

to do so.  Especially, if you consider that in in this middle of

this whole hysteria, he telephoned President Putin, and has

reiterated that he wants to have a summit with Putin in the near

future.  And he was also meeting with the three Presidents of the

Baltic countries, who as everybody knows are extremely

anti-Russians, and he reiterated that to have a good relationship

with Russia “is a good thing and not a bad thing.”

So I think people should really review their slanders, or

their believing the slanders against both Trump, Putin and Xi

Jinping because it comes from the same circles:  it comes from

the neo-con/neo-liberal geopolitical faction who are seeing that

their system is clearly in bad shape and who are obviously

stopping short of nothing, if you look at this recent affair.

 

SCHLANGER:  You mentioned earlier the Moscow International

Security Conference.  Clearly, there’s a discussion going on

there, about something that your husband Lyndon LaRouche brought

up many, many years ago, and that you’ve been calling for, which

is the establishment of a new security architecture.  How is this

proceeding in Moscow?  Do you have some reports on what the

discussion process has been, there?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it’s an extremely important event.

There are 95 countries represented, 840 guests, 700 media; and

obviously, this  alone speaks to the fact that Russia is very far

from being isolated, as some people in the West are trying to

portray.

The discussions were very focussed on the need to have an

international alliance to combat terrorism.  There was a warning

by the head of the FSB [Alexander Bortnikov], that there are

signs that ISIS and al-Qaeda are merging, and he basically said

this means you will have sleepers and cells in every country

around the globe, and the only way you can defend against that,

is to work together internationally.

Now, another very important aspect of this conference, is

that the Defense Minister of China went to this conference and

made a statement that this was meant as a signal to the West that

the Russian and the Chinese military are in an extremely close

strategic partnership, and that this is meant as a signal to the

West.

So there were many warnings, as I mentioned already, that

the present confrontation is approaching the danger of a Cuban

Missile Crisis, so people are obviously extremely attuned to what

is coming there from the British and their allies.  But on the

other side, it also shows who is talking in favor of

international solidarity, cooperation;  who is addressing the

real dangers of the world:  It is clearly not the West, but it is

clearly Russia, China and the countries that are participating in

this conference.

And again, this is really something people should reflect

about, rather than believing the propaganda.  If you read

{Bildzeitung}, this morning on page 2, they have a picture of

Putin, Erdogan, and Rouhani, and they say this is the “axis of

evil.”  This is ridiculous!  These three countries [Russia,

Turkey, Iran] have collaborated to bring about a solution to the

terrible crisis in Syria, and this is a very good thing.  Now,

not all aspects of the policies of these countries I would

always subscribe to, — I mean, there’s the unresolved tensions

between the Kurds and Erdogan, between Turkey and Greece —  so

not everything is perfect.

But I think on the larger picture, if you think that the

misery of the Syrian people who have had war for seven years [is

being addressed] because of the intervention of these countries,

and not to forget the cooperation between the U.S. and Russian

military under the leadership of Trump and Putin; I think people

should not just fall for these propaganda lines.  Because there

are some people who have suffered with their lives and their

livelihoods and their happiness, as a result of these

[geopolitical] policies, and for Syria, this [intervention] is a

good thing.

 

SCHLANGER:  Especially, this should have meaning for people

in Europe, because in 2015-2016, there was the explosion of the

refugee crisis, and with all the hand-wringing and crocodile

tears that were shed, nothing was done to support the Russian

intervention to stop the war in Syria.  And the fact that the

Russians, the Iranians and the Turkish government were meeting to

discuss this, is something that should be welcomed, as opposed to

a source for criticism.

Now, on the Russia-Turkey cooperation, there was another

aspect to it, because when you deal with these problems in the

real world, there’s always an economic element, and there was

just an agreement between Putin and [Turkish President Recep

Tayyip] Erdogan to move ahead with nuclear energy development.

Helga, this is part of the broader package of the New Silk Road

and economic cooperation that you’ve been talking about, isn’t

it?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  I think the remarks of President

Putin, who was at the opening ceremony of this [Akkuyu] nuclear

plant was to emphasize the extreme importance of nuclear energy,

giving a country cheap and secure energy, and leading to an

increase in the productivity of the entire economy; which is

absolutely the case.  And you have many, many projects, Russia,

China, India, having with developing countries the building of

nuclear energy in Africa, in Latin America, and in Asia.

So, soon, countries like Germany will be the only ones that

will not have nuclear energy, and if they keep this course, they

will be sidelined at the disadvantage of the population.  So, I

think this is really something we should change.

 

SCHLANGER:  The other story that’s getting a lot of coverage

internationally, and I think it’s being covered typically by the

media as a way of trying to drum up war, is this whole argument

that the discussion and the negotiations under way between the

U.S. and China on tariff policy is nothing but a trade war.  Now,

there’s a danger to this, as the Chinese have pointed out, but I

think it’s important for people to hear your perspective on this:

Because obviously, there are problems in the U.S.-China

relationship, a huge trade imbalance, but it’s not just a trade

war, there’s actually a much broader discussion under way.  How

do you see this evolving, from what you’ve seen over the last few

days?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  There are negotiations going on, and it must

not necessarily come to the execution of these tariffs, which

both sides have now drawn up, up to the value of $60 billion in

terms of products.  One thing is that the Prime Minister Li

Keqiang has pointed out that there is another way to overcome the

trade imbalance: namely by increasing trade, by especially

investments in joint ventures in third countries, that there are

many ways how you can get rid of this trade imbalance.

And there is a renewed discussion, something which we have

brought into the discussion early on, namely, that you have the

possibility of Chinese investments in the infrastructure in the

United States.  And that would also be a way to completely change

this dynamic.  If the Chinese investment in American

infrastructure would create many, many productive jobs for

Americans, it would create the infrastructure precondition for a

real industrial revolution: for the building of new cities,

science cities, connecting all American cities with fast trains

systems.

There are so many ways of changing this dynamic for the

better, and I’m absolutely convinced that China is having this

mind.  There was a program on the Chinese TV channel CGTN,

proposing exactly that, that there should be a dialogue on

infrastructure.  Then you have some Americans, a Trump supporter

who had already made such a proposal early on, also.  So I think

there is a discussion.  And I would imagine that President Xi

Jinping, who will give a very important speech at the “Asian

Davos” as they call it, the Boao Forum for Asia, which will start

in three days, where he is expected to make a major speech on the

continuation on international reforms, and opening up.  So I

think you can expect something important to come from there.

And I think the Chinese are also extremely aware of the fact

that we are sitting on a powder keg in terms the financial

system.  Xi Jinping has defined three priorities:  One, to

overcome the risks of the financial system; to alleviate poverty;

and to get rid of air pollution.  So I think the Chinese are very

much aware of the dangers of this present Western financial

system.  And you know, you had several articles warning that with

the outbreak of a new 2008 could happen at any moment, one of the

many new aspects which were mentioned is the difference between

the LIBOR rate and the Fed rate; and that was exactly the

beginning sign of the 2008 crisis.

So that really requires that the discussion which we and our

colleagues in the United States and in Europe have formulated, to

implement the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche — Glass-Steagall,

national bank, a credit system, and then cooperation of the

Western countries, with the financial systems of the New Silk

Road, the AIIB, the New Silk Road Fund; all of these things need

to be urgently discussed.  Because one danger which is clearly

there, that if you had now a financial crash, and some people are

even speculating that the same people who are making these

provocations against Russia, could also trigger, deliberately,

such a financial crash, to pull the rug out from underneath

President Trump, to bring the neo-cons back in, and just get rid

of this phenomenon of Trump.

So anybody who thinks this is conspiracy theory, or this is

totally over the top, well, look at the Skripal case, and learn

the lesson from that, how things can be manipulated and

orchestrated.

So I think the urgency is really to draw the lesson out from

all of this, and end this system of looting, which is only for

the privilege of the very few rich; it’s destroying the middle

class, it’s making the poor, more poor.  And we need really a

return to Hamiltonian economics.  This is what is the basis of

the Chinese economic miracle, as I have said many times: The

Chinese economic miracle, or Chinese economic model, is much,

much closer to the economic policies of the young republic of the

United States than people think.  It’s no coincidence that the

distinction which Friedrich List, for example, made between the

American System and the British System, that that is exactly what

is playing out today, and we need {clearly} a return to the

American System of economy.

 

SCHLANGER:  It’s also important to keep in mind that

President Trump has repeatedly referred to his great friendship

with Xi Jinping, and the strategic importance of a China-U.S.

relationship is also clear when it comes to the question of the

collaboration to bring a peaceful solution to the Korean

Peninsula. There’s a lot of diplomacy coming up:  The Trump-Putin

meeting; Trump meeting with Prime Minister Abe of Japan; and also

the coming meeting with Kim Jong-un.  So there’s a lot more at

stake here than just the question of a few dollars off the trade

imbalance.

And Helga, just to go back to one final note on the Belt and

Road Initiative:  I’m sure you took note of the importance of the

visit recently of the Swiss government to China and also a very

large delegation heading to China from Austria.  Maybe there’s a

lesson here for Germany, huh?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, one would hope so!

