Og så selvfølgelig, at de valgte Ode til Glæden, Schillers smukke digt sat til musik af Beethoven; hvor teksten et sted siger, »Alle mennesker forbrødres« (»Alle Menschen werden Brüder«), som er det poetiske udtryk for »win-win«-perspektivet; at menneskeheden har et højere mål. At de valgte dette til at være gallaens højdepunkt, viser virkelig, at de har forstået noget meget fundamentalt. De sagde, »Teksten er skrevet af Friedrich Schiller«, så mange mennesker ville selvfølgelig have tænkt på Schiller Instituttet; og vi har brugt Ode til Glæden mange gange for at udtrykke den samme idé.

Så jeg mener, at vi virkelig kan være stolte; for, vi gjorde ikke det hele, men vi havde en meget god andel i at frembringe dette smukke resultat.

Mennesket er bestemt til at være en kreativ art, der fuldt ud elsker hinanden: Derfor er Oden til Glæden, der blev spillet ved G20-gallashowet i Kina, virkelig en vision for fremtiden.

Første del af LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 8. september 2016: Et nyt paradigme giver nu liv til verden.

Se hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14599

Jason Ross: God aften. Det er torsdag, den 8. september 2016, og dette er vores ugentlige LaRouchePAC-webcast. Vi optager udsendelsen en dag tidligere i denne uge, pga. nogle begivenheder i den kommende weekend, som vi vil diskutere senere i udsendelsen. Jeg er Jason Ross, vært for i aften, og jeg har to gæster med mig i dag – Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der er med os fra Tyskland, og Diane Sare, der er med os fra LaRouche Manhattan-projekt i New York-området.

Verden har gennemgået en dramatisk ændring i løbet af de seneste par uger. Der har især været flere store, internationale konferencer, der repræsenterer en konsolidering af et nyt paradigme og en ny anskuelse blandt verdens nationer. Disse konferencer var det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok, Rusland; G20-mødet, der sluttede i Hangzhou, Kina; og dernæst de Sydøstasiatiske Nationers (ASEAN) møde med Kina, der fandt sted i Laos.

Under alle disse konferencer, under alle disse tre møder, har spørgsmålet drejet sig om at skabe en særlig synsmåde mht. økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde, og ikke at respondere til kriser, ikke det Sydkinesiske Hav; det har været et langsigtet syn på, hvad fremtiden bliver. Jeg vil gerne oplæse et par citater fra nogle præsentationer på disse konferencer.

Under B20-mødet, mødet mellem erhvervsledere forud for G20-mødet i Kina, erklærede præsident Xi Jinping, at

»Mennesker er økonomiens grundlag. Vi må være orienteret mod disse menneskers behov og hæve deres levestandard og livskvalitet. Vi vil løfte over 57 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom, og fattigdommen vil blive mindsket i alle fattige lande frem til år 2020. Dette er et højtideligt løfte til det kinesiske folk. Vi har løftet over 70 % af den kinesiske befolkning ud af fattigdom. Vi vil gøre denne kage større, og vi vil fortsætte den globale kamp mod fattigdom.«

Ved G20-konferencen, som omfattede en meget smuk åbningsceremoni med værker af Beethoven og Schiller, med Ode til Glæden sat til musik, og en flot forestilling, kom lederne dér til en konklusion i deres slutkommunike fra konferencen, der omfattende følgende:

»Vi kan ikke længere alene forlade os på finanspolitik og monetær politik til at løse krisen. Vi forestiller os en fremgangmåde, der omfatter alle dimensioner, alle lag og er vidtrækkende mht. innovation, der drives frem af innovation inden for videnskab og teknologi og går videre endnu og dækker udviklingsfilosofi, institutionelle mekanismer og forretningsmodeller således, at frugterne af innovation bliver fælles for alle.«

I mellemtiden var det eneste, Obama havde at sige til nogen, noget ævl om »menneskerettigheder« og diskussion om handelsaftalen Trans-Pacific Partnerskab (TPP), der absolut ingen chance har for at blive vedtaget i Kongressen; den er død.

Ved ASEAN-mødet så Obama, hvad han troede var en chance for at sætte på dagsordenen og gøre et spørgsmål ud af, voldgiftsafgørelsen om det Sydkinesiske Hav, der gik Kina imod; han ønskede at sætte det på dagsordenen, gøre det til et spørgsmål, og i stedet var det slet ikke en del af diskussionen.

Det, der i stedet blev diskuteret, var økonomisk samarbejde, den Maritime Silkevej og det kinesiske ’Ét bælte, én vej’-projekt. Og med hensyn til Filippinerne i særdeleshed, som havde lanceret en voldgiftssag imod Kina mht. det Sydkinesiske Hav, sagde den nye filippinske præsident, [Rodrigo] Duterte faktisk, da han blev spurgt om Obamas planer om at belære ham om krænkelser af menneskerettigheder mht. Filippinernes krig mod narkotika:

»Jeg er præsident for en suveræn stat, og vi er for længst ophørt at være en koloni. Jeg har ingen anden herre end det filippinske folk; ingen, absolut ingen. De skal ikke stille spørgsmål, Putang ina« (der betyder »søn af en hore«), »Jeg vil bande ad Dem under dét forum«, sagde han til Obama. »Jeg ønsker ikke at gå ind i et skænderi med Obama, men jeg knæler ikke for nogen, undtagen det filippinske folk.«

I hele dette forløb har Obama absolut stået udenfor. Han har intet at tilbyde verden. Forbes-magasinet har erkendt dette i sin dækning, for eksempel, hvor bladet siger, at, alt imens Obama taler om menneskerettigheder og TPP, som aldrig vil ske, så har Kina været i færd med »hurtigt at opbygge sine regionale akkreditiver med et stærkt fokus på økonomien i Sydøstasien … Kinas Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ, der forbinder Asien med Europa økonomisk, ville gøre det muligt for Beijing og dele af Sydøstasien at bygge et stort transportnetværk plus industrielle samarbejdsprojekter. Beijing opererer tilfældigvis også Kina-ASEAN Investerings-Samarbejdsfonden, der finansierer projekter for vækstfremmende infrastruktur, energi og naturlige ressourcer i Sydøstasien.«

Jeg mener, at kontrasten mellem Obama, der intet har, og så det, som Kina og Rusland, og BRIKS-nationerne – men i særdeleshed Kina og Rusland – har tilbudt verden, strategisk og økonomisk – at kontrasten ikke kunne være tydeligere. Med også G77-ledernes deltagelse i disse konferencer er verden som helhed i færd med at vedtage dette som politik.

Lad os få Helga Zepp-LaRouche ind i diskussionen her. Helga deltog i T20-mødet, som var et møde mellem tænketanke, et »Tænk20«-møde, der blev afholdt i Kina som forberedelse til G20-topmødet for statsledere, der netop har fundet sted. Lad mig spørge dig om dette, Helga. Hvordan har verden, efter din mening, ændret sig i løbet af de seneste par uger, med alle disse begivenheder?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette er en ændring af verdenshistoriske dimensioner. For det, der er sket mellem Vladivostok Østlige Økonomiske Forum, G20 og dernæst ASEAN-konferencen, er en enorm ændring mht., hvor verdens magtcentrum befinder sig. Lad mig blot meget hurtigt opsummere, hvilken betydning, hver af disse forskellige konferencer har haft.

I Vladivostok havde vi integrationen af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union med Kinas initiativ for Silkevejen/Bæltet-og-Vejen. Dette er meget vigtigt, fordi også premierminister Abe fra Japan og præsident Park fra Sydkorea deltog, og der blev indgået aftaler om langfristede investeringer inden for udvikling af Ruslands fjernøstlige områder, af Sibirien, inden for enorme investeringer i energisektoren, samt integration af alle disse økonomier (nationer) i Asien.

Dette efterfulgtes af G20-topmødet, som jeg mener, var et absolut gennembrud. For det første havde Kina lagt en enorm indsats i forberedelsen til dette møde, ved at sammenkalde til mange, mange indledende konferencer, der begyndte allerede for et år siden, på mange, mange niveauer: ministre, tænketanke, institutioner og organisationer. Kinas plan var den at transformere G20 fra at være en mekanisme, der blot responderer til kriser, som den i 2008 – Lehman Brothers’ finanskrak – og til at være en organisation, der vil skabe en alliance af lande, der vil danne en mekanisme til global styrelse, og som vil have til formål at finde problemløsninger. Xi Jinping sagde flere gange, at han ønsker at transformere G20 fra at være en »diskussionsklub« og til at være en gruppe af nationer, der handler sammen. Når man ser på det, så blev dette opnået på flere måder.

De vestlige medier forsøger hysterisk og desperat at bagatellisere resultatet af konferencen ved at sige, »der var alle disse spørgsmål«, men de eneste, der tog disse såkaldte »spørgsmål« op, såsom konflikten over det Sydkinesiske Hav og Voldgiftsretten i Haag, og alle de øvrige spørgsmål, der skiller meningerne, var faktisk Vesten.

Det, der skete, var, at det overvældende antal nationer går i retning af at vedtage den kinesiske model for økonomi. Det gør de særdeles ret i, for Kina har bevist, at det var i stand til at skabe et økonomisk mirakel af sådanne dimensioner, sagde Xi Jinping, at det har transformeret et land med 1,4 mia. mennesker, og som aldrig før er gennemført i historien, og den kendsgerning, at Kina kunne løfte 700 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom og til en meget anstændig levestandard, er ligeledes uden fortilfælde. Et af resultaterne af topmødet var vedtagelse af en plan for at eliminere al fattigdom i hele Kina frem til år 2020, dvs., kun fire år fra i dag.

Det lykkedes Kina at sætte den kinesiske model, som den attraktive model for alle for at deltage i, i et »win-win«-perspektiv, på dagsordenen. Mange lande må jo sige, »Ja, vi kan få den samme økonomiske udvikling som Kina; det er langt mere favorabelt end at gå sammen med USA eller NATO eller europæerne i en konfrontation af geopolitisk natur.«

Dette topmødes succes er virkelig utrolig. Det har ændret situationen i verden, til det bedre, skulle jeg mene; for den unipolære verden eksisterer bestemt ikke mere. Som du nævnte, så havde Forbes-magasinet og Time-magasinet nogle helt hysteriske artikler, der sagde, at Obamas politik med »Asia Pivot« (Omdrejningspunkt Asien) er en total fiasko; dette var hans sidste chance for at gøre kur til landene i området, men det mislykkedes totalt, og Obamas »Asia Pivot« er totalt død; den mislykkedes.

G77, den Alliancefri Bevægelse, ASEAN-landene – de bevæger sig nu alle i en totalt anden retning, og især den kendsgerning, at Sydkorea og Japan deltog, sammen med Rusland og Kina i denne Vladivostok-konference, beviser, at disse lande, der tilsyneladende er allierede med USA, ikke længere ønsker en konfrontation vendt mod Rusland og Kina.

Så dette er ekstremt vigtigt. Og det betyder først og fremmest, at de lande i verden, der ikke er en del af det gamle regime med Verdensbanken og IMF – den såkaldte »Washington-konsensus«, de såkaldte Bretton Woods-institutioner – de havde ingen stemme, og nu har de en stemme.

Jeg mener, at det virkelig er meget vigtigt, at Kina udtrykkeligt tog udviklingslandene og de fremvoksende økonomier med. For det første inviterede de dem alle – eller en meget stor repræsentation af dem – til at deltage i G20. Kina udtrykte sin absolutte forpligtelse til, at enhver frugt af teknologisk innovation ville blive delt med disse lande for ikke at forsinke deres udvikling. Se, dette er en meget smuk idé, der første gang blev udtrykt af den tyske tænker, Nikolaus Cusanus [Nikolaus von Kues] i det 15. århundrede, og som allerede dengang sagde, at videnskab og teknologi er så vigtig for menneskehedens udvikling, at, hver gang, der foreligger en ny opfindelse, bør den lægges i en international pulje – for nu at bruge moderne udtryk – og at alle lande dernæst skal have adgang til den, for at deres udvikling ikke skal blive forhalet.

Det er en utrolig forandring, for det betyder, at, for første gang blev en idé [taget op], som min mand udtrykte i 1975, da han foreslog en plan for udvikling af den Tredje Verden, og han kaldte det den Internationale Udviklingsbank [IDB]. Denne idé præsenterede han både i Bonn, Tyskland, dengang, og i Milano, Italien. Han ønskede dengang at få en $400 mia. stor teknologioverførsel om året til udviklingssektoren fra de avancerede (udviklede) lande, for at opbygge infrastruktur, for at opbygge industrialisering og landbrug i den Tredje Verden.

Han (LaRouche) gav en meget konkret form til et krav fra den Alliancefri Bevægelse, der, i 1976, under en konference for den Alliancefri Bevægelse i Colombo, Sri Lanka, havde vedtaget en resolution, der krævede en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden. 90 % af ordlyden i denne, den Alliancefri Bevægelses resolution, kom fra IDB. Men I ved, hvad der skete dengang, og det var, at alle lederne fra de lande, der havde taget initiativ til at kæmpe for dette – såsom fr. Gandhi fra Indien, fr. Bandaranaike fra Sri Lanka, Bhutto fra Pakistan – alle disse ledere blev enten dræbt eller destabiliseret; og hele denne indsats blev sat enormt tilbage og fungerede ikke.

Som I sandsynligvis ved, som nogle af vore lyttere ved, så har vi i LaRouche-bevægelsen kæmpet for virkeliggørelsen af IDB, eller en tilsvarende plan som IDB, for den Tredje Verden; men i alle disse år har Verdensbanken og IMF (Den internationale Valutafond) gjort det stik modsatte. IMF’s politik med betingelser (dvs. krav om nedskæringspolitik, for at opnå lån, -red.) umuliggjorde enhver form for udvikling, ved at stille betingelser, der tvang udviklingslande til at betale af på gæld, i stedet for at investere i infrastruktur. De skabte endda en gældsfælde for at gøre det umuligt for udviklingslande at udvikle sig. Så den elendige tilstand i Afrika, og i mange andre lande i Asien og Mellemøsten og nogle lande i Sydamerika, er resultatet af den bevidste politik for undertrykkelse af udvikling.

Se, efter krisen i Asien [i 1997-98] indså de asiatiske lande selvfølgelig, at de var nødt til at gøre noget for at beskytte sig imod George Soros’ spekulation dengang, så en proces med skabelse af nye institutioner udviklede sig. Et sådant initiativ var Chiang Mai; men så her for nylig – for omkring tre år siden – tog Kina lederskab, sammen med andre BRIKS-lande [Brasilien, Rusland, Indien, Kina, Sydafrika], for at skabe en række radikalt alternative bankinstitutioner: Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB); BRIKS’ Ny Udviklingsbank (NDB); den Ny Silkevejsfond; den Maritime Silkevejsfond; Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisations-Banken. Men har altså nu et fuldstændigt alternativt system for bankpraksis, som ikke er hasardspil, kasino; men som udelukkende kun udsteder kredit til investering i reel infrastruktur og realøkonomien.

Hvad er det så, der nu finder sted? Jeg mener, at folk må få en forståelse af, at det, der fandt sted ved G20-mødet, udgør en sejr i en kamp, der har varet i mindst 40 år; at gøre det muligt for mennesker i Afrika, i den såkaldte udviklingssektor, at få en mulighed for at have en fremtid. En sådan magtfuld koalition er nu vokset frem – den strategiske alliance mellem Kina og Rusland; Putin var æresgæst ved dette G20-møde – så verden har virkelig ændret sig. Det er meget vigtigt at sige, at disse artikler i magasinerne Forbes og Time slet ikke har fattet det. Det er ikke anti-amerikansk; det er ikke anti-europæisk. Xi Jinping og de andre ledere har mange gange sagt, at de ønsker, at USA og Europa skal gå med i dette »win-win«-perspektiv.

Det, der er på bordet nu med G20-mødet, er for første gang et strategisk initiativ, der ikke er geopolitisk; for det tilbyder et fornuftsplan, hvor man samarbejder internationalt om menneskehedens fælles mål. Jeg mener, at dette er et enormt historisk gennembrud, som vi virkelig må sørge for, at det amerikanske folk virkelig får kendskab til, hvad drejer sig om, og ikke bliver vildledt af middelmådige journalister, der simpelt hen ikke kan tænke i andre baner end geopolitik. Det er ligesom en person, der er ond, og som, når han/hun taler med et andet menneske, ikke kan forestille sig, at dette andet menneske ikke også er ondt! Så det, man læser i de vestlige medier, er ikke andet end en projicering af mediernes degenererede tankegang; men det er ikke, hvad der fandt sted på dette topmøde. Så lad os sørge for, at folk virkelig forstår den historiske betydning af denne ændring.

Jason Ross: Fantastisk! Jeg vil mene, at det, du netop gennemgik, mht. historien om din involvering, om din mand Lyndon LaRouches involvering, om LaRouche-bevægelsens involvering i løbet af de seneste fire årtier, i skabelsen af sejren for den politik, der nu bliver annonceret ved disse konferencer, virkelig er en demonstration af, hvor magtfuld en idé er. At over kynisme, eller over det, der syntes at være tingenes struktur og kontrol over tingene, kan en god idé, og en succesrig og vedvarende mobilisering for den, virkelig få ting til at ske.

Jeg vil spørge dig, om du vil sige mere om historien om LaRouche-bevægelsens involvering i alt dette; eller også, om du har noget at sige om, hvordan vi skal få USA til at tilslutte sig denne udvikling, i stedet for at være imod den?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg vil for det første gerne kort kommentere ASEAN-konferencen, for dette fulgte i G20-mødets fodspor; og nu er disse uoverensstemmelser bilagt. For ASEAN-landene, sammen med Kina, har alle sammen aftalt, at alle uoverensstemmelser vil blive bilagt gennem fredelig forhandling og dialog; de vil, frem til midten af næste år, udarbejde et adfærdskodeks med dette for øje, og i fællesskab bekæmpe trusler mod sikkerheden, såsom terrorisme, og andre trusler. De vil agere på grundlag af FN’s Havretskonvention, eller UNCLOS; og det betyder, at alle disse forsøg på at oppiske en konflikt mellem Filippinerne og Kina, med Voldgiftsretten i Haag, ikke er lykkedes. Dette var et forsøg på at skabe uenighed, men denne ASEAN-konference sagde, »Nej, vi ønsker fælles, økonomisk udvikling. Vi vil genoplive den regionale organisation for økonomisk udvikling.«

Så dette demonstrerer, at Kinas udenrigspolitik – og ikke alene ved G20-mødet – ændrede dagsordenen totalt; men også mht. regionale konflikter, nemlig, at hvis man har et »win-win«-perspektiv, hvor man tager hensyn til den andens interesser, så kan man finde løsninger.

Så det, der blev tilbage for Obama, som nogle aviser skrev, var gennemførelsen af TPP; men, som du allerede har nævnt, så har både Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og også de to præsidentkandidater, sagt, at TPP er ude. Formændene for de to Kongreshuse har sagt, at det ikke kommer til afstemning i år; hvilket vil sige, ikke i Obamas tid som præsident. Så TPP er dødt; TTIP – det er den europæiske version af samme sag – er ligeledes dødt. Så jeg mener, at verden virkelig har ændret sig; unipolære krav og den idé, at man kan afstikke reglerne på vegne af et enkelt land, eksisterer ikke mere. Vi er gået ind i en fuldstændig ny æra med respekt for et andet lands suverænitet, og med en alliance af overvejende republikker, til fordel for det overordnede gode (’det almene vel’) for alle.

Det er selvfølgelig en virkelig betydningsfuld udvikling. Det betyder ikke alene, at USA har muligheden for at vende tilbage til præsident John Quincy Adams’ (1825-1829) udenrigspolitik – for det var præcis, hvad han havde skitseret, at USA skulle gøre – men det betyder også, at systemet med fuldstændigt suveræne nationalstater, der samarbejder om en fælles udvikling – hvilket er, hvad vi har promoveret, hvad især hr. LaRouche naturligvis har promoveret, i mere end 50 år – nu er i færd med at blive til virkelighed.

Så jeg mener, vi har grund til at være meget glade for dette, for LaRouche-bevægelsen har, i de seneste 40 år, men i særdeleshed i de seneste 25 år, sammenkaldt til bogstavelig talt hundredevis af konferencer i hele verden; i alle de store amerikanske og europæiske byer, i Rio de Janeiro, i São Paolo i Brasilien, i Mexico, Beijing, New Delhi og Moskva. Endda mange i Australien, i Egypten og i andre afrikanske lande; vi har afholdt seminarer og konferencer. Jeg mener, at vi nu har en renæssancebevægelse og en verdensbevægelse for udvikling.

Eftersom du nævnte den smukke gallakoncert, som åbnede G20-topmødet, så var dette på en vis måde lig det, som vi gør med dialogen om klassisk kultur; for det begyndte med en række meget smukke kinesiske folkesange, og dernæst kom der scener fra balletten Svanesøen – der blev danset i en sø – så danserne ligesom skabte små springvand ved hvert trin, fordi de dansede i vandet. Det skabte en utrolig effekt. Og så selvfølgelig, at de valgte Ode til Glæden, Schillers smukke digt sat til musik af Beethoven; hvor teksten et sted siger, »Alle mennesker forbrødres« (»Alle Menschen werden Brüder«), som er det poetiske udtryk for »win-win«-perspektivet; at menneskeheden har et højere mål. At de valgte dette til at være gallaens højdepunkt, viser virkelig, at de har forstået noget meget fundamentalt. De sagde, »Teksten er skrevet af Friedrich Schiller«, så mange mennesker ville selvfølgelig have tænkt på Schiller Instituttet; og vi har brugt Ode til Glæden mange gange for at udtrykke den samme idé.

Så jeg mener, at vi virkelig kan være stolte; for, vi gjorde ikke det hele, men vi havde en meget god andel i at frembringe dette smukke resultat.

Foto: Fra Schiller Instuttets koropførelse af Mozarts Reviem i New York sept. 2016, i anledning af 15-års midehøjtideligheden for terrorangrebene den 11. september, 2001.     

»Og vi må få USA til at opgive geopolitik; vi må få EU, der alligevel er ved at disintegrere efter Brexit, vi må få disse lande til at opgive geopolitik og mobilisere USA’s og Europas befolkning til at tilslutte sig et nyt paradigme, der begynder med den idé, at menneskeheden er forenet, og at folk kan og bør være patrioter, men de bør også samtidig være verdensborgere. Og, som den store digter Friedrich Schiller sagde, »Der ligger ingen modsætning i at være en patriot og en verdensborger«.

10. september 2016 – Dennis Speed: På vegne af Schiller Instituttet vil jeg gerne byde jer velkommen til dagens konference, »Vi kan sikre verdensfreden ved at omfavne menneskehedens fælles mål«.

Schiller Instituttet blev stiftet i 1984, og forud for dette, den 27. september 1976, talte en af Schiller Instituttets medstiftere og samarbejdspartnere, nu afdøde Fred Wills, der dengang var Guyanas udenrigsminister, til FN’s Generalforsamling som repræsentant for FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, for 40 år siden, hvor han fremlagde et af de tidligste udtryk for økonomen og statsmanden Lyndon LaRouches politik for udvikling. LaRouches hustru, Helga, grundlagde Schiller Instituttet i 1984, og vi er alle lykkelige og stolte over at have været tilknyttet disse årtier lange bestræbelser.

Vi vil indlede konferencen med et videoindlæg fra Helga LaRouche, stifter og forkvinde for Schiller instituttet:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: God eftermiddag. Kære deltagere på konferencen: Hr. LaRouche og jeg ville selvfølgelig meget have foretrukket at være personligt til stede på jeres konference, men vi overbringer vore hilsener på denne måde, for vi er i øjeblikket i Europa, hvor vi har meget vigtige ting at gøre.

Lad mig ikke desto mindre overbringe jer et budskab med meget gode nyheder. For, hvad der stort set er gået upåagtet hen i massemedierne i USA og Europa, så har verden ændret sig i løbet af de seneste dage, og til det bedre. Der har været et par internationale konferencer i Asien. Den første var i Vladivostok med meget prominent deltagelse af præsident Putin, premierminister Abe fra Japan, præsident Park fra Sydkorea; og fokus for mødet var at indgå aftale om meget, meget store, økonomiske projekter og en økonomisk integration af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU) og initiativet for Silkevejen/Bæltet-og-Vejen. Det betyder en enorm udvikling af Fjernøsten og en økonomisk integration af alle disse asiatiske lande for et fredeligt samarbejde. Der var endda drøftelser om en mulig fredstraktat mellem Rusland og Japan, hvilket ikke er sket i 70 år, så dette er meget, meget vigtigt.

Men hvad der er endnu vigtigere, så var der G20-topmødet, der netop har fundet sted i Hangzhou, Kina. Se, Kina havde en meget, meget ambitiøs plan for G20-topmødet. De havde forberedt det intenst i over et år, gennem mange konferencer på ministerplan, og med tænketanke og diverse grupperinger, og planen var at transformere G20 fra at være en alliance af lande, der blot ville tale om kriser, som finanskrisen i 2008, og til at være en alliance af lande, der vil danne en organisation for den globale styrelse, for i fællesskab at tage sig af spørgsmålene omkring denne Jord. Og dette lykkedes de med.

I har måske ikke hørt om det i medierne, eller, hvis I har, så er det med en ondskabsfuld drejning, men det, der virkelig skete, er, at Xi Jinping allerede i et møde for erhvervsledere, det såkaldte B20, og også ved det egentlige G20-møde, fremlagde en plan for at sætte innovation i centrum for den globale økonomi; og allervigtigst, at invitere især udviklingslande og fremvoksende lande til fuldt ud at få del i frugterne af videnskab og teknologi, af innovation, med det formål, ikke at forhale disse landes udvikling.

Dette har fuldstændig ændret dynamikken i verden, for nu har man en situation, hvor en stor del af Asien – og dette fortsattes ved det efterfølgende ASEAN-topmøde – arbejder sammen for fredeligt samarbejde om et »win-win«-perspektiv, gennem grundlæggende set at vedtage den kinesiske model for økonomi.

Alle de af jer, der nogensinde har været i Kina, vil bekræfte, at Kina har undergået den mest utrolige, økonomiske transformation i noget land på denne planet. For 40 eller 45 år siden var Kina, under kulturrevolutionen, fuldstændigt tilbagestående og fattigt, og folk havde det elendigt, og så, med begyndelse i Deng Xiaopings reformer, begyndte Kina at lægge meget vægt på sin egen arbejdsstyrkes intellektuelle udvikling, på innovation, på at foretage syvmileskridt; og der var en lang periode, hvor Kina blot kopierede teknologier fra andre lande; den periode er nu ophørt, og Kina er nu spydspidsen inden for rumteknologi, højhastighedstog, elektronik og inden for diverse andre områder med avanceret videnskab og teknologi.

Kina har nu tilbudt resten af verden at blive en del af dette kinesiske, økonomiske mirakel, i et »win-win-samarbejde« gennem udviklingen af initiativet for den Nye Silkevej/Bæltet-og-Vejen, som et globalt udviklingsperspektiv til hele verden.

Denne idé har en sådan tiltrækningskraft, at, f.eks. alle ASEAN-landene, på ASEAN-konferencen i kølvandet på G20-mødet, grundlæggende set vedtog den kinesiske dagsorden om at gøre en ende på konflikten over det Sydkinesiske Hav og sagde, at, i fremtiden vil alle territoriale og andre konflikter blive løst gennem forhandling og dialog. Der vil blive samarbejde mht. at bekæmpe spørgsmål, der vedrører sikkerhed, såsom bekæmpelse af terrorisme, og mht. at udvikle andre midler til hinandens gensidige udvikling. Og derfor er hele denne truende konflikt over det Sydkinesiske Hav faktisk afsluttet.

Dette er vidunderligt nyt! Og det demonstrerer, at, hvis man sætter et udviklingsperspektiv »i den andens interesse« på dagsordenen, så er der intet problem på denne planet, der ikke kan løses. Dette betyder, at vi nu, for første gang, har mulighed for virkelig at gå over til et nyt paradigme. Udviklingssektorens, USA’s og Europas problemer er selvfølgelig stadig gigantiske, og der har hidtil ikke rigtig været en løsning på den kendsgerning, at banksystemet i øjeblikket er lige så truet, som det var i 2008 med Lehman Brothers’ kollaps. For eksempel har Deutsche Bank nu de samme omkostninger for CDS, credit default swaps, til sikkerhedsstillelse for derivater, som Lehman Brothers havde i 2008; hvilket betyder, at spekulanter spekulerer, vædder på muligheden for, at Deutsche Bank krakker. Rentepolitikken, nulrenten, negative renter i alle centralbankerne, som har anvendt det, har nu fået en ende. Mulighederne er opbrugt; hvad vil man mere gøre, end have negative renter? Hvor banker og kunder må betale penge for at indsætte deres penge i banken, i stedet for at få renter? Hele politikken med kvantitativ lempelse har i virkeligheden skabt en skjult hyperinflation, og »helikopterpenge« er virkelig vejs ende.

Den indsats for at gennemføre Glass-Steagall, der i øjeblikket gøres i USA og Europa, må blive gennemført, og vi må mobilisere Europa og USA til simpelt hen at tilslutte sig dette perspektiv med fælles udvikling. USA må vende tilbage til Franklin D. Roosevelts reformer; Europa må vende tilbage til den politik, der, f.eks., eksisterede med Adenauer og de Gaulle; og så kan alle problemerne blive løst, for den Nye Silkevej skaber ikke alene et perspektiv for økonomisk udvikling, men har også allerede skabt et alternativt banksystem: Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), den Ny Udviklingsbank (’BRIKS-banken’), den Nye Silkevejsfond, den Maritime Silkevejsfond, Shanghai Samarbejdsbanken og mange flere sådanne institutioner, der virkelig applikerer økonomisk politik i traditionen efter [Alexander] Hamilton, ved at have en kreditpolitik i stedet for en pengepolitik.

Dette er særdeles gode nyheder. For dette er noget, som hr. LaRouche og hans bevægelse har kæmpet for i over 40 år. Dette er præcis, hvad hr. LaRouche foreslog i 1975 med den Internationale Udviklingsbank. Det var ideen om, at IMF skulle erstattes af en international udviklingsbank, der skulle organisere en overførsel af teknologi til omkring $400 mia. om året, for at overvinde udviklingslandenes underudvikling.

Dette blev fuldstændig vedtaget af den Alliancefri Bevægelse i 1976 på den berømte Colombo-konference i Sri Lanka. Dengang led indsatsen for at skabe en retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden et enormt tilbageslag: Man fik en destabilisering af de ledere, der have påtaget sig denne sag som deres. For eksempel blev fr. Indira Gandhi destabiliseret; fr. Sirimavo Bandaranaike fra Sri Lanka blev fordrevet fra embedet; den pakistanske premierminister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto blev væltet og sluttelig myrdet.

