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

Her følger interviewet på engelsk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GBTimes: Please — in what way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Se interviewet på GBTimes.coms hjemmeside her. 

Det 90 minutters lange opkald mellem præsident Trump og Putin blev hilst velkommen af Helga Zepp LaRouche som “en rigtig god nyhed”, da hun gennemgik de omfattende strategiske konsekvenser af den nye situation, der er opstået efter Russiagate.

Disse omfatter:

• Betydningen af Trump-Putin-diskussionen om økonomisk og strategisk samarbejde, herunder at afhjælpe situationerne i Venezuela, Ukraine og Nordkorea;
• Det positive potentiale for samarbejde mellem USA og Kina, med endnu et møde om handelsforhandlinger planlagt – dette foregår på trods af de britisk dirigerede neokonservatives bestræbelser på at sabotere det;
• En bredere anerkendelse af det attraktive ved at samarbejde med BVI efter det andet BVI-forum, som det fremgår i flere aktuelle rapporter, der er udgivet i Tyskland;
• Betydningen af mødet om infrastrukturen mellem Trump og de Demokratiske ledere af Kongressen, der fremhæver splittelsen blandt Demokraterne mellem de vanvittige, som stadig er fokuserede på en rigsretssag og Green New Deal, og Pelosi og hendes netværk, der erkender behovet for at opnå noget positivt;
• Voksende erkendelse af den britiske rolle i iscenesættelsen af Russiagate.

Kampen for at frifinde Lyndon LaRouche udgør den bedste køreplan for at forstå hvem der styrede Russiagate og de strategiske årsager hertil. LaRouches rolle viser den enkeltes evne til at ændre historien og bør være en kilde til optimisme, et afgørende behov for at vinde kampen for det nye paradigme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 23. marts 2019

Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings statsbesøg i Italien, hvor en hensigtserklæring underskrives mellem de to lande om at samarbejde om udbygningen af Den Nye Silkevej, var en magtfuld demonstration af, at der også kan finde en begejstrende og positiv politisk udvikling sted. Den nye form for samarbejde og genoplivning af den antikke silkevej bringer ikke kun enorme økonomiske fordele til Italien såsom udbygning af havne, modernisering af infrastrukturen, nye investeringer inden for et bredt spektrum af industrianlæg. Et samarbejde åbner også store muligheder for eksport til Kina og fælles investeringer i tredjelande; fordi landet med sin fordelagtige geografiske placering i Sydeuropa og ved Middelhavet kan udgøre en port mellem Asien og Europa. Og ikke mindst kan Italien være et brohoved for samarbejdet om industrialiseringen af Afrika.

Man skulle tro, at dette ville udgøre det vigtigste tema blandt alle nyheder. Overhovedet ikke; for forholdet til Kina er lige for tiden det afgørende spørgsmål inden for europæisk politik. De fleste i Italien lige fra den EU-venlige præsident Mattarella, koalitionspartierne og store dele af oppositionen anerkender de enorme muligheder, som den kinesiske “vækstkultur” har, som Mattarella benævnte det under sin pressekonference med Xi Jinping. Mens det af EU’s nedskæringspolitik hårdt plagede Italien glædede sig over mulighderne, så ringede man med alarmklokkerne i “de øvrige store EU-stater og i USA”, sådan som det lød på T-Online. Silkevejen er Kinas trojanske hest, den bringer ingen økonomiske fordele, Italiens samarbejde med den vil ødelægge landets ry over hele verden – sådan lød det fra John Boltons nære medarbejder Garret Marquis, en talsmand for USA’s nationale sikkerhedsråd; den giver “Kinas røveriske hensigter” et skær af legitimitet.

Listen af giftige argumenter fra den geopolitiske lejr lader sig sagtens forlænge yderligere. Og de, der atter og atter gentog denne anti-kinesiske linje, afslørede dermed sig selv som bevidste eller manipulerede fortalere for den angloamerikanske nykonservative elite. Direktøren for den nationale amerikanske sikkerhedstjeneste, Dan Coats, har for nyligt ligesom Pence, Pompeo og Bolton betegnet Kina og Rusland som de vigtigste sikkerhedspolitiske trusler mod USA, hvorved militæret og efterretningseliten øjensynligt forsøger at “inddæmme” præsident Trumps forsøg på en positiv Kina-politik, sådan som det hedder på nykonservativt-nytysk.

Bag denne, her i den nyere tid forstærkede anti-kinesiske propaganda i USA, men også i Europa, gemmer sig konflikten mellem det nyliberale systems gamle mønster, hvis kræfter ubetinget søger at fastholde den gængse geopolitik, og på den anden side det nye mønster, som Kina har indført med det nye udenrigspolitiske koncept om et samarbejde mellem suveræne nationer til gensidig fordel. Og selv om de tiltagende spændinger i forholdet mellem Amerika og Rusland afgjort kan danne grundlag for de største bekymringer, så hævder flere folk fra baglandet, at den største strategiske konflikt udgøres af forholdet mellem USA og Kina. Det drejer sig her om den berømte “Thukydid-fælde”: Hvordan vil den hidtidigt dominerende magt, altså USA, forholde sig til en anden magts opstigning? Tolv gange i historien er det kommet til krig, medens den opstigende magt fortrængte den første fire gange uden krig.

Den kinesiske regering har i over fem år med sit silkevejs-initiativ sat et helt nyt koncept for indbyrdes strategiske forhold på den internationale dagsorden, som skal overvinde geopolitikken og erstatte den med præsident Xi Jinpings ide om “menneskehedens skæbnefællesskab”. Denne nye model, der rigtignok afgjort varetager kinesiske interesser, giver til gengæld også de nu 123 samarbejdende stater hidtil uopnåelige fordele. Modellen har ganske enkelt vist sig som mere fordelagtig. I stedet for at henvise disse stater til en geopolitisk stedfortræder-status, har den medført virkelige fremskridt i Afrika, Asien og Sydamerika og endda blandt de 13 europæiske stater, der indtil videre har underskrevet lignende hensigtserklæringer, som nu Italien. Den har frembragt forbedret infrastruktur, investeringer i industri og landbrug, samarbejdsplaner om videnskab og teknologi og udveksling af kultur.

EU reagerer på sin side voldsomt spaltet: På den ene side betegner EU – som så at sige juniorpartner i det anglo-amerikanske imperium – i sin netop offentliggjorte “tipunkts-handlingsplan” Kina som en “systemisk rival”, der gør propaganda for “alternative styreformer”. Og på den anden side ønsker det ikke at gå glip af de økonomiske fordele ved samarbejdet med Kina. Præsident Macron, der ikke har haft den store succes med sine planer om reformering af EU, og ikke er særligt vellidt af sin egen befolkning, roste dette EU-papir før sit møde med Xi Jinping og sagde, at dette opråb var nødvendigt, og at tiden for den europæiske naivitet var forbi, hvor Kina kunne udnytte den europæiske splittelse.

Her lyder den italienske finansminister Trias synspunkter meget mere målbevidste, idet han peger på de “forbløffende mange” områder, hvor Italien kan gøre brug af sin ekspertise inden for silkevejs-initiativet: Maskinkonstruktion, logistik, rådgivning, effektivitetsstudier, design, ingeniørkunst, sikkerhed, finans, og forsikring. Tria fortsætter: “Italien nyder også godt af en strategisk, geografisk position blandt de nuværende og fremtidige rammebetingelser for handelen mellem Østen og Vesten og Afrika. Med sin beliggenhed ved Middelhavet råder Italien over den næststørste industrikapacitet i Europa, er førende inden for den teknologiske innovation og godt forsynet med veludviklede havne og jernbanenet. Disse egenskaber gør Italien til den ideelle sydlige portal for det europæiske kontinent og for handelsruterne mellem Europa og Kina.”

Den selvbevidsthed og erkendelse af mulighederne, der kommer til udtryk i disse ord fra Trias side, står i kras modsætning til opfattelsen af Kina som en trussel. Interessant nok kommer oppositionen mod Kina netop fra de samme kredse, der stadig i 2001 gik kraftigt ind for at få Kina optaget i Verdenshandelsorganisationen, WTO, øjensynligt i den tro, at dette automatisk ville føre til, at kineserne overtog den vestlige model med dets liberale demokrati.

I stedet for blot at affærdige Kina som et “rivaliserende system” og hænge fast i den egentlig ret arrogante opfattelse, at den vestlige demokratiske model må være den eneste standard for en god regering i hele verden, så ville det være mere meningsfuldt at overveje kriterierne for et systems succes. Faktum er, at Kina har løftet sin egen befolknings levefod enormt i de sidste 40 år, at det nu i nogle år for første gang har tilbudt udviklingslandene en chance for at overvinde deres underudvikling, at det løste krisen i Asien og derefter krisen i 2008 væsentligt bedre end Vesten og at det har frembragt en udviklingsoptimisme i sin egen befolkning, som er helt forsvundet i Vesten.

Og dermed viser Kina, at det i modsætning til Kristendommen og Islam ikke er spor interesseret i at omvende andre kulturkredse til sin egen filosofi, men udtrykkeligt anerkender suverænitetsprincippet og accepterer andre staters sociale modeller. Påstanden om, at Kina spalter Europa sigte efter at tage opmærksomheden væk fra det ubeskrivelige Brexit-teater, væk fra ønsket om at sætte militæret ind mod De gule Veste i Frankrig og væk fra den allerede dybe kløft i Europa mellem øst og vest og syd og nord.

Tværtimod: Dersom Tyskland og Frankrig ville følge Italiens eksempel om at samarbejde med Kina, ikke blot i de bilaterale forhold, men først og fremmest i industrialiseringen af Afrika og Sydvestasien, så ville dette være den eneste måde, hvorved Europa kunne overvinde sin indre splittelse og finde frem til en fælles mission, noget, der fuldstændigt mangler nu.
I stedet for at opbygge sin egen geopolitiske bastion imod Kina, Rusland og USA, sådan som Macron har foreslået i sine allerede forkastede planer, så ville et forenet Europa af nært samarbejdende fædrelande, der sammen med Kina selv er med til at udforme “den fælles menneskeheds fremtid” være den bedste mulighed for også at styrke de kræfter i USA, der ønsker at undgå “Thukydid-fælden”.

Den tidligere italienske økonomiminister Giulio Tremonti har i disse dage påpeget, at visionen om Den Nye Silkevej, altså om et globalt udviklingsprogram for at overvinde fattigdommen og underudviklingen, blev foreslået allerede i begyndelsen af 90-erne af den amerikanske “visionær” Lyndon LaRouche. Rent faktisk skete det allerede midt i 70-erne. Nu om dage, og dette burde stå klart for ethvert tænkende menneske, eksisterer der kun to alternativer: Enten forsøger Vesten at undertrykke Asiens og udviklingssektorens opstigning, hvilket vil medføre en tredje verdenskrig med indsats af termonukleære våben, eller også lykkes det at udvikle et nyt mønster for samarbejde. Det er på den allerhøjeste tid at lytte til “Lyndon LaRouches vise ord”, sådan som Mexikos tidligere præsident López Portillo i sin tid udtrykte det.

Dersom EU ikke er i stand til at frembringe et nyt syn på Den Nye Silkevejs muligheder inden det kommende topmøde mellem EU og Kina den 9. april, så vil kortene til valgene til Europaparlamentet den 24.-26. maj kunne forventes blandet på en ny måde.

Her er begyndelsen af Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Se mere i videoen ovenover.

Den igangværende kamp mellem to paradigmer var i centrum i Italien i denne uge, da konferencen, der var sponsoreret af MoviSol og regionen Lombardiet i fællesskab, viste, at Bælte- og Vejinitiativet (BRI) har potentialet til at bryde Londons netværk af geopolitikeres magt i Europa. Helga Zepp-LaRouches rapport til konferencen, hvor hun talte og fik tilslutning af Michele Geracci, undersekretær i det italienske ministerium for økonomisk udvikling og leder af regeringens ‘taskforce Kina’, fremhævede betydningen af Xi Jinpings kommende tur til Italien og underskrivelsen af et memorandum vedrørende Italiens deltagelse i BRI. Hvis Italien og femten andre EU-medlemslande kan deltage, og drage fælles fordel af BRI, hvad så med Frankrig og Tyskland? Hvorfor er EU’s bureaukrater og Londons neoliberale så trængte af denne udvikling?

Sæt dette potentiale i kontrast til hysteriet der kommer fra EU-bureaukrater, fra NATO-embedsmænd som Gen. Scaparroti, og fra den amerikanske udenrigsminister Pompeo, som er en del af et kontingent af neokonservative, der forsøger at tøjle Trump. Helga præsenterer et klart billede af hvordan de neokonservative manøvrerer med sigte på at sabotere handelsforhandlingerne med Kina, den atomare afvæbning af Nordkorea samt presser på for regimeskifte i Venezuela for at tvinge Trump til at lægge afstand til sine kampagneløfter.

Hun appellerede til seerne om at bruge mobiliseringen for en frifindelse af Lyndon LaRouche som et middel til at vælte krigsfraktionen, som fortsætter sine bestræbelser på at ødelægge potentialet i Trumps præsidentskab.

Den 14. marts (EIRNS) – Idet hun talte ved en konference i Milano i går om “Italien og den nye silkevej”, fremlagde Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, et strategisk perspektiv for en hurtig forening af det nuværende smuldrende Europa omkring dets deltagelse i udviklingen af det eurasiske kontinent og det store Bælte- og Vejinitiativ, et skridt, som hun antydede kunne blive den udslagsgivende faktor til at flytte verden væk fra den truende fare for udryddelse med kernevåben.

Potentialet for dette skifte “vokser hurtigere, end man tror”, fortalte hun seminaret.” Min prognose [er, at] perspektivet for at forene Europa – ikke nødvendigvis under EU-bureaukratiet, men som i de Gaulles opfattelse mere som et “Fædrelandenes Europa”, der forener sig med Kina, med Rusland, med Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union og de europæiske lande, for fuldt ud at samarbejde i dette nye paradigme – at dette perspektiv absolut er til stede.”

“Det er også den eneste måde, hvorpå Europa kan påvirke den strategiske situation,” tilføjede Zepp-LaRouche. Hun uddybede:

“Fordi hvis man havde et forenet ‘Fædrelandenes Europa’, der samarbejder med Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, herunder Tyskland og Frankrig, ville det være den bedste måde at få USA til også at opgive sin modstand – hvilket, som jeg sagde, ikke er præsident Donald Trump selv, men disse andre kræfter – og få USA til at deltage i det nye paradigme. Og jeg tror, at det er det eneste håb vi har for at undgå en katastrofe, hvor vi vil ende med Tredje Verdenskrig med atomvåben, hvilket betyder udslettelsen af civilisationen.

“Så i den forstand er det, som Italien gør lige nu, af den største historiske betydning; fordi Italien, med hvad Italien gør, med dets aftale-memorandum [for Bæltet og Vejen], men også dets ‘joint ventures’ med Kina i Afrika, kan blive rollemodellen for alle de andre europæiske lande.”

Det Britiske Imperium og dets neo-konservative håndlangere vil blive drevet til vanvid, både af hvad Zepp-LaRouche foreslår, og af hvor og hvornår hun foreslog det. Hun er jo, når alt kommer til alt, en tysk politisk leder, samt lederen af det Internationale Schiller Institut, og ved hvad hun taler om, når det gælder Tyskland.

Dette initiativ kommer netop som Hendes Majestæts regering i Storbritannien – med premierministerens mislykkede Brexit-afstemninger i Parlamentet – har demonstreret for hele verden, at det er dysfunktionelt og ved at falde fra hinanden.

Mens de fumler rundt derhjemme, dukker Helga Zepp-LaRouche – hvis nyligt afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, det britiske monarki stadig hader og frygter som dets førende modstander gennem det sidste halve århundrede – dernæst op i Italien og taler ved en konference, som den LaRouche-associerede organisation MoviSol i Italien har været med til at sponsorere sammen med den lovgivende myndighed i Lombardiet. Desuden var den første taler ved konferencen den italienske undersekretær for ‘Ministeriet for Økonomisk Udvikling’ og medformand for regeringens ‘Task Force China’, Michele Geraci, på hvem Londons presseimperium netop har fokuseret deres skældsord, som den angivelige arkitekt bag Italiens tiltrædelse til ‘Bæltet og Vejen’.

Og dette finder sted en uge før den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping besøger Italien fra 22.-24. Marts, hvor han forventes at underskrive et aftale-memorandum om Italiens deltagelse i Bælte- og Vejinitiativet.

London og de vilde neo-konservative i Washington, D.C. har truet den italienske regering med ruin og udelukkelse fra “deres klub”, hvis det skulle fortsætte dette MoU (Memorandum of Understanding), men Italien har hidtil holdt fast på sit – en holdning, som vil opildne resten af Europa også.

De sydlige og østlige nationer i Europa holder fast i at se det nye paradigme, der dukker op i Asien, som deres store håb; grækerne påpeger, at EU og de vestlige finansinstitutter, der raser imod de europæiske forbindelser med Kina, ikke selv tilbyder nogen investeringer; Portugal inviterer et medlem af det ‘rådgivende udvalg for Kinas statsråd til bekæmpelse af fattigdom’ til at holde fire konferencer på tre dage i denne uge i Portugal, om hvordan Kina eliminerer fattigdom.

Nu banker Bæltet og Vejen på dørene til Frankrig og Tyskland.

Af Alexander Hartmann, den 10. marts 2019

Under den afsluttende diskussion på Schillerinstituttets seminar i Berlin den 27. februar fremhævede Helga Zepp-LaRouche Vestens kulturelle forfald og Kinas helt modsatrettede kulturpolitik som én af hovedårsagerne til Kinas overlegenhed over for Vesten i den meget diskuterede konkurrence mellem de to systemer.

Anledningen til hendes redegørelse var det spørgsmål, om Vesten rent faktisk indtager en konfrontatorisk holdning over for Kina, eller om det ikke snarere er Kina, der konfronterer Vesten. I sit svar beskrev hun først udviklingen inden for de sidste år. Kina har siden Deng Xiaopings tid fulgt reglen om at ”holde bolden flad og ikke fremhæve sin egen rolle, men først og fremmest tage sig af sin egen udvikling.” Men det har ændret sig, først og fremmest med Xi Jinping. ”Xi Jinping har sagt, at vi må ændre vor rolle som verdensmagt til gavn for hele menneskeheden.” Så har Kina også sat sit program ”Made in China 2025” meget stærkt i forgrunden om at ”blive globalt førende på verdensmarkedet inden for ti nøgleteknologier – computere, robotter, kunstig intelligens, el-biler og forskellige andre områder”.

Selv om det nye silkevejsinitiativ er det største infrastrukturprogram i menneskehedens historie, så har Vesten i hele fire år næsten intet fortalt om Den nye Silkevej. ”Fire års tavshed, så har man endelig bemærket noget: Lige et øjeblik! Det går for hurtigt, det der; og alle de lande, der tilslutter sig!” Og så begyndte Vestens angreb. ”Det var virkeligt internationalt koordineret, pludseligt kom disse angreb fra CSIS 1) og fra europæiske tænketanke.”

Det har udløst visse diskussioner i Kina, om det har været klogt at fremhæve 2025-programmets rolle så kraftigt og derved provokere og udsætte sig for alle disse angreb. ”Så vidt jeg ved, har Kina trukket det en smule tilbage. Men på den anden side: kendsgerningerne taler for sig selv. Med landingen på Månens bagside er Kina i færd med at Kina overtaget føringen inden for udforskningen af Verdensrummet. Og her er der ikke længere nogle, der kan sige, at ”Kina har stjålet teknologien i Vesten”, for her er Kina blevet den førende. Og det samme gælder for kernefusion: reaktoren EAST-projektet, har opnået den højeste temperatur over det længste tidsrum.”

Hun tilbageviste forsøgene på at ”sværte Kina til” som for eksempel med påstanden om, at Kina forsøger at lokke alle de lande, det samarbejder med, i en gældsfælde. ”Det stemmer ikke! I Afrika er der for eksempel mange lande, der har modtaget foræringer, altså ikke blot kreditter, men hvor Kina simpelthen har finansieret tingene, for eksempel i Ætiopien og andre lande.” Naturligvis har Kina indflydelse. ”Men det er min dybeste overbevisning, at Kina mener alt det, det siger, altså at der ikke er nogle hemmelige bagtanker, men at det er den konfucianske tankegang, der påvirker politikken. En harmonisk udvikling af alle stater, retten til at bibeholde sit eget system, ikke-indblanding, alt det er principper, som Kina følger.”

FORLADT DE BEDSTE TRADITIONER

Først og fremmest er Vesten konfronteret med, at vi har vendt os fra vore egne bedste traditioner, tænk på (Friedrich) List, på Humboldt, Schiller, vor klassiske periode, hvor vore humanistiske tænkere spillede en større rolle; disse værdier har vi forladt. Og vi har erstattet dem med liberale eller neoliberale værdier – alt er tilladt, der er ingen faste principper mere. Næsten hver dag opstår der et nyt ”køn”, der er mænd og kvinder og indimellem er der efterhånden utallige underafdelinger. Det er muligt, men hvorfor fremhæver man det så voldsomt? Ungdomskulturen har jeg allerede været inde på.”

Kina har i modsætning hertil forbudt hip-hop-musik med det argument, at ”hip-hop har et degenereret kvindesyn, at det forkynder voldsanvendelse, at det promoverer ting, der er skadelige for ånden.” Det samme gør sig gældende for banale underholdningsudsendelser som for eksempel de quiz-shows, der er så udbredte i Vesten.

Over for denne underholdningskultur i Vesten fremhævede hun Friedrich Schillers idé om den æstetiske opdragelse. Den æstetiske opdragelse skal forædle mennesket. ”Schiller spørger: ’Hvor skal forandringen komme fra, når staten er korrupt og masserne svækkede?’ Dette gælder jo også i høj grad for os. Man kan ikke vente, at forandringen skal komme fra staten, og heller ikke fra masserne, for de er sløve, degenererede, slappe. Det er jo egentligt et spejlbillede af vort eget nuværende samfund, med andre ydre omstændigheder, men grundliggende det samme.”

Schiller kommer så med det svar, at forandringen kun kan komme fra den store klassiske kunst, fordi den forædler mennesket. ”Skønheden henvender sig ikke kun til fornuften, men også til sanserne. For skønheden taler til sanserne; men da skønheden hos Schiller er et fornuftbegreb, løfter den mennesket op på et højere plan gennem leg. Og Schiller siger, sådan som Cai Yunpei 2) i øvrigt også gør det, at det kommer an på at forædle mennesket i dets fritid.”

Når mennesket arbejder og er nødt til at tjene til livets opretholdelse, har det ikke tid til overs, for så er det beskæftiget med nødvendige ting og har ikke tid til at give sig af med skønne ting. ”Men hvis det i fritiden – i stedet for at spilde den og ødsle den bort – giver sig af med skønne kunstværker såsom musik, maleri og digtning og fordyber sig i dem, så føler det sig ædelt i samme øjeblik og forbedres så at sige af skønheden.”

Schiller har forsvaret denne idé om, at menneskets forædling finder sted gennem den æstetiske opdragelse ”og det er netop også en grundliggende tanke i Kina”. Xi Jinping har fremhævet vigtigheden af den æstetiske opdragelse ”for alle samfundets lag, og jeg tror, at det er dette, der mangler her i Vesten. Her er der ingen, der taler om, at menneskene skal forbedre sig, tværtimod, alt er tilladt, og medierne beretter kun om de tåbeligste begivenheder, de største perversioner og de voldeligste hændelser.”

I Fjernsynet er der ingen rigtige film længere, men kun ”krimier, og krimierne er alle fyldt med meningsløs vold, med perversioner og pornografi. Der er en undersøgelse, der viser, at børn allerede fra seks- syvårsalderen er i stand til at finde frem til alt pornografisk indhold på internettet og det i den mest kvalmende form. Det har en uhyggeligt uheldig indvirkning på udviklingen af intelligensen, fordi det forrår mennesket … Samfundet her i Vesten gør ikke noget for at forhindre det.”

FØLGERNE AF DET KULTURELLE FORFALD

Hun kom derefter ind på følgerne af dette kulturelle forfald. Industrien beklager sig over, at 25 % af alle de 15-årige er uegnede til at bestride et arbejde, ”fordi de er umotiverede, fordi de ikke gider noget, fordi de er på stoffer eller af andre grunde. Amerika har som industrination nu haft to år med faldende levealder. Tænk lige over det engang! Hvis der er nogen målestok for et samfunds økonomiske succes, så er det gennemsnitslevealderen.” Og den er faldende i Amerika ”på grund af alkohol og stofmisbrug; man har en opiat-plage af receptpligtige medikamenter, der har gjort folk afhængige. Og så går de ud på gaden, fordi opiatet eller medikamenterne er billigere der. Altså med andre ord: Vi har et kæmpeproblem her i Vesten.”

Hun kom så ind på et nyligt fremsat program fra BDI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie) om konkurrencen mellem Kinas og Vestens systemer. ”Det er min overbevisning, at hvis vi ikke ændrer os her i Vesten, så behøver vi overhovedet ikke at hidse os op over Kina. For Kina vil udvikle sig videre, og Vesten vil frembringe den ene generation efter den anden, der er fuldstændigt ødelagt og fordærvet. Vesten er en døende civilisation.”

De, der ikke kan se det, lever åbenbart ”i en puppe…. Når de nu og da har noget med børn og unge at gøre, så bliver de skræmte! De er aggressive, selv pigerne. Ja, unge piger er det virkeligt – hvis De ser, hvordan de unge omgås indbyrdes ved stranden om sommeren, så kan man kun sige: Det løber mig koldt ned ad ryggen! Og jeg mener virkeligt, at Vesten absolut må slå ind på et andet spor.”

Hun mindede derefter om, at Tyskland tidligere havde et helt andet uddannelsessystem. ”Jeg var så heldig stadig at have haft adskillige lærere, der repræsenterede Humboldts tanker, tysklærere, men også andre. Og det var en helt anden fremgangsmåde. Den moralske opdragelse stod i centrum.” Men så kom OECD’s uddannelsesreform i 1970, der smed Humboldt og ”de sidste 2500 års dannelse” ud af pensummet, ”altså Platon, Homer, Schiller, alt det forsvandt, og i stedet for det kom der praktiske ting – hvordan analyserer man annoncer i medierne og andet af den slags”.

Kina gør derimod meget for at genoprette sin 5000 år gamle kultur. ”De nævnte Dunhuang. Jeg har været så heldig at have været i Dunhuang og har set grotterne. Alt dette bliver ikke blot restaureret, men også fotograferet elektronisk, så at flest mulige mennesker kan studere dem. Alle andre kulturskatte restaureres med kærlig hånd og gøres tilgængelige for befolkningen. Og i grunden kan man sige, at Kina egentlig gør alt for at bringe sin befolkning ind på et godt spor.”