I mean, I’m very happy, because all the neighbors of Germany

are clearly joining the Silk Road, it increases the pressure on

those who are obviously too stupid or too arrogant to see the

potential for German industry which lies in this initiative.

Now, the Swiss Foreign Minister was just in China and he and

his Chinese counterpart, both [Foreign Minister] Wang Yi and also

[former Foreign Minister] Yang Jiechi, they declared that the

collaboration of China and Switzerland in the New Silk Road is at

the best historical level ever, and both emphasized the

importance of Xi Jinping’s visit last year to Switzerland, where

he addressed Davos as a keynote speaker, and then went to Geneva,

emphasizing the importance of Switzerland.  So they’re deepening

the relationship between China and Switzerland.

And the Austrian government, they have a huge delegation,

the largest ever:  It is President Van der Bellen, Chancellor

Sebastian Kurz; four cabinet ministers, and 170 CEOs from large

corporations, spending five days in China.  And what Kurz said

is, there is no ceiling to improve the relationship between

Austria and China on the New Silk Road.  The same, by the way, is

happening with Zimbabwe, where the new President [Emmerson

Mnangagwa] is going with a large delegation of 12 ministers and

also many, many CEOs.  So, you can see almost every day, a little

breaking development.  And as I have said many times, the Spirit

of the New Silk Road is, in my view, absolutely unstoppable,

except if we have World War III, which obviously some people are

risking.

But nevertheless, the idea of a new relationship among

nations, of respect for the sovereignty of the other nation,

respect for the difference of the social system, the ending of

internationalist wars, the idea of a win-win cooperation, this is

just a new model of international relations and a New Paradigm.

And the biggest problem is that because of the Western media

being so much in control of this geopolitical faction that most

people don’t know enough about it.

So, please, I would appeal to you:  Join the Schiller

Institute, help us to spread the knowledge about the New Silk

Road, and also the options to solve the present financial crisis

and many other crises around the world with such an approach.  I

would really appeal to you:  Don’t sit on the fence.  This is an

incredibly important historic moment, and the British have just

suffered a terrible defeat, which freaks them out, but it’s

visible for everybody and so therefore, it’s a good moment to

move forward and establish a completely different political,

social, and economic system on this planet.

 

SCHLANGER:  And we will be launching a new membership drive

for the Schiller Institute, and if you want to increase the

misery of the British intelligence establishment and the City of

London, become a member of the Schiller Institute, and help us

build the audience for these webcasts, so people have an

alternative to the lying media that otherwise is the only option

they have to allegedly find out about the world.

So Helga, I think that covers quite a bit.  Thank you for

joining us again, and we’ll see you next week.

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  Till next week.

 

 

Xi Jinping har, i alle sine skrifter, i alle sine taler, understreget, at dette »fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid« er baseret på total respekt for det andets lands suverænitet, total respekt for den andens samfundssystem, og der kommer ingen bestræbelse på at påtvinge noget andet land den kinesiske model. Det er ganske enkelt, at Kina har tilbudt især udviklingslandene at hjælpe dem til at overvinde deres underudvikling. Det er et win-win-samarbejde, hvilket er grunden til, at 140 lande i mellemtiden samarbejder med dette, for det er naturligvis i Kinas interesse – for det er en stor befolkning, et stort land, en meget rig kultur, 5.000 års meget rig kulturtradition, så det er et af verdens store lande, og måske endda det vigtigste, i betragtning af dets befolknings størrelse.

Men de påtvinger ikke nogen det, de anser for at være »kinesiske karaktertræk« – helt forskelligt fra de neokonservative og de neoliberale, der havde regimeskifte, ’farvede revolutioner’, eksport af ’demokrati’ og det, de kalder »menneskerettigheder«. Folk bør virkelig ikke være fordomsfulde, men bør se på det med friske øjne, selv læse Xi Jinpings taler. …

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Schlanger: Lad os begynde med betydningen af samtalen mellem Trump og Putin, Helga.

Zepp-LaRouche: Dette var en fremragende udmanøvrering af denne britiske operation, for netop, som Russiagate var forsvundet i USA eller næsten kollapset og faktisk vendte sig mod britisk efterretnings rolle i hele denne affære, lancerede den britiske Theresa May denne absolut utrolige provokation mod Rusland. Det var et klart forsøg på at tvinge præsident Trump hen i et hjørne, hvor han ikke ville vove at forsøge at opfylde sit løfte om at forbedre relationerne med Rusland. Så, ved at lykønske Putin med genvalget til endnu seks år, og så have meget vigtige diskussioner om de virkelige udfordringer i verden, nemlig strategisk stabilitet, at forhindre et våbenkapløb; Syrien, Ukraine, Koreakrisen, etablerede de to præsidenter absolut en direkte forbindelse og fik den britiske bestræbelse til at se ud som det, den er, nemlig en absolut sindssyg provokation.    

 

 

Engelsk udskift:

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, March 22 2018
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Desperation of British Imperial Elites Forces Them To Make a Big
Blunder

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger: Welcome to
this week’s Schiller Institute international webcast, featuring
our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
In the last days the British have been in an open assault
against Russia and Russian President Putin, using the Skripal
case as the basis for that, with Theresa May going completely
wild in trying to build a unified front against Russia, and
implicitly, against President Trump’s efforts to establish
cooperative relationships between the United States and Russia.
In the last days, this was completely outflanked by a call made
between President Trump and Vladimir Putin.  So we have lots to
cover today, but I’d like to start there, with the significance
of the Trump-Putin discussion, Helga.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think this was a brilliant
outflanking of this British operation, because, just as
Russiagate had vanished in the United States, or almost
collapsed, and actually turned against the role of the British
intelligence in this whole thing, this is the moment when Theresa
May launched this absolutely incredible provocation against
Russia.  And this was a clear effort to basically push President
Trump into a corner, where he would not dare to try to make good
on his promise to improve relations with Russia.
So by congratulating Putin for his reelection for another
six years, and then having very, very important discussions about
the issues which are the real challenges in the world, namely,
strategic stability, prevention of the arms race, Syria, Ukraine,
the Korea crisis, I think the two Presidents established
absolutely a direct connection and it makes the British effort
really look rather what it is, namely, an absolutely insane
provocation.
Now, I think it’s very important that in that same phone
call, President Trump not only congratulated Putin for his
reelection, but he also was very positive on the fact that
President Xi Jinping, that the limit to his terms was eliminated,
so he can stay on in these crucial years ahead.  And he said this
is a very good thing, because President Xi Jinping has provided
very, very good leadership.
I think the geopolitical faction is absolutely going
bananas, and that is reflected in really hysterical media
coverage about this, but I think it’s a good thing.  And the fact
that there is a relationship and a dialogue among the Presidents
of the three most important countries on the planet — the United
States, Russia, and China — everybody who loves peace and who is
not a moron should be happy about it.  But if you contrast that
with rather unbelievable warmongering of Stoltenberg, the head of
NATO, for example — I mean, this guy, can you imagine he said,
because there was this poison attack on Skripal, a former double
agent, that means the likelihood that Russia is dropping nuclear
bombs — this is {really} crazy.
The war faction, they have gone beyond all reason, and
Merkel, the German Chancellor, when she went to Poland, even went
so far as to say that Russia has to prove that they didn’t do it!
Can you imagine this?  I mean, there is such a thing in
international law as {in dubio pro reo}, which means “in doubt
for the accused,” and that the accuser has to provide the
evidence and not the accused, and that’s exactly what the Russian
Foreign Minister Lavrov said.  And he used that occasion to say
that Merkel’s behavior, unfortunately, points in the direction
that the European leaders are not coming back to reason.
So I think, nothing can be expected from the Europeans at
this point.  The British are on a rampage; Merkel and Macron, for
their own reasons, backed this up completely, and therefore I
think it’s very, very good that President Trump cut through all
of this and established direct contact with Putin. {And} they
announced that they will have a summit fairly soon between the
two of them, Putin and Trump. And Serbia already offered Belgrade
as a neutral place for the two to meet.  So I think this is a
very, very good sign.

SCHLANGER:  And while this discussion has been going on,
there have been a number of other discussions that I think are
quite significant between the U.S. and Russian military,
political leaders, a briefing at the Russian Foreign Ministry; it
does appear as though the Trump administration and the Putin
administration see this as an opportunity for outflanking it.  Is
that your assessment?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  Because, as you said, there were all
kinds of other diplomatic initiatives.  The two military chiefs
of staff communicated, then there was a meeting between the
Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and Senator Rand Paul, which
is very important, because in the midst of all of this
demonization, almost nobody dared to speak with the Russian
Ambassador, like what happened to Sessions.  So, the two of them,
Antonov and Rand Paul also agreed to reestablish U.S.-Russian
inter-parliamentarian dialogue.
So every effort to reestablish dialogue and trust building,
confidence building, is extremely welcome, because, as it has
been developing — in the ’60s and ’70s you had the idea of an
East policy, of rapprochement through cooperation, détente,
trying to have a good-neighbor relationship in Europe, and all of
that with, really, starting with PNAC, the Project for a New
American Century, with the neo-cons when the Soviet Union
collapsed, that basically led to a complete build-up of a Cold
War mentality, NATO expansion, regime change, interventionist
wars, and this has poisoned the atmosphere so much that you can
really ask yourself, what was the purpose —  or what {is} the
purpose of that?  What is the purpose, when the British are
trying to build such a war-like enemy image of Russia?  I mean,
there are some few, very lonely voices who share our view, that
once you build up such an enemy image, and you poison the
atmosphere, you completely make wild accusations, I mean, this is
the kind of atmosphere in which things can go very quickly very
wrong.  And that would be devastating.
Now, in this context, it’s also noteworthy that there was a
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where the commander of
the Strategic Command of the United States, General Hyten, was
asked:  Does the United States at this point have any defense
against the kind of weapons systems which were announced by
President Putin on March 1? And he said, no.  Then his answer was
to say, therefore, the use of low-yield nuclear weapons should be
considered more strongly, which is in the new nuclear doctrine of
the United States.  And he was immediately refuted by a
Democratic Senator who said, nobody should think that such
so-called “low-yield nuclear weapons” use cannot immediately lead
to an all-out nuclear war.
So people should not be blind in repeating this Cold War
demonization against Russia, and in a certain sense against
[China], because this is {really} dangerous.  It’s very
dangerous.  And you have the distinct feeling that with the
exception as such people as President Trump and a few others,
that the present crop of politicians in leading positions have
been so self-brainwashed and so incapable of strategic thinking,
or even thinking of the consequences of what they’re saying and
doing, that they are not capable to see the cause and effect of
their warmongering.  And I think we need a real discussion that
what is needed is cooperation, confidence-building, dialogue,
cooperation on economic projects, cooperation in space, which was
also mentioned in this context, as a positive step.  But we have
to have a debate that this kind of confrontation should stop, and
we should support President Trump when he is trying to mend
fences with Russia and China, and not attack him.

SCHLANGER:  And there is a counterattack against May from
within the United Kingdom, from Jeremy Corbyn, even from some of
the people in the chemical weapons section of British
intelligence.  Will this backfire, this whole effort to turn this
against Russia?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think it shows like never before,
the role of the British, and I think that’s a useful thing.
Because those among our audience who know the LaRouche movement
for a longer time, will remember that we were, and especially my
husband, was always attacked for his having pointed to the role
of the British.  And it was the British Empire — which still
exists, not in the old form, but it exists in the from of the
leading financial institutions, and their whole system of private
security firms, and the whole central bank/insurance company
system.  The trans-Atlantic financial structure, is the present
form of the British Empire, and my husband always pointed to the
fact that it is that which is corrupting the United States, and
running much of the dope traffic.  And he always was accused that
said, the British monarchy is behind all of this.  Now, anybody
who looks at the present manipulation of the situation, can see
very clearly the role of the British, the role of Boris Johnson,
the role of Theresa May who are just the instruments of this.
But I think this is very useful, because the real United
States after all made an American Revolution and War of
Independence against this British Empire, and if you look at the
history, that same British Empire never gave up the idea of
reconquering the United States, and finally they succeeded to
establish the “special relationship” between the United States
and Great Britain to run the world as a unipolar world.  And if
President Trump breaks out of that, — and that was the real
reason for the attacks on him — and establishes a direct
communication with Russia and China, then that’s the end of this
kind of geopolitical manipulation, of divide and conquer of the
world. And that is a very good thing. And I think that should
happen, right now.

SCHLANGER: Well, when we talk about backfiring, this calls
to mind something you often bring up, Schiller’s idea of the
“Ibykus principle.”  We see it also with Russiagate, in the
firing of [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe in the last days;
the focus now on [former CIA Director] John Brennan,  — there
are a whole series of articles attacking John Brennan, who’s
coming out openly saying, Trump is crazy, he has to be removed.
And then, there’s a whole story that the attempt to ensnare Trump
in this Cambridge Analytica, and there’s a whole different story
that’s now coming out on this.  This is the Ibykus principle,
isn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  And it’s also very useful, because we
always warned against the addiction of young people to the
so-called “social media,” where real life, real friendships, real
studying, real studying, were replaced by this almost autistic
dependency on the so-called social media, which is a virtual
reality.  So-called “friends” are not friends — and now it turns
out that this whole thing was just a commercial operation to
collect private data, sell them for commercial and other
interests.  And I think it’s a very useful think.
Interesting in this context is also a comment by Edward
Snowden, who said:  A firm which collects and sells private data
should be rightly called a surveillance institution. And to call
that social media is the most successful fraud since the story
that the Department of War is really a Department of Defense was
sold officially to the public.
So I think this whole affair should lead to a re-thinking,
what do you do with this surveillance apparatus, and how do you
trust this, and how do you demand, especially, the
reestablishment of privacy control, control of private data, and
forcing government and legislators to go back to a protection of
the privacy of its citizens.  I think the idea that everything is
transparent and everything is allowed for everybody to be
manipulated, it’s really part of giving up your individual
freedom, and being completely controlled, profiled, shaped,
nudged,  — nudged into any direction — I think people should
reflect on all of this, and not be so absolutely naïve.
And I think this Cambridge Analytics story and the role of
Facebook is a very useful reminder to think about these matters
in a different way.

SCHLANGER:  Well, then you have the whole other irony, of
the efforts to pin Press Secretary Sanders down on why didn’t
Trump talk about the fraud in the Russian elections? And she made
the comment that “we’re not in the business of telling other
countries how to run their elections,”  but it does seem as
though we completely — by “we” I mean the United States
government — constantly talk about Russian interference in
private lives, when, what Snowden showed, and Clapper tried to
lie to cover it up, is that the biggest violator of that is the
National Security Agency!
Now, on the Ibykus principle, Helga, I don’t know if we have
enough on this, yet for you to say much, but it should be noted
that former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was arrested
yesterday, one day after the seventh anniversary of his role in
working together with then British Prime Minister David Cameron,
and also with Obama and Hillary Clinton, to destroy Libya and
kill Qaddafi.  Do you have anything on that story?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I have to see what our French colleagues are
actually saying about that.  But I can tell you that much, that
the story is breaking big time in Italy, where many former
politicians are now commenting on it, saying it was a big mistake
for Italy to be drawn into this war, basically by the British, by
Hillary Clinton; who then convinced NATO, and then drew in Italy
to join in this attack.  And that they should have talked more to
Germany at the time.
Germany at the time, the foreign minister was Guido
Westerwelle, who fortunately refused to be part of this.
But what these Italian politicians are pointing to, is — if
the story is what the accusations are right now, which obviously
needs to be determined — that Sarkozy did receive large money
from Qaddafi.  Qaddafi’s son and former advisor have now
testified that Sarkozy would have demanded $50 million for his
election campaign; Qaddafi only gave him $20 million, but then
that Sarkozy later — that’s what the Italian media and some
politicians are saying right now — carried out person warfare
against Qaddafi, to eliminate a witness.  If that is true, it
would be a really incredible story!  And these Italian
politicians, former deputy secretary of defense, for example, say
that this war has led to a complete destruction of Libya,
terrible economic, social and humanitarian catastrophes erupting
out of that.  The whole Libyan state is still completely torn
apart, and part of the refugee crisis, and naturally, the impact
of that on Italy, in terms of the refugees, in terms of energy
supplies and so forth, was quite devastating.
But this is just one more symptom among many.  Because if
you look at what has come out in terms of the political class,
the managers, academia, — there has never been such an open
disgrace of so many representatives of this so-called “elite” and
establishment, that I think it is a very serious problem we have
in the West!  And the reason why, in Europe, for example, some of
these right-wing populist parties are coming up, is because of
that.  And you have right now, a completely collapse and
disappearance of the so-called people’s parties, and they’re
being replaced by populist movements or extreme right-wing
movements, and I think it’s a reflection of a real moral crisis
of the West.
And that’s why we need a change, we need a New Paradigm, and
we need to call on you, you the audience, you our viewers, to
help us and enter with us into a discourse:  Where should our
future be and why we need a New Paradigm.