LaRouche-bevægelsen fortsatte imidlertid sin kamp for dette, med ideen om at udvikle de underudviklede lande i verden; for, vi kan ikke bare leve med en sådan uretfærdighed, som vi i øjeblikket ser i Afrika. Hr. LaRouche foreslog således i 1982 det berømte Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, der blev vedtaget af præsident Reagan i 1983, og som var officiel amerikansk politik i omkring otte måneder. Kernen i denne politik var præcis samme idé, der lidt senere blev formuleret af hr. LaRouche som supermagternes protokol, og som grundlæggende set var ideen om at nedlægge de militære blokke, opgive NATO, opgive Warszawa-pagten, og så dernæst, gennem et program med videnskab som drivkraft, udvikle den yderligere produktivitet, bestående i at gennemføre en gigantisk teknologioverførsel til udviklingslandene, med det formål for altid at overvinde deres underudvikling.

Hold op med at behandle den Tredje Verden som stedfortræderlande for krige, og få i stedet et fælles udviklingsperspektiv. Dette var naturligvis også ideen, da vi i 1991, med Sovjetunionens kollaps, foreslog den Eurasiske Landbro/Silkevejen, der var ideen om at forbinde industri- og befolkningscentrene i Europa med dem i Asien gennem udviklingskorridorer. Dette førte vi kampagne for i 25 år, hvor vi afholdt hundreder af konferencer.

Vi var derfor ekstremt glade, da Xi Jinping i 2013, i Kasakhstan, satte den Nye Silkevej tilbage på dagsordenen. Og det er nu, efter tre år, eksploderet mht. at skabe et helt nyt paradigme for udvikling, for en reel indsats for at overvinde fattigdommen i store dele af verden.

Tag for eksempel Afrika: Afrika er i øjeblikket i en forfærdelig forfatning, hvilket er grunden til, at folk i tusindvis drukner i Middelhavet i forsøg på at nå til Europa, eller de dør af tørst i Sahara, når de forsøger at krydse ørkenen.

Den tyske udviklingsminister Gerd Müller har netop holdt en lidenskabelig tale i den tyske Forbundsdag, hvor han sagde, at det, der foregår i Afrika og andre udviklingslande, er, at de er ved at blive flået i stykker at noget, som han sammenlignede med tidlige former for kapitalisme, hvor de rige bliver rigere; hvor 10 % ejer og forbruger 90 % af alle ressourcer, og hvor 80 % af alle afrikanere ikke har adgang til elektricitet; og dette har skabt en utålelig situation. Gerd Müller krævede dernæst en Ny Marshallplan for udvikling i Afrika og andre udviklingslande. Og den rette måde at forfølge dette på er selvfølgelig en forlængelse af den Nye Silkevej ind i Afrika, ind i Mellemøsten, for at genopbygge de krigshærgede lande Afghanistan, Irak, Syrien, Libyen og Yemen, og de tilstødende områder.

Dette kan gøres med det samme, og det forudsætter blot, at vi får USA til at opgive den idé, at de må insistere på en unipolær verden, for denne unipolære verden eksisterer ikke længere: Efter G20-topmødet kan alle i hele verden se, at »omdrejningspunkt« Asien (doktrinen Asia Pivot), som Obama forsøgte at gennemføre for at udøve amerikansk indflydelse i Sydøstasien og disse områder, ikke fungerede. ASEAN stillede sig på Kinas side. TPP-handelsaftalen, om hvilken Obama i Washington Post sagde, at USA »laver reglerne« for handlen, ikke Kina.

Det virkede ikke: Formændene for begge Kongressens huse, Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, sagde, at TPP ikke kommer på dagsordenen i år; og de to præsidentkandidater har allerede sagt, at de er imod TPP. Så den er død. Og TTIP, den tilsvarende frihandelsaftale for Europa, er ligeledes allerede erklæret død af den franske regering og den tyske økonomiminister.

Så der er i øjeblikket en ny mulighed for at bruge G20-topmødet til at fastsætte et nyt regelsæt for handel, for samarbejde, for et »win-win«-perspektiv mellem landene. Og jeg mener, at, hvis vi på kort sigt kan få USA til at gå med i dette kor af nationer for skønhed, for samarbejde, så kan verden virkelig i løbet af meget kort tid opleve et nyt paradigme. Grunden til, at jeg siger »skønhed«, er den, at gallaaftenen inden åbningen af G20-topmødet var en vidunderlig dialog mellem kulturer, meget lig det, vi forsøger at gøre med rækken af koncerter i denne weekend i anledning af 11. september; denne gallaaften begyndte med meget smukke, kinesiske folkesange; der var en smuk scene fra balletten Svanesøen af Tjajkovskij; og sluttelig kulminerede forestillingen med en meget smuk opførelse af dele af Ode til Glæden, baseret på Friedrich Schillers digt til Ludwig van Beethovens musik. Jeg mener, at det var klogt af den kinesiske regering at vælge Ode til Glæden, hvor teksten på et sted proklamerer, »Alle mennesker forbrødres« (»Alle Menschen werden Brüder«), som et kulturelt udtryk for denne idé om et »win-win-samarbejde« mellem alle civilisationer.

Så mit fundamentale budskab til jer er et budskab om absolut optimisme. Jeg siger ikke, at alle problemer er blevet løst. Vi har stadig eksistentielle problemer; vi har stadig faren for krig; vi har stadig faren for en finansiel nedsmeltning, muligvis i dette efterår. Men alternativet er allerede etableret af en magtfuld gruppe nationer, der tilsammen repræsenterer flertallet af menneskeheden, flere end 4 mia. mennesker.

Og vi må få USA til at opgive geopolitik; vi må få EU, der alligevel er ved at disintegrere efter Brexit, vi må få disse lande til at opgive geopolitik og mobilisere USA’s og Europas befolkning til at tilslutte sig et nyt paradigme, der begynder med den idé, at menneskeheden er forenet, og at folk kan og bør være patrioter, men de bør også samtidig være verdensborgere. Og, som den store digter Friedrich Schiller sagde, »Der ligger ingen modsætning i at være patriot og verdensborger«.

Tiden er virkelig inde til, at vi forstår, at løsningen for menneskeheden kun kan findes på det højeste fornuftsplan, og ikke i en eller anden sideorden eller en eller anden angivelig interesse hos én nation imod en anden nation, eller gruppe af nationer.

Jeg føler mig fuldstændig overbevist om, at vi kan foretage dette spring og skabe et nyt paradigme; og alt imens I senere på dagen vil lytte til Mozarts skønne musik (Rekviem), til minde om dem, der døde under angrebet 11. september, mener jeg, at vi kan gengive dem liv og gøre dem udødelige ved at sige, at vi højtideligt vil forpligte os til at bringe USA ind i dette nye paradigme, og så vil deres liv have bidraget til noget udødeligt, og de vil forblive i vort minde for altid.       

I Hangzhou vil det tema stå på dagsordenen, som Friedrich Schiller engang kaldte »menneskehedens store skæbne«, nemlig spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den menneskelige familie rettidigt vil være i stand til at erkende, at den netop er én familie, der er i samme båd og kun vil kunne overleve, hvis snævre, nationalistiske og geopolitiske interesser tilsidesættes til gunst for menneskehedens fælles mål. 
Et stort problem, der udgør en forhindring for Tysklands konstruktive samarbejde med Kinas fremtidsorienterede perspektiver om at opbygge en ny model for samarbejde mellem verdens stater, er den nuværende tyske tendens til at satse alt på en »grøn økonomi«, der forsøger at finde løsninger udelukkende »inden for rammerne af planeten Jords miljømæssige grænser« – miljøbevægelsens mantra.

27. august 2016 – Mens forbundskansler Merkel i disse dage farer fra det ene minitopmøde til det andet – den ene gang på et italiensk hangarskib, og derefter fra den ene europæiske hovedstad til den næste, hver gang og til ingen nytte i forsøg på at begrænse de skadelige virkninger af EU's disintegrationsproces – træder Kina ind i den sidste fase af forberedelser til G20-topmødet i Hanzhou, og hvor Kina denne gang selv har forsædet. Dette kan gå hen og blive det mest lovende G20-topmøde nogen sinde, for den kinesiske regering agter at fremlægge et omfattende koncept for, hvordan den globale økonomiske og finansielle krise kan overvindes. Hvad der så siden måtte komme ud af dette topmøde – så vil det i hvert fald komme til at stå fuldstændigt klart, hvem, der arbejder konstruktivt med frem mod dette mål, og hvem, der holder fast ved den gamle, farlige geopolitik og mislykkede neoliberale monetære politik.
EU og Washington har ved denne anledning al mulig grund til at slå ind på Kinas og de med Kina samarbejdende staters succesrige kurs. Efter Brexit kappes Frankrig, Italien og Østrig om, hvem, der bliver den næste, der forlader EU. I Frankrig fører den konservative Nicolas Sarkozy sig frem som præsidentkandidat med et memorandum, hvor han kræver ophævelsen af EU's forrang over de franske love såvel som også en ophævelse af Lissabontraktaten. Den socialistiske kandidat Arnaud Montebourg lover at ville følge general de Gaulles »tomme stols politik«; det anti-europæiske parti Front National under Marine le Pen fik 55 % af stemmerne ved sidste kommunalvalg; og Jacques Cheminade fra »Solidarité et Progrès«, hvis kampagne er ved at udvikle en betragtelig gennemslagskraft, går ind for en alliance mellem suveræne stater i Eurasien; altså tager så godt som alle de relevante kandidater stilling imod EU. I Italien skælver statsminister Renzi for folkeafstemningen for en forfatningsændring i oktober, i hvis kølvand det anti-europæiske Femstjerneparti kan gå hen og vinde nyvalget, der vil følge kort efter. Den næste regering i Østrig bliver formodentligt ledet af det EU-kritiske FPÖ (Det Østrigske Frihedsparti).
Et yderligere aspekt af EU's opløsningsproces trådte tydeligt frem under Merkels seneste besøg i hovedstæderne i de såkaldte Visegrad-lande: Ungarn, Slovakiet, Tjekkiet og Polen, hvis regeringer stærkt afviser EU's forordnede flygtningekvoter og hele flygtningepolitikken. Den østrigske forsvarsminister Hans Peter Doskozil betegnede Merkels politik som »uansvarlig« og understregede, at Østrig ikke var noget »venteværelse til Tyskland«. Den ungarske ministerpræsident Orban planlægger at udbygge det hegn, han har ladet bygge langs Ungarns grænser, til en »uoverstigelig mur«, der med ét ville kunne stoppe selv »flere hundrede tusinde mennesker«. Dermed er ikke blot Merkels »europæiske løsning« for flygtningekrisen endegyldigt strandet, men også Schengen-aftalen og dermed samtidigt grundlaget for den europæiske valutaunion.

I betragtning af alle disse forskellige centrifugalkræfter virker det stivsind, med hvilket pro-EU-grupperingen vil holde fast ved EU-politikken, dog yderst virkelighedsfjernt. Hellere end at vende sig mod årsagerne til den voksende opposition vil de respondere til Brexit-afstemningen med »mere Europa« og intrigerer endda bag lukkede døre for på en eller anden måde at annullere Brexit. Dette foranledigede fire af de fem »økonomiske vismænd« til i en fælles artikel den 26. august i Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung at fremkomme med den advarsel, at dette blot ville forstærke de kræfter, der vil flygte fra EU. 
Men ikke engang på minitopmødet mellem Merkel, Hollande og Renzi, der patetisk var henlagt til øen Ventotene til minde om Altiero Spinelli, én af »Europas fædre«, og – meget symbolsk – på et italiensk hangarskib, herskede der enighed mellem »de tre store«. Hollande og Renzi gik ind for investeringsprogrammer, rettet mod den ødelæggende økonomiske situation i deres lande, mens Merkel stod fast på de sædvanlige nedskæringsprogrammer; som om disses tiltrækningskraft ikke for længst var udløbet. Og når det så tilmed kommer til gensidige offentlige beskyldninger mellem Draghi (hvis tvivlsomme rolle i diverse bailout-operationer for tiden undersøges) og Den europæiske Centralbank på den ene side, såvel som John Michael Cryan fra Deutsche Bank (der af IMF beskrives som den mest risikofyldte bank i verden), men også Wolfgang Bosbach, Volker Wieland fra »de fem vise mænd« og forbundsbanksbestyrelsesmedlem Andreas Dombret på den anden side, og når så samtidigt Deutsche Bank pludselig, i betragtning af de »skæbnesvangre følger« af de negative renter, gør sig til talsmand for bankkunder og pensions-sparere, så bør én ting stå klart: Spillet om skyldsplaceringen er begyndt. Alle skyder skylden på de andre for det transatlantiske finanssystems sammenbrud, som de alle ved er nært forestående. 
Og her har de førende repræsentanter for EU og EU's medlemsstater udviklet de typiske skyklapper, som er karakteristisk for dem, der er fortalere for de forældede modeller, de har investeret hele deres identitet i. EU’s ydre anseelse har for længst ændret sig. Tidligere gjaldt EU som model for regional integration for organisationer som ASEAN og AU og også for sydamerikanske integrationsbestræbelser. Allerede med den behandling, Grækenland fik af Trojkaen, og senest med flygtningekrisen er dette forbi; for disse lande står EU kun som en mislykket model. Kun ekstremt forkalkede repræsentanter for EU eller EU-regeringerne vover i disse dage at tage begreber som »demokrati« og »menneskerettigheder« i munden, i betragtning af Frontex-indsatsen mod flygtninge og tvivlsomme aftaler i flygtningespørgsmålet.

For Det almene Vel på globalt plan
Under Obamaregeringens otte år har USA's årlige, økonomiske vækst næppe overskredet 1 %, hvorimod Franklin D. Roosevelt alene i hvert af sine tre første år i embedet opnåede lige så meget, som Obama i sine otte år. Og EU opnåede endnu ringere økonomisk vækst end USA i det samme tidsrum. Kinas økonomiske vækst udviklede sig i det samme tidsrum fra 9,2 % i 2009 til »kun« 6,9 % i 2015, og i modsætning til den transatlantiske sektors kasinoøkonomi, så udgør det realøkonomiske område langt den største del af den kinesiske økonomi. Den spekulative andel er ganske ubetydelig her.
Kina vil ved G20-topmødet i Hangzhou den 4. og 5. september præsentere et omhyggeligt forberedt koncept for, hvordan en stabil finansarkitektur kan skabes og G20 forvandles fra en mekanisme til krisestyring til et varigt forbund af stater, der samarbejder for Det almene Vel på globalt plan. Det er Kinas plan at erstatte kortsigtet profittænkning, der er til gunst for de få, med en solid økonomi, der hviler på vækst gennem innovation.

Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping har i de tre år, der er gået, siden han satte opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej på den internationale dagsorden, igangsat en succeshistorie uden fortilfælde, og som 100 nationer og internationale organisationer allerede samarbejder om. Præsident Xi har gentagne gange tilbudt alle de europæiske stater, og i særdeleshed USA, at arbejde med på den fælles opbygning af den Nye Silkevejs win-win-perspektiv. Den kendsgerning, at Kina har indbudt et stort antal udviklingslande til at deltage i G20-topmødet, er yderligere en henvisning til, at han er seriøs omkring skabelsen af en ny økonomisk og finansiel arkitektur, der repræsenterer hele verden. 
I Hangzhou vil det tema stå på dagsordenen, som Friedrich Schiller engang kaldte »menneskehedens store skæbne«, nemlig spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den menneskelige familie rettidigt vil være i stand til at erkende, at den netop er én familie, der er i samme båd og kun vil kunne overleve, hvis snævre, nationalistiske og geopolitiske interesser tilsidesættes til gunst for menneskehedens fælles mål. 
Et stort problem, der udgør en forhindring for Tysklands konstruktive samarbejde med Kinas fremtidsorienterede perspektiver om at opbygge en ny model for samarbejde mellem verdens stater, er den nuværende tyske tendens til at satse alt på en »grøn økonomi«, der forsøger at finde løsninger udelukkende »inden for rammerne af planeten Jords miljømæssige grænser« – miljøbevægelsens mantra.
Men netop her er Kina langt forud for den indskrænkede tankegangs todimensionelle verdensbillede, der ikke ser Jorden som en rude, et vindue, men derimod som et akvarium. Kina har det for tiden mest ambitiøse rumprogram, der med de kommende Chang-e-missioner ikke blot vil udforske Månens bagside, men også forfølger konkrete planer om at udvinde store mængder helium-3 på Månen, som brændstof for opbygning af en fremtidig fusionsøkonomi på Jorden. 
EU's og USA's reaktion på dette G20-topmøde vil gøre det klart, om de er i stand til at tage ved lære. Det, som Kina og de med Kina forbundne asiatiske stater repræsenterer i dag, er til gavn for hele menneskeheden.
Til trods for, at de internationale organisationer, der er associeret med mig, måske rent talmæssigt kun udgør en lille styrke, så er vi dog vore kritikere langt overlegne, hvad analyse, ideer og løsninger angår. Og netop denne dygtighed vil vi bringe i spil for at bringe Europa over på den rigtige side.

Titelfoto: Den Nye Silkevejs nordlige og sydlige rute mellem Kina og Tyskland.

Tyskland og de andre europæiske nationer må omorganisere deres rådne finans- og banksystem og derefter, med perspektiverne for den Nye Silkevej, samarbejde om at opbygge verden. For at dette kan lykkes, må vi alle se ud over vores egen, europæiske næsetip og ærligt med hinanden diskutere spørgsmålet om, hvorfor vi er havnet i denne krise, og åbne os for den vision, der ligger i samarbejdet med Den nye Silkevej.

I Friedrich Schillers ånd: Alle kan bidrage med noget!

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: »Jeg mener, at vi må mobilisere befolkningen til at blive aktiv; for tiden er ikke til at sidde på stakittet og blot kigge på, hvad disse såkaldte ’eliter’ foretager sig … befolkningerne har mistet tilliden til disse eliter, der repræsenterer dette globaliseringssystem. Ansvaret for at finde løsninger på situationen må derfor gå over til dem, der har ideer om, hvordan vi kommer ud af situationen. Hvilket er, hvad vi gør i New York med Manhattan-projektet; det, som det Internationale Schiller Institut gør; men jeg mener, at vi har brug for jeres støtte – I, som ser dette lige nu. Jeg vil gerne appellere til jer om at blive aktive sammen med os og være med til at gennemføre disse løsninger.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

For at give håb om en bedre fremtid for hele menneskeheden, et håb, der er gået tabt i mange dele af verden, må G20-topmødet fremkomme med en vision, der kan tilbyde en løsning, en vej til at overvinde de nævnte kriser, og en etablering af et højere niveau af fornuft for at realisere menneskehedens fælles mål.

4. august, 2016 (Leder) – Følgende tale blev holdt af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og forkvinde for Schiller Instituttet, den 29. juli ved »Tænk 20 Forum« i Beijing. Forummet var arrangeret af tre kinesiske tænketanke: Instituttet for Verdensøkonomi og Verdenspolitik (IWEP) ved det Kinesiske Akademi for Samfundsvidenskaber (CASS), Shanghai Instituttet for Internationale Studier (SIIS) og Chongyang Instituttet for Finansielle Studier ved Kinas Renmin Universitet (RCDY), med deltagelse af 500 eksperter fra tænketanke og politikere og repræsentanter for internationale organisationer fra 25 lande, med det formål at formulere forslag til statsoverhoveder og regeringsledere i G20-medlemslandene. Fr. Zepp-LaRouche talte på det første panel under den to dage lange konference, dedikeret til »Global Ledelse: Systemforbedring og opbygning af Kapacitet«.

Eftersom G20 repræsenterer den mest magtfulde kombination af industrilande og fremvoksende lande på planeten, er der i øjeblikket ingen anden organisation, der kan adressere de eksistentielle udfordringer, som civilisationen står overfor, og i tide gennemføre løsninger på disse. De fleste landes befolkninger har den meget reelle oplevelse af at være opslugt af frygtindgydende kriser – en international terroristtrussel, der er ude af kontrol, en folkevandring af millioner af mennesker, der prøver på at undslippe krig, sult og død; den resulterende flygtningekrise, der ryster EU i sit fundament; fremgang for anti-etablissement-partier i mange lande: Brexit, som et advarselsskud for den potentielle disintegration af EU; det voksende gab mellem de rige og de stadigt flere lag af samfundet, der har mistet deres velfortjente status som middelklasse, eller som lever i fattigdom; oplevelsen af virkningerne af »uortodokse monetære foranstaltninger« på livsopsparinger og forventninger til fremtiden; grænserne for samfundets acceptabilitet af bailout og bail-in; samt den voksende frygt for, at verden nu er gået ind i en ny kold krig og en atomoprustnings-spiral. Kort sagt, et voksende tab af tillid til etablissementet, i det mindste i den transatlantiske sektor.

Hvis det forestående G20-topmøde afviser at anerkende denne situation; hvis man forsøger at skjule den fremherskende politiks fiasko, i særdeleshed siden 2008, bag retorikken i den offentlige propaganda; samt hvis man ikke bruger det forestående topmøde som en anledning til at fremlægge reelle løsninger på disse kriser, vil det ikke få nogen indvirkning i en virtuel reality, men det vil derimod få en indvirkning på det reelle historiske forløb og milliarder af menneskers liv og lykke.                                                                                                                   

Umiddelbare løsninger er forhånden, men de kræver, at de ledende institutioner er villige til at revidere den nuværende politiks aksiomer og vende tilbage til en politik, der ikke alene har vist sig at være effektive i tidligere situationer, men som også repræsenterer et nyt paradigme, der kan udgøre grundlaget for den menneskelige art i de næste hundrede år, og længere.

For at give håb om en bedre fremtid for hele menneskeheden, et håb, der er gået tabt i mange dele af verden, må G20-topmødet fremkomme med en vision, der kan tilbyde en løsning, en vej til at overvinde de nævnte kriser, og en etablering af et højere niveau af fornuft for at realisere menneskehedens fælles mål.

1. Det eneste »praktiske« udtryk for denne vision – og dette er ikke en selvmodsigelse – perspektivet for den Nye Silkevej, som den kinesiske regering nu i tre år har fremlagt og ført ud i livet. Foreløbig deltager over 70 lande i forskellige aspekter af dette program, samt i programmets infrastruktur- og udviklingsprojekter. Det, som Kina kalder for et »win-win« -samarbejde om sådanne fællesprojekter er ikke alene den eneste effektive måde, på hvilken geopolitiske konfrontationer kan overvindes, der har været roden til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og ligeledes den underliggende fare for en tredje global krig i dag, som, givet eksistensen af kernevåben, ville blive en tilintetgørelseskrig. »Win-win«-perspektivet er også i overensstemmelse med principperne for den Westfalske Fred, ifølge hvilken enhver succesfuld fredsorden må baseres på »den anden parts interesse«. Konceptet for den Nye Silkevej må derfor udstrækkes til alle verdens områder, som en »Verdens-Silkevej«, som et konkret tilbud om at overvinde underudvikling. Hvis G20-medlemmerne ville afgive et sådant løfte, med en højtidelig forpligtelse til at overvinde sult og fattigdom og tilvejebringe rent vand til alle inden for få år, hvilket rent teknologisk kan gennemføres – så ville det skabe en revolution af håb og optimisme i verden.
2. For at eliminere både årsagerne til massemigrationen fra Sydvestasien og Afrika og grobunden for rekruttering af terrorister, må der i begge disse områder iværksættes en omfattende industriel udvikling, som ikke blot genopbygger de krigshærgede områder, men som også fremlægger en integreret plan for infrastruktur, industri, landbrug og uddannelse, for at transformere disse dele af verden til at blive områder med høj produktivitet af arbejdskraft og fremstillingskapaciteter. Generelt må Verdens-Silkevejens projekter defineres således, at de får optimal indvirkning på befolkningens kognitive evner i de respektive lande, for derved at muliggøre den bedst mulige forøgelse af verdensøkonomiens produktivitet. Fokus må derfor ikke alene ligge på innovation, men på kvalitative gennembrud i forståelsen af kvalitative, nye fysiske principper i vort univers. Eksempler herpå er forcerede programmer for udvikling af termonuklear fusionskraft, der vil tilvejebringe forsyningssikkerhed for energi og råmaterialesikkerhed for menneskeheden, såvel som også udvikling af nye vandressourcer gennem den fredelige udnyttelse af kernekraft til afsaltning af store mængder havvand, ionisering af fugtighed i atmosfæren og andre former for innovativ teknologi. Internationalt samarbejde om rummet, mht. forskning, rumfart og kolonisering, definerer vejen for de kommende, nødvendige gennembrud inden for videnskab og teknologi. Det repræsenterer også en fremtidsorienterede platform for en fredsorden for det 21. århundrede. Og vigtigst af alt, så markerer det transformationen af den menneskelige art hen imod en større bevidsthed om dets egen identitet som den eneste, hidtil kendte, kreative art i universet.
3. Et ukontrolleret kollaps af den transatlantiske sektors finansielle system ville true med at kaste store dele af verden ud i kaos, med uforudsigelige konsekvenser. Den såkaldte »værktøjskasse« med finansielle instrumenter, som man besluttede at bruge efter krisen i 2008 fremfor at gennemføre reelle reformer, er nu opbrugt. De efterfølgende »uortodokse monetære instrumenter,« såsom kvantitativ lempelse (’pengetrykning’), negative rentesatser, og ’helikopterpenge’, har for en stor dels vedkommende produceret det modsatte af de ønskede virkninger. Den kendsgerning, at genindførelsen af Franklin D. Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingslov er blevet vedtaget i både det Demokratiske og Republikanske partis valgplatform i USA, samt den kendsgerning, at der er en voksende diskussion i flere europæiske lande om at reducere de fremtidige risici i det finansielle system ved at indføre Glass/Steagall-kriterier også i Europa, skaber en meget favorabel forudsætning for at indgå aftale om en global Glass/Steagall-lovgivning ved det kommende G20-topmøde. Hvis G20-topmødet sætter Verdens-Silkevejen på dagsordenen, ville den kinesiske drøm blive til en verdensdrøm.

Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin til FN's Generalforsamling i 2015: »Det, vi i realiteten foreslår, er, at man lader sig lede af fælles værdier og fælles interesser i stedet for af ambitioner. Inden for rammerne af international lov må vi forene vore anstrengelser for at overvinde de problemer, der truer os alle, og skabe en virkeligt bred international koalition mod terrorismen … «

Download (PDF, Unknown)

»Den nye overraskelse er, at drabsmanden ikke var en islamisk terrorist; drabsmanden var svoren tilhænger af voldelige videospil«, og at han efterlignede tidligere massedrab, der ligeledes var betinget af disse oprindelige gerningsmænds langvarige brug af nedskydnings-spil og -videoer. Zepp-LaRouche sagde, at man måtte tage to skridt på verdensplan:

1. Idet hun henviste til, at indenrigsminister DeMazière satte forbindelse mellem massedrabene i München og voldelige videospil, må man gennemføre et internationalt forbud af voldelige videospil, der omfatter et forbud mod dem på Internettet.

I samtale med den amerikanske LaRouche-bevægelse i dag talte Helga Zepp-LaRouche om terroristdrabet på ni personer i München, udført af en enlig gerningsmand.

Helga LaRouche sagde: »Den nye overraskelse er, at drabsmanden ikke var en islamisk terrorist; drabsmanden var svoren tilhænger af voldelige videospil«, og at han efterlignede tidligere massedrab, der ligeledes var betinget af disse oprindelige gerningsmænds langvarige brug af nedskydnings-spil og -videoer. Zepp-LaRouche sagde, at man måtte tage to skridt på verdensplan:

1. Idet hun henviste til, at indenrigsminister DeMazière satte forbindelse mellem massedrabene i München og voldelige videospil, må man gennemføre et internationalt forbud af voldelige videospil, der omfatter et forbud mod dem på Internettet.
2. Internationalt samarbejde med Rusland mod terrorisme, som præsident Vladimir Putin foreslog FN’s Generalforsamling i september 2015.

Teenagedrabsmanden fra München, Ali David Sonboly, lokkede unge mennesker til McDonalds på femårsdagen for Anders Breiviks massedrab af 77 unge mennesker i Norge i 2011. Drabsmanden fra München lå også inde med materiale fra et skyderi på en skole i Bayern i 2009. Sonboly tilbød at købe gratis mad i McDonalds til alle, der kom.

Det krav, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom med allerede i 2007, om at »Forbyde voldelige videospil«, må nu gennemføres, før der kommer flere hændelser med »enlige terrorister«.

Hendes appel lyder:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

Forbyd videospil med massedrab og vold på Internettet!

10. december 2007: Forkvinde for det tyske politiske parti, Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet (BüSo), Helga Zepp-LaRouche, udstedte nedenstående erklæring den 8. december:

»I kølvandet på de nylige, rædselsvækkende nyhedsrapporter om unge mennesker, der går amok og dræber deres medstuderende og lærere; unge skarpskytter, der plaffer ofre, de ikke kender, ned; og unge, psykopatiske mordere, der dræber andre mennesker efter, at de har set perverse film; alle disse hændelser demonstrerer på dramatisk vis, hvor presserende nødvendigt det er at vedtage behørige love, der, med hårde straffe, forbyder produktion og markedsføring af computerspil, der glorificerer vold, så vel som også forbud mod at bruge Internettet til at cirkulere materiale, der glorificerer vold.

Sluttelig har Selskabet for Videnskabelig Samtale-psykoterapi (Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Gesprächpsychotherapie e.V., GwG) offentliggjort et krav om et totalforbud mod disse computerspil. En repræsentant for selskabet forklarede, at »drabsspil er ligesom landminer for sjælen«. Og GwG kræver, at politikere handler, »før en hel generations børn og teenagers lokkes ind i en malstrøm af vold«. Desværre sker dette allerede.

Allerede i 1972, dvs. for 35år siden (!), forklarede USA’s Øverste Embedslæge (Surgeon General[1]), såvel som også den Amerikanske Psykiatri-Sammenslutning, at der var en uomtvistelig forbindelse mellem vold i medierne og vold, der begås af børn og unge. Og i bogstavelig talt hvert eneste tilfælde, hvor unge mennesker dræber deres medstuderende og lærere med stor præcisionsskydning, viser det sig, at der foreligger en afhængighed af voldsvideoer og Internet-websteder, der glorificerer vold. Det er desværre tilfældet, at størstedelen af to generationers børn og teenagers har været udsat for cirkulering af denne »underholdning«, der dræber intellekt og sjæl.

De kommercielle dræbervideoer havde deres oprindelse i militære uddannelsesprogrammer, gennem hvilke den amerikanske hær brugte dræber-simulatorer til at overvinde soldaternes naturlige modvilje mod at dræbe. Det er det samme, der finder sted med et videospil, der gør drab til en betinget refleks. Anvendelsen af mordsimulatorer til militære uddannelsesformål svarer til det bestialske koncept med Lejesoldater-hæren, som blev fremlagt af Samuel Huntington i dennes bog, The Soldier and the State (Soldaten og Staten), og hvorved soldater skal uddannes til at udføre ordrer som zombier, der aldrig stiller spørgsmålstegn ved det, de får besked på at gøre. Hvis et sådant koncept regnes for barbarisk i hæren, så er det for børn og unge, der følelsesmæssigt er langt mere indtryksmodtagelige, en total katastrofe. Resultatet er børn og unge, der følelsesmæssigt er fuldstændigt forkrøblede, som meget let kan ty til aggression, og hos hvem den for mennesket enestående evne til at føle, og evnen til at føle empati, er totalt fraværende. I værste fald bliver de autistiske, eller endda mordere.

EU’s Komité for »Menneskerettigheder i Internet-samfundet« har ansvaret for at håndtere disse spørgsmål, men har hidtil ikke indført nogen faktiske retningslinjer for videospil og Internet-websteder. Hvis de personer, der sidder i ansvarsfulde stillinger, ikke beskytter børn og unge, så gør de sig skyldige i overtrædelse af menneskerettighederne. Vi kræver et omgående forbud mod dræbervideoer og en effektiv blokering af de ovenfor nævnte Internet-websteder!«  

Foto: Utøya.

Det er derfor bydende nødvendigt og på høje tid at tage imod det tilbud, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin kom med under FN’s Generalforsamling i 2015, og i hvilket tilbud han satte fokus på de fatale konsekvenser af Vestens politik med at uddanne angivelige »moderate« oprørere til at bekæmpe sekulære regeringer i Mellemøsten, som dernæst i stimer hoppede af til ISIS. Helga Zepp-LaRouche fortsætter dernæst med at citere fra Putins tale, hvor han opfordrer til samarbejde mellem alle lande for at bekæmpe dette onde og nævner anti-Hitler-koalitionen under Anden Verdenskrig og understreger behovet for, at muslimske lande spiller en nøglerolle i en sådan koalition, i betragtning af disse ekstremisters korrumpering af deres religion, islam.

23. juli 2016 – Helga Zepp-LaRouche, forkvinde for det tyske parti Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet (Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität, BüSo) og stifter af Schiller Instituttet, skrev en artikel om den strategiske krise og hvad det vil kræve at løse den. Det følgende er en oversættelse af afsnittet om terrorisme, i kølvandet på den dødbringende skudepisode i München den 22. juli.

Hele Helgas tyske artikel kan læses på BüSos webside: http://www.bueso.de/node/8688.

Tyskland blev kastet ud i en choktilstand efter massakren i et indkøbscenter i München, med en 18-årig tysk-iraner som gerningsmand, og som fandt sted kun få dage efter, at en 17-årig afghansk flygtning med en økse angreb og sårede passagerer på et tog i byen Würzburg. Alt imens gerningsmændenes baggrund og motiver stadig er ved at blive undersøgt, så understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i en artikel den 23. juli, at terrorisme, uanset i hvilken form, er blevet en hovedtrussel for hele menneskeheden.

CSU-parlamentsmedlem Hans-Peter Uhl har ret, skrev hun, i at kræve forbedrede forebyggende forholdsregler og øget samarbejdet mellem relevante myndigheder, både nationalt og i udlandet, for at bekæmpe terrorisme. Men, i betragtning af den radikale islams udvikling og måde at operere på, så indebærer dette selvfølgelig samarbejde med Rusland, »det offer, der har den største ekspertise i de tjetjenske netværk og disses forbindelse til Sektor Højre i Ukraine og til ISIS, og som beviseligt, gennem sine militære interventioner i Syrien, er det eneste land, der har haft held til at trænge ISIS’ magt tilbage.«

Det er derfor bydende nødvendigt og på høje tid at tage imod det tilbud, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin kom med under FN’s Generalforsamling i 2015, og i hvilket tilbud han satte fokus på de fatale konsekvenser af Vestens politik med at uddanne angivelige »moderate« oprørere til at bekæmpe sekulære regeringer i Mellemøsten, som dernæst i stimer hoppede af til ISIS. Helga Zepp-LaRouche fortsætter dernæst med at citere fra Putins tale, hvor han opfordrer til samarbejde mellem alle lande for at bekæmpe dette onde og nævner anti-Hitler-koalitionen under Anden Verdenskrig og understreger behovet for, at muslimske lande spiller en nøglerolle i en sådan koalition, i betragtning af disse ekstremisters korrumpering af deres religion, islam.

»Siden Chilcot-undersøgelsesrapporten i Storbritannien satte fokus på, hvordan Tony Blair havde iscenesat aggressionskrigen i Irak på baggrund af overlagte løgne«, bemærker Zepp-LaRouche, »og efter afsløringen af de 28 sider af den officielle Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om angrebene 11. september [2001] ikke efterlod nogen tvivl om Saudi-Arabiens rolle i finansieringen af terrorisme, vil en politik med ’mere af det samme’ være det samme som at være medskyldig i alle nye terrorangreb.

»De tyske myndigheder kan ikke længere skjule sig bag de sædvanlige sociologiske sofismer. Troværdigheden hos hr. Uhl og indenrigsminister Thomas de Mazière, hos medlemmerne af Forbundsdagens komité for interne anliggender og selvfølgelig, hos kansler Angela Merkel, vil afhænge af, om de indleder en officiel undersøgelse for så hurtigt som muligt at kaste lys over disse to dokumenters – Chilcot-rapportens og de 28 siders – implikationer og drage konsekvenserne af dem.

»Det er under alle omstændigheder uacceptabelt at bruge angrebene i Würzburg og München som en anledning til at opbygge en politistat sådan, som Erdogan er i færd med, og at samarbejde med netop de lande, hvis rolle er blevet belyst i Chilcot-rapporten og de 28 sider.«   

Den største fare, lige bortset fra en direkte Tredje Verdenskrig, ville være, at den transatlantiske sektor styrtede ud i kaos. Derfor fremkom min mand – der har en unik rekord for at have ret, mht. økonomisk forecasting, og mht. at komme med forslag til, hvordan en situation kan løses – med denne meget overraskende kommentar: at Deutsche Bank, frem for alle banker, skulle udvælges og reddes, denne ene, sidste gang, men ikke uden betingelser: De må omgående sættes under en form for konkursbehandling. En ledelseskomité bør have ansvaret. Og dernæst må banken have en ny forretningsplan, der må gå tilbage til den filosofi, som blev praktiseret af Alfred Herrhausen, der var den sidste, moralske bankier i hele Europa, og som havde en helt anden filosofi.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg tror, det er almindelig kendt blandt absolut alle i det internationale finansielle samfund, og i alle regeringer og blandt alle relevante personer i politiske stillinger i den transatlantiske sektor, at det, jeg nu siger her, er absolut sandt. Med andre ord: bankiererne og de ansvarlige personer i det internationale finansielle system alle er klar over, at dette system er absolut bankerot; håbløst bankerot. Det står umiddelbart foran en nedsmeltning, i langt større skala end den, der fandt sted i 2008, af den meget simple grund, at alle de indikatorer, der var til stede, før Lehman Brothers og AIG gik ned, er til stede nu, men i langt større skala.

[Vi arbejder på en dansk oversættelse af hele webcastet. Bliv på kanalen!]  

Engelsk udskrift:

SAVE DEUTSCHE BANK TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT WILL SAVE MANKIND!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast Friday, July 15, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's July 15th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast on
larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin
Deniston; and we're joined by a very special guest, via video,
Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the founder of
the Schiller Institute, and also Chairwoman of the German BüSo
(Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidaritä¤t, Civil Rights Movement
Solidarity) political party.
        Helga LaRouche is joining us tonight to discuss the
initiative that she and Mr. Lyndon LaRouche have taken this week
to act in a very decisive manner to avert World War III and a
global economic blow-out. This concerns the situation that
Deutsche Bank now finds itself in.
        I would like to begin by reading a Statement that Mrs.
LaRouche issued a few days ago, on July 12th of this week. We
will then follow that Statement by a discussion with Mrs.
LaRouche herself. In the Statement that Mrs. LaRouche issued,
titled "Deutsche Bank Must be Rescued, for the Sake of World
Peace," Helga wrote the following:
        "The imminent threat of the bankruptcy of Deutsche Bank is
certainly not the only potential trigger for a new systemic
crisis of the trans-Atlantic banking system, which would be
orders of magnitude more deadly than the 2008 crisis, but it does
offer a unique lever to prevent a collapse into chaos.
        "Behind the SOS launched by the chief economist of Deutsche
Bank, David Folkerts-Landau, for an EU program of EU¬150 billion
to recapitalize the banks, lurks the danger openly discussed in
international financial media, that the entire European banking
system is {de facto} insolvent, and is sitting on a mountain of
at least EU¬2 trillion of non-performing loans. Deutsche Bank is
the international bank, with a total of EU¬55 trillions of
outstanding derivative contracts and a leverage factor of 40:1,
even outdoes Lehman Brothers at the time of its collapse, and
therefore represents the most dangerous Achilles heel of the
system. Half of Deutsche Bank's balance sheet, which has
plummeted 48% in the past 12 months and is down to only 8% of its
peak value, is made up of Level-3 derivatives, i.e., derivatives
amounting to circa EU¬800 billion without a market valuation.
        "It probably came as a surprise to many that Lyndon LaRouche
called today for Deutsche Bank to be saved through a one-time
increase in its capital base, because of the systemic
implications of its threatened bankruptcy. Neither the German
government with its GDP of EU¬4 trillion, nor the EU with a GDP
of EU¬18 trillion, would be able to control the domino effect of
a disorderly bankruptcy.
        "The one-time capital injection, LaRouche explained, is only
an emergency measure which needs to be followed by an immediate
reorientation of the bank, back to its tradition which prevailed
until 1989 under the leadership of Alfred Herrhausen. To actually
oversee such an operation, a management committee must be set up
to verify the legitimacy and the implications of the obligations,
and finalize its work within a given timeframe. That committee
should also draw up a new business plan, based on Herrhausen's
banking philosophy and exclusively oriented to the interests of
the real economy of Germany.
        "Alfred Herrhausen was the last actually creative, moral
industrial banker of Germany. He defended, among other things,
the cancellation of the unpayable debt of developing countries,
as well as the long-term credit financing of well-defined
development projects. In December 1989, he planned to present in
New York a plan for the industrialization of Poland, which was
consistent with the criteria used by the Kreditanstalt für
Wiederaufbau (KfW) for the post-1945 reconstruction of Germany,
and would have offered a completely different perspective than
the so-called 'reform policy,' or 'shock therapy', of Jeffrey
Sachs…."
        Helga completes this Statement by saying:
        "Herrhausen's assassination has gone unpunished. However,
there exists 'the dreaded might, that judges what is hid from
sight,' which is the subject of Friedrich Schiller's poem {Die
Kraniche des Ibykus}. The Erinyes have begun their dreadful
dance.
        It is now incumbent upon all those who, in addition to the
family, have suffered from the assassination of Herrhausen, upon
the representatives of the Mittelstand, of the German economy and
the institutional representatives of the German population, to
honor his legacy and to seize the tremendous opportunity which is
now offered to save Germany."
        With that said, Helga, would you like to follow up at all
with any opening statements?

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that it is absolutely
known to everybody in the international financial community and
to all governments and all relevant people in political positions
in the trans-Atlantic sector, that what I'm saying there is
absolutely true. In other words: the bankers and [those]
responsible for the international financial system all know that
this system is absolutely bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt. It's
about to blow up in a much, much bigger way than 2008, for the
very simple reason that all indicators which were there before
Lehman Brothers and AIG went under, are there, but much more.
        The famous instrument box which they were using, or
pretending to use, in 2008, has been used up: quantitative
easing, zero interest rate, negative interest rate, helicopter
money. Right now you have the situation — and we have this from
extremely reliable contacts in the banking community who agree
with us — where all the central banks are printing money, paper
money, like crazy, because they know perfectly well that
helicopter money is not just electronic, but if you would have a
banking run right now, the whole thing would evaporate within a
very short period of time, in hours.
        This is a situation where if you have an uncontrolled,
chaotic collapse, which is right now eminently possible, because
you have several [inaud 0:07.39]. Not only Deutsche Bank.
You have the Italian Banking sector about to blow. You have the
British situation after the Brexit. The entire European banking
system is absolutely bankrupt. If you had an uncontrolled
collapse, well, as one banker told us, after he read this
statement of mine, he said, "If this is not remedied in the short
term, we are looking towards a Europe of chaos, disorder, and
revolution."
        The biggest danger, apart from World War III directly, would
be a plunge of the trans-Atlantic sector into chaos. Therefore,
my husband — who has a unique record of being right, in terms of
forecasting, and being unique, in terms of coming up for
proposals how to remedy the situation — made this very
surprising comment: that Deutsche Bank, of all banks, should be
singled out, they should be saved, one last time, but not without
conditions: They must immediately be put in a sort of
receivership. A management commission should be in charge. And
then they need a new business plan, which must go back to the
philosophy of Alfred Herrhausen, who was the last moral banker in
all of Europe, and who had a completely different philosophy.
        We had all kinds of reactions about that. It turned out the
banks are much more hated than meets the public eye. People said,
"Let these banks go bankrupt! Why don't you just close them down?
Nationalize them! Bankrupt them!" You had an outpouring of anger
coming from people you would not expect it — conservative
industrialists, politicians who normally are not speaking in
radical tones at all — but what came out was an explosion of
anger.
        It is very easy to be angry about the situation. If this
thing collapses in an uncontrolled fashion, all the life-savings
of people will be ruined. The majority of the people will have to
pay, and this will be associated with poverty. Millions of people
dying. This is not a joke.
        It's not enough to be "against" something; even if banks
have behaved completely criminal and immoral. Deutsche Bank is
spending right now such enormous amounts of money on legal fines
for illegal activity from LIBOR swindles, all kinds of shady
operations, so that they had to write down their profit warnings.
It's not the question of "doing a favor" to Deutsche Bank. Not at
all! The question is: you must find leverage; how to bring this
thing in order, before the whole thing ends up in a collapse,
causing an absolute uncontrollable situation.
        That is why the reference to Alfred Herrhausen is really
extremely important, because he was the head of Deutsche Bank. He
was a banker. Deutsche Bank had a different policy, and
therefore, when you say, "We have to back to the philosophy of
Alfred Herrhausen," at least the older generation knows exactly
what that means. Therefore, I think we should really spread this
and force people to put pressure on the situation, that this is
being done. You have to "unwind" the outstanding derivatives. You
have to deal with the situation that Deutsche Bank has EU¬55
trillion in outstanding derivatives. Half of their balance sheet
is without market valuation, which means that it's practically
worth nothing, because you can't really sell it.
        If you have an uncontrolled collapse, then that could be
really what brings down the whole thing in a chaotic way. If you
go the way Mr. LaRouche has proposed, then you can have an
orderly resolution of this bankrupt system, and replace it with
one which is in the interest of the people. So, it's not just a
technical proposal. Several people, in response to my statement,
said, "This is probably the very last chance we have to prevent a
catastrophe."

        OGDEN: I would like to get a little bit more into the
significance of the role played by Alfred Herrhausen in a moment;
but before we get to that, Helga, maybe you also say a little bit
more about what the strategic context of this intervention is,
especially from the standpoint of the role that [inaud 13:06]
play, not only as the only viable economy in Europe right now,
but also the emphasis that Mr. LaRouche has placed on the
relationship between Germany and Russia, being the only means by
which we can prevent the outbreak of a thermonuclear conflict.

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, people have now all kinds of proposals,
like "Tobin Tax," "tax the speculators" — all these proposals
are floating around. What they don't consider, is that when we're
taking about banking, we're not talking about money or financial
questions; we're taking about the physical pre-condition for a
society to exist. Fortunately, the German economy, despite all of
these paradigm shifts which have occurred in the last 25 years to
the worse, the German economy is still an economic powerhouse.
You still have a very large concentration of very productive
middle-level industry. Middle-level industry is normally where
all the patterns are made, the technological innovation occurs.
That is really the backbone of the productive economy.
        The question is: this German economy, without which all of
Europe would not function, absolutely must be protected, and not
only be protected, because right now, it is already many, many
small firms which are in danger. There are other factors, like
the crazy [nuclear] energy exit of Mrs. Merkel, which has
increased the price of energy tremendously, but the German
economy is sort of weakened; but it is still the absolute crucial
factor because in Germany you have a lot of the industrial
potential which is needed not only for all of Europe, but in
order to get the whole question of Eurasian cooperation on a
sound ground, you need the German economy. The whole question of
the German-Russian cooperation, German-Chinese cooperation in the
development of the Eurasian Silk Road, is absolutely crucial.
        So, the question is the productivity. And what has happened
with the paradigm shift of all the successors of Herrhausen — I
don't want to name all of them — but all of them went into this
high-risk maximization of profit no matter what. Ackermann wanted
25% profit, preferably every month; and they went into these
completely crazy derivative operations, so that Deutsche Bank is
today {the} leading bank in terms of derivative exposure. With
$55 trillion in outstanding derivatives, that's with a GDP of the
German economy of $4 trillion a year; it's more than 10 times
more, even 12 times more the GDP of the German economy. So
Deutsche Bank long has stopped to be Deutsche Bank; it's now
operating from London, from New York. It has become one of the
most aggressive investment banks in the world. But if it goes
bankrupt, which it could at any moment; and that's why the chief
economist Mr. Folkerts-Landau put out every day since Sunday, he
put out an urgent call saying this recapitalization of the
European banks must occur, or else calamity will happen. If
Deutsche Bank would go under, the German economy — and with it,
all European economies — would collapse; and therefore, it's not
a question of choice. Obviously, to just put out more bail-out
packages per se, as the ECB [European Central Bank] and the EU
Commission have done in the past, is completely useless because
it makes the problem worse. Right now, it has reached the limit;
because after helicopter money, what else do you want to do?
        It is not a choice; it is a life and death question, not
only for Germany, but really for the entire trans-Atlantic
sector.

        OGDEN: Now, you have emphasized that the circumstances
around the assassination of Alfred Herrhausen continue to be a
crime that the truth has not yet been told fully about. It's
something that in the United States, we can relate to the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, in terms of the magnitude of
what this meant for the turning point in the policy of Germany at
that time. Obviously, it was in the context of the collapse of
the Berlin Wall in the beginning of November 1989, and just less
than one month later, at the very end of November, November 30th,
Herrhausen was assassinated in a very sophisticated attack on his
convoy as he was travelling from his home to the Deutsche Bank
headquarters. You said, Helga, in an article that you wrote in
1992 titled, "New Evidence Emerges in the Herrhausen
Assassination Case," you said, "The key to the motive behind
Herrhausen's assassination lies in 11 pages of a speech he was to
deliver in the United States only four days after he was
ambushed. The speech contained Herrhausen's vision of a new kind
of relationship between eastern and western Europe, which would
have fundamentally altered the world's future course." And then
you have a quotation from the speech, which I think is shocking
when we go back and read that today, in consideration of what Mr.
LaRouche and you were also both advocating for at that time. What
he said, or what he was to say, in that speech that was never
delivered, was the following:
        "There should be assurances that the new credit will flow
into specific, promising projects. It is therefore advisable that
the export guarantees which the German Federal government wants
to expand, be tied primarily to specific projects. In this
connection, at this year's annual meeting of the IMF and World
Bank in Washington, I proposed setting up a development bank on
the spot; i.e., in Warsaw. Its task would be to bundle the aid
and to channel it according to strict efficiency criteria. My
vision is that such an institution could function somewhat like
the Deutsche Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which traces its
origins back to the Marshall Plan."
        So, when you compare that speech that Herrhausen was about
to give four days after he was assassinated, to what Lyn said in
his speech in West Germany at the Kempinski Hotel in 1988, when
he forecast the reunification of Germany and the collapse of the
Berlin Wall, he said:
        "Let us say that the United States and western Europe will
cooperate to accomplish the successful rebuilding of the economy
of Poland. There will be interference in the political system of
government, but only a kind of Marshall Plan aid to rebuild
Poland's industry and agriculture. If Germany agrees to this, let
a process aimed at the reunification of the economies of Germany
begin; and let this be the {puntum saliens} for western
cooperation in assisting in the rebuilding of the economy of
Poland."
        So, I think in the context of this speech that Herrhausen
was about to deliver in New York, his cooperation with Helmut
Kohl in terms of the reunification of Germany; and also the fact
that he was on record calling for the debt relief — at least a
partial debt relief, if not a full debt forgiveness of the Third
World countries. He had met with the President of Mexico in 1987;
he had surprised the world by delivering a speech at the World
Bank in 1987 calling for the forgiveness of the debt of the Third
World. All of these are right in parallel with what you and Lyn
were advocating for, going all the way back to 1975, back to the
Operation Juarez and also with this Marshall Plan Productive
Triangle proposal at the fall of the Berlin Wall. So, I think
that certainly puts his assassination in the correct context to
understand {qui bono}. Who benefitted from the fact that he was
killed?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think I would to take it a little bit
back, because this is not just a question of a murder which
occurred 27 years ago. I want to recall what the period was,
because most people have forgotten that Germany was not always
unified; that the Berlin Wall came down. But this was one of the
most traumatic developments in the post-war period. You remember
that you had the peaceful demonstrations in the G.D.R. [East
Germany], the Monday demonstrations; the Warsaw Pact still
existed, and it was not clear what would happen. Would this lead
to another 1956 like in Hungary, or a new Prague Spring, where
Russian or Soviet tanks come? Then the wall came down, and Mr.
LaRouche had this idea about the German unification which you
referenced, which he presented in the Kempinski Hotel in 1988; so
we had a plan. We put out immediately this proposal for the
German unification, to have a mission; to have the Productive
Triangle to take the region from Paris, Berlin, Vienna — the
economic powerhouse of the world at that time — and develop
corridors into eastern Europe to transform Europe. We were the
only ones who had any idea, because we were the only ones who
even had an inkling that the Soviet Union would collapse; which
Mr. LaRouche had already pronosed in 1984. He said, if the Soviet
Union sticks to their military policy of the Ogarkov plan, which
was basically the idea to gain world dominance; then they will
collapse in five years. And I can assure you, not even the German
government had any idea that unification would be real; even if
that was the primary political goal of the entire post-war
period. Then the Wall came down; and in the official documents
which the German government published ten years later, they
admitted they had no contingency plan for the case of German
unification. Can you imagine that? That was the policy goal
number one to have German unification; and they had no plan. But
we did have a plan.
        So, then developments became extremely traumatic. On the
28th of November, Helmut Kohl did probably the most important
step in his entire political career by putting forward the
10-point program. This was not yet a program for German
unification, but it was a medium-term plan for the moving closer
together of the two German states; the West German and East
German states in a federation. But he did that without consulting
the Allies, and he did it without even consulting the liberal
coalition partner, Mr. Genscher; but it was a first baby step in
the direction of two German sovereignties. We know now that
Francois Mitterand put an ultimatum to Kohl and said, either you
give up the German D-mark and its being replaced by a European
common currency — what became the euro — or we will not agree
to German unification.
        Two days after Kohl had put out this 10-point program,
Herrhausen was assassinated. Everybody in the German elite at
that point — and we talked to many people at that time — said
this is not just an assassination, but since Herrhausen was the
closest advisor to Kohl, this was a message to Kohl. Don't stick
your head out; do not dare to pursue and assert sovereignty.
Because Germany in the entire post-war period was an occupied
country; and at that time the saying went, "The best-kept public
secret of NATO is that Germany is an occupied country and will
remain an occupied country." So by Kohl making this tiny baby
step in the direction of sovereignty with the 10-point program,
that obviously was the contributing factor why this assassination
occurred. As you said, if Herrhausen would have made this speech
in New York in the following week, you would have had a proposal
coming from the leading banker which was practically in principle
identical to what Mr. LaRouche and I proposed at the time;
namely, that the unified Germany should take Poland as an example
for the economic transformation of all the other countries of the
Comecon.
        Then naturally, everything went haywire. The following EU
summit in the beginning of December in Strasburg, everybody
started to attack Kohl; and in an interview later, he said these
were the darkest hours of his life. The circumstances were such
that despite the fact that Kohl knew that the euro would not
function, he said this is against German interests; and he knew
absolutely that you cannot have a European common currency
without political union. So, he knew it wouldn't function; he
knew it was against German interests. But he was forced by the
circumstances to accept it, because you had Bush, Sr. who had the
policy of containment of Germany in the EU. It is well
established that originally Bush was against the German
unification; and only because such more experienced political
advisors like Brent Scowcroft told him if you are now against
German unification, then the United States will lose all
influence in Europe, so we have to basically agree to it. But
let's make sure Germany gets contained. And that is what led to
the infamous EU Maastricht agreement, which was the beginning of
turning the EU into an imperial adjunct of the Anglo-American
system. Helmut Schmidt, the late German Chancellor, in an equally
surprising interview recently before he died, said the whole
Ukraine crisis, which is right now what could be the trigger
point for a war with Russia; really started at the Maastricht
agreement, because this is when the EU decided to do exactly what
NATO has been doing ever since. Namely, to go for an eastward
expansion and move the EU and NATO just up to the borders of
Russia.
        So, the decision which was made in these really traumatic
weeks and month, set the course; and if Herrhausen had been alive
and advised Kohl, these conceptions could have been implemented
and history would not be at the point where we are now. So, the
Herrhausen assassination not only meant the lost chance of 1989;
everybody agreed at that time this was an historic chance that
happens at best once a century. I called the star hour of
Germany, because if you had the unified Germany developing a
peace plan for the 21st Century together with Russia, the whole
world would look completely different. But as I said, all the
successes of Herrhausen went in the direction of high-risk
speculation, globalization, money for money's sake, the rich
become richer, the poor become poorer, and all the problems we
have today. All the problems we have today are not just caused by
this one assassination, but the assassination is symptomatic for
the paradigm shift to the worse.
        It's a murder which is unpunished; the so-called murderers,
the third generation of the Red Army Faction probably never
existed. There was even in the first German TV channel a
documentary which said there has never been any evidence that any
of the persons who supposedly were the murderers, ever really
existed. So, the {qui bono} — well, it's the financial oligarchy
which profited; and it really has the smell of something quite
different — of an intelligence operation — as many of the
leading figures who did not fit the Yalta norm were assassinated.
But with the Herrhausen case, as you said, for Germany this is as
important in terms of paradigm shift as the assassination was of
John F. Kennedy.
        And right now, when the entire banking system is absolutely
at the verge of collapse, it is the last moment to do justice and
really go back to the policies of Herrhausen. Even so, almost
nobody knows anymore what real industrial banking is, because
they are so money-greedy and absolutely suckers for the latest
profit, that it would be a real uphill battle. But that battle
must be fought if Europe and Germany and the rest of the
trans-Atlantic sector are to survive; and probably beyond that,
much of the world.

        BEN DENISTON: Well, I think just looking at this transition
period, I know that you and Mr. LaRouche had both made a warning
that I think is very appropriate just to state in this context.
That around the fall of the Wall, this lost chance of '89, you
had explicitly said to the world, if we attempt this bankrupt,
collapsing Soviet system with an equally bankrupt trans-Atlantic
system, you're going to head to a collapse that's worse than
what's happening now. I'm paraphrasing you; you might know more
exactly how you stated it. But it seems like that really bridges
this whole process from '89 to what we're seeing today as the
culmination, the expression of what you warned of at that time. I
think a challenge we have is to get across the importance of
acting now on the level needed to make this shift we're talking
about. What Lyn has laid out with this reform program for
Deutsche Bank is the beginning out of this new paradigm. I think
it's important to see it as an intervention in this whole
collapse process you both had warned about and forecast this
would be the consequence of failing to act then. That should give
us greater impetus to know how important it is to act now while
we still have the chance.

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I remember that at that time, you had the
problem of the Bush administration, Margaret Thatcher, Francois
Mitterand, who absolutely really ganged up to prevent Germany
from assuming any such role of having an independent policy;
especially in respect to Russia. They were always saying, "Oh,
the West has won over communism." The only other person outside
of us who totally contradicted them was John Paul II, the Pope of
the time; who said, the people who now are triumphant and say the
market economy is winning over communism, are absolutely wrong.
If you don't believe it, look at the condition of the Third
World, to see that the West has not won; because the moral
condition of the developing countries speaks to the contrary.
        Naturally, that is all the more true today; because if you
look at the inhuman treatment of the refugee crisis, for example.
They are still coming by the hundreds, every week by the
thousands, over the Mediterranean; drowning. Even more are
starving and dying of thirst and lack of water trying to cross
the Sahara. That is also the condition of this system. The system
is what causes all of this; and therefore, it is absolutely high
time that we come to the question of how can we — as a human
civilization — give us an economy and a financial system which
is adequate to human beings? And I think it's very important that
we go back to the question of what is actually the creation of
wealth? Is it what Margaret Thatcher said, is it the ability to
buy cheap and sell expensive? The famous speaking of Margaret
Thatcher being the daughter of a grocery trader, or is it the
possession of raw materials? Or is it the control of the
financial system? No; it's not. The only source of wealth is the
creative power of the human being; and when that creative power
is applied, then you have scientific and technological progress.
That is then leading to an increase of productivity in the
economy.
        That has been the battle between the American Revolution and
the British Empire; between the free-traders and people like
Alexander Hamilton who insisted that it is the creative power of
labor which causes the well-being and the living standard and the
longevity of the people. That was the philosophy of Friedrich
List, the great German economist, who is now the most famous
economist in China, by the way. That was the policy of Friedrich
List and Henry C. Carey, the advisor of Lincoln; who both advised
and through such people as Wilhelm von Kardoff, who was the
head of the German industrial association in the time of
Bismarck. Who changed the mind of Bismarck from being a
free-trader into being an absolute believer in a protectionist
system and the idea that you have to further the productivity and
creativity of your own population as the only source of wealth.
        So, there is a lot of history involved; and what we are
really talking about is taking Germany back to the ideas of
Bismarck, of Friedrich List, of Henry C. Carey, of Dr. William
Lautenbach, who in 1932 presented a plan to the Friedrich List
Organization in Germany which was identical with what Roosevelt
had proposed with the New Deal and the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, Glass-Steagall, Bretton Woods. That was all in these
proposals by Dr. William Lautenbach, who as history knows,
unfortunately were not taken up; but instead you had Hjalmar
Schacht, you had Hitler, you had before Mussolini, Franco,
Petain, and you are in bed with fascists.
        The question today is, can we, in time, go back to those
conceptions which have proven to be productive and valuable for
the economy; or are we plunging into a catastrophe of new fascism
and new wars? So, on this question of Deutsche Bank, most people
are so in the day-to-day making money, profits, and balance
sheets, and having dollar notes coming out of their eyes, that
they have forgotten that there is something much more important
about human life. And that is the happiness of people; the common
good of people.
        The reason why in this call to honor the memory of
Herrhausen, using this crisis of Deutsche Bank now as a real
paradigm shift to go back to these policies; why I mentioned the
great poem by Friedrich Schiller "The Cranes of Ibykus." And by
the way, I would really urge our audience right now, who probably
are not familiar with that poem, we have at translation which we
can put on the website so it's easily accessible. But this poem
is so powerful; it's written by Friedrich Schiller. It discusses
not only the murder of the beloved poet Ibykus, but more
importantly even, it discusses the power of nemesis; the power of
natural law, which is a power which works in reality. It's not
that God punishes every little thief who steals something
immediately by chopping off his hand; but it is a power which
revenges great injustice. And this poem discusses this in a very
beautiful way by resorting to the Greek nemesis, this idea which
was used in great Greek dramas to demonstrate this principle of
the Erinyes. That there is this power that revenges this murder
and other injustices; that there is a higher power than the
arbitrariness of people's will. The poem is very, very powerful.
As a matter of fact, I would even urge you to learn German, just
to read and understand that poem; because it teaches something
about history. I think right now the Erinyes, those goddesses of
revenge which Friedrich Schiller has in this poem marching in the
amphitheater — in circles — they are bringing forward this
higher power by the prism of the poem. It's a very, very powerful
way of reminding people that there is a higher power than what
people think when they read the daily newspaper. So, please make
the effort. Read it; in English if you have to, but read it in
German because there is another dimension to history than what
people think. And only if you bring this forward this inner
strength, this inner power which people have almost lost in the
trans-Atlantic sector because people small. They feel impotent,
they feel helpless. But what we have to unleash is exactly this
inner strength so that people really become truly human again,
and take the history and the destiny in their own hands. And
that's exactly what the message is of Friedrich Schiller; who
always thought that man is greater than his destiny by resorting
to these kinds of inner powers and higher authorities than the
laws of money.

        OGDEN: Well, you cited the Ibykus principle in your keynote
speech to the conference that you hosted three weeks ago in
Berlin; this extraordinary conference. But I thought in that
context also, you made it very clear that history is working
according to a higher law. That conference came just days after
the Brexit vote which shocked everybody and threw all of Europe
in disarray. But you said, this is the Erinyes principle in
action. Tony Blair lied to get us into the Iraq War. The Iraq War
set off a series of regime-change operations in the Middle East
that have completely destabilized this region. That has, in turn,
created this refugee crisis; and now you have the Brexit and the
disintegration of Europe as the Erinyes beginning their dreadful
dance, as you said in this statement once again.
        I think that's also highly relevant in the context of the
anticipated news today, where people have read in the press that
the 28 pages, which we have fought for years to force the release
of these 28 pages; the reports are in the press that these very
well could be released today. In what form, we don't know; how
heavily redacted, we don't know. But again, this is the Erinyes
acting, and it's our responsibility to understand this as a
principle of history; and to continue to understand that the
moral arc of the Universe may be long, but it does bend toward
justice. I think Martin Luther King also understood what
Friedrich Schiller was getting at in this poem, as you said.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that having said that, I want to
come back to the absolute need to find a handle; because right
now the problem is, nobody has a handle on how to intervene with
this financial crisis. And if the proposal of Mr. LaRouche is
taken seriously, you have a way of dealing with the consequences
of avoiding the dangers of an uncontrollable collapse. You have
to untangle this; you have to shut down this derivative system;
you have to shut down the bubble. You have to do it in an orderly
manner, because there's no point to just say let's just close it
down or tax it or whatever. You have to find a skilled level of
how you take management of a bank — in this case, the Deutsche
Bank; you have to put in a supervisory management commission
which has to evaluate the validity and integrity of the
outstanding obligations. Many of the derivatives have much more
than two parties; they have two, three, four, and more parties.
You have to untangle that. You probably have to write down the
nominal value of these outstanding obligations. That way, you can
put a new basis, a new business plan for the bank which is in
cohesion with the idea of credit policy in general. But you have
to start to do that somewhere. The Herrhausen history and
tradition is exactly what makes it very practical. We are not
proposing something completely outlandish, utopian; this was the
policy of Deutsche Bank at one point.
        So therefore, I want to bring it back to this point; and I
would really urge all the people who are watching to make sure
this proposal is being distributed to all institutions which have
anything to do with the economy, with industry, with people in
political positions who should take care of the common good. And
make sure that we get a serious debate. I know that in both
election platforms of the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party, you have the Glass-Steagall law in the platform. Now that
is very good; we will have the conventions in the next weeks.
This is not necessarily the stated position of the candidates;
but it is in the platform. So there is hope that if we mobilize
in the right way, this change can occur before it's too late. But
it's really one second, or maybe a nanosecond before midnight; so
it's not a time for complacency. It's a time for action.
Therefore, I would really urge you to join us; because we have a
beautiful future ahead of us if we do the right thing. If we miss
this moment, it can be the end of civilization; because the war
danger is very real, not only in respect to NATO against Russia,
but also the escalation around the South China Sea. We are not in
a political void, but we are in one of these moments in history
where a lot depends on the individual courage and the individual
action. Therefore, I really ask you to join us to bring history
in a better direction.

        DENISTON: Absolutely.

        OGDEN: Thank you very much for joining us today, Helga. This
was a special broadcast, and I think a very important and timely
one for the American audience. We're going to make the statement
that you wrote on this subject — which I read from in the
beginning of the broadcast — available in the video description
to this video and also on the website. This is absolutely one of
the key pieces of material that people can use to, as you said,
to do outreach to all the key layers in the United States and
elsewhere to put this proposal very seriously on the table. We
will also make the English translation of "The Cranes of Ibykus"
available to our audience as well.
        Would you like to make any final remarks before we close, or
is that a good place to conclude our broadcast?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just would like to really express my hope
that enough people recognize that we have now a point where
history will be either totally a catastrophe — and most people
are already thinking that; the people who are not completely dead
because of drugs or other problems, they know that we are in a
really unprecedented civilizational crisis. Even worse than any
of the prewar situations of the 20th Century. Just yesterday, one
of the key advisors of the Kremlin said, all the signs are of a
prewar period; and that's true. We are in a prewar period; and
unless we remove the real reason for the dynamic for war, which
is the danger of a collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial
system. Unless we remedy that, I'm almost certain that war will
happen; and if that war would happen, it's the logic of war that
in that case all weapons available will be used. In the case of
thermonuclear weapons, that would be it; there probably would not
anybody to even record what happened, because it would be the
elimination of civilization. And therefore, the remedy of the
financial crisis is not just a banking technical affair; it
really is the question of putting society back on a course where
we all can survive as a human civilization. In a certain sense,
it's what {The Federalist Papers} discussed. Can we give
ourselves a political order which is suitable for man to organize
his own affairs and govern according to the common good? So, it's
a much larger issue; and I'm very optimistic that it can be done.
But it requires an extraordinary effort, and it requires all of
you.

        OGDEN: OK, thank you very much for joining us today, Helga.
Hopefully, we can do this at some point again in the future.
Thank you all for tuning in. Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com; and take this discussion and take what Mrs.
LaRouche just had to say very much to heart. So, thank you very
much and good night.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche vil være hovedgæst ved LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast.

Vi udlægger video samt et engelsk udskrift lørdag morgen.

Bliv på kanalen!

Erklæring fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, forkvinde for det tyske parti Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet (BüSo), udstedt 12. juli, 2016:

Den overhængende trussel om Deutsche Banks konkurs er bestemt ikke den eneste udløser for en ny systemisk krise i det transatlantiske banksystem, en krise, der ville blive mange gange mere dødbringende end krisen i 2008, men som samtidig tilbyder en enestående mulighed for at forhindre et kollaps ud i kaos.

Bag det SOS-nødsignal, som Deutsche Banks cheføkonom David Folkerts-Landau har udsendt for at få et EU-program på €150 milliarder til at genkapitalisere bankerne, lurer der en fare, der åbent diskuteres i de internationale finansielle medier, for, at hele det europæiske banksystem de facto er insolvent og sidder på et bjerg af dårlige lån til mindst €2 billioner. Deutsche Bank er den internationale bank, der, med udestående derivatkontrakter for i alt €55 billioner og en gearingsfaktor på 40:1, overgår selv Lehman Brothers på tidspunktet for denne banks kollaps og derfor repræsenterer systemets farligste akilleshæl. Halvdelen af DB’s balance på regnskabet, som er styrtdykket 48 % over de seneste 12 måneder og er nede på kun 8 % af sin topværdi, udgøres af niveau 3-derivater, dvs. derivater til et beløb af ca. €800 milliarder uden en egentlig markedsvurdering.

Det kom sikkert som en overraskelse for mange, at Lyndon LaRouche, på grund af de systemiske implikationer af Deutsche Banks truende konkurs, i dag krævede, at banken blev reddet gennem en engangsforøgelse af sit kapitalgrundlag. Hverken den tyske regering med sit BNP på €4 billioner, eller EU, med sit BNP på €18 billioner, ville være i stand til at kontrollere dominoeffekten af en ikke-reglementeret konkurs. 

Denne engangskapitalindsprøjtning, forklarede LaRouche, er alene et nødtiltag, der må følges op af en omgående ny-orientering af banken, tilbage til dens tradition, der var fremherskende indtil 1989 under Alfred Herrhausens lederskab. For virkeligt at overvåge en sådan operation, må en ledelseskomité etableres, der kan verificere forpligtelsernes legitimitet og deres implikationer, og som kan afslutte dette arbejde inden for en given tidsramme. Komitéen bør også udfærdige en ny forretningsplan, baseret på Herrhausens filosofi for bankdrift, og som udelukkende er orienteret mod den tyske realøkonomis interesser.

Alfred Herrhausen var Tysklands sidste, egentlig kreative, moralske industrielle bankmand. Han forsvarede blandt andet eftergivelse af udviklingslandenes ubetalelige gæld, så vel som også langfristet kredit-finansiering af veldefinerede udviklingsprojekter. I december 1989 havde han til hensigt i New York at præsentere en polsk industrialiseringsplan, der var i overensstemmelse med de kriterier, som Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) fastsatte for genopbygningen af Tyskland efter 1945, og som ville have tilbudt et fuldstændig anderledes perspektiv end Jeffrey Sachs’ såkaldte »reformpolitik« eller chokterapi.

Se LaRouchePAC Feature-videos:

‘The Lost Chance of 1989’ (1989 – Den forspildte chance) og 'The Lost Chance of 1989: The Fall of the Wall' 

Herrhausen blev dræbt d. 30. november 1989 af den »Tredje Generation af Røde Armé Fraktion«, hvis faktiske eksistens den dag i dag stadig ikke er bevist. Det skete kun to dage efter, at kansler Helmut Kohl, der regnede Herrhausen blandt sine nærmeste rådgivere, havde præsenteret sit 10-punktsprogram for gradvist at overvinde Tysklands deling [mellem øst og vest]. Terrorangrebets Cui bono (hvem har gavn af det, -red.) er fortsat et af de mest skæbnesvangre spørgsmål i Tysklands moderne historie, og et spørgsmål, som det er påtrængende at få afklaret.[1]

Kendsgerningen er, at Herrhausens efterfølgere indførte et fundamentalt paradigmeskifte i bankens filosofi, hvilket bragte Deutsche Bank ind i den vilde verden af profitmaksimering for enhver pris, og også ind i utallige ikke-strafbare og strafbare juridiske forviklinger, som de ansvarlige hidtil ikke er stillet til ansvar for, hovedsageligt på grund af præmisserne for de banker, der er ’for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned’.

Transformeringen af Deutsche Bank til en global investeringsbank med den højeste eksponering til derivater, kombineret med den samtidige kredit-flaskehals for små og mellemstore tyske virksomheder, er symptomatisk for den dårskab, der har ført til den nuværende katastrofe.

Vi må nu handle med beslutsomhed, men ikke på den måde, som Folkerts-Landau foreslår, det vil sige, ikke med mere af den samme medicin, der blot ville slå patienten ihjel. Selv om Deutsche Bank i løbet af de senere år hovedsagligt har opereret ud fra London og New York, så er DB for vigtig for den tyske økonomi, og derfor for Tyskland, og ultimativt for hele Europas skæbne. Bankens reorganisering i Alfred Herrhausens ånd er ikke alene nøglen til at overvinde bankkrisen, men også til at afværge den akutte fare for krig.

Mordet på Herrhausen er forblevet ustraffet. Der findes imidlertid »den frygtede magt, der dømmer det, der er skjult for øjet«, hvilket er emnet for Friedrich Schillers digt »Ibykus’ Traner«. Erinyerne er begyndt på deres frygtelige dans.[2]

Det påhviler nu alle, der, udover familien, har lidt under det politiske mord på Herrhausen, repræsentanter for den tyske »Mittelstand«, den tyske økonomi og de institutionelle repræsentanter for den tyske befolkning at ære hans eftermæle og gribe den enorme mulighed, der nu gives, for at redde Tyskland.

Før jeg kommer ind på disse forskellige dødbringende farer, så ligger løsningen ligefor. Så vær fattede og bevar roen, og lad mig tale til jer. Hvis menneskeheden forenes omkring en god plan og handler solidarisk og modigt, kan enhver krise i den menneskelige civilisation overvindes, for det er menneskets natur – at, når vi bliver udfordret af et stort onde, vækkes en endog endnu større kraft for det gode i vores sjæl.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

30. juni 2016 (Leder) – Under en diskussion torsdag med sin Policy Committee og andre kolleger understregede Lyndon LaRouche, at det nuværende, finansielle system er ved at bryde sammen, og at systemet, som system, ikke kan overleve. De store, finansielle institutioner, inklusive centralbankerne, er håbløst og uigenkaldeligt bankerot. LaRouche bemærkede, at, alt imens der eksisterer en forfærdelig risiko for krig, der drives frem af de kredse, hvis magt udspringer af det aktuelle finansielle system, så er en stor del af de trusler, der kommer ud af munden på Barack Obama og nogle NATO-folk, faktisk ikke andet end bluff. Truslerne, som de udslynger imod Rusland og Kina, virker ikke.

Ikke desto mindre kan denne sammenblanding, med både den finansielle front og krigsfronten, føre til et alvorligt sammenbrud, som menneskeheden ikke er parat til at håndtere.

I denne uge udstedte både Den Internationale Valutafond (IMF) og Den Internationale Betalingsbank (BIS) rapporter, der klart indikerede hele det transatlantiske finansielle systems disintegration. Bankernes udlån i hele den avancerede sektor er totalt kollapset. Der er ingen som helst kapitalindstrømning til realøkonomien, den produktive økonomi, i henhold til de data, som BIS har frembragt. IMF har udstedt en dyster advarsel om, at Deutsche Bank står foran nedsmeltning, og alene dette kunne udløse en systemisk krise.

I takt med, at NATO-folk færdiggør planerne for statsledernes topmøde i Warszawa, Polen, den 8.-9. juli, opbygges vanviddet mod Rusland yderligere. Onsdag var præsident Obama i Ottawa til sit endelige topmøde med sine canadiske og mexicanske modparter. Han benyttede anledningen til at kaste sig ud i en tirade imod Rusland og nærmest tiggede Canada om at udsende en kampbataljon til De Baltiske Stater.

Sæt denne galskab op i kontrast til Schiller Instituttets ekstraordinære konference, der fandt sted sidste weekend i Berlin, hvor ledere fra fire kontinenter kom sammen for at diskutere spørgsmålet om et nyt paradigme for en tankegang, der skal få verden ud af den nuværende, eksistentielle katastrofe.

Som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche understregede under weekendens begivenheder i Berlin, så er det presserende nødvendigt, at vi skaber et revolutionært skifte i tankegang, der fokusere på en opbygning af en fremtid med samarbejde mellem suveræne nationer og integrerede regioner i verden. Kinas program med ’Ét bælte, én vej’ er paradigmatisk for denne nye form for tankegang, der må vedtages af ledende borgere i verden.

Det nuværende system er dødt, og det kan ikke overleve ret meget længere.

Video: Hør Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale fra konferencen i Berlin, 25.-26. juni, 2016. En dansk oversættelse af talen er på vej. Bliv på kanalen!

Titelfoto: Mineudlæggeren FNS Uusimaa fra den finske flåde sejler i Det baltiske Hav (Østersøen) under BALTOPS den 7. juni, 2016, som en del af øvelser, der skal demonstrere beslutsomhed hos styrkerne fra NATO og dens partnere.

»Jeg tror, vi alle er kommet til stede på denne konference, fordi alle, der befinder sig i denne sal, ved, at vi nu oplever en systemisk og eksistentiel civilisationskrise uden fortilfælde … Denne konference har ét emne, eller et overordnet emne, og det er at definere løsninger på denne krise: at diskutere, hvad det nye paradigme skal være, og om menneskeheden er i stand til at løse en sådan eksistentiel krise?

27. juni 2016 (Leder) – Schiller Instituttets todages internationale konference 25. – 26. juni begyndte om morgenen den 25. juni i den tyske hovedstad under temaet: »En fælles fremtid for menneskeheden og en renæssance for klassiske kulturer«.

Flere end 320 mennesker fra henved 22 lande på fire kontinenter deltog i arrangementet, der havde et udvalg af fremtrædende talere fra hele globen. (Yderligere detaljer kommer snarest.)

Det første panel adresserede den »Strategiske krise er farligere end på højden af den Kolde Krig«. Inden præsentationerne introducerede ceremonimester Elke Fimmen talerne, og hun hilste i særdeleshed Lyndon LaRouches tilstedeværelse på konferencen velkommen.

Hovedtalen blev dernæst holdt af Schiller Instituttets internationale præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der lige fra begyndelsen anslog konferencens fokus:

»Jeg tror, vi alle er kommet til stede på denne konference, fordi alle, der befinder sig i denne sal, ved, at vi er i færd med at opleve en systemisk og eksistentiel civilisationskrise uden fortilfælde. Vi har sammenfaldet mellem faren for krig, hvor NATO konfronterer Rusland på en meget, meget aggressiv måde – hvilket kunne føre til en Tredje Verdenskrig. Vi har en amerikansk konfrontation mod Kina i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Vi har faren for en ny, 2008-type finansiel krise, der kunne få det finansielle system til at nedsmelte, og så var der for to dage siden selvfølgelig Brexit – Storbritannien, der stemte for at forlade den Europæiske Union. Og som vi alle ved, så var dette ikke en stemme imod Europa som sådan, men imod et komplet uretfærdigt system og en korrupt elite.

Denne konference har ét emne, eller et overordnet emne, og det er at definere løsninger på denne krise: at diskutere, hvad det nye paradigme skal være, og om menneskeheden er i stand til at løse en sådan eksistentiel krise?

Vi har fremtrædende talere fra fire kontinenter, fra mange lande, og dette er selvsagt folk, eller er repræsentanter for den slags folk, der er fast besluttet på at finde en løsning. Og før jeg kommer nærmere ind på disse forskellige dødsfarer, så er løsningen nem. Så vær opmærksom og fattet. Hvis menneskeheden forener sig om en god plan og handler i solidaritet og modigt, så kan enhver krise i den menneskelige civilisation overvindes, for dette er den menneskelige natur – at, når vi udfordres af et stort onde, vækkes en endnu større kraft for det gode i vores sjæl.«

Den verdenskendte amerikanske statsmand Lyndon LaRouche vendte tilbage til dette tema i sine bemærkninger under spørgsmål-og-svar-sessionen, hvor han udtalte:

»Dette betyder, at vi, grundlæggende set, har ansvaret for, hvad der vil ske med menneskeheden.«

»Hvordan løser vi rent faktisk dette problem? Man gør det, at man går ud og bedriver noget videnskab. Man anvender videnskab til at skabe en metode for kreativitet. Man baserer derfor det hele, ikke på menneskeheden som sådan, men på den kreative kraft. Det er, hvad jeg generelt har gjort i det meste af mit liv. Man må øge det menneskelige intellekts arbejdes produktive evne. Man må give det individuelle menneske en større evne til kreativitet for menneskeligt liv.«

Foto: Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche holder hovedtalen lørdag, den 25. juni, 2016, i Berlin. (Foto: Julien Lemaitre)

Klokken er, i bogstavelig forstand, ét minut i midnat. Elementær overlevelse vil kræve, at vi vågner op, før vi her i Europa ofres som kanonføde i en angiveligt begrænset atomkrig på alteret for det anglo-amerikanske imperiums geopolitiske interesser, et imperium, hvis krav om at herske over en unipolær verden ikke længere kan opretholdes. Hvis der under NATO-topmødet i Warszawa i begyndelsen af juli måned finder en yderligere opbygning af det amerikanske BMD-system sted – det er bl.a. planlagt at forbinde systemet i Rumænien med krigsskibene, som er udstyret med Aegis-systemet, der kan affyre missiler – så kunne vi meget hurtigt nå det punkt, hvor der ikke er nogen vej tilbage.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Foto: Amerikanske soldater i et troppetransport fly.

Netop nu befinder den generelle menneskehed sig under en alvorlig trussel om undergang, på global skala. Det betyder ikke, at det nødvendigvis vil finde sted. Det betyder, at, hvis vi gør de rigtige ting, kan vi undfly disse trusler. Det er, hvor vi står generelt, lige nu.  Og hvis du vil gøre noget ved det, så lad os tale om det

9. juni 2016 (Leder) – I går lykkedes det næsten indgriben fra FBI at forhindre Lyndon LaRouches deltagelse via internet i en stor konference i Nordcalifornien, arrangeret af hans medarbejdere. Hvis ikke lederskabet dér havde grebet ind i tide, ville LaRouche ikke have kunnet deltage.

Da LaRouche endelig kunne tale, var hans udgangspunkt den aktuelle, akutte trussel mod den menneskelige eksistens.

»Det væsentligste spørgsmål, jeg bekymrer mig om, er truslerne mod den menneskelige arts eksistens, i det totale område, lige nu. For, lige nu, på dette tidspunkt, står hele den menneskelige arts eksistens på den yderste rand, og vi må derfor være lydhøre over for at forstå, hvad det er for problemer, der er involveret i det her, og hvad det er for midler, der kan sikre en udvej for menneskeheden generelt.

Netop nu befinder den generelle menneskehed sig under en alvorlig trussel om undergang, på global skala. Det betyder ikke, at det nødvendigvis vil finde sted. Det betyder, at, hvis vi gør de rigtige ting, kan vi undfly disse trusler. Det er, hvor vi står generelt, lige nu.  Og hvis du vil gøre noget ved det, så lad os tale om det.«

 Men fra dette øjeblik og fremefter – lad os sige det ligeud – rev hovedindholdet i LaRouches bemærkninger slemt i nerverne på mange lyttere. Han blev ved med at komme tilbage til spørgsmålet om personlig identitet, men især spørgsmålet om hans egen personlige identitet. På et spørgsmål om, hvordan det individuelle sind overvinder forhindringer for at vinde en kamp for menneskeheden, svarede han:

»Lad mig sige, at jeg har temmelig gode levnedsegenskaber. Jeg er en aktiv person i samfundet, og jeg er en ældre person, og en erfaren, ældre person, en af de mest erfarne af alle personer i denne kategori. Så jeg tror ikke, nogen ville have nogen vanskeligheder med at forstå, hvem jeg er, hvad jeg er, hvor jeg kom fra og hvad jeg gør.

Andre personer holder måske fast ved en idé om en anden identitet hos en anden person, som jeg ikke kender, men sådan synes det at være.«

LaRouche drejede næsten hvert spørgsmål rundt på denne måde. Dette her irriterer dig måske, men det første spørgsmål, du skal stille dig selv, er: er det sandt? Er det sådan, at »tingene bare sker«, eller er det sådan, at »tingene bringes til at ske« af mænd og kvinder, der, som LaRouche sagde, er »kvalificeret til at skabe historie?« Da MacArthur blev tvunget ud af Filippinerne den 12. marts 1942, var det da rigtigt af ham at sige, »Jeg vender tilbage«, eller burde han have ændret det til »vi vender tilbage«? Ville mennesket have klaret at komme til Månen i 1969 – eller nogensinde – hvis det ikke havde været for den enlige skikkelse, den første og største tyske rumpioner, Hermann Oberth (1894-1989). Oberth var fattig det meste af sit liv. Efter at have kæmpet for rumrejser i årtier, havde han næppe mødt en eneste person, der både var enig i, og forstod, disses betydning. Men det er takket være denne »næppe en eneste person«, såsom Werner von Braun, at vi fik den revolution, som var rumprogrammet.

På et spørgsmål om, hvordan vi kan afgøre, hvorvidt vore forestillinger er fantasteri eller er sandfærdige, svarede LaRouche:

»Hvorfor siger vi simpelthen ikke, lad os identificere et sandfærdigt eksempel, en sandfærdig identitet. Jeg er. Og enhver, der vil benægte dette, ville tage fejl, ville være tåbelig.

Jeg er kendt som, identificeret som en historisk skikkelse igennem det meste af det 20. århundrede, og de fleste mennesker fra det 20. århundrede bør vide, hvem jeg er, og de bør vide, hvad jeg gør. De kender måske ikke alle detaljer omkring, hvad jeg gør, men sådan er det: Jeg er en prominent, en særdeles prominent, skikkelse på denne planet, blandt de mest prominente.«

Den senere del af det 20. århundrede ville have været uigenkendelig, hvis det ikke havde været for LaRouches sejr over det britiske, økonomiske system i en debat i 1971 på Queens College, New York, som dernæst, ad indirekte veje, førte til hans sejr med det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ i Reaganregeringen i 1983.

Dette banede igen vejen for hans og hans hustru Helgas initiativ, som nu er blevet til den Eurasiske Landbro og den Nye Silkevej, og som er det 21. århundredes hovedudvikling frem til i dag.

Hvorfor er det så irriterende at lytte til det indlysende: at LaRouche er en hovedskikkelse i det 20. og 21. århundrede? Fordi vi i skolen lærte om demokratiets dyder? Er det den virkelige årsag, eller skyldes det snarere, at vi lukker ørerne, fordi vi finder det mere beroligende for os personligt at benægte, at nogen mand eller kvinde rent faktisk kan være ansvarlig for menneskets tilstand og menneskehedens skæbne?

Læs her Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedindlæg på konferencen i San Francisco, Californien, den 8. juni:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Schiller Instituttets Strategiske Seminar i San Francisco den 8. juni tiltrak 70 gæster og eksperter for at diskutere det presserende nødvendige spørgsmål: »Vil USA gå med i Den Nye Silkevej? Global, videnskabelig udvikling, eller atomkrig«. Denne plan går ud på at tilslutte sig en plan for infrastruktur i hele verden, med navnet Ét bælte, én vej, og som Kina har fremlagt, eller også blive sammen med de kollapsende, vestlige økonomier, hvis bankerot leverer ved til det bål, som er en global atomkrig. Listen to the entire seminar on SoundCloud

De højtplacerede talere inkluderede Lyndon LaRouche, berømmet strategisk og økonomisk tænker; Helga Zepp-LaRouche, også kendt som »Silkevejsladyen« pga. sin verdensomspændende kampagne for at skabe den »Silkevejspolitik«, som Kina nu har fremlagt, og for at få denne politik vedtaget på verdensplan som alternativet til krig; den amerikanske senator Mike Gravel (senator 1969-1981), der indlæste de hemmeligstemplede »Pentagon Papers« ind i Kongresprotokollen i 1971; honorære konsul Sergei Petrov, generalkonsul for det Russiske Konsulat i San Francisco; dr. Howard Chang, internationalt kendt ekspert i vandsedimentering, samt Kesha Rogers, to gange demokratisk kandidat i Houstons 22. C.D. (kongresdistrikt) – hjemsted for NASA. De stedlige russiske, kinesiske, japanske og filippinske lokalsamfund var repræsenteret blandt publikum.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche præsenterede tilhørerne for det faktum, at NATO’s deployering på Ruslands grænser, med AEGIS-systemet i Rumænien, og krigsskibet USS Ross i Sortehavet, efterlader russerne i en position, hvor NATO-missiler kunne nå Moskva på fem minutter – hvilket nødvendiggør en politik med »Affyr ved varsel«. Ulig i 1980’erne, hvor tusinder af mennesker demonstrerede imod atommissilerne i Europa og Rusland, der var sat til »affyring ved varsel«, så har de neokonservative i Obamaregeringen genskabt denne fare, uden nogen protester i Vesten. Faren for en konfrontation med Kina i Det sydkinesiske Hav er også til stede.

I dette klima traf Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i 2013 beslutningen om at gøre en ende på geopolitik og at genetablere den Nye Silkevej, og at bygge infrastruktur for vand, elektricitet og transport i hele verden. Zepp-LaRouche påpegede Kinas 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer, som er bygget i løbet af 2015, hvorimod der ikke findes nogen hurtigtog i USA. Hun konkluderede: »Gå sammen med Kina i jeres egen interesse, eller stå over for atomkrig.«

Fr. LaRouche adresserede problemet med, at Obama fortsat er præsident, ved at påpege den presserende nødvendige frigivelse af de klassificerede »28 sider« af Den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, 2001, og Obamas afvisning af at frigive disse sider, der vides at indeholde bevis for saudiernes finansiering og sponsorering af terrorangrebet 11. september, hvilket kunne sprænge hul i amerikansk politik og gøre det muligt at vælge en kvalificeret kandidat, af samme støbning som Franklin D. Roosevelt eller præsident Kennedy. Herefter fulgte spørgsmål fra tilhørerne.

Efter Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom et indlæg fra den russiske konsul i San Francisco, Sergei Petrov: »For et stort land som USA, er det gavnligt at se på verden.« På et spørgsmål fra senator Mike Gravel om, hvorvidt han (Petrov) var enig i Helga LaRouches vurdering, svarede han: »Jeg er enig i den forståelse, at vi er meget tæt på en storkonflikt. Og jeg tilføjer, at der ikke er nogen som helst mulighed for en ’begrænset atomkrig’. Hvis den begynder, bliver det verdens ende.«

Hr. Petrov beskrev USSR’s opløsning i Statssamfundet af Uafhængige Stater, med alvorlige, økonomiske problemer, og trinnene i den lange proces med at opbygge den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union. EAEU søger nu at indgå aftaler med Mercosur, SCO og EU om økonomisk og humanitært samarbejde. Næste skridt bliver at indgå forbindelse til Nordamerika. På denne dag, sagde hr. Petrov, »vil jeg føle, jeg har været en god diplomat«.

Show Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynote and Q&A
Show Lyndon LaRouche Q&A

Jeg tror, at, hvis man ser på verdenssituationen, især på den amerikanske offentlighed, der næsten intet ved om situationen; folk i Europa ved lidt mere, men, hvis man sammenligner den umiddelbart forestående fare for en eskalering af konfrontationen mellem NATO, USA og Storbritannien og så Rusland og Kina på den anden side, så er viden om det så svag, at dette for mig står som det mest skræmmende aspekt; for, fraværet af en offentlig debat om den mulige udslettelse at hele civilisationen, om det så skyldes mange folks ligegyldighed, fordi de simpelt hen er ligeglade, eller det skyldes, at de er for bange til at tænke tanken til ende¸ men manglen på en offentlig debat er det, vi må ændre.     

Vi står på kanten af atomkrig. 

Alt dette finder sted over for flere akutte, strategiske kriser: én på den russiske grænse i Østeuropa; en anden i Sydvestasien; endnu én omkring Korea; og atter igen en anden omkring Det sydkinesiske Hav. Hver af disse konflikter kunne blive udløsermekanismen for en global atomkrig. Og folk flipper virkelig ud, for det forestående NATO-topmøde, der vil finde sted i begyndelsen af juli i Warszawa, er planlagt til at manifestere alle mulige former for forandringer, som at flytte fire store bataljoner med 1000 tropeenheder i hver ind i de baltiske lande; som, på dagen, hvor dette julitopmøde finder sted, da at forbinde den nyligt installerede BMD-komponent (ballistisk missilforsvar) i Rumænien med krigsskibene af Aegis-klassen, som allerede er deployeret i det baltiske område og i Sortehavet og andetsteds. Og dette er nu i færd med meget hurtigt at nå til et punkt, hvor Rusland har sagt, at de ikke kan tolerere en fortsat opsætning af dette ballistiske missilsystem, fordi det tydeligvis er rettet mod Rusland, og det tilsigter tydeligvis at ødelægge Ruslands gengældelsesevne, og det har aldrig, hvad der ellers altid har været påskuddet, det har aldrig været rettet mod den angivelige missiltrussel fra Iran.

Allerede for to eller tre år siden har det russiske militær fremstillet videoanimationer, der viser, at de systemer, der nu er installeret i Polen, i Rumænien, i Bulgarien, i Spanien og på disse krigsskibe, i virkeligheden er tiltænkt at skulle ramme Rusland. Men især efter, at man har indgået en aftale mellem P5+1, med Iran, og som hæmmer faren for missiler, der kommer fra Iran, findes et sådant påskud ikke længere. Det er nu blevet bemærket af sådanne personer som professor Stephen Cohen fra New Yorks universitet, at dette meget klart har til hensigt at lancere en krig. En anden, meget betydningsfuld taler fra Rusland, general Leonid Ivashov, sagde, at det, vi nu ser, er klare skridt som forberedelse til krig.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Selve ideen om, at AfD skulle være opstået som en reaktion på euroens krise, flygtningekrisen eller ”politisk islam”, er fuldstændig fejlagtig. Den Konservative Revolution, den tradition, som det Nye Højre udtrykkeligt går ind for, og hvis tekster Götz Kubitscheks publikation Antaia udgiver, har eksisteret i en ubrudt fortsættelse, lige siden dens fremkomst som en reaktion imod ”Ideerne fra 1789” – således i 225 år gennem manifestationer, der i heldigste fald kun tilsyneladende ændrede sig.

Læs del I her 

27. maj 2016 – Horst Seehofers påstand om, at Angela Merkels fejlagtige immigrationspolitik forklarer den hastige vækst af Alternative für Deutschland (partiet Alternativ for Tyskland), er totalt simplificeret, og derfor forkert. Selvfølgelig var stigningen af antallet af flygtninge præcis det, som visse politikere ventede på, såsom ”leder” af AfD, Björn Höcke, der opildnede befolkningens sociale ængstelse ved hjælp af demagogiske argumenter. Flygtninge har selvsagt ikke tidligere indbetalt bidrag til sundhedsforsikringsfonde eller den sociale sikkerhedspulje, sådan, som et af AfD’s favoritmantraer lyder, for hvordan skulle de have kunnet det? Skulle de måske for nogen år siden have henvendt sig til den amerikanske eller britiske ambassade i deres land for at oprette en kredit som kompensation for den fremtidige ødelæggelse af deres hjem i geopolitisk motiverede krige?

Dette eksempel tydeliggør, at man kan tage en udtalelse, der, snævert anskuet, ikke i sig selv er falsk – nemlig den, at ”flygtningene aldrig har indbetalt noget til det sociale sikkerhedssystem” – og videreformidle en falsk information herigennem, falsk, fordi den reducerer en kompleks situation, såsom hvorfor, flygtningene i det hele taget blev flygtninge, ned til et meget snævert aspekt af situationen. Den første impuls bag fr. Merkels flygtningepolitik – da hun sagde, ”Vi kan klare det!” – var korrekt og i overensstemmelse med Genève-flygtninge-konventionen. Dér, hvor hun til syvende og sidst gik forkert, var, at, alt imens, hun igen og igen sagde, at man måtte eliminere årsagerne til flygtningekrisen, så sagde hun aldrig, hvad disse årsager var.

Antiislamisk Pegida-demonstration den 12. januar, 2015, i Dresden, efter skudepisoden på bladet Charlie Hebdo i Paris.

For at gøre dette måtte man være opmærksom på den rolle, som Saudi-Arabien spillede i angrebene den 11. september, 2001, såvel som også de krige, der var baseret på løgne, og som USA førte i Sydvestasien som angivelige repressalier for disse angreb, samt også det ”allierede” Saudi-Arabiens rolle i Tyrkiet, i finansieringen af diverse wahhabi-islamistiske organisationer, fra al-Qaeda til al-Nusra og ISIS, snarere end at forlade sig på disse to nationer for at dæmme op for flygtningestrømmen.

I lyset af det ramaskrig, der nu raser i USA over Saudi-Arabiens veldokumenterede støtterolle for terrororganisationer – man erindrer sig det amerikanske Senats enstemmige vedtagelse af Loven for Retfærdighed imod Terrorsponsorer (JASTA), og kampen for ophævelse af hemmeligstemplingen af de berømte, endnu hemmelige 28 sider fra Den fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport over 11. september – i lyset af dette er det sigende, at fr. Merkel fortsat er tavs omkring skandalen med saudiernes rolle. For, de faktiske ”årsager til flygtningekrisen” ligger i hele dette begivenhedskompleks.

Den anden fejltagelse, som fr. Merkel begår, er at nægte, sammen med Rusland og Kina at fremlægge et funktionsdygtigt perspektivfor genopbygningen af de befriede områder – indledningsvis Syrien, og dernæst hele Sydvestasien – og som kun kan gennemføres inden for den større ramme af Den Nye Silkevej.

Ifølge FN findes der allerede 60 millioner flygtninge eller fordrevne mennesker i hele verden. Lederen af Det Verdensøkonomiske Forum, Klaus Schwab, sagde for nylig i Davos, at, i tilfælde af, at der finder et yderligere fald sted i prisen på råmaterialer, kunne en milliard mennesker fra de sydlige lande begive sig ud på rejsen mod nord. I tilfælde af, at et ukontrollabelt kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem finder sted – hvilket er en reel mulighed i betragtning af centralbankernes negative rentesatser, samt debatten om ’helikopter-penge’ (ubegrænset pengetrykning, -red.), kunne dette tal stige endnu mere pga. den globale indvirkning heraf.

De europæiske forholdsregler, som fr. Merkel gik med til – nemlig at beskytte EU’s ydre grænser gennem Frontex-organisationen og forhandlingen af en hestehandel med den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan – er derfor ikke alene totalt ude af stand til at fungere, men de nægter også flygtningene den beskyttelse, de har ret til iflg. international lov. Disse forholdsregler afslører, at de ”europæiske værdier”, som EU konstant reklamerer højlydt med, for længst er blevet forvandlet til barbarisme. Det er sådan, resten af verden ser det. Kendsgerningen er, at hele verden lægger mærke til og diskuterer EU’s foragtelighed i dette spørgsmål.

For at understrege pointen: Den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan afhjælpe den største, humanitære katastrofe, siden 2. Verdenskrig, er igennem en omfattende, økonomisk udvikling – en Ny Silkevejs-Marshallplan, om man vil – for hele Mellemøsten og Afrika, og som opbygger disse ødelagte lande, såvel som også de totalt underudviklede lande, og som giver de mennesker, der lever dér, et perspektiv for en bedre fremtid. For at gøre det, må vi gøre en ende på konfrontationen med Rusland og Kina og samarbejde med Rusland, Kina, Iran, Egypten og mange andre lande om sådanne udviklingsperspektiver. Rammen hertil er allerede på plads med Kinas Nye Silkevej og tilbuddet om et win-win-samarbejde.

Det er netop dette unikke perspektiv for en løsning, som AfD udelukker, på grund af partiets mildt sagt chauvinistiske ideologi. Frem for alt gør partiets tilknytning til neoliberale, monetaristiske dogmer det totalt ude af stand til at søge løsninger, endsige finde dem.

Den konservative revolution

Selve ideen om, at AfD skulle være opstået som en reaktion på euroens krise, flygtningekrisen eller ”politisk islam”, er fuldstændig fejlagtig. Den Konservative Revolution, den tradition, som det Nye Højre udtrykkeligt går ind for, og hvis tekster Götz Kubitscheks publikation Antaia udgiver, har eksisteret i en ubrudt fortsættelse, lige siden dens fremkomst som en reaktion imod ”Ideerne fra 1789” – således i 225 år gennem manifestationer, der i heldigste fald kun tilsyneladende ændrede sig.

Blandt de omfattende skrifter om dette emne finder vi Armin Mohlers let redigerede afhandling fra 1949, som første gang blev udgivet i bogform i 1950 med titlen, Den konservative revolution. Den udløste en storm af vrede på det tidspunkt, for den var, kun fire år efter afslutningen af Anden Verdenskrig, et forsøg på at behandle fascistiske ideer kvasi-akademisk, som om de ikke direkte havde forårsaget katastrofale resultater for Tyskland og for verden. I sin bog forklarede Mohler, at den ”Konservative Revolution” er et synonym for det, der almindeligvis kendes som fascisme.

Ifølge Mohler er de, der udtænker dette, små, intellektuelt livlige celler, højeksplosive sekter og løse kombinationer af eliten, der forbliver i baggrunden. De udarbejder programmerne ”oppefra”, som dernæst præsenteres med simple ord til masserne, der ser sig selv som nogen, der har fået en rå skæbne. Mohler beskrev forholdet mellem de intellektuelle og det jævne folk på følgende måde:

”Den overordnede gruppe holder sine masser sammen gennem organisatorisk tilknytning til en doktrin, der er tilpasset den jævne mand og indskrænket til kun at omfatte slagord, og giver kun mulighed for en plads til mere overlegne hjerner i det omfang, de tager del i at tæmme masserne og begrænse disses mentale evner til det esoteriske område. Men flertallet af dem, der besidder et intellekt over det gennemsnitlige, samles i små cirkler, der skaber genklang i form af en konstant, mental spænding, mener, at de selv er de eneste, der besidder den ægte viden og anklager den store gruppe for realpolitik, for at forråde ’ideen’”.

(Kursivering tilføjet)[1]

Mange ledende medlemmer af AfD ser Instituttet for Statspolitik (Institut für Staatspolitik), det Nye Højres tænketank, som Götz Kubitschek og Karlheinz Weissmann stiftede i 2000, som en form for sted, der ”skaber genklang i form af en konstant, mental spænding”. Optræningskurser afholdes her med jævne mellemrum og er blevet taget af 5000 mennesker. Björn Höcke refererer til dette institut som sin ”spirituelle manna”.

En opdateret nationalsocialisme

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung citerede en e-mail, som Bernd Lucke, der for nylig blev smidt ud af AfD, skrev til partiets eksekutive komite på det tidspunkt, hvor Kubitschek og hans hustru, Ellen Kositza, søgte at blive optaget som medlemmer. Kubitschek var dukket op ved Pegida- og Legida-begivenheder[2] iført en sort skjorte og brun jakke, skrev han. ”Enhver, der ikke ser en henvisning til de fascistiske bevægelser i Europa i 1920’erne og 1930’erne, er et fjols.” På det tidspunkt blev de begge nægtet medlemskab. I dag er Lucke ude, og Kubitschek anses af mange AfD-medlemmer som det intellektuelle lederskab.

I slutningen af sidste år gav Höcke et slående foredrag på instituttet, hvor han med forbløffende oprigtighed fremlagde den radikale, biologiske determinisme, der er typisk for det Nye Højre. Han sagde, at fr. Merkels vanvittige asylpolitik havde igangsat en ”selvforstærkende malstrøm”, og at vi måtte forsvare os imod asylansøgere, fordi Afrika producerer ”et befolkningsoverskud” på 30 millioner mennesker om året. Der må sættes grænser ved at nægte asyl således, at Afrika kan opnå en miljømæssig bæredygtig rate af befolkningstilvækst.

Ifølge Höcke er problemet, at Afrika og Europa har to forskellige strategier for reproduktion. Afrika har den livsbekræftende form for reproduktion, som der refereres til med et ”lille r”, mens Europa har en negativ strategi for elementær befolkningserstatning, som der refereres til med et ”stort K”. De har derfor to totalt forskellige strategier for reproduktion, der nu støder sammen over den optimale brug af Lebensraum. (Levesteder) 

Enoghalvfjerds år efter afslutningen af det nationalsocialistiske herredømme er det utænkeligt, at nogen skulle vove at påkalde en bestemt befolkningsgruppes ”overskudsbefolkning” og Lebensraum. Og at underkaste folks demografiske udvikling til ”miljømæssigt bæredygtige” niveauer, er nøjagtig den samme, inhumane holdning, der karakteriserer den grønne bevægelses miljøfascisme.

Höcke lånte tilsyneladende termerne ”lille r” og ”store K” fra de amerikanske miljøforkæmpere Robert MacArthur og Edward O. Wilson og deres teorier om koloniseringen af levesteder.[3] Den tankegang, der her kommer frem, er værre end racisme; den nægter en stor del af den menneskelige race sin faktiske menneskelighed, den egenskab, der adskiller menneskelige væsner som en skabende art fra alle andre livsformer, i betragtning af deres evne til at udøve skabende fornuft.

Tyske borgere, der er bekymret for vort samfunds udhuling, for vort lands sikkerhed, deres egen personlige fremtid og meget andet, bør under ingen omstændigheder begå den fejl at falde for ”doktrinen reduceret til slagord”. For skjult bag disse sætninger findes der et billede af mennesket, der er uforeneligt med europæiske eller tyske værdier (for så vidt som man forstår disse som omfattende humanismen hos Nicolaus Cusanus (Nikolaus von Kues), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Felix Mendelssohn, Friedrich Schiller og Albert Einstein), men som i stedet er i overensstemmelse med den racisme, der engang kastede vort land ud i katastrofen.

Fortsættelse følger.     

Foto: PEGIDA- demonstration i Dresden, Tyskland, 12. januar 2015, efter terrorangrebet mod det franske, satiriske blad "Charlie Hebdo" 7. januar 2015.  

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: "Idet vi taler om og tænker på de soldater, der døde i krige, vil jeg gerne understrege, at, i en tid med atomvåben burde det stå enhver på denne planet klart, at krig ikke længere kan være en mulighed til løsning af nogen som helst konflikt. For, hvis det skulle komme til det utænkelige, at der blev en udveksling af atomvåben – tja, der findes nu nogle teorier, der siger, at man kan have en ’begrænset’ atomkrig – en regional atomkrig, der kan vindes. Men jeg tror, at enhver, der har undersøgt sagen lidt mere i dybden, som for eksempel at læse, hvad Ted Postol har skrevet, der uddybende har argumenteret for, hvorfor noget sådant som en begrænset atomkrig ikke findes, og ikke kan findes. Af den simple grund, at enhver, der antager dette, overser den fundamentale forskel mellem en konventionel krig, hvor målet er at slå fjenden, afvæbne ham og så stoppe krigen; men, med anvendelse af atomvåben vil alle eksisterende våben blive brugt, og de vil blive brugt omgående. Og skulle det komme til dette, ville det betyde civilisationens omgående udslettelse."    

New York, 28. maj 2016 – Engelsk udskrift. 

Tune this Memorial Day weekend at 12:30 pm eastern Saturday for a conference in Manhattan featuring live participation from Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

TRANSCRIPT

DENNIS SPEED: We are going to begin today this Memorial Day Weekend with this special presentation. We talk and have been speaking at several of these meetings for the past several weeks about the idea of a so-called living memorial. This was an idea that Mr. Lyndon LaRouche initially expressed in a response to matters that have been very much in the news recently concerning 9/11.  But also recently, if only a few weeks ago, a Victory in Europe Day or Victory over Fascism Day. This was also the theme of the Immortal Regiment demonstrations that were done in Russia and in other places. However, there's a bigger idea between on the idea of the living memorial we'd like to point out. When you talk about China and the Second World War, most Americans have no idea that there may have been as many as 50 million civilian casualties in China during the Second World War. Most Americans have no idea that the official counts for Russia, for the Soviet Union, are between 24 and 27 million dead. And so, when we speak about the idea of the Second World War, and we think about, for example, the fact that there were countries like India, that were colonized by the British, didn't have the freedoms, that they were being told to fight for in that war.

The true issues behind what the keynote speaker of this morning is going to be talking about are left unrealized. It's been well over, now, 25 years that Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche led a campaign, which at different times had slightly different names. But it was a campaign that all veterans will understand. The campaign for the World Land-Bridge, first called the Eurasian Triangle, then called the Productive Triangle, and then the New Silk Road, and now called the World Land-Bridge, is the only real, living memorial you can give to the people who died, not merely during the Second World War, but in many, many other wars, and in the wars that are continuing today.

There are recent developments of a very important nature in this area, but there is also the extraordinary danger of war, a global war that can wipe out humanity. So we thought it was important this Memorial Day to remind people that the idea of fighting wars, is to end all war; and that that's the only way that you can truly celebrate the contributions and sacrifices that people make. And so, the idea that Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche put forward, the World Land-Bridge, this idea, that is the idea and the only idea that is the actual appropriate means by which we can, I think, even begin to think about the importance of the deaths and the sacrifices that veterans all over the world have made to bring us to this moment where we are capable of ending war forever on our planet.

It's always my honor and privilege to introduce, on these occasions, Helga LaRouche, the founder and chairman of the Schiller Institute, who will now address us. Helga?

HELGA LAROUCHE: Hello. (applause) Dear members of the LaRouche PAC, guests of the Schiller Institute, dear friends, it is a great pleasure for me to talk to you today.  And as we are talking and thinking about the soldiers who died in wars, I want to stress that in the time of thermonuclear weapons, it should be clear to anybody on this planet that war cannot be an option anymore to solve any conflict. Because if it would come to the unthinkable that you would have the exchange of nuclear weapons, well, there are some theories, right now, that you could have a limited nuclear war — a winnable, regional, nuclear war.

But I think that anybody who has studied the matter a little bit more in depth, like, for example, reading the writings of Ted Postol, who has made the very elaborated argument why such a thing as a limited nuclear war does not and cannot exist. Simply because, anybody who assumes that, overlooks the fundamental difference between conventional war, where the aim is to defeat your enemy, to disarm him, and then to stop the war; but with the use of nuclear weapons, it is the logic of such a war that once it starts, all existing weapons will be used and they will be used instantly. And if it would come to this point, it would be the immediate extinction of civilization.

And I think that was clearly understood at the height of the Cold War. You had the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, where it was very clear that either we survived together or we all die together. But that MAD strategy has been eroded since quite some time; because now you have all kinds of scenarios with the idea of winning war by having smarter, smaller, leaner, more usable, more precise, nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and that therefore you could use them. But that is now a mortal danger to civilization. We have been warning of that quite some time ago. We made a movie called, "Unsurvivable." We made many speeches about it, and we were almost, with few other people, the lonely callers in the desert. But now, in the last several weeks, there is a sudden eruption of awareness of many people who are now speaking out, warning that things have gone completely haywire.

This is all happening in front of several acute strategic crises: one on the Russian border in Eastern Europe; another one in Southwest Asia; still another one around Korea; and another one around the South China Sea. Each of these conflicts could become the trigger point for a global nuclear war. And people are really freaking out, because the upcoming NATO summit, which will take place at the beginning of July in Warsaw, is scheduled to manifest all kinds of changes, like moving four major battalions of 1,000 troops each into the Baltic countries; of linking at the date of that July summit, the recently installed BMD (ballistic missile defense) component in Romania with the Aegis class destroyers which are deployed already in the Baltics and the Black Sea and elsewhere. And that is reaching very quickly a point where Russia has said that they cannot tolerate a continuous building of this ballistic missile system, because it's clearly aimed at Russia, and it's clearly aimed to take out the second strike capability of Russia, and it has never been what always was the pretext, it has never been against the supposed missile threat from Iran.

Now already two or three years ago, the Russian military had produced video animations showing that the systems installed now in Poland, in Romania, in Bulgaria, in Spain, and on these warships, are really assigned to hit Russia. But especially after the P5+1 deal with Iran containing the danger of missiles coming from Iran, has been agreed upon, there is no more such pretext. Now it has been noted by such people, like the New York University professor Stephen Cohen, that this is very clearly with the intent to launch a war. Another very important speaker from Russia, General Leonid Ivashov, said what we are seeing right now are clear steps in preparation for war.

Now it is very significant that even in Germany, somebody who I would characterize as a staunch Atlanticist, somebody belonging absolutely to the mainstream establishment, last week called a very important article in the conservative daily newspaper Die Welt with the headline, "No Protocol Will Save Us From Nuclear War." And there he talks about the modernization of nuclear weapons; the fact that they are supposedly less, even so, one has to say that the Obama administration has reduced less nuclear weapons from the stockpile than any other post-Cold War administration before, and the rate of reduction has been slowing down significantly. Now what this Michael Stuermer notes is that people should not assume that because these nuclear weapons become fewer, smaller, that this is good news. To the contrary, it is more reason to worry; because the very idea that these weapons are usable is lowering the threshold of them actually being used. And then he says, the problem is that during the Cold War, the military and political leadership had a very clear understanding of what Mutual Assured Destruction would mean, namely the annihilation of all of mankind. But we have now new generations of both political and military leadership, who don't even pay attention to it anymore. And he said, all these almost fatal incidents, which are taking place now almost every day either over the Baltic Sea, or in the Black Sea, or in the South China Sea, they would have, in former times, put the alarm clocks to the highest noise possible; because people would have recognized how quickly such an accidental almost-incident could lead to the global war. And other statements in the recent months have made very clear that both the system of NATO and of Russia are all the time on launch-on-warning, and therefore, the actual decision-making time of any side, either the President of the United States or in that case the Russian President,  have is about 3 to 6 minutes, at best half an hour. So we are sitting on a potential Armageddon, which if people would just think about it, they would really do everything possible to stop that.

Now there is right now a growing awareness of this. There was a hearing in the US Senate where Senator Feinstein commented on the fact that the United States is now committing $1 trillion in the next decades to modernize the nuclear arsenals, including the tactical nuclear weapons, the B-61-12, which are stationed mostly in Europe; that makes the idea of using these weapons more within reach and that alone is utterly immoral because of the implication that it could lead to the extinction of civilization.

We have a similar situation like that in Europe, right now, in the South China Sea. There is a lot of propaganda that China is supposedly aggressively taking land. Nothing from that could be further from the truth. All that China is doing is, they put installations on some of these islands which historically they have claims to going back to the 9th Century, and which every other country in the region, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, they are all doing the same thing since a long time. And not one ship has been prevented, a cargo ship, from ever travelling. So the whole argument that this is a violation of the freedom of navigation, which has been put forward by the United States, is simply not true. And all the incidents were caused by violations of U.S. ships in the 12-mile zone of these islands or over-flights; which is also a breach of the code of such behavior.

So we are really at the edge; and I must say I got a very, very eerie feeling, when I got reports that Obama, before he went to Hiroshima, not only did not apologize for throwing these bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for which there was, in reality, no reason. It was not that which saved a million lives of American soldiers, which was the official narrative of the Truman Administration. It was very well known that Japan had already negotiated with the Vatican a resolution and capitulation; so the throwing of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was simply to establish the principle ofSchrecklischkeit; to demonstrate to the Soviet Union at that point what the power of nuclear weapons would be.

So, Obama did not apologize, which is really telling already; but in an interview with the Japanese TV he said, when he was asked what he thought about this throwing of bombs on Hiroshima, he said, "Well I have been a President now for seven and a half years, and having been a wartime President myself, I can understand that presidents, under those conditions could be forced to make such decisions." I think people better wake up to where we are really at.

We have no reason to go to war. Russia is not aggressive; don't believe it for one second. Every step Russia has been taking, especially since the effort to pull Ukraine into the EU Association agreement, which was the beginning of the Ukraine crisis; which was unacceptable because Yanukovich, at the time, fled and left and reacted so strongly from the EU Summit, because he realized that that would have given NATO control over Ukraine. And it would have opened up the Russian market for all the EU products, which was unacceptable for Russia. So, he cancelled the agreement.

Then the Maidan was sprung against the Ukrainian government. Then you had the coup on the 21st of February 2014, which was a coup by Nazis, which, everybody knew they were going back to the Stepan Bandera tradition. So the West went along with that. That led to the terrible conditions inside east Ukraine; and as a reaction to all of this Russia then annexed Crimea. People saying Russia was aggressive in taking the Crimea is wrong; because Russia reacted each single step as Russia reacted to the whole breaking of the promises which were given to Gorbachov, but also to other people at the time when the Soviet Union disintegrated, that NATO would not expand its troops to the border of Russia. Then you had the color revolution, the sanctions, all of this has been correctly characterized by Russia as being forms of a hybrid war which is already going on; which has the ultimate aim of regime change in Moscow. As Madame Albright and the former Green Foreign Minister of Germany, Joschka Fischer, said at one point, Russia has too big a territory and too many raw materials; as if it could be allowed to exploit these raw materials all by itself.

The same kind of geopolitical intention for regime change really exists against China, which I don't want to elaborate now, we can do it in the discussion if people want. But what I'm saying is that neither Russia nor China are aggressive. Don't believe these media lies which are part of a pre-war propaganda. As a matter of fact, the absolute opposite is true. China has started a policy which is a war avoidance policy; and actually, the only perspective to overcome geopolitics which has been put by anybody on the table. Back in September 2013 when Xi Jinping announced in Kazakhstan the New Silk Road, this was a policy in the tradition of the ancient silk road, which 2000 years ago, during the Han administration was an exchange of goods, of culture, of ideas. And it led to a tremendous increase in the prosperity of all the nations participating in the Silk Road at that time; and what China is now offering with the New Silk Road, is doing exactly the same thing.

This project, which is now almost three years old, in September it will be three years since it was started, is now already involving 70 countries, mainly in Asia, along the ancient Silk Road, but it is also now reaching out to the ASEAN countries, to Iran, to Africa, to Egypt, to India. This is now a project which is pursuing a completely different principle. It is not the casino economy of the trans-Atlantic sector; but it is the idea to build infrastructure, to have a banking system associated with it which is not investing in high-risk speculation, but providing the necessary credits to solve the incredible lack of infrastructure which was the result of the policies of the IMF, the World Bank, who deliberately denied Third World countries access to credit for infrastructure.

The New Silk Road policy, and the banking system which is associated with it, the AIIB, the New Development Bank, and the new Shanghai Cooperation Bank which was just started, also the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the Silk Road Fund, the Bank of the SAG countries, the South Asian countries, all of these banks represent a completely different model of banking and economic cooperation. And they have invited the United States to join. Xi Jinping repeatedly said, this is an open concept for every country on the planet. We want to have a win-win perspective, where naturally, China has its advantages; but every other country has their own advantages if they participate.

Now, where does the war danger come from? Why is the United States, and the EU and Great Britain, why are they not simply not joining? Well, the problem is the British Empire. The problem is that the United States, in reality, is run by the idea that there must be a unipolar world run on the basis of the special relationship between the British Empire and the United States. And unfortunately President Obama has completely bought into this idea, which is really a continuation of the Neo-Con policy, which was presented by such people as Wolfowitz, Perl, already at the end of the '90s. They called it the Project for a New American doctrine. And that is the idea, that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is only one super-power left, and that super-power has the right to, basically, deploy militarily around the globe; that that super-power will not allow any nation or group of nations to bypass the United States in terms of economic, political, or military power.

Now the problem is, that unipolar world, in reality, does not exist anymore. Because China is rising, all of Asia is rising. China is already producing a lot more high technology goods for exports than the United States. They are producing more scientists, more engineers. They are just much more future oriented, as you can see by the most fantastic space program China has, while NASA has been dismantled. And the problem is that not only China is rising, but many countries in Asia are rising. India, for example, India has the largest economic growth rate in the world, about 8%. Other countries are totally committed to being modern, middle class countries by 2020 or 2025, such as Malaysia; or even Ethiopia wants to be very soon a normal, developed country. This is happening and you cannot stop that desire for development of all these nations around the globe.

Now, the problem is that the trans-Atlantic sector is about to blow up financially. You just had the conclusion of the G-7 meeting. The G-7 is supposedly the most important economic countries, or that's what they think. In reality, their influence is shrinking; so that even the German tabloid, Bild Zietung, which is read by 8 million people every day, had a banner headline saying that the G-7 summit was the summit of the seven dwarves. That was a correct characterization, and the only reasonable person at that G-7 summit, was, to a big surprise, Japanese Prime Minister Abe. Because he went into the summit after coming back from a visit to Sochi, where he met extensively with President Putin, and concluded many, many economic deals; gas and oil in the far east of Russia and many other such projects, which he did despite enormous pressure from the Obama Administration not to do. He came into the summit and said, "Look, we have to discuss the fact that the western financial system is about to have a crisis as big as 2008," the crisis of Lehman Brothers.

The problem was that did fall into deaf ears. Obama said, no, no such thing, we are in an upswing. So the final communique of that summit said the upswing is continuing, we are all doing fine. Now nothing could be further from the truth. Because right now, the too-big-to-fail banks, if one of these banks would bust, the entire system could evaporate. You have right now the ridiculous debate around helicopter money. That is the idea that the last measure of the Central banks is to print money electronically, like throwing money notes out of helicopters over cities, to prevent a crash from happening, which was the crazy idea of Ben Bernanke many years ago, but they are now doing it.

They have negative interest rates. They are issuing hundred-year bonds. If you want to give a donation to the bank, then buy a hundred-year bond, because what happens with this bond in one hundred years is a big illusion. It will evaporate, not exist; and if you sell such a bond before the hundred-year term is up, you will lose a lot of money by doing so. So it is a complete swindle to just try to get people who have savings to invest in the banking machine. The fact that people are buying these bonds, shows you that the confidence in the markets has really shrunk to an abysmal point.

This is the real war danger. Because you have people in the trans-Atlantic world who are absolutely determined to not allow Asia rising; who are about to commit exactly the mistake the former Joint Chief of Staff General Dempsey warned of many times, to fall into the Thucydides trap. That was the conflict between Sparta and Athens in ancient Greece, where the fear of the one of the rise of the other led to the Peloponnesian War and finally to the destruction of the Greek empire. And Greece has never regained the importance it had at that time. Dempsey had warned that the United States should not make the same mistake; but that is exactly what is happening.

You have right now many, many changes in the world which are taking place with an absolute rapid speed. As I said, Japan is, right now, swinging towards the BRICS coalition, the Silk Road coalition. And, obviously, if Japan has very good relations now with Russia, that is a good stepping stone to improve relations with China as well. The Indian Prime Minister, Modi, was just in Iran; and concluded together with President Rouhani and the President of Afghanistan, Ghani, long-term investments into the Chabahar port industrial zone, which is part of extending the Silk Road from China to Iran and from there to India and to Afghanistan.

Now, the former President, Karzai, had already stated at a conference in New Delhi in March, that the only way Afghanistan can be pacified is by making Afghanistan a hub of trade and commerce for the New Silk Road connection between Asia and Europe.  The President of India, Mukherjee, was just in China for a four-day visit, also concluding many, many deals.  He made a beautiful speech referring to the long, ancient cultural collaboration and exchanges between China and India; and he said, "If our two nations," which are the biggest in the world in terms of population, they together are more than 2.5 billion people, "If our two countries work together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish on this Earth."

So, you have right now two completely different sets of policies.  You have the trans-Atlantic world being still in fear of this unipolar control, which is preparing for war; however, people in Europe [are] freaking out about it.  There is a big discussion about ending the sanctions; there was a meeting in the French National Assembly, voting against it.  Just yesterday, there was another meeting in the Senate in France in a commission, also voting against sanctions.  Italian Prime Minister Renzi is against sanctions, and he's going in June to the St. Petersburg economic summit; which is clearly not what the United States would like to see.  And in Germany, half (or even more) of the country is in favor of ending the sanctions; and right now, people realize they have to make a choice.  Do they stay in the war machine in the trans-Atlantic world, or do they side with those countries which represent the future?

We have right now a branching point in history.  Don't think that this very quickly changing situation will last forever.  I think the decision of which direction mankind will go will be made in the coming weeks; in the month of June and not much beyond that.  There is a war danger for this summer; people are talking about a danger of war with Russia for 2017.  There is a book by a neo-con out with that title.  People are very worried that this summer the crisis in the South China Sea may explode, or be exploded.  I think there comes a point of no return.

So, we have to really think of what can be a way out.  Let me bring in one other problem.  In Europe right now, we are in really a complete turmoil because you have the influx of the largest refugee crisis since the end of World War II.  Last year, there were about 2 million refugees coming to Europe; this year it's expected to be a little bit less, due to the fact that the EU is now committing a murderous policy by using the military means of Frontex driving the refugees back.  Many of them drowning in the Mediterranean, and making extremely dirty deals with Turkey and with Saudi Arabia to help them to prevent the refugees from entering the EU.  This will not work; it already has led to a complete discreditation of the EU; no one from the EU should talk anymore about humanitarian values, or even human values, when they are committing such murderous policies against the refugees.  But it should be obvious that you will not solve that problem by building new walls around every country; that is the end of the EU anyway.  And also not walls around the outer borders of the EU.  But you need to eliminate the real reason why people are risking their lives with a 50% chance they might die to get to Europe; because they are running away from wars and hunger and other catastrophes in Southwest Asia and in Africa. In the case of southwest Africa and Libya, it's clearly the result of American and British wars, NATO wars which were all based on lies; which has led to a complete explosion of southwest Asia.  And in the case of Africa, it's the result of 50 years of induced increased death rates because of the conditionalities of the IMF.

Now, there is a way out.  As I said, now China, India, Iran are all working to extend the Silk Road into Iran, Afghanistan; and the obvious idea is that we need a Marshall Plan-Silk Road approach towards the entire southwest Asia region — from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, from the Caucuses to the Persian Gulf.  We have to have a real development strategy to conquer the desert in this region through the development of new fresh water; peaceful nuclear energy for desalinization of large amounts of ocean water; aquifers; ionization of the atmosphere. We can do everything; these countries, which once were blossoming cultures, can be turned again to become blossoming countries which give a future to the young generation.  And it is already on the way because the neighbors are committed to do that.  All we have to do is convince the United States and the European countries to participate in such a Silk Road-Marshall Plan for the Middle East, and also for Africa.  It would be so easy to eliminate poverty; we could do that in half a year.  No person would have to die of hunger anymore, because the technologies all exist; and if you then would go and build infrastructure — ports, railway systems, waterways, highways, food processing. Build new cities; build advanced technologies in all countries of Africa and southwest Asia.  It could be turned around in a few years, and in one or two generations these regions could be as developed as the United States or Europe were in the '70s.  I'm not saying now, but as they were in the '70s.

So, why don't we move in this direction?  There is no good reason.  We will lose identity as being human if we don't do that.  I think we have never been at such a challenge as right now; and it is extremely important that we remember that this planet is inhabited by only one human race.  Contrary to what the new racists and the new fascists — which are unfortunately on the rise; like in the '30s, you have the rise of racism and fascism.  You have old wine in new bottles, but the content of these bottles remains the same.  Anybody who says the refugees or foreigners are of a different genetic composition, or have different reproduction schemes and therefore must be kept out; these are racists in new clothing.  And we must absolutely establish the idea that what makes us human is that every child born on this planet, is gifted with a potentially limitless potential to be a genius.

The fact that we don't have more geniuses on the planet right now is not due to the nature of the human being, but due to the fact that the conditions of life do not allow so far the best development of every child who is born.  If they would have universal education and a decent living standard, and have a vision and a hope for the future, we could have an increase of geniuses in the world; which would really show that mankind is in the infancy stage, maybe even embryonic stage of its development. If you want to evade the fate the of the dinosaurs — that is, vanish — we have to make that evolutionary where we are not defined anymore by blood and soil, or territory, or color of our skin or hair.  But that we are defined by that which is human to all of humanity, that we can all be beautiful souls. That we can not only develop limitless new insights into the law of the Universe and make scientific discoveries of physical principles leading to tremendous breakthroughs in science and technology; but that we can also become better human beings. That we can become more beautiful in our character; that we can become more loving; that we can become more artistically brilliant; that we can compose music at least as good as the great Classical music and beyond.

So, I think we are really at a branching point, and you people there in New York have a very, very special responsibility.  Because as Lyn has said, New York is a very, very special place in the United States; it's the founding of the United States.  It's the place from which Alexander Hamilton operated.  But even today, the New Yorkers are generally more cosmopolitan, they are less chauvinist, they are more intelligent, they are more political.  And if we want to get the United States back to be a republic, a country which other countries want to be allied with and not shriveling in fear and terror, then it is you, the New Yorkers, and your example shining in the entire United States of America which will turn this country around.  So, I think on this Memorial Day weekend, we have a tremendous moment; think about the people who died in previous wars, and we must have a solemn commitment that war should never become a means of conflict resolution again.  If we mobilize people around that idea, and the idea that humanity is really at the point of finishing itself off, or making an evolutionary jump where we are all being defined by the global development partnership in which we can engage; and the responsibility for future generations that we must build the bridge to a better time and a better age.  I think we can do it.

DENNIS SPEED:  OK, we're going to go to questions now. There's a microphone here in the middle of the floor; there are chairs people can line up.  When you get up, state your name, and please try to be concise in your asking of the questions.  First question.

Q1:  Hello, Helga.  On the question of war, something that people here may not know is that in 1962, while Kennedy was dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy's intervention — which is not very well known — but Kennedy intervened in the Indo-China War; which is the 1962 war between India and China, and was working with the Indian government to de-escalate tensions.  It got to a point where even the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk was stationed in the Bay of Bengal to come to the aid of India, in case we needed help.  And this is something that he and James Galbraith — Kennedy's ambassador to India — were working with the Indian government; especially Prime Minister Nehru, who was the father of Indira Gandhi.  Since then, the world has really changed, where in the United States you have a President who is escalating tensions in the world; and you have India and China, who are coming closer than ever.  So, I just find it very interesting how the world has really shifted; because of interventions and because of leadership like Indira Gandhi and you and your husband, Mr. LaRouche.

So, I wanted to ask you, how in our interactions with Indira Gandhi, how did your concept of the World Land-Bridge change or develop?  And how did she influence your ideas about the World Land-Bridge?  And how do you think India can use its cultural heritage now in organizing the rest of the world into this New Paradigm?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, we talked with Indira Gandhi, I think it was between '79 and '83, until when she was assassinated.  That was obviously before the idea of the Silk Road could appear; because you still had the Warsaw Pact and the NATO bloc.  So, we were talking with Indira Gandhi about a 40-year development plan for India; and that was actually the idea that you need two generations — or at that point we assumed you needed two generations to do that.  Because there were many parts of India which are totally undeveloped; not even roads, you had dirt roads.  The idea was to bring infrastructure in the first generation and universal education to every child.  This is a big thing, because in India at that time, and I think to a certain extent it's still going on; there are many parents who send their children instead of sending them to the school, to help in the countryside in the fields.  Which naturally, it's preventing children from having education, so that was our main concern; these two aspects — infrastructure and universal education to every child.  And then in the second generation, you could have — with every child being educated — you could develop India fully.  So, she liked that approach, and was totally determined to implement it; and when she was killed, we continued to work on that with her son, Rajiv Gandhi.  And then he was assassinated as well.

So in a certain sense, India has been set back a lot by these assassinations; and therefore it is not extremely good that now with Prime Minister Modi, who is from the BJP and not from the Congress Party, but nevertheless he is very, very popular. And many people in India today compare him to Nehru, to Indira Gandhi; and they respect him as one of the great leaders who can really change the world.  And he has managed to do one thing; he has successfully, in the short period he has been in office — a little bit more than two years — managed to change the role of India in the world from a regional power to become a true global power.  And India is now assuming that role by saying they have already the biggest economic growth rate; they soon will have the largest number of people, they will bypass China.  And therefore, I'm very happy; because when I was in India in March at the Raisina Dialogue, there was still a big concern about India-Chinese tensions — the border conflicts.  And also naturally the issue of the development corridor China is building in Pakistan; will that be against India?  So there were still a lot of these worries, and for the two problem points we have now made a breakthrough.  Because with President Mukherjee going to China, and saying these countries are in an absolutely fantastic alliance, and we can solve every problem in the world; this is on a very good track.  And with Modi going to Iran, basically building bridges with Afghanistan; Afghanistan is a big security concern for India.  So, this is all moving step by step in a very good direction; and I think the best thing we could do is, I think there are 3 million Indians in the United States — I think so, yeah.  So, if these people would take pride of the great advances India is making right now, and basically say, "We are now living in the United States; and we want to have good relations between the United States and India.  But that means stop this confrontation with Russia and with China, and then we can really move on in a global development partnership."  So I think these 3 million Indians living in the United States could become a great asset for peace and for the future of all civilization; and we should appeal to them to act exactly in this way.

Q2:  Hi, Helga; it's Alvin.  I'm glad that you're here because there's a recent article on LPAC that's talking about and describing a recent conference that took place in the capital of Yemen as a breakthrough.  And the Schiller Institute influence is being felt there, and continues to grow.  As the article describes, this was widely attended; hundreds of finance ministers, private industry, civil and economic organizations were there.  And of the many items that were resolved or passed, three of them involve the work of the organization as a whole, the principle of Hamilton where you're restoring — the New Silk Road of course, Reconstruction Bank and national credit.  Now here is this small nation which is war-torn through the Saudis, through the British, through Obama, and they find themselves taking this giant step forward and making demands upon the UN to exile the Saudis and adopt these policies for future peace and development.  Now obviously, the Schiller Institute's influence, this shows a good example of why we come under the types of attacks that you do, when you have such an influence.  But what I wanted to ask you was, what do you really think are the implications from a successful conference like this?  And how should we, here in Manhattan, use this as a weapon to bring others in to understanding what a real global, strategic outlook requires?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the first message obviously is, no country can be so small or in such difficult conditions as not being able to rise above its so-called fate and take the initiative to change the situation.  If we can stop this general war danger which I tried to describe a little bit earlier, if we can stop that and get some public debate in the United States about the fact that that war danger exists; the problem is, people don't even know it.  There is no uprising; there are no people in the streets.  There is nobody saying "We do not want the United States to start World War III."  I think that's the first step.  If we can stop that, then I am very optimistic in terms that we can get this World Land-Bridge approach for the reconstruction.

Because right now, with Putin intervening in Syria, the Syrian Army regaining more and more territory; China has now committed a special person for the reconstruction for Syria, who is presently in Damascus.  There are many projects being worked on; and we will soon publish a lot more about it.  We are working with Syrian architects and engineers who are totally determined to make the Project Phoenix a reality; which if people don't know yet what Operation Phoenix is, they should look at it.  It's a very concrete project to rebuild the cities which were destroyed in Syria.  All of this is going to happen; and also for Africa. There is a new mood in the developing countries.  I'm almost reminded of the time of the Non-Aligned Movement, when there was a totally determined nation to get a Just New World Economic Order; and while they may not name it New World Economic Order right now, as I said, there are many countries in Africa and Asia who are absolutely determined to overcome underdevelopment.  And isn't that what Roosevelt wanted, or what Martin Luther King was talking about; what Kennedy was talking about?  And that is now a distinct possibility; but I think everything depends upon us getting these changes inside the United States.  Because the best person cannot live in peace if the evil-minded neighbor does not allow it; and that is a German proverb which applies to all these efforts.  All these countries will not succeed if we cannot change the United States.

Q3:  Helga, this is R—  from Bergen County, New Jersey. You mentioned the losing of one's human identity; which can happen from the types of activities that one's government is involved in — referring to the nuclear build-up and so forth. My question is, if we go back to the case of Nazi Germany, the Germans under Nazi Germany, did Germans lose their human identity due to the activities of their government at that time?  And also, what did it take for Germans to regain their human identity; and is that entire scenario analogous to what's going on in the United States today?  In other words, have Americans lost, or are they losing their human identity due to the types of activities of their government?  Can that be drawn as a similar situation to Nazi Germany; and what will be required for Americans to regain their human identity?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think the German example should be a warning example to any country around the world; that a country which is — I am at least proud to have produced some of the most beautiful composers, inventors, poets.  I find the German Classical period is probably the richest of any country; and I'm not saying this because I'm arrogant, but because it's simply a fact.  How could such a country plunge into the depths of the Nazi horror?  I think it is very important to study exactly are the axioms which erode; and I think we have done some studies about it.  That what started to erode the Classical period in Germany was the Romantic period; because the Romantic period started to destroy the clear principles of the classics.  And that was then followed by an increasing pessimism with Schopenhauer; out of that came the youth movement before  World War I, which was a terrible youth movement.  It was actually a proto-fascist youth movement.  Then came World War I, World War II.

Just today, there was a big celebration of 4000 German and French students celebrating German-French friendship; looking at what was it for four years to fight in the trenches in Verdun. And trying to build an understanding; what were these soldiers doing for four years?  Mindless battles; shooting; killing back and forth; gaining nothing; back and forth.  These four years of the First World War denuded the young generation in Germany so badly, that then with the Versailles Treaty and the hyperinflation and the Great Depression, gave rise to extremist movements.  The Nazis, the Bolsheviks, which led to a right-left confrontation in the streets.  But the Conservative Revolution, the idea that man is fixed; that man is not good; that you have to fight against the ideas of 1789, which is the American Revolution, the French Revolution.  The idea that there is only one human race.  That spread; 400 movements existed like that.

So, people now look at the present, and they don't see the continuity of these movements today.  Even so, the Conservative Revolution is absolutely a continuous movement since the American Revolution; it's the oligarchy.  It's the idea of taking back, reversing the American Revolution; reversing the idea of a Constitution.  And that is why I think it is so extremely important that Americans have the clear idea to return the United States to become a republic again.  To go back to the Founding Fathers; to Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, to a little bit later John Quincy Adams, and to the principles of Lincoln. And these early Presidents represented a United States which was quite different than what is happening today.  And I think you have to revive the best traditions, in order not to let it come to such a deep plunge, like Germany did. It has, in my view, not happened yet, even though it's had much in the vicinity of it. But, you have to really use the best traditions of the United States, to prevent the disaster. Because, racism is clearly there. You have, clearly, elements which I would characterize as, "Nazi-like," and people don't dare to say it, but that is what people should really recognize. Germany, right now, I would say, is, sort of, you know, a little bit, still impotent, decapitated, doesn't dare to have a clear idea of its own traditions. But, it has successfully changed; it has admitted the guilt. It is clearly, "no war!"; people have a clear idea — never war again. And therefore, I see apotential that Germany may not go along. You know, if Japan can break out of this, and Germany could break out of it in Europe; we could solve this danger. Because, without Germany the war would not happen. So, I think, you know, we should draw lessons from history. Because, if we deny history, we are bound to make the same mistakes.

Q4: I came to this country in '73. And, kind of a secret mission. During the civil war in Russia, my  father was in the "White Army," not in "Red." So, they never trusted me; and I lost my sea career in the Pacific. Instead of becoming captain, I became a professor of political science, because I could not sail. They were afraid that I would escape. It's family arguments. Now, finally, in the 1960s, I came to Moscow, and sent my old mother to United States, to seek her brother in Chicago. He was a soldier in the White Army, and left Russia in 1921, from the Crimea, with General Wrangel.

Anyway, what I talk about: I knew how to behave, in that world, where I was; one word could cost you too much. So, it was much more comfortable not to talk, but to listen. And, I was in Moscow in 1970, when the political police arranged mental asylum for me. At that time, already, no shootings; it was a democracy. So, then I— that was the system that I built. In Moscow, you have two restaurants: National, where Russian KGB catching Western spies; and Prague, this is the citadel of the Russian elite. So, I went there, and found a guy, who proved to be a colonel in the KGB, at the top of the pyramid. And, he took me to his home, in Moscow, locked me for three days. And then, came back and said that, "You're under protection, don't worry." And, I stayed some years, and what was my problem, then: To return to merchant marine? Only in coastal trade, because, if you go abroad, you never return. So, I understood that the people, never knew what they were doing. The situation was, that I had a cyanide pill, here — all that nonsense. And, in 1972, I finished my first — while sitting in Moscow; I wrote 900 pages my travel in the Pacific. It's coastal trade, between Japan and Arctic. And, tell me the concentration camps, everything, big material for people who can read. And, they wanted to publish the books, abroad. In that case, I have to go to mental asylum. They could not help me.

So, we agree that I better go out. And, they arranged me; KGB all obeyed. Immediately I got my visa, and, in '72, in fall, I left. And, when I came here, after some time, some thought that I was a Russian agent, a twice American double agent, and they never know what they are doing. I never touched anybody. I was a driver for 25 years; driving school; fresh air, and I enjoyed it.

Now, about this organization: I heard about it, but I have doubts. In my secret mission, I delayed for 20 years, then I sent to Bush my analysis of American war in Middle East. I got from him a big photo, with, "Thanks." And, Mr. Reynolds, from Republican Congress, reported to me that they appointed to me as a "honorary American [inaudible 1.06.21]" That has been my plan. But that was all I could do. As I promised my guys in Moscow, I never joined any political struggle inside. It was not the purpose.  Anyway, I sent him my material, first time, and got results. Then, Mr. Obama appeared, and invited me to join to his shadow cabinet. At that time, I didn't know that he as bad as you pictured him. I had no idea about him; I was a Republican. So, I joined him, now. And, I stand aside.

What I know, now, the situation is. I don't know even the name of this organization. But I saw them. And, I see, clearly, a few points: That they talk business. The world is moving to war; this I know. Back in Russia, my father was in the White Army, not Red. My uncle was in the Tsarist army, fighting Germans. And every week, they met each other for drinks; they called it "brotherhoods." And then, Stalin — not only you — in Russia, nobody knows him, what he did that way. I saw it all: I lived in Siberia, then Arctic, the whole country, one-sixth of the Earth.

After Stalin prepared Russia for war, after Lenin's death, he created the world's biggest military machine. And in 1941 in Moscow, when Hitler's army group one, under big Marshal Bock were ready to take Moscow; when Stalin recalled his divisions from the Pacific. I saw them arrive, near Moscow, it was in October. Then, in November, they prepared; in December, they attacked, and destroyed German army, completely. It was a catastrophe, there. They drove them about 600 km — 300 miles away from Moscow. That was the end of the WAR, in fact. After that, Hitler knew that it's all over for him. But, he tried to save his army, himself, and Germany. He failed, everywhere. Finally, a bullet into his throat.

I don't want to talk about Hitler, because he was a nervous man, not fit for anything. But Germans paid a high price for that.

I talk about this situation. Now, Russia is a huge, military machine, ready to — why? — I did not tell you. The last thousand years, Russia was ten times attacked, once from the east, nine times from the west. Incessant attacks. And, Hitler's attack was the latest draw. So, one of them, before I left; I had friends, no jobs. He told me, if anybody comes to us, once more, with guns; so far, they came, we chased them back. This time, nobody will be chased back; we kill them all and bury them, and that will be the end. If you take Russia, European part, to Moscow, it's like Europe, then also from Moscow—

SPEED: Excuse me, Viktor, we need you to wrap it up.

Q4:  I finish it, tomorrow, thank you.

SPEED: No, no, no. Just, if you have a final point.

Q4: No. Just one word. This organization talks business. But, what I found out, it gets no financial support, absolutely. I am the banker. I have a friend; I gave her $100, several times. Just now, I'm empty, then, soon I going to make, again. It's amazing, for me. The only organization that talks business, which involves prevention of war; because nuclear war will make this planet dead. Even spiders will die. They already afraid of my house, never returned to my house. I have a house — I am a rich man, now. And, I keep my mouth shut; first time I talk. [laughter] But, listen: War is war. I talking nonsense, but, I can talk different ways. So far, you see, I am a retired political scientist.

SPEED: I think that Helga may have something to say.

Q4: So, give me two minutes more!

SPEED: No, no, no— [laughing] you get 30 seconds.

Q4: OK: I wish you good luck! [laughter, applause]

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that you are not the only person with Russian background, who is reminded of the Great Patriotic War, and the fact that Russia was attacked several times. As a matter of fact, if you look at what Napoleon did, he tried to conquer Russia. And it was the brilliant collaboration between the Russian generals, and the German-Prussian reformers, such people like Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and also the cousin of Schiller, who actually defined the line of long penetration, into Russia, luring the Napoleonic army into the far territory, Russia. So, then when, finally, Napoleon reached Moscow, they burned it down so that he couldn't have Moscow as a winter headquarters. And then, on the way back, they chopped the entire Napoleonic army — an army which was several hundred thousand — ended up (I think) with a couple of hundred people, at the end of that war. And, that was exactly the same mistake Hitler made, who thought he could conquer Russia.

And, right now, you have, fortunately, in the person of President Putin, somebody who has proven to be much, much superior as a strategist, than the West; especially the people who are trying to push this confrontation.

But, right now, the fact that you have the largest concentration of troops, on the Russian border is bringing forward the memory of exactly the Nazi invasion in '40, '41.  And it is really something people should not underestimate; the suffering of losing so many people in the war, that memory is coming back in the Russian population today.  And that is why the Immortal Regiment demonstrations were so absolutely moving, a couple of weeks ago.

And I think we have to somehow revive that spirit of fighting Nazism, fighting fascism. That fascism is not coming in the form of Hitler, it's coming in the form of a unipolar world and imperialism and basically destroying other nations for the sake of the world empire.  But we have to call forth, nevertheless, the deep emotions associated with the sacrifice of previous generations; and not gamble it away lightly.  Because what Lincoln addressed in the Gettysburg Address, or what other people said in similar occasions, we have to keep the suffering of our previous generations as a source of inspiration to build a better future and make sure this never happens again.

I think that your experience is unfortunately typical of people who got in between the various developments.  But I think we really have to have a clear vision that the future of humanity should not be like that; that we have to have a situation where people relate to each other as scientists, as composers, as poets.  If you read the letter exchanges of great people of the past — of Einstein and Max Planck, or Schiller and Humboldt — then you get a sense of what is a truly human relation.

And I think we have to have a clear vision today of what should be the future in 100 years, in 1,000 years.  People should grow up; I don't think people should remain the way the 20th Century has been, or the beginning of the 21st Century for that matter.  I want people to become like Plato, like Nicolaus of Cusa, like Leibniz.  Why should every person not be like that? I'm not talking about copies; I'm not talking about talking like Leibniz, talking like Schiller.  But in the realm of genius, there is no limit; there are infinite possibilities to develop creativity and contribute to the human development.  I think we have a tremendous responsibility, because it is our action today that will decide that we unleash this unbelievable potential of the human species.

I can imagine that in 10,000 years from now, people will be completely focused on problem solving in the Solar System, in the Galaxy; they will probably have traveled to other Galaxies.  We have probably mastered higher energy flux density, so that moving around in the Universe will be a completely different question than we even think about it today.  And that people will discover principles and creativity that we have not even an inkling of today; in the same way people in the Stone Age could not anticipate that fusion power would solve soon the energy problems of the entire planet.  Would people have discovered the use of fire?  Would they have thought that we would be able to control matter/anti-matter reactions in the future?  No.  And they couldn't even think it; and I think there are things we cannot even think about, but which become the absolute natural condition of man.  And that people will be loving.  I don't think that the nasty character most people have today is what is human.  I think that people will become loving, creative, humorous; they will have a totally different character.  And therefore, I disagree with President Obama fundamentally when he made this speech in Hiroshima, where he said the nature of man has always been to go for war.  I don't think that that's true.  I think the idea of making war is an infantile disorder; and in the same way as little two-year old boys kick you against the knee, when they are grown up they stop doing that if they are civilized.  And in the same way,  I thing this idea of solving conflict with war will vanish.  And man is principally good; he just has to be more developed so the goodness can come out.  I fully agree with Nicolaus of Cusa, who said that sin is a sign of underdevelopment; and that if all people just had the ability to spend the time on the development of their creative potential, sin would vanish.  And that's what I think is absolutely true. [applause]

SPEED:  Let me simply say, hold on before we go any further. We want people to be concise.  It is true that it's Memorial Day; it is true that we have veterans of the war, and we wish to hear from people.  But you have to think about what you just heard Helga say; and think about it as you pose matters for deliberation for the people here.  Other things can be discussed in the halls or in the breaks and so forth; but it's important we, here, focus.  So, I just wanted to say that to everybody before we continue.

Q5:  Thank you.  I will be concise.  My name is H— M—; I'm from Staten Island.  I apologize for my voice.  I agree with much of what you said in your presentation.  There were a number of issues that you didn't mention that I think are critically important.  The first is that the American economy is going through a major transition with the advance of technology and different sources of energy.  We need fewer and fewer fully-educated unskilled workers; and essentially we don't most of the lower 80% of the labor force.  Thomas Frank, who wrote that famous book, What's the Matter with Kansas?, recently published a follow-up to that.

SPEED:  Hold on; this is exactly what I meant.  If you have a matter that you want as a question, fine.

Q5:  The first issue that you didn't mention is what's going to happen with the transition in the global economy that is occurring.  We don't need low-skilled workers.  How are we going to deal with that?  If you had all geniuses, you would still need somebody to pick up the garbage.  The second thing is that when you have international conflicts that can't be resolved, the Second World War, for example, was necessary.  There were a lot of conflicts that were going on in Germany and Eastern Europe and Western Europe prior to the Second World War; and the only way they could be resolved was through an explosion, which occurred. These conflicts between China, Russia, and the United States have to be resolved.

SPEED:  OK, hold on.  You have two issues there.

Q5: I have a third; can I just mention the third?  So war can create a new stabilization.  And the third is that we have global warming; and that's going to have an immense impact on the population of the world.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, just to mention global warming first. Global warming does not happen; it's global cooling since about 16 years.  And global change, change in weather patterns, have nothing to do with CO2 emissions; they have everything to do with the cycles of our Solar System in the Galaxy.  So, we better get accustomed to these changes, because we cannot influence them. We have to learn to live with it better; because there were these Ice Ages and warming periods over the last hundreds of thousands of years.  That's just the way it is.  In the same way, if we lose a couple of species, we should not be so concerned; because the evolution of the Universe produces new species all the time. That's part of what evolution is all about.

But to the more fundamental point, I cannot agree with what you say that the Second World War was necessary, or that it was a cleaning explosion or something like that.  And in the same way, it's utterly untrue for the present conflict between Russia, China, and the United States.  The Second World War was really the continuation of the geopolitical games which led to World War I; which Haushofer, Mackinder, Milner, such people had basically worked out.  Which was really the idea that whoever controls the Eurasian heartland is the master of the planet; and that this would be at the disadvantage of the trend of the Atlantic Rim countries.  It was that crazy thinking which led to World War I; and that was not resolved through that war.  It was cemented through the Versailles Treaty; which really was the basis for all the conflicts now, including the conflicts in the South China Sea.  Because the Paris Treaty, which was part of the Versailles Treaty, left the territorial conflicts of the South China Sea unresolved by leaving a tremendous feeling of injustice in the Chinese population; because a lot of the previous German colonies were given to Japan.  And the same thing happened with the Sykes-Picot agreement already in 1916; it happened with the Trianon Treaty which was part of Versailles.  And all of that was the result of the same empire policy persisting with Versailles after the First World War; and Versailles was an absolute contributing factor to World War II, in which the same imperial forces who groomed Hitler as one tendency — the National Socialists were just one tendency of that Conservative Revolution which I mentioned earlier.  They groomed Hitler as a orator through the Thule Society; and they read Mein Kampf, and they said if we pit Germany and Russia against each other, it will lead to World War II.  And that's why the oligarchs in Great Britain and such people as the Eugenics Society in the United States backed Hitler; because they liked his race policies.  That was the reason why World War II finally happened; because it was a geopolitical manipulation.  And it was a total setback for mankind; and many countries have not recovered from it to the present day, Germany being one of them.

So I do not agree that you need these explosions.  And if it would come to such an explosion today, I'm pretty much afraid that nobody would be left.  I think we have to think completely differently; we have to think about a New Paradigm of mankind.  A paradigm which is defined by the common aims of mankind; that which makes us human together.  The problems we have to solve together, like space travel, to make it safe for the human race to exist.  We are not safe right now; we could be destroyed by asteroids, by volcanic explosions which could lead to a winter period like what probably happened after the dinosaurs. Ninety-six species gone 65 million years ago.  We have to think about how to make life safe for the human species; not only on Earth, but also on Earth.  And for that, we have to work together.  The New Paradigm must conceive of mankind in the same way as the difference was between the Dark Age of the 14th Century and the modern times which started with the Renaissance period of the 15th Century with the Golden Renaissance in Italy.

If you compare the leading axioms of the Middle Ages with the leading axioms of the modern times, you have two completely different sets of ideas.  The Dark Age, the Middle Ages, were characterized by scholasticism, by the Peripatetics, by the control of Aristotle in all the universities, by witchcraft, by the Flagellants, by people who would burn women as witches, by the Inquisition.  All of this was characteristic of the Middle Ages.  And then came, based on Dante, Petrarca, Nicolaus of Cusa brought the heritage of Plato to Italy at that time; which had been lost for about 1700 years, and that all led to a tremendous scientific and cultural explosion known as the Italian Renaissance.  And the image of man, the absolute emphasis on the individual creativity, on the idea of the common good as being the purpose of the state, the idea of the sovereign nation-state, all of these new ideas developed in this period of the early 15th Century into the middle of the 15th Century, about two generations.  We had an explosion of science, of knowledge, and that led to the foundation for Nicolaus of Cusa, for Kepler, for Leibniz, for the allusion of modern science, of precise natural science, of great Classical art.

And these two systems have coexisted for 500-600 years, and now this has come to an end.  We are now at an end of an epoch. The end of the epoch of the coexistence of empire and nation-state.  And if we don't make the jump now, to say, both empire is a finished model, but also the nation-state as such has to be complemented by a higher form of "the common aims of mankind," and the idea of the truly human behavior of people working for the common aims; making a new Renaissance of all cultures of this planet, where each culture knows the other culture, the high point; every American will know what Chinese culture was, what Russian culture was, what German culture was, and make something new, beautiful out of that: a new Renaissance which will take the best of the ideas of what each nation produced, celebrate it, make it common knowledge.

Make the cultures of the world as known to every human being, as maybe the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven is pretty known to all human beings.  But do people know everything about Chinese philosophy, poetry, Indian painting, Indian Classical dance, Indian Classical music?  No, they don't!  And that is the kind of human heritage which we have to have as the common good of all people, to create something new out of it.

So we need a new paradigm, and I think people should each, individually, think, what do you want to contribute with your life, so that in a hundred years, mankind is more human by several orders of magnitude than today?  And that your life has contributed, to end this terrible popular culture which we have today, which is completely Satanic.  I mean, all the youth culture is utterly Satanic.  All the pop music is Satanic, fashion is mostly ugly; all of the modern painting is an insult to the human mind, to even consider that as creative.  I mean, true, there are some exceptions, but we have to go back to the highest standard of all the cultures before, to make something new out of it.

So do not think that war is necessary, or was necessary. War is a relic of an infantile feature of the human person. [applause]

SPEED: We're going to take two questions, and then we're going to take a break.  We're going to take a break so that all those people who completely disagree with much of what was just said, can vent in the halls, before you come back, hopefully with cogent questions about the next session.  So, go ahead.

Q6:  Hello, Helga, we have a question here from a contact from Brazil that we met recently, B—A—.  And his question is, "What do you think about the coup that is going on against the democracy of Brazil?  It is a violence and danger for Latin America.  For example, what would be the impact on the world economy if the Brazilian economy collapsed, since it is the seventh largest in the world? Without the BRICS would there be a world?"

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, we will publish in the coming issue of EIR a documentation of who is running this coup. Because Dilma Rousseff herself said repeatedly that this has nothing to do with corruption she was involved in, but that it was a coup by the right wing Brazil.  Now while it is obviously clear that the right wing in Brazil has been involved in this, what she has not said is what we will document, that, how certain forces in the United States in particular, and in Great Britain, have been behind steering this coup, in the same way as the attack on Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is organized from the United States, from certain hedge funds, from certain political interests; and we will put this out in writing.

And hopefully somebody in Brazil will pick it up.  Because I think the only way how the integrity of Brazil can be protected, is that the truth comes out, and that the population in Brazil which is obviously being targetted by a black propaganda campaign following the Italian model of "Clean Hands."  And this was even admitted by Bloomberg, that the model of Clean Hands is what was being used.

This goes back to the history of Italy, where everybody in Italy knew that the way how Italian  politics would function in the postwar period was the amici di amici principle: that if you would give somebody an order, you would give him a kickback and the kickback would be distributed to all the friends of that person and it was called the "amici di amici" principle.  And that system, which everybody participated in for decades, all of a sudden was exploded, when the British decided to take over Italy for cheap money with the coup; the plot of the Britannia royal yacht, devaluing the Italian lira by 30% and then buying Italian firms up for cheap.  And then in the context, they destroyed all the political parties in Italy, and created new, synthetic ones, which no longer could defend the sovereignty of Italy in the same way.

And that is exactly the model which has been applied in Brazil.  And Dilma Rousseff herself went after this corruption system and she was not involved.  And now this new phase has erupted, where the finance minister had a telephone discussion with a Senator, where they said, if we want to stop this corruption campaign, we have to get rid of Dilma and put in Temer [the then-Vice President].  So now that has been leaked to the media and this is like "the revolution eats its children" because there is no honesty among thieves.  The next wave of the destabilization is already hitting now, those who committed the first wave of the destabilization.

And this will go on.  And the danger is chaos.  And I fully agree with you, if the Brazilian economy would be weakened even more, than it is right now, it would be a disaster for all of Latin America, and therefore, the first priority is that the truth of who is behind this coup should be published, and it should become a household word in all of Brazil and all of Latin America.

Q7:  Hi Helga, this is Lynn Yen, from the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture.  You've made two great intellectual breakthroughs:  One which is the idea of Friedrich Schiller, that to bring mankind into adulthood, you have to educate the emotions through great art and great culture.  And the other is the breakthrough of Nicolaus of Cusa, who said that as man comes closer to absolute truth, if he's intelligent, he realizes that he knows nothing at all.

Now, at our foundation and our work with a lot of young people, the idea of Classical culture, it's easy, when you introduce Classical culture to young people, they can get it almost immediately.  But what do you do about all the other people?  How would you do about the adults?  A lot of people out there oftentimes the adults, who think they know things that they actually don't know, and how do you address that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, my own experience is that when you make people more conscious about the difference of the music they like and Classical music, they realize, at least there is a superior species when they deal with Classical culture.  So I have done educationals and pedagogicals where I would download from the internet, the worst example of black gothic rock or some other Satanic popular culture, because there's some really awesome examples!  I mean pop music has many varieties and Madonna has made some Satanic movies, you know?  Like sitting on an electric chair having an orgy with herself.  I mean, there are some really horrible examples!  And then I would show these, not too long, maybe a minute  —  loud, ugly, the people would really see it like in a mirror. And then I would confront that, for example, with Marian Anderson singing the National Anthem at Kennedy's invitation in 1962, and people would see; or confronting Beyoncé singing the National Anthem with Obama and Marian Anderson singing the National Anthem; and I would really invite you go home to your laptop and look at that, because Beyoncé is Hollywood-like, a façade-like face, not really human; she could be a robot.  And then you have in the video they made about that, they had Michelle and Barack Obama looking like heroes in Russian Socialist art, looking into the future listening to this Beyoncé.  It's so — in German there is this word — kitsch.  You know, kitsch means, when the fat and the oil is dripping out of something which is so horrible.  Anyway. And then you see Marian Anderson, who completely, simple, non-stylized, just very truthfully and beautiful, sings the National Anthem and it moves everybody to tears.

And that way you have to educate people to start, you know, when you have a completely degenerated taste, it takes a while to reeducate that people even have the tastebuds to taste what is beautiful!  And you have to give them many, many examples, also the principles of when is a painting beautiful, and when it is not truthful.  Or when is a poem beautiful, and when is it not beautiful.  And you have to use examples, because it's something people can learn, and I'm absolutely certain adults — you know, age as somebody said recently, is not a question of the bones, it's a question of the mind.  And I fully subscribe to that. Because if you are future oriented and optimistic, and have big plans, you're not aging.  It just doesn't happen.  Your body may be a little bit more stiff, and quirky and whatnot, but your mind can be as youthful as whatever age you choose to be.

And in the same way, I think that older people, they can recognize the difference between ugliness and beauty. In that sense, Schiller, for example was completely against the idea that you would have categories of the Stürm und Drang, which was the period before the Classical period.  He said, the difference is, is art beautiful or not.  And anything which is not beautiful should not be called art.  And I think that that is so true: Because if the art is elevating the human mind, and appealing to the soul, bringing forth this power of love, of what makes us human, this inside power which enables us to do everything we want, for the good, for the future, for mankind; if art evokes that, it is beautiful.  And if art brings us down, makes us more full of lust or greed or just mindless passion, like in a rock concert where you're just moving like an ape, you can repeat rhythms you know, like a monkey rattling his cage; but that is not human!

So the question really, is how to teach the eye, the mind, the ear, to see the beauty, and reject the ugly.

SPEED:  So, we're just going to be taking a brief break. Before we do, Alvin, I'd like you to take the microphone for a moment, and we want to recognize our veterans.  We're just going to go person by person, we'd like each of you to say who you are, what war you served in; and anyone that we're missing, please just hold up your hand, and Alvin will go around.

BILL MONROE:  Good afternoon everyone.  It's a real pleasure to be here today amongst you all and with my fellow veterans. I'm looking forward to an opportunity to speak to Lyn, but it's always a pleasure to speak to you, Ma'am.

I'm sorry:  My name is Bill Monroe, I'm from New Jersey. I've spoken with you on several occasions, Helga, and it's always a pleasure to see you.  You're doing a wonderful job, dear lady! Keep it up!  God bless you!

AL KORBY:  This is Al Korby.  Pearl Harbor was bombed on my 17th birthday.  On my 18th birthday I joined the Army Air Force, and I worked as an aircraft mechanic on B-24s and B-29s in Texas, Kansas, Colorado and Utah. …

PATRICK S:  Good afternoon, I'm Patrick from Greenwich, Connecticut.  I'm happy to be here.  I was in the United States Army, stationed in Germany, in 1960-63.

PAUL BARRON: [ph]  Good afternoon, Helga.  My name is Paul Barron and I was in the Vietnam era, and I've from Storrs, Connecticut.

BILL MONROE:  I forgot to tell you:  I served in World War II, in the European theater of operations, and from there I went to the Philippines at the cessation of the war.

JAMES CHRISTIAN:  Good evening, my name is James Christian, I served in the U.S. Navy as a radio operator between 1957-1960.

MICHAEL LEPPIG:  My name is Michael Leppig and I served in the U.S. Navy, I was a Vietnamese linguist in Vietnam in 1966-67, and Helga, I was very inspired by your presentation.  Thank you so much.

HAL VAUGHN: I was in the U.S. Army, '72-'74;  I was in Turkey in 1973 when your friend Henry Kissinger caused a little trouble over there.

 TORY HALL:  I was in the U.S. Army, I was stationed in Germany from 2012-2016.

RONALD:  My name is Ronald.  I served from 1969-1971 in Vietnam.

INTERMISSION

Lyndon LaRouche Dialogue with the Manhattan Project

LAROUCHE:  Well, what we would look at is Putin. Look at Putin. Putin is an honest soldier in every sense of the word.

DENNIS SPEED: So, my name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome you here for our Saturday, May 28, Memorial Day Dialogue with LaRouche.

Of course, this is an event which needs and demands no introduction [laughs]. We've come — whether or not we wish to have come to the conclusion or not — to expect from Lyn, his normal, highly truthful, characterization of all things related to thinking.

As I said earlier, I hope that people have by now vented sufficiently and are ready to ask questions, and receive the answers that they're going to be given. Whoever our questioners are, please line up.

Lyn, would you have any statement for us at this point?

LAROUCHE: Well, I think I've been aware of what my wife has been saying, during the passing hours, and, I would like to add a rebuttal!  In a certain kind of way.

SPEED: [laughs]  Like I said!  I think there may be some things that some of the veterans had to say, but let's just ask first of all, if there are one or two questions, either from the last session. If not, we'll give you gentlemen, — a couple of them had a few things they wanted to say.

LAROUCHE: Okay.

SPEED: So maybe Patrick, you want to start us off?  You had something….

Q:  Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche.  I'm Patrick from Greenwich, Connecticut.  I'm honored to be here today, for the Live Memorial to the veterans, and the 9/11 victims.

A little bit about myself: I joined the Army, May 2nd, 1960. And, I had basic training in Fort Dix, New Jersey, and I went to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for artillery, and I trained on a 105 Howitzer. Then, I was stationed in Germany — I went overseas, and my new outfit was the 3rd Missile Battalion, 21st Artillery. This was the "Honest John" missile, which had a nuclear capability. And, in 1961, the Berlin Wall went up; 1962, the Cuban Crisis started, and 13 days, we were out in the field, about 3 kilometers from the Czech border, with our missiles fully prepared and ready to go. But, thank God that Kennedy and Khrushchov were sane people.

Anyway, my question is: The Cuban Crisis of that era, and what's going on now, with the nuclear capabilities. What is your opinion as to the two different  — the Cuban Crisis, compared to now?

LAROUCHE: The Cuban Crisis was something which was being pressured, under the conditions of the FBI. The FBI was a key factor in bringing the matter to its form. And, that was a big problem. It was a rather evil operation, because the thing that was being done at that time, from my direct, personal knowledge what was going on, and I was in a leading role, position of authority, in the first part of my existence, as a major figure.

Then, of course, I was cancelled by the FBI; the FBI just threw me out of the organization, where I had been a leading figure, in what the FBI did.  And, I got bounced around a few times, and I finally organized my own organization; which was quite successful up to the point of the FBI again came into my career and put me in prison.

So, I'm used to these kinds of treatments, that kind, knowing that every one of these guys who were doing that against me were bums! Rots and bums! With no right to anything.

But, I just go ahead and do what I have to do, and I do it.

Q: My name is Mike [leppig], I'm from New Jersey, and I'm a Vietnam veteran. And well, Helga kind of provoked a whole series of memories in my mind.  I was 17 years old in 1965 when I joined the U.S. Navy, and I became a Vietnamese linguist. I went to Vietnam, and I left for Vietnam in November of '66. At that time, this was after the Gulf of Tonkin; after the Kennedy assassination, the view of my family and my parents was that the military would "make a man of me." The attitude generally, at least in the community that I came out of, was supportive of the government, "if the government's behind it,  this is it."

While I was in Vietnam, what I experienced was an almost total cynicism about the war itself, on the part of the military leadership, with a significant element of that leadership, I would consider in retrospect very patriotic; that they were committed in Vietnam, they wanted to see it develop, they had, what I now understand, is a kind of a traditional military outlook. Others were careerists, they were their own career.

Anyway, coming back from Vietnam, by the end of the '60s, what you describe as the condition of the government today,  that it has no legitimacy, that's the way I felt. And, I think a lot of my age-people felt the same way. Now, we're confronted with a society that's their children, and we have an FBI-run Presidential election; like the riots in San Diego yesterday FBI show.

And it seems to me like this is our moment, like never before. I am so optimistic; I can't believe it! Because, nobody believes in the election; people who say that they're for Trump — they hate Hillary; people who say they're for Hillary — they hate Trump. But, you probe it,  and they don't give a crap about either one of them; and when you mention your name, there's respect. Either they go away, because they don't want to hear it, they don't want to know the truth, or, if they're at least interested in the truth, they stop, they take the literature, they may not give money, but they know that you represent the truth. So, it seems to me that this puts a big burden on all of us here in the room, because you've done your work, now what we've got to do is just say that we're with you, and be able to stand up, with you in mind. That's what I want to say.

LAROUCHE: We have to do more than that.  We have to activate the thing, again, by understanding exactly what's wrong, with the way the government runs today, and to present an account of what the errors are, of government, in management today. It has to be cleared up. Because what happens?  The people who are doing the frame-ups against people, are still doing the frame-ups! By and large. Not the same people who kept doing it, but new, alternative figures, who are doing the frame-ups. That's where the problem lies.

So, the difficulty is to find an honest group of people who will actually listen to their own mind and find out what is going on in their own mind. And the problem is, in the United States generally, most people are incapable of listening to the product of their own mind.

SPEED:  Okay! Next question, if it's actually a question. [laughs]

Q: Hi Lyn! This is Tory Hall. I'm also a U.S. Army veteran. I served from 2012 to 2016. I was in Germany. They sent me to a few different places as well. And most recently they had sent me to Ukraine. I was there, physically. In my own mind, I rejected the entire operation that happened there. But that wasn't common. That wasn't typical of the other people there. And because I rejected these things—in a way I was already looking towards the New Paradigm—the idea of the Silk Road—then this type of conflict doesn't even make sense. What does a military look like in a New Silk Road paradigm?

LAROUCHE:  Well, what we would look at is Putin. Look at Putin. Putin is an honest soldier in every sense of the word. His commitments are honest to the total extent of the work. He's the greatest builder of competence right now. His brother was killed, in the family. He became a career.

I met him, not directly, I met him indirectly, because I was doing some work in that area against the Chechen operation there. He was doing it at the same time. So I was actually operating in parallel to him, not in direct relationship to him, but in parallel to him. Then I came out of that service and he went on with his own career, as we've seen up to today, so far

He's a very capable person. He probably is one of the best, most competent, military figures of the current time. He has a tremendously good record. And he has great achievements. He's learned how to do things that most other people in government and in military service have not learned what to do.

And he's a backer for China. He probably will turn out to be a backer for Japan, because the evidence now is that the Japan organization is going to agree, against —against Obama. They're turning against Obama.

But the overall situation is: Just think of the military situation, as such. Now, in the military situation is, there's no reason why the United States military under the military system should do anything for Obama. Obama is evil. He's a thief, a swindler, he's a cheat, and other unpleasant things. And therefore, the important thing here is, that Obama is what he is; but Putin is also what he is. And Putin is a man of great achievement, unusually great achievement. If you're going to win a war, you'd better work with him on that, and you're likely to win.

Q:  Hello, Mr. LaRouche, I'm Igor Kochan. I'm the president of Russian Youth of America organization. I'm also a member of Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots in the U.S.A. We do a lot of different cultural events to bring Russians and Americans together, to let Americans know more about Russian history and Russian culture.

One of the events that we had this year, was called the Immortal Regiment. I'm really grateful that members of your organization joined us, and grateful for the choir that sang at that event. The Immortal Regiment, so that everybody understands what it is, is that, it's the walk where people are walking with pictures of their grandparents. We do it close to the May 8th, which is Victory in Europe Day. The idea is to preserve the history of your family to make people remember the veterans of their family, and to walk with their pictures in their hands, and to lay the flowers, this year, to the East Coast Memorial.

There was about 600 people this year. We would like to get more Americans involved in that, so that it becomes not only a Russian tradition, but an American tradition also. Because we believe that to bring Russians and Americans together, it's really important that Americans remember their own history—the history of their families, the history of their country—because right now, unfortunately, when we were asking people what they remember about the World War II, they couldn't even remember who won that war! Some people were giving some ridiculous answers, like "Well, you know what? Germans won the war." No, no, no! It's like Germans were Nazis!

By trying to remember the heroes of the war, people who fought in that war, in their families, people also learn who were participating in this war; that Russians and Americans were not enemies, actually; that they fought together, against Nazis. It's real important. If they were friends at that time, maybe they're still friends, or they should be.

So, what do you think about the idea of the Immortal Regiment? And do you think it's possible to make it an American tradition to remember the veterans?

LAROUCHE:  Well, "American" is a special name for the kind of process we're talking about. There're many nations which have memorial organizations; that is, they have a history of tradition. And that is, of course, different in different nations. But the idea of having such organizations is not wrong. You've just got to make sure you've got the right home of that organization. That's all you require. Otherwise, what happens, you have people like that who become the firemen, everything else that is needed for emergency purposes. Those people who serve as a military or other kind of service, of the same kind of thing, these groups are usually, and generally, very useful inside of society.

Q: Mr. LaRouche, this is Al Korby. Pearl Harbor was bombed on my 17th birthday. Then I joined the Army on my 18th birthday. I was on my way to Okinawa when the atom bombers bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I thought that was a good thing at the time. The war was over. I found out later that it was a senseless massacre; that Japan was in the process of negotiating surrender. As a civilian again, and in a small business, I avoided politics because I thought it was a corrupt system. Then the Kennedy assassination and the cover-up. I said, "Why? A cover-up?" I was looking for an answer, looking for the reason. It wasn't there.

Then a call came from Margaret Greenspan in 1994. It was within a few days of you're getting out prison. I took a subscription, and then I started understanding what was going on; that we were being manipulated by the British Empire. Then in 2001, I became a full-time activist with the organization. Now, on the 7th of this month, I participated in the Immortal Regiment march, with the colonel from Russia. I said that we had to make a joining of the continents at the Bering Strait a reality.

So, what are the particular actions we must take now, to make this a reality?

LAROUCHE:  What you've got to do, is you've got to change the mentality of the usual citizen in the United States, because most of the usual citizens in the United States who are living today, are incompetent; they are confused at the very best. And therefore the problem is, we don't have a standard, under our government today, which trains people or induces people to pick up a career which is justified for the help of the  protection of a nation. The idea that you have to protect a nation. You have understand why you're protecting the nation, what the protection is, what the requirements are. We don't have that any more. We have too many FBI people, and not enough real citizens. [applause]

Q:  Hi Lyn! It's Alvin. A quick quote from something you recently stated: "There's a large, powerful, force which is accumulating its expression, and this will be the deciding factor if mankind is to survive." Now, we're taking the Obama/British Empire of repeatedly only knowing one type of script to follow. They're dangerous, but they're very stupid. You continue to emphasize to us the importance of the strategic leadership, particularly around China and Russia, with Xi Jinping doing something in his way toward development, and Putin demonstrating his ability to outflank the Empire and avoid war, so that we might live to actually have a future; that mankind might be able to actually realize its true potential and grow up.

On the [Fireside Chat] call Thursday, we're here in Manhattan, and we're trying to organize people around these conceptions, have them get over their own ignorance and fear. You mentioned—and this relates to the work that we're doing outside of the political realm—the question becomes, "Can a human being become greater than themselves?"

That's our job here: To improve ourselves as human beings, and then inspire others. So, I just would like for you to elaborate on that theme, and how we can continue to make progress.

LAROUCHE:  Well, that's difficult to do, because you have to explain a lot of things that go into this kind of question. Very few people really have much skill at that. That's where the problem lies. You have people who have some insight into what itmight mean, but they don't understand what it is to deliver the product. And the people's ability to deliver the required product, is where the problem comes up.

Q:  Hello, Lyn. John Sigerson. I'm not a veteran, though both my parents were. This is along the same lines as some of the people who have addressed this, but I wanted to look into the future, along the lines of what Helga said about a world without war, a world where this infantile malady had finally been expunged from our culture, and we should look at all of the people who have served and have died, as people serving in the name of that, rather than simply defeating some enemy, however, nefarious that enemy might have been or might be.

But my question is, looking into the future, with a vision of a society without war, how do you do maintain a warlike attitude in the population so that the population does not go soft, and that you still have a warlike attitude, but not from the standpoint of actually physically fighting wars against some enemy?

LAROUCHE:  … involve wars or fighting wars as such. What's important is the ability of the human individual to apparently fulfill a military obligation, apparently.  But that is not necessarily true.  Often the professional soldier, is a fake.  This is a common problem in the military service, that the people who are in there do not have the qualifications to carry out the mission!  So generally you get a limited number of people in the military who do have some understanding of what this means and appreciation of what its implications are, but in general, most people in society do not have a comprehension of what that means, and I'm talking about people who are civilians as well as otherwise.  That they are not capable of summoning in themselves, the kind of role which is necessary to do the job.

Now, this comes up in strange ways, which are not really formal ways.  When somebody who comes in to rescue someone who is endangered, that's the typical case.  And therefore, you find out, is that person capable of delivering a successful effect, for the benefit of the population.  That's what's important.  It has the implications of being something tantamount to a military organization, but it really isn't.  It's the guy who, with clothes or not, who goes out to do something, to save people from some threat against them, or to some injury against them in another sense.

And that's what the issue is.  It's to get people to understand that their obligation insociety, is to lead society or to assist in leading society to enable a population, to accomplish its true mission.  Not just some mission, but the true mission of a  member of the society as a whole.

You get people to understand this, to see, to understand what they are, and find out there's something good that there is what they are. And when they find those talents are expressed, then you have a sense of victory.

Q:  Hi Lyn, this is Daniel [burke].  On that question of a successful leadership of the population, we're embarked upon something, which we discussed at the opening of this event here, which is to create a justice and a meaning for the lives of those people who were killed, wantonly, in this horrible attack on 9/11/2001.  And I'm very concerned to know, to discover, what are the proper principles of achieving this?  And I do think that it is in context, or that we have to keep in context, the fact that Obama and the Saudis and the British are losing.  They have lost a certain amount of control of Japan; they have major people in France and Germany saying "end the sanctions against Russia." There is an opportunity here, and so, it's all the more important that we achieve this justice:  How do we do that?

LAROUCHE:  On the case of Japan, for example:  The Japan case, Japan is now realizing that its enemy is coming from those quarters, and they have to deal with that quarter, and they're doing it, to some degree.  I don't know to what perfected, or non-perfected degree; that's working out now.  But there is an orientation among people in Japan, to develop Japan as an instrument, to defend the people against Obama!  So, this is a part of thing.

So therefore, you can't come down with some kind of mechanical explanation.  You have to say,  these are developments where people, in this case, Japanese, who've moved into this area of attitude, and they've moved into it.  Why?  Because they thought it was in their best interest, and they thought what they were getting from Obama and company was not in their best interest.  I don't know how much they were against Obama, or not. But I do know what they were doing in practice, was something which was to the advantage of the people of the nation, and to the Japanese themselves.  So, that's fine.

And these are the kinds of things you have to look at; look at it in those kinds of terms.  Not simple, mechanical kinds of interpretation.

Q:  This is R— from Bergen Country, New Jersey.  In the recent issue of EIR, there is an editorial called "LaRouche's Triple Curve," and I found something that you — on the occasion of bringing out this Triple Curve concept, you gave a talk — this was around 1995 — and there's a quote in there, which I'd like to read a simple extract from that, if I could.  I'm quoting you:

"We always blame somebody else. Now, the job of a leader is not to blame leaders. We can point out some are bad, some are defective, some are utterly immoral, some are barely human. But the problem lies in the people, not in the leaders. The problem, often, of oppression, lies in the oppressed. Because they will not accept any proposition that is not consistent with the assumption that they must remain `the oppressed.'"

So is it accurate to say that people get the leaders that they deserve? And if so, is that why the cultural issue is so important?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the cultural issue is one which I laid out about the time where I was about to be bounced out of the organization.  And I designed this program, which I proved, and then they bounced me out and I disappeared for some time as a result of that, because I was in jail, put in jail by the FBI. And so that was what the temporary end of the thing was.

Now, we have a different situation, a very similar situation, however, not just a different one, and they're still after me; the FBI is still after me.  They're a little bit more skittish than they were in times back, but the point was that what I was talking about was simply, my scientific discovery, of the fallacy of the usual kind of assumptions, about how things work.  My specialty was how things can be made to work.  And I introduced a new idea, which was unknown to most of the people in that time.  And are still unknown to most people of the present time!  Because they never discovered what I presented.  But some people got it.

Q:  Hello  Mr. LaRouche, my name is J— and I'm from the Bronx.

LAROUCHE:  That's all right! [laughs]

Q:  I heard something over the weekend that I think you might like:  The education and the act of educating is to overcome ignorance.  But I believe, and I'm sure you would agree with me on this, that the education system today is meant to make kids my age, and maybe a little younger, to keep them ignorant. [laughter] See people already agree with me on that point.

LAROUCHE:  The main purpose of the education system in the universities and high schools and so forth today, is to make the students dumber.

Q: [follow-up] Now, what we've been doing — by "we," I mean we started a "Basement club" as well, that we started here in New York, me and a group of four other students, including Lynn Yen, and we've been led by Megan as well; and what we've been doing, is we've been studying Kepler and we've been looking at Classical pieces.  And over the summer as well, we've been holding summer classes, where we teach Plato's work, theMeno dialogue, especially, as well, which has really resonated with me, to combat the ignorance that the education system has placed in the minds of these students.  And I know this to be true, because I am part of this system, that tries to keep us ignorant [LaRouche laughs] … standardized testing, SATs that restrict the way we think, that don't  allow us to look at things differently, but say "this is what's right, and this is what's wrong:  out of four options on this bubble sheet that you have, only one of them is right and you are not allowed to think differently."

LAROUCHE:  [laughs] I know what you're talking about!

Q: [follow-up] Basically, what I'm trying to get at is, is there more that I could be doing, and that others can be doing, to fix this system, other than just reading Plato; and other than just looking at Classical music?  Is this enough?  Is that what you're telling me?

LAROUCHE:  No, you really have to have, an in-depth discovery, an actual discovery, done by many scientists in different generations, and so forth in the process.  And you have to rely upon that experience, and seeing that experience in terms of your experience; and trying to see whether you agree or not.  But to get to insight into what this is all about.  When you go with formalities, all you get is blab.  And blab and flab. So you don't need blab or flab.

So what we have to do, is get some people out there, who will actually engage in discussion of what makes the truth be the truth.  And you've got to come up with some evidence.  You've got to produce some evidence which tells you that the truth that you believe is the truth, is the truth.  That's where the tough business comes into play.

Q:  Hi Lyn, this is Asuka.  My question is about my country, Japan.  There's quite an earthquake going on, the political earthquake, and it could be bigger than "Hokushima."  But I want to ask your insight into this, because certainly there is a role that you and your wife played in this.  Last December, Helga went to Japan and had a conference where she keynoted. And she also spoke among the prominent industrialists of Japan, and also there was Yakunin, former head of Russian Railways, present.

So, for me to see the recent development in terms of Abe's visit to Sochi and meeting with Putin, coming out with this fantastic proposal to develop the Siberian region, I think there was a certain precursor in this that we saw in Helga's visit to Japan.  And I know you personally went to Tokyo with Helga before.  So if you can elaborate a little bit about your insight and your experience regarding Japan, and what's going on?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the point is, what you're seeing is the effect, and the effect is already available to you immediately, without too much explanation.  What's happened is that Japan, the population of Japan has produced within itself, a body of people who are concerned with a fresh view of what the future is, because what's happened, they're being stuck now with some of the things that are going on in that region, and therefore they want to get out of that region and be more sane, and practicable. And they're attracted to this.  They are attracted to this against, — and every time they get a smell of Obama, they want to vomit!  And therefore what they do is they aim their mouth in the direction of the distance, and let the vomit come out, and then feel fresher.  [laughter]

SPEED:  OK — next question!

Q:  Hi, Lyn, it's K— from Bronx.

LAROUCHE:  Acknowledged!

Q: I see a mental shift taking place among the nations and among people, to a higher level, where they want to have growth and they want to have cooperation among nations and among each other.  I wanted to interject about the Middle East:  I have gathered some information together, that tensions are somewhat reduced in that area.  They're not eliminated but there is some reduction; from what I understand Hamas and Hezbollah have other enemies that they're more interested in than Israel, and they also recognize that Israel could wipe them out or certain decimate them quite badly.

I also believe that there is a change of leadership coming in Palestine and if I'm correct on that, do you know anything about it?  And is the next leader, to be more amenable to trying to get along in the neighborhood?

LAROUCHE: Well, as you probably know from your background, on this matter, that, in the Jewish community in particular, you had some very rough treatment:  Assassinations being perpetrated by Jews, against Jews.  And I was of course, early on the course of my postwar experience, I was associated with an initial Israeli organization, which was a military organization at that time, and I was associated with that.  So therefore, I was very much concerned with the defense of that.

Then at the end of a cycle, what happened was, everything went bad, and from that point on you had people who were Jews or murderers, or not murderers.  And that was going on under the influence of the British.  The British system took control over the Israelis on that basis, and thus they produced a degenerate quality of person, and some of the degenerates were in California.  California had a Jewish community which was really a butcherous community.

But the core of the Israeli population, not so much from Russia, not so much from Germany.  Germany was a disease; for Israel, Germany is a disease, it's a disease that's infectious and you try to duck it if you can.  But in this case, what I was associated with, was a group of people who were the hard core of the people who had been the military leaders who were already operating in the Middle East in that time, and these people were then suppressed by the crowd coming from Britain.  So the British crowd that came in, started a war among Jews, and therefore, there killings of Jewish leaders by some people, and killers of Jewish leaders  by some other people — in other words both ways. And this thing was going on for some time.

One would hope, that on that question, given the present circumstances, we would have a more peaceful arrangement under which the Israelis  or the Israeli faction, were being a more, shall we say, suitable leadership.  The leadership of Israel under those guys, the British guys,  — get rid of them!  is the best advice.  And, if we could get some peace in this area, we can save Jewish lives and everything else.  And just look at it that way.

It's the British system.  It's the British angle of this thing, that sets up all these evil things that come out of Israel.

Q: [follow-up] A rabbi in the neighborhood where I live said there are two Israels: there's the religious and there's the secular.  And in her opinion, if Israel goes down that would be the reason they went down.  That's her point.

I had also heard, and I don't know where I got this information, that the Chinese, the Egyptians, and the Indians were hoping to work with Israel and the Palestinians to try to do the resolve.  If that were to take place, it would knock the United States and the British out of that neighborhood.  Do you know anything about that?

LAROUCHE:  No, that would not.  The point is, you've got a population of Jews  in that region, and other groups as well, and you have people who are good people, just honest, good people; they may be a bit confused on this or that, and so forth, or ignorant.  But that's it.

But the point is, my concern is, here I was, I had just come out of military service and I went out to associate myself with the Israelis who had been the leaders of the defense of Jews in that period.  They got bounced out about four years later, and I was bounced out.  But so that was the condition.

What today is, if we can pacify the situation, now that doesn't mean the individual as such; pacify the situation, because you'll find that when people are pacified in a certain way, they are no longer freaking out about accusations against one person and another person.  If you can get a community to agree, on making arrangements with each other, in order to function better, then you've won.  So I think that's where you've to go today.  I know what the situation was when I saw it, after the initial Israeli development there.  But the whole thing changed after a time; we went through a whole period when the British element was controlling the Jewish population.  That thing is shifting.  And I think the time now, because of the Turkish problem, and some other kinds of problems, that the people in that network would be very happy to escape from getting entangled into that kind of nonsense, which is going on today.

People do like peace, you know!  They do like to live! [laughter] So the point is, how can we get — this has always been for me, what's the problem?  What you have to do to make people peaceful? And to help each other?

Q:  Hi Lyn, it's Denise.  First off, I was really, really moved by Helga's presentation on the new paradigm.  And I was thinking about this new paradigm from the standpoint, that I was making a mistake, and I'm sure many other people, who are mentally focusing on these idiots who are running for President. And if you only think about that, or if that's in your mind, you can't have a new paradigm, you're a dead duck.  What I thought of was the only way to have political freedom, as Schiller had said, is through beauty.  And I'd wanted to make a special call to honor Jeanne d'Arc whose saintly feast is May 30, and her being the leadership of France against the Burgundians and the English; and I also want to say that it's our chorus and our music work that's going to come above all of this stuff having to do with the two idiots who are running for office.

You know, this week we're going to open our fourth chorus in the New York City area, which is wonderful that we're doing that.  And now I'm thinking, more and more, having heard Helga and having heard you, to get out of this other mindset.

And I finally want to mention that I'm the eldest of seven children, whose father was a United States Marine and served in both World War II and Korea.  Thank you.

LAROUCHE:  Thank you.

 Q:  Hi Lyn, this is Renée [sigerson].  I wanted to just address briefly a matter that I've been thinking about for the last few weeks, in which you opened up my mind by nothing that people lack the qualifications or the developed capacities, to address the subjective questions that come up in the organizing, and how we actually deal with that,  which we're actually doing in this discussion.  But I want to focus on one aspect of it, which I think is crucial and quickly, to frame it in this way.

A year after you were in jail, I'll never forget a message that you sent to us, it was about one year later, and you said: "I'm the happiest man in the world, because I have the most wonderful wife, and all of my enemies are complete moral degenerates." [laughter] And I'll never forget that.

And it came about the same time, that Michael Billington was going through the most incredible harassment in the Virginia prison system.  And the combination of these circumstance, captured by those two elements and what Mike describes in his book, which really, at the time, was completely  — it was another very heavy blow — I know went through a transformation, where during that period of time, I just got reallybored and sick of my fear of the enemy.  And I just suddenly said, "we just got to crush these guys." And there was a certain resolution in my own mind that suddenly, they weren't frightening any more, but they just had to go.

And I thought about this a lot, because in a way, it exemplifies a principle which you then addressed when you came out of prison, which is very relevant to the discussion we're having, which is the principle of metaphor.  Because I think that it is really impossible to do what you want us to do, unless people rivet themselves on being able to identify that truth lies in metaphor, and metaphor is truth; that this is not some kind of interesting "twist," or decoration, but that this is the essence of how truth actually functions.  And it really clears your mind.

Like people bring up fixating on the election.  Well, if you think metaphorically, you don't fixate on the election, because you just say, this is a bunch of idiots, and you can see it right away.  You don't see contradictions between saving the United States and dealing with the Congress and at the same time, fighting internationally to win the fight for the Land-Bridge: All these things that are different, somehow form this very beautiful, elaborate crystal, that in your mind, is a One, if you think metaphorically.  But if you haven't worked at thinking metaphorically, you're always in this truncated, vulnerable state of mind.  And I think the question of metaphor is also, that your emphasis on this over years and years, in different ways, was one of the things that strengthened some of us, at a critical moment to finally find out that fear is a very boring emotion.

But could you say something about that?

LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  The question of metaphor is ambiguous at this point, unless you qualify it.  Because the question is, what can you do in society, and how can you do it?  And so, the problem is, if people are not able to equip themselves to adapt a policy which inures them against fears, and that's what the issue is.  And if you want to educate a population, you have to educate the population as such, in order so that they don't get in the grip of fears.  Like fears of the FBI.  For example, you should rejoice, every time you can dangle a jig about yourself against the FBI out there.  Wherever the FBI are doing something and you hope, saying, "Well, let them go out there and jingle on the sidewalk, let him go out and make an ass of himself.  Let him see what a damned fool he is."  Right?  And say, "that's the way to look at this guy!"

Q: Good afternoon Mr. LaRouche.  It's Jessica from Brooklyn. On May 24th, which was just the past Wednesday, there was an article in the New York Post and I didn't read the Post because, you know, we've talked about newspapers before.  But I saw it on the internet also, that Schumer had up-ended the 9/11 Saudi suit which is called the JASTA bill [Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act], and what's interesting about this, is when you're living in history, things change from moment to moment very quickly.  And before I knew it, the families of the victims of 9/11 were saying that this was an article that was not reported accurately; that Schumer had not done these things; that it was some Republican faction or something that was trying to introduce something to water down the bill.

And I thought about our work on the 28 pages, and even though we are in support of the JASTA bill, it kind of led me to talk about the 28 pages even more among my colleagues.  And so, in their asking me about this article, I started talking about the 28 pages, and how this is actually something that we're doing as a mission to get to the truth; to talk about the truth about the Saudis and the British, in all terrorism, in terrorism around the globe, and how people need to really understand what the truth is about this entire 28-page operation.

So I'd like you to kind of comment, because now my colleagues, every time they see me, and they ask me questions about stuff, they go "all power to the people."  So any time I see a colleague, they go "Oh, Power to the people, that's Miss White," you know.  So I'd like you to comment on the fact that our mission is to expose the truth about the 28 pages, and the fact that two Presidential administrations have not only reclassified their own information, but have covered this whole, entire thing up, to the point of where it is now, and we're trying to get to the real crux of the matter, concerning, not just the 28 pages, but these Presidencies.

LAROUCHE: Well, there has been a very bad twist put on this question, in terms of Manhattan.  Especially for Manhattan as such.  And this was a lie!  Now, why was the lie:  The lie was in order to try to avoid making Schumer the scapegoat for the FBI; that's essentially what it was, plus and minus.

Q: [follow-up]  That's amazing.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  He was guilty.  I mean, Schumer was actually guilty by sliding along — I think sliding along is the most appropriate thing, or sliming along is equal.  But the point is, he did wedge in an argument against the steps, and that confused people.  And then, therefore, people in other parts of the government tried to crawl onto that thing, and thus make a case against what had happened, and to cover up what Schumer had said.  Schumer had slided into something, and they covered up for him.  Because he wanted to be in with the right boys!

Q: [follow-up]  Right:  "go along to get along" right? Thank you.

SPEED:  Any other questions?

LAROUCHE:  Any survivors?  [laughter]

Q:  [Bill Monroe] First of all, I want to wish you a very memorial holiday, today, Lyn.  And guess what?  Look.  [Gives a crisp salute]  Some of these folks may not know that you and I both are old warriors.  My name is Bill Monroe, same as that country western singer.

I've been following your brilliant career for way over 20 years.  I wish to state, it has been brilliant, illuminating, and consistent, never, ever wavering!  You have inspiredmy life, sir!  And I want to thank you for that.

I want to tell you a little something about myself.  I'll be as brief as I possibly can.  I joined the Army in 1943, and I went over to England aboard the Queen Mary, and never mind the British government — the British people treated Bill Monroe real, real damned good and I thank them for that!  They made my stay there, I was there about a year before the invasion.

I landed over there on D-Day, the third wave of invasion of Omaha Beach.  A lot of people did not make it.  I'm very fortunate to say, luckily, I did make it.  I further want to say, that as things began to quiet down, I had a most illuminating experience.  I became a friend of the mayor Sainte-Mère Église, and one day, he sent word over, "Sgt. Monroe, I want you to come over and meet somebody!"  So, I said, OK, as soon as I possibly can.  So when I got leave, I went over, I walked in, and look at me [slowly cranes his head upward] — I said, “Êtes-vous Général de Gaulle?” “Je suis le même!” [“Are you General de Gaulle?” “The very same!”] [laughter]

I want to back up just momentarily: When I was in high school, it was compulsory at that time, different than it is today, unfortunately, that you had to take some foreign language.  Unbeknownst to me as to my destiny, for some reason unknown to me, I chose French.  So when I got to France, I was able to converse with most of the people there.  Again, they treated Bill Monroe darn good!  I met what I call my French mother and father, because they kind of adopted me while I was in their area, and they treated me, as I said, "darn good."  That dear lady walked three miles into town to get something special for Bill Monroe, and three miles back.  Guess what she made?Escargots. [laughter]  At that time I had not the slightest inkling as to what escargotswas!  I said to myself, "Oh, they fix tuna fish a little different here!" When I got back to camp, and I leafed through my French-English booklet and I seen "escargots," and I said, "Oh my God, I at snails!"  But these are edible snails.

So, when I finally got back to the States, at an Italian restaurant, "Hey, Bill, what would you like to have today?"  I said, "Escargot!"  He said, "Oh, yeah?  Okay!"  And I said, "And give me a cappuccino, too!"  [laughter]

Lyn, I want to say one thing:  I've had a very, very illuminating career myself.  You've been a real inspiration to me, sir.  I believe you have helped pilot my life.  I'm hoping that a lot of folks will do the same. I want to God bless you, sir, you and your wife, Helga.  You're doing a brilliant thing, in spite of the so-called "FBI" which I used to have respect for! Keep it up, all right?  [laughter, applause]

SPEED: Well, do you have anything to say in response to that?

LAROUCHE:  It's hard to do that.  That consumes my appetites.

SPEED:  OK, very good.  It looks like we may have a follow-up question.

Q:  It's me again J— from the Bronx.  You  know, the English language is pretty dumb, it's pretty dumb, right?  And university students have found a way to surprise me and this is something I expressed to Dennis as well, but they've found a way to make the English language even dumber!  You can't even call someone a color any more because it's offensive.  You're not allowed to say an idea if it's offensive to someone, or if someone's offended, and frankly someone of the things you say offend me!  In fact, why don't I just censor you now?  Why don't I just storm out of this building and protest against you?

I'd like to believe that I'm probably the last open-minded person in my generation nowadays, because everyone is so afraid to accept a new idea, or everyone is so afraid to live outside what comforts them, or  — I don't know.  People are afraid to get hurt by something they've never heard before; or people are so accustomed or coddled by gender-study professors [laughter] — it's true!  People forget what's in-between their legs nowadays, and then you know, you refer to them as Mr. or Mrs. and suddenly it's like "I want to be referred to as `zee' or 'they', or some other pronoun," and it's like, "Oh, okay."  And then this subject of man-splaining, where a man who explains an idea is perpetuating sexist culture, and that's a way of censorship, honestly.  That's all that it's leading up to, censorship!  I believe my generation has almost shot itself in the foot.

And we're going backwards!  It's called the "regressive Left."  You know, there was a time when the Left stood for something right.  You know, MLK, the '60s, it was a great time. And somehow we've gone backwards.  We can't seem to do anything any more.  And I don't know, I just want to know your thoughts on that.

LAROUCHE:  I think we need to improve the population. [Speed guffaws]  I think we're in a desperate strait for cleaning up the population.

SPEED:  All right, I think we've sort of drawn out everything we're going to draw out for the moment.  There's probably some more opposition in the audience, but I don't think we're going to hear from it today!  So, Lyn if you have any — oh, of course, it is a bit expanded from the last time you saw us, and I think we're going to be seeing this as a trend.  But if there's anything you'd like to say to our — or your army in Manhattan, please go ahead.

LAROUCHE:  Well, I think we are ready to extend the grip of Manhattan, into the area of some parts of the neighboring waters, a little bit distant.  We're going to be opening up more channels in different parts of the world than we have been doing before. And that's going to be the augmented aspect of what's going to happen to me in the coming days.

SPEED:  Great!  That's good news.  We'll await results.

LAROUCHE:  Yes.  You'll get it, too.

SPEED:  All right great!  [applause]

Onsdag, 1. juni 2016 – Schiller Instituttets grundlægger Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der i Kina har fået tilnavnet ”Silkevejsladyen”, og som, sammen med Lyndon LaRouche, er den fremmeste promoter af denne politik i Europa, blev interviewet af TASS den 31. maj 2016 om at træffe valget mellem enten en ny, global krig, eller økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde.

TASS: Hvordan vurderer De det aktuelle, internationale samarbejde?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Der er to radikalt modsatrettede bevægelser på planeten netop nu. På den ene side mødes kombinationen af præsident Putins meget succesrige militære flanker, såsom hans intervention i Syrien, der skabte potentialet for fred, og så hans forskellige diplomatiske interventioner i Asien, parallelt med Kinas initiativer for Den Nye Silkevej.

Disse indsatser repræsenterer allerede et win-win-perspektiv for flere end 70 lande.

På den anden side finder der en ekstremt farlig konfrontation sted fra USA’s, Storbritanniens, EU’s og NATO’s side imod Rusland og Kina, der har bragt verden ind i multiple kriser, der er farligere end på højden af den Kolde Krig.

TASS: På hvilke områder er dette mere aktivt, og hvor er det ikke?

Zepp-LaRouche: Med hensyn til Syrien, så er samarbejdet mellem [den russiske] udenrigsminister Lavrov og [den amerikanske] udenrigsminister Kerry, såvel som også Genève-samarbejdet mellem Rusland og USA, meget positivt. Men så længe USA imidlertid ikke opgiver sin politik for ’regimeskift’, er situationen fortsat farlig. Præsident Putin har vist sig at være en fremragende strateg.

Dette giver tiltro til, at det ikke vil lykkes krigshøgene i NATO at lokke Rusland ind i en fælde og give NATO et påskud til et lancere et førsteangreb.

TASS: Omkring hvilke spørgsmål må vi optrappe samarbejdet mellem Vesten og Rusland, og hvorfor?

Zepp-LaRouche: Kendsgerningen er den, at hele den transatlantiske sektor er bankerot og tæt på at eksplodere på en større måde end i 2008. Den japanske premierminister Abe understregede, efter et meget vigtigt besøg i Rusland, klart dette ved det nyligt afsluttede G7-møde, men blev afvist af præsident Obama, der hævdede, at ”den økonomiske genrejsning går fremad”, hvilket er absurd i lyset af centralbankernes negative rentesatser og debatten omkring ”helikopter-penge” (ubegrænset pengetrykning, -red.).

Vesten har derfor mere end Asien brug for den form for økonomisk samarbejde, som samarbejdet om Ét bælte, én vej/den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union byder på, og som integrerer Eurasien fra Vladivostok til Lissabon, men som også inviterer USA til at deltage i dette perspektiv. Vi kan kun undgå en katastrofe, hvis det lykkes os at overvinde geopolitik og nå frem til et nyt paradigme, baseret på et partnerskab for global udvikling og menneskehedens fælles mål.

TASS: Hvorfor forhindrer Vesten i den grad samarbejde med Rusland, på trods af den åbenlyse terrortrussel, cyberkriminalitet og andre internationale udfordringer?

Zepp-LaRouche: Næsten alle betydningsfulde konflikter stammer fra det anglo-amerikanske imperiums indsats for at bevare en unipolær verden, på et tidspunkt, hvor denne verden de facto allerede er ophørt med at eksistere. Flere og flere kræfter i verden indser, at de må træffe eksistentielle beslutninger, og at deres nationers interesser er meget bedre tjent med at standse sanktionerne og konfrontationen imod Rusland og Kina.

Den kendsgerning, at Rusland og Kina har skabt et meget stærkt, strategisk partnerskab, med Indien som en tredje partner, har flyttet den strategiske balance i verden. Flere og flere lande ser det som langt mere gavnligt at samarbejde om fælles udvikling end at befinde sig under åget af en militær konfrontation. Vi befinder os på et punkt i historien, hvor der må vælges, og det, der tæller, er lederskab af den art, som vi har set komme fra præsident Putin.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche besvarede den 6. maj spørgsmål fra det camerounske tidsskrift "Intégration’s” korrespondent i New York, Celestin Ngoa Balla, der havde deltaget i Schiller-instituttets konference i New York den 7. april.

Intégration: De har lige arrangeret en konference i New York. Hvad drejede den sig om? Hvad blev der sagt? Og hvad skal vi forvente som det næste?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I Midtpunktet for denne konference i New York stod krigsfaren, de fantastiske gennembrud under udbygningen af Den nye Silkevej i forskellige lande, fremtidens videnskab og dialog mellem kulturerne. Det bedste er at kikke ind på vore internetsider og selv se det. (www.schillerinstitute.org, newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com). Og vi vil fortsætte med at arrangere flere af den slags konferencer.

Intégration: De holder foredrag over hele verden, men ikke i Afrika eller Cameroun. Hvornår kommer de og besøger os?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg har allerede deltaget i konferencer i Khartoum (Sudan) og Abuja (Nigeria), og jeg har arbejdet siden begyndelsen af 1970erne på et udviklingsprogram for Afrika. Det skyldes altså ikke mangel på interesse, men på lejlighed.

Intégration: Hvorfor prøver De at fremme en ny økonomisk verdensorden?

Zepp-LaRouche: Fordi den nuværende verdensorden, der almindeligvis kaldes 'globalisering', er fuldstændigt bankerot – finansielt såvel som moralsk. Nødvendigheden af en ny, retfærdig økonomisk orden er endnu mere påtrængende i dag, end den var for 50 år siden, da den blokfrie bevægelse krævede en ny økonomisk verdensorden. Den store humanitære krise, der kommer til udtryk ved, at mange millioner mennesker nu om dage flygter fra krig, sult og fattigdom i Sydvestasien og Afrika og sætter deres liv på spil for at forsøge at komme til et Europa, der lukker sine grænser, er en sønderlemmende dom over alle dem, der prøver at opretholde et system, der kun gavner nogle få og skader milliarder af mennesker. Menneskeheden er ankommen til en skillevej, hvor vi enten finder et nyt mønster, der tager hensyn til alle de menneskers interesser, der lever på denne planet, eller hvor vi styrter endnu dybere ind i en mørk tidsalder eller sågar en tredje verdenskrig.

Intégration: Har den internationale konference om korruption ikke givet nogle retningslinjer for denne nye økonomiske verdensorden?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg kan ikke se, at denne konference har udrettet noget i praksis, der kan ændre noget ved det nuværende systems korruption. Tænk bare på den uhyre mængde af forbrydelser, som det transatlantiske finanssystem er delagtigt i, sådan som de såkaldte 'Panama Papers' afslører det, hvor bankerne systematisk har arrangeret skatteunddragelse og andre illegale aktiviteter, hvad der kun er toppen af isbjerget; eller manipulationerne med LIBOR-renten, hvor folk bedroges for trecifrede milliardbeløb; eller bankernes hvidvaskning af penge, som for eksempel HSBC. Så disse retningslinjer er indtil videre blot tomme ord.

Intégration: Tror De, at vi kan forvente regimeskift i flere lande, især i Afrika, hvor man har dette fænomen med 'præsidenter på livstid', der kan sno sig uden om ethvert tilløb til demokrati?

Zepp-LaRouche: Tragedien er, at mange statsmænd i Afrika, der har sloges for almenvellet, er blevet myrdede og erstattede af stikirenddrenge for det koloniale system, som stadig eksisterer, for eksempel i form af de økonomiske fondes kreditbetingelser. I sin bog 'Confessions of an economic hitman' beskriver John Perkins rigtigt godt, hvordan dette system arbejder helt op til i dag. Og man bør også huske på, at velklingende ord som 'demokrati' og 'menneskerettigheder' ofte bruges som synonymer for udenlandske indgreb for at bringe sådanne folk til magten, der tjener det transatlantiske finanssystem.

Intégration: Camerouns statschef Paul Biya har ofte krævet en marshallplan for Afrika. Tror De, at det er nødvendigt og muligt?

Zepp-LaRouche: Absolut! Det er mere end nødvendigt i betragtning af den ekstreme fattigdom i mange regioner og lande i Afrika. Og det er en realistisk mulighed for den nære fremtid. Kina er begyndt at bygge Den nye Silkevej og Den maritime Silkevej, som allerede mere end 60 lande arbejder med på. Min organisation, Schiller-instituttet, har udarbejdet et 370 sider langt studium over, hvordan Den nye Silkevej bliver til en verdenslandbro, og den indeholder et stort afsnit om afgørende udviklingsprojekter i Afrika, der vil forvandle situationen fuldstændigt. Det er først og fremmest store infrastrukturprojekter, som er en ufravigelig forudsætning for udvikling af landbruget og økonomien, men også vandprojekter, energiproduktion og -fordeling og nye byer.
Dog vil jeg ikke kalde dette for en 'marshallplan', for forlængelsen af De nye Silkevej til Afrika bør ikke have nogen bismag af Den kolde Krig, men udgøre et win-win-perspektiv for samtlige deltagere.

Intégration: Den internationale presse har givet Dem tilnavnet 'Silkevejskvinden'. Hvad er grunden for dette tilnavn, og nøjagtigt hvad er dette silkevejsinitiativ?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg tror, jeg har fået dette øgenavn, fordi jeg i 25 år har arbejdet for Den nye Silkevej. For det var det, min ægtemand og jeg foreslog, da Sovjetunionen brød sammen i 1991. Dengang kaldte vi det for Den eurasiske Landbro eller Den nye Silkevej, og det var et forslag, der skulle forbinde Europas og Asiens befolknings- og industricentre med hinanden gennem udviklingskorridorer og derved åbne det eurasiske kontinents indelukkede områder. Vi har siden da bogstaveligt talt arrangeret hundreder af konferencer og seminarer i hele verden om dette emne.
Den gode nyhed er, at Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i 2013 udnævnte Den nye Silkevej til Kinas officielle politik, der i den antikke silkevejs tradition skal forbinde folkene med hinanden gennem udveksling af varer, teknologi, kultur og ideer. I løbet af de to et halvt år siden da har projektet opnået et enormt tempo, og det er for tiden det eneste positive aspekt på planeten.

Intégration: Vi må spørge Dem: Hvad betyder initiativet med Den nye Silkevej for Afrika, eller hvilket bidrag kan Afrika yde til silkevejs-initiativet?

Zepp-LaRouche: Når man kikker på et kort over Afrika, kan man se, at den grundlæggende infrastruktur mangler. De få jernbanelinjer og veje er ikke meget bedre end i kolonitiden, hvor de kun tjente til udplyndring af råstoffer.
I det væsentlige vil det altså betyde opførsel af integrerede højhastighedsbaner, motorveje, vandkanaler, men også investeringer i fremskreden teknologi og uddannelse. Det vil ikke blot overvinde fattigdom, sult og sygdomme på meget kort tid, men også frembringe et spring til den mest moderne teknologi og gøre det muligt at lære af den kinesiske økonomiske model, der i de sidste 25 år har frembragt dette bemærkelsesværdige økonomiske mirakel.
Denne model hviler netop på den samme økonomiske model, der også var grundlaget for den tyske økonomiske model i efterkrigsårene. I princippet kan denne model anvendes overalt, når man fremmer den bedst mulige uddannelse af befolkningen og kreativiteten.
Afrika kan anvende sin enorme menneskelige kapital til gavn for hele menneskehedens udvikling. Jo flere mennesker, der studerer projekterne og tankegangen bag Den nye Silkevej, des hurtigere kan den sættes på programmet. I nogle lande er der allerede studiegrupper, der mødes én eller to gange om ugen for at studere teorien bag den fysiske økonomi, der går tilbage til Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz og videreudvikledes af min mand Lyndon LaRouche.

Intégration: Hvorfor advarer de hele tiden om, at en tredje verdenskrig truer? Hvem ville have gavn af en sådan katastrofe?

Zepp-LaRouche: Som enhver let kan erkende, bedriver De forenede stater og NATO for tiden en indkredsningspolitik over for Rusland og Kina, der har nået et meget farligt punkt. Grunden til det er, at det transatlantiske finanssystem er fuldkomment bankerot, og at nogle oligarkiske kredse ser deres magt truet af Kinas fremvækst.
Ingen vil få gavn af det. En tredje verdenskrig med termonukleare våben vil føre til menneskeartens udslettelse.

Intégration: Og som middel mod dette foreslår De det, som De kalder for en 'kulturel og videnskabelig renæssance'?

Zepp-LaRouche: Nuvel, man har også brug for et nyt finanssystem til at erstatte det nuværende, bankerotte system med et kreditsystem, med en Glass-Steagall-bankopdeling, sådan som Franklin Roosevelt indførte den.
Men den nye økonomiske orden vil kun virke, hvis det lykkes os at forandre den nuværende ondartede og hæslige kultur, der præger menneskenes tankegang i en meget destruktiv retning.
Vi må genoplive de bedste traditioner i alle kulturer og så føre en dialog mellem de bedste produkter fra alle civilisationer og kulturer. På den måde vil menneskene atter kunne begynde at lære af hinanden. Chauvinisme og fremmedhad vil forsvinde, og gennem denne genoplivning vil jorden så være gjort rede til skabelsen af en ny renæssance.

Intégration: Hvordan vil denne videnskabelige og kulturelle renæssance udtrykke sig? Hvilken rolle spiller Afrika her?

Zepp-LaRouche: Der er ganske tydelige pionerområder inden for videnskaben, der vil føre til en helt ny platform for den videnskabelige aktivitet. Et sådant felt er udforskningen af kernefusion. Der er gennembrud lige på trapperne, både hos Stellarator-modellen i Greifswald i Tyskland – hvor det i februar lykkedes for videnskabsmændene at opretholde et flere millioner grader varmt plasma i en tiendedel sekund. Og målet er inden 2020 at kunne opnå et stabilt plasma i 30 minutter, der er meget varmere end vor sol – og et nyt gennembrud er også på vej i en anden reaktortype i Kina, den eksperimentelt fremskredne superledende Tokamak (Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak EAST) i instituttet for fysik i Hefei. En videnskab på fusionens grundlag vil betyde energi- og råstofsikkerhed for hele menneskeheden. Et andet område er udforskningen af verdensrummet og rumfarten.
En kulturel renæssance betyder, at samfundet endelig bliver menneskeligt igen, hvilket i fortiden kun har været tilfældet i korte perioder: Gupta-perioden i Indien, bestemte dynastier i Kina som Song-dynastiet, Abbasidernes tidsalder i Den arabiske Verden, den italienske renæssance, den gyldne tidsalder i Timbuktu eller den tyske klassiske tid. En ny renæssance vil betyde, at denne tænkemåde bliver målestokken og grundlaget for nye gennembrud af kreativitet inden for alle områder af videnskaben og kulturen.

Anmærkning

1. Interviewet gennemførtes på engelsk og udkom den 16. maj i fransk oversættelse i Intégration.
Se: http://www.journalintegration.com/index.php/dossier/item/477-helga-zepp-larouche-en-regardant-la-carte-de-l-afrique-on-observe-un-manque-flagrant-d-infrastructures-essentielles