Hun sagde til sidst: ”Jeg tror virkeligt, at Vesten er nødt til at vende tilbage til sin egen højkultur, til den italienske renæssance i Italien, til den tyske klassik i Tyskland, til École Polytechnique i Frankrig. Enhver nation bør virkeligt forbinde sig med højdepunkterne i sin egen historie, og det må vi så bruge til at udvikle os videre ud fra. Og der bør finde en udveksling sted mellem alle kulturer, så at vi kan lære af hinanden og bringe os alle videre.

Enten gør vi sådan, eller også bliver Vesten trængt ud på historiens overdrev.

1.CSIS: Amerikansk udenrigspolitisk tænketank.

2.Den store kinesiske pædagog Cai Yuanpei (1868-1940) var undervisningsminister under Sun Yatsen i Kinas provisoriske republik.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Læs begyndelsen af Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast nedenfor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Se resten på videoen.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Uddrag fra Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast –

Løgnene imod Kina, Rusland og Trump kommer fra de britiske neoliberale, som har bragt deres eget system på fallittens rand.

Med den succes som Kina har haft med at hæve levestandarden for befolkningen i de sidste fire årtier, hvorfor bliver landet så udsat for en kampagne med sådanne “ondsindede fabrikationer” (i Foreign Affairs, ARTE-dokumentar og i medierne generelt) – især da Kina arbejder for at hjælpe andre nationer med at opnå lignende resultater med sit Bælte og Vej-Initiativ? Hvorfor de konstante angreb på Putin og Rusland? Og hvorfor optrapningen af Mueller imod Trump, da han ikke har fremlagt noget bevis for “russisk indblanding”, hvilket er hvad Russiagate skulle dreje sig om?

I dagens webcast opfordrer Helga Zepp-LaRouche seerne til at studere de store filosoffers værker, herunder Platon, Cusa, Leibniz, Schiller, Einstein og hendes mand Lyndon LaRouche, for at udvikle deres evne til at lytte til deres egen indre stemme for at være i stand til at ”tænke selv”, så de kan besvare disse spørgsmål for sig selv.

Mens det britiske Overhus beklager udsigten til afslutningen af det “særlige forhold” (mellem Storbritannien og USA, red.), tog Trump to store skridt væk fra det gamle paradigme, og indvilligede i at arbejde sammen med Mexico i projekter om økonomisk udvikling i Mellemamerika, og annoncerede afslutningen af USA’s militære intervention i Syrien.

Hun opfordrede vores seere til at bruge ferien til at læse og diskutere gode ideer med familie og venner.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

Now, I agree with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. [applause]

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Det er typisk for vor tids kortsigtede tankegang, at BDI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie) for tiden er bekymret over, at der foregår en “systemkonkurrence” mellem “vor egen model med det åbne marked og Kinas statsstyrede økonomi”. Mulighederne for økonomisk udveksling bør nok udnyttes, men afhængigheden af det kinesiske marked bør formindskes, så at selv mulighederne for kortfristede konkurrencefordele fuldkommen ignoreres. Og sidstnævnte hænger ikke mindst sammen med de fremtidige arbejdskræfters menneskelige egenskaber, altså hos nutidens børn og unge. Vesten befinder sig set fra dette synspunkt i en dyb kulturel krise, der netop er resultatet af de “vestlige værdier”, der angiveligt skulle gøre os absolut overlegne i forhold til andre kulturområder.

13 døde og adskillige sårede under et skyderi i en bar i Thousand Oaks i Californien, hvor Ian David Long, en veteran fra US Marine Corps, gik amok, er blot det seneste eksempel på et endeløst mareridt i USA, der fortsætter så godt som dag for dag. I 2015 var der 209 masseskyderier, i 2017 allerede 346, og i dette år foreløbigt over 300 – og der er allerede folk, der med nød og næppe har undsluppet 2 sådanne rædselssituationer. De liberale medier er hurtige til at finde de påståede ansvarlige: Den nationale riffelassociation (NRA) og den anden tilføjelse til den amerikanske forfatning, nemlig retten til at bære våben. Men denne forklaring dækker ikke alle de andre udtryk for forråelse, først og fremmest hos yngre børn. Her skal jeg blot som eksempel nævne det tilfælde fra Florida, hvor en 16-årig kvalte sin moder, fordi han ikke brød sig om hendes kritik af hans karakterer i skolen, for derefter at køre hende i en trillebør til en varevogn og videre til en kirke i nærheden, hvor han begravede hende under et ildsted. Med hjælp fra 2 venner iscenesatte han derefter et indbrud og foretog så i følge sine egne ord et “grammyvindende opkald til 911” det gængse nødopkaldsnummer i USA. Sådanne “rå forbrydelser” finder ikke udelukkende sted på den anden side af Atlanten. I Berlin blev en tiårig for kort tid siden voldtaget på en klassetur af en anden tiårig. To elleveårige holdt offeret fast, medens to andre elever kikkede på.

Naturligvis har der altid forekommet chokerende tilfælde på kriminel adfærd, men ingen kan bestride, at selv mindre børns uhindrede tilgang til alle former for vold og pornografi på internettet sammen med en tilsvarende manglende opdragelse, der skulle give dem en indre moralsk dømmekraft, har ført til en katastrofal forråelse. Følgen er et helt fordærvet menneskesyn, især i forhold til kvinder og seksualitet. Og medtager man desuden de tilfælde, hvor et overdrevent forbrug af videospil har medført et mere eller mindre autistisk socialt forhold, så tegner der sig et meget negativt billede for de kreative muligheder hos en ikke ringe del af den næste generation. Foreningen for Dannelse og opdragelse (VBE) udsendte for nylig “i anledning af forråelsen af omgangsformerne og aktuelle hændelser som den for nylig i Chemnitz” en rundspørge om forældres og læreres syn på opdragelse og værdier i Tyskland. Over 90 % af begge grupper hævdede, at de fandt disse ting meget vigtige, men at det kneb med virkeliggørelsen af dem. Andre rundspørger fremhævede, at volden mod lærere havde nået et skræmmende omfang. Lærere udsættes tiltagende for skældsord, trusler og angreb. Rundspørgerne viste, at “tonen i samfundet er blevet mere rå, sproget forrået, konflikter eskalerer tiere og lettere, og at autoriteter ikke anerkendes mere. Der er tale om et “fænomen i hele samfundet” og det drejer sig ikke kun om mennesker med indvandrerbaggrund.

Om det drejer sig om veteraner, der lider af posttraumatisk stresssyndrom efter krigstjeneste i Mellemøsten – i USA begår en veteran selvmord hvert 65.minut – eller om det skyldes de virtuelle oplevelser under voldelige videospil eller såkaldt underholdning, så er i begge tilfælde tærsklen for voldsudøvelse sænket bekymrende helt ned til drab på andre mennesker. Og selv om denne udvikling længe har været åbenlys, foretager man sig intet i et samfund, der holder på sine “liberale værdier” og siger “alt er tilladt”, for at stoppe dette styrt ned i grænseløst forfald.

I fuldstændig modsætning dertil har Kina for nylig forbudt hip-hop-musik og banale quiz-shows, eftersom schlager-teksterne giver et nedværdigende kvindebillede, og fordi showene forhindrer tilskuernes kreativitet. Endnu vigtigere: Præsident XI Jinping understregede for nylig i et brev til otte professorer på det Centrale Akademi for Skønne Kunster (CAPA) den overordentlige vigtighed af en æstetisk opdragelse for en sund opvækst hos den kinesiske ungdom, både i fysisk, men også i åndelig henseende. Den æstetiske opdragelse spiller en afgørende rolle i udviklingen af en skønnere ånd, den fylder de studerende med kærlighed og fremmer skabelsen af store kunstværker.

I Kina går betydningen af en æstetisk opdragelse tilbage til Konfucius, men også i nyere historie har betydende lærde og opdragere anvendt denne metode med henblik på den moralske forædling hos elever og studerende. Een af den moderne æstetiks grundlæggere, Wang Gouwei fra Qinghua-instituttet for Æstetiske Studier, hengav sig til udforskning af den menneskelige elendighed, der i følge ham opstod af begæret. Begærligheden gør menneskene ulykkelige, får dem til at ville eje ting, hvad der kan føre til tvangsmæssig adfærd og ved tab af den ønskede genstand til indre ulykke og ydre sociale problemer. Er der så en vej til at overvinde denne begærlighed? Ja, siger Wang Gouwei, det er skønheden. Et lignende synspunkt var den tidligere rektor for Pekings Universitet, Cai Yuanpei, kommen til, der i en afhandling fra den 10.maj 1919 skrev: “Jeg tror, at roden til vort lands problemer ligger i den kortsynethed hos så mange mennesker, der får dem til at stræbe mod hurtigere succes eller hurtigere penge uden en højere moralsk tankegang. Den eneste medicin herimod er en æstetisk tankegang.”

I den samme filosofiske tradition skrev Zhu Guanggian i sit skrift “Æstetik forklaret”, at samfundets problemer lå i, at de fleste menneskers hjerter var slette. For at rense hjerterne må man kultivere ånden og sjælen, sætte sig højere og renere mål end bare at blive rig, have smukke klæder eller en høj stilling inden for regeringen. For at rense et menneskes ånd må man først forskønne dets liv. Hele Friedrich Schillers samlede værker er viet til denne opgave: forædlingen af mennesket gennem en æstetisk opdragelse. Men først og fremmest i sine Æstetiske Breve, som han havde skrevet som reaktion på Jakobinernes terror under rædselsperioden i Den franske Revolution. Her beskæftigede han sig med spørgsmålet om, hvorfra en forædling af menneskene kunne komme, når regeringerne er korrupte og masserne forråede. Ene og alene den store klassiske kunst ville være i stand dertil, fordi den indeholdt den ufejlbarlige nøgle til menneskesjælens højeste rørelser og overhovedet kunne opstille det højeste ideal for det menneskelige. I forordet til “Bruden fra Messina” udtalte Schiller, at den store klassiske kunst vækkede en kraft i menneskesjælen, der også varede ved, efter at kunstoplevelsen var ovre.

Hvis Vesten fortsætter som før med sin kultur, hvor “alt er tilladt”, så står det allerede klart, hvem der kommer til at vinde den “systemkonkurrence” som BDI taler om. For Kina gør enormt meget for at bringe sin 5000 år gamle kultur ud til flest muligt af sine borgere, og Xi Jinping er personligt optaget af, at udbrede den konfucianske filosofi i alle samfundets porer. Vi i Vesten har i hvert fald et kæmpe problem, fordi vi på grund af Kongressen for Kulturel Frihed, på grund af Frankfurter-Skolen og på grund af det af 68-erne fremkaldte adfærdsmønster allerede har flere generationer, der bevidst har rettet sig imod idealerne fra vor klassisk-humanistiske tradition. Men trods det vil det kun være muligt at overvinde den kulturelle og moralske krise, dersom vi vender tilbage til idealerne hos Nikolaus af Kues, Leibniz, Lessing, Schiller og von Humboldt, Bach og Beethoven – for blot at nævne nogle få – og videregive dem til de nuværende og kommende generationer. De, kære læser, kan ikke fejre Schillers 259. fødselsdag på nogen bedre måde end ved at melde Dem ind i Schiller-Instituttet.

Den 6. november (EIRNS) – Tre vigtige strategiske udviklinger er i gang i dag, den 6. november 2018, som i forening er afgørende for menneskehedens nye fremtid.

1) Det amerikanske midtvejsvalg finder sted med muligheden for et fremtidigt britisk forsøg på statskup mod Trump-administrationen. Valget drejer sig uomtvisteligt om USA’s forbindelser med Rusland og Kina, herunder Trumps hensigt om at afholde personlige topmøder med præsidenterne Putin og Xi i den nærmeste fremtid. Krig og fred, og den økonomiske genopbygning af planeten omkring Bælte og Vej Initiativet, er afgørende.

2) Schiller Instituttet afholdt i dag et seminar i Paris for at præsentere den netop offentliggjorte franske version af »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«; en specialrapport, der indeholder Lyndon LaRouches videnskabelige tilgang til fysisk økonomi. Foran et publikum på over 100 højtstående personer, herunder diplomater, flere VIP’er og medier, leverede Helga Zepp-LaRouche hovedpræsentationen efterfulgt af korte rapporter fra Karel Vereycken, Sébastien Périmony og Odile Mojon. Fru Zepp-LaRouche er netop vendt tilbage fra et højt profileret besøg i Rusland, på tærsklen til det amerikanske valg, hvor hendes dybdegående diskussion af, hvad der faktisk står på spil i disse valg, og af de globale politiske løsninger til krisen, udtænkt af Lyndon LaRouche, fortsætter med at give kraftig genklang, både i Rusland og internationalt.

3) Den Kinesiske Internationale Import Export messe (CIIE) i Shanghai fortsatte ind i sin anden dag, hvor forretningsfolk og politiske ledere fra hele verden samles for at opbygge Bælte og Vej Initiativet som alternativet til det kollapsende transatlantiske finansielle system. Kinas egen udvikling og dets engagement i »en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden« fortsætter med at inspirere andre nationer og ledere til at handle. Et eksempel  er ordene fra Japans tidligere premierminister Yasuo Fukuda, der udtrykte beundring over den måde, hvorpå »Kina har hjulpet Afrika med at opbygge masser af infrastruktur og forbedre folks levestandard. Hvis Japan kan bistå Kina i at udvikle Afrika, ville det i høj grad være til gavn for det afrikanske folk. Det er ikke kun gavnligt for Afrikas økonomi, men også for verdens fred og udvikling.«

Den vejledende tilgang til det igangværende CIIE-møde blev fremlagt i gårsdagens hovedtale af præsident Xi Jinping: »Det er vigtigt for alle lande at forfølge innovativ vækst og fremskynde transformationen af vækstdrivere« sagde Xi, »Innovation er den afgørende motor for udvikling. Kun med dristig innovation og reform, kan vi bryde stagnationen i den globale vækst. Verdensøkonomien er netop kommet ud af skyggen af den internationale finanskrise, og opsvinget er stadig ustabilt. Der er et presserende behov for samordnede indsatser fra verdens lande for at fremme videnskabelig innovation og fremme nye vækstdrivere. Menneskets velvære er den største drivkraft for videnskabelig innovation … Vi skal udnytte mulighederne i en ny runde af teknologisk og industriel revolution, styrke samarbejdet inden for grænseområderne … og arbejde sammen om at fremme ny teknologi, nye industrier og nye former for forretningsmodeller.«

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, October 11, 2018
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The Stakes In the U.S. Midterm Elections: War or Peace

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the
Schiller Institute.  Welcome to our webcast for today.  It’s Oct.
11, 2018:  Our webcast will feature, as always, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, our founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
We were just reviewing events prior to this webcast, and
there’s so much going on, as we come now with less than five
weeks to the midterm election in the United States, which is
going to be an extraordinarily important in determining whether
the American people are going to step up to the responsibility of
joining the New Paradigm, or whether they’re going to succumb to
the demoralization and the media control.
We’re also seeing things that the LaRouche movement is
famous for, which is economic forecasting.  And Helga, why don’t
we start with that:  We saw a very big drop in the stock market
yesterday, there’s jitters on Wall Street, anxiety around the
world.  What’s going on?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  The system is disintegrating, and it’s
just a question of time when this will happen.  I find it very
remarkable that the IMF is pronouncing the famous “D” word.
Remember that the “D” word was never to be mentioned, because the
market would supposedly follows the psychology of the markets,
and when you mention the word “Depression,” then that could bring
it on and so was the tale. But now the IMF meeting in Bali,
Indonesia has been warning that challenges are to be faced,
otherwise, the second Great Depression would be looming.
Now, I find this really remarkable, and I think what they’re
trying to somehow prepare the population that thing is really
coming down.  This stock market plunge of more than 800 points —
I think something like 820 — you had President Trump who
basically said the Federal Reserve is “crazy” with their interest
rate policy, which caused a complete reaction by [IMF Managing
Director Christine] Lagarde and so forth, but he kept repeating
it twice.  He said the situation is much too tense to continue
this.  Naturally, this is the reason why you have the reverse
carry trade from the emerging markets, which was mentioned by the
IMF as the biggest threat to the system, and the second biggest
threat or maybe on an equal level, being the indebtedness. Now,
Lagarde also mentioned the indebtedness of the governments, the
corporate firms, and also other categories, like student loans
and car loans and all of this, is 60% higher than it was in 2008.
Then, in addition to all of these things, you have the
collapse of the real economy, with for example home-building
peeked in the United States in January and has been in a free
fall and since about May this was also the case for copper and
timber — all of these have lost between 15 and 20% since the
beginning of the year.  So, these are all markers that this thing
is not continuing.
And then, you have, naturally, on top of that the growing
fight between the EU and Italian government.  You had the famous
letter, or infamous letter by the two EU Commissioners [Pierre]
Moscovici and [Valdis] Dombrovskis, to the Italian government
warning them that their intention not to stick to the EU-imposed
budget deficit of 2.4%, that this would not be allowed, which was
the trigger for a run on the Italian bond, and as a result, the
spread between the Italian and the German values have gone up to
300 points; and it is generally said if it goes up to 400 —
basically that means that the Italians have to pay 3% and more to
refinance their loans — and that could actually really all
contribute to a crisis.
On top of it, by the 15th of this month, that is in four
days, the Italian government will publish the details of their
budget.  And it is expecting that the rating agencies immediately
afterwards will put out some rating, in all likelihood
downgrading the Italian bonds, or downgrading Italy as a country,
which then basically, depending how they are formulating it, if
the outlook is basically neutral, people say this could just go
through; but if they put a negative outlook on it, then that
could lead to a big banking crisis — actually not only of Italy,
but of the entire Western financial system.
It is clear that some of these people in the European
Central Bank and EU Commission obviously think they can force the
Italian government to capitulate, that they can control the
consequences of this, but this is playing with fire:  Because you
have a highly, highly volatile financial system, and I can only
say, in 2008, the whole world was more or less unprepared for the
crash, because they were not listening to the warning this my
husband had already put out, very clearly, on July 25th, 2007  —
this was one week before the secondary mortgage crisis in the
United States exploded.  And he had said at that time, this
system is finished.  All you can see now, is how it comes down.
And people didn’t listen to it. So the crash occurred in 2008 and
they didn’t draw any conclusions out of their own mistakes, and
just kept pumping money — quantitative easing.  And basically
all these instruments of the Central Bank are now completely
exhausted and used up.
And contrary to 2008, when everybody was unprepared, those
people who are now trying to cause the Italian government to
capitulate and continue with the austerity, which the Italian
government was voted in, because they rejected that austerity.
So, if they push too hard, I think one should not forget that
both Italian government coalition parties, the Lega and the Five
Star Movement party, they have Glass-Steagall in not only their
party program, but also in the coalition treaty.
Now, obviously, the Italian government knows what they’re up
against.  They have seen speculators moving in on countries,
driving them into the ground, so they are relatively careful, and
they’re not saying anything terribly provocative.  But if
somebody from the outside pushes them into a crash, I would not
exclude the possibility, or I would actually say it’s quite
probable that they would implement Glass-Steagall as a
self-defense.
So it is quite different from 2008, and I think the only
lesson that one can draw out of all of this, is we need to
amplify our efforts to go for a New Bretton Woods system, which
we have a campaign on internationally, we have a petition; this
has been signed by many people in the meantime, and I would urge
you, our viewers, sign this petition, get it around, prepare
anybody you know — elected officials, mayors, parliamentarians,
congressmen — to prepare for Glass-Steagall, and not only that,
but the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche.  Because unless we
reorganize this entirely bankrupt financial system in an orderly
fashion, the danger is an uncontrolled collapse.
You need a New Bretton Woods system, you need
Glass-Steagall, we need to get rid of the casino economy; we have
to have credit for the financing of the real economy, and we have
to have a new credit system to basically finance investments on a
multinational level among all the countries of this world, to get
the world out of this danger of a depression.
So, if the IMF talks about the danger of a Great Depression,
people should take it to heart. Think about what happened in the
Great Depression in the ’30s  — in the United States it was
devastation, but in Europe it was even worse, because it led to
fascist movements and that to world wars.  So people should not
take these things lightly:  Get onboard with us.  Join the
Schiller Institute, join our campaign for New Bretton Woods,
because that’s the only answer one can give to this danger of a
looming crash.

SCHLANGER:  I had a chance to read through the Executive
Summary of the IMF report, and there were two omissions — they
were there in a sense, but they didn’t really acknowledge them,
— both of which your husband was out in front of for many, many
years, in dealing with the IMF.  On the one side, it’s clear that
it’s {their} policy which has failed.  The austerity regime which
the IMF is famous for, these have never led to any economic
development.  And then, secondly, the quantitative easing, the
low-interest credit for speculation, instead of Glass-Steagall —
the IMF was promoting that.  And so, the two things they
promoted, they’re now admitting are failed. Do you have any
thoughts on that, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the possibility that the IMF would
reform itself is probably going in the probability towards zero.
I think it requires a different kind of action.  In a certain
sense, you have right now in the whole world, already, a revolt
against these failed neo-liberal policies.  This was expressed in
the Brexit; this was expressed in the election victory of
President Trump; the new Italian government is an expression of
that; also the Austrian government.  And I think that  — in a
certain sense, national sovereignty has to be reasserted, and I
don’t think these supranational institutions which were the main
reason why these policies were imposed, which had created havoc:
Look at what happened to Greece.  The Greek economy was
diminished by one-third.  The Italian economy was destroyed.  The
fact that we have now a totally different government in Italy,
which is pro-growth for the most part, which is for the
relationship with China, for the relationship with the New Silk
Road, all of this is a response to the failure of these policies.
And there are many people in Europe who are expecting that, given
the fact that the EU is basically doing exactly the same thing in
principle, namely, sticking to the neo-liberal austerity, that
you will have an earthquake in the coming European Parliament
elections [in April] which will show that these present policies
will be absolutely out.
I think this is much too long term.  I think the crisis is
upon us now, so I can only say: The only solution is for the
package I just said before:  The IMF is really a bankrupt
organization, and that was stated by my husband in 1975, when he
proposed to replace this IMF with an International Development
Bank, which would provide large-scale, low-interest credit for
development projects in the developing sector; and if that would
have been done, we would not have a migration problem, we would
have prosperous countries around the globe; but now, with the New
Silk Road, this policy is on a good way.
So I can only say, “listen to the wise words of Lyndon
LaRouche,” belatedly, but better late than never.

SCHLANGER: And that was a very popular item, “How the
International Development Bank Works,” that Lyn wrote back in
’76, I think it was.  We used it as part of his campaign — for
his first campaign for President.
Coming up on the midterm elections, there’s a lot of turmoil
that’s been unleashed.  What’s clear is that Hillary Clinton has
not learned anything from the results of November 2016.  You have
a real civil unrest that’s being built, deliberately, because the
Mueller case, the Mueller Russiagate story, is collapsing.  This
can become a very dangerous situation.  Let’s start with what
Trump said — Trump said, the Democrats have gone crazy.  I
assume you would share that assessment, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  If calling for violence is a sign of
insanity, then I would agree with him.  And it’s funny, I was
looking at the German media, and they all portray this fight,
this very hot situation in the United States, as if it’s all just
electioneering by Trump that he would call the Democrats a “mob.”
But, it is a fact that Maxine Waters already some months ago,
called on everybody to get into the face of Trump cabinet
members, whenever you them — there were some actually violent
incidents; people were not served in restaurants; and also some
other Democrats basically called that you should be “in their
faces” of the Trump camp. And that has created a complete
hysteria, which was amplified by the Kavanaugh case, where even
Alan Dershowitz, who said that he’s a liberal Democrat, he said
that the attempt, for example, Senator Feinstein and Eric Holder,
they said that Kavanaugh should not be accepted, that this would
put into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court!  I mean
this is really incredible. Dershowitz then correctly said, forget
it, Kavanaugh is now Supreme Court Justice and he will be there
for his lifetime; this was due process, and the Democrats should
go back to being civilized and not violate all the norms and
rules.
I mean, this is incredible:  I’m not an expert on American
constitutional questions, but it seems to me if the Senate, or
some Senators, are putting into question the legitimacy of the
Supreme Court, this is heading towards a constitutional crisis,
or some kind of a state crisis if these people are not stopped.
I think they have lost all barriers, and they have lost all
sense of limit!  This is a completely hysterical situation, and I
can only say that this is very dangerous.  And we have said many
times that Trump is being attacked, essentially,  — I mean, you
can pick on tiny points here and there — but that’s not the
point: The main reason why Trump is being attacked, is because he
tried to get the relationship with Russia on a good basis.  He
had a very successful in Helsinki with Putin.  And at least, in
the initial phase, he had an excellent relationship with China
and Xi Jinping.  And that is why the geopolitical establishment
went absolutely crazy — as a matter of fact, they’re escalating
their campaign, both against Russia and against China, in
unprecedented ways.  And it is the question of war and peace, and
people should really understand that, that the Democrats have
really gone crazy on the issue of Russia and also China, and they
should not fall into this trap, because in the consequence, this
would mean World War III.

SCHLANGER:  One of the other important points, I think is
that what we’re seeing, is again, people like George Soros
funding these rent-a-mobs.  And Soros, of course, has been
involved in this for many, many years.  And I believe, Helga, you
first identified the operation against Trump after the election,
as similar to the “color revolutions” that Soros, combined with
people like John McCain, the National Endowment for Democracy,
the Clinton State Department, to run coups and regime changes,
throughout the former Soviet bloc countries.  I think we’re now
seeing that what you said about the “color revolution,” is
totally accurate, including the danger of a Maidan Square-type
chaos being unleashed.  Sen. Rand Paul said yesterday that he
fears that there could be assassinations.
Is this pretty much what you had seen two years ago, this
color revolution scenario?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah, because whenever you have George Soros
involved in such, and he financed, according to reports, $50
million to a private group which, according to these reports,
which was called into being by a “senator,” not named, but the
individual involved was formerly an aide to Senator Feinstein, so
the speculation naturally goes in this direction.  This was an
outsourcing of the whole Steele operation to a private group,
basically using $50 million so that this could go on, after
Steele was officially fired from his liaison with the FBI.
Now, this is incredible.  I think this will all come out,
and also following the James Baker testimony, which even if it
was behind closed doors, nevertheless, what came out in various
Fox TV programs and various other revelations, that it was
Michael Sussman, the lawyer of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the
lawyer for the DNC, which was the original trigger for the whole
Russiagate affair.  I find this absolutely incredible and I can
only hope that the American voters draw their conclusion out of
it, because that means that the Hillary Clinton campaign was
involved with a foreign power, namely great Britain, against her
opponent in the election campaign, and then afterwards, basically
against an elected President.  Now, I don’t find this very
“democratic,” to say the least, to use these kinds of secret
service methods, deep state methods, to work against your own
President, who has been democratically elected.
This, in my view, is the biggest scandal, and if it is all
coming out, if all the documents are being declassified, I think
it will go down in history, as the biggest scandal in American
history.  And that is what’s at stake with this midterm election.

SCHLANGER:  I think it’s very important that Baker, who was
the legal counsel to Comey and the FBI, in his testimony before a
private Congressional hearing, that he acknowledged that Sussman
gave him the Steele report, which was then incorporated into the
original FISA warrant against [Trump campaign advisor] Carter
Page.  That just makes clear that all these Democrats who have
been protesting what Representative Nunes did in his House
Intelligence Committee, that they were wrong, they were lying;
they were trying to cover up for the connection between the
British, the Clinton campaign, and the FBI.
Now, Helga, a couple of other things we need to cover before
we finish today:  One is the very significant stopover in Beijing
by Secretary of State Pompeo.  He had just come from North Korea,
where there was what appears to be quite a successful meeting
with Kim Jong-un.  But when he got to China, it was a slightly
different environment, largely because of the moves toward trade
war.  What happened when Pompeo got to Beijing?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  This was shortly after Vice President Mike
Pence had made this absolute diatribe at the Hudson Institute,
attacking China in the {worst} possible way, and this was taken
very badly by the Chinese government and Chinese media, who
really questioned, does that mean there is a shift in the Trump
Administration, in a total hostile attitude towards China?
Basically, when then Pompeo arrived in Beijing, just a few days
afterwards, he basically reiterated that it is the policy of the
United States to have a good relationship with China, to agree to
the One-China policy, and that the United States is not trying to
stop the rise of China.  And there were several Chinese media
which noted the fact that this was an extremely important
statement to come at this moment.
There was one interesting article in the {Global Times} by
the American analyst and expert, Clifford Kiracofe, who made the
point that there is a clear difference between Pence, who sort of
speaks for the deep state, and Trump, who is trying to change the
U.S. foreign policy, but is being “hamstrung” by this crew on the
side of the deep state.  And Kiracofe basically said the U.S.
establishment is unwilling to learn the lesson from what’s going
on strategically, that the world is changing and that there is a
multipolarity already now.
Now, the significance of this is not only Kiracofe saying
that, but that the {Global Times} is publishing that, which is a
paper which is very close to the Chinese government.  So I think
it’s important that the Chinese are still, despite the trade war
and the escalation coming from ridiculous — like Elizabeth
Economy, who was already on a rampage in 2014, came out with
another major piece, accusing China of all kinds of things — I
don’t need to repeat this stuff;  and I already in 2014 said that
Elizabeth Economy obviously has an “economy-class mind” if she
says these things, and obviously, she has not improved since.
But in any case, I think it is very important that Pompeo
was there to set the record straight, because obviously, the need
to find solutions to the world does require the collaboration
among the major powers of the world.  Those people who are
pushing this insane confrontation, like Hillary Clinton did in
her speech in Oxford, where she was on an absolute rant against
Russia, I mean, these people should really not be listened to, at
all.

SCHLANGER: Another group that shouldn’t be listened to, but
unfortunately is, is the IPCC, which is in the news again, with
the so-called “manmade climate change” theories they have,
demanding that carbon dioxide be eliminated from the universe.
This goes back to the campaign you waged against the
British-backed, German figure John Schellnhuber, who has been
pushing these policies.  And now it looks as though this is going
to be aimed as dagger at the heart of the German auto industry.
And it’s a good thing that Trump pulled the United States out of
the Paris climate change agreement.  But where is this heading?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  This is report which says the climate accord
from Paris was not good enough, we need not stop 2% temperature
increase, but we should stop at 1.5% by 2050.  And obviously,
this is basically what Schellnhuber put out some years ago with
the “great transformation” as he called it, the decarbonization
of the world economy, getting rid of nuclear, getting rid of
coal, oil, gas, just go to “renewable” energy sources; and there,
it is very, very clear that what my husband has developed in
terms of the cohesion and the correlation between energy
flux-density in the production process, and the potential
relative population density, which can be maintained with that
energy flux-density, means that the goal which Schellnhuber set
forth that the Earth can only carry 1 billion people, that that
is what they now want to put back on the agenda.  It’s a
desperate effort by the forces of the Empire against Trump, who
has promised to reindustrialize the United States; especially
against the New Silk Road, against the Belt and Road Initiative,
which now is the new spirit which has captured more than 100
countries already, which work with the Belt and Road Initiative
to their benefit.  And it’s an effort to really throw a monkey
wrench into this dynamic.
But I think it’s desperate, I think it’s dangerous, but I
don’t think it will work.  I don’t think that these people will
convince China, India, Latin America, Africa, the Asian nations,
even some of the European nations, to lie down and die, because
this is what that would mean.
It’s dangerous anyhow, because you can see that it’s needing
a mass hysteria on the CO2 question.  I mean, first of all, we
have long debated that the CO2 emissions is really a minimal
factor in climate change.  Climate change is taking place,
there’s no question about it, but as we have documented many
times in the past, it has to a very large extent to do with the
position of our Solar System in the Galaxy, and it is long-term
cycles from Ice Ages to warming periods, and within that, you
have still smaller fluctuations; and this is determining the
climate.
So the whole discussion of whether the CO2 emission of man
causing these climate changes is just completely absurd.  Now,
it’s very dangerous, because, as you can see, this brainwashing
of the population  — in Europe, for example, one day after the
IPCC put out this quack report, the EU Environment Ministers met
and they decided that the CO2 emission from cars should not be
30%, like they had previously argued, but it should be 35%; and
the German government, which basically initially said 30%, and
then agreed to this compromise — it’s just crazy.
Now, what will that do?  The boss of VW, the largest German
carmaker today came out and said that if this aim is being
implemented to have 35% cut in cars’ CO2 emissions, then this
will cause, alone for VW, 100,000 jobs — and that’s just one
carmaker.  Now, you can add all the other ones, and you will end
up with millions of people going unemployed and the whole
industry collapsing!  Germany, as an economy, is already on
extremely fragile ground because of the exit from nuclear energy,
and if they now are pushing to eliminate coal altogether, this
will be the death of Germany as an industrial country.
Obviously, we will make a big campaign against that.
There is a big worry, because obviously, for example, Poland
is 90% dependent on coal in terms of its electricity production.
And if they force countries to implement that, you will have a
populist explosion in the next vote, if not earlier.
So this is all completely crazy, and it should be stated
very clearly, that with the presently existing technologies, for
a very long time, the world population cannot be maintained
without coal, and there are safe and modern coal plants which are
completely environmentally friendly; and it’s completely
motivated by, not the environment, but by an anti-population
attitude.  We had put out in 2015, a report “‘Global Warming’
Scare Is Population Reduction, not Science,” and in that report,
we had the Queen of England on the cover, because obviously,
Schellnhuber, who wants to be addressed all the time as “CBE,”
Commander of the British Empire,  — we had documented in that
report that these are British policies.  And I think what we see
with this IPCC report, and anti-coal emission campaign; and in
Berlin, they now forbid diesel cars, cars which fueled by diesel
are forbidden from driving in 11 zones in Berlin! Now, the
craftsmen’s association has said that this means that 50,000 cars
of craftsmen will not be allowed to drive in the city, and
everybody who needs the services of a craftsman, who needs a new
roof, or needs a new pump, or whatever, they will not be serviced
any more.
This has nothing to do with real issues:  This is mass
psychosis, and it’s driven by the hedge funds, by Wall Street,
because the CO2 emission trade is a quackery:  We denounced that
in the past, and now, to impose a global carbon tax, which is
also what is being pushed, would mean they have again a good
weapon against national sovereignty, because once you agree that
national economies have to submit to the policing in terms of
their carbon emission, here you go again in the direction of this
globalist eco-fascism.
It’s not scientific, I think it’s the opposite:  It’s
oligarchical and it’s an effort, really aimed, in my view
primarily against the New Silk Road, but naturally also against
Trump, also against Germany, and many other countries.  So, we
should really denounce that, and we will have a whole bunch of
articles about that on this webpage; we will have a whole section
on the Schiller page, where we will have interviews and
statements.  And we invite you, if you have some scientific
contribution to make to this subject, we will publish it on this
website and have a public debate.  Because this is really
dangerous for the future of civilization.
And we have to have the opposite approach:  We have to have
an optimism about man being able to go into fusion power, to
develop completely new scientific methods for energy, safety, for
raw materials security, space travel — I think we should not get
into this scare which is really a tool of the oligarchy to try to
stop the development of the people.

SCHLANGER:  Helga, we’ve gone on a little bit longer than
usual, but I think there’s one other thing we have to bring up,
because we teased it last week, which is endorsements for
Independent Congressional candidate Kesha Rogers in Texas.  In
case, people don’t know this, in the last couple of days, we’ve
two very prominent American Republicans and conservatives —
actually, they may not even be Republicans in the party sense —
but Roger Stone, a longtime friend of Donald Trump, a
self-proclaimed “political provocateur” issued a very strong
endorsement of Kesha Rogers.  And then, Senator Richard Black, a
Virginia state senator, who’s been very involved in exposing the
coup and also exposing the deep state operations against Syria,
he issued a statement endorsing Kesha Rogers.  Helga, do you have
any thoughts on these two endorsements?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it’s great, and I can also add that
the French former Presidential candidate Jacques Cheminade also
endorsed Kesha Rogers, saying that even though he’s not an
American, Kesha’s campaign has international significance,
because she is the flagship against everything which is going
wrong in the United States, right now.  So I think we will have
more such statements, and I really wish all of you to come out
and support Kesha Rogers, because this is a campaign of national
importance and international importance.  [Rogers is an
Independent running in the 9th CD in Texas, against incumbent
Democrat Al Green, who promotes impeaching President Trump
regardless of whether he has committed a constitutionally defined
crime or not — ed.]

SCHLANGER: OK, I think that about does it.  Until next week,
Helga, we’ll see you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  OK, till next week.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC d. 3. oktober (EIRNS) – Siden det chokerende nederlag til Hillary Clinton – den udkårne efterfølger til briternes mand, Barack Obama, ved USA’s præsidentvalg i november 2016 – har det Britiske Imperium forsøgt at omskrive historien for at gøre resultatet mere spiseligt efter deres egen smag. De nægter simpelthen at acceptere realiteterne, og hyler i stedet op om at Donald Trump vandt i valgkollegiet med snyd; russerne er ansvarlige for resultatet; Trump samarbejdede med Rusland som bevist af Steele-dossieret; Trump er et seksuelt rovdyr; hans tilhængere er seksuelle rovdyr; han er “uegnet” til embedet, fordi vi ikke kan lide ham og bør derfor fjernes ved brug af den 25. ændring. Og så videre til kvalmegrænsen.

Nu slås de for at overbevise amerikanerne om, at de bør vælge et demokratisk flertal til Repræsentanternes Hus i næste måned for at fortsætte med Trumps afsættelse ved en rigsretssag. Og de opfordrer åbenlyst til jakobinsk vold mod alle og enhver af Trumps tilhængere eller valgte embedsmænd (Jakobinere: indflydelsesrig politisk klub under den franske revolution, red.)

Det bemærkes, at den britiske imperialistiske hob også nægter at acceptere virkeligheden i selv Storbritannien, hvor den britiske befolkning i 2016 stemte for Brexit og dermed for at forlade Den Europæiske Union og dens destruktive politik. Først nægtede hoben i City of London at acceptere afstemningen og ønskede en ny folkeafstemning; så sagde de, at afstemningen blot skulle ignoreres; og nu foreslår deres lakaj, premierminister Theresa May, at gennemføre en version af Brexit, som efterlader landet aldeles underdanigt i forhold til Bruxelles, til gengæld for at beholde City of Londons kontrol over verdens derivathandel.

Det Britiske Imperium ved bare ikke, hvordan man tager nej for et svar.

Og dog holdes den globale tidevandsbølge af vred afvisning af imperiets forfejlede politikker og institutioner i løbet af det sidste halve århundrede – en tidevandsbølge, der er udtrykt i Brexit-afstemningen, Trumps valgsejr, det italienske valg, det mexicanske valg osv. – ikke tilbage af disse britiske udtalelser. Den er derimod voksende, både i Storbritannien og i USA, som det ses i det eksplosive fremmøde til præsident Trumps ‘MAGA’-valgmøder og i den hidtil uhørte åbenhed i befolkningen overfor Lyndon LaRouches ideer og politiske forslag. På samme måde med Den Nye Silkevej, hvis ånd, uanset det britiske hysteri, vokser dagligt.

Det er her, at gennemførelsen af Lyndon LaRouches ideer og politik haster for at sikre, at raseriet hos etablissementet og dets bankerotte institutioner vil lykkes med at virkeliggøre et levedygtigt nyt paradigme.

Denne proces blev forudset og udtalt offentligt af Lyndon LaRouche, bogstaveligt talt dagen efter Trumps valgsejr den 8. november 2016. LaRouche understregede derefter, at de kræfter, der var i spil i forbindelse med det amerikanske valg, ikke på kompetent vis kunne forstås som værende inden for USA som sådan.

“Valget var ikke nationalt, det var internationalt i hele sin karakter,” udtalte LaRouche. “Så det er mønsteret. Det er ikke mønsteret for lokale grupper i USA, selvom de har betydning. Men de er ikke noget man kan dele op i kategorier. Man skal se på det større samlede gode. Og det vil blive tydeligt, når vi begynder at behandle økonomien seriøst. Med andre ord, i stedet for at forsøge at finde ud af hvordan man får det pågældende produkt ud på en bestemt måde og så videre, er sagen den, at man skal starte med et globalt udgangspunkt. Vi har at gøre med et globalt grundlag.

“Se, dette har været den egentlige tilstand i nogen tid. Men det er ikke fremgået tydeligt, fordi folk ikke har kategoriseret disse ting på den rigtige måde. Hvad de har gjort er, at de præcist har søgt efter ting, som de mente var vigtige, og de er vigtige; men det styrende princip her er internationalt, det er globalt.”

LaRouche understregede: “Hvad vi ser her, er et sammenbrud af tidligere eksisterende livsbetingelser i verden. Og når man indser det, så får man hele billedet …. Og derfor må man betragte alt dette fra standpunktet – ikke om hvilken person der er vigtig i dette område eller ej; men man må se på det overordnede billede, ellers får man ikke det rigtige svar.”

I en diskussion den 1. oktober identificerede Helga Zepp-LaRouche den nuværende krise som en, hvor to modsatrettede dynamikker er sluppet løs, og er i direkte konflikt. Den ene er defineret af det kollapsende finansielle/geopolitiske system i den transatlantiske region, hvor accelerationen af den nedadgående spiral er den faktor, der driver desperate ledere af det forfejlede paradigme til at slippe flere konflikter løs, og derved øge faren for global krigsførelse, herunder atomkrig. Samtidig tager det nye paradigme til i styrke, der er forbundet med de globale økonomiske og diplomatiske initiativer fra Bælte og Vej-Initiativet, og BRICS, et paradigme for fred og udvikling, idet et stigende antal nationer vælger den nye Silkevejs-ånd over det dødbringende forløb af den imperialistiske geopolitik.

Det spørgsmål som alle borgere i vesten stilles overfor er, om USA og Europas nationer vil handle for at bryde med fortiden og dermed sikre succesen med det nye paradigme. Præsident Trumps tale til De Forenede Nationer i sidste uge havde mange af de samme temaer, som han gav udtryk for at vinde valget i 2016, herunder afvisning af krige i Mellemøsten og regimeskifte-politik, nationernes ret til suverænitet og afslutning af den koloniale praksis, der er blevet påtvunget under dække af betegnelsen “frihandel”. Men på trods af disse positive temaer, og det mod han har vist i hans igangværende kamp mod de britisk-styrede korrupte embedsmænd fra Bush-Obama-Clinton-netværket af efterretningsfolk, der kører Russiagate mod ham, er de neo-konservative og neo-liberale endnu ikke blevet besejret, og de kan fortsætte med at udøve en betydningsfuld negativ indflydelse på USA’s og NATO’s politik.

Det er derfor nødvendigt at optrappe kampen for at få ophavsmændene til regimeskifte-kupforsøget imod Trump stillet for retten. Trumps ordre om at frigive hemmeligt stemplede dokumenter relateret til de systematisk ulovlige handlinger af højtstående embedsmænd i justitsministeriet/FBI, i kombination med Kongressens høringer vedrørende mødet (eller møderne) i maj 2017, hvorunder stedfortrædende statsadvokat Rosenstein – ifølge tidligere fungerende direktør for FBI Andrew McCabe – drøftede en plan om at fjerne Trump ved hjælp af “den 25. forfatningsændring”, vil give flere beviser, der kan bruges til at lukke ned for kuppet. Det kommende midtvejsvalg skal tages som et udgangspunkt for mobilisering mod kuppet, og for at vise at amerikanerne er klar til at deltage i det nye paradigme.

Hjælp os med at opbygge et publikum til denne torsdags webcast. Hver uge tilbyder Helga et overbevisende billede af de seneste udviklinger, og giver klare marchordrer om, hvordan borgerne kan gribe ind for at knuse kuppet og bringe USA og Europa ind i det nye paradigme. Vi må ikke gå glip af denne mulighed. (HCS)

schillerinstitute.com

Indeholder: “Afslutningen på kolonialismen: En ny fælles fremtid for menneskeheden”, Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale ved Schiller Instituttets konference i New York: ”Hen imod en fire-magt-aftale for et ’Nyt Paradigme’ for udvikling” den 13. september, 2018.

Opdel Danske Bank: “Hvorfor en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling ville løse finanskrisen og ødelægge Wall Street og ‘City of London'” af Tom Gillesberg.

Download (PDF, Unknown)