SCHLANGER:  And let’s move now from this discussion of the
corruption of the establishment in the West, and we should just
remind listeners that Hillary Clinton played a big role in the
Libya operation, and this was one of the points that President
Trump focussed on, when he said that this administration would
stop regime-change policies.
But let’s move to something much more positive.  You brought
up the New Paradigm:  President Xi Jinping just gave a closing
speech at the “two sessions” conferences in China, in which he
reiterated the long-term goals for China in his Presidency, and
I’d like your thoughts on what he had to say.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, first of all, he emphasized both
humility and pride.  He said the purpose of leadership is to
serve the people, and he repeated that many times, and thanked
the Chinese population for having the confidence in him to
continue his leadership. And naturally, the Western media were
completely freaked out about Xi Jinping being now in the
leadership position in the next period indefinitely.  But from a
Chinese standpoint, Xi Jinping has proven to be an exceptional
leader.  And he said, this is going to be a very difficult period
for China, because it takes place in a very complex world
situation; and he, indeed, called for a new “Long March.”  And
this is quite an amazing historic reference to this history of
China.
So I think he is clearly somebody who is devoted to the
common good of the Chinese people, and the contrast to what China
is actually doing, and how the Chinese people are happy to have
such a leader — as the Russian people are happy to have Putin;
after all, 76% vote for Putin is more than the West for sure
expected.  And there is a very funny little joke:  Saying that,
oh, Putin won the election — and the Russians did it! (Anyway, I
find this amusing with all of this Russia-bashing, that the
Russians are behind everything.)
So I think we have a situation where Russia is clearly
responding to Putin’s leadership.  China is clearly devoted to
continuing on the course of the New Silk Road, the Belt and Road
initiative; many more countries are joining, and even Morgan
Stanley, one of the Wall Street banks, put out a report saying
this is the largest infrastructure project in history and it will
continue, it will make China a very strong, modern economy, with
wealthy inhabitants and all the countries that join will have the
same; and they say that the AIIB is estimating that  there is an
infrastructure financing gap of something like $21 trillion.  And
this is obviously a gigantic task to accomplish, because the
previous leading financial institutions of the West, the IMF and
World Bank, they did not give that kind of development credit,
and therefore China is doing something for the uplifting of the
developing countries, which is actually priceless, because, for
the first time, these countries have the chance to overcome their
situation which has been really terrible.
And I think it’s very good, because the New Silk Road Spirit
is something which, once people understand it, that it’s based on
the idea of a harmonious development of all, working together for
the mutual benefit; naturally, China is pursuing its interests,
but all the other countries are happy, that for the first time,
somebody is taking care of their interests as well.
So I think the whole propaganda about China is really —
that’s what it is:  It’s propaganda, coming from geopolitical
warmongering people in the West, and we should build a mass
movement of people who say “no”:  We should take up the offer of
Xi Jinping and have a win-win cooperation, join the New Silk Road
projects, and there are plenty of tasks where we can have a
common destiny of mankind.  And Xi Jinping, in this speech, he
used the very beautiful idea, “let the Sun shine on the shared
community for the one future of humanity,” and basically, make it
innumerous.

SCHLANGER:  In contrast to the positive report from Morgan
Stanley on China, we saw one of the chief market economists for
Goldman Sachs, a man named Himmelberg, warning of the financial
fragility in the West, especially if liquidity flows are cut, and
of course, yesterday the Federal Reserve Board met, and said
they’re going to cut liquidity flows by raising interest rates
another three to five times over the next 12 months!  So I think
we can see the contrast very clearly.
Now one of the other areas where a contrast comes in, that
in spite of the threats from the anti-China lobby in the United
States about the “danger” of China becoming a hegemonic power, we
see developments that continue to be positive on the Korean
Peninsula, which include collaboration between President Trump
and Xi Jinping.  There’s a couple of summits that were announced,
and Helga, it looks as though this is just going to  continue to
build toward the possibility of an outbreak of peace:  how
horrible, huh?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah. The possibility that it comes to a
trilateral summit in May, between Trump, Kim Jong-un, and
President Moon Jae-in from South Korea, is right now very likely.
Also, there will be other summits, involving Japan, Russia; so I
think there is a strategic realignment.
And I really think that the countries that are stubbornly
insisting on the geopolitical confrontation, they will be
sidelined.  I’m not underestimating the danger as we can see by
the British behavior, but I think the overwhelming tendency is
really development and cooperation, and this is a very good
thing.
Let me just mention one last point on this contrast:  While
China is cooperating with many African nations, building
railways, we talked about the beautiful Transaqua project which
is now on the table, and this is bringing the Silk Road Spirit
into Africa.  Now, what is the EU doing?  They just had an
African Union/EU summit in Kigali, in Rwanda, where only 25
Africa countries participated, and notably absent was President
Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria, who refused to go, and does not want
to have Nigeria sign the proposed free trade agreement between
the AU and the EU.  Why?  Because naturally, many of the
industries of African nations are still in their infancy, very
backward and not developed, and fragile; and if you have a free
trade agreement, then all the European products would just flood
the African markets even more than they do already, and that way,
absolutely prevent and strangle the young, emerging industries in
the African nations.  And therefore, some of the Africans are
just refusing to go along with it.
But the reason why I’m mentioning it, is because it just
shows you that the neoliberal/neo-con geopolitical system is
really not out for win-win.  They want to exploit their
advantages, and that the EU is doing that is really one more
reason to say that they represent a system which is not in the
interest of anybody they cooperate with, nor their own members.
And if you want to know the proof of that, just look at the
southern European countries, which have been completely smashed
by the austerity policies of the Troika, and I think that what we
need instead is exactly what Italy is now doing: working with
China and the African nations in building up real economic
development like the Transaqua project.
So I think we have a real, very crystal clear picture, where
you see the intention of the two paradigms.  The old paradigm of
neoliberal control of the world, and the New Paradigm of
harmonious development of all nations.  And I think people should
really help to make sure that the second one becomes the
victorious one, and join with us!

SCHLANGER:  And Helga, when you talk about being stuck in
the old paradigm, do you have anything to say about the new
appointments to the new German government?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  That is a very sad story. As for Mrs.
Merkel who had nothing better to do than to be the puppy dog of
the British, really, this is a disgrace, and it should be noted
and understood by everybody.
But also the SPD, which is in a deep crisis, they have been
falling in the polls to less than 15%; the new Finance Minister
Olaf Scholz, what did he do?  He appointed a banker from Goldman
Sachs, Jörg Kukies, to be the deputy finance minister, and that
has caused a revolt in the German population.  There was a poll
whereby 64.9% of the people thought this was disgusting.  And
then he also appointed another guy, called Gatzer, who is known
to be the architect of the “black zero” policy of Schäuble.  And
then Scholz said oh, he’s so happy that he was able to put
together a good team.
Now, that forebodes not good things for Germany, because as
everybody knows, we are on the verge of a new financial crash,
and this was again mentioned by Sheila Bair, the former head of
the FDIC in the United States, who warned that the absolute
continuation of the derivatives trade, the speculative excesses,
the non-correction of the reasons that led to the 2008 crisis,
means we are in absolute danger of a new, even bigger crash.  And
she contrasted that, by the way, with what China has been doing,
by trying to completely forbit speculative investments, by
stabilizing the banking sector by increasing the reserves of the
banks to 15%.
But if you have such a pro-bubble government in Germany this
is not good.  And also despite the fact that there are many
Italian politicians from the Lega and Five Star Party who are
calling for Glass-Steagall, the EU is trying to get a Five
Star/Democratic Party coalition government, which would be from
their standpoint, the optimal option to preserve this speculative
system.
So I’m saying this because the Damocles Sword of a new
financial crash is absolutely still hanging over the world.  All
I can say is, given the fact that China has tried to move it’s
financial into safe waters, they are probably better protected
against the effects of such a crisis, coming than anybody else.
And I would ask our viewership, join with us, join with the
Schiller Institute to try to help mobilize for the Four Laws
proposed by my husband:  Glass-Steagall, a return to Hamiltonian
banking; a credit system and National Bank; a crash program for
thermonuclear fusion research and power, cooperation in space
exploration.  And join with the New Silk Road countries, and we
could have a New Paradigm in the world very, very quickly.  But
it requires you.  And it requires people to become active and no
leave events and history of mankind in the hands of an obviously
corrupt establishment.

SCHLANGER:  Helga, I think we can conclude by coming to the
commemoration of an event which proved that cynics are not right,
that people who say you can’t change the world with big ideas —
35 years ago from tomorrow, March 23rd, 1983, there was a shock
effect around the world, when Ronald Reagan gave a primetime
speech, and at the end of that speech, he endorsed the policy
that your husband first introduced with his pamphlet “Sputnik of
the ’80s” in the late 1970s — that is, the Strategic Defense
Initiative.  And it’s especially relevant today, given what we’re
seeing from Russia and President Putin.  So I’d like your
reflections on the importance of the anniversary of this event
from 35 years ago.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think that the SDI proposal, which
was absolutely not what the media made out of it, calling it
“Star Wars,” and things like that, the SDI proposal of my
husband, Lyndon LaRouche was an absolutely farsighted vision of a
New Paradigm!  And if you read the relevant papers about it,
especially the proposed draft for a dialogue among the
superpowers, which was published one year later, which you can
find in the archives or in the newer {EIR}s. [“The LaRouche
Doctrine: A Draft Memorandum for an Agreement between the United
States of America and the U.S.S.R.,” {EIR}, April 17,1984] This
was a vision where both superpowers would develop together, new
physical principles which would make nuclear weapons obsolete.
And I think what Putin announced on March 1st in terms of new
physical principles applied for new weapons systems, is
absolutely is in this tradition. And Putin also asked, now they
have to sit down and we have to negotiate and put together a new
security architecture, including Russia, the United States,
China, and the Europeans.
This was all envisioned by my husband in this famous SDI
proposal, and it was a very far-reaching to dissolve the blocs,
NATO and the Warsaw Pact,  to cooperate instead among sovereign
republics, which is exactly what the New Silk Road dynamic today
represents. And it was also the idea to use a science-driver in
the economy to use the increased productivity of the real economy
for a gigantic technology transfer to the developing sector, in
order to overcome their underdevelopment and poverty.
And this is what we’re seeing today, also, in the
collaboration between China, Russia and the countries that are
participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.
So I think, in a certain sense, part of this danger of peace
breaking out, that there is right now the very vivid tradition
and actualization of that tradition of the SDI, and I think we
should circulate this proposal by my husband again.  I think we
should enlarge it to become the SDE, the Strategic Defense of the
Earth, because it was just discovered that very soon, another big
asteroid is already taking course on the planet Earth: So we need
to move quickly to the common aims of mankind, and all countries
should cooperate and be a shared community for the one future of
humanity.
This is the New Paradigm which I think is so obvious.  I
mean, if you look at the long arc of history, we {have} to
overcome geopolitics and we have to move to a kind of cooperation
where we put all our forces together to solve those questions
which are a challenge to all of humanity — nuclear weapons,
poverty, asteroids — there are so many areas where we could
fruitfully cooperate — space exploration is one of them.  And I
think we are in a very fascinating moment in history, but we need
more active citizens:  So please contact us, work with us, and
let’s together make a better world.

SCHLANGER:  I think that’s a very good place to end.  People
should now realize that giving up your pessimism is one of the
keys to bringing online this new paradigm.
So, Helga thank you very much for joining us today, and
we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, see you next week.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. marts, 2018 – I sin artikel den 17. marts, skrevet til den tyske avis Neue Solidarität, der udkommer ugentligt, advarede Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche om, at vestlige lederes kapitulation til Det britiske Imperiums sindssyge provokationer mod Rusland har forværret den strategiske krise og forhøjet faren for krig. Vi citerer uddrag af hendes artikel her:

»Blot en enkelt dag efter, at kansler Merkel i sit embedsløfte svor at ’beskytte det tyske folk mod ondt’, støttede hun fuldt og helt den britiske regerings uansvarlige provokation mod Rusland i en fælles erklæring fra den franske, amerikanske, britiske og tyske regering. Macron, Trump, May og Merkel enedes om, at der ’ikke var nogen troværdig, alternativ forklaring’ på giftangrebet mod den tidligere dobbeltagent Sergei Skripal og hans datter Yulia ud over, at Rusland var ansvarligt for det. Men denne operation er så åbenlys, at der kun er én troværdig forklaring på den: Det britiske Imperium ønsker at trække hele Vesten ind i en optrapning af en ny Kold Krig, og muligvis mere. Og fr. Merkel er med til at støtte det, uden tøven.

I mellemtiden har en række kendte eksperter påpeget, at ultimatummet på blot én dag, som Theresa May gav den russiske regering til at forklare, hvordan nervegiften ’Novichok’ kom fra Rusland til Storbritannien, er et klart brud på reglerne i OPCW [Organisationen for forbud mod kemiske våben], som også UK er medlem af. Det ville have været nødvendigt, bemærker de, at udlevere en prøve på giften til OPCW for en uafhængig efterforskning, og den anklagede part, i dette tilfælde Rusland, skulle have fået ti dage til at svare på anklagerne. Den tidligere britiske ambassadør til Usbekistan, Craig Murray, karakteriserede ’Novichok’-historien, for hvilken den britiske regering ikke har præsenteret den mindste smule bevis, som et svindelnummer i samme tradition som anklagerne om Iraks angivelige masseødelæggelsesvåben. 

(Man vil huske, at et memo fra den britiske efterretningstjeneste MI6 fremlagde dette forslag).

Murray udtalte, at chefen for UK’s eneste facilitet for kemiske våben, dr. Robin Black, i et prestigiøst videnskabeligt magasin i 2016 havde understreget, at beviserne for eksistensen af denne gift var sparsomme, og at dets kemiske sammensætning var ukendt. Ikke desto mindre påstod Theresa May, selv om Storbritannien selvsagt ikke havde nogen prøver, dvs., at de ikke havde noget, med hvilket de kunne have sammenlignet den giftige substans, som blev brugt i angrebet på Skripal, at Rusland alene bar ansvaret for det. Storbritanniens facilitet for kemiske våben ligger tilfældigvis i Porton Down, som interessant nok blot er 12 km fra Salisbury, hvor angrebet fandt sted. I betragtning af den tvivlsomme karakter af Novichoks eksistens, besluttede OPCW ikke at føje det til listen over kemiske våben.

Tingene bliver endnu mere interessante, når det kommer til Christopher Steeles rolle i denne affære. Sergei Skripal, der dengang arbejdede for den russiske militære efterretningstjeneste, blev angiveligt ’vendt’ i 1995 af en MI6-agent ved navn Pablo Miller i en operation, som blev koordineret af Steele, der dengang arbejdede i Moskva under diplomatisk dække. Da Steele ’forlod’ MI6 i 2009, stiftede han det private sikkerhedsfirma Orbis Business International, hvis varemærke er at markedsføre anklager imod Rusland i PR-stil. Et af firmaets operationer var ’Operation Charlemagne’, om den såkaldte russiske indblanding i valgene i Frankrig, Italien, Storbritannien og Tyskland, såvel som også den angivelige finansiering af Marine Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi og partiet Alternativ for Tyskland (AfD) og en russisk kampagne for at ødelæge EU.

Men hans absolutte mesterværk som spion er kupforsøget mod Donald Trump via det aftalte spil mellem Obama-administrationens efterretningschefer, DNC [Democratic National Committee], Hillary Clintons kampagne og de britiske efterretningstjenester, og som udelukkende var baseret på det ’slibrige dossier’ om Trump, som Steele et Orbis havde fremstillet. USA’s Repræsentanternes Hus’ efterretningskomite har netop udgivet resultaterne af sin ét år lange efterforskning, som fandt, at der ikke fandt noget ’aftalt spil’ sted mellem den russiske regering og Trump-teamet.«

Senere i sin artikel nævner Zepp-LaRouche, at en anden aktør i Orbis-operationen var Andrew Wood, den tidligere britiske ambassadør til Moskva på netop det tidspunkt, hvor Skripal blev rekrutteret af Miller i en operation, der blev koordineret af Steele. Desuden var Steele selv den ansvarlige MI6-officer for anklagerne mod Rusland i sagen om den tidligere KGB-, FSB-agent Alexander Litvinenko, der døde i London i 2006.

Med andre ord, den samme kreds af ’tidligere’ MI6-agenter, der står for propagandaoperationen om angiveligt ’aftalt spil’ mellem Trump og Rusland, som nu er blevet miskrediteret som ’fake news’, var og er i centrum for Skripal-angrebet. Hvis det går som en and, rapper som en and og ser ud som en and, så er det efter al sandsynlighed at dømme, en and; dvs., en operation på vegne af britisk efterretning.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche opfordrer indtrængende Tyskland til at nægte at gå med på den hysteriske kampagne mod Rusland, og ligeledes mod Kina, og til i stedet at slutte sig til det Nye Paradigme. Hun konkluderer, at, hvis premierminister Theresa nu forestiller sig, at hun må imitere den britiske skuespillerinde Judi Dench, der spillede rollen som ’M’ i James Bond-film – den chef, som Bond rapporterede til – så er det et tilfælde af ekstremt dårlig smag. »At tillade sig selv at blive trukket ind i en konfrontation med Rusland af en sådan rollemodel, er uansvarligt.«

Foto: Genvalgte kansler Angela Merkel (højre) og britiske PM Theresa May (midten) enedes tirsdag 13. marts om, at allierede burde handle samstemmigt for at imødegå »Ruslands aggressive adfærdsmønster« efter giftangrebet på UK’s territorium af en tidligere russisk dobbeltagent, Sergei Skripal. Frankrigs præsident Emmanuel Macron (venstre), såvel som også USA’s præsident Donald Trump, har ligeledes givet deres støtte til briternes udlægning af sagen; at Rusland er den ansvarlige. (Arkivfoto).

Der er mange spørgsmål, vi bør diskutere, og mange ting, vi bør gøre, for det image, folk har af Vesten, er virkelig noget, folk bør tænke over. Hvordan kan det være, at det kommunistiske Kina, som er et socialistisk land, baseret på socialisme med kinesiske karaktertræk, som de siger – hvorfor klarer dette land sig så meget bedre end Vesten? Det bør give stof til eftertanke. Hvad er der i vejen med den neoliberale metode, et system, der forårsager svælget mellem rig og fattig at blive større hele tiden? I alle europæiske lande, og dette reflekteredes også i valget af Trump, væmmes mange mennesker fuldstændig ved den politiske klasse, med klassen af direktører, med bankfolk, med akademikere, og føler sig ikke længere repræsenteret af disse institutioner, hvilket er meget farligt, for i Europas tilfælde giver det grund til, at der vokser nogle virkelig meget farlige, eller i det mindste problematiske, partier og organisationer frem.

Så, manglen på fornuft afføder monstre, som Goya så klart påpegede i sine tegninger.

Folk bør begynde at blive aktive, for man kan ikke sidde passivt i et paradigmeskifte som det, vi oplever på dette tidspunkt.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Jeg vil gerne opfordre vore læsere til … at læse følgende artikel af min mand, som blev udgivet 30. marts, 1984 … : »Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the United States and the U.S.S.R.« Jeg har altid ment, at dette særlige dokument var et af de mest fremsynede og visionære artikler af de mange, mange skønne artikler, min mand har skrevet i årtiernes løb, for dette var et år efter, at SDI blev foreslået af præsident Reagan. Som vi ved, så var modreaktionen mod dette forslag utroligt. Det kom fra kredsene omkring Bush i Reagan-administrationen, men det kom også fra Ogarkov-lejren i det sovjetiske militær. Så efter et år fremsatte min mand et meget fremsynet forslag, som var ideen om at grundlæggende set at opløse NATO- og Warszawapagt-blokkene; og bruge samarbejdet mellem NATO og Warszawapagten – men i særdeleshed USA og Sovjetunionen – til at udvikle våben baseret på nye, fysiske principper; anvende dem i civilsektoren til at forårsage en videnskabsdrevet virkning; og dernæst bruge den øgede produktivitet i begge økonomier – men især også i den sovjetiske økonomi – til at gennemføre en betydningsfuld overførsel af teknologi til udviklingslandene og overvinde disses underudvikling og ophøre med at bruge udviklingslande til stedfortræderkrige mellem supermagterne. Principperne, der blev fremlagt i denne artikel, for det politiske grundlag for en varig fred, må være alle nationers absolutte, betingelsesløse suverænitet; samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater; ubegrænsede muligheder for at deltage i fordelene ved teknologisk fremskridt, til alle og enhvers gensidige fordel; og så fremdeles.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Er det virkelig OK med narkoepidemien, der i USA har ført til et fald i den generelle levetid; guvernør Bevin påpegede det faktum, at nogle af disse sataniske budskaber også er i teksterne i popmusikken, i filmene, i videospillene – bør vi tillade alt dette, og få vore samfund totalt ødelagt? Der er en virkning af alt dette på de kognitive evner! Hvis man ønsker Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love som den eneste løsning til at undgå systemets kollaps, jamen, især den fjerde lov kræver et forceret program for fusionskraft, for international rumforskning og rumrejser. Man kan ikke have folk med ødelagte hjerner, fordi de er afhængige af disse ting, og så få dem til at blive kreativ, produktiv arbejdskraft.

Så det er én og samme diskussion, vi har brug for – vi har brug for et Nyt Paradigme, og vi må have et uddannelsessystem, der understreger skønheden i klassisk kultur, der understreger karakterens skønhed som et udviklingsmål. Det var Wilhelm von Humboldts idé, som trods alt havde indflydelse på meget af undervisningssystemet i Europa og USA i det 19. århundrede, og det holdt sig endda til langt ind i det 20. århundrede, og han havde den idé, at formålet med uddannelse må være karakterens skønhed. Hvem taler om dette nu om stunder? Hvis man tager nogle af disse børn, der er afhængige af disse voldsvideospil, eller endnu værre, der kigger på forfærdeligt materiale på Internettet, hvor der bruges tortur og sådanne ting, og som virkelig bliver ødelagt. Deres hjerner bliver fuldstændig ødelagt!

Eftersom guvernør Bevin har krævet en national debat om dette, og præsident Trump heldigvis også ønsker at tage dette spørgsmål op, mener jeg, vi må have en sådan debat, for det er efter min mening en integreret del af USA’s tilslutning til det Nye Paradigme og den Nye Silkevej, for vi kan ikke have, at dette fortsætter.

Schiller Instituttet har i mange år bevist, at, med klassisk musik, med klassisk poesi, med Schiller, med Shakespeare, kan man transformere folk og få en æstetisk opdragelse, og det er præcis, hvad vi har brug for lige nu.

 

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Så man skal forstå dette som førkrigs-propaganda, og folk falder let for ting, som er i de gængse medier, hvor de hellere skulle tænke sig om to gange. Det, som Rusland og Kina gør, er, at de er i færd med at opbygge en helt anden model for internationale relationer, der er specifikt modelleret efter ikkeindblanding og respekt for det andets lands anderledes samfundssystem. Derfor er denne propaganda simpelt hen et forfærdelig farligt scenarie med løgne, der faktisk tjener som en forberedelse til krig, og det er, hvad folk virkelig må forstå.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Dagens emne er det Nye Paradigme for menneskelig civilisation. Jeg har ofte fremført, at, hvis man ser på tilstanden i især den vestlige verden i dag, dvs. USA, tilstanden i Europa, den tyske regering, der er selvdestruktiv mens den forsøger at bygge en ny regering; vi har tydeligvis en situation, hvor verden er i voldsom uorden. Jeg har fremført den pointe, at vi må have et Nyt Paradigme, der er lige så forskelligt i forhold til de nuværende antagelser og aksiomer, som de moderne tider var forskellige i forhold til middelalderen. Hvor alle middelalderens antagelser med skolastik, Aristoteles, overtro og lignende rod blev erstattet af et helt andet billede af mennesket og et nyt begreb om samfundet.

Dette er nødvendigt for at sikre den menneskelige arts evne til at overleve på lang sigt. Og spørgsmålet er, om vi kan give os selv et system for at styre os selv, der garanterer, at den menneskelige art vil eksistere i kommende århundreder eller endda årtusinder? Min mand, Lyndon LaRouche, helligede hele sit livsværk til dette spørgsmål, med andre ord, til at spore de aspekter af det nuværende system, som var forkerte, og hvordan de skulle erstattes med et bedre, mere fuldendt system. Hvis man ser på de nuværende, såkaldte liberale demokratier i Vesten, så benægter de, at man kan have et sådant nødvendigt billede af mennesket, og nødvendigt [kan ikke høres]. For det er selve liberalismens natur, at alt er tilladt, alt er gyldigt; men virkeligheden er, at dette vestlige liberale demokrati ikke er den eneste situation i verden. En del, et aspekt af dette Nye Paradigme er allerede ved at vokse frem. Det er ved at vokse frem i form af den Nye Silkevej, der for ca. 4,5 år siden blev sat på dagsordenen af Kina. Den såkaldte Ny Silkevejsånd, altså ideen om, at man kan samarbejde på win-win-basis til alles gensidige fordel; denne idé har allerede mange lande – faktisk hele kontinenter – taget til sig. Den Nye Silkevejsånd stormer allerede frem i store dele af Asien, endda visse dele af Europa, Afrika og Latinamerika.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Introduktion v/ Harley Schlanger: 

De voksende krigstrommer, der høres mod Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, og som kommer fra transatlantiske geopolitiske institutioner og deres politiske marionetter, såsom den amerikanske senator Marco Rubio, udgør et vidnesbyrd om den voksende indflydelse, som Xi Jinpings »win-win«-diplomati har. Det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche først identificerede som et »Nyt Paradigme«, har vundet tilhængere i hele verden med den smitsomme »Nye Silkevejsånd. Nationer i Afrika, Asien og Syd- og Mellemamerika, der er blevet udplyndret under IMF’s og Verdensbankens krav om nedskæringspolitik, vender sig nu mod BVI, der demonstrerer, at reelt økonomisk fremskridt er muligt. BVI-processen tilbyder et håb om, at fattigdom kan elimineres i hele verden på samme måde, som den er blevet dramatisk reduceret i Kina.

I stedet for at fejre denne proces eller gå med i den, så har de transatlantiske eliter gang i deres gamle tricks i et desperat forsøg på at forhindre det Nye Paradigme i at lykkes. Deres gamle paradigme, med regimeskifte og krige, med anvendelse af terroroperationer, med frihandelsaftaler kombineret med nedskæringspolitikker, der producerer morderisk økonomisk ødelæggelse, fortsætter, selv med et væsentligt svækket fundament for deres overlevelse.

I USA er operationen for regimeskifte mod præsident Trump afsløret som et kupforsøg, Made in London. Nye afsløringer fra senatorerne Grassley og Graham forventes at vise, hvor dybt involveret, folk fra Obama-administrationen – og Obama selv – var i at brygge svindelhistorien om »Russiagate« sammen. Vi er nu nærmere end nogensinde før på at knække denne operation, som ville befri præsidenten for de begrænsninger, der er påtvunget ham, og til at forfølge de mål, han førte kampagne for.

Hør Helga Zepp-LaRouches analyse af udviklingerne omkring disse spørgsmål:

(her følger engelsk udskrift af videoen):

Harley SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the
Schiller Institute.  I’d like to welcome you to this week’s
webcast with the Schiller Institute Founder and President Helga
Zepp-LaRouche.
Helga, I think what we need to start with this week, is the
issue of geopolitics.  You’ve always emphasized, that geopolitics
is an imperial game, it’s part of the old paradigm and the
greatest threat to mankind. This was on display yesterday in the
U.S. Senate:  The Intelligence Committee has the Threat
Assessment hearing; Dan Coats, the Director of National
Intelligence, said, “Frankly the United States is under attack.”
And Marco Rubio said, “China is the biggest threat.”  He said,
“it’s aggressively promoting infrastructure as part of its long
geopolitical arm.”
What’s behind this?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is very clear that, as it
becomes clear that China is becoming sooner or later the largest
economy in the world, it’s already bypassing the United States in
certain respects, — I mean, there is obviously a freakout on
the side of those people in the West who are sticking to the
conception of an unipolar, the idea of a Pax Americana, where,
basically the United States is the only remaining superpower.
And the fact that a nation which is after all, 1.4 billion
people, is eventually becoming stronger, especially if it has the
kind of science and technology oriented policy which China is
pursuing, it is clear that some people respond to that with the
idea to contain that country.
Now, I think it should be clear to anybody that that is a
complete impossibility, unless you go to war.
Now, China has answered to the recent attacks, which are
really ranging from Australia, to the United States, to certain
European think tanks, in a very calm way.  For example, there was
a response to the formulation that China would be a “competitor”
or a “rival,” as Trump said it in his State of the Union address,
where there was a quite reasonable article in Global Times,
answering to this, and making the point that the United States
has to make an historic choice: That it is clear that the rise of
China has caused certain strategic phobias among certain people,
who recognize or help to see that China is offering a different
development model which is especially attractive for developing
countries, and that they are now reacting in this way; but that
obviously, cooperation is the only way for these two largest
countries in the world — the United States and China.  And if
they find a way of cooperation, then they have a bright future.
This is completely crazy to say that everything China does
— the Chinese culture, the Chinese system — all of this would
be a threat to the West.  It is absolutely not the case, and
China has offered cooperation, and anything else can only lead to
a catastrophe.
Now, I would make still a big difference between how
President Trump reacts; while all of these attacks were going on,
he met with State Councillor Yang Jiechi in Washington, and they
reopened the four-level strategic dialogues, that they will
continue.  And I think this is very good.  But obviously, the
propaganda campaign against China right now is reaching an
absolutely unprecedented pitch.

SCHLANGER:  At the same time, we’re seeing the changes going
on with Russiagate. You hear very little these days about
questions of what Russia did, what Trump did, but there are new
things emerging. I think it’s quite interesting: The Obama role
is starting to be talked about, Joe diGenova had another
statement.  What’s your assessment of what’s going on with the
whole Russiagate story?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Essentially, I think what this Joseph
diGenova points out, which I think is quite relevant, that the
counter-memo to the Nunes memorandum which was basically coming
from Adam Schiff, was kept back by the FBI and the DOJ, diGenova
says, because there are certain formulations in it which need to
be redacted according to these two institutions, and he points
out to the fact that the formulation because there is a criminal
investigation going on, is very interesting. And he points to the
fact that all the culprits who were involved in this Russiagate
coup attempt eventually will face criminal prosecution. So that’s
one thing.
And also the role of former President Obama is now an issue.
There was a funny email which Susan Rice sent to herself as a
kind of memo, reminder, on Jan. 20, 2017, where she reported
about a meeting involving Obama, Biden, Comey, herself, in which
this was discussed that the incoming President Trump should not
be told by the secret services, things relating to Russia,
because of the suspicion of a collusion with Russia.  Now, that’s
quite incredible, that the outgoing President would instruct the
intelligence services to withhold information from an incoming
President.  And this refers to a meeting which apparently took
place on Jan. 5th, and then, one day later, the four heads of the
intelligence services went to Trump in the Trump Tower, — this
was still in the transition period — and they told him about the
supposed collusion with Russia.  And later, when Comey made this
big speech in front the Congress, he said this was his “Edgar
Hoover moment.”
This is all now in the public domain, and I think everything
we said in the dossier on Mueller, which we published last
September, is now proven absolutely to the point by these
congressional investigations.  [“Robert Mueller Is an Amoral
Legal Assassin; He Will Do His Job If You Let Him!”]  So, I think
the battle where the United States will go looks much better for
Trump than the people who tried the coup against him.

SCHLANGER:  To go back to what you said about the Susan Rice
memo:  if you look at the Intelligence Committee hearing
yesterday, it seems as though the heads of intelligence today are
still holding to the same line that they did under Obama.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, they keep saying it, but that doesn’t
mean that these investigations in the House and Senate will not
continue.  Some mills are grinding slowly, but they’re grinding.

SCHLANGER:  The other big news from the United States was
the introduction of the so-called infrastructure bill.  What’s
your assessment on that?  It doesn’t seem to be what it was
cracked up to be.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it’s noted as a good thing by many
people that there is, finally, somebody proposing an
infrastructure program, because infrastructure is a phenomenon
which lasts 30, 40, 50 years, or maybe sometimes even longer, but
then eventually it ages, it’s disintegrating, and that’s what we
see in many instances in the United States — the roads, the
nonexisting fast-train system, the general condition of bridges
and so forth.  So it’s a good thing that somebody talks about
that.
But I think the way how Trump is going about it, by hoping
there will be private investors, and a lot of burdens on the
state and local governments will not function.  And I think that
China has noted that point in commenting that the political
system in the United States is making it impossible.  Because the
moment Trump said anything about his program, the Democrats
completely opposed it.  And obviously infrastructure is in the
national interest, and therefore, should be a nonpartisan issue.
But the fact that you have this partisan system in the United
States and elsewhere in the West, as part of the so-called
“democratic” system, this prevents any progress in this respect
and therefore, it’s all the more important that a professor from
Beijing University offered to use the large foreign exchange
reserves which China has, especially in the form of U.S.
Treasuries and U.S. bonds, to invest those in the infrastructure
in the United States.
This is a proposal which we have made from the very
beginning, because obviously, China has the financing, China has
the infrastructure expertise; they have built an enormous amount
of fast train systems, and other infrastructure.  So I think that
that would be the only way to make this function.  But I think
short of that, you need Glass-Steagall, you need a National Bank
in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, and a credit system, and
then the cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative; and then
it would function.
So that remains the task, basically in the United States,
our colleagues are encouraging state legislators and others to
make pressure from the base, so that neo-con pressure in the
Republican Party and the Democratic opposition to Trump’s
proposals are overcome, through such a program in the national
interests of the United States, which would also be a
peace-building measure. So that is the battle right now.

SCHLANGER:  We also have this fairly interesting article on
Bloomberg about the Chinese economy, where they say, our models
show that it should have crashed, but it hasn’t crashed, and they
say they’re confounded by this.  It’s obvious, these models don’t
work, but the Chinese are aware of that, aren’t they?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes. As a matter of fact, as these attacks
against China have escalated, they had a very interesting
counterattack on “democracy,” saying that “democracy” is the
hobby-horse of many people in the West, but in reality, it is not
in the common interest, it’s basically a weapon to defend the
interest of an oligarchy.  And also the West are not the only
ones who can claim to have a democratic system.  And then they
say basically that this goes back to Mencius, who already
demanded that the government must follow the Mandate of Heaven,
and in China it is the highest obligation of the party to follow
the Mandate of Heaven, which means following the common good of
the people.
So, they basically say democracy is being used for regime
change, that when they target a country, they demand people
should follow “democracy,” then they play up through the
mainstream media some demonstrators and if everything goes well
it leads to regime change and if it doesn’t go well, they go for
a nice color revolution.
So I think these kinds of renewed, sharp responses coming
from China reflect the fact that they do not intend at all to be
intimidated, and that they’re quite aware of double standard of
the so-called “liberal system” which claims they’re liberals, but
then demand global hegemony and controlling the rules on a global
scale, and that this double standard is visible for anybody who
wants to see it.
So there is a new tone of self-confidence and
self-assuredness in the Chinese responses to these accusations.

SCHLANGER:  And I would assume the Chinese have to be asking
the question, “What’s wrong with reducing poverty?”  And here we
see this situation where poverty is growing in the West, it has
been growing from the 2001 period on, and yet, Chinese efforts to
alleviate poverty, not just in China, but also in their neighbors
and all around the world as well, is seen as somehow an imperial,
expansionist policy.
I mean — do the Chinese have a reaction to that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  They have right now the most
impressive program to alleviate poverty inside China by 2020.
For those people who are interested in that, there is a
documentary on CGTN, the Chinese Global Television Network, where
they show how they absolutely map out every spot, every village
where you have poverty, they have a file on every family to look
at what are the reasons for it, what can be done to overcome it
— education, infrastructure, industrialization, relocation of
people to better-off areas — and President Xi Jinping is very
much hands-on.  He travels to these villages — not all of them,
but some; he talks to the families; he makes it clear that it is
his personal concern that the goal of eliminating poverty by 2020
is reached.  And this is very, very impressive.
There was another article in the Chinese press, where they
say, infrastructure development and poverty alleviation is also
an area of competition. And not only is the economic growth of
China absolutely incredible and outstanding, but so is the
infrastructure building and the poverty alleviation.
So the West has to basically suffer to be judged:  Who is
doing more for their people, is it China, or is the West, with
their so-called austerity systems, which in the case of, if you
look at Europe, there is now a new study out by the European
Center for Economic Research [ZEW], which looked at what was the
difference, after the 2008 crisis, in those countries which an
anti-cyclical focus on basic research and development, R&D, and
they had a massive increase in productivity. The countries that
did that were Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.  As compared
to those countries which were hit by with EU Troika austerity
policy — namely, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland,. Czech
Republic, Lithuania — which had to make cuts also in the basic
research and development, and as a result had a terrible collapse
in productivity.
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the
system of the free market, which after all is not that free,
given the fact that all central banks did was to bail out the
banks and keep money pumping for the benefit of the speculators,
so that the rich become richer, and the poor become more poor,
and the middle class is shrinking.
This article by Bloomberg, which you referenced earlier, is
very interesting, because the author admits that according to his
theory, China should be collapsing, it should have meager
economic growth, but obviously the contrary is the case.  And he
says that China is doing everything which according to his theory
are terrible, like state intervention, party control, — things
like that — and China is prospering. And actually, he says,
he’s not yet ready to completely overturn his theory, but he’s
willing to make corrections.
There will be a lot more corrections, because I think we
need a public debate, what are the economic criteria for a
functioning economy?  And obviously, the works of my husband,
Lyndon LaRouche, and his development of physical economy, going
back to Leibniz, to Friedrich List, to Henry C. Carey, to Wilhelm
von Kardorff, who was the economic advisor of Bismarck and was
one of the key influences to bring about the industrial
revolution in Germany; as compared to the so-called free market
model, I think we have to have a real debate, what is the cause
of wealth?  Is it money, or is it the idea of the creativity of
the individual, which then leads to scientific and technological
discoveries, which applied in the production process leads to an
increase in productivity, which then leads to more wealth,
longevity, and all of these things.
We need a discussion about that, because the notion of what
is economy, equating that with money, has really become one of
the axiomatic assumptions of a failing system. So we need a
debate about that.

SCHLANGER:  One of the great contributions of your husband
was making the connection, between geopolitical doctrine as an
imperial doctrine, and the imposition of these kinds of economic
policies, which only work for the handful of the most wealthy.
Now, we had talked earlier — actually, it’s been a focus
of the Schiller Institute for a while — extending the Silk Road
into the World Land-Bridge, and we’re seeing that now with the
bioceanic railway, the progress in Africa.  What can you tell us
about how these projects are advancing?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Oh, I think they’re on a very good
development:  There was just a reiteration in Brazil coming from
the Chinese Embassy, that the bioceanic railway, connecting the
Pacific and the Atlantic from Brazil to Peru, is still very much
on the agenda, that a feasibility study has been made.  So this
is on a good trajectory, and all the projects agreed upon at the
China-CELAC meeting — the Caribbean and Latin American
countries meeting with China; and naturally, also the Africa
projects are all progressing very nicely.  So I think the World
Land-Bridge is becoming a reality, very quickly, to the benefit
of all countries that participate in it.

SCHLANGER:  I’d like to come back, as we wrap this up, to
the question of geopolitics.  We got a question from a viewer,
who wanted to know why you always blame British geopolitical
manipulations for World War I and World War II?  And they ask the
question, what did they do, and what were they responding to?
Why don’t you give us the answer to that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  If you look at the British Empire’s policy
toward the Continent in the 19th century, they clearly were
extremely upset about the industrial revolution in Germany,
introduced by Bismarck.  Bismarck, as I mentioned earlier, was a
free-trade follower in the beginning, working with the Prussian
Junkers.  But then he got acquainted with the theories of Henry
C. Carey:  He had this friend, Wilhelm von Kardorff who was the
head of the German business association at the time, and they
recognized the fundamental difference between what Friedrich List
had called the “American System,” and the British system.
So Bismarck changed to a proponent of protectionism, and
this led to a very quick industrial revolution in Germany.  Now,
the British, through relatives in the oligarchy, manipulated so
that Bismarck got ousted, which was really a tragedy, because
Bismarck was very smart and he had basically established a peace
order on the European Continent, by having many diplomatic
treaties with every nation, and especially with Russia, he had
the Reinsurance Treaty, which was a very important element to
prevent a possible outbreak of war, in case there should be some
French-German tensions.
His successors were not so smart, so they didn’t pay
attention to this Russia Reinsurance Treaty, and then the British
started to manipulate the chessboard of the European countries,
step by step, by creating incidents to create the Entente
Cordiale; the Triple Entente; the war between Russia and Japan;
the Balkan Wars; so that basically, every country was set
already, ready to go so that the shooting in Sarajevo was only
the trigger but not the cause for World War I.
Now, what was behind that, also, was the idea of geopolitics
as it had been developed by Mackinder, Milner, and later by
Haushoffer, which was the crazy idea that whoever controls the
Eurasian land-mass is in control of the world, to the
disadvantage of the Atlantic rim countries, in that case, United
States and England.  So basically, that idea that you have to
orchestrate conflict in order to prevent such a development, that
became an issue, naturally, with the Trans-Siberian Railroad,
which was built essentially in the 1890s; and the plans to build
a Berlin-Baghdad Railway, was regarded by the British at that
time, as a fundamental threat to their control of the sea trade.
Now, obviously, today, with the New Silk Road, if you think
in terms of geopolitics, you could easily arrive at the same
mistaken conclusion, and I think that is the British thinking.
And as we can see now, in the case of Mr. Rubio, or the
intelligence heads of the United States, that is their thinking.
But as I had said, many, many times, geopolitics led to
essentially all the wars in history.  It led to two World Wars,
because the idea with the Second World War, was everybody who had
read Mein Kampf and knew the background of Hitler, knew that
eventually a war between Russia and Germany would result, and
there were backers who wanted Hitler to come to power — [Bank of
England Governor] Montagu Norma, in the United States, the
Harriman interests and others — so this was a manipulation where
it was clear it would result in such a war.
It should be clear to everybody who is not completely losing
his marbles, that in the age of thermonuclear weapons, you cannot
continue this game, if you do not want to risk the extinction of
civilization!  And I think what China has proposed with their
“win-win cooperation,” with their offers for China and the United
States to cooperate on the basis of a special relation among
major powers, the offer for European countries to cooperate, that
is catapulting humanity to a higher level of cooperation and
reason!  And I think it is so much in our self-interest — what
is the problem with the United States?  It’s not that China is
rising, the problem is that the United States has moved away from
the policies of the Founding Fathers, of Lincoln, of Franklin D.
Roosevelt, of Kennedy.  And the United States, indeed, could
become great again, if they go back to these policies, and then
they would not regard China as a threat.  It’s only when the West
is collapsing that there is ferment to see a rising power as a
threat.  But as the Chinese ambassador to Washington Cui Tiankai,
he said — and I think that that is definitely something to think
about — that in history, there were 16 cases where one nation
would rise and the dominant one up to that point would be faced
with such a situation:  In twelve cases, there had been war, and
in four cases, the rising country had just bypassed the old,
dominant one and that would have been the new situation.  And the
Chinese ambassador said: China does not want the twelve cases
where it led to war, but they also don’t want the four cases
where China would just take over and become the unipolar,
dominant country; but that they want to have respect for the
sovereignty of each, and that is what all the developing
countries that are participating in the Belt and Road Initiative
are experiencing.  That’s why they cooperate, they have benefits
from it, and they have, now for the first time, the chance to
overcome their underdevelopment and poverty.
And I think it would be absolutely dangerous to listen to
these people who are now saying everything China represents is a
threat.  Because if you look at China, it’s actually a very
well-functioning economic model:  The people are happy, the
philosophy is for the common good, and it is not a threat.  And I
want to keep insisting on that, because nothing would be more
dangerous than if you get into a complete anti-China hysteria,
anti-Russia hysteria, and the only consequence of that could be a
terrible catastrophe for all of us.

SCHLANGER:  I think from what you just said, it becomes
increasingly clear for people, why Donald Trump’s desire to have
good relations with Russia and China, is seen as such a threat to
the City of London, and its extended worldwide interests.
Helga, that brings us to the end of the program today.
We’ll see you next week!

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, till next week.

Derfor er det så meget desto mere vigtigt, at den eneste løsning på denne finanskrise, nemlig gennemførelsen af Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingen og de Fire Love, min mand, Lyndon LaRouche, har udarbejdet; at de nu kommer frem på bordet, og at der kommer et krav fra befolkningerne i alle landene om, at deres regeringer responderer til Xi Jinpings tilbud om at samarbejde med den Nye Silkevej. Europa, Tyskland, Italien, Frankrig, USA; de har alle et presserende behov for en forbedring og modernisering af infrastruktur.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Så inden for dette system befinder man sig i et ’Punkt 22’, og den eneste løsning er at gå tilbage til det, som Franklin D. Roosevelt gjorde i 1933: gennemfør Glass-Steagall, afslut kasinoøkonomien og så gå over til et banksystem efter Hamiltons tradition – man kan kalde det, hvad man vil, Reconstruction Finance Corporation eller Kreditanstalt für Wiederafbau (kreditanstalt for genopbygning) – og når man først har gjort finanssystemet sundt igen, er der absolut intet til hinder for, at de vestlige lande fuldt og helt kunne samarbejde med AIIB, Silkevejsfonden og andre finansinstitutioner, der støtter Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Og dette er den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan undgå en total katastrofe, og det er, hvad folk virkelig bør være med til at gennemføre.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Vi har brug for en politisk diskussion om, hvor skal menneskets fremtid være om 50 år, om 100 år fra nu, og ønsker vi at blive voksne, som art, hvor folk skatter andre ting end blot materielle ting? Folk bør, mener jeg, tænke over det faktum, at vi befinder os ved en korsvej, hvor, hvis vi gør vores job ordentligt, lige nu, og bringer USA og de europæiske nationer ind i samarbejde med den Nye Silkevej, så kan vi få en totalt ny civilisationsæra, sandsynligvis i vores egen levetid. Og jeg vil appellere til vore lyttere, til dig, om at kontakte os, gå sammen med os, hjælpe vore bestræbelser og gør de ting, vi siger, mere kendt.

 

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)