6. februar (EIRNS) —Følgende er en oversættelse af Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedartikel i det tyske tidsskrift Neue Solidarität, nr. 6, den 11. februar 2021:

Forholdet til Amerika vil ikke være let endnu et stykke tid fremover. I betragtning af de forskellige strategidokumenter mod Rusland og Kina samt udsagn fra førende militærofficerer lyder præsident Bidens meddelelse i hans første udenrigspolitiske tale – ”Amerika er tilbage” – som en skjult trussel. Under hans ledelse sagde han, at de dage, hvor USA vil ”lægger sig fladt ned”, når de står over for Ruslands aggressive handlinger, er forbi, og Kinas aggressive tvangsforanstaltninger vil blive imødegået. Titlen på hans tale var ”Amerikas plads i verden”, og ifølge Biden er denne plads overalt i verden. Regeringer såvel som ansvarlige borgere overalt i verden skal straks begynde at reflektere over, hvordan de vil reagere på de erklæringer om politisk hensigt, der er hørt i forbindelse med Bidens tiltrædelse.

De mest chokerende udsagn kom fra adm. Charles Richard, chef for den Amerikanske Strategiske Kommando, der skrev i februarudgaven af USA Flådeinstitutetts Proceedings:

”Der er en reel mulighed for, at en regional krise med Rusland eller Kina hurtigt kunne eskalere til en konflikt, der involverer atomvåben, hvis de opfatter, at en konventionel krigs nederlag ville true regimet eller staten. Derfor må det amerikanske militær flytte sin hovedantagelse fra ’brug af atomvåbner er ikke mulig’ til ’brug af atomvåbner er en meget reel mulighed’ …. ”

Det burde være klart, at admiral Richard her taler om 3. verdenskrig, hvilket sandsynligvis ville betyde tilintetgørelse af menneskeheden. Som MIT-atomvåbenekspert Theodore Postol blandt andet gentagne gange og overbevisende har hævdet, er den afgørende forskel mellem konventionelle krig og en atomkrig faktisk det, at en atomkrig ikke forbliver begrænset. Men NATO’s utopiske fraktion mener tværtimod, at en begrænset atomkrig kunne blive ”vundet”. Og hvilke ”regionale konflikter” kunne man overveje? En konflikt ved den russiske grænse på grund af Aegis-baserede missilforsvarssystemer i Polen og Rumænien? Eller vedrørende det østlige Ukraine, hvor Europa bliver krigsskuepladsen? En konflikt mellem Israel og Iran eller en eskalering af spændingerne omkring Taiwan?

Admiral Richards uhyrlige bemærkninger skal betragtes på baggrund af adskillige forskellige strategiske papirer og doktriner, hvor det meste perfide er et dokument udgivet af Atlanterhavsrådet den 28. januar. Dokumentet er underskrevet ”Anonym”, som er ”en tidligere senior regerings embedsmand med dybdegående ekspertise og erfaring med at beskæftige sig med Kina,” ifølge beskrivelsen i forordet af Frederick Kempe, lederen af Atlanterhavsrådet. Dokumentet på 85 sider, der er beskrevet som et af de vigtigste, Rådet nogensinde har offentliggjort, har titlen ”Det længere telegram: Hen imod en ny amerikansk Kina-strategi (The Longer Telegram: Toward a New American China Strategy)”, i eksplicit henvisning til dokumentet ”Lang telegram (Long Telegram)” fra 1946, der også blev offentliggjort anonymt i sin tid af George Kennan, hvor han opfordrede til en inddæmningspolitik mod Sovjetunionen.

Denne nye anonyme forfatter opfordrer åbent til et kup imod præsident Xi Jinping og hans ”indre kreds” for at erstatte ham med oppositionsledere inden for det kinesiske kommunistparti. Da styrtningen af hele det kommunistiske parti med sine 91 millioner medlemmer ikke har nogen chance for at få succes, siger han, at den amerikanske strategi skal forblive ”laserfokuseret” på Xi Jinping og sigte mod at opsplitte CCP-ledelsen, hvor højtstående partimedlemmer er uenige i Xis politiske retning og hans uendelige krav om absolut loyalitet. Man skal hjælpe disse kredse i CCP-ledelsen med at komme til magten, der i modsætning til Xi Jinping ikke ønsker at implementere deres egen kinesiske model for en international orden, men vil underkaste sig den USA-dominerede verdensorden. Xi har ifølge ”Anonym” til hensigt at projicere Kinas autoritære system over hele verden og udgør ikke længere et problem kun for den USA-ledede liberale internationale orden og amerikanske forrang, men et alvorligt problem for hele den demokratiske verden.

Lad os forstille os følgende tænkeeksperiment. Hvordan ville den tyske regering reagere, hvis en førende russisk tænketank offentliggjorde en undersøgelse, der opfordrede til at kansler Merkel og hendes inderkreds skulle væltes med laserlignende præcision, for at hjælpe med til, at en fraktion i CDU, der ville være underordnet Moskvas interesser tager magten, mens chefen for de strategiske våben samtidig talte om, at en atomkrig er sandsynlig? Der ville være et hidtil uset oprør i hele Tyskland! Det bør ikke overraske nogen, at chefredaktøren for Kinas Global Times, Hu Xijin, reagerede på artiklen af admiral Richards med en opfordring til Kina om, at opbygge et atomarsenal på 1.000 atomvåben for at gøre Kinas anden-strejke-kapacitet troværdig.

Både i Atlantic Council-dokumentet og i det officielle papir fra USA’s Udenrigsministeriums Kontor for politisk planlægning (Office of Policy Planning) med titlen ”Elementerne i den kinesiske udfordring (The Elements of the Chinese Challenge)” er det klart, at det er succesen med den kinesiske økonomiske model og hastigheden af dens teknologiske innovation, der betragtes som truslen mod amerikansk dominans i verden. Det var en forkert beregning at antage, at Kinas integration på verdensmarkedet, ved at tilslutte sig WTO, automatisk ville føre til, at nationen ville vedtage den vestlige neoliberale demokratimodel, siger Udenrigsministeriets papir. For Kina opbyggede også sin egen “marxist-leninistiske” model af en autoritær stat, domineret af “partiets ekstreme fortolkning af kinesisk nationalisme.” Derudover fortsætter det, at Kina er fast besluttet på at skabe en ”national foryngelse”, der skal kulmineres i transformation af den internationale orden.

Vi kan selvfølgelig ikke kommentere på alle de ekstremt fjendtlige beskyldninger i de to papirer, da Udenrigsministeriets dokument er 72 sider langt. Sammenfattende kan det siges, at stort set alle anklager, der påstås mod Kinas politik, er en projicering af deres egne politikker og intentioner. Der gøres ikke noget forsøg på at forstå Kina ud fra dets 5.000-årige historie og kultur, og der erkendes heller ikke, hvor stor en civilisationspræstation det var for Kina at løfte 850 millioner mennesker ud af ekstrem fattigdom i løbet af de seneste årtier. Fra dette perspektiv betragtes naturligvis Silkevejsinitiativet ikke som en økonomisk politik, der tillader udviklingslande at overvinde deres underudvikling for første gang nogensinde, men som bevis på Kinas intentioner om at opnå overherredømme.

I betragtning af det Nationale Sikkerhedsagenturs samlede overvågning af ikke kun dens egen befolkning, men siden 11. september 2001 hele verden og censur af endog den daværende siddende præsident for USA (Donald Trump) fra TV-netværkerne og IT-giganterne i Silicon Valley, kræver det en meget speciel form for optik for at beskylde Kina for at have spioneret på og overvåget sine borgere. Virkeligheden er, at digitalisering i Kina har muliggjort meget effektiv kontaktsporing i coronaviruspandemien, og at det sociale kreditsystem har overvældende populær støtte, fordi belønningen med positiv adfærd for samfundet også gavner hver enkelt.

Fælles for begge dokumenter er, at deres forfattere genfortolker absolut alt om kinesisk kultur, som i tusinder af år har sat interesse for det fælles gode over individets interesse, og som strømmer fra et dybtliggende behov for en harmonisk udvikling af alle, og de gør det til den vestlige ordens fjendebillede.

Det er ikke det kinesiske kommunistparti, der søger verdensherredømme, men snarere at den unipolære verdensordens nyliberale etablissement frygter, at det vil miste sit overherredømme og har bevæget sig kilometer væk fra de universelle principper, med hvilket Amerika blev grundlagt, og som det hævder at repræsentere. Og hvad Biden-administrationen synes om respekt for andre landes suverænitet er indlysende i dens modstand mod Nord Strøm 2-gasprojektet.

I øvrigt tjener hele hurlumhejet omkring Vladimir Putins påståede forgiftning af Alexey Navalny, som er støttet af vestlige efterretningsagenturer, det samme formål, om at sætte en farverevolution i gang og derved skabe en opposition inden for Putins inderkreds, der kunne bruges til at fjerne ham fra embedet.

Alle ansvarlige og tænkende mennesker opfordres til gennem deres mobilisering at bidrage til at forhindre, at Europas regeringer trækkes videre ind i den bebudede kampagne mod Kina og Rusland. Kansler Merkel understregede korrekt i sin tale til World Economic Forums online-begivenhed, at hun afviste enhver form for blokdannelse imellem USA og Kina, hvor Europa derefter skulle vælge side, og sagde, at den multilateralismes time var kommet.

I lyset af admiral Richards farlige udsagn må de europæiske lande ikke kun udtrykkeligt distancere sig fra en sådan politik, de skal også trække sig ud af NATO og søge en sikkerhedsarkitektur, der afspejler deres befolkningers interesser. Det, der står på spil, er Europas overlevelse.

zepp-larouche@eir.de

Billede: DOD/Lisa Ferdinando

9. januar 2020 (Neue Solidarität) — Videoreportagen af flere hundrede demonstranters indtrængen i kongresbygningen i Washington den 6. januar viser foruroligende scener. Under den direkte udsendelse fra mødet i Kongressen, som handlede om at bekræfte Valgmandskollegiets beslutning om at vælge den næste præsident, så man hvordan kameraføringen skiftede fra mødet til bygningens indgang, til en gruppe af indtrængende, der kom ind relativt let og uden at blive blokeret af de tilstedeværende politibetjente. De havde ubegribeligt to timer til at rode gennem kongresmedlemmernes kontorer uden indgriben fra sikkerhedsstyrkernes side. I alt mistede fem personer livet i forbindelse med hændelserne.

Den kommende nye flertalsleder i Senatet, New Yorks senator Chuck Schumer, hvis tætte forbindelser til efterretningstjenesterne er legendarisk (og som bekendt advarede Trump på MSNBC om, at efterretningstjenesterne har “mange måder at slå tilbage”, hvis de blev trodsede), talte straks om en “vanhelligelse af demokratiets tempel” og karakteriserede hændelserne, som et oprør mod USA, som præsidenten havde opildnet til. Præsidenten burde ikke tillades én dag længere i embedet og må straks fjernes af vicepræsidenten og kabinettet på grundlag af den 25.
forfatningsændring, og i tilfældet af at de nægter, må Kongressen mødes for at indlede en rigsretssag. Et kor af pro-atlantiske politikere og medierepræsentanter istemte uden tøven denne vurdering, forstærket af et andet kor af demokrater, som formanden for Repræsentanternes Hus, Nancy Pelosi, Ben Rhodes (tidligere rådgiver til Obama), Michael McFaul (forhenværende amerikansk ambassadør i Moskva), der straks beskyldte Putin for at være ansvarlig for begivenhederne. Hændelserne er absolut uhyrlige, de potentielle konsekvenser kunne blive afgørende for spørgsmålet om krig eller fred.

Med alt hysteri og spænding er det presserende at stille spørgsmålet om cui bono [hvem gavner det?]: Hvad blev der opnået ved optøjerne i kongresbygningen?

Først og fremmest blev den første, og indtil da eneste, chance for, at de to kamre i Kongressen, det amerikanske folk og verdens offentlighed kunne få omfattende oplysninger om de mangfoldige uregelmæssigheder og manipulationer ved præsidentvalget den 3. november i mindste seks “swingstater” ødelagt. Der er mere end 1.000 øjenvidner til valgsvindelen, og det har været genstand for høringer i de respektive delstatslovgivende forsamlinger, hvilket dog ikke forhindrer det politiske etablissement og de internationale medier I at gentage til hudløshed, at der i modsætning til Trumps påstande ikke er de mindste beviser for denne valgsvindel.

Relativ kort tid efter starten på debatten i Kongressens to kamre, hvor resultaterne og indsigelser vedrørende valget i staterne skulle drøftes i alfabetisk orden – nemlig i diskussionen om resultaterne i Arizona – brød oprørerne igennem barriererne og begyndte deres felttog gennem Kongressens kontorer og sale. Mødet blev afbrudt, regeringsrepræsentanter og kongresmedlemmer blev bragt i sikkerhed, og da mødet fortsatte få timer senere, kom der ikke den tilsigtede debat om valgets uregelmæssigheder. [Der blev kun en kort debat om resultaterne i Pennsylvania -red.].

I stedet er den officielle fortælling blevet udbredt på begge sider af Atlanten, at Trump er ansvarlig for angrebet på Kongressen, fordi han insisterede på, at der var valgsvindel. Og det er netop der bedraget ligger. For det er helt rigtigt, at Trump siden 3. november har fremsat utallige udtalelser, med påstand om valgsvindel. Det er også rigtigt, at han forsøgte at mobilisere sine tilhængere ved at sige, at 6. januar ville være den store dag, hvor dette bedrag skulle imødegås med hjælp fra repræsentanter for Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet. Og det er også rigtigt, at han i sin tale til mængden opremsede de forskellige eksempler på valgsvindel, og i slutningen af sin tale opfordrede demonstranterne: “Lad os gå ned ad Pennsylvania Avenue!” Men herfra at udlede, at han skulle være ansvarlig for angrebet på Capitol er absolut forkert – og det peger på et helt andet forfatterskab.

Selvom efterforskningen på ingen måde kan være afsluttet endnu, giver en undersøgelse af video-optagelserne og øjenvidneberetninger fra deltagerne på demonstrationen samt en betragtning af den absolut forbløffende mangel på sikkerhedsforanstaltninger et helt andet billede:

– Nogle formentlig autentiske videooptagelser viser tydeligt, at sortklædte mennesker udenfor kongresbygningens ydre areal med magt forsøgte at få adgang, og at en anden gruppe mennesker afskærmede disse uromagere, således at “normale” demonstranter ikke kunne trænge sig frem til dem.

– Ydermere, er der talrige øjenvidner der fortæller, hvor pludseligt mærkelige minibusser med sortklædte mennesker, men også personer iført Trump-Maga-kasketter (“Make America Great Again”) deltog i demonstrationen, der skilte sig klart ud fra de fredelige demonstranter.

– Andre deltagere i demonstrationen fortæller, at en gruppe på 12-15 mænd på et tidspunkt rykkede frem igennem mængden og råbte: “Lad os brænde stedet ned”, men kun få demonstranter blev grebet af det, mens de der tog afstand fra det, blev angrebet.

Alt tyder på, at der med disse professionelt agerende provokatører er tale om det samme fænomen, som Nelson Mandela i Sydafrika kaldte den “tredje styrke” i stammestridigheder, med henblik på at miskreditere ANC. Det er den samme modus operandi, som under kuppet i Kiev i februar 2014, hvor snigskytterne fra besatte bygninger skød på folk fra begge sider, imod både demonstranterne og politiet.

Forskellige kommentarer i blandt andet kinesiske og russiske medier påpegede, at USA nu havde modtaget en mild form for den samme medicin, som USA tidligere havde iscenesat og hilst velkommen i lignende opstande i Serbien i 2000, i Ukraine i 2004 og 2014 samt i Georgien, Moldova, Hviderusland eller i 2011 med det arabiske forår. Den kinesiske presse understregede Pelosis dobbeltmoral, fordi hun havde beskrevet opstandene i Hongkong som et “smuk syn”.

Disse vurderinger overser dog det væsentlige punkt, den virkelige karakter af dette drama. Måske har Mikhail Gorbatjov en bedre idé, da han fortalte Interfax, at disse optøjer “tilsyneladende var planlagt i forvejen”, og at deres bagmænd var “åbenlyse”. De officielle organer der er ansvarlige for, at sikkerhedsforanstaltningerne, i lyset af den forventede storstilede demonstration, var direkte indbydende slappe, hører i hvert fald til blandt den første række af mistænkte.

Der er al mulig grund til at tro, at stormen på kongresbygningen er en direkte fortsættelse af angrebene den 11. september, hvis virkelige bagmænd aldrig rigtig er blevet navngivet. Lyndon LaRouche havde forudsagt denne terrorhandling ni måneder tidligere, den 3. januar 2001, da han forudså, at Bush-administrationen, der ville tiltræde tre uger senere, på grund af dets manglende evne til at håndtere det kommende økonomiske sammenbrud, ville iscenesætte en ”Rigsdagsbrand” for at kunne gennemføre diktatoriske foranstaltninger. Det var præcis det der skete med indførelsen af Patriot Act, som i vid udstrækning indskrænkede ikke blot amerikanernes borgerrettigheder, og satte den verdensomspændende masseovervågning i gang gennem NSA (USA’s Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur), GCHQ (den britiske regerings Kommunikationshovedkvarter), osv.

På samme måde, er optøjerne på Capitol Hill beregnet til at give et påskud til at eliminere enhver uenighed over for det neoliberale etablissements politik. Det er betegnende, at Michele Obama straks derefter opfordrede Silicon Valleys IT-giganter, der er en integreret del af det militær-industrielle kompleks, til at forbyde Trump og alle tilhængere af oprøret fra sociale medier. Alarmklokkerne bør ringe for alle de mennesker, der hylder retsstaten, ytringsfriheden og borgerrettigheder.

Hvad dette handler om er et totalt meningsdiktatur og eliminering af enhver politisk modstand imod den transatlantiske finanselites politik. Det finansielle system, domineret af Wall Street og City of London, har været håbløst bankerot siden 2008 og har siden kun været opretholdt af en kraftig stigning i likviditet og en gigantisk omfordeling af rigdomme til fordel for spekulanterne. Den sidste fase af denne megasvindel på bekostning af det almene vel skal nu igangsættes med den såkaldte “Great Reset” (den store nulstilling), hvor alle finansielle strømme, under påskud af at genoprette økonomien efter Covid-19 pandemien, udelukkende skal kanaliseres ind i “Green New Deal”, hvilket vil føre til en hidtil uset afindustrialisering og en dermed forbundet befolkningsreduktion. Mediernes ensretning og censur af sociale medier har til formål at fjerne enhver modstand mod dette tilsigtede diktatur i Hjalmar Schachts tradition. [Schacht var Hitlers økonomiminister 1934-1937, og direktør for Det tredje Riges Reichsbank, 1939-1943 -red. Verden ved bedre: Vi er i akut fare for en ny fascisme!

Det eneste alternativ til dette diktatur, som ville føre til økonomisk ødelæggelse af Vesten, og dermed risikere en krig mod Rusland og Kina, er en omfattende reorganisering af det finansielle system gennem oprettelsen af et nyt Bretton Woods-system, gennemførelse af Lyndon LaRouches “Fire økonomiske love”, såvel som samarbejde med Rusland og Kina i udbygningen af Den nye Silkevej i Latinamerika, Asien og Afrika. Borgere i alle nationer, der forstår situationens alvor, opfordres til at gennemføre denne løsning.

Panel 1, lørdag den 12. december kl. 15 dansk tid:

”Hold sammen eller hver for sig”: Frie og suveræne republikker, eller digitalt diktatur. (Se beskrivelsen nedenunder.)

Panel 2: lørdag den 12. december kl. 19 dansk tid:

Undgå faren for 3. verdenskrig: En strategisk orden baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål. (Se beskrivelsen nedenunder.) 

Panel 3: søndag den 13. december kl. 15 dansk tid:

Overvind den globale sundhedskrise og den pandemiske hungersnød: Tænkning på niveauet af modsætningernes sammenfald. (Se beskrivelsen nedenunder.)

Panel 4: søndag den 13. december kl. 19 dansk tid:

En menneskelig fremtid for ungdommen: En renæssance drevet af Beethovens klassiske kultur. (Se beskrivelsen nedenunder.)

1 minute lang video invitation:

Lørdag-søndag den 12.-13. december kl. 15 dansk tid begge dage afholder Schiller Instituttet en international konference via internettet for at behandle det presserende spørgsmål, som hele menneskeheden står over for: “Verden efter det amerikanske valg: Skabelsen af en verden baseret på fornuft.” Grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, meddelte, at en fuld invitation og foreløbig liste over talere snart vil være tilgængelig, og at konferencens indhold vil fokusere på følgende:

Uanset udfaldet af den uhørte kamp omkring det nylige amerikanske valg, står det allerede klart, at det ikke kun er en intern amerikansk affære, men også en begivenhed af højeste internationale strategiske betydning. Efter fire år med en fuldstændig synkroniseret international dæmoniserings-kampagne imod præsident Donald Trump, men samtidig også mod præsident Vladimir Putin i Rusland og præsident Xi Jinping i Kina, Russiagate, en fejlslagen rigsretssag, åbent oprør og nu skamløs valgsvindel – er det vigtigt, at verden hurtigt forstår: Udfaldet af denne kamp er valget mellem 3. verdenskrig eller fred.

Trump har tiltrukket sig den ubændige vrede fra det som præsident Eisenhower identificerede som det militærindustrielle kompleks – det permanente bureaukrati, den såkaldte ‘Deep State’ og de økonomiske interesser, der kontrollerer dem, såsom City of London og Wall Street – fordi han vovede at bekendtgøre, at han ønskede at ‘afslutte de endeløse krige’, og at han mente, at et godt forhold til Rusland og Kina ‘er en god ting, ikke en dårlig ting!’.

Hvis en mentalt svækket Joe Biden blev indsat som symbolsk præsident i et par uger, for sidenhen at blive erstattet af Kamala Harris og Obama-Bush’s intervenerende krigsapparat, kunne verden på kort sigt blive trukket ind i en krig mod Rusland og Kina, hvilket ville omfatte en udvidelse af den politiske konfrontation til verdensrummet.

De to dages dialog og drøftelser med simultantolkning på forskellige sprog, herunder spansk, fransk og tysk, vil omfatte følgende paneldiskussioner:

PANEL I. ”Hold sammen eller hver for sig”: Frie og suveræne republikker, eller digitalt diktatur (lørdag d. 12. december, kl. 15 dansk tid): Dette panel vil diskutere konsekvenserne af det nuværende drama, der udspiller sig i USA, den globale kamp for at erstatte det nuværende bankerotte finanssystem med et nyt paradigme, skitseret over fem årtier af Lyndon LaRouche. Konferencen afholdes på tærsklen til Valgkollegiets møde den 14. december, hvor det besluttes hvem der bliver den næste præsident for USA. På det tidspunkt vil beviserne for klagerne om valgsvindel – påstanden fra præsident Trumps advokater om, at de har dokumenteret bevis for, at han vandt valget; metoderne til valgsvindel som rapporteret af ”whistleblowere”, og afsløringen af andre kapaciteter og handlinger, som er en del af det statskup der truer USA – stå klart, før valgmændene skal træffe deres valg. Konferencepanelet vil samle fremtrædende eksperter indenfor områderne af den amerikanske forfatning, lovgivning og efterretningsvirksomhed, og vil understrege den dramatiske relevans i dag af Benjamin Franklins svar på spørgsmålet om, hvilken slags regering USA havde modtaget fra ham: “En republik – hvis vi kan beholde den.”

Panel I speakers:
Moderator’s Welcoming Remarks
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute President: Introduction
Marino Elsevyf (Dominican Republic), Attorney-at-Law, Member of the 1995 Martin Luther King International Tribunal: Report from the International Investigative Commission on Truth in Elections
David Meiswinkle (US), Attorney-at-Law; Report from the International Investigative Commission on Truth in Elections
Viktor Dedaj (France), citizen-journalist, “The Crucifixion of Julian Assange: A Journalist Committed to Truth and Peace.”
Harley Schlanger (US), Board of Directors, Schiller Institute, Inc., “What Are the Principles and Facts Concerning the Recent US Election”
David Christie (US): ”The British Empire’s Digital Dictatorship: Censorship and Mass Social Control”
Q & A Session

PANEL II. Undgå faren for 3. verdenskrig: En strategisk orden baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål (lørdag d. 12. december, kl. 19 dansk tid): Hvad der må gøres for at sætte en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur på den internationale dagsorden; en, som sikrer overlevelsen af den menneskelige art. Paneldeltagerne vil lokalisere krigsfaren i sammenhæng med det verserende nedbrud af det transatlantiske finansielle system og diskutere de potentielle konsekvenser af planerne, som dette systems centralbanker har for digitaliseringen af betalingsmidler. Indførslen af de fire love, der er foreslået af Lyndon LaRouche, er fortsat påtrængende nødvendigt, herunder kravet om at etablere et internationalt kreditsystem i form af et Nyt Bretton Woods-system, samt behovet for internationalt samarbejde inden for rumforskning og en fusionsbaseret økonomi. Det er derfor yderst påtrængende, at P5-topmødet, foreslået af præsident Putin, med de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, straks indkaldes, for på dette fremskredne tidspunkt i krisen er det en pligt for de mest magtfulde nationer i verden at handle i fællesskab for at undgå en geopolitisk katastrofe. Dette topmøde, eller bedre, række af topmøder, må definere løsninger på de eksistentielle udfordringer menneskeheden står over for, samt definere områderne for menneskehedens fælles mål, såsom at opnå nye økonomiske platforme for verdensøkonomien ved kommerciel anvendelse af termonuklear fusionsenergi, og internationalt samarbejde inden for rumforskning.

Panel II Speakers
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute President
Yan Wang, PhD, “The Chinese Economic Model”
Marcelo Muñoz (Spain), Founder and President Emeritus, Cátedra China, “China and the US: Rivalry, Confrontation, or Cooperation”
Ole Doering, PhD (Germany), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology: “A Salutogenic Symphony with Ancient Chinese Philosophy: Harmony as Polyphonic Accord and Peace as Expressive Equilibrium. Can We Make It Work?”
Prof. Emmanuel Dupuy (France), Founder and President, Institute of European Prospective and Security (IPSE): “What is at Stake in the on-going Renovation of Nuclear Doctrines and Ballistic Treaties: What Agenda for the European Countries in the Context of a Strategic Autonomy of Europe.”
Col. Richard H. Black (USA Ret.), former head of the Army’s Criminal Law Division of The Pentagon, former State Senator (Va.): “NATO Must Be Dissolved”
Q & A Session
Paul Gallagher, (US), Executive Intelligence Review, Editorial Board, “LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods and the Central Banks —
There’s Not Enough Room in this World for Both of Them”
Marc-Gabriel Draghi (France), Economist: “Orderly Debt Cancellation: Historical Precedents and Present Relevance.”
Q & A Session

PANEL III. Overvind den globale sundhedskrise og den pandemiske hungersnød: Tænkning på niveauet af modsætningernes sammenfald (søndag d. 13. december, kl. 15 dansk tid): At overvinde de ødelæggende konsekvenser over hele verden af 50 års neoliberal økonomiske politik, hvoraf COVID-19-pandemien blot er det mest oplagte eksempel. Hvis COVID-19 og faren for fremtidige pandemier skal overvindes, må verdenssamfundet enes om at etablere et globalt sundhedssystem, hvilket betyder et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert eneste land på planeten. Der må også være et nyt niveau af internationalt samarbejde inden for biovidenskab for at finde kure mod hidtil uhelbredelige sygdomme samt bedre forståelse af livet i universet som sådan. Som chefen for Verdensfødevareprogrammet, David Beasley, har bekendtgjort, er 7 millioner mennesker allerede døde af sult i år, hvilket let kunne have været forhindret. I lyset af den umiddelbare fare for at 30 millioner mere dør af sult i løbet af de næste par måneder, og 260 millioner forventes at lide den samme skæbne i det kommende år, må der være en fuldstændig ændring i landbrugspolitikken. Målet skal være at opnå fødevaresikkerhed i enhver nation og en fordobling af fødevareproduktionen på verdensplan. For at finde svar på disse eksistentielle trusler mod menneskeheden kræves en tankegang i et nyt paradigme. I stedet for profitmaksimering til et privilegeret finansoligarki, må menneskehedens fælles interesser sættes først: menneskehedens fælles mål. Til dette formål er der dannet en “en komité af modsætningernes sammenfald”, et begreb udviklet af den store renæssancetænker Nicholas af Cusa, hvis mål det er, at have mennesker af god vilje i mange nationer til at arbejde sammen for at løse disse kriser.

Moderator: Dennis Speed
1. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, “The Role of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites”
2. Dr. Joycelyn Elders (US), Former Surgeon General of the United States [8 min.]
3. Many members of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, mostly doctors from the U.S. and one retired military officer.
4. Q & A Session
6. Hon. Joseph Maxwell (US), former Lt. Governor of Missouri, Hog Farmer: “To Feed All
Humanity: Break-up the International Food Cartels”
7. Jason Ross (US), Science Advisor, Schiller Institute: “Cusa’s Method: The Coincidence of
Opposites”
8. Q & A Session

PANEL IV. En menneskelig fremtid for ungdommen: En renæssance drevet af Beethovens klassiske kultur (søndag d. 13. december, kl. 19 dansk tid): Det fjerde panel vil være tilegnet behovet for en renæssance af klassisk kultur og ungdommens særlige rolle i gennemførelsen heraf. I dette øjeblik af historien, hvor hele samfundets fundament er rystet i sin grundvold, er der en enorm appetit på skønheden ved stor kunst, efter menneskehedens høje idealer, som de udtrykkes i de store kompositioner af klassisk musik og poesi. I alle større civilisationer er der digtere, komponister og filosoffer, som har hyldet menneskeheden som en kreative art, og det vil være dialogen mellem disse kulturer, der kan og vil skabe en ny æra for menneskeheden. I denne ånd vil hele konferencen blive viet til Beethovens år, komponisten, hvis kompositioner giver folk et håb, fordi de udtrykker hvad mennesket er i stand til.

Moderator: Diane Sare, Founder, Schiller Institute NYC Chorus
1. Jacques Cheminade (France), President, Solidarite et Progres, “The Necessity and Pathway
of a New Classical Renaissance”
2. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President, Schiller Institute: “Bring Schiller and Beethoven to
Today’s Youth”

3. David Shavin, Schiller Institute, about his article about Beethoven’s opera Fidelio being based on the real story of the imprisonment of the Marquis de Lafayette.
4. John Sigerson (US), Schiller Institute National Music Director, “What Does It Take to
Really Understand Beethoven?”
5. Jose Vega (US), “Romeo and Juliet in Your Society”
6. Anastasia Battle (US), “A Tale of Two Revolutions”
7. Carolina Dominguez (Mexico), “Schiller in a Time of Pandemic”
8. Q & A Session

5. november – ugentlig webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hej, mit navn er Harley Schlanger. Velkommen til vores ugentlige dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche. I dag er det torsdag den 5. november 2020 – to dage efter det amerikanske valg, og selvfølgelig er tingene stadig meget urolige i USA, og jeg synes, at det er der hvor vi skal starte, Helga. Linjen, der kommer ud er, at det ser ud til at Biden er på nippet til at få valgmandsstemmerne, men der har været mange uregelmæssigheder. Præsident Trump rejser nogle retssager. Jeg ved, du har det nyeste billede. Hvad er det seneste, du kan fortælle os?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg tror, at hvis alt går godt, så skulle præsident Trump være i stand til at bevise, at der var et utroligt forsøg på at stjæle valget fra ham. Mange mennesker har efterfølgende meldt ud: Sådanne personer som Paul Craig Roberts, Willy Wimmer, Roger Stone og flere andre, der alle peger på den usandsynlige begivenhed, at der i Wisconsin og Michigan var en vis føring til Trump, hvorefter Bidens statistik pludselig sprang forbi, ved en enkel lejlighed med 130.000 stemmer og 0 i Trump-søjlen! Så var der den meget mærkelige omstændighed, at resultaterne fra landdistrikterne – der normalt kommer sent ind i USA, fordi det er mere langvarigt at samle dem ind osv. – i dette tilfælde kom valgresultaterne fra svingstaternes landdistrikter ind først, og det var dem, der var afgørende for udfaldet af afstemningen; men for alle de større byer som Milwaukee, Detroit, Pennsylvania og Atlanta, de store byområder, kom resultaterne ind sent efter en vis forsinkelse. Som om den eller de, der fuskede med afstemningen, måtte se med hvor megen margen Trump var foran, så de kunne beslutte, hvor mange ekstra stemmer der var nødvendige for at tippe det i Bidens favør.

Så jeg synes, at det er åbenlyst. Jeg mener, det er indlysende. Og man kan kun karakterisere det på én måde: At det utrolige kupforsøg, der først fandt sted mod kandidaten Trump i 2016 og derefter gennem hele hans fire års præsidentskab; dette forsøg på at stjæle valget fra ham, er bare den sidste fase af dette kup.

Se, man vil næppe tro dette, hvis man lytter til de almindelige medier, New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, CNN, alle disse medier – der foregår en forbløffende ensretning af de internationale medier, hvis linje det er at fremstille Trump som den absolut ukontrollerede populist, der opfinder disse ting til lejligheden. Men hvis man ser på detaljerne, er der ingen tvivl om, hvad der foregår, og jeg vil virkelig opfordre vores internationale publikum til ikke at falde for denne grundlæggende ensretning – det var sådan at medierne fungerede under Goebbels ledelse – sæt ikke lid til det, men studér detaljerne. Og jeg mener, at meningsmålingerne, der især i den sidste periode forudsagde en stor sejr for Biden, mildt sagt, igen blev taget på sengen – som de blev det i 2016, hvilket man kan fortolke på to måder: at de igen var så arrogante at mene, at folk på grund af atmosfæren af hysteri og anti-Trump-stemningen ikke åbent ville sige, hvem de ville stemme på; det kan også være en del af et forsøg på at demoralisere de potentielle Trump-vælgere ved at lade dem forstå, at “det ikke er din indsats værd, Trump taber alligevel”. Under alle omstændigheder var meningsmålingerne helt forkerte – igen – som de var i 2016.

Og selvfølgelig er dette en heftig kamp. Vi ved, at det blev planlagt for længe siden. Folkene i ‘Transition Integrity Project’ forudsagde netop dette. Jeg mener, at man har en 50/50 splittelse i den amerikanske befolkning, og at halvdelen af befolkningen stemte på Trump; man kan ikke udrydde 50% af befolkningen! Så der er faktisk en ganske god chance for, at dette kan vindes, og jeg mener, at I alle skal være med til at hjælpe med at opnå præcist dette.

SCHLANGER: Der er allerede blevet rejst juridiske indvendinger, der er indgivet i et par stater. Og jeg synes, at den pointe du lige kom med, om at dette var planlagt i forvejen, virkelig er værd at understrege: At vi uger før valget fik at vide, at brevafstemningen ville gøre en forskel, at Trump ville være foran på valgaften, hvilket er præcis, hvad der skete; men da brevstemmesedlerne blev talt, ville det vende, så Biden ville komme foran, hvorefter Trump ville hævde valgsvindel. Så de havde på forhånd planlagt alt dette. Men de forberedte sig også på muligheden for, at de skulle have ‘støvletramp på gaden’ – hvad enten i form af Antifa eller Black Lives Matter – for at skabe kaos.

Nuvel Helga, jeg tror, at en af de ting der virkelig er interessant, er kontrasten mellem det Trump gjorde, med en hel række vælgermøder med meget store menneskemængder versus Biden, der dybest set kun talte med sine medarbejdere og næsten ikke kom ‘op ad kælderen’. Jeg tror slet ikke, at dette er blevet dækket i Europa, er det?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nej. Der blev absolut ikke rapporteret om bil-karavaner, mobiliseringen af Trump-basen. Og netop i dag, på denne side af valget, havde Münchner Merkur, som er en avis i München, for første gang historien om, at Biden åbenbart er ‘rundt på gulvet’, fordi han blandede sit barnebarn og sin søn sammen, han kunne ikke huske Trumps navn, han nævnte ”George, George et eller andet” – så der er en klar bevidsthed, og alle de politisk interesserede mennesker, der så videoerne fra kampagnen, kendte naturligvis til det. Men det er meget tydeligt at ”spilleplanen” er, at Biden ikke formodes at skulle være præsident – måske i et par uger – så vil Kamala Harris blive præsident, og med hende naturligvis hele apparatet fra Obama/Hillary Clinton-slænget. Og det vil helt klart indebære en optrapning af krig mod Rusland og Kina.

For man skal huske på – og det er også noget, der går det internationale publikum forbi på grund af denne utrolige ensretning af medierne – at Trump, som tydeligvis ikke har gjort alt rigtigt, og man kan strides om visse punkter, men det vigtigste strategiske spørgsmål er spørgsmålet om krig og fred. Og enhver, der befinder sig i virkelighedens verden, vil forstå, at hvis der, i en tidsalder med atomvåben, forekommer en konfrontation mellem supermagterne, betyder det civilisationens udryddelse. Og jeg tror, at mange mennesker, også på venstrefløjen, som [tidligere amerikansk senator] Mike Gravel – jeg lyttede netop til et program med ham på Consortium News – og han havde den rigtige pointe, at med et Biden-præsidentskab, er en krig med Kina så godt som givet. Hvis man ser på hele udrulningen af krigshandlinger for at omringe Rusland, indkredse Kina, hele bestræbelsen på at udvide NATO til Indo-Stillehavet, konfrontationen omkring Taiwan, det Sydkinesiske Hav – så mener jeg, at denne ting med et Biden-præsidentskab kunne udvikle sig til en konfrontation på meget kort tid.

Så jeg synes virkelig det er vigtigt, at folk minder sig selv om, eller virkelig studerer og genovervejer, og ikke er så absolut kategorisk imod Trump, blot fordi det er det som medierne prøver at fortælle én; det egentlige spørgsmål er, med hvilken præsident for USA er der en mulighed for at have et fredeligt forhold til Rusland? Og forhåbentlig ville Trump også være i stand til at trække sine beskyldninger tilbage mod Kina, som var helt ubegrundede, og dette må der rådes bod på. Men med Biden/Kamala Harris-slænget er der absolut ingen måde, hvorpå man kan have et fredeligt forhold til de andre store atommagter.

Så jeg synes, at folk virkelig skal gentænke hele denne situation og ikke lade sig manipule af denne iscenesættelse af den helt sikkert største mediemanipulation, som jeg har set i mit liv.

Mit navn er Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane. Jeg er leder af LaRouche-bevægelsen i Sydafrika. Jeg fremsætter ikke denne presserende appel som borger i mit land, men som talsmand for alle dem der nu sulter, eller snart vil sulte, i Afrika, og som ikke har nogen til at tale på deres vegne.

Lige nu sulter mange millioner af mine afrikanske landsmænd. De sulter takket være en bevidst fremtvungen underudvikling af mit kontinent – håndhævet af det britiske imperiums neokoloniale magt, der agerer gennem den økonomiske magt fra City of London og Wall Street – i kombination med både en global pandemi og græshoppeplage samt andre naturkatastrofer, der påvirker fødevareproduktionen på kontinentet. For at bruge et teknisk sprog lider de af ‘akut fødevareusikkerhed i fase 4’, et skridt væk fra ‘fase 5: sult’. Hvis man dropper den elskværdige jargon, sulter de allerede, mens millioner flere også vil stå over for sult, medmindre der hurtigt stilles mad til rådighed for dem.

‘Menneskeheden står over for den største krise, nogen af os nogensinde har set. Det er tid for de velhavende til at stille op for at hjælpe dem, der har mindst’. Denne advarsel kom den 17. september fra David Beasley, administrerende direktør for FN’s Verdensfødevareprogram. Han skrev, at 30 millioner mennesker nu er i fare for at dø af sult. De fleste af dem er i Afrika.

Jeg vil gerne understrege, at dette ikke er et spørgsmål om, hvad der vil komme til at ske – det sker allerede. Og medmindre der bliver gjort noget, og gjort noget snart, vil millioner og atter millioner af mennesker dø i de næstkommende uger og måneder, som David Beasley advarede om. Han talte allerede til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd i april og advarede om, at 300.000 mennesker om dagen kunne dø.

Alt imens forskellige velgørenhedsorganisationer og andre organisationer har slået alarm og appelleret om penge, er det spørgsmål, som vi står over for, hvis vi vil redde liv, at sikre omfattende mængder mad hurtigst muligt til sultne og sultende mennesker. I betragtning af beskaffenheden af infrastrukturen på kontinentet, og det faktum at meget af denne hungersnød forekommer i isolerede landdistrikter, ligger den distribution der må finde sted, langt ud over de enkelte regeringer og nødhjælpsagenturers midler.

Jeg tror, at vi må mobilisere verdens mest kompetente militærstyrkers logistiske kapacitet og udarbejde en strategi for at skaffe fødevareforsyninger fra fødevareproducerende nationer, såsom USA og Canada, og bringe dem direkte til dem, der har brug for det. Lad såvel ‘venner som fjender’ gå sammen i denne, den største af alle, humanitære bestræbelser. I sin seneste pavelige rundskrivelse, Fratelli Tutti (om broderskab og socialt venskab), skrev hans hellighed pave Francis, at det omsider er tid til at menneskeheden opgiver tanken om, at krig er berettiget – enhver form for krig, der koster menneskeliv. Dette er snarere en krig – eller mere præcist, en international kamp – for at redde det helligste af alt: menneskeliv.

Jeg appellerer til den amerikanske præsident, Donald Trump:

Tag denne udfordring op. Giv Amerikas landmænd missionen med at producere fødevarer til at brødføde de sultende, alt imens man tager de enorme ressourcer fra det amerikanske militær i anvendelse på denne barmhjertighedsmission, for at bringe mad til dem på mit kontinent, der har brug for det. Gør dette i din hustrus ånd, den elskværdige førstedame, Melania, som lovede at hjælpe Afrika og især dets børn på enhver mulig måde, da I besøgte kontinentet i oktober 2018. Tag ethvert skridt med nødforanstaltninger, der er nødvendige, for at få dette til at ske.

Dette burde være tilstrækkelig grund til at indkalde til det internationale stormagtstopmøde, som den store dame, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, formand for Schiller Instituttet, har opfordret til.

Vi kan redde liv, men det vil kræve en international indsats for at gøre det. USA har gjort det tidligere. Jeg mindes den store indsats for at bringe mad til de sultende mennesker i Europa efter 2. Verdenskrig, der involverede en mobilisering af det storsindede og gode amerikanske folk, der sendte disse CARE-pakker og madforsyninger.

Mine afrikanske søstre og brødre kan blive frelst, hvis viljen er der, og hvis folk kan se sig selv handle i en ånd af næstekærlighed (agapē), hæve sig over småligheder for at gøre noget godt og stort.

Den 13. oktober 2020

KØBENHAVN den 29. august – William Binney, fhv. tekniskchef for USA’s NSA (Det Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur) var i dag gæst på LaRouchePAC live-programmet “William Binney AMA tour: Lad ingen spørgsmål forblive ubesvarede” (The William Binney AMA tour: Leave no questions unanswered på  LaRouchePACs youtube kanal i samarbejde med ‘Action for Assange’ og en undergruppe på Reddit.com.

Som det første spørgsmål blev han bedt om at svare på rapporten fra Schiller Instituttets næstformand i Danmark, Michelle Rasmussen, med titlen “Efterretningsskandale i Danmark: Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste har givet enorme mængder rå elektroniske data til NSA”; rapporten blev læst op for ham af ordstyrer José Vega.

Her er rapporten og hans svar, som begynder 6 min. inde i programmet.):

Efterretningsskandale i Danmark: Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste har givet enorme mængder elektroniske rå-data til National Security Agency (NSA)

KØBENHAVN 28. august 2020 (EIRNS) – For et par dage siden blev chefen for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste (FE) hjemsendt sammen med øvrige medarbejdere efter massiv kritik fra en institution, der blev oprettet i 2014 for at føre tilsyn med tjenesten. I dag videregav DR information fra flere kilder om at skandalen er, at FE før 2014 har aflyttet centrale kommunikationskabler, og givet NSA adgang til enorme mængder rå elektroniske data, som kan omfatte e-mails , sms’er og telefonopkald fra mange danskere, hvilket er ulovligt. Ifølge DR er deling af efterretningsmateriale med en udenlandsk efterretningstjeneste kun lovligt, kun hvis det drejer sig om data fra enkelte danskere. Flere whistleblowers har givet oplysninger til tilsynsmyndigheden (Tilsynet med Efterretningstjenester). FE beskyldes også for at holde oplysninger tilbage for tilsynsorganet. (Michelle Rasmussen)

Ordstyreren bad derefter Binney om hans reaktion:

Dette er netop det problem jeg så, nemlig at NSA, CIA, FBI og Bush – det startede med Bush, Cheney og [tidligere NSA-direktør Michael] Hayden og [tidligere CIA-chef George] Tenet. De startede denne proces i 2001, og udvidede den derefter til forskellige andre lande i verden, inklusive ‘Five Eyes’ [USA, Storbritannien Canada, Australien, New Zealand]. De samarbejdede alle om at gøre dette, og de gør det alle hver især, inklusive Japan, Polen, sandsynligvis Israel, vil jeg tro, og der er et par andre nøglepunkter i Europa, som Holland, og jeg tror, at Frankrig skulle være en del af det. Men.. du ved, jeg kender bestemt ikke alle disse lande, men jeg var klar over, at Danmark blev involveret for ganske længe siden. Og så…

Pointen er, at de alle dybest set narrer alle andre på planeten. Det har aldrig været et problem at være i stand til at finde ‘slemme fyre’ hvor som helst, uden at opgive sikkerhed. Vi beviste det i 2000, og også i 1999… [det] var det tidligste, vi viste – at det var muligt at gøre det.

Problemet er, at det ikke kostede mange penge, og det var det som efterretningssamfundet var ude efter, og så sagde de, at vi var nødt til at foretage denne masseovervågning, fordi det er ekstremt dyrt, og vores budgetter er på vej op. Vores viden og information om mennesker i verden, herunder alle parlamentsmedlemmerne i ethvert land i verden såvel som alle de mennesker i verden, der aktivt deltager  på ethvert elektronisk apparat.

Så jeg mener, at det er sådan man får ‘overhånd’ over alle og enhver Hvis nogen gør sig ud til bens har man noget at gå tilbage og se på, og analysere med tilbagevirkende kraft, og derefter kan man gå ud og foretage… og derefter kan man udnytte det på enhver måde, som man måtte ønske.

Så det er grundlæggende set en forbrydelse mod menneskerettigheder over hele verden, og det er de en del af… og nu er danskerne, i det mindste, begyndt at tage det alvorligt.

Jeg tror også østrigerne. Deres parlament forkatede et forslag eller et forsøg på at få en lov på plads, hvor de kunne tillade masseovervågning. De nedstemte det, og deres højesteret, eller højeste domstol, besluttede, at det var forfatningsstridigt i henhold til østrigsk lov. Jeg mener, at det er forfatningsstridigt i henhold til amerikansk lov.

Og Elliot Schuchardt og jeg har en lov… eller en begæring i Højesteret, der vil blive gennemgået den 29. september, og det udfordrer det forfatningsmæssige grundlag for NSA, CIA og FBI, der alle deltager i denne masseindsamling af data på amerikanske borgere og alle andre på planeten.

Problemet, som jeg havde, da jeg var teknisk direktør, var, at jeg var klar over, at massedata gjorde vores analytikere dysfunktionelle. Så jeg var nødt til at finde ud af en måde at være i stand til at løse dette problem på… at skaffe dem et rigt informationsmiljø for at kunne lykkes. Det gjorde jeg, men [NSA-direktør Michael] Hayden og hans folk kasserede det, fordi det ikke kostede mange penge, og det effektiviserede tingene, så de ikke behøvede at bygge ting som Bluffdale… nogle få milliarder dollars her og der til flere lagercentre overalt i landet, ovre ved Ft. Mead, i Denver og forskellige andre steder. Alt dette blev gjort for pengenes [skyld], og det blev gjort, fordi efterretningssamfundet ønskede at få magt over alle.

Det var derfor, at præsident Trump – da han tiltrådte embedet – udgjorde en trussel mod dette Han ønskede at reformere det. Derfor var general Flynn en trussel mod dette. Han ønskede at revidere og foretage ændringer i hele processen, der foregik. Så det ville sætte en kæp i hjulet på efterretningssamfundet. Derfor sagde [New York Senator Charles] Schumer, at de har seks dage [om ugen] efter søndag til at komme efter dig, hvis du går imod dem.

Jeg mener, dette er hele problemet her. Vi er nødt til at slippe af med det. Og der er måder at gøre det på. Der er måder at udslette alle disse data fra deres system, så ingen af dem er i stand til at bruge det og krænke folks rettigheder hvor som helst i verden. Det er en nem ting at gøre.

Jeg kalder dette for den ‘første svindel’. Dette var en stor svindel fra efterretningssamfundets side mod hele USA’s befolkning. De svindler os for titusinder af milliarder dollars hvert år.

Og det gælder også de andre lande, der deltager. De bliver også svindlet. Og folk i alle disse lande mister deres menneskerettigheder under deres forfatning, og det er det største problem rundt om i verden.

Derfor er denne indsigelse i USA’s højesteret så vigtig.

Derfor er det så vigtigt, hvad de gjorde i Danmark. Jeg har sørget for, at Elliot Schuchardt kender til det, så han kan inkludere det i sin appel, når han træder frem for højesteret, forhåbentlig tidligt næste år.

Den 3. august (EIRNS) – Det britiske imperium samt allierede amerikanske efterretningsagenturer bag ”overvågningsstaten” er blevet fanget på det forkerte ben, pga. LaRouches politiske Aktionskomités (LaRouchePAC’s) gennembrud, opnået lørdag eftermiddag. I et webcast fra d. 1. august, som blev dækket både af prominente, såvel som mindre prominente, medier og genudgivet på hundredvis af hjemmesider og blogs siden den eftermiddag, deltog Roger Stone, den velkendte politiske konsulent og skydeskive for Robert Mueller, sammen med den højt respekterede ”whistleblower” fra USA’s Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur (NSA), Bill Binney, og talspersoner fra LaRouchePAC, Harley Schlanger og Barbara Boyd. De viste, hvordan anklagerne, samt de offentlige bagvaskelser af Stone, Binney og Lyndon LaRouche alle havde én kilde og én årsag: Beslutningen fra magthaverne i City of London og Wall Street om ikke at tillade, at modstandere af globaliseringen og de ”permanente krige” vil blive hørt.

Roger Stone gjorde det klart, ud fra sin personlige viden efter at have ledt Ronald Reagans præsidentkampagne i New Hampshires primærvalg i 1980, at LaRouche blev retsforfulgt fordi, han ”irriterede Bush-familien” – en veletableret magt i det finansielle etablissement – og fordi han arbejdede med og parallelt til Præsident Ronald Reagan. Yderligere beviste Stone, at både han selv og Præsident Donald Trump er blevet et mål for disse magter på samme måde. Effekten var, at Stone på udførlig manér ødelagde grundlaget for Robert Muellers anklager rettet mod præsidenten; og i processen ”genåbnede sagen om Lyndon LaRouche”, hvis retsforfølgelse i 1980’erne blev iværksat af Mueller og William Weld. Hans afsløringer er yderligere uddybet på LaRouchePAC’s daglige opdatering, ”Morning Briefing”, her til morgen.

Bill Binneys kriminaltekniske bevis på at der ikke fandtes noget ”hack” af den Demokratiske Nationale Komités (DNC’s) computere i 2016, og specielt ikke et af Rusland – kernegrundlaget for ”Russiagate”-angrebene mod Trumps præsidentskab – er ikke blevet tilbagevist, efter at det blev præsenteret i oktober 2017 til daværende CIA-chef, Mike Pompeo, som begravede det fuldstændig i tre år. Men med LaRouchePAC’s aktiviteter i de seneste uger cirkulerer disse beviser nu vidt og bredt. Det er nu vore læseres ansvar at hjælpe med at udbrede disse yderligere.

Dette gennembrud i kampen mod globaliseringens overvågningsstat – som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kaldte ”systemet for permanent uretfærdighed” – er en sejr på et tidspunkt, hvor de transatlantiske finanssystemer, kræfterne bag globaliseringen, er bankerotte. De overlever via centralbankernes massive ”kunstige åndedræt” gennem et årti. Lyndon LaRouches politisk økonomiske nødforanstaltninger, som han kaldte sine ”fire økonomiske love” for at rede nationer, er den eneste vej til økonomisk genrejsning fra sammenbruddet. Megabankerne, centrede i City of London og Wall Street, må opdeles gennem en Glass/Steagall-lovgivning; centralbankerne nationaliseres eller erstattes af hamiltoniske nationale bank- og kreditinstitutter; og de førende nationers bestræbelser indenfor rumfart og fusionsenergiforskning må øges til lynprogrammer for at kolonisere Månen og Mars, således at teknologi og produktivitet kan nå nye højder her på Jorden.

Det var således, at LaRouche definerede ”genrejsning”, og det begynder i denne dybe krise med at ”genåbne hans sag”, og derfra fremlægge hans politik.

Pga. af deres finanssystemers desperate tilstand drives finanseliten, centreret i City of London, til en stadig mere anspændt ”førkrigs”-konfrontation med Kina – og også Rusland. LaRouchePAC og Schiller Instituttet forsøger at befri Præsident Donald Trump fra denne konfrontation i tide til et topmøde for samarbejde blandt FN’s sikkerhedsråds fem permanente medlemmer, som sandsynligvis vil finde sted i begyndelsen af september. For blot et par dage siden pegede en prominent økonom, den nylige chef for Indiens Centralbank, underforstået på den første opgave for et sådant topmøde. USA og Kina er i en enestående position, og må, ifølge Raguram Rajan, ”tage ansvaret og sammen forsyne de underudviklede nationer med ressourcerne til at bekæmpe pandemien”. Denne mission – et nyt verdensomspændende sundhedssystem mod pandemien – har, siden februar, været spydspidsen af Helga Zepp-LaRouches initiativ for disse topmøder.

Målet med denne proces er et Nyt Bretton Woods, internationalt kreditsystem, for at realisere Præsident Franklin Roosevelts udviklingsperspektiv i forbindelse med organiseringen af den oprindelige Bretton Woods-konference. Siden de sene 1980’ere gjorde Lyndon LaRouche, på trods af uretfærdige retsforfølgelser, denne mission for et Nyt Bretton Woods til sin egen. Hvis den seneste uges gennembrud mod det britiske imperium og Wall Street udbredes og opfølges fuldstændigt, kan vi virkeliggøre denne mission.

Et afskrift på engelsk af Panel I findes nedenunder.

Ovenover: Panel I: “Til erstatning for geopolitik: principperne for statsmandskab”

Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche og internationale diplomater, amerikanske valgte politikere, osv.

• Keynote speaker: Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “The Alternative to a Dark Age and a Third World War”
• Dr. Jin Zhongxia, Executive Director for China, IMF; Washington, D.C., United States: “The Fundamentals of East-West Philosophic Relations”
• Boris Meshchanov, Counselor, Russian Federation Mission to the UN, New York City, United States: “Russia’s Global Economic Perspective, Post COVID-19”
• Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon-General of the United States
• Ding Yifan, Deputy Director, Research Institute of World Development, China Development Research Center, China: “A Chinese Perspective on a Post-COVID Paradigm”
• Daisuke Kotegawa, former Executive Director for Japan at the IMF; Research Director, The Canon Institute, Japan
• Mayor DeWayne Hopkins (fmr); Former Mayor, Muscatine, Iowa; The Mayor’s Muscatine-China Initiative Committee, United States: “A View from the Iowa Farm Belt: the Muscatine-China Cultural Connection”
• Question and Answer session

******

Panel II: ”Producenter i Verden, foren jer! Hvorfor et program for skabelse af 1,5 milliarder produktive job kan afslutte krig, hungersnød, fattigdom og sygdom”

Jacques Cheminade, lederen af LaRouche-bevægelsen i Frankrig og fhv. præsidentkandidat, og landbrug, fagforening og politiske ledere fra Afrika, Sydamerika og USA.

• Jacques Cheminade, President Solidarité & Progrès, France: “How Food Production Can Unite the World”
• Diogène Senny, Founder of the Pan-African League: “Thrive or perish: An Introduction to the Geopolitics of Hunger and Poverty”
• Walter Formento, Director, Center for Political and Economic Research, Argentina; “South America on the New Multipolar Road”
• Dr. Kirk Meighoo, political economist, broadcaster, and former Senator, Trinidad & Tobago: “The Caribbean’s True Importance in the Making and Re-Making of the Modern Global Economy”
• Mark Sweazy, former UAW trade union leader, United States: “Returning the U.S. Work Force to a Culture of Scientific Progress”
• Robert L. Baker, Schiller Institute, United States
• Mike Callicrate, Board of Directors, Organization for Competitive Markets, Owner Ranch Foods Direct, United States: “Food Unites People Around the Planet”
• Alicia Díaz Brown, Citizens Movement for Water, Sonora, Mexico: “Let Us Return to the Best Moments of the U.S.–Mexico Relationship”
• Question and Answer session

******

Panel III: Ungdommens opgave

Daniel Burke, senatorkandidat i New Jersey, USA fra LaRouche-bevægelsen, og universitets og andre ungdomsledere fra Frankrig, Yemen, Colombia, Mexico, Tanzania, og USA.

• Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute, Germany: Opening Remarks
• Keynote: Daniel Burke, Schiller Institute, United States: “If You Sat Where They Sit, What Would You Do?”
• Carolina Domínguez Cisneros, Mexico; Sebastián Debernardi, Peru; Andrés Carpintero, Colombia; Daniel Dufreine Arévalo, Mexico: “Getting Back the Great Ideas That Were Stolen From Us”
• Franklin Mireri, YouLead Partnerships Coordinator, Tanzania: “The Greatest Want of the World is for True Leaders.”
• Sarah Fahim, Student from Morocco Studying in Paris, France
• Chérine Sultan, Institut Schiller, Paris, France
• Lissie Brobjerg, Schiller Institute, United States: “Are You a Large-Scale Geological Force?”
• Areej Atef, Education Committee Vice President of BRICS Youth Parliament, Sana’a, Yemen: “Youth of the World Face Two World Systems: The Old and the New”
• Jose Vega, Bronx, NY: “A New Space CCC”
• Youth Day of Action Invitation Video
• Question and Answer session

Invitationen: 

Efter vore vellykkede internetkonferencer den 25.-26. april samt den 9. maj på V-E-dagen, vil vores næste konference være den 27. juni, kl. 16:00. Hjælp venligst med at sprede denne meddelelse bredt blandt venner, sociale medier osv.

Siden januar har Schiller Instituttets formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche insisteret på, at USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien skal mødes. Deres ledere må vise det statsmandskab, der kræves for at overvinde åndsforladt koldkrigerisk propagandataktik og geopolitik, og tage del i en hastemission for at opbygge en fuldt funktionsdygtig sundhedsinfrastruktur for verden, især for Sydamerika, Afrika og dele af Asien, der kræver opførelse af hospitaler, vandværker, vejsystemer og uddannelsesfaciliteter til unge læger, sygeplejersker og lægeassistenter.

 I over 35 år, og især i de sidste syv år, har Schiller Instituttet kæmpet for netop den slags statsmandskunst.

 Verden må nu vælge mellem to modstridende syn på menneskehedens næste 50 år:

 Et synspunkt kræver at vende den forestående affolkning af jorden på grund af globale pandemier. Disse pandemier er uden undtagelse resultatet af mislykkede finansielle, økonomiske og militære politikker, og især af den fuldstændige deregulering af de finansielle markeder igennem de sidste tre årtier. Det andet, modstridende synspunkt, kræver en ‘Green New Deal’ -energipolitik, som umiddelbart vil forværre planetens nuværende sundhedskrise og kunne muligvis endda resultere i døden for størstedelen af den menneskelige race.

 Vi må tage afstand fra denne affolkningspolitik, organisere den transatlantiske verden for at tilslutte sig det nye kulturelle paradigme, der nu føres an af Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ, og bevæge verden til det som Schiller Instituttet har kaldt ‘Verdens Landbroen’.

 Netop mens Kina igennem præsident Xi Jinping´s Bælte- og Vejinitiativ har engageret 150 nationer i et forsøg på at stoppe fattigdom i hele verden, har malthusianske økonomiske kræfter i USA og Europa, der er imod dette, stigmatiseret Kina som ‘virussets udspring’ – en slet skjult genoplivning af den racistiske doktrin for 100 år siden kaldet ‘den gule fare’.

 I 1923 skrev medlem af det britiske Overhus Lord Bertrand Russell:

 ”De hvide befolkninger i verden vil snart ophøre med at stige i tal. De asiatiske racer vil blive flere, og negrene stadig flere, før deres fødselsrater falder tilstrækkeligt til at stabilisere deres antal uden hjælp af krig og pestilens. Indtil det sker, kan fordelene som socialismen sigter mod kun delvist realiseres, og mindre reproduktive racer bliver nødt til at forsvare sig mod de mere reproduktive ved metoder, der er oprørende, selvom de er nødvendige”.

 Verden, og især vores ungdom, der skal opbygge planeten i de kommende 50 år, må så stærkt som muligt afvise sådanne ideer og politikker for at pålægge systemisk tilbageståenhed globalt, herunder i forklædning af “Green New Deal”. Der kan ikke længere være nogen tvivl om, at verdens mest avancerede teknologier – i rummet, i fremstillingsindustrien, i minedrift, i landbruget – straks, i kraft af hasteprogrammer, må anvendes mod den globale pandemi og den økonomiske krise, som ellers kan føre til snesevis af millioner døde og fordrevne på kort sigt. En sådan massedød forekommer allerede i Brasilien og andre nationer. ‘Verdensfødevareprogrammet’ advarer om, at vi om nogle måneder vil kunne se så mange som 300.000 mennesker dø af sult dagligt, primært i udviklingslandene.

 Et nyt dokument, ‘The LaRouche Plan to Reolen the U.S. Economic; The World Nees 1.5 Billion New, Produktive Jobs’, (LaRouche-planen til genåbning af den amerikanske økonomi; Verden har brug for 1.5 milliarder nye produktive job) skitserer, hvordan denne tragedie kan vendes ved at søsætte den største økonomiske ekspansion i menneskets historie, herunder 50 millioner produktive job i henholdsvis USA og Europa.

 Da den sydafrikanske præsident Ramaphosa lykønskede Elon Musk, der har dobbelt sydafrikansk-amerikansk statsborgerskab, med den vellykkede gennemførelse af den amerikanske mission til Den internationale Rumstation, udtrykte han den form for nationalt lederskab, der kræves for endeligt at bringe globalt tyranni med globalisering og geopolitik til ophør. De seneste gennembrud inden for videnskab, gjort tilgængelig for de mest nødlidende, kan nu indlede en ny æra, der kunne kaldes ‘menneskelig økonomi’. Som Lyndon LaRouche redegjorde: “I stedet for disse for nærværende fejlslagne ideer, må vi antage en forestilling om økonomi, hvis målestok er funktionelt i overensstemmelse med det afgørende særpræg: princippet om kreativ fornuft”.

 Denne stræben efter økonomisk retfærdighed, især for de af verdens børn, der er født ind i livstruende omstændigheder, vil have den yderligere fordelagtige virkning at tage fat på andre problemer med social retfærdighed, der for nylig har fået så megen international opmærksomhed.

Kontact os for at få tilsendt udgaver med tysk, fransk eller spansk oversættelse. Ring +45 53 57 00 51

*****

Panel I afskrift:

Panel 1: “Instead of Geopolitics: The Principles of Statecraft”

DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed, and I want to welcome you to today’s international conference and webcast. We had a technical problem for a moment, and now we think we’ve solved that problem.

Today’s conference is called “Will Humanity Prosper or Perish? The Future Demands a ‘Four-Power’ Summit Now.” We’re going to begin today by the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche. He was keynoting a panel of the Schiller Institute — this was in Germany — and the name of the particular panel on that occasion was “Rescuing Civilization from the Brink: The Role of Classical Culture. An Imperative for Mankind.”

LYNDON LAROUCHE video:

This is truly the most important of all strategic questions we have to face today: the fact that the human species is absolutely unique in its capabilities. There’s no other known species in the universe, ever known to have existed, or could exist — even though we have not fully explored, of course, the Crab Nebula or similar parts of the great galaxy which we’re involved in, called the Milky Way. There may be many species with cognitive powers out there. Because the Solar System of which we are immediately a product, although always under the control of the galactic processes — and we know a good deal, today, about those kinds of things: Our organization in the United States has spent a good deal of effort on concentrating, inclusively, on just this question: How old is life? How long has life existed in this galaxy, or within some place in it? What is the nature of mankind, who’s been on this planet only for a few million years? There was no human being on this planet, to the best of our knowledge, until a few million years ago.

And yet, we’re talking about billions of years of this galaxy, during which all living processes known to us have come into existence. And all life is creative, but there’s a sad part: that over 95% of all known living species have been rendered extinct, as failures, in their time. The question, therefore: Why, in these times, when we have entered a period in which there will be more great kills of living processes, at this phase of the movement of the Solar System through the galaxy, why should we be so presumptuous as to imagine that human life is not about to disappear as the dinosaurs did in the last great kill?

What is there about human beings that says they’re not just another animal species, ready to get to the chop in the course of their time?

The answer is a very little-known question. Most people don’t have an inkling of what the answer is! As a matter of fact, our societies are run on the basis of people who have no inkling what the human species is! All they can come up with is an explanation of some kind of an animal, with animal characteristics of pleasure and pain, and things like that, that might control the behavior of this animal.

So why should we expect that we have a right to claim that the human species is going to survive the approaching point of a great kill in the course of the movements of the Solar System up and below and around the galaxy we inhabit? How do we know that this 62-million-year cycle is not going to take the human species away, as it’s taken so many away before? And then, before that, and then before that?

And here you have all these people talking about politics; they’re talking about issues of politics; they’re talking about “practical opinion,” and public opinion, and differentiations in customs, and all those kinds of things! And here we are: We’re approaching the time of the great kill, where everything about us may suddenly disappear; so what are we worried about? If we’re going to disappear, why do we worry? Why do we fight it? [laughter]

What is there in us, that is not in other living species known to us? That might, somehow, miraculously, pronounce a destiny for our human species which we grant to no other living species? The name for that specific quality, which we know in the human species, which does not exist in any other known living species: There’s a quality of creativity, which is absolutely unique to mankind. And if you’re not creative, and if you don’t understand creativity, you haven’t got a ticket to survival yet! Because creativity won’t save you, unless you use it. [end video]

SPEED: We’re continuing to experience highly unusual technical difficulties. There were some problems in some of our international connections….

As soon as we have this technical problem somewhat under control, we’re going to go directly to our keynote speaker, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. We are about now 15 minutes behind schedule, but we’ll be able to do certain things to make that up. We want to apologize again, so that people have an idea, this is a highly unusual circumstance, we’re not going to talk a lot about that right now. Let me simply say so that the format is known, we are going to have first our keynote speech, followed by representatives from China and from Russia, and several others. The topic of the panel, as we announced before, is “Instead of Politics, the Principles of Statecraft.”

Let me say about the Schiller Institute and what we’ve been doing with this conference, or this process of conferences, because it actually began back in April of this year. April 25th and 26th, we held the first of what is now the three conferences. These conferences were devoted to the idea of the creation of a Four-Power summit — Russia, China, India, and the United States. There are various processes that have been able to move in that direction already, and we are in a process today. In fact, among many of the things we’ll be talking about today is a new proposal that has been put forward by President Vladimir Putin of Russia to that effect. Let me also say that for people in the United States in particular, the crisis that has been on people’s minds, as exhibited in the social and political crises in the streets of America, is merely one predicate of a broader international process. And that’s what why we’re starting today with this first panel, to give that broader overview, and to allow you and others to become part of an international operation to reverse that circumstance.

Now, as I said, I think the primary problem that we are dealing with is that we are trying to make sure that the international contacts are also connected. We have translators and we have a need to make sure that everything is moving in sync; that’s one of the particular problems of this kind of international operation.

Let me say one other thing concerning the excerpt that you saw from Lyndon LaRouche, which was done in 2011. LaRouche’s conception there concerning the idea that was strategy; the idea of thinking about strategy from the standpoint of a galactic process, and then looking then — and only then — at the various political episodes that were occurring on Earth, was a way of trying to actually look at what he often also referred to often as intelligence. He was the founder in 1974, of Executive Intelligence Review. And that publication, which is still published to this day, specialized in trying to make his method of intelligence and investigation available generally in American analysis.

This was very successful, in particular, in the drive for certain policy changes that occurred in the United States; most notably, that of March 23, 1983, with the creation of the Strategic Defense Initiative. This was the product of a process of negotiation that LaRouche carried out as a back-channel negotiator with the then-Soviet Union, and with the knowledge of the National Security Council and then-President of the United States Ronald Reagan. That policy, and the creation of that policy, and that dialogue with the then-Soviet Union, is, in one sense, not a model for now, but is the same sort of process that must needs be allowed to continue and to happen between President Donald Trump, President Vladimir Putin, President Xi Jinping, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others. The idea of the Four-Power summit is not exclusionary. It doesn’t say that other powers are not involved. In fact, recent proposals have amplified or expanded the number of persons that might, in fact, be involved.

But what is important to understand is that, as LaRouche once said in another document published in 1980 called “A Dialogue with Leonid Brezhnev,” then the head of the then-Soviet Union, “The Content of Policy Is the Method By Which It Is Made.” So, in the clip that you’ve seen, there, today, the idea of culture and the idea of what a culture actually is, is a strategic matter. In the case of the United States, and in the case of the present-day United States, these matters of a cultural paradigm-shift are actually often far more important than the particular political issues that people talk about. For example, if you look at today’s United States, the issue of our having gone away from being a productive culture, in fact the most productive economy in the world’s history, between the period in particular of the 1933 resurgence of America that occurred under Franklin Roosevelt, through the period of 1945, and then the subsequent period of 1944 through 1971 with the Bretton Woods system. It’s been the need to return to that, and to return to these ideas — those that had come into currency under Franklin Roosevelt’s Presidency — that is the template for what we are saying should be the character of discussion between President Trump, President Putin, President Xi, and Prime Minister Modi.

I want to make one thing clear to everyone as we are about to transition, to get to the keynote, that in thinking about what we are all involved in today — namely, that global pandemic condition created by the coronavirus: Clearly what has happened is, there is a need for all of us to change our axioms. That the idea of international cooperation among sovereign, independent nation-states, for the purpose of creating a worldwide alternative to what’s otherwise going to be, perhaps, the destruction of civilization — not because absolutely everybody would die of the coronavirus or something like that — but the cascading effects and the interconnected effects of a global pandemic condition that we don’t really medically understand, plus the ongoing problem of the financial virus that has, of course, plagued humanity particularly since the time of the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, this combination would create a circumstance in which only all nations working together can possibly achieve an actual reconciliation of this process.

I think we’re about ready to begin.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the founder of the Schiller Institute — that was back in 1984. She also, of course, is the wife of the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche, who passed away in February 2019. She played a crucial, decisive role in a set of conversations and dialogues with the government of China during the period of 1993 to 1996; launching the process that became what we now know as the New Silk Road. And we’re happy and proud to present her to you now, to begin the dialogue again. The panel as a whole is, “Instead of Geopolitics, a New Form of Statecraft.” So, it’s always my honor to introduce Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

The Alternative to a Dark Age and a Third World War

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: After this difficult beginning, I’m all the more happy that I’m finally connected to you. And I’m going to talk about the alternative to a Dark Age, or the danger of a new world war. And even if it’s inconceivable for most people at this point, if we do not succeed in the relatively short term in replacing the hopelessly bankrupt financial system by a New Bretton Woods system, exactly as originally intended by Franklin D. Roosevelt, that is, to create an instrument for forcefully overcoming the underdevelopment of the so-called developing sector, then the current orientation of the world….

I don’t know if you heard what I said before because there were some technical problems, but I was saying that even if most people cannot imagine that that can occur, that unless we, in the very short term, implement a New Bretton Woods system, exactly as Franklin D. Roosevelt had intended it, that the current orientation of the world towards ever more conflicts, both domestically in many states of the world, but also on a strategic level, threatens to escalate into a great new world, a Third World War, which because of the existence of thermonuclear weapons would mean the annihilation of the human species — the “great kill” even if it is meant in a slightly different way than Lyn just was heard on this video clip.

Although it is absolutely astounding how many misguided people still believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is either no worse than the flu or a just conspiracy of Bill Gates, the much more likely perspective is unfortunately what epidemiologist Dr. Michael Osterholm has said: namely, that we still have an incredibly long journey ahead of us. Until now, 10 million people have been infected, half a million have died from COVID-19, and we have still not reached the peak of the first wave. The almost non-existent health systems of many developing countries are already hopelessly overstretched. The pandemic has ruthlessly exposed the fact that the neo-liberal economic system not only depends on cheap production in the so-called Third World, but has even created in the United States and Europe slave-labor conditions, as can be seen in the outbreak of the virus in the many slaughterhouses in Europe and the United States.

The economic shutdown has thrown a spotlight on the fragility of what is called “globalization.” In the U.S., around 40 million jobs were lost in three months; the central banks pumped an unbelievable over $20 trillion into the financial system and various government support programs could just barely cover up the timebombs still ticking until expiring of the short-work programs. The IMF currently expects global production to decline by 4.9% this year, and only China is expected to have an increase in production of 2%, which is obviously is much less than it used to be, but nevertheless it grows. Sectors such as air traffic, catering, tourism, the car industry, have suffered massive declines, some of them long-term, but also a large number of medium-sized companies fear they will not survive a second wave and another economic lockdown. The result would be a huge increase in unemployment, poverty and price deflation, while at the same time the central banks’ liquidity pumping is creating hyperinflationary bubbles. Bail-outs of large systemic corporations and banks, as well as politically explosive bail-ins would be further desperate options for governments to implement, but they could not prevent a collapse of the global financial system. A plunge into chaos and anarchy would follow.

In the meantime, a continuation of the current policy would not only lead to increased death rates as a result of the pandemic, but would do absolutely nothing to counter the hunger catastrophe, of which David Beasley of the World Food Program is warning that it will soon take the lives of 300,000 people a day.

Whoever may have thought that a dark age could be ruled out in our modern times, is in for a reality shock. And last but not least, the hedonism acted out by demonstrators who confuse liberties with freedom, is reminiscent of the flagellants and the descriptions of the 14th century as they are given by the writings of Boccaccio, and the paintings of Breughel.

Against this background, it is to be expected that the attempt, originally instigated by the British secret services, to oust President Donald Trump from office by a coup, impeachment or assassination — such was the headline of the British publication The Spectator on Jan. 21, 2017 — or by a “Maidan” coup, as President Putin warned in 2016, these will intensify. The instrumentalization of the outrage resulting from the murder of George Floyd by violent groups funded by George Soros is part of this campaign. The reason for the relentless hostility of the neo-liberal establishment and the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic against Trump after what, for them, what his unexpected election victory, was, and still is, the intention he expressed at the beginning of his term, to establish good relations with Russia and a good relationship with China. And of course, Trump’s promise to end the “endless wars” of his predecessors, to bring U.S. troops home.

What followed was a three-and-a-half-year witch hunt against Trump. The war cry “Russia, Russia, Russia,” based on grounds for which not the least shred of evidence subsists, was followed by an attempt at an impeachment, followed by the no less malicious war cry “China, China, China,” although there is just as little substance to the charges against China as there was for Russiagate.

During all that, the representatives of the neo-liberal system were not ready for one second to consider that it was the brutal consequences of their own policies for the majority of the population worldwide, that had triggered the global wave of social protest, which included the Brexit and Trump’s victory, as well as the mass protests worldwide from Chile to the Yellow Vests in France. But this establishment is never interested in discovering the truth, only in controlling the official political narrative, in compliance with Pompeo ’s principle, as he explained in his speech in Texas: “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole … we had entire training courses for that.”

NATO’s official narrative about Russia’s allegedly increasing aggressiveness, accused of “redrawing borders by force in Europe,” fails to mention of course the broken promises made to Gorbachov, that NATO would never extend its borders all the way to Russia’s borders, and the preceding color revolutions that can be described as acts of war, and finally the coup in Kiev with the open support of Victoria Nuland, which triggered the referendum in Crimea in reaction.

China’s “crime” is not only that it has lifted 850 million of its own citizens out of poverty, and has become, with an economic policy based on scientific and technological progress and a population of 1.4 billion people, the second most powerful economic nation, and in some technological areas, such as high-speed rail systems, nuclear fusion, aspects of space exploration and 5G telecommunications, already the number one. In addition, China’s offer for cooperation on the New Silk Road, and the Belt and Road Initiative, is the first real opportunity for the developing countries since the time of colonialism, to overcome poverty and underdevelopment by building infrastructure.

NATO’s response to China’s regaining its role as a leading nation in the world, a role it played during many centuries of its 5,000-year-long history, has been global expansion into the Indo-Pacific region. This is the stuff of which world wars can be made. And yet, that is exactly the direction that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has indicated in his outline for “NATO 2030,” which he just presented in a video conference with the Atlantic Council and the German Marshall Fund. German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer took part in another webinar last Wednesday with Anna Wieslander, director of the Atlantic Council for Northern Europe, who, in opening the event quoted Lord Ismay, NATO’s first general secretary, who said that the purpose of NATO is “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” But AKK (as she is nicknamed) did not even seemingly realize the insult in these remarks. The geopolitical scenario of a globalized NATO, which is openly designed to instrumentalize NATO for the purposes of the British Empire, on based on the Commonwealth, and which would also rope the EU into playing that role, and would finally position India against China, must be totally rejected by all those who have an interest in maintaining world peace.

President Putin has just written, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, a striking article on the pre-history of the Second World War and the course of that war, and called on all nations to publish all the up to now classified historical documents from that time, so that by studying the causes of the greatest catastrophe in the history of mankind up to that point, the lessons will be learned for avoiding an even greater catastrophe today. Putin writes in a very personal tone, he speaks of the suffering of his own family, of the immense importance June 22nd has for the Russian population, the day on which “life almost comes to a halt,” and why May 9th, the anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War in which 27 million Russians lost their lives, is Russia’s most important holiday. But the indirect message is also that just as the Soviet Union defeated Hitler’s Germany with a gigantic effort, the Russian people will never surrender to renewed threats. Just as Napoleon was led through a long line of defense into the inhospitable Russian winter, and his army was finally as good as wiped out, the evacuation of the people and industrial capacity to the east from 1941 on allowed the Soviet Union to surpass the military production of the Nazis in only one and a half years.

But also the short-sightedness of the Versailles dictate, the support for Hitler from members of the aristocracy and the Establishment on both sides of the Atlantic, and above all the Munich Pact, which is simply called in Russia the “Munich betrayal” or “Munich conspiracy,” is considered as the real trigger for the Second World War. Because it was there, where not only the appeasement of Hitler, but also the joint divvying up of the booty took place, as well as the ice-cold geopolitical calculation, that focussing Hitler’s Germany on the East would inevitably lead Germany and the Soviet Union to tear each other to pieces.

According to Putin, what is the main message of the study of the Second World War for today? That it was the failure to take up the task of creating a collective security system that could have prevented this war was the most important piece! Putin’s article ends with an urgent reminder of the summit of heads of state of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which he has been proposing since January, and which should address precisely these principles of how to maintain world peace and overcome the world economic crisis.

The most important aspect of that is that this format will put the United States, Russia and China around the same table to negotiate the principles that must be the basis of international policy if mankind is to avoid wiping itself out! And yesterday after a long phone call between Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron, Macron said that he stands for a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which opens not only the perspective of an integration of the European Union, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Belt and Road Initiative, but also the establishment of a common security architecture based on common economic interests.

However, if we are to meet the gigantic challenges of the pandemic, the global economic crisis and the profound social shocks that have destroyed the trust of large parts of the population in their institutions in many countries around the world, further steps are necessary. Obviously, cooperation between the United States and China, as the two largest economies, is indispensable. Even if this currently appears to be an insurmountable hurdle, the extremely tense relationship between the United States and China must be replaced by cooperation on the common aims of mankind.

Who, if not the governments of the strongest economies, the countries with the largest populations and the greatest military potential, should solve the problems? The Boltons must be removed from these governments and replaced by responsible people who are able to find, in the cultural phases of their respective cultures, the starting points for cooperation on a higher level. Benjamin Franklin’s admiration for Confucian philosophy and Sun Yat-sen’s orientation to the ideals of the American Republic are better advisors than Gene Sharp’s “How To Start a Revolution” or Samuel Huntington’s different scribblings.

One has to define a plane on which the solutions for these quite disparate problems become visible. There is one philosopher, born in the 15th century, known in Russia as Nikolai Kusansky, Nikolaus of Cusa, who developed exactly that method of thinking: the coincidence of opposites, coincidentia oppositorum. This concept expresses the fundamental quality of human creativity, which is able time and time again and at increasingly more developed levels to find solutions on a higher plane, where the conflicts that have arisen on the lower levels, are dissolved.

This can only be the immediate implementation of a credit system, that provides the global economy with credit for industrialization, and thus the real development, of all nations on this planet. The entire life’s work of my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, was primarily devoted to achieving this goal; he drew up his first plan for the industrialization of Africa in 1976, the Oasis Plan for the industrialization of the Middle East in 1975; then followed the 40-Year Plan for India in collaboration with Indira Gandhi, Operation Juárez with then Mexican President José López Portillo for Latin America; a 50-year development plan for the Pacific Basin; and then finally, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Eurasian Land-Bridge, as a peace plan for the 21st century. Many of these projects are being implemented today thanks to China’s New Silk Road, and all nations of the world are called upon to contribute to this World Land-Bridge! This is the blueprint for the creation of the 1.5 billion jobs, that are necessary today to overcome the crisis! It should begin with the establishment of a modern health system in every single country, in order to combat the current and future pandemics, which will not only benefit poor countries, but also the so-called developed countries, that can only avoid new waves of infections in that way. Most countries have a large number of unemployed or poorly employed youth, who can be trained as medical personnel and deployed to build up such health centers.

When millions of people are threatened with starvation, as the World Food Program warns, why can farmers not double their food production and be paid a parity price that guarantees their existence, including with regard to the expected increase in the world’s population to over 9 billion by 2050? Can we not consider ourselves as one single human species, and help to build mankind’s common construction sites with the same solidarity that the entire Chinese population helped the people in Wuhan and the province of Hubei? Is it not time that we stopped wasting trillions on military build-ups, as President Trump said he would soon take up together with Putin and Xi Jinping, when we could use those resources to overcome hunger, disease and poverty, and to develop the creative potential of the current and future generations?

I think it is time for us, as mankind, faced with an unprecedented disaster, to take the qualitative step of making the 21st century the first truly human century!

Thank you very much.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Helga.

Our next speaker is Dr. Jin Zhongxia, who’s the executive director for China of the International Monetary Fund, located in Washington, D.C.

DR. JIN ZHONGXIA: Thank you, Mr. Speed. I would like to thank Schiller Institute for the invitation to attend this important conference. Also, I thank Madame Helga for her excellent keynote speech.

2020 is a very special and challenging year. The trade war, the eruption and spread of coronavirus, the riots in the U.S., world economic recession, and escalated geopolitical tensions, I just name a few major ones. Global growth is projected by the IMF at negative 4.9% this year.

In the following discussion, some of my observations and comments are kind of thoughts in research and of academic by nature, I will speak in my personal capacity only.

Global challenge should be handled globally with a multilateral approach. No country will be safe until every country is safe.

When we start to discuss the multilateral approach in dealing with the pandemic and the global crisis, I recognize that there is a debate on the value of multilateralism and the multilateral institutions. Some people are talking about economic decoupling, a Cold War, and even a conflict of civilizations. Since I am from China, I ask myself: Is there any fundamental conflict between civilizations in the East and West?

Chinese civilization is unique in many aspects, but it’s not fundamentally different from Western civilization. One example: In the 6th century B.C., China had Taiji or Yin Yang concept, which is the co-evolution of two opposite forces. I found in surprise that this was also a core concept in physiological theory in Greek medicine in the same period of time. Another example: A core concept of Confucianism is the “middle course approach,” that also corresponds to the “doctrine of the mean” that was explored extensively by Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece.

In 16th century, the brilliant Jesuit missionary, Matteo Ricci, recognized the striking parallels in Confucius and Mencius to the Christian concept of man in the images of the God and devoted his life to building an “ecumenical alliance” between China and the West.

During the evolution of trade tension between the United States and China, some opinions in the media have demonized China as an evil trade partner that is systematically engaged in illegal subsidizing, cheating and stealing. That reminds me of the overwhelming public opinion in the media against Jewish people in some parts of Europe before World War II. The truth is that after more than 40 years’ market-oriented reform and opening-up, China has already been transformed into a market-based economy. In fact, the share of fiscal resources in GDP mobilized by some European governments is higher than that in China due to extensive social welfare arrangements, but no body in Europe complain that this welfare has distorted the market.

China has profound tradition of market economy both in theory and practice. In the 6th century B.C., Laozi, a famous philosopher and the founder of Daoism, advised his government to “rule without intervention,” which is an ancient version of the invisible hand of Adam Smith. Another famous economist and philosopher Guanzi, in the 7th century B.C., suggested that in the years of economic depression, government could increase expenditure to implement seemingly wasteful projects for the purpose of creating employment. That is the ancient Chinese version of Keynesian economics. Financially, China was also highly developed. As early as in 11th century, China introduced the first official paper currency in the world.

On the issue of economic and technology decoupling, the attempt to block a major people and civilization from competing fairly with other countries and getting access to new scientific and technological knowledge is morally wrong, and will help China to win sympathy around the world.

On the other hand, China has the largest pool of educated labor force, including a largest pool of engineers. That will enable the country to be more innovative, professional, practical and rational.

Compared with other multi-country free trade zones, China has already become the largest single-country retail market by itself. It is more than equivalent to a free trade zone with a highly integrated infrastructure network, centralized fiscal and monetary policy, and deep and liquid labor and capital market. The authorities have also determined to further open its economy, greatly enhance intellectual property (IP) protection, and implement structural reforms, including introducing competitive neutrality for state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In the end, it is the effectiveness and efficiency of China’s domestic resource allocation that will determine China’s international competitiveness.

I am not specialized in geopolitics. But I learned that the scenario of decoupling and a new cold war is based on an old strategy called “divide and conquer,” or “offshore balance.” It is very smart from the offshore players’ perspective. But it will benefit the offshore manipulator at the expense of onshore neighbors. I wonder whether those equally smart onshore players are willing to buy this, and how high a price the offshore player wants to pay to convince so many countries to engage a long-term conflict with their major trade partner.

It is not objective to exaggerate China’s conflict with India at the border. It is important to recognize that the current border is largely a stable equilibrium. The common interest of these two ancient civilizations is to cooperate and develop their economies and achieve a joint historical revival. The two countries should benefit from their common cultural heritage based on centuries of peaceful and friendly cultural exchanges, particularly the exchanges in the form of Buddhism.

The history issue between China and Japan often looks like a deadlock, but a forward-looking approach is the key. China has largely recovered its self-confidence, and it is very clear that China’s revival does not mean revenge. When new generations from China visit Japan as tourists, most of them feel they like Japan. Japan is China’s only neighboring country that has maintained a lot of Chinese characters in their written language, and they use chopsticks, eat rice, use soy sauce, and practice calligraphy, all of these are the typical reflections of East Asian culture.

A healthy and stable Sino-Russian relationship can be much more sustainable than many people’s imagination. Their stable cooperative relationship can be attributed to many factors. It is not a coincidence that their combined territory maps the Mongolian Empire in history. Toward the end of last century, China and Russian leaders reached a wise and visionary agreement to delimit and confirm their common border. Their mutual respect and support to core interest of each other can go a long way.

The biggest loss the United States could incur from a decoupling and a new cold war is that many of the 1.4 billion Chinese people, who are otherwise very friendly toward America, could turn into opponents. By contrast, a friendly and cooperative China will be definitely the Americans’ greatest fortune in Asia.

I believe a constructive competition and cooperation between China, the United States and other countries under a rules-based multilateral system should be the right choice. Fortunately, the IMF is still functioning normally and has played a constructive leading role, which is also supported by the World Bank and other multilateral banks.

In just a few months, recently, the IMF has implemented debt relief to more than 27 countries, supported by contributions from a group of better- resourced members, including China. The Fund has augmented its lending instruments to low-income countries by more than 10 billion SDR, and approved emergency financing (RCF and RFI) of 47 billion SDR for more than 74 countries. It has created a new short-term liquidity line (SLL), and is pushing for approval of new agreement of borrowing of 365 billion SDR, and preparing for a new round of Bilateral Borrowing Agreement of 138 billion SDR. China has actively participated in all the above efforts and made its own contribution.

The Fund and the World Bank jointly proposed a Debt Service Suspension Initiative that has been endorsed by the G20. China has further called for an extension of this initiative to 2021. A fair burden-sharing and full participation of all creditors is critical for a successful implementation of this initiative.

China has made more efforts outside the multilateral framework, including 1) additional $2 billion grant assistance to most affected countries, especially developing countries, to combat COVID-19 and recover social and economic development; 2) establish a Sino-Africa hospital cooperation program covering 30 hospitals in Africa, China has recently sent five emergency professional medical teams to Africa, which is in addition to the existing 46 Chinese medical teams in Africa; 3) in addition to implementing the G20 debt moratorium initiative, China will provide more assistance to countries that have been most heavily affected, together with other stakeholders; 4) China has promised that once it completes developing and testing its own vaccine, it will provide this product to developing countries as global public goods; 5) China will establish a comprehensive storage and transportation hub to support global medical supplies, under the direction of the United Nations.

The merit of multilateral assistance is that it is rules-based, approved by a collective board representing all its member countries; and the recipient countries are facing the multilateral institution, rather than a particular country or country group, therefore it can reduce (although not eliminate) geopolitical sensitivity. Although there are different views on many different issues, and even bilateral tensions between some member countries, the majority of the Fund’s membership have been able to find common ground on many issues.

The Bretton Woods institutions could do two more things, in my view.

First, a general allocation of SDRs that will increase the supply of international reserve asset, reduce the burden of any single country to supply its reserve currency excessively and provide low-income countries necessary resources to alleviate their debt distress.

Second, the multilateral banks should greatly expand their lending to include not only developing countries, but also developed countries, including the United States, itself. That will fully utilize the low interest rate environment and greatly stimulate global demand and pull up growth in receiving countries.

In conclusion, I wish the after-COVID-19 world a more cooperative and peaceful one. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much.

Now we will hear from the Hon. Boris Meshchanov, Counselor, Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

HON. BORIS MESHCHANOV: Dear and distinguished Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche,

Dear colleagues and friends from so many countries,

Our video broadcast audience,

The problems put in the center of today’s discussion are of high importance. We welcome highlighting acute questions of international relations through the prism of development, building physical infrastructure, cooperation between major powers in the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable, in accordance with the United Nations Agenda 2030. We fully share the crucial significance of industrialization, eradication of poverty, reforming of international credit-generating institutions and ensuring food security. Those are basically in the spotlight for the whole global community. We emphasize that the right to development persists as a basic human right. Development beats inequality, contributes to peace and is an indispensable condition for building just, peaceful and inclusive societies.

I would like to start my presentation, citing the report by the United Nations Secretary-General saying: “As we are facing multidimensional and multifaceted impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, global solidarity with Africa is an imperative — now and for recovering better. Ending the pandemic in Africa is essential for ending it across the world.” In the context of this challenging crisis we all seek to re-assess the model for development with the needs of the most vulnerable at its cornerstone. I would like to address this issue with respect to how our country deploys relations with the African continent.

It is justified that today more than ever before, our eyes are directed to the regrettable fortunes of populations in remote corners of the world, where governments are grappling with triple crisis of health and finance, trying to avoid widening social disparity and future economic distress. Aware of its historical responsibility for the formation of the modern system of international relations and its further improvement, the Russian Federation considers international development assistance as an effective mechanism to solve global and regional problems, and to respond to new challenges and threats. Our priorities have been the eradication of poverty and promotion of sustainable socio-economic development of partner states; influencing global processes in order to form a stable and just world order based on universally recognized rules of international law and partnership relations among states as well as responding to natural and man-made disasters and other emergencies.

In doing so, as it can easily be seen through the ideals of Russian philosophers and artists and classical Russian literature, assisting our friends abroad has always been based on the respect of the other’s dignity. It has been reflected in our national policies and priorities, and technical and humanitarian assistance has always been delivered at the request of the recipient side. We have proceeded from the assumption that any approaches in the spirit of colonial rule, like the General Act of Berlin of 1884, bringing about the principle of “effective occupation” that prejudiced the freedom of the Africans themselves, attempts to come to an agreement behind one’s back and act solely from the standpoint of mercenary calculation, will most likely not be accepted by these peoples themselves. On the contrary, we value and promote equitable partnership on the international arena ,upholding the principles of truth and justice, respect for the civilizational identity of each people, the path of development chosen by each people themselves.

As the Russian President Vladimir Putin recently emphasized, the development of relations with the countries of the African continent and their regional organizations is one of the priorities of Russian foreign policy. Links between us are based on the friendly relations between the Russian Federation and African states and the traditions of the joint struggle for decolonization and achieving the independence of African states, as well as on the rich experience of multifaceted and mutually beneficial cooperation that meets the interests of our peoples.

Dear colleagues and friends,

One of the main lessons learnt from this pandemic is an urgent need for international solidarity and cooperation, without exclusions and exemptions. In line with this objective, we have committed to giving Russian-African interaction a truly systemic and integrated character. African states are confidently gaining political and economic weight, affirming themselves as one of the important pillars of the multipolar world, and are taking an increasingly active part in working out the decisions of the international community on key issues of the regional and global agenda. We need to respect their rights to benefit equally from globalization, whatever shape it will take following the impacts of the pandemic.

In our strong opinion, the world needs Africa not just like a pantry of valuable minerals or a bread basket, but strong and sovereign region, developing an equal dialogue with its partners in accordance with the norms of the national legislation, based on the multilateral nature of the world order. Today, when proposals are made to reform the global governance system, we are consistently upholding the need to reflect the role of Africa in those structures that are engaged in global governance.

Our fundamentals are not only ensuring the wide global participation of African states, but also resolving conflict situations, on the principle of “African solution to African problems.” Together, we are able to counteract political dictatorship and currency blackmail in the course of international trade and economic cooperation, in order to put pressure on objectionable countries and unfair competition. Introduction of unilateral coercive measures not based on international law, also known as unilateral sanctions, is an example of such practices. Joint efforts are needed to promote trade, investment and sustainable development in order to make the global economic system more socially oriented, to oppose any manifestations of a unilateral approach, protectionism and discrimination, to support the world trade, based on the rules of the World Trade Organization.

Under this paradigm the first Russia-Africa Summit and Economic Forum took place in October 2019 in Sochi, with 92 agreements, contracts, and memoranda of understanding, worth $12 billion signed and problems of trade, investments and banking, industry and construction, transport and logistics, energy and high-tech addressed, among others.

We paid special attention to identifying promising areas of economic, trade and investment partnership of the Russian Federation, as a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, with the African Union, as well as with the leading regional organizations of Africa — the Arab Maghreb Union, the Sahel Five, the Southern African Development Community, the Common Market for East and South Africa, the East African Community, Economic Community of West African Countries, Economic Community of Central African States, and others.

In our movement towards Africa we need to be creative and promote new mechanisms for partnership, encourage active participation of business in exhibitions, fairs, and congress events, and develop the practice of exchanging business missions.

Moving towards Africa in this new old world would be impossible without learning each other better, taking into consideration local customs and traditions for our partners, rich cultural and linguistic variety. In Sochi in 2019, we have committed to develop cooperation in the field of education, implement vocational training, and academic exchange programs to promote social stability by protecting people, especially youth, women and persons with disabilities, and expand their capabilities by increasing the availability of education, technical and vocational training. Participants in the Russia-Africa summit confirmed that obtaining quality education and developing skills by young men and women can become a driving force for structural economic transformation and industrialization in African countries, as well as the basis for strengthening the industrial potential necessary to diversify the economy.

It so happened that our country has already contributed to the development of the African continent, in particular, in industry, infrastructure and energy security, areas promoted by the Schiller Institute as the fundamentals of the so-called physical economy, so I would focus on them briefly.

So far, Russia has been involved in the creation of the Russian industrial zone in Egypt. Among the key competencies of Russia for Africa, one cannot overestimate the role of rail infrastructure for the development of Nigeria, Egypt, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Angola. Under current conditions, it is important that the use of technologies such as medical trains in Africa will prevent the spread of infectious diseases and fight epidemics.

In energy, we count on the future construction of the first nuclear power plant in Egypt and the Russian Center for Nuclear Science and Technology in Rwanda facilitating the development of integrated solutions in the field of nuclear energy in agriculture, health, education, science and industry. Those two are not the only countries in Africa that intend to develop nuclear energy. Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Sudan and Zambia are also on this growing list. Most African countries suffer from severe electricity shortages. Accordingly, in the near future they should double their generating capacity to meet current needs. The current pandemic-caused crisis, apparently, has aggravated this challenge for them.

In saying this we should not forget about stepping up efforts to combat climate change in Africa, transfer relevant technologies, build the capacity of African states. Meanwhile, general greening of the economy, in our approach, needs to be based on responsibility, consistency and realism. Key to that is technological progress. Serious efforts are being deployed to improve energy efficiency in industry, agriculture, housing and transport. In our country, we have launched national project “Environment” to create incentives for Russian business to implement best “green” technologies, to ensure the environmentally friendly low-emission development. And we will proceed to provide assistance to developing countries, including Africa, to help them meet their own climate goals without prejudice to the objectives of ensuring inclusive and sustainable economic growth, industrialization of economies and leaving no one behind.

The pandemic is spreading across the world, threatening to backslide the efforts applied to build a more resilient architecture. It’s high time for humanity, responsibility and spirit of partnership to be demonstrated. A truly systemic issue with reference to today’s discussion, is food security, which holds a special place among Russia’s priorities in its efforts to achieve sustainable development globally. First of all, we believe that it has to be addressed at the level of supplying the world enough high-quality food to stabilize international markets, and make it more accessible and affordable for a maximum number of people. At the same time, the zero-hunger goal must be addressed as a matter of urgency for those countries that are food insecure. To that end, over the last 20 years, Russia has been steadily and consistently increasing its own production and export of food — grain, cereals, pulses, meats, poultry, oils, milk and dairy products, etc. Russia has become one of the world’s largest exporters of food.

During the pandemic, food supplies were transferred to the Union of Comoros (172 tons) and Madagascar (about 500 tons).

Apart from tackling the problem of food security, Russia donated hundreds of KAMAZ trucks, together with the necessary parts, equipment, and technical support, for key World Food Program operations in Africa. Starting from 2020, $10 million are being reserved exclusively for Africa. It is the first time that Russia assigns a geographic priority for its voluntary contribution to the World Food Program.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, East Africa is experiencing its largest invasion of desert locusts in decades, and our country is making a $10 million contribution to support FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization] operations in Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan and Uganda.

In connection with the coronavirus pandemic, Russia received requests from a total of 29 African countries, as well as from the African Union, asking for assistance in combatting the impacts of COVID-19. To date, units of laboratory supplies and personal protective equipment have been provided to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; multi-purpose medical modules, tents and accessories to Djibouti; test systems to South Africa and Guinea.

At the same time, we believe that helping a sick person with a virus is paramount, but only part of the problem is solved. A fundamental factor is the availability of an effective preventive and educational system in the countries affected by the epidemic. As an example, I refer to the example of the Republic of Guinea, where two mobile hospitals have been deployed, and where mobile laboratories based on KAMAZ vehicles were transferred, and medications were delivered. With the participation of Russian experts in this country, more than 800 specialists have passed specialized training since 2015. Russia makes a significant contribution to the scientific research of the Ebola virus. With the support of one of the flagships of Russian business, the United Company RUSAL, the Russian-Guinean Research Center for Epidemiology and Prevention of Infectious Diseases was established in the Guinean city of Kindia.

Last, but not least, long and intensive discussion is ongoing concerning the unbearable debt burden of African states. Russia actively contributes to alleviating it under the debt-for-development program intergovernmental agreements. Those between Russia and Madagascar, Mozambique, and Tanzania, are being implemented. For instance, as part of these arrangements, the Government of Mozambique in cooperation with the World Food Program, has launched a multi-disciplinary national school feeding program. It provides for the conversion of a part of the county’s debt to Russia amounting to $40 million during 2017-2021, into activities that address malnutrition among sick children and foster primary education in Mozambique.

With that, I deeply thank you for your attention, and look forward to your questions.

SPEED: And we want to thank you very much, also, Mr. Meshchanov, because we had some problems with the video as you were speaking. We’re going to first of all make sure the entire speech is made available immediately in terms of the actual text, and we’d like to also apologize. We’d like to have, at some point and I want to say this publicly, if we can actually re-do your video, because it was not quite in synch. The audio was fine, people could hear it very clearly and it was an extremely important message. And so, I want to thank you, again, very much for what you just did.

MESHCHANOV: Thank you.

SPEED: Our next speaker is Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States.

DR. JOYCELYN ELDERS: Hello. I’m Dr. Joycelyn Elders, and I am happy to speak to the Schiller Institute conference today, whose theme is “Will Humanity Prosper or Perish?” I hope, as I am sure you all do, that humanity prospers.

Ironically, a lethal disease, the coronavirus pandemic, may be the only way to unify the world to reverse what might otherwise appear to be a sure slide into disaster.

We are here to discuss a new paradigm for the whole world—not just for the richer or more well-off nations. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has proposed that a world healthcare platform must be constructed to respond to the present crisis. She has circulated a short memo to this effect, calling for a Committee of Opposites to be formed to implement it. I would like to respond to one passage of that memo in particular. Here is what it said.

“A very large number of youth in the U.S. and the European nations coming from the economically disadvantaged segments of society are presently looking without a perspective into the future and are therefore exposed to an entire specter of perils. They could be educated through a training program in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s CCC program to become medical auxiliary forces and could be deployed together with doctors and medical professionals in the building of first temporary, and then permanent hospitals and hospital wards in African and other developing sector nations. For the countries of the Southern Hemisphere the support from the industrialized nations is existential: Therefore it will be possible to find cooperating institutions, such as governments, religious and social organizations, as well as youth organizations, who can help to set up such facilities and win the trust in the population for such an approach. In the industrialized nations, for example, hospitals could set up partnerships with existing hospitals in the developing nations, which then could be used as affiliates for the construction of an expanded health system. One can also draw in nongovernmental organizations with experience in so-called conflict areas, such as the Peace Corps, catastrophe protection organizations, and various relief organizations.

“In the U.S. and European nations retired doctors, helpful individuals, and social and religious organizations could work in a Committee to put together teams of medical personnel and apprentices for this deployment….”

Now, I think that this can be done, but we must think about how we would do it. It will be very important, for example, in the countrysides of Africa, just as it is important in the cities of the United States, for people from these neighborhoods and communities to be very involved in this process. Therefore, young people from Africa should be paired with young people from America, and be trained together from the beginning. We should remember that they are significant communities of African-American youth that are in the United States, whose parents came from Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Senegal, and many other nations. Importantly historically black colleges and universities could be used, as well as high school campuses in the urban centers, as central coordinating points, to assemble volunteers that want to participate in such a program. More broadly, various land-grant colleges, community colleges, and churches, and other organizations already deeply involved in such outreach, need simply be encouraged by young people who want to assist in doing what perhaps only they can do—save the lives of their peers in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and elsewhere through demonstrations of hope and health.

First, we will need many community healthcare workers. We can take a page out of what was done in the American Civil War in 1861 in New York City, with what was called the Sanitary Commission. We just take some people in the community, give them some basic health education, and develop them as medical assistants and medical technicians. Most importantly, they will be very well known in their communities. They can communicate very well with the people in their communities. You can have supervisors of these community healthcare workers, who are also trained, and of course coordinate with nurses, nurse practitioners and doctors. But this gives you a far larger force to work with, which is what we need.

We can’t teach what we don’t know, and we can’t lead where we won’t go. We have to have tiers of people who are from the community, healthcare workers who understand the community and know the community, as well as immediate supervisors, to people with enough medical training, all the way up to nurse’s assistants, practitioners, doctors, and others, right up to the level of super-specialist. We often do too much special care, and not enough public health. We do not do enough of the basic public health which would do far more to maintain the health, more than 100 surgeons.

This is not an attack against specialization, but it is an assertion that we are in a condition like that of a world war, which requires something that Martin Luther King and others have often talked about—creative, nonviolent directed action, but in the field of health. And we need volunteers, just as the American civil rights movement had volunteers. They will be the backbone of this effort. In this case, we need to establish brigades and battalions of courageous young people, who may even risk their lives, but in a responsible way, to save the lives of others, both here and in other countries.

This is not, by any means, completely new. Many nations have tried elements of such programs, which have worked relatively successfully in the past, and members of the African Union , or WHO, are well aware of these measures. This, however, is a circumstance that requires the equivalent of a wartime alliance, but this is truly a wartime alliance for progress. Here we can count successes, not in the numbers of enemies killed through combat, but through the numbers of lives saved through healthcare. We will also be aided by the omnipresence of certain social media capabilities that can provide means of close coordination that would otherwise be unavailable.

The fight against this virus must have a human face. There is no section of our population we can afford to ignore. For example, our already-overcrowded and often abusive prisons will see an explosion of infections. Should such people who have been accused of a theft or other non-violent crime, or anyone else, for that matter, be given a de facto death sentence, or be put in harm’s way, solely because the rest of us have decided to forget who they are? What about the families that visit them? What about the children, or spouses, or parents attachéd to those people? And I believe that this can be a mobilization that replaces the image of young people as a problem, or a potential source of unrest, with the image that they are the healers, those dedicated to preserving life, not destroying it.

There may be more than 2 million American young men currently held in prisons for non-violent offenses who could be more than willing to become part of this solution, to help bring health both in their communities here, as well as to other nations. And it would only be in such an emergency as this, that this sort of bold thinking would be attachéd to an urgent, dire, but resolvable crisis.

I pray that this moment may find us equal to this challenge to our normal way of thinking. All the world is at stake, and all the world is in need. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Elders.

We’re now going to hear from Dr. Ding Yifan, Deputy Director, Research Institute of World Development, of the China Development Research Center of China.

DR. DING YIFAN: Dear Friends,

It’s a pleasure talking with you on this very important, historical moment. The COVID-19 pandemic has caught the whole world by surprise. Not only have the economies been paralyzed and human life threatened, but all life habits have changed also. Moreover, in many countries, people have not been able to effectively curb the spread of the virus, because they have no experience. Although many institutions have tried to produce vaccines, but are now afraid that the vaccine would be short-lived because the virus evolves so quickly.

In the face of an epidemic, we humans are very vulnerable. If we’re not enlightened and work together to fight the virus, the time for the virus to spread will prolong, and the longer we will suffer. So, here, I’d like to highlight four points:

Firstly, when China’s epidemic broke out, many countries helped China and provided China with various materials for prevention and to fight the virus, in creating masks. Countries, such as Japan, have picked up sentences from ancient Chinese classics, and write on the boxes for transferring those materials to China, to show the close relationship and cooperation between East Asia area’s countries. Once the epidemic situation had been brought under control in China, and the situation became intensified in Japan and South Korea, China sent a lot of materials to Japan and South Korea, to help people there fight the virus.

Secondly, many such token stories have also been staged between Chinese and American companies. Once the epidemic situation got worsened in the United States, many Chinese companies had sent materials for prevention and to fight the pandemic in the United States, as well as masks, protective clothing, protective glasses, ventilators and even [s/l ratings] for nucleic acid detection. So this cooperation showed that our humanity in society is really a community of common destiny.

Thirdly, unfortunately, the political opinion and the political spirit in the United States have made China unintentionally a scapegoat. Radical Congressmen and Senators try to compete with the hoax in the Trump Administration to show off who has the hardest line toward China. These attitudes cannot help Americans fight the epidemic, on the contrary it can only exacerbate the mistrust between China and the United States, making cooperation even impossible between the Chinese and the American governments, within an obstinate pandemic.

Fourthly, in fact, the world economy has not come out completely from the last financial crisis in 2007, and then, a new crisis happened. The pandemic might make this crisis deeper and more difficult to deal with, because we are faced with a dilemma: Restoring the economy and preventing the virus from spreading. The largest economies in the world need to expand their cooperation and take joint measures to fight the virus, and to boost economic growth. We have to use a stimulus package not only to alleviate the problem of the population in trouble, but also to use this stimulus package to invest in infrastructure, not only in traditional infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, or telecommunications means, but also in the development of new infrastructure, such as means of prevention of epidemics for the masses, and the treatment of these masses in pandemics, also including the remote means to check the temperature of the masses.

Only by rebuilding trust among big powers can we unite and fight the coronavirus with success. Then we can bring humanity back to the harmonious development path again. So, I think we have to unite our forces or strengths in the middle of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, and then, we could try to find a way to common development, after the pandemic.

Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much Dr. Ding.

Our next presentation is by former Mayor DeWayne Hopkins, mayor of the town of Muscatine, Iowa. And he represents the China-Muscatine Friendship Society.

FORMER MAYOR DEWAYNE HOPKINS: Good day, everyone. My name is DeWayne Hopkins. I’m the former mayor of a small community in eastern Iowa, located right on the Mississippi River.

And I have a story to tell you. But in order to tell this story, where it begins I’m going to have to move the clock back in time to 1985. Back in that timeframe, the country of the People’s Republic of China, sent four individuals to Iowa. These individuals had never been in the United States before, but through the Sister Cities and Sister States organization, these individuals came right directly to Muscatine, Iowa. One of these individuals was Xi Jinping, and of course at the time, he was pretty young, and he was a provincial official in Hebei province.

Well, they came to Muscatine, and they toured some of our plants around town, and so on and so forth. They even enjoyed a barbecue with spareribs and corn on the cob and things of that nature. In any case, they spent three days in Muscatine, and then moved on to Des Moines, Iowa, where they met with then-Governor Terry Branstad.

Now, I’m going to fast forward a little bit to 2016. Our governor was on a kind of an agricultural mission trip to Beijing in the People’s Republic of China. And he was meeting with Xi Jinping, who at the time had moved up in the ranks to the position of Vice President. Xi Jinping just happened to ask Governor Branstad, because he had known him for that length of time from 1985 to 2016, he asked him how his friends Sarah and Roger Lande were. Well, Sarah and Roger Lande are residents of Muscatine. Roger is a retired attorney. Back in 1985, Sarah was the President of the Sister States organization here in Iowa. Well, Governor Branstad responded that they were in good health and everything was fine, but that’s what started the wheels in motion about a revisit to Muscatine from then-Vice President Xi Jinping. That happened on, I believe it was February 12th. He was on a trip from Washington, D.C., then to meet President Obama in Los Angeles, California. He thought he would have time to stop by Muscatine, Iowa, which he did.

We all greeted him on the porch of the Lande residence. We all went inside, and enjoyed snacks and conversation, and sort of rehashing old times, thus become the title “old friends.” So, a great number of his old friends — that is, Xi Jinping’s — were in attendance at the Lande residence, and they all had just a marvelous time. Xi Jinping’s time came about, he had to leave, and that was OK.

But a short time after returning to China, Xi Jinping suggested via email to Sarah Lande, that we engage a community in China about having a sister city relationship. So, that’s what started the wheels churning for that adventure. That city in China became Zhengding. The rest is kind of history. I went to China and visited with the folks in Zhengding; their mayor, Mayor Yang, came to Muscatine and visited with our folks. We sat down and signed a letter of intent to become sister cities. So, that’s kind of how that went.

As time went on, Xi Jinping became the President of the People’s Republic of China, and Sarah Lande is still in Muscatine, and they stay in contact every now and then. But it’s a relationship that started here in Muscatine, and it’s ongoing.

I will say that we have moved hopefully into the future, and we now have in our high school, four years of Mandarin language. We also have an orchestra that is fairly well-versed in the usage of Chinese instruments, which as you may know, are all stringed instruments. They have sent us some of these instruments, and we’ve learned to play them. And of course, every year, here in Muscatine, is a concert put on by an orchestra either from Beijing or from Shanghai. I believe we’ve done four of those already. And we’re done with this pandemic of the coronavirus, I look for more of those kinds of events to be scheduled.

That’s just another element of the relationship that we have with the People’s Republic of China. They’re outstanding musicians and they communicate with those in attendance at their concerts very, very well. It’s a pleasure to have them here. It’s a pleasure to know that they’ll be coming in the future, and we enjoy having them very much.

I guess, what I’m saying to you is, we’re a small community, and we have a friendly relationship with the People’s Republic of China: That isn’t going to change, and we really don’t care a lot about what they do in Washington, D.C., or what they do in Los Angeles, California. We have a relationship with the People’s Republic of China. They’re great people, they have a good sense of humor; and I wouldn’t mind having one of them as a neighbor.

[Mr. Hopkins then played a short clip from a very lively concert by the Chinese orchestra.]

SPEED: Just one correction: Former Mayor Hopkins misspoke: Actually, when Xi Jinping returned to Muscatine in 2012, he was the Vice-President, not the President at that time. And he came back, and that’s when the meeting was, and it was in 2012, not in 2016. We apologize, and the Mayor apologizes for that unintentional misspoken phrase.

Our final presentation is by Daisuke Kotegawa, Research Director at the Canon Institute, and former Executive Director for Japan at the International Monetary Fund.

“Recollection My Involvement in Economic Assistance”

DAISUKE KOTEGAWA: 1. In the mid-1980s, when I worked as a staff member of the World Bank, I had an opportunity to complain about the slow development of African countries despite a large amount of aid to Africa to a British and a French staff, both of whom had devoted their lives to economic development in Africa. Their answer was amazing. “Mr. Kotegawa. It is wrong to expect fast economic growth in Africa which can be compared to those in Asia and Japan. Because Africa is trying to achieve what humanity has done in 2000 years within 100 years.”

2. When I returned to Japan in 1987, I became the budget examiner in the Ministry of Finance in charge of the budget of the foreign economic assistance. We reviewed Japan’s basic policies regarding economic assistance to Africa, and we started to try to create a country that will become a model for development in Africa, that is, “Japan” in Africa. I was convinced that it was very important to create a Japan in Africa, because at my days at the World Bank, I realized that Asian countries found Japan as their model and hope, having come to believe that Asian countries can reach the level of Western countries if they work diligently like the Japanese.
3. The first step is to select the target country. The target country had to have a moderate economic scale, but small enough not to have internal contention such as tribal conflict. We chose Ghana, Cameroon and Malawi. As for Ghana, young and clean leader Rawlings were also a major factor. We poured all three kinds of economic aid into three countries: concessional loans with focus on the construction of economic infrastructure, grants focused on construction of social infrastructure in the medical and educational sector, and technical assistance with the aim of technology transfer through dispatching experts and inviting trainees.
4. A backlash from the former colonial powers was expected, and Japan, which had historically little relationship with African countries, lacked the know-how to build aid projects there. So, we made an arrangement with Crown Agents, a British aid agency, for consulting our projects in Africa. As a result, about one-third of its total annual income in the early ’90s came from Japan. Ghana, in particular, has achieved great economic growth and if we had continued to do so, a “Japan” in Africa could have been realized within 1990s.
5. However, having watched the success of such Japanese aid, the British and French began to be vigilant. Ms. Cresson, who became French prime minister in 1991, made such remarks as, “Japanese are yellow ants” and “The Japanese are enemies and are plotting to conquer the world without obeying the rules” and repeated such remarks as “Japanese economic assistance is Jurassic.” Against such criticism, Japan was forced to review its aid policy and had to reduce aid to Africa before Ghana became a Japan in Africa. Since then, proposals for UN Millennium 2000 Target, including the debt relief, which mainly targeted Japan’s yen loans, have been drafted mainly by the U.K., and Japan’s presence in the world of economic assistance has gradually been lost.
6. I think that there is a fundamental difference between Western concept of economic assistance and that of Japan. The underlining idea of Western aid is a charity. This leads to the emphasis on “humanitarian aid,” and the idea of economic independence of recipient country is scarce. On the other hand, the basic idea of Japan’s aid is recipient country’s economic growth and independence. This is the idea that flows to the root of Japan since the Meiji Restoration, which has been trying to catch up with and overtake the West, witnessing the plight of Asian colonies under imperialism.
7. On the issue of economic assistance policy, I had to fight with the Western countries wannabe scholars, critics, and mass media at home, as well as those abroad, with friends of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who had the same sense of mission. Mr. Ishikawa, who wrote several books at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was my greatest collaborator.
8. One day, a Japanese journalist came to me and started to criticize Japan’s aid policy. His argument was not original which echoed the well-known Western criticism of Japan. For example, he said that Japan built hospitals in developing countries, but only some wealthy people in the country can use such hospitals, and it is not for the poor general public. Or he said that Japan is building telephone network in developing countries where most people do not have a telephone, or that Japan has built international airports in the capital in order to advertise its aid. It would not benefit at all the general public in the developing country who did not have the chance to go abroad. He also took the example of the Philippines, claiming that “It is wrong that Japan has built a hospital for the rich in Manila. Sweden built apartments for the poor in the slums of Manila.” I asked him, “By the way, what would you be most worried about if you were asked by your company tomorrow to go to Manila next week?” He replied, “Whether I can call up Tokyo smoothly, whether is the airport there is fine, or whether there is a proper hospital.” So, I told him, ” What you said are exactly what foreign companies which make investment in the Philippines are concerned about. If there are no problems on such matters, overseas companies will build factories in the Philippines in search for cheap labor and hire people with low wages with minimal education. In this way, employment increases, and the gap between the rich and the poor decreases. I visited to the Smoky Mountain in Manila, which is the core of slum where Sweden built an apartment. The place is a garbage dump, and residents sleep on the bench on the pile of garbage and they protect themselves from rain by the roof made by tablecloth. It stinks very bad. People living there dig out what can be used from the pile of garbage and sell it in the city. The apartment built by Sweden became a slum again in less than six months. Because residents don’t have regular employments, and no income. It is not possible to maintain the apartment no matter how splendid the dwelling is. Japan’s aid help companies increase employment by building economic infrastructure such as railways, ports, airports, roads, power plants, and telecommunication networks with yen loans, creating preconditions for overseas companies to enter the country, and help provide facilities for basic education as a social infrastructure. Gradually, technology will be transferred from the foreign company to the local company, and the industry will grow in the developing country. Just as we were providing economic assistance to Asian countries with this way of thinking, the value of the yen doubled as a result of the Plaza Accord, and the relocation of factories to Asia began by Japanese companies that were no longer able to stand up to labor costs in Japan. The relocation began in Malaysia, where politics were stable and the power generation capacity built by yen loans was firm, and proceeded to Thailand, Indonesia, and China, and the so-called geese-type economic growth started in Asia. This steady economic development continued until the Asian economic crisis of the late 1990s.

I allocated to my Japanese colleagues to join the Belt and Road Initiative as proposed by China, especially when they proposed the establishment of AIIB, and also with the United States. Because I thought the cooperation among these three countries are the best mix to build up economic infrastructure in the developing countries. Because, in my view, the Chinese have a shortfall in their capacity to build up the new projects, which is actually the major part of the advantage for Japanese bankers as well as American bankers.

So United States and Japan can draw up a kind of blueprint for economic development and China should be in charge of financing and also actual construction of those projects. And after the completion of those projects, Japan would like to take the lead in maintenance and the rehabilitation of those completed projects, if they are needed. Because this is the kind of area that Japanese companies are quite good at.

So I believe this is the best way of collaborating, for these three countries for the future of this globe.

Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Kotegawa.

We’re about to go to the questions and answers. What we’re going to do is to allow the panelists who are with us live, to have some cross-talk, to discuss things and to respond to what they have all heard. Not everyone is with us live.

And just prior to doing that, I’d like to introduce my colleague Diane Sare, who has something to say.

DIANE SARE: Right now, we are going to have a greeting from the leader of the LaRouche Society in South Africa by video — Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane.

RAMASIMONG PHILLIP TSOKOLIBANE: From the Republic of South Africa, I offer my greetings to those of you gathered virtually around the globe for this important conference. My name is Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane, and it is my great honor to lead the LaRouche Movement in South Africa.

The matters upon which you are deliberating will determine whether or not mankind survives our turbulent times. Around the globe, people are in the streets, rising up to protest the intolerable injustice of the dying neo-colonial order that has enslaved all of us. It is a deadly monetarist order that values pieces of speculative financial paper above human life. The collapse of this global British financial empire is certain. What will replace it is not. What must be brought into being is a New World Economic Order based on the unleashing of the greatest power in the universe: the power of human creativity to build on this planet a world of hope, peace, and posterity, where we will be truly, finally free.

We shall extend our dominion beyond Earth into the vast expanse of the universe beyond. This was the mighty dream of the great Lyndon LaRouche, who taught us that the final conjunctural crisis of the old evil British Empire was coming, and that we must, as revolutionaries, be prepared to seize the moment to shepherd the great change for the good.

As we deliberate today, we must remember the teachings of Mr. LaRouche. It is now truly his time, a time in which troubles can be turned into opportunities. To do otherwise, would be to allow those evil people, who lorded over us as the masters of the old empire, to continue their rule in an even more brutish and deadly form. A global fascist order whose policy intention it is to kill more than three-quarters of all people on Earth — that is, if they don’t stumble into a general thermonuclear war that kills all of us. As the COVID-19 virus slashes its deadly path across my continent, which will leave tens of millions dead in its wake, if not more, we see the results of the British Empire policy of enforced underdevelopment, combined with the equally deadly famine and attempts to start wars here and around the globe. We can count more millions murdered through the Empire’s policy.

It does not have to be this way. LaRouche’s policies and programs for development and jobs point the way to the future. For Africa, it is go with LaRouche, or die with the old neo-colonial empire. Africa wants to lead, and we have, with some help, the means to survive and prosper. My country, the only full-set economy on the continent, can help produce both the machinery and the machine tools required for the industrialization of Africa. We can help train the hundreds of millions of new productive workers that will be needed. We have one of the most advanced nuclear energy industries on the globe, which is under constant attack from London.

So, it is our future and the future of billions of Africans to come, that this conference is discussing. Best wishes for the success of your deliberations.

Panel 1: Questions & Answers

SPEED: Thank you very much, Phillip Tsokolibane.

So, now we’re going to go to our live panelists: That will be Helga Zepp-LaRouche, I see Dr. Elders who is there; and Mr. Meshchanov is there — great.

I just want to first ask any of the panelists if they have any response or any thoughts about what they’ve heard? Helga, I’d like to start with you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the reason why we wanted to have this conference is to show a way how governments can actually work together; how people can support that, and in that way help to create an environment where the absolute urgent question of a new world economic order, a new financial system can actually be put on the table.

I’m very encouraged, because what Dr. Jin did is very much our approach; that you need a dialogue of cultures. That you need to look for those ideas which resonate in the other culture even if the predicates are different. I think he did an excellent job in doing that.

I think the fact that Mr. Meshchanov chose to focus on Africa is a sign of the times, because I believe that the fate of the Africa continent is really what will decide if we are morally fit to survive. If we cannot get our act together and work together as nations to help to overcome the dangers coming from the locusts, the famine, the pandemic, I think that this is the most crucial focus. Also, to put aside all kinds of geopolitical contrary interests and really work together in the common task of getting humanity into a different age, really into a different era.

I was very happy with what Dr. Elders said, because I think this idea to call on the youth; that they have to have an absolutely important role, because it’s their future, it’s their world. Young people always like to talk to other people from other countries and work together, so I think that is one of the leverages how we can influence the governments to go in the direction in which they need to go.

Naturally, very delightful was what Mayor Hopkins demonstrated, because it really beats back the idea that small communities can’t do much. He has demonstrated that it can be done, and the fact that the great community of Muscatine has a relationship to Xi Jinping, it just is very bold and is a very good example. I think especially in the end, when he blended in these musical performances, it touched off exactly what needs to be touched off — namely, love between different cultures. Because different cultures are not a threat, they are actually an enrichment once you start to know them and to encounter them.

I also want to thank Ding Yifan, who is an old acquaintance of ours going back to the 1990s, and so is Mr. Kotegawa. So, I think this was really a very powerful and very useful demonstration of how you can work together on different levels and set an example.

SPEED: Counselor Meshchanov, I have a particular thing I’d like to ask you, because we had a question which is going to come your way, and also your speech very much dealt with the question of Africa. But one of the questions that came in, I think you can maybe answer as you give us your own reflections is: “What is President Putin’s thinking in calling for a P5 summit [Five-Power summit], and how does this compare with Mrs. LaRouche’s proposal?”

MESHCHANOV: Thank you for your question, but first off, thank you for inviting us. Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak and deliberate on very acute and intelligent problems of the current moment.

Actually, at the United Nations, we have been involved in organizing the summit even before the pandemic, and we’re still looking forward to having it under the new circumstances. We proceed from our President Vladimir Putin’s own statements earlier this year from Jerusalem, when proposing the summit of the United Nations Security Council Five. The rationale for organizing the summit is not to miss, as he said, new sprouts of hate and discrimination between people and peoples.

According to our President, the country’s founders, the United Nations, and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, that the responsibility for preserving civilization lies with them. These countries are called upon to become an example for other states in this regard. So, such a summit would demonstrate loyalty of countries to their responsibilities; countries that combatted together back to back against Nazism and fascism, back 75 years ago. [http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/62646]

So, this is how we see it, and how we see the objectives of this summit. We believe that this current moment unfortunately has contributed to this rationale, because borders and discrimination and inequality between countries are getting worse. That is why we have selected the issue of Africa for our presentation at this event of the Schiller Institute. Because we are strongly convinced that, as one of the previous speakers has stated, and it’s commonplace in the United Nations, no one is safe, if someone is not safe.

Reflecting on my colleagues’ presentations, I was highly impressed by our friend from Muscatine’s presentation on the cultural links between the peoples of the United States and China; specifically because my previous posts were somehow associated with promoting direct links between people, between human beings, in consular posts in Greece and Mongolia. It’s very timely now to speak about culture, about eternal values that unite peoples and actually can overcome the politicizing trend in international economic relations.

We also, to conclude, speak of Africa, and many thanks to our colleague from South Africa, a member country of the BRICS association, an association that we’re trying to build on principles of dignity and respect for sovereignty, and promoting independent ways of making decisions. That is the only way our new multipolar world is capable of saving humanity from new conflicts and new wars. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much. Dr. Elders, we’re going to ask you for your comments, but I also see someone who is a colleague of yours, who I think is up there on the screen. If I’m not mistaken, that is Dr. Kildare Clarke from New York City. I know Dr. Clarke has sort of a short time, and he’s been waiting in the queue. Dr. Clarke, is there something you’d like to say, before we hear from Dr. Elders?

DR. KILDARE CLARKE: I would like to say a lot, and I don’t think I probably have the time here. So, for the 4 o’clock youth meeting, I hope I can get by. I agree a lot with Dr. Elders. The problem to me is that I recognize that we’ve got to fundamentally change the educational system in this country, if we really want to get out of the problems we are facing. And we cannot continue to have groups upon groups, planning groups and proposals — we’ve got to act emergently. We’ve got to change educational systems; we do not have to wait until he tries to get to high school or college, before he knows that he’s going to go to medical school. These things can begin in the elementary school. You’ve got to expose people. When they are exposed, they get interested. We are selectively excluding a large part of the population who can become excellent healthcare workers. They might not start in medical school. They could be assistants, learn, understand what it takes to get there, and go back to school. But if we do not expose them now, we’re going to lose a whole generation of excellent physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, because we don’t think it was OK to educate them now….

SPEED: I need to tell you, Dr. Clarke, your audio is bad. I think we got the basic thrust of what you were saying, which is you were pointing out that the entire educational system has to be changed. If you didn’t know this, we’ve been having some technical problems all morning. Dr. Elders, were you able to make out what he was saying?

DR. ELDERS: Yes.

SPEED: Dr. Clarke, I’m going to ask you to let her respond, and also get her reflections, because I think she knew clearly what you were getting at. So, Dr. Elders?

DR. ELDERS: I thank first of all, the Schiller Institute for putting on this conference. I think it’s been excellent in bringing up some problems that we all have. One of the things we all have to know is, whatever we’re talking about doing, you can’t do it unless you’re healthy. So, I feel very strongly we’ve got to have healthy populations, and we’ve got to start early. I agree with Dr. Clarke. I always tell people that children are half as tall as they’ll ever be by the time they’re three. They know half as much as they’ll ever know by the time they’re four. Hope, will, and drive has been determined by the time they’re five. So, we’ve got to start early. Children can’t be what they can’t see. So, we’ve got to make sure that they’re exposed, and we can start them early. They don’t have to start out being a brain surgeon, but they can start out being what they can be.

And most of all, we’ve got to keep them healthy. All human beings feel that the three things that they need to be, more than anything else, they need to feel that they can be successful. We need to make sure they’re healthy, educated, motivated, and have hope for the future. I thought, that’s where we can start, and every country can start with that. What we’ve heard about what we’re doing for countries, but we’ve got to start with health. And we’ve got to educate them. You can’t keep an ignorant population healthy. So, we’ve got to start with educating the population, and we’ve certainly got to start with doing everything we can to keep them healthy. We have to know that we’ve got our trust and global solidarity. If we don’t trust each other to do the things we need to do, we can’t get it done. We have to go out and work in the communities. Find out what the communities need, rather than giving them what we think they need.

I especially enjoyed the Counselor from Japan’s talk on the things that they were doing. Sometimes you think you’re doing exactly what a country needs. Going into Africa and doing what they needed; but maybe they needed something else. Involve the African nations to find out what does the nation feel that they need, and help them develop what they think they want and need. And we may have to start in our small communities, starting out with the young people; training them to be community health workers. Later, they grow up to be nurses, and nurse-practitioners, physicians, and then to being super-specialists. But we want to improve the health of the world, which we’ve got to do, because we all know this coronavirus has taught us that anytime one country is not healthy, all the rest, we’re all at risk. So, we’ve got to make sure that we help every country to be healthy and improve their health. We’ve got to start with the young people who are going to determine what the world’s going to be. We have to do everything we can to train them to be the best that they can be.

I never fail to go to an old Chinese proverb that says that “The society grows great when old men and old women plant trees under whose shade they know they’ll never sit.” To me, this institute, what you’re trying to do with the Schiller Institute is pull the nations together in solidarity, globally, so that they can plant trees for the bright young people of the future to sit under. Thank you.

SPEED: Helga, do you have anything you’d like to say at this point, either to Dr. Clarke, or in response to this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, I just feel very — my heart is moved by what you are saying, because it is that kind of human spirit which is needed now to move mountains. And these mountains need to be moved quickly, because the dangers are many. So, I’m very happy that you are saying what you are saying.

SPEED: So Dr. Clarke, we’re going to move on, because we have other questions. But I need to know if you will be able to join us for the later panel, when we will have a panel of youth. That’s going to be later this afternoon. I don’t know if your schedule allows it, but it would be important.

DR. CLARKE: I’ll make myself available.

SPEED: And we have to do something about your audio over there on the other side, too. Thank you.

Diane, we’re going to come back to you now. Do you have something for us?

SARE: Yes. I have a question from the Ambassador from Ghana to Canada. But I actually wanted to bring up one thing, since it turns out Mr. Meshchanov has been involved in cultural affairs, which is to express my desire that at some point, somehow, the city of St. Petersburg, which apparently had an absolutely phenomenal chorus, was the location of the premier of Beethoven’s sublime work, the Missa Solemnis. I know the chorus there must have been excellent, because our chorus is working on it, and it’s very difficult. This being the Year of Beethoven, and Beethoven being a composer who I think really embodies the love of mankind as a whole, I think it would be something we have to figure out how to commemorate, if not this year because of the COVID, then as soon as possible.

So now, having said that, I have a question from Ambassador J. Ayikoi Otoo, who is the High Commissioner from Ghana to Ottawa, Canada. He writes:

“I think the suggestion for four leaders to meet to brainstorm on the effects of the pandemic in order to find universal solutions is a brilliant one. But, with President Trump reeling under pressure for not having taken the pandemic seriously, and with this leading to several deaths, with President Trump pushing the blame on China and making derogatory remarks about China — Can you see these two leaders working together? Considering the fact that President Trump recently withdrew from a Zoom conference organized by leaders of the EU and China, on the subject of the raising of money to fight the pandemic worldwide, what are the prospects for the four leaders, whom you cite [I think he’s referring to Mrs. LaRouche], to come together?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, I want to make one important correction in your question, because it may be true that President Trump was not picking up on the warnings coming from China quickly enough, but neither did the European countries. They also lost precious time. But I want to emphatically make the point that this pandemic would not be a pandemic if there would have been a good health system in every country. And that is a provable fact because, in Wuhan and Hubei province, the Chinese were able to contain it, to put strict quarantine, and then after two months it was under control. That approach, if you had a similar health system in every country in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, in Europe, you could have stopped this from becoming a pandemic. Therefore, I think it’s very important to say that the blame of all this is the neo-liberal system which prevented the building up of infrastructures and health systems in the whole world.

This was a point made by my late husband already in 1973. He warned, and actually set up a biological holocaust taskforce to investigate the effects of the IMF policies at that time. And in the following years, of the so-called IMF conditionalities, which prevented developing countries from investing in their health systems, because they were forced to pay their debt burden first. These conditionalities actually created the condition that the pandemic even could arise. Naturally, the predecessors of Trump, such as the Bushes, such as Obama, they did much more to contribute to create the conditions than President Trump in his admittedly slightly delayed reaction. So, I just wanted to correct that, because it’s very easy to say it’s the guilt of Trump, but he definitely did not cause the problem 50 years ago.

I think that unfortunately, I believe that this situation will get so much worse. I think the surges which you see now in more than two dozen states of the United States, you see it in Brazil, in India. In general, it is estimated that this is not even a second wave; this is still the first wave which has not yet peaked. Several of the American epidemiologists and virologists said it’s no point to talk of a peak; the peak is not yet here.

So, I fear that the kind of collapse which we are seeing right now in terms of the effects of the economic shutdown, is also just the beginning. I think the situation will worsen in the short-term, long before the election takes place in November, and that the kind of social ferment which exists right now — which in part is due to the murder of George Floyd and others, but it’s also naturally manipulated and taken over by people who just want to create social trouble in the same way like President Putin warned that Trump would be faced with a “Maidan.”

So, it definitely has absolutely elements of that as well. I think this will get worse, and that means our intervention in the United States, but also around the world will be absolutely crucial. Because it is my absolute conviction that if you have more examples like that of the Mayor of Muscatine, people who just start relationships and create an environment which counters the absolutely malicious lies in the mainstream media and the crazy talk by such people as Marco Rubio or Menendez, or such people who just are completely irresponsible in what they say. There should be a standard of truth that you shouldn’t say things which are made up; but some of these people have lost all hesitations to just, for their own purposes, lie.

So, I think it’s very important that this is being countered by a lot of citizens. And I think if we can get this initiative, which I proposed with this taskforce to find solutions on the level of the coincidence of opposites, that can become an important factor, because the idea that you have to replace geopolitical confrontation with cooperation to solve this pandemic and all the other problems together, must become the steamroller in the population. I also think that if there is a chorus of countries — from Africa, from Latin America, from other places — and individuals of positions, who demand that the problems of humanity are so big that they only can be solved by the leading countries; the most powerful economically, the most powerful militarily, and those countries which have the most population, that they must get together. Because where else should the solution come from?

I think if we all work together, we can orchestrate an environment where these ideas are being picked up, and all the advantages which lie in that may convince even those countries which seem to be at loggerheads right now, to actually come together and work together, because it will benefit them more than to keep the confrontation going.

SPEED: Thank you. Our next question is from Isaiah K. Koech, Counsellor for the Kenyan High Commission [embassy] in Ottawa, Canada. I think this question will be largely for Helga and for Mr. Meshchanov.

“Whereas there is advocacy for the world’s powerful countries to meet in the ‘Four-Power’ Summit to discuss solutions that would mitigate global crises, how sure are we that the powerful leaders will incorporate issues that directly affect African countries? (This question is based on the premise that the Four-Power Summit will not have any representation from the African continent which is equally large and full of potential).”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Mr. Meshchanov, if you want to go first?

MESHCHANOV: OK. With this, I will try to briefly focus on several questions posed before, starting with a positive conversation of our colleague referring to cultural links. We would like to reiterate our deep understanding that culture is stronger than politics, and we are availing of this opportunity to thank the Schiller Institute for issuing brilliant chorus song in Russian associated with Victory Day in May, which we would highly encourage everyone to see a brilliant and bright presentation of cultural links and culture bridging gaps between our countries. We are deeply appreciative of this work by the Schiller Institute. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLGy8yIOVM&t=5s]

And of course the Year of Beethoven deserves to be commemorated. Our embassies, consulates, and missions all over the world are open, especially in these difficult times, to any proposals of collaboration in the cultural sphere. So, thank you very much for your remarks.

As for the four leaders summit proposal by the Schiller Institute, we believe it’s a great idea, and not contradicting the Russian President Vladimir Putin. I would like once again to reiterate the idea of five countries, specifically the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, was issued and proposed in association with the 75-year anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War — the Second World War, talking globally. It is addressing the idea of recollecting the common responsibility of our countries for preventing discrimination, hated, hatred on borders between countries, bearing in mind the responsibility lying with these specific countries, which are founders of the United Nations, and winners in the Second World War.

So, that was the rationale to reiterate, but that doesn’t prejudice against deliberating on any alternative forums. I’m speaking in my personal capacity of course now, but that reminds me of the rationale behind the establishment of the BRICS association, which somehow started back in the 1990s from the ideas of our outstanding and well-known academic and diplomat, and former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Yevgeny Primakov, who tabled the idea of Russia, India, and China collaboration and systemic cooperation, meetings, and summits. That was sort of an idea that could also be taken into consideration, because our great predecessor Mr. Primakov foresaw the rising role of India, and the rising role of African countries, as a natural process of moving forward the multipolar world after the collapse of the bipolar system. That is why we strongly believe in multilateralism, multilateral forums.

Coming to the third question of the United States and China, and the possibility of cooperation, and all the controversies and conflicts that we see now. We also do not have very smooth and easy relationships with the Western world and the United States, as you are, of course, aware. But still we try to find mutual interests; that we did even under the Cold War situation back many decades. Now, something that contributes to finding solutions is the pressure of business circles, investors, diasporas, cultural links, parliamentary relations. Even being oppressed by coercive measures by several Western countries, we stick to the policy of cooperation and collaboration with our Western partners. China is also objectively interested in developing relationships with the United States, as well as the United States cannot do without China in the modern economic system. That is why we are sort of optimistic on U.S.-China reconciliation.

To focus briefly on African countries, we believe that the development of the African continent recently, not only in terms of economic growth, but also diversifying trade and investor partnerships, and maturing political collaboration between African countries, will contribute to their capability of speaking in one voice. That probably opens good perspectives of African countries joining the global governance system which is going to be revisited and reformulated. As I also stated in my presentation, our country has always spoken on raising involvement of African countries in any global forums. It should be inclusive, not exclusive.

With this, I thank you.

SPEED: OK, very good. Helga, do you have anything?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would like to add that there is probably not any problem globally, both regionally and economically and otherwise, which could not be solved if the geopolitical confrontation between the United States, Russia, and China in particular, would be eliminated. Because the entire game plan of what we call the British Empire, which is really the City of London, Wall Street, the financial institutions which are behind the neo-liberal system; their entire ability to keep the rule over the world’s institutions depends on the geopolitical game to divide the United States and Russia and China. People don’t realize that it is exactly the same forces financial, media, political, who are behind the coup attempt against Trump; who are behind the anti-Russia campaign; and who are behind the anti-China campaign. Once you realize that, you have a completely different view, and the reason why my husband originally many years ago picked up on the idea of Prime Minister Primakov, and added the United States to this combination of Russia, China, and India was the recognition that you need a combination of states which are powerful enough to be stronger than the City of London and Wall Street. Once these four, or especially those three, get together, then you can solve any other problem. I have said many times, this summit is not going to be only one summit. Because the problems are so deep and many, that you probably need a whole summit process, where you start to put the kinds of mechanisms like for a New Bretton Woods system into motion; you start to take care of the cultural question, the health system. So, I look at it more that once you have this format, that the presidents of those countries start to cooperate to solve the common problems of mankind, you can develop it to become an integrative process where naturally other countries, other continents, other states are absolutely welcomed to support that process. But I think it’s important to first put together the core of power which can actually change the world, and not just have it like many conferences where you have a democratic kind of back and forth and nothing gets accomplished. I think this is also why President Putin wants to keep the veto power in the Permanent Five countries so that it doesn’t degenerate into just a debate where no results can be accomplished. It should be open; we are organizing that countries such as Japan or Germany, Italy, France, countries from Africa. They should absolutely support that. The best thing is to it now; to add your voice that such a summit must take place, and I think it can be done. I think it’s absolutely doable, but we need a worldwide mobilization to accomplish it.

SPEED: We’re getting a lot of questions, and that’s very good. But we have the problem that we lost some time at the beginning of the broadcast. So, what we’re going to do here is, first of all, we’re going to encourage people to keep going with the questions. Several of them are with respect to the coronavirus pandemic and related matters. The next panel, which will begin at 1:30 p.m., will continue to cover that, and we will try to refer some of the questions there. Also, we certainly will refer all of your questions to any of the panelists to have them answer.

We’re going to take two more questions, one of which will come from me, and then the other one will be from Diane. We’ll then ask the panelists to conclude.

This is a question from Dr. Abdul Alim-Muhammad of Washington, D.C.; well-known to the Schiller Institute, and very important in our work over the years. This one, I believe, is for both Dr. Elders and for Helga: “How can the rest of the world learn and benefit from the Chinese and Cuban collaboration in flattening the curve of the epidemic centered in Wuhan? How can those lessons be applied here in the United States and elsewhere, like Brazil and countries in Africa, to flatten the curve? Why isn’t Cuba’s interferon alpha-2B available to save American lives? Should there be an international standard of criminal public health neglect?” Then, he just appends to this “The Crime of Tuskegee”; he’s talking about the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. “Was the deliberate withholding of known effective treatments to suit a racist agenda? Is history repeating on a global scale?”

So, that’s his question. Either Dr. Elders or Helga, whichever would like to start.

DR. ELDERS: I think we all realize that we have a global pandemic now. But as in all pandemics, we’ve got to have the right leaders if we want to come out of this, and I think what the Schiller Institute is doing, we’ve got to have the kind of leaders who are willing to lead. And they have got to make the sacrifices and do the things that they need to do to lead and move forward. Our public health system has not been well funded. We’ve got to invest more in our public health, but when we think of public health, we’ve got to always remember, that public health is not just about individuals. It’s about the whole community; it’s all of us. We’ve all got to be involved, and you can’t keep our people healthy if we don’t educate them to be healthy. I think that that’s an important issue that all of our communities have to be aware of. The reason? I won’t say the reason, I don’t know the reasons. Some of the reasons why we in the United States, our curve is not flattened as well as that in China and some of the other countries is because of our culture and the education of our people. We’re not willing to do the things; we know we need to do them, but we just didn’t do them. Like our social distancing, which we could do. Handwashing. Wearing a mask. Then, everybody wanted to get back, and start socializing again. So, these are things the Chinese were willing to do and did. They enforced it, and we did not do it. That was partly related to our leadership, that we’ve not done.

If we think about the Tuskegee Institute, I think that was a public health, leadership mistake. We’ve worked through that now. I do not feel in any way that anybody was trying to take anything away or trying to not provide therapy or treatment. And I do not feel that we’re not trying to do everything we can now to make sure we do what we can to eliminate the coronavirus. But we do not have a vaccine; we do not have adequate medications. All we have are the public health issues that we know we need to follow in order to get it done. We’ve got to educate our people. The reason why we’re seeing more problems in our very low-income, less well-educated people is because of what’s happened. We know that we’ve got to address those issues if we’re really going to make a difference.

And I think the same is true for Brazil. I think Brazil is behaving much like America; we’re not doing the things we know we need to do.

SPEED: OK. Helga, do you have anything, or should we continue?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just would like to add briefly that if people remember, in January, when China started to take these very rigid measures — quarantining people, tracing contacts, cutting out social contact by allowing families to go shopping only once every three days and only one member of the family — all of these things. There was a huge freak-out in the West, saying “This is a dictatorship! See how horrible! They’re violating human rights again.” But in reality, what helped them to contain is aided by a deep cultural difference between Western and Chinese culture. In the West, it was a big accomplishment that the rights of individuals were held high. This is a good thing, but unfortunately, this individuality became excessive. People mistook freedom with liberties and hedonism. What Dr. Elders just said, people wanted to go back to the beaches, they wanted to go back to partying. You have these really insane behaviors which are an expression of such exaggerated individuality. While the Chinese culture — and all Asian cultures, for that matter — have traditionally much more focus on the common good as the primary thing. And that the individual right is sort of subsumed under the right of the community and the cultural good. The individual cannot prosper if the community does not prosper. I think this is a cultural difference which I think is very much worth to study. Because we will come out of this pandemic with the need to adjust some of our values. They may not be exactly what people tout to be the so-called “Western values”; because these Western values — that’s a whole other subject. But I think we have to really think how we can give humanity principles for our durable survival. And that is part of this process that we are trying to do with these kinds of conferences; that people start to really reflect and say, “How can we become a species of rationality and creativity, and not compete with some piggies who are trying to get to the trough the quickest?” I think it’s really a fundamental question of identity, of moral values, which has to be addressed.

SPEED: OK. Last question for this panel will be from Diane Sare.

SARE: This question is from Dr. Katherine Alexander-Theodotou of the Anglo-Hellenic and Cypriot Law Association. It is in four parts.

“1. What do you suggest to do in an effort to bring the European nations together to reflect on democracy, basing the institutions on democratic lines, creating a real democratic union, including Russia? The vast culture of the civilization of Europe will be the fortress of prosperity and peace.

“2. How can the Schiller Institute assist? The Schiller Institute can assist by continuously advocating unity, cooperation, education, and preventing the undermining of nations’ sovereignty of Europe by others ruled by undemocratic institutions such as Turkey, threatening the sovereignty of its neighbors such as Greece and Cyprus.

“3. There is a need for European health policy and coordination of the health authorities in order to have common standards of health policy and provide competent healthcare to the peoples of Europe.

“4. There is the question of slave populations throughout Europe, especially in the U.K., where there are almost 1 million people living for almost 15 years with no identity, as they are immigrants [I think she means no legal identity] whose voice is being suppressed by the immigration laws. There are also others in other European countries. How can we stop this system of slave labor?”

Those are the questions.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this present EU needs to be changed, because I think the EU has developed into a gigantic bureaucracy which is very little in touch with the interests of its member states. I could cite you a whole list of examples for this. I think we have to really think how to integrate Russia. I think one of the lessons Putin said in his article was that there was a failure before World War II to develop an integrative security system. I’m quite interested — I’m putting it carefully — I’m quite interested about the report that between Putin and Macron in a long phone conversation yesterday, Macron said that he stands for a Europe which goes from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which obviously would mean that you really talk more about the Eurasian Economic Union, the Belt and Road Initiative integrated into one body. I think I’m a firm believer in the principle of sovereignty. I think this present crisis has demonstrated that in any case the EU did nothing. It was the nations which jumped in and recognized that you need food security in a nation; you need sovereign control over your production of medicine and health equipment.

Nicolaus of Cusa, who I quoted earlier, was the first one to develop the concept of why only a sovereign nation-state which has a reciprocal relationship between the government and the governed, which I think is the only way how you can guarantee how the common good is being defended; especially under conditions of crisis. So, I think this present EU, which is trying to attach itself to a NATO globalization, to play all kinds of geopolitical games, is not necessarily the vehicle with which Europe should be reformed. Maybe that should be the subject of a whole other webinar, because this is a very complicated question. But I think an alliance of sovereign nation-states in the spirit of de Gaulle would make much more sense to represent the interests of all the people.

As for the slave labor, I think that has come out, that this present neo-liberal system depends not only on the exploitation of cheap labor in countries like Bangladesh or some other countries, but that you have slave labor conditions inside the Western countries. Like in Germany, where it’s now seven or eight slaughterhouses which have all Romanians and people from other East European countries, who are living in horrible conditions. They have become the breeding ground for COVID-19 break-outs, because there is no health system, no social distancing is possible. I think taking care of the health system is the first precondition for everything to function, exactly as Dr. Elders says. If you are not healthy, you cannot do anything. So, protection of the health of the citizens has to really start in every country, not just in some.

SPEED: All right. So, we’re now at the conclusion. We’ve got about one minute per person for responses. I’d like to get kind of a summary idea. We’ll start with you, Mr. Meshchanov, if you have any remarks that you’d like to make in conclusion.

MESHCHANOV: Thank you. I had some technical problems, and unfortunately couldn’t catch the last part of the discussion. But now, wrapping up what has been laid out in this very important discussion, I see in an optimistic way what is happening. Meaning that when the situation is up-ending, and this is something that has been happening in any crisis in history, the word crisis derives from the Asian-Greek word of krisi, which means taking decisions; taking choice. So, we need to take the right decision, the right choice; and I fully support Mrs. Helga LaRouche’s statement on changing values after this crisis. We believe that in this crisis, constructive forces such as the Schiller Institute and many others in our country as well, are heard better. That’s probably one of the systemic significances of this crisis. Briefly, speaking on our President’s article, which you have repeatedly referred to, Mr. Putin underscores in his article devoted to the 75th anniversary of the war end, the Munich conspiracy. That is something that he starts with, but he finishes his article by underscoring the significance of cooperation, collaboration, and shared responsibility of great powers. That is why we are optimistic on this future cooperation which sometimes crises and great systemic catastrophes can contribute to.

SPEED: Thank you, Counselor. Dr. Elders, any concluding remarks?

DR. ELDERS: This has been one excellent conference, and I think what is talked about is how in all conferences we need to trust each other, we need to learn to work together, and that our cooperation and trust is going to do more to overcome this virus and the health of our people than anything else. The more we squabble among each other, the more this virus grows, divides, and spreads. So, the first thing is, we want to improve our economy, educate our people. We’ve got to first do everything we can to keep them healthy. We just can’t develop an excellent working society unless we have a healthy society. We know how; and it’s time we began to use the knowledge we know and make our leaders stop squabbling about where, when, and how it started. Let’s look at what we can do to make a solution. We need to get all nations that we can involved, so we can all work together to try and make a healthy global world. That’s how I feel we’re going to also address our economy.

SPEED: Thank you. Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would like to bring people’s memories back to what we saw in the beginning — the video of Lyn; who focussed very much on the fact that we are the creative species. At least, the only one which has been discovered in the universe so far. I think if we strengthen that quality of our species which distinguishes us from all other ones, the creativity, then also the question of trust will be easy. Because a human being who relates to the creativity of another one, doesn’t have prejudices. At best, you have a wish to increase the creativity of the other one for the common good of all of humanity. I think it is that rethinking of trying to make people better people, to make them do more good, to really get rid of all of this hedonistic decay of our culture which prevents people from being creative. Because if people just want to go partying and get drunk and have dope, they are ruining that which makes them human. I think may be hopefully one of the outcomes, because I believe absolutely that we need a renaissance of cultural values, of Classical culture. That we all have to learn to think like Beethoven, and to think like Lyndon LaRouche. Then we are best equipped to deal with this and any other problem.

SPEED: Thank you. I want to thank all of the panelists who were with us today. We’re going to conclude this first panel. But I think we managed to soldier through all of the difficulties that may have some metaphorical importance to what we’re going to have to do in the world as a whole to make this dialogue work as well.

Vi, de undertegnede, støtter Schiller Instituttets grundlægger Helga Zepp-LaRouches opfordring til global sundhedsmæssig og økonomisk infrastruktur til at imødegå coronavirus-pandemien og den underudvikling (både økonomisk og videnskabelig), der gjorde os sårbare over for den.

 Coronavirus-pandemien, der fejer henover kloden – og de økonomiske virkninger af de sundhedsforanstaltninger der er truffet for at knuse den – afslører den utilgivelige mangel på udvikling af den menneskelige art og kræver en global tilgang for at behandle – ikke alene det coronavirus, der i øjeblikket truer os – men også den underudvikling der efterlader os modtagelige for, at pandemien kræver frygtelig mange ofre.

 Når sundhedssystemer selv i udviklede regioner, såsom Norditalien, er blevet udfordret ud over dets kapacitet, hvad er da udsigterne for mindre udviklede nationer, der har en enorm mangel på sundhedsinfrastruktur og mangler sikker adgang til rent vand, sanitet og nærende mad? Hvordan kan en person, der er afhængig af den daglige indkomst for at forsørge familien, forblive hjemme i flere uger? Hvordan kan folk uden rent vand praktisere god håndhygiejne? Hvis der ikke er intensiv-senge til rådighed, kan læger så redde livet for et offer med svære Covid-19-symptomer?

 Alt imens de akutte lidelser fra coronavirus kræver vores opmærksomhed, hvad med de 800.000 børn under 5 år der dør af diarrésygdomme hvert år? Hvordan kan sundheden for de hundreder af millioner af mennesker, der i øjeblikket er ramt af fødevareusikkerhed, sikres?

Vi kræver en global sundhedsinfrastruktur i den bredeste forstand.

Verden har brug for flere hospitaler, nye intensiv-sengepladser, yderligere ventilatorer, mange flere uddannede læger, øget produktionskapacitet for PPE og testudstyr i en størrelsesorden langt over den, der eksisterede i starten af dette udbrud. Men der er også brug for meget mere. Fattigdom, underernæring, manglende adgang til forbedret vand og sanitet – dette er også sundhedsspørgsmål. Vores fælles værdighed som medlemmer af den menneskelige race ansporer os til at samarbejde om at fjerne fattigdom gennem udvikling. Hele verden må beskyttes mod sygdomme, der truer os alle.

 Barrierer for samarbejdet mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien må overvindes for at sikre, at verden aldrig igen terroriseres af en sådan trussel.

 For at muliggøre alt dette kræves et nyt Bretton Woods – internationale aftaler om økonomisk udvikling efter Franklin Roosevelts model og livssyn ved afslutningen af 2. verdenskrig, som videreudviklet af Lyndon LaRouches studier og forslag.

Underskriv gerne erklæringen begge steder: 

I Danmark: via www.skrivunder.net

Internationalt: via Schiller Instituttets internationale hjemmeside

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg hilser alle jer, der ser denne internetkonference fra hele verden, og jeg tror, at I alle er klar over, at menneskeslægten lige nu er konfronteret med en hidtil uset krise. Den truer ikke alene med at koste mange millioner menneskeliv på grund af sygdom og sult, med at feje mange af de institutioner, som folk har taget for givet indtil nu, af banen, og med at kaste store dele af verden ind i en ny mørk tidsalder, herunder kulturelt, men den kunne også føre til termonuklear krig, der potentielt ville udslette hele menneskeheden.

Denne krise er mere vidtgående end i det 14. århundrede, da den Sorte Pest udslettede en tredjedel af befolkningen fra Indien til Island. Det er mere alvorligt end Den store Depression i 1930’erne, fordi den potentielt kan ødelægge mere økonomisk substans. Og hvis der udbryder krig, vil det bestemt have værre følger end verdenskrigene i det 20. århundrede, fordi det sandsynligvis vil involvere brugen af termonukleare våben.

På grund af globaliseringen og internationaliseringen af mange systemer, herunder internettet, atomvåben, er vi alle i den samme båd. Og i modsætning til tidligere epoker, da en del af planeten blomstrede mens en anden kollapsede, vil der denne gang ikke være nogen delvise løsninger. Mere end nogensinde før i vores historie udfordres vi som samfund, som én menneskehed, til at nå til enighed om nye principper, der kan garantere menneskehedens langsigtede evne til at overleve. Det er pointen med denne konference: Hvordan kan vi identificere årsagerne til denne krise, eliminere dem og åbne et nyt kapitel i universalhistorien, der fører vores eksistens ud af geopolitisk konfrontation, ind på et niveau af fornuft, der sømmer sig for menneskehedens identitet som en kreativ art?

Nogle mennesker spekulerer på, hvorfor jeg midt i en pandemisk og finansiel krise også rejser spørgsmålet om faren for atomkrig? Fordi de skandaløse og ondsindede beskyldninger mod Kina fremsat af de britiske hemmelige tjenester MI6 og MI5 og deres propagandaapparat – Henry Jackson-Selskabet i London, Atlanterhavsrådet og forskellige “klyngeagenter” på begge sider af Atlanterhavet – beskylder Kina for COVID-19-pandemien, fordi man angiveligt enten forsinkede informationen om den, eller endog brugte biologisk krigsførelse mod Vesten. Dette drejer sig om opbygningen af et fjendebillede med henblik på krig. Den uforskammethed med hvilken Henry Jackson-Selskabet – den hårde kerne blandt de liberale neokonservative og den britiske krigsfaktion på begge sider af Atlanterhavet – kræver milliarder af dollars i erstatning, kan kun ses som en provokation, beregnet på at gøde jorden for et strategisk slutopgør.

 Det er den hysteriske, men i sidste ende desperate reaktion fra et imperium, der er klar over, at det hele er ovre, og at verden aldrig mere vil vende tilbage til den allerede udrullede strategiske orientering for en unipolær verden, den såkaldte “Washington Consensus” og “regelbaserede orden”, som man var i stand til at opretholde, i det mindste som en facade, indtil udbruddet af COVID-19. Krigspartiets beregninger var forkerte; den erklærede forhastet ”historiens afslutning” efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, hvilket også var knyttet til illusionen om, at Kina ville udvikle sig til et liberalt demokrati i britisk stil, hvis blot det fik medlemskab af WTO; og at alle andre lande også ville blive omdannet til vestlige demokratier via en politik for regimeskifte, enten gennem farverevolutioner eller interventionskrige.

Kinas enestående verdenshistoriske kulturelle bedrifter – ikke alene at løfte 850 millioner af sine egne mennesker ud af fattigdom, men også, med den Nye Silkevej, at give udviklingslande muligheden for første gang at overvinde såvel den kolonialistiske politik, der stadig i dag gennemføres af IMF, såvel som den deraf forårsagede fattigdom – blev mødt med vantro og rædsel af de forskellige talerør for det britiske imperium. Efter at de vestlige medier i omkring fire år havde ignoreret det største infrastrukturprogram i historien, blev angreb på såkaldte “autokratiske regimer”, som Kina, Rusland og andre, pludselig optrappet af de samme medier, som siden 2015 har profileret sig i ”Heksejagten” mod præsident Trump, i aftalt spil med kupforsøget fra de britiske hemmelige tjenester.

 Men da først tallene for marts og april blev frigivet, der viste, at Kina ikke blot har været i stand til at knuse pandemien mere effektivt, men også at overvinde de økonomiske konsekvenser af krisen meget lettere end de vestlige lande, som på grund af privatisering af sundhedssektoren var helt uforberedt på pandemien, blev tonen imod Kina skingrende. De vestlige demokratiers “regelrette orden”, den eneste “demokratiske legitimitet”, har været på gyngende grund i lang tid, og truer nu med at kollapse, mens det hævdes, at Beijing forfølger en “strategi for ubegrænset krigsførelse”. Kendsgerningen er, at det liberale system knyttet til det britiske imperium har slået fejl. Men det betyder ikke, at de styrker der er allieret med imperiet ikke stadigvæk, i deres kvaler, kan påføre enorme skader, for eksempel ved at indlede en verdenskrig.

 Det er på høje tid at rette på navnene, som Konfutse ville sige. Hvis ideen er at udarbejde en liste over skyldige parter og erstatningskrav på grund af den aktuelle krise, så må det være listen over virkningerne af den britiske liberalisme, hvis ledende skikkelse, Winston Churchill, bærer hovedansvaret for udeladelsen af det vigtigste aspekt i det Bretton Woods-system, som Franklin D. Roosevelt havde til hensigt for efterkrigstiden: nemlig en kreditmekanisme til at overvinde kolonialismen og industrialisere udviklingssektoren. På grund af denne mangel blev det britiske imperiums kontrol over den såkaldt Tredje Verden foreviget i efterkrigstiden. Denne situation blev derefter forværret, efter at præsident Nixon afsluttede Bretton Woods-systemet i august 1971, hvilket førte til en række af dereguleringer af de finansielle markeder, den berygtede ‘outsourcing’ til lande med billig arbejdskraft og IMF’s betingelser (‘conditionalities’, red.). Det eneste formål med hele denne politik var at opretholde en kolonialistisk udplyndring og forhindre enhver seriøs udvikling i disse lande.

 Hvordan kunne nogen i de såkaldt “avancerede lande” – og vi ser nu med coronavirus-pandemien, præcis hvor avancerede de er – antage i så meget som et minut, at den brutale fattigdom i Afrika, Latinamerika og nogle asiatiske lande er selvindlysende eller selvforskyldt? Hvis Vesten i de sidste 70 år havde gjort, hvad Kina har udrettet i Afrika siden 1960’erne, men især i de sidste 10 år nu, nemlig at bygge jernbaner, dæmninger, kraftværker og industriparker, ville hele Afrika nyde godt af et udviklingsniveau, som man ser i Sydkorea eller Singapore i dag – eller bedre! Afrika har som følge af denne politik stort set intet sundhedssystem, ingen infrastruktur; halvdelen af befolkningen har ikke adgang til rent vand, sanitet eller elektricitet, fordi det britiske imperium bevidst undertrykte dem ved at arbejde gennem IMF og Verdensbanken… gennem Verdensnaturfonden, der i tvivlstilfælde betragter beskyttelsen af en insektart som vigtigere end millioner af menneskers liv! Hvis man tager højde for den samlede virkning af denne politik, vil der fremkomme et tal på millioner af mennesker, hvis liv er blevet forkortet af sult og ubehandlede sygdomme! I modsætning til myten om at det britiske imperium ophørte med at eksistere en gang for alle med koloniernes uafhængighed og overleveringsceremonien i Hongkong den 30. juni 1997, eksisterer det stadig i form af neoliberal monetaristisk kontrol over verdens finansielle system; en kontrol, der altid har været indbegrebet af imperialisme.

 Et andet eksempel på ren propaganda fra imperiet er at sige, at lande i den Tredje Verden simpelthen ikke ønsker at udvikle sig. Virkeligheden er, at selv ideen om FN’s udviklings-årtier de facto blev elimineret med afslutningen på Bretton Woods, og dets erstatning med ideen om befolkningsreduktion, Romklubbens grove ideer om de formodede grænser for vækst og John D. Rockefeller III’s misantropiske forestillinger, som han præsenterede dem på FN’s befolkningskonference i Bukarest i 1974, eller Henry Kissingers skandaløse NSSM 200 fra samme år; der blot var gammel skimmelsvamp fra påstandene af den onde pastor Malthus’, det Britiske østindiske Selskabs bladsmører, som for sin del plagierede ideerne fra den venetianske “økonom” Giammaria Ortes.

 Lyndon LaRouche reagerede på dette paradigmeskifte, da han i 1973 i forbindelse med en række undersøgelser om virkningerne af IMF-politikken, begyndte at advare om, at den voksende underernæring, svækkelse af immunsystemet, manglende hygiejne osv. ville føre til fremkomsten af globale pandemier. Efter tusindvis af taler og skrifter fra LaRouche, der har cirkuleret i de mellemliggende fem årtier over alle fem kontinenter, er der ingen der kan sige, at den aktuelle pandemi ikke var forudseelig! Især da LaRouches hele livsværk var dediceret til, blandt andet, at udarbejde udviklingsprogrammer, der netop ville have forhindret det!

 Den grundlæggende årsag til at det liberale paradigme og den nuværende underliggende, transatlantiske “regelrette orden” har fejlet, og hvorfor etablissementet har vist sig at være så fuldstændig ude af stand til at reflektere over årsagerne til denne fiasko, er knyttet til det aksiomatiske grundlag og generelt accepterede antagelser om dette paradigmes menneskesyn, såvel som dets begreb om stat og videnskab.

 Efter den første opkomst, under den italienske renæssance, af ideer og former for en statsdannelse, der bevidst fremmer de kreative åndsevner hos en voksende andel af befolkningen, og rollen af videnskabelige fremskridt som kilde til social rigdom, lancerede det daværende feudale oligarki knyttet til det daværende førende imperium, Venedig, en bevidst modoffensiv, hvor Paolo Sarpi, som den førende tænker i det venetianske oligarki, fremførte sin lære, hvorfra Oplysningstiden og liberalisme i sidste ende udviklede sig. Ideen var at kontrollere den videnskabelige debat, men at fornægte evnen til at erkende og opdage reelle universelle principper, at undertrykke potentialet for ‘Prometheus’ (der ifølge sagnet gav mennesket ilden, red.) – om nødvendigt med magt – at reducere mennesker til niveauet for sansemæssig oplevelse, og dogmatisere det tilbagestående i ”den menneskelig natur”.

 Fra denne tradition udsprang den mekanistiske videnskabelige tradition forbundet med Galilei Galileo og Isaac Newton, John von Neumanns og Norbert Wieners spil- og informationsteori, og for nyligt de algoritmer, der ligger til grund for derivathandlen i dagens kasinoøkonomi. Det empiriske og materialistiske dogme og dekadente menneskebillede, der blev bragt til torvs af Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Malthus, Jeremy Bentham, John Locke og John Stuart Mill, er stadig den dag i dag grundlaget for den britiske liberalisme, og den virus, der mere end noget andet, har bidraget til den nuværende tilstand i verden.

 Det britiske imperiums oligarkiske tankegang, der benægter alle mennesker, men især alle farvede mennesker, den guddommelige gnist af kreativitet bliver udtrykt i fuld klarhed i adskillige skrifter og udsagn, hvis blot folk bryder sig om at se efter det, fra prins Phillips berygtede ønske om blive reinkarneret som et dødbringende virus for at hjælpe med at reducere overbefolkningen af den menneskelige race, til det foragtelige syn der blev udtrykt af Adam Smith i hans ”Theory of the Moral Sentiment” fra 1759:

 ”Administrationen af universets store system… omsorgen for rationelle og fornuftige væseners universelle lykke er Guds – og ikke menneskets – afdeling. Mennesket er tildelt en langt mere ydmyg rolle, hvilken meget bedre svarer til svagheden af hans evner, og hans begrænsede forståelse; menneskets rolle vedrører hans egen lykke, og den af hans familie, hans venner, hans land … Naturen leder os til størstedelen af dette med oprindelige og øjeblikkelige instinkter. Sult, tørst, den lidenskab der forener kønnene, kærligheden til glæde og frygt for smerte, får os til at opfylde disse mål for deres egen skyld og uden nogen overvejelser vedrørende deres tilbøjelighed til at gavne de større mål, som ‘naturens store dirigent’ havde til hensigt at opnå med dem.”

 Eftersom alle disse egenskaber gælder lige såvel for dyr, er det åbenlyst også i orden at ‘udrense flokken’ med jævne mellemrum, ligesom spartanerne dræbte heloterne, da de troede, de ville blive for mange. Dette misantropiske billede af mennesket forstærkes gennem ren racisme, som Bertrand Russell udtrykte det så skamløst i The Prospects of Industrial Civilization:

 ”Den hvide befolkning i verden vil snart ophøre med at vokse. De asiatiske racer vil blive flere, og negrene endnu flere, før deres fødselsrate falder tilstrækkeligt til at gøre deres antal stabilt uden hjælp af krig og pest… Indtil det sker, kan fordelene, som socialismen sigter mod, kun delvist realiseres, og de mindre frugtbare racer bliver nødt til at forsvare sig mod de mere frodige ved metoder, der er modbydelige, omend de er nødvendige.”

 Det er netop denne racistiske ideologi, der var retfærdiggørelsen af kolonialisme, slavehandelen, opiumskrigene, og for at være ærlig, er det i sidste ende også årsagen til den monumentale ligegyldighed, som store dele af befolkningen i Vesten viser, når de hører nyheden om græshoppesværme i Afrika og i nogle asiatiske lande, som kunne have været elimineret for to måneder siden til en omkostning af kun 75 millioner dollars.

 Og intet har ændret sig i den grundlæggende støtte til eugenik (racehygiejne –red.) blandt repræsentanter for imperiet. Dette blev endnu en gang understreget af en skribent i Daily Telegraph, i en artikel af Jeremy Warner i begyndelsen af marts:

”Ikke for at gå i detaljer, men fra et ganske uengageret økonomisk perspektiv, kunne COVID-19 sågar vise sig at være en smule gavnlig i det længere løb, ved uforholdsmæssigt at rense ud blandt ældre pensionister).”

Det er disse barbariske præmisser for det liberale dogme, selv hvis det næppe er moderigtigt at indrømme deres eksistens i de såkaldte udviklede lande, som for mange år siden førte Lyndon LaRouche til at insistere på, at en kombination af de fire økonomisk og militært vigtigste lande i verden – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – var nødvendig for at gennemføre den bydende nødvendige reorganisering af verdensordenen. Denne reorganisering må dog begynde med den utvetydige og bestemte afvisning af dette liberale dogmes menneskesyn samt dets politiske implikationer. Det britiske imperium i alle dets fremtoninger, men mest af alt dets kontrol over finanssystemet må tilendebringes.

Disse fire nationer – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – må øjeblikkeligt sammenkalde en hastekonference og indføre et nyt Bretton Woods-system, der realiserer Franklin Roosevelts fulde intention ved at skabe et kreditsystem, som garanterer, en gang for alle, industrialiseringen af udviklingssektoren. Det må begynde med virkeliggørelsen af et verdenssundhedssystem, der opbygger et sundhedsvæsen i hvert eneste land på denne klode. Først og fremmest med et lynprogram for at bekæmpe coronavirusset, men derefter at opnå den samme standard, som fandtes under Hill-Burton-loven i USA, eller som den var i Tyskland og Frankrig, før privatiseringen i 1970’erne. Som Roosevelt formulerede det i sin Tale til Nationen i 1941, i sin berømte erklæring om de ”Fire Friheder”, hvor han sagde: ”Den tredje [frihed] er friheden for mangel – hvilket oversat i globale vendinger betyder en økonomisk forståelse, der garanterer enhver nations indbyggere et sundt og fredeligt liv – over alt i verden”. Førstedamen, Eleanor Roosevelt, gjorde det til sin personlige mission at sikre, at disse Fire Friheder blev indlemmet i FN’s Verdenserklæring om Menneskerettighederne.

I Lyndon LaRouches ”Udkast til Samarbejdsaftale mellem USA og Sovjetunionen” fra 1984, der definerede principperne og grundlaget for det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI), som han foreslog, og som blev erklæret for USA’s officielle politik af Præsident Reagan d. 23. marts, 1983, og som gentagne gange blev tilbudt Sovjetunionen for at samarbejde om et omfattende nedrustningsprogram, definerede LaRouche den overbevisning, der repræsenterede et absolut afgørende aspekt af hans livs arbejde og denne organisations mission. Den første del af dette skrift, hvis principper også gælder for samarbejdet mellem de fire nationer og alle andre, som beslutter sig for at deltage i dette nye partnerskab, lyder:

”Det politiske grundlag for varig fred må være: a) den uforbeholdne suverænitet for hver eneste og alle nationalstater, og b) samarbejde blandt suveræne nationalstater for at fremme ubegrænsede muligheder for at deltage i fordelene af teknologisk fremskridt, til fælles gavn for alle og enhver. Den mest afgørende del af en sådan permanent fredspolitiks gennemførelse nu, er en dybtgående forandring i de monetære, økonomiske og politiske relationer mellem de dominerende nationer, og de relativt underordnede nationer, ofte klassificeret som ’udviklingslande.’ Medmindre de vedblivende uligheder i kølvandet på den moderne kolonialisme i stigende grad løses, vil ingen vedvarende fred på denne planet være mulig. Såfremt USA og Sovjetunionen anerkender, at fremskridt for de produktive arbejdskræfter på hele planeten er i hver og begge parters vitale interesse, er de to stormagter forbundet i denne grad og på denne måde af en fælles interesse. Dette er kernen af den praktiserede politiske og økonomiske politik, uundværlig for at fostre en vedvarende fred mellem disse to stormagter.”

I betragtning af den eskalerende anti-Kina-kampagne, igangsat af britisk efterretningsvæsen, som har folk i Præsident Trumps følge, der forsøger at overgå hinanden, nærmest time efter time, i deres anklager mod Kina, inklusive udenrigsminister Pompeo, [direktør for Handels- og Industripolitik] Peter Navarro, [senator] Lindsey Graham, og [FoxTV-værten] Tucker Carlson, mens diverse magtdemonstrationer af USA og NATO blot synes at være begrænsede af antallet af COVID-19-smittede blandt nogle af deres mandskaber, er det eksistentielle spørgsmål, hvordan verden kan komme fri af denne farlige optrapning. Er vi dømt til at genopleve hvordan den næststærkestes magtovertagelse af herredømmet fører til krig, som allerede er hændt tolv gange i historien?

Kombinationen af corona-pandemien, verdens hungersnødskrise, den kommende finansielle, hyperinflationære eksplosion og depressionen af den globale, reelle økonomi er så overvældende, at det burde være klart for ethvert tænkende menneske, at menneskeheden kun kan overvinde denne krise, hvis USA’s og Kinas økonomiske potentiale – understøttet af andre industrielle lande – forenes i fælles indsats og forøges, således at de fornødne kapaciteter kan skabes for at sikre sundhedspleje, infrastruktur og industri- og fødevareproduktion. Det er den eksistentielle interesse af hvert individ og af hver nation på denne planet at arbejde hen imod dette mål. Vi bliver nødt til at skabe et globalt kor blandt alle andre nationer og mange millioner af mennesker for at kræve præcist dette!

Konflikten mellem USA og Kina eksisterer kun, hvis de kræfter i begge partier i USA sejrer, som er i traditionen fra H.G. Wells’ ”Åbne Konspiration”, med den idé at USA accepterer det britiske imperiums model som grundlag for en anglo-amerikansk kontrolleret unipolær orden til at kontrollere verden. Denne vision af H.G. Wells blev videreført af William Yandell Elliot, mentor til Kissinger, Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, og til og med de neokonservative fra Projektet for et Nyt Amerikansk Århundrede (PNAC). Hvis, på den anden side, USA vender tilbage til sin sande tradition fra Uafhængighedserklæringen imod det Britiske Imperium, og Alexander Hamiltons Amerikanske økonomiske System, da vil der være et stort åndsslægtskab med Kinas økonomiske model, som indeholder mange af Alexander Hamiltons, Friedrich Lists og Henry C. Careys principper. På samme måde var Sun Yat-sen, grundlæggeren af det moderne Kina, præget meget af det Amerikanske System.

På det presserende hastetopmøde med USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien, og på den dernæst umiddelbart nødvendige stiftende konference af et Nyt Bretton Woods-system, kan statslederne genoplive ånden fra den oprindelige Bretton Woods-konference, hvor lederen af den kinesiske delegation, H.H. Kung, indsendte Sun Yat-sens forslag for en ”International Udviklingsorganisation.” Kung, en af Sun Yat-sens svogre, sagde i sin tale i Bretton Woods:

”Kina ser frem til en periode med stor økonomisk udvikling og ekspansion efter krigen. Dette inkluderer et program for omfattende industrialisering, udover udviklingen og moderniseringen af landbruget. Det er min faste overbevisning, at et økonomisk stærkt Kina er en uundværlig betingelse for fredens bevarelse og en forbedring af verdens trivsel. Efter den 1. Verdenskrig foreslog Dr. Sun Yat-sen en plan for det han kaldte ’den internationale udvikling af Kina.’ Han understregede princippet for samarbejde med venligsindede nationer og brugen af udenlandsk kapital til udviklingen af Kinas ressourcer. Dr. Suns lære udgjorde grundlaget for Kinas nationale politik. Amerika og andre i de Forenede Nationer, håber jeg, vil tage aktiv del i at medvirke til udviklingen af Kina i efterkrigstiden.”

Som sagt støttede Roosevelt internationaliseringen af denne udviklingspolitik under forhandlingerne, og han betragtede forhøjelsen af levestandarden over hele verden som nøglen til global stabilitet. Og han så internationaliseringen af New Deal-politikken som vejen til at gøre det.

 De fire vigtigste nationer i verden – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – må nu etablere et nyt Bretton Woods-system, og sammen med alle nationer, der ønsker at tilslutte sig, et nyt paradigme for internationalt samarbejde mellem nationer, der styres af menneskehedens fælles mål. Den fjerde af Lyndon LaRouches fire love definerer den kvalitativt højere økonomiske platform, det højere niveau af fornuft, af ‘Coincidentia Oppositorum’ (modsætningernes sammenfald) som udviklet af Nicholas Cusanus (1401–1464, tysk filosof, teolog, jurist og astronom; nøglefigur i den europæiske renæssance –red.), hvorpå modsætningerne forbundet med geopolitisk konfrontation kan overvindes.

 Internationalt samarbejde mellem videnskabsfolk, der udelukkende baserer sig på verificerbare universelle fysiske principper, må erstatte forrang for politik baseret på ideologi og interesser. Forskning i “livsvidenskaber”, en bedre forståelse af hvad der forårsager livets egenskaber og dets oprindelse i universet, er forudsætningen for at bekæmpe coronavirus og alle andre potentielle virologiske, bakterielle og andre sygdomsprocesser. Som en del af verdenssundhedssystemet er vi nødt til at opbygge samarbejdende medicinske forskningscentre internationalt, hvor også unge forskere fra alle udviklingslande kan blive uddannet. Den dybtgående lære af coronavirus-pandemien er, at levering af sundhedspleje skal være et fælles gode og ikke tjene til at maksimere overskuddet for private interesser. Resultaterne af denne forskning skal derfor straks leveres til alle universiteter, hospitaler og medicinsk personale i alle nationer.

 Et andet område, hvor internationalt samarbejde i retning af de fælles mål for menneskeheden er uundværlig, er opnåelsen af energi- og råmaterialesikkerhed, hvilket vil være muligt med beherskelsen af termonuklear fusion og den tilhørende udvindingsproces for grundstoffer (‘fusion torch’). Det internationale ITER-projekt på Cadarache-anlægget i det sydlige Frankrig, en tokamak-kernefusionsreaktor og internationalt forskningsprojekt, der allerede involverer samarbejde fra 34 lande, er en god start, men finansieringen af ITER og andre modeller for nuklear fusion må forøges massivt. En af LaRouches centrale opdagelser er sammenhængen mellem energi-gennemstrømningstætheden, som anvendt i produktionsprocessen, og den relative potentielle befolkningstæthed. Beherskelse af nuklear fusion er bydende nødvendigt, ikke kun for den levende befolkning, men især for bemandet rumfart.

 Rumforskning i sig selv er et område, der er utænkeligt uden internationalt samarbejde, og som mere end nogen anden videnskabsgren på en positiv måde påviser, hvad pandemien demonstrerer negativt: At vi faktisk er den ene art, der er bestemt af dens fremtid, og hvis langsigtede overlevelsesevne afhænger af vores evne til at lære at forstå og beherske universets love – inklusive de mindst 2 billioner galakser, som Hubble-teleskopet har været i stand til at verificere. Forsvar mod asteroider, meteorer og kometer er kun et blandt mange vigtige elementer i dette. For udviklingslandene er ubegrænset deltagelse i forskningsprojekter den bedste måde – gennem videnskabelig og teknologisk ‘kvantespring’ – at skabe forudsætningerne for økonomier, der er i stand til at give alle borgere et godt og sikkert liv.

 Nicholas fra Cusa skrev allerede tilbage i det 15. århundrede, at alle opdagelser inden for videnskab straks skulle stilles til rådighed for repræsentanter for alle lande, for ikke unødvendigt at holde udviklingen af nogen af dem tilbage. Han fandt også, at konkordans, harmoni, i makrokosmos kun er mulig, når alle mikrokosmos udvikler sig bedst muligt. Det nye paradigme, som vi er nødt til at forme for samarbejdet mellem nationer, må tage udgangspunkt i hele menneskehedens fælles interesse, således at alle nationer og kulturer – som i kontrapunkt, som i en fuga – er sammenflettet og stiger dynamisk til højere stadier af anti-entropisk udvikling.

 Er vi, som menneskelig civilisation, på dette sene stadium af begivenhederne i stand til at afværge tsunamien af pandemier, hungersnød, finanskrise, depression og faren for en ny verdenskrig? I så fald har verden brug for dette topmøde mellem de fire nationer nu! Hvis et sådant topmøde ville bekendtgøre alle disse ændringer – et nyt Bretton Woods-system, at de fire stormagter står skulder ved skulder i opbygningen af et globalt udviklingsprogram i form af en ”Ny Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen”, et verdenssundhedssystem, et internationalt lynprogram for fusion og beslægtet forskning, en massiv opgradering af internationalt rumforskningssamarbejde, og sidst men ikke mindst, en dialog mellem alle nationers klassiske traditioner, med det formål at udløse en ny renæssance af klassiske kulturer på lignende, men endnu smukkere, vis, som den store italienske renæssance overvandt rædslerne fra den mørke tidsalder i det 14. århundrede – så kan en ny æra af menneskeheden fødes!

 Er der et rimeligt håb om, at vi kan overvinde menneskehedens nuværende dybe krise?  Absolut! vil jeg sige. Vi er den hidtil eneste kendte kreative art i universet, som har evnen til at opdage nye principper for vores univers igen og igen; hvilket indebærer, at der er et åndsslægtskab mellem vores kreative mentale processer og disse fysiske love.

 En tanke, der belyser dette optimistiske perspektiv, vedrører et aspekt af rumforskningen; nemlig den tilsyneladende accelererede aldringsproces under betingelse af vægtløshed og ændringen af denne proces i hyper-tyngdekraft. En bedre forståelse af denne ”rum-gerontologi” (alderdomsforskning –red.) er åbenlyst afgørende for fremtidig bemandet rumfart til Mars og i interstellart rum, og det forventes, at det væsentligt vil øge menneskets evne til at have et længere, sundt liv.

 Hvis man tager i betragtning, at Schubert kun blev 31 år gammel, Mozart 35, Dante 36, Schiller 45, Shakespeare 52 og Beethoven bare 56, har man en idé om, hvor meget fremtidens genier med en forventet levealder på 120 eller 150 år vil være i stand til at bidrage til menneskehedens udvikling!

 Derfor, slut jer til os for at bringe det britiske imperium til ophør! Og lad os skabe en ægte menneskelig fremtid for hele menneskeheden! Tak.

SE INVITATIONEN NEDENUNDER.

Lørdag den 25. april, kl. 16:00 dansk tid

Panel 1: “Det presserende behov for at erstatte geopolitik med et nyt paradigme indenfor internationale relationer”

Dette panel vil drøfte de principper hvorpå en ny strategisk orden omgående må iværksættes – de fælles mål for menneskeheden, alle nationers suverænitet og den gensidige fordel for alle medlemmer af det menneskelige samfund. Disse principper forefindes i de bedste bidrag til civilisationens universal-historie, i de videnskabelige principper for det fysiske univers og i stor klassisk kunst. Principperne må afspejles i definitionen af menneskehedens interesse, set ud fra hvor udviklingen af vores art skal være om 100 år fra nu af. Dette fremtidige perspektiv skal være bestemmende for hvordan vi udformer en ny økonomisk platform, samt en ny sikkerhedsinfrastruktur, nye former for videnskabeligt samarbejde og en dialog mellem klassiske kulturer.

Panel Moderator: Dennis Speed

10:00 — Opening Remarks & Introduction
Dennis Speed, Schiller Institute 

10:15 — Keynote Address
Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Founder and Chairman, Schiller Institute 

10:55 — Dmitriy Polyanskiy, 1st Deputy Permanent Representative
The Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

11:10 —H.E.  Ambassador Huang Ping
Consul General of the People’s Republic of China in New York
“For a Better Future: Proposed Principles Needed to Ensure Peaceful and Productive Relations Between China and the United States”

11:25–12:00 — Q&A with Zepp-LaRouche and representatives of Russia and China

12:00 — Jacques Cheminade
Chairman, Solidarité et Progrès, former French Presidential Candidate
“A Europe Not To Be Ashamed Of”

12:20 — Michele Geraci
Economist from Italy, former Undersecretary to the Development Ministry in Rome 

12:35–1:15 — Q&A with Zepp-LaRouche, Cheminade, and Geraci

1:15 — Helga Zepp-LaRouche
“Introducing the LaRouche Legacy Foundation”

1:30–2:00 — Q&A continued

Lørdag den 25. april, kl. 21:00 dansk tid

Panel 2: “Kreativitet som det enestående træk ved den menneskelige kultur: Behovet for en klassisk renæssance”

Det forfald, der har indsneget sig i meget af kulturen i den vestlige verden, er i sig selv et tegn på systemets endeligt. Grimhedskulten dominerer meget af det, der giver sig ud for at være kunst i dag. Meningsløs vold og perversion i den såkaldte underholdningsindustri spiller en rolle for udformningen af en populærkultur, hvor masseskyderier, narkotikamisbrug og kulturel pessimisme er fremherskende.

Erstatningen af den mørke tidsalder i det 14. århundrede, beskrevet i litteraturen af Boccaccio og i malerier af Bruegel og Bosch, med den kulturelle optimisme og det nye menneskebillede i den gyldne renæssance i Italien og andre dele af Europa er et godt eksempel på, at menneskelig opfindsomhed kan overvinde forfærdelige kriser og erstatte dem med nye ideer og kunstværker.

I dag er en genoplivning af klassisk kunst den uundværlige forudsætning for, at menneskeheden kan åbne et nyt kapitel i dets historie. En renæssance af klassisk musik og en dialog mellem de bedste klassiske traditioner indenfor alle kulturer skal lægge grundlaget for en ny renæssance. Værker af Dante, Leonardo da Vinci, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Du Fu, Shakespeare, Schiller, Tagore, Huang Gongwang, Rembrandt, Goya, Cervantes, Rabelais og Pushkin, for blot at nævne nogle få, legemliggør principper der inspirerer det menneskelige sinds kreativitet, og er lige så universelle som fysiske videnskabelige principper. Viden om disse kunstarter er grundlaget for menneskets æstetiske uddannelse. Som Lyndon LaRouche smukt skrev det, er kærligheden essensen af stor kunst. I dette Beethoven-år kan vi absolut finde den indre styrke til at mestre krisen ved at fremkalde hans ånd og ved at tænke lige som den store komponist.

Søndag den 26. april kl. 17:00 dansk tid

Panel 3: “For en bedre forståelse af hvordan vores univers fungerer”

Eksistentielle trusler mod menneskeheden, såsom den nuværende COVID-19-pandemi, kan kun overvindes ved den strikse anvendelse af foranstaltninger til epidemisk kontrol, hvilket Kina har skabt en ny standard for. Samtidig må den biologiske og virologiske grundforskning (inklusive optisk biofysik) udvides, for at forstå hvad liv virkelig er, og for bedre at forstå samspillet mellem det ikke-levende, biosfæren og den menneskelige noösfære. Tankerne fra Kepler, Leibniz, Vernadsky og Gurwitsch i form af en ”universets harmoni” er afgørende.

Lyndon LaRouche kaldte denne tilgang “Strategisk Forsvar af Jorden”, hvilket omfatter både planetens forsvar mod asteroider og kometer, og kampen mod pandemier. Dette kræver udvikling af nye teknologier baseret på højere energi-gennemstrømningstætheder, såsom avanceret nuklear teknologi, energi og partikelstråling, rumvidenskab, superledere, nye materialer, additive fremstillingsprocesser og robotter. Konfronteret med de to vira – COVID-19 og monetarisme – er det nu vigtigere end nogensinde at være optimistisk med hensyn til det menneskelige potentiale til at opbygge en bedre verden, i modsætning til den malthusianske pessimisme der betragter mennesket som et rovdyr og en forurener.

Som LaRouche har påvist indenfor mange områder, er det det den menneskelige arts kreative potentiale, der muliggør etableringen af stadig højere videnskabelige og teknologiske platforme og opdagelse af universets lovmæssigheder på en ubegrænset måde. Udforskning af rummet er dén fysiske udfordring for vores menneskelige identitet, der vil udløse det bedste af vores potentiale for at opdage og inspirere til et skæbnefællesskab..

Søndag den 26. april kl. 21:00 dansk tid

Panel 4: “Videnskaben om fysisk økonomi”

Om noget demonstrerer denne sammenbrudskrise den komplette fiasko for det, der under normale omstændigheder går for at være økonomi på universiteterne. Lyndon LaRouches erkendelse af den uredelige karakter af Robert Wiener og John von Neumanns teorier, som stadig i dag dominerer feltet af statistik og algoritmer, lagde grundlaget for hans fremskridt inden for videnskaben om fysisk økonomi. LaRouche baserer sin forståelse på ideerne af Gottfried Leibniz, Friedrich List og ophavsmændene til det amerikanske økonomiske system, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay og Henry C. Carey, og videreudvikler det på grundlag af Bernhard Riemanns og Albert Einsteins fysiske begreber. Hans fortid som økonomisk prognosemager er enestående.

Det er bemærkelsesværdigt, at den kinesiske økonomiske model har meget til fælles med det amerikanske økonomiske system, hvilket blandt andet har at gøre med Sun Yat-sens rolle og de bedre perioder af amerikansk-kinesisk samarbejde.

Fysisk økonomi er ikke en specialiseret gren af videnskab; snarere omfatter den hele den menneskelige viden, da den vedrører kreativiteten hos mennesker som sådan. Hvad der er brug for i dag, er en fuldstændig omdefinering af, hvad økonomisk videnskab faktisk er, for hvilket nye platforme inden for rumvidenskab og rumøkonomi kan tjene til orientering.

Konferencen vil også være lejlighed til med stolthed at præsentere publikationen af det første bind af den planlagte udgave af Lyndon LaRouches ‘samlede værker’, som vil indeholde nogle af hans grundlæggende skrifter om fysisk økonomi.

Hvornår

Lørdag den 25. april, kl.16 dansk tid

Søndag den 26. april kl 17. dansk tid

Hvor

via Internet

Invitaiton:

Denne konference finder sted i en tid, som udfordrer vores moralske evne til at overleve. Selv før udbruddet af dobbeltkrisen med coronavirus-pandemien og det igangværende økonomiske sammenbrud stod det klart, at den gamle verdensorden – forsøget på at etablere en unipolær verdensorden efter Sovjetunionens opløsning – var ved at falde fra hinanden. Med spredningen af pandemien og centralbankernes kursændring til “helikopterpenge”, er vi nu nået til præcist det øjeblik, som Lyndon LaRouche advarede om i august 1971, da han forudsagde, at den monetaristiske flydende valutakurspolitik, der blev vedtaget af præsident Nixon, da han forlod Bretton Woods-systemet, ville føre til en ny depression og faren for en ny fascisme. Fra 1974 af advarede LaRouche og hans videnskabsteam gentagne gange og offentliggjorde adskillige undersøgelser, der pegede på faren for en genoplivning af gamle sygdomme og nye pandemier, som et resultat af den nedskæringspolitik som Verdensbanken og IMF pålagde udviklingssektoren.

Meget af den såkaldte ’vestlige verden’ ligger i ruiner. Afviklingen af et tidligere fremragende sundhedssystem af hensyn til privat profit, hvilket nu grelt demonstrerer det liberale etablissements kortsynethed, er kun et af de mange symptomer på et fejlslagent system. Den udviste mangel på solidaritet inden for denne vestlige alliance i krisetider, som det viser sig i kløften mellem USA og EU, såvel som mellem EU og dets medlemslande, er et andet sådant symptom – for ikke at nævne den foragtelige ligegyldighed overfor suveræniteten af, og menneskeliv i, landene i udviklingssektoren. Allerede før udbruddet af pandemien var EU’s moralske krise synlig for verden i lyset af EU’s politik for flygtningene samt indvandrerkrisen.

På den anden side tilbyder Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ (BRI) for første gang i historien et reelt perspektiv for at overvinde fattigdom og underudvikling til udviklingssektoren. Siden det blev lanceret i 2013, har 153 lande tilsluttet sig dette initiativ. Hvis man sammenligner BRI eller Den Nye Silkevej med de konkrete udviklingsplaner for alle kontinenter, der er udarbejdet af LaRouche og hans bevægelse siden 1970’erne, finder man stor affinitet, som det passende er udtrykt i adskillige studier… ‘Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen’, som er en plan for den globale udvikling af vores planet. Dette repræsenterer også den økonomiske platform for det nødvendige nye paradigme for internationale forbindelser, hvilket er det eneste, der kan stoppe den dobbelte pandemi med COVID-19 og den globale spekulative cancer på 1.800 billioner $.

Desværre er et stort segment af verdens liberale etablissement ikke villige til at reflektere over årsagerne til deres systems fiasko, og uvillige til at acceptere at samarbejde med det nye system, der tilbydes af BRI – selv under omstændigheder med pandemi og økonomisk sammenbrud. Men en fortsættelse af geopolitisk konfrontation under disse forhold udgør en trussel mod eksistensen af hele den menneskelige civilisation.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche har derfor fornyet det længe fremsatte forslag fra hendes afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, om at kun kombinationen af de fire mest magtfulde lande – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – kan sætte dagsordenen for et nyt paradigme på bordet. Hun har opfordret til et hastetopmøde mellem præsident Donald Trump, præsident Xi Jinping, præsident Vladimir Putin og premierminister Narendra Modi for at indlede den bydende nødvendige omorganisering af det bankerotte finanssystem gennem et nyt Bretton Woods-system og etableringen et nyt niveau af internationalt samarbejde om strategiske spørgsmål, fælles videnskabelige bestræbelser, fysisk økonomi og en kulturel renæssance.

Schiller Instituttet vil afholde en international konference over internettet den 25.-26. april, der vil samle førende eksperter på disse områder fra forskellige dele af verden, for at diskutere de principper – direkte med et internationalt publikum – som det nye paradigme må baseres på for at garantere den menneskelige arts vedvarende eksistens.

Konferenceformat

Denne internet-konference bliver streamet live. Oplægsholderne forbindes via video og vil få mulighed for at have dialog med hinanden under paneldiskussionerne. Der vil være mulighed for spørgsmål og diskussion med konferencedeltagere i skriftlig form, samt mulighed for at videospørgsmål kan fastlægges.

Den 18. marts. Helga Zepp-LaRouche offentliggjorde i dag en optagelse af følgende hasteudtalelse:

Dette er Helga Zepp-LaRouche som taler. Jeg er grundlægger og præsident af Schiller Instituttet.

Det er soleklart, at efter finansmarkedernes dramatiske rutschebanetur de seneste dage, er denne systemiske krise ved at komme ud af kontrol.

Den eneste løsning for at forhindre en yderligere ødelæggelse af den reelle økonomi, en dramatisk stigning i massearbejdsløshed og tab af menneskeliv blandt de fattige og sårbare dele af befolkningen er at lukke finansmarkederne ned.

Dette er et nødvendigt første skridt, for derefter at bruge denne bankferie til at gennemføre reorganiseringen af finanssystemet, begyndende med en global Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, præcis ligesom Franklin Roosevelt gjorde det i 1933.

Tiltagene, som blev taget af de europæiske regeringer samt USA, såsom at give kreditter til firmaer, udsættelse af skattebetalinger, og sågar mulig, direkte uddeling af penge – såkaldte helikopterpenge – selvom intentionen er at sørge for at industrier, institutioner og arbejdsstyrken kan fungere, vil ikke være tilstrækkelige, fordi systemet er håbløst bankerot.

Størstedelen af de enorme mængder af likviditet, som er blevet indskudt i dette fallerede monetære system efter 2008, og dernæst i et stigende omfang efter den 17. september, 2019, har blot forøget kasinoøkonomiens aktivitet og spekulanternes vanvid. Centralbankernes forsøg på at vedligeholde denne spekulative sektor, kan kun føre til en hyperinflationær eksplosion som i Tyskland i 1923.

Lukningen af finansmarkederne må gå hånd i hånd med et øjeblikkeligt hastetopmøde mellem verdens vigtigste regeringer – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – med andres støtte, for at træffe en beslutning om den presserende reorganisering af finanssystemet og oprettelsen af et Nyt Bretton Woods-system, som dette var tilsigtet af Franklin Roosevelt og forlangt af Lyndon LaRouche, for at genstarte den fysiske økonomi verden over.

Sådanne omgående skridt er uundværlige, eftersom coronavirus-pandemien kun kan bringes under kontrol, hvis virussets spredning stoppes og et tilstrækkeligt sundhedsvæsen er etableret i hvert land.
Dette er en lakmusprøve for at afgøre, om menneskeheden har den moralske egnethed til at overleve.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the International Schiller Institute, called for closing the financial markets to halt the inevitable collapse of the global casino economy and to reorganize it, shutting down the speculative financial operations which have preyed on the global economy.

Transcript:

This is Helga Zepp-LaRouche speaking. I am the founder and president of the Schiller Institute.

It is absolutely clear, that after the rollercoaster, dramatic losses of the financial markets in the recent days, the systemic crisis is spinning out of control.

The only remedy to prevent a further devastation of the real economy, a dramatic increase of mass unemployment and the loss of lives of the poor and vulnerable segments of the population is to close down the financial markets.

This is the necessary first step, to then use this banking holiday to implement the reorganization of the financial system, starting with a global Glass-Steagall separation of the banks, exactly as Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933.

The measures which were taken by the European governments and the United States, such as credits for enterprises, delays in tax payments, and even possible direct handouts of money—the so-called helicopter money—while intended to keep the functions of industry, institutions and the workforce going, will not be sufficient, because the system is hopelessly bankrupt.

Most of the enormous amounts of liquidity which have been injected into this bankrupt monetary system after 2008, and in an escalated way after September 17, 2019, has just increased the activity of the casino economy and the frenzy of the speculators. The effort by the central banks to maintain that speculative sector can only lead to a hyperinflationary blowout as in Germany in 1923.

The closing of the financial markets must be accompanied by an immediate emergency summit of the most important governments of the world: the United States, China, Russia and India—supported by others, to determine the urgent reorganization of the financial system and the establishment of a New Bretton Woods system, as it was intended by Franklin D. Roosevelt and called for by Lyndon LaRouche, to restart the physical economy worldwide.

Such immediate steps are indispensable, since the coronavirus pandemic can only be brought under control if the spread of the virus is stopped and an adequate health system is established in every country.

This is a test, to determine if humanity has the moral fitness to survive.

https://www.larouchepac.com/20200318/urgent-helga-zepp-larouche-calls-immediate-banking-holiday

Den 6. januar 2020 – Hvis verden skal undslippe en spiral af gengældelser og modgengældelser i kølvandet på drabet på den iranske generalmajor Soleimani og den irakiske vicegeneral Muhandis, må præsidenterne for USA, Rusland og Kina indkalde til et hastetopmøde for at drøfte den aktuelle krise i Sydvestasien og løsningen på denne krise.

For 75 år siden stod USA, Rusland og Kina sammen i den globale kamp, der besejrede fascismen, og i dag må disse præsidenter handle i samdrægtighed for at redde freden.

Den 3. januar udsendte grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, en hasteerklæring, der konkluderede: ”Det er klart, at der mellem præsident Trump – som lovede at afslutte de uendelige krige og allerede har taget adskillige skridt i den retning – og præsidenterne Putin og Xi, er en hensigt og en evne til at udmanøvrere krigshøgene og etablere et samarbejde på et højere niveau. Dette potentiale er grunden til, at kuppet – ‘Russiagate’ og nu rigsretssagen – er blevet iscenesat imod Trump. Nu er tiden inde for disse tre fremragende ledere til at opfylde det potentiale, som det historiske forsyn har skænket dem.”

Krisen:

Enhver verdenskrig og større krig i det forrige århundrede er blevet udløst af det britiske imperiums geopolitiske politik for permanent krigsførelse, der spiller nationer ud imod hinanden for at bevare dets magt som en global elite.

Intetsteds har virkningerne af denne onde imperialistiske politik med at sætte nationer, folk, religioner og grupperinger op mod hinanden været mere udtalt end i Mellemøsten, hvor denne politik blev samordnet af Sykes-Picot-traktaten, oprettet af de britiske og franske imperialister efter Første Verdenskrig.

I fuld forståelse af denne historie, gav Lyndon LaRouche i en tale, der blev holdt for 15 år siden, rammerne til at forstå og handle på dagens aktuelle krise.

”Og når man ser på mulighederne for denne region, Sydvestasien, vil den eneste chance ikke komme inde fra Sydvestasien selv. Vi vil, og må gøre, hvad vi kan for at forsøge at stoppe blodudgydelsen, smerten, for at forhindre krigen i dette område. Men vi vil ikke lykkes, før vi ændrer historien, ændrer den verden, som denne region er indeholdt i.”

Løsningen:

Derfor opfordrer vi præsident Trump til at mødes med præsidenterne Putin og Xi for ikke alene at tackle den umiddelbare fare for krig i Sydvestasien, men at gøre det med varig virkning ved at skabe et nyt paradigme for verden – for at ændre verden, som LaRouche sagde.

Et sådant paradigme må baseres på principperne i den ‘Westfalske Fred’, traktaten der afsluttede 30-års krigen i Europa. De krigsførende nationer brød cirklen af gengældelse og hævn og handlede til “fordel for de andre”.

Et sådant paradigme må gøre en ende på geopolitik og imperialisme, og etablere en ny finansiel og strategisk arkitektur for verden, baseret på forsvar af alle nationers suverænitet og kulturelle integritet.

USA, Kina, Rusland og andre nationer såsom Indien, må agere for at etablere en fælles plan for den økonomiske udvikling i hele regionen, i tråd med den politik, der er fremlagt af Lyndon LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche gennem årtier, og som nu gennemføres i form af Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ.

En sådan politik vil realisere LaRouches vision: ”Der findes en løsning, en principiel løsning. Og løsningen er: Afslut dette fordømte imperialistiske system! Og forstå, at vi som mennesker skal udvikle vores åndelige kultur; det vil sige menneskets kreative evner, til at videreføre udviklingen af menneskeheden.”

Skriv under på den internationale appel på LaRouchePAC.com via dette link.

https://action.larouchepac.com/trump_putin_xi_emergency_summit_petition

Skriv under på den forkortet danske version på skriveunder.net her.

https://www.skrivunder.net/prasidenterne_for_usa_rusland_og_kina_ma_holde_et_hastetopmode_for_at_takle_faren_for_krig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Del gerne det nedenstående flyveblad ud til unge mennesker:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Der er virkelig gode nyheder: Mennesket er et fornuftsvæsen og derfor ubegrænset med hensyn til intellektuel og moralsk perfektion! Vi kan gøre noget, som hverken æsler eller aber er i stand til: Vi kan, ubegrænset, opdage nye videnskabelige principper for det univers, hvori vi lever! Og disse kvalitative opdagelser betyder, at vi i modsætning til æsler og aber, konstant kan omdefinere hvad ressourcer er, og derfor gøre dem ubegrænsede, og at vi kan fortsætte med at forbedre menneskehedens levebrød!

Vi oplever enestående, fascinerende videnskabelige revolutioner: Kineserne udforsker bagsiden af Månen med deres Chang’e-Måne-missioner, hvor de planlægger minedrift af helium-3 som brændstof til den kommende fusionsøkonomi på Jorden, og næste år vil en mission til Mars undersøge betingelserne for terraformning (processen med at modificere en planet, måne eller andet himmellegeme til beboelige forhold, red.) af den røde planet. Med deres Chandrayaan-2-mission til sydpolen af Månen, vil inderne udforske isen i kraterne, som altid er i skyggen, og dermed er en af de vigtigste forudsætninger for livet på Månen. Det Europæiske Rumagentur (ESA) arbejder på konkrete planer for internationalt samarbejde om en permanent landsby på Månen! USA bygger med sit Artemis-program videre på Kennedys Apollo-program, og Rusland, USA, og Kina ser alle atomdrevne rumskibe som det rigtige valg til fremtidige flyvninger til Mars og videre ud i det ydre rum!

Det fantastiske ved at rejse i rummet er at det beviser, at vi ikke lever i et lukket system med begrænsede råvarer, og hvor de morderiske synspunkter af Thomas Malthus, Julian Huxley, Bertrand Russell og prins Philip ville være korrekte, men at vi tværtimod lever i et anti-entropisk univers. Rumrejser er det ubestridelige bevis på, at universet er ”adlyder” en fyldestgørende hypotese om det menneskelige sind, og at der derfor er absolut sammenhæng mellem de immaterielle ideer produceret af fornuften og de fysiske love i dette univers, og at disse ideer danner spidsen for universets anti-entropiske dynamik.

Der har fornyelig været banebrydende beviser: omkring 100 år efter Einsteins teser om eksistensen af gravitationsbølger og sorte huller, er forandringer i rumtid nu blevet bevist, og kort tid derefter er der, ved hjælp af otte radioteleskoper fordelt over hele verden, blevet frembragt billeder af et område omkring et sort hul, hvis masse er 6,5 milliarder gange større end Solens, og som ligger i centrum af M87-galaksen, 55 millioner lysår væk. Der er stadig så meget at opdage i vores univers, hvor der ifølge Hubble-teleskopet findes mindst to billioner galakser! Rumforskningen åbner for en dybere indsigt i hvordan universets love fungerer, og hvilken rolle vi mennesker spiller i det!

Dette er den livsbekræftende kulturelle optimisme, der følger med ideen om menneskeheden som en rumfarende art, i fuldstændig modsætning til den konstruerede dommedagsatmosfære, som spredes af apostlene for den kommende apokalypse – såsom prins Charles og kapitalfondenes forsidepige, Greta Thunberg. Bag hysteriet om Greta står ganske nederdrægtige interesser: Det transatlantiske finanssystem står over for et endnu større krak end i 2008, og finansielle hajer og græshopper i City of London og Wall Street forsøger med en sidste stor handel at styre så mange investeringer ind i “grøn” teknologi som muligt, inden den systemiske krise rammer.

Et nærmere kig på sponsorerne af Gretas ekstremt ambitiøse og velfinansierede dagsorden samt ’Extinction Rebellion’ (XR) og ‘Fridays

For Future’ (F4F) afslører, at disse bevægelser finansieres af de rigeste mennesker på Jorden, inklusive Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros og Ted Turner. Faktum er, at de, der nyder godt af klimahysteriet og ‘the Green New Deal’, er banker og hedgefonde.

Målgruppen for denne hidtil usete manipulation er Jer, børn og teenagere i denne verden! Burde det ikke få dig til at stoppe op og tænke, når dine påståede “oprørere” understøttes af hele spektret af mainstream medier og hele det liberale etablissement? Og dog er den afskyelige idé, at manipulation af et paradigmeskifte for et helt samfund må begynde med indoktrinering af børn ikke noget nyt. Allerede i 1951 skrev Lord Bertrand Russell i sin artikel “The Impact of Science on Society” (Videnskabens indflydelse på Samfundet):

”Jeg mener, at det emne der vil være af største politiske betydning er massepsykologi… Dets betydning er blevet enormt forøget med væksten i moderne propagandametoder… Man kan håbe, at det med tiden vil være muligt at overbevise enhver om hvad som helst, hvis man kan fange patienten ung, og staten leverer penge og udstyr. Fremtidens socialpsykologer vil have et antal klasser af skolebørn, som de vil afprøve forskellige metoder på til at frembringe en urokkelig overbevisning om, at sne er sort. …der kan ikke gøres meget, medmindre indoktrineringen begynder før tiårs-alderen.”

Formålet med den apokalyptiske skræmmekampagne af folk som Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“Vi har kun 12 år tilbage!”) eller prins Charles, overhoved for det britiske statssamfund, Commonwealth, (“Vi har kun18 måneder tilbage! “), er at fremkalde en radikal ændring i menneskehedens livsstil.  Alt hvad vi har forstået ved fremskridt i løbet af de sidste 250 år burde opgives, og vi burde vende tilbage til det teknologiske niveau, der eksisterede før den industrielle revolution. Men dette betyder også, at antallet af mennesker, der kan opretholde livet på dette niveau vil falde til omkring en milliard eller mindre.

Det vil betyde, at udviklingslandene ikke nogensinde ville have udsigt til at undslippe fattigdom, sult, epidemier og forkortet levetid; det ville være et folkedrab på et ufatteligt stort antal mennesker! Hvis “klimaforsker” Mojib Latifat mener, at den vestlige livsstil ikke kan overføres til alle mennesker i verden, og hvis Barack Obama raser over, at mange unge mennesker i Afrika ønsker at have en bil, aircondition og et stort hus, er det den umenneskelige arrogance fra medlemmer den privilegerede overklasse der ligger bag. Det er netop dette synspunkt fra de koloniale herskere, der er ansvarlig for det faktum, at Afrika og meget af Latinamerika stadig er underudviklet, og at mange hundreder af millioner af mennesker er døde unødig tidligt.

For udviklingslandene er pseudo-religionen med menneskeskabte klimaændringer ensbetydende med folkedrab, men for sjælen hos verdens unge mennesker er den kulturelle pessimisme som den fremkalder en gift, der ødelægger troen på menneskelig kreativitet. Når alt bliver til et problem og pludselig er forbundet med skyldfølelser – spisning af kød eller spisning i det hele taget, bilkørsel, flyvning opvarmning af hjemmet, tøj og faktisk selve livet – så ødelægger det enhver entusiasme for opdagelse, enhver entusiasme for det der er smukt, og alt håb for fremtiden. Og hvis hvert menneske betragtes som blot endnu en parasit, der ødelægger miljøet, kommer ganske mange frem til de samme misantropiske konklusioner som gerningsmændene bag masseskyderierne i Christchurch og El Paso, der i deres ‘manifester’ angav miljømæssige årsager til deres handlinger.

Omvendt er de videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt forbundet med rumrejser nøglen til at overvinde alle tilsyneladende begrænsninger af vores nuværende eksistens på Jorden. ‘Terraformning’ – oprettelsen af menneskelige forhold – bliver således mulig, ikke kun på Månen og Mars, men også her på Jorden, og i fremtiden på mange himmellegemer i vores solsystem og muligvis hinsides.

I sin bog “Anthropology of Astronautics”, skriver den tysk-amerikanske rumpionerer Krafft Ehricke:

”Begrebet om rumrejser har en enorm indvirkning, fordi det udfordrer mennesket på praktisk talt alle fronter af dets fysiske og åndelige eksistens. Ideen om at rejse til andre himmellegemer afspejler i den højeste grad uafhængighed og smidighed af det menneskelige sind. Det giver menneskets tekniske og videnskabelige bestræbelser den højeste værdighed. Først og fremmest berører det filosofien om selve den menneskelige eksistens. Som resultat heraf ignorerer begrebet om rumrejser nationale grænser, afviser at anerkende forskelle af historisk eller etnologisk oprindelse, og trænger helt ind i karakteren af såvel den ene som den anden sociologiske eller politiske trosbekendelse.”

I dag har vi brug for dette kulturelt optimistiske billede af mennesket og den lidenskabelige kærlighed til menneskeheden forbundet med det, som den eneste hidtil kendte kreative art! Det faktum at vi kan vove os ud i rummet betyder, at vi kan overvinde den snæversynede, jordbundne tankegang. ”Derude, blandt stjernerne, ligger menneskehedens indtræden i den længe ventede fornuftens tidsalder, når vores art omsider kaster de kulturelle rester af dyrelivet af os”, som Lyndon LaRouche udtrykte det. Det er et utroligt privilegium at være ung nu, at række ud efter stjernerne og hjælpe med at forme en epoke for menneskeheden, hvor vi for første gang i historien kan slippe vores arts ubegrænsede potentiale løs!

Skriv gerne under for at rense LaRouches navn: klik her.

Læs også afskriftet (på engelsk) nedenunder.

Trailer:

Den 21. juni offentligjorde LaRouchePAC en 80-minutters dokumentarfilm, som opfordrer til at rense Lyndon LaRouches navn, “Hvorfor Lyndon LaRouches navn skal renses” (primært med uddrag af de uafhængige høringer fra 1995 om justitsministeriets embedsmisbrug – med Lyndon LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, USA’s fhv. justisminister Ramsey Clark, og LaRouches sagfører Odin Anderson).

Hjælp med at få denne nye video til at gå viralt.

I samarbejde med Helga LaRouche lancerer vi en international mobilisering for at få så mange som muligt (medlemmer, tilhængere, aktivister, kontakter osv.) til at dele, promovere og sprede videoen.

Kan du gøre en særlig indsats for at nå ud til kontakter med vigtige e-mail-lister, hjemmesider, blogs, Twitter, Facebook osv. og bede dem om at cirkulere dokumentaren. (Du kan naturligvis også hjælpe ved at promovere det via dine egne lister/sociale medier/eller hjemmeside)

Med den rette koordinerede indsats kan vi få videoen til at gå viralt.

Afskrift på engelsk:

The Case of LaRouche: Robert Mueller’s First Hit Job 

The Case for the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche 

June 21, 2019 

[music] 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  The most important in history is ideas, especially those ideas which move mankind forward; which are ideas which make the life of generations to come more human.   

For me, the biggest crime of what happened to my husband is not that he was innocently in jail.  I’m not saying it was not a hard time, because it was.  But the lack of the ability to have important ideas govern history; that is the biggest crime.  Lyn, while he was incredibly courageous of producing creative work while he was in prison — I mean, he did more in prison than any of us outside, and he put us to shame.   

But nevertheless, I will only give you one example.  In 1989, he was already in jail for nearly one year, when the borders of Europe opened.  He, from his prison cell, designed a great vision of how to integrate Eastern Europe, Western Europe, China, the whole Eurasian continent, which would have been a groundbreaking conception which would have put the entire history of the 20th century on a totally new basis.  Because economically, to integrate that economic space as one would have given opportunities and freedom to the states of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the Asian countries.  But because Lyn was in jail, this idea did not become as effective as if he would have been free. 

Now, I’m saying this because to put a man of great ideas into jail is a crime all by itself, because of the ideas.  The reason why we were able to mobilize hundreds of parliamentarians and thousands of VIPs from around the globe — why would people from Africa sign the parole request for Lyndon LaRouche?  Why would people from Latin America do this?  Why would people from around the world, from Russia; why would people come out of completely different cultural worlds to fight for this man?  Well, because we not only said this man must be free and his innocence must be proven, but they, many of them told me and others that they understand that the kind of change in global policy my husband is standing for, the kind of just new world economic order which allows the economic development of Africa; which allows the economic development of the developing countries, of Eastern Europe, they say is the only hope for them, for their nation, as far away as it may be. 

So, the reason why we must win is not because it’s a personal affair.  But as my husband was saying, we are going into a period of crisis, which most people are completely unaware of.  The kinds of changes have to be big, and they have to be done with the help of the United States, because the world cannot be saved against the United States.   

So, it is an historical necessity.  And I think in a certain sense, given the experience I have from eight years of fighting this, given the fact that more and more people around the globe are united around this and understand that mankind is sitting in one boat this time; that either we solve all our problems at once, or nobody will live.  I think we can win, and I think we must have that attitude. [applause] 

NARRATOR:  On August 31st and September 1st, 1995, a series of extraordinary hearings were convened in Tysons Corner, Virginia, to investigate gross misconduct by the U.S. Department of Justice.  The hearings were chaired by former U.S. Congressman James Mann of South Carolina and J.L. Chestnut of Alabama — the great lawyer and icon of the Civil Rights movement.  The hearings focussed on abuses by the U.S. Department of Justice, highlighting the onslaughts of targetted criminal cases against black elected officials in the United States — dubbed “Operation Fruehmenschen” according to FBI whistleblowers and Congressman Merv Dymally of California; as well as the case of Lyndon LaRouche. 

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  My case may be, as Ramsey Clark described it, the most extensive and the highest level of these cases, in terms of the duration and scope of the operation. 

NARRATOR:  Witnesses included:  LaRouche’s attorney, Odin Anderson; former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who had been LaRouche’s defense attorney in his appeal; Lyndon LaRouche’s wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche — from whom you just heard; and Lyndon LaRouche himself.  The panel was comprised of leading national and international political figures, including the former Vice Premier of Slovakia, Jozef Miklosko; numerous state senators and other elected officials from across the United States; as well as Chor-Bishop of the Maronite Church, Monsignor Elias el-Hayek.  Numerous international observers were present, including legendary Civil Rights heroine Amelia Boynton Robinson of Selma, Alabama. 

As you will hear, these hearings demonstrated not just the injustice which was perpetrated against leading U.S. political officials by the Department of Justice because of their political views — exemplified by the case of Lyndon LaRouche — but the inherent danger at that time that such abuses, if left unchecked, could subsequently threaten the very existence of our Constitutional republic itself; a fight we see playing out today as we speak at the very highest level of our government, in the form of the attempted takedown of the U.S. Presidency. 

[from Oct. 6, 1986] 

NEWS REPORTER 1:  The raid command post, about three miles from town, was busy all night.  Just before dawn, Virginia State Police moved out.  It was a combined strike force, including FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, and other Federal and state agents.  As FBI agents approached LaRouche’s estate in Leesburg, Virginia, 50 miles from Washington, police lined up outside. 

NEWS REPORTER 2:  Good evening.  Federal and state agents today raided the Leesburg, Virginia headquarters of political activist Lyndon LaRouche. 

NEWS REPORTER 3:  Today, it was a law enforcement assault here in Leesburg that set this town buzzing. 

NEWS REPORTER 4:  Scores of state and local police joined Federal agents in a coordinated, nationwide raid. 

NARRATOR:  On October 6, 1986, four hundred FBI, state police, IRS, ATF agents, and the national news media descended on Leesburg, Virginia, to search offices associated with the LaRouche political movement.  At a farm outside Leesburg, where Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche were staying, heavily armed agents dressed in full tactical gear patrolled the perimeter as armored personnel carriers surrounded the property, and helicopters buzzed constantly overhead.   

In addition the materials specified in the Federal search warrant, according to later court testimony, the FBI case agent in charge was searching for evidence by which to obtain an arrest warrant for Lyndon LaRouche himself and a search warrant to allow armed entry to the farm.  A plan was in place to provoke a firefight with LaRouche’s security guards, to take out LaRouche, which was admitted years later. 

During the evening of October 6th, moves to implement that plan seemed to begin with news stations broadcasting that now an assault was about to occur on the farm.  A telegram was sent in LaRouche’s name to President Ronald Reagan, seeking his intervention to call off the raid.  Coincidentally, at exactly the same time, President Reagan was in Reykjavik, Iceland, refusing to back down in negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev on his commitment to the so-called SDI — the Strategic Defense Initiative.  The same SDI that Lyndon LaRouche had worked for years alongside top officials in the Reagan Administration to craft and support. 

LAROUCHE:  A first-generation of strategic ballistic missile defense … 

NARRATOR:  Only after this telegram to Ronald Reagan was sent did the forces surrounding the farm begin to dissipate and recede.  However, this was merely the opening chapter, in a concerted campaign involving elements within the Justice Department to target and dismantle the political operation of Lyndon LaRouche.  A campaign which astute observers of this case would readily compare to the operation underway, today, against none other than President Donald J. Trump.  There are striking similarities between the LaRouche case and the present attempt to prosecute or impeach Donald Trump. 

The first one is that both cases with a British call for prosecution and criminal investigation.  In LaRouche’s case, British intelligence sent a letter to the FBI in 1982, demanding investigation because LaRouche, the British claimed, was an agent of Soviet disinformation.  At the same time, Henry Kissinger and the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board triggered a counterintelligence investigation of LaRouche under Executive Order 12333.  In the Trump case, the British government began demanding Trump’s head as early as 2015; and have bragged to the {Guardian} and other British newspapers that their spying was the origin of Russiagate. 

Both cases shared a legal hit man in the form of prosecutor Robert Mueller.  And, both cases involved the employment of the criminal law enforcement and intelligence capacities of the United States to defeat and silence a political opponent for political reasons; something which violates the very core principles of the U.S. Constitution.  In LaRouche’s case, the effort was to permanently demonize him, in order to bury his ideas, precisely as Helga LaRouche stated in her testimony. 

As can be seen, the failure to challenge the gross abuses of justice, perpetrated by the Justice Department in the case of Lyndon LaRouche, has now brought us to the point, where the very Constitutional system on which our republic depends is being threatened. 

REP. JAMES MANN:  All right, the session will come to order. 

NARRATOR:  Let’s hear from Lyndon LaRouche’s lawyer, Mr. Odin Anderson of Boston, Massachusetts. 

MANN:  As we attempt to study the broad subject of misconduct by the Department of Justice … we cannot overlook the case that is perhaps the most pervasive (and I’m stealing the words from Ramsey Clark, I think), most pervasive course of misconduct by the Department of Justice, in the history of this country: broader-based, longstanding, abuse of power beyond expression, abuse of power through the use of Federal agencies, including, even, a Bankruptcy Court. 

Throughout the days of the LaRouche ordeal of criminal charges, Odin Anderson, a lawyer from Boston, has been the solid rock of criminal defense and counsel, far and above any other person. He can, therefore, speak to the subject of misconduct, or such facets of that as he may choose to discuss, better than anybody, with the possible exception of Lyndon and Helga. He has, literally, devoted a major portion of his life in the last 7 or 8 years, 8 or 9 years, to that task.  And we appreciate him taking the time to be here from Boston, to make some such statement as he wishes to make, and be responsive to questions. 

Thank you. 

ODIN ANDERSON:  Thank you, Congressman, honorable panel. It’s I who thank you for this opportunity to speak about the LaRouche case. 

I’m thankful, as I looked up and counted names, there are only 11 of you. If there had been a 12th, I would have been tempted to re-try this case in front of you, assured, I think, that Mr. LaRouche would finally get a fair trial…. 

I have represented Lyndon LaRouche since 1984, at which time he was directly targetted by the Department of Justice, through its U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, although there is a history of many years of harassment prior to that…. 

Back in the late ’60s, you probably all remember a student organization called the Students for a Democratic Society, (SDS); very active on campuses, particularly around the Vietnam War, but on many other issues of political importance to the United States; economic, social, a broad range of issues. 

Mr. LaRouche, and a number of political associates of his, became involved in those very same issues. But they had a difficulty with SDS, and essentially founded their own group, which became known, originally as a faction of SDS, the Labor Committees. They ultimately became known as the National Caucus of Labor Committees, which was and remains a political association … of people who share like political views. 

Probably the best way to demonstrate the government’s venal behavior, and the unconstitutional activities undertaken, directed out of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, is to show you their own documents, and read to you their own words. And, by way of history, I’d like to have No. 1 put up on the screen. 

What you see before you, is an FBI memorandum from the SAC, the Special Agent-in-Charge, of the New York Field Office of the FBI, to the Director. It’s dated March 1969. And, it requests authorization of the Director to issue a false leaflet, to stir up antagonisms between these various aspects of SDS. Now, I’m sure that’s a tactic familiar to all of you, if in slightly different form. They want to disseminate this leaflet under false cover, to various of these groups, and stir up as much controversy between them, hopefully, undermining their ability to act in concert, and getting them into faction fights, which would destroy their efficiency and cohesion. 

Well, if you put up No. 2, you’ll see that they got that authority from the Director of the FBI, and his blessing: “Authority is granted to anonymously mail copies of the leaflet submitted.” Now, I’m not going to bother to show you the leaflet, because it’s a piece of scurrilous garbage. It’s available for anyone who would like to see it. It was called “The Mouse Crap Revolution,” but its intent and purpose was exactly as defined in the letters. {This} is the Department of Justice, {this} is the FBI at work in the 1960s, under — if you look at the bottom —  what was called “Cointelpro,” or “Counterintelligence Program.”… 

So in 1969 and the 1970s, this was the kind of activity which was going on against the LaRouche political movement, and many others, including people you’re well acquainted with personally. 

If we could move on to the next overlay [No. 3]. This is to the Director, again from the SAC in New York, regarding the named subject, Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr., also known as Lynn Marcus, as they suggest. This is one of the most incredible pieces of FBI material that I have ever seen…. 

What this suggests, is that the Communist Party has let the FBI know, that they want to eliminate Lyndon LaRouche, for their political reasons. They consider him to be a “politically dangerous person,” and the Communist Party wants to eliminate him. 

If you look at the bottom, “New York proposes submitting a blind memorandum to the {Daily World},” to foster these efforts. Here’s the FBI climbing in bed with the Communist Party, in order to effect the elimination of Lyndon LaRouche from the political scene. I think we all know what that means. And they go on to say, that it’s believed, that once LaRouche is eliminated, the political effectiveness of the National Caucus of Labor Committees will, thereby, be diminished, and it will cease to be of any political significance. Here, again, is the FBI, in the ’70s, in operation. 

Years went by, and the members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees continued their political efforts. Now, they are considered, Mr. LaRouche is considered, extremely controversial by many. Those he’s considered controversial by, tend to be those whose policies are inconsistent with his, or those that he has named as operating against the best interests of the society and peoples of the United States. And we all know, that those people tend to be very powerful people…. 

Henry Kissinger, who we all know by name, and some probably remember by reputation and actions, was a very powerful man. Mr. LaRouche took exception with his policies, which he considered to be genocidal, particularly in the context of the financial policies, and the conditionalities imposed on the Third World in order to get money from the World Bank, and got into a serious row with Mr. Kissinger. 

And Mr. Kissinger writes to (on his letterhead) William Webster, the Director of the FBI [Exhibit No. 4]. They had recently had a lovely social occasion together at the place called the Grove, where these powers associate, and frolic around, in various curious ways. And after that, he [Kissinger] appreciates having seen him there, and asks for the assistance of Bill Webster in dealing with “the LaRouche menace.”… 

Here is [Exhibit No. 5]– within the short period thereafter, “Buck” Revell, who was the head of counterintelligence for the FBI, at the time, is sent this memorandum by William Webster, who had been contacted by David Abshire of PFIAB, that’s the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. And these same parties, Henry Kissinger and his colleagues, are now raising before PFIAB, the question as to whether LaRouche, because he seems to have funding from sources that they don’t understand, is operating as a foreign intelligence agent, and they want them to look into this. 

Now, what that does, and the words are bad enough, but the reality is terrifying. This triggers the Executive Order I referred to earlier, Executive Order 12333, which allows virtually {any form of conduct, any activity}, to be undertaken, as long as it’s under this national security cover. So, this was the beginning of a national security-covered operation against Mr. LaRouche and his colleagues…. 

The common denominator between all of these cases is twofold. It’s, as I said, political targetting, and it’s the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. 

You probably also know, from your own experiences with colleagues who have run afoul of the situations that have been discussed, that the first place they try you, is in the press. Only {then} do they try you in the courts, once they’ve set the stage, once they’ve poisoned all the minds in the community against you, then, they haul you into court, where you can’t get a fair trial, because the jurors who are sitting there, have been told for days, months, years, or millennia, what a bad person you are, and what horrible offenses you’ve committed against the moral or social fabric of the community. 

Well, that’s precisely what happened in the LaRouche case, probably more so than in any other case…. In the LaRouche case, the press began, not by accident, because we all know who owns the press:  It’s not owned by individuals, and as a matter of fact, there’s an awful lot of ownership of the press which represents certain political and financial interests.   

So, the fact is that beginning in the same period of the 80s, a private financier in New York City, John Train, with reach into the media community, by virtue of his social and financial circumstances, convened a group of media types in a salon that he hosted in his apartment, to plan a press campaign against LaRouche, and his political movement. Their objective was threefold: to tar and feather Lyndon LaRouche and his colleagues as best they could; to advocate and press for prosecutions of any kind, in any place; and, ultimately, to destroy and jail LaRouche, and destroy the political movement which he headed. 

Among those who attended this meeting — and there were several of them, that we have evidence of, collected over a period of years, and admissions by people under oath —  were members of and persons associated with the intelligence community, as well as people with political axes to grind against Mr. LaRouche, such as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, who has, historically, done everything it could, financially and editorially, to label Mr. LaRouche as an anti-Semite, as a fascist, as a racist, as a “Hitler,” a “little Hitler,” and some of the most scurrilous names we can imagine hurling in another person’s face without basis. 

All of these parties, collectively,  — and unfortunately, this is the way these things operate; they don’t operate above board, they operate under the table where you can’t see them, because they don’t flourish well in the light of day, but the grow well in darkness.  They get together, and in fact, this has been referred to by others as part of the “secret government”: The powers that be that operate in conjunction with official agencies but are never seen or heard of. … 

I want to move on briefly and specifically to the LaRouche cases, which are, in fact, a series of cases, that began in 1984. 

In 1984, Mr. LaRouche, under his name, sued NBC and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, in Federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, on libel charges, on the basis of the accusations which I’ve already told you about. 

We tried that case. NBC lied through their teeth, in terms of what information we had. In fact, we had FBI documents that indicated that the NBC reporter had received proprietary and non-public information from four agencies of the federal government, with reference to Mr. LaRouche. 

So they make the stories up, and then they leak them to people who want to use them against you. … 

We sued NBC in Alexandria, Va. As soon as that case was over, NBC in Boston, on the very day — I had finished our presentation and was packing up to go back to Boston, published a so-called “investigative series” of theirs, alleging that certain persons associated with the LaRouche political campaign, had made false credit charges against certain contributors. And they [NBC] had a couple of contributors who got up and said, “you know, I met these people, and I gave them 35 bucks, and the next thing I knew, there was 100 bucks charged to my credit card.” 

Well, I’ll say one thing. Mr. LaRouche is very controversial. And people who contributed to them, frequently came under various types of criticism for that contribution. It could be their wife who says, “what’re you giving $100 away? We need to buy new shoes for the kids.” Or, it could be a neighbor, or a child.  And many times, the amounts of money were larger, so the reasons for opposing the contribution were even greater. 

But, if you know anything about credit cards, the only way a person can re-capture money charged to his credit card, which has been charged to the account, is to say “it was unauthorized.” Those are the magic words. If you don’t use the magic words, you can’t collect the $100. So, in order to reverse a credit card charge, one must say, “I never authorized it.” 

Therefore, what you’re alleging in that case — although the intent was probably not to make the allegation — but in fact you’re alleging that the person did it without your authority, which could be a criminal act. 

Now, they started an investigation around this, which they conducted for two years. It ultimately culminated in a trial in Boston. 

Of course, another thing you’ll all recognize from your personal experiences, is that when they want to charge you and they don’t have anything, they charge you with conspiracy; because then, they don’t have to prove anything! They just go around, tell a bunch of stories, and hope that the jury is poisoned against you, is going to link it all up somehow, and convict you. So “conspiracy” is the vehicle, and that’s precisely what happened in Boston: LaRouche and his colleagues were charged with conspiracy, with a few other specific charges linked on as an afterthought. 

We tried the case for seven months. We weren’t even through with the government’s case, when the case mis-tried. The reason it mistried, is that the jury had been led to believe that the case would have been over long before, which it would have, had we been able to concentrate on the evidence. But, because of the hearings that the judge was forced to conduct for literally months and months, on governmental misconduct, the case dragged on, and the jury sat in the jury box. 

The jury ultimately got frustrated and … wanted to go home, and the case mistried. 

This is an article from the {Boston Herald} that printed that day. [Exhibit No. 6] I’m only showing it to you for one reason, not because of the highlight, “LaRouche Jury Would Have Voted `Not Guilty'”  — although that’s true, and those come out of the words of the jury foreman, who was interviewed  — but, in the first line of text, there are some very important words, from the foreman: 

“`We would have acquitted everybody at this point, and that’s based on prosecution evidence’, said foreman Dashawetz. “There was too much question of government misconduct in what was happening to the LaRouche campaign.'” 

“Government misconduct.” Very seldom do you get a jury to see it, because the government fights you {nail and tooth}. They lie, they cover up evidence, they, in fact, deny information to their own agents, so that the agent won’t be in a position to have to intentionally not disclose it. These are common tactics, and that’s what happened here. Fortunately, in our case, we were able to show enough of it to the jury, so that the jury got the smell. 

However, the government wasn’t about to quit, particularly having taken what was a serious public relations beating at that point in time. So, they decided to switch forums, come down to a much more favorable forum,  — {the} most favorable forum —  the Eastern District of Virginia: the so-called “rocket docket,” the home of almost every government agency, and government contractor in the country, with a few other pockets here and there. 

They brought the case down to there, indicted the case, and brought us to trial. New charges, new defendants. LaRouche was also indicted, so he was one of the few who was also charged the second time — and forced the case from indictment to trial in 28 days. 

There’s a great book, and it’s not a novel, it’s a factual book. It is the history of the case shown by the documents of the case; it’s called {Railroad!} and I commend it to your attention. If you’re to see how that system worked in this particular case, it’s all there, and it’s not somebody else’s words, it’s the words from the court documents. 

In any event, LaRouche was convicted, as were all of his co-defendants, {again}, on conspiracy charges. That was the seminal charge, the rest were just tacked on. This time it wasn’t credit cards. It was allegations of wire fraud, the allegation being that loans were taken from contributors, without intent to repay, or with reckless disregard of that fact that payment wouldn’t take place. 

Now, these were political loans, made in the political context, by political people, to a political candidate, and his political candidacy. Everybody knew that…. 

Back in Boston, the grand jury that was investigating the case, held certain businesses associated with Mr. LaRouche in contempt of court, for not producing documents which were under subpoena, which were being fought during a period of time based on various privacy grounds. 

Twenty million dollars’ worth of contempt sanctions were imposed. The government then sought to collect that $20 million, by filing an involuntary bankruptcy against these organizations in Alexandria, Virginia, just prior to — not just prior —  but at some point prior to the Alexandria indictments. 

They also did this, {ex parte}. The government was the {only} creditor —  in violation of federal law. But, by virtue of their {ex parte} petition to the judge, they were able to effect the closing of these four businesses, all of which were engaged in First Amendment advocacy and publication. These businesses were closed. They were seized by Federal marshals. They never reopened. The publications were never reprinted. 

The $20 million the government sought, was a ruse. In fact, what they intended to do, and what they did do, was close the conspiracy that they alleged in the Alexandria indictments, on the very day that they filed the bankruptcy. The point of the bankruptcy being that from the moment a bankruptcy is filed, an order issued, that no one can pay any debts without order of the court. So it was physically impossible for any debts to be repaid after that, thereby creating a pool of persons who were owed money, who couldn’t be repaid. They [the government] got five or six of these people to come forward and say, “I was promised repayment and didn’t get it,” and that was the basis of the conviction for loan fraud. 

In any event, I want to say that we have fought as vigorously as anyone can through the appeals process, without success and through the {mandamus} process, 2255s in federal court.  And are now at a stage, where, Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States, who has been with me on all of the appeals,  — he joined the effort just after the sentencing of Mr. LaRouche and his colleagues in 1990.  Recently, he wrote a letter to the Attorney General, asking for a departmental review of the LaRouche case. I’d like to read you some portions of his letter.  He’ll be here tomorrow to speak to you personally.  I’d like to leave you with the following words of Ramsey Clark: 

“Dear Attorney General Reno, 

I have been an attorney in this case since shortly after the defendants were sentenced in January 1989 and appeared as co-counsel on appeal and on the subsequent motions and appeals in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255 and F.R. Cr.P. Rule 33. I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge. Three courts have now condemned the Department’s conduct in this prosecutorial campaign. The result has been a tragic miscarriage of justice which at this time can only be corrected by an objective review and courageous action by the Department of Justice.” 

MANN:  The session will come to order.  The session will come to order. 

We are pleased and honored to have with us today, the former Attorney General of the United States Ramsey Clark, who will make such presentation as he may choose.  Attorney General. 

RAMSEY CLARK: Thank you very much. It’s a good feeling to be here with you again this year. I wish I could say it’s been a good year for freedom and justice under law, but I can’t say that. But at least, in this company, you know that the struggle goes on, and that we shall overcome. 

I will, probably, unless my mind wanders, which it does, talk about three cases primarily.  And I’ll start and end, with the case of Lyndon LaRouche and his co-defendants. not because it’s the Alpha and Omega, although it’s about as close as a case gets to the potential perfidy of justice, but because it shows how bad it can be, and yet, it has, as so very, very few of these cases ever do, a positive side that we have to consider. 

I came into the case after the trial. As a person who lives in the country and pays attention to these things, I followed it carefully. I knew something about the ways of the judicial district in which the case was filed and the meaning of filing a case there. To call it the “rocket docket” is a disservice, unless you identify the rocket, because if there’s a rocket in present use that would be similar, it would be the so-called depleted uranium-tipped missile, the silver bullet used in Iraq. 

In other words, it’s a lethal rocket. It’s not a rocket that sought truth or intended justice. … 

I was prepared, therefore, for what might happen. I had followed the earlier case in Boston, which, by any measure, was an extremely peculiar case, both in its charges and its prosecution, and in its history. I knew the judge there as a fellow Texan. His brother, Page Keeton, had been dean of the law school where I started out, down at the University of Texas. And he’s one of the old school, that doesn’t like tricks, falsity, or injustice. He became outraged with the prosecution, and did a lot. I can’t tell you he did all that a judge could have done. I believe Odin would agree, though, he did a lot. And not many judges, who come through a political conditioning process, who have the courage to stand up to the power of the Executive Branch, to the FBI and others, and say the things that he did. And, that was almost an early end to a malicious prosecution. 

But, in what was a complex and pervasive a utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focussed on destroying an enemy, this case must be number one. There are some, where the government itself may have done more and more wrongfully over a period of time. But the very networking and combination of federal, state, and local agencies, of executive and even some legislative and judicial branches, of major media and minor local media, and of influential lobbyist types  — the ADL preeminently —  this case takes the prize. 

The purpose can only be seen as destroying–it’s more than a political movement, it’s more than a political figure. It {is} those two. But it’s a fertile engine of ideas, a common purpose of thinking and studying and analyzing to solve problems, regardless of the impact on the {status quo}, or on vested interests. It was a deliberate purpose to destroy that at any cost. … 

And yet, all this law enforcement was coming down on them. We didn’t have that kind of violence, that physical violence, in the LaRouche case. But the potential from one side was entirely there. The day they went out to seize 2 million documents, as I recall (I may be off a million or 2 million), a big warehouse! These people produce a lot of paper, and it’s not trash; it’s not bureaucratic paper-keeping; you may not agree with it, but it’s all saying things. They had several times more agents, armed, than the ATF force that initially attacked the Mount Carmel Church outside Waco on Feb. 28, 1993. They just didn’t have people on the other side, who were shooters…. 

I guess I’m really still caught with the idea, the old idea of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, that is ingrained in a lot of Americans, in particular, young lawyers, who are kind of idealistic and believe in the idea of freedom and the power of the word and the truth. I believe the truth can set us free. I think that’s the struggle. The real struggle, is whether we can see the truth in time…. The truth can set us free. 

In the LaRouche case, they’re book people. (I have to confess to an intellectual weakness: I find reading easier than thinking, so I read constantly, nearly blinded myself from too much reading. I’ve got 15,000 books at home, read most them, unfortunately. As you can tell, I haven’t learned much, but I haven’t stopped yet.) These are book people. They had publishing houses going on. Important publications. Non-profit stuff…. And the government comes in a completely — these are just some of the peripheral things, that Odin and others might not have explained to you, but these are what they were about:  {ideas}, information, social change! Meeting the needs of human people all over the world, humanity all over the world. 

We’re going to have a billion more people before the end of this millennium, century, decade, and the vast majority, 80% of them are going to have beautiful, darker skin. And they’re going to live short lives, {short lives} of sickness, hunger, pain, ignorance, and violence, {unless we act radically}. And these books have ideas! Some will work, some won’t work, but they’re ideas. They can be “tested in the marketplace,” as we used to say. 

And they [the government] come in with a {false} bankruptcy claim, against a non-profit publishing houses, and {shut ’em down!} What’s the First Amendment worth, you know? “We’ll silence you, you’ll have no books out there.” 

And not only that: then they take people who were contributing and supposed to be paid back their loans to the publisher, and try to prosecute, falsely, on it. They put on witnesses, to give false testimony. From the tens and tens of thousands of contributors, and thousands of people who gave loans, they came up with a baker’s dozen, roughly — 13, 14, 15 people — who got their feelings hurt, perhaps.  And some who were mean-spirited enough to lie about it, and who didn’t get their money back, although they were being paid back. Because anybody can have financial crunch, where you can’t pay back. 

Imagine what would happen to political campaigns in this country, if you enforced law strictly against those who are raising money like this, by inquiring about all the people who gave money; whether they got what they wanted, what they expected, and whether they were misled about it. Nobody could run for office.   

We know in this society that we are plutocracy, that money dominates politics, absolutely dominates it:  Read this new book {The Golden Rule} by Thomas Ferguson, University of Chicago Press, about the role of money in our democratic society, how it absolutely controls not just the elections, and not just the politicians, but the whole shebang!  The media, the military, the industry, everything.  And we call it “democracy.” 

We need some ideas, we need the good words out there. And that’s why it had to be stopped, and that’s why they came after him. 

I read the record — in addition to reading books, I read lots of records of trials.  Absolutely no evidence to support a conviction there, if you take it all, if you exclude the parts that were false or venomous, there’s not even a shell. But they had to say that this noble enterprise, agree or not with it, was corrupt. Corrupt — have nothing to do with it! It’s corrupt! Nobody respects financial or other corruption. Destroy ’em that way. 

They were put to trial, without any chance to prepare their case, and they made a valiant effort. And got consecutive sentences — unbelievable…. 

We’ve been trying in every way we can, others much more than I, to make the LaRouche case known. I personally have appeared at meetings in Europe and North America. There have been books and pamphlets and there’s a constant flow of literature and verbal communication. 

We’ve tried, for I can’t tell you how many years right now, but several years, maybe four even, to explore the possibility of fair hearings in the Congress. 

Hearings are risky in a highly political environment like that. … 

There’s a continuing effort. I think it will bear fruit. We’ve asked the Department of Justice for a comprehensive review. Lyndon LaRouche has always asked for a review, not only of his case, but of all cases where there are allegations of serious misconduct, and usually names a bunch of ’em. And so, we’ve always done that. That’s his vision. It happens to be my vision, too, of how you correct things. 

But the capacity of the Department of Justice for self-criticism, is of a very low order. It has two offices that are charged with the responsibility. One’s called the Office of Professional Responsibility, and one’s called the Office of the Inspector General, and neither have ever done anything very serious that I’m aware of. Maybe someone was caught stealing pencils, or something, taking home for the kids.  That’s about the dimension of their address. 

So our efforts to secure a review of injustice; we’ve tried in the courts.  We sought {habeas corpus}, which is the grand English — it’s the Writ of Amparo; in the Dominican Republic, it’s the grand old way of reviewing injustice and wrongful conviction — and we got short shrift. We had to go back to the same judge who gave us the fast shrift the first time! 

The [inaudible 54:09] rocket docket. 

So, we have to find solid means. The media’s a great problem. The media’s controlled by wealth and power that prefers the {status quo}, and it’s very sophisticated in how it manages these matters. I can take a cause that they’re interested in, that’s virtually meaningless, and be on prime time evening news. And I can take on a cause of what I consider to be international importance of the highest magnitude, that they oppose, and shout from the rooftops, and you’d never know I existed. That’s the way it works. 

That’s one reason that publications — the books and magazines and newspapers that spread the word — even though they’re minor compared with the huge international media conglomerates that we’re confronted with, but they reach thinking people, and they spread the word. 

I think we’ll get our hearing in time, and I think it’ll be a reasonably short time, but I think to be meaningful, it’s going to take a regeneration of moral force in the American people. 

I’m both an optimist and an idealist, so you have to take what I say with a grain of salt. But I believe that the civil rights movement was the noblest quest of the American people in my time. I think it was real, and vital, and passionate. And I think it consumed the energies and faith of some few millions of people. I mean, we really believed in it! We were marching and singing and doing!  And then it kind of dribbled out. So that now we have this vicious fights that divide us.   

We have to have a moral regeneration and energy and commitment and faith and belief, that we can overcome; that equality is desirable; that justice is essential; that a life of principle is only worth living; then we’ll get our hearings. Then we won’t need our hearings, but we’ll have to keep on. 

MANN:  The session will come to order. 

If anyone needs an introduction to the next presenter, I suggest you see him after the meeting. [laughter] We’re delighted to have Lyndon LaRouche. 

LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, JR: Just for the record, I’ll state a few facts which bear upon the circumstances in which certain events befell me. 

I was born in Sept. 8, 1922, in Rochester, New Hampshire, lived there for the first 10 years of my life, lived for the next 22 years of my life in Lynn, Massachusetts, except for service overseas. I moved to New York City, where I lived until July of 1983, and, since that time, except for a period of incarceration, I have been a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

I attended university a couple of times, before the war or at the beginning of the war, and after it; and then had a career in management consulting, which lasted until about 1972, tapered off, sort of. 

My most notable professional achievement was developed during the years 1948-1952, in certain discoveries of a fundamental scientific nature in respect to economics, and my professional qualifications are essentially derived from that. 

In the course of time, in 1964, approximately, I was persuaded that things were being done to change the United States, which, from my view, were the worst possible disaster which could befall this nation. And thus, while I had given up any hope of political improvement in this country before then, to speak of, I felt I had to do something. So I became involved part time, from 1966 through 1973, in teaching a one-semester course in economics, largely on the graduate level, at a number of campus locations, chiefly in New York City, but also in Pennsylvania. 

In the course of this, a number of these students who participated in these classes, became associated with me, and, out of this association, came the birth of a nascent political organization, as much a philosophical organization as political. Our central commitment was Third World issues and related issues, that is, that economic justice for what is called the Third World is essential for a just society for all nations. I became particularly attached to this, during military service overseas in India, where I saw what colonialism does to people. And I was persuaded at the time, as I believe a majority of the people who were in service with me, was that we were coming to the end of a war, which we had not foreseen, but which we had been obliged to fight. And that if we allowed the circumstances to prevail that I saw in the Third World, we would bring upon ourselves some kind of disaster, either war or something comparable down the line. 

And that was essentially our commitment as an association. 

We became rather unpopular with a number of institutions, including McGeorge Bundy’s Ford Foundation. About 1969, we made a mess of a few projects he was funding, by exposing them. And we also became unpopular with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, perhaps on the behest of McGeorge Bundy. 

In 1973, according to a document later issued under the Freedom of Information Act by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting at all times under supervision of Washington headquarters, hatched a plot to have me eliminated, or to induce the Communist Party U.S.A., that my elimination would solve a number of their problems. There actually was an abortive attempt on me during that period. I knew the FBI had been involved. I couldn’t prove it then, but I knew it, and, later, a document appeared showing that. 

From that point on, during the 1970s, until the end of COINTELPRO, we were constantly beset by the FBI. Our main weapon against the FBI was jokes. We used to make some jokes about the FBI, which we would pass around, to try to persuade them to keep off our tail, but they kept coming, and all kinds of harassment. 

Then, in 1982, there was a new development. I sensed it happening, but I received the documents later: The events which led to my, what I would call, a fraudulently obtained indictment and conviction and incarceration. 

It started, according to the record — of which I had some sensibility this was going on at the time — of Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State (with whom no love was lost between us), went to William Webster and others, soliciting an FBI or other government operation against me and my associates. This led, as the record later showed, to a decision by Henry Kissinger’s friends on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, recommending an operation against me and my associates. This was adopted during the same month of January by Judge Webster, the Director of the FBI, who passed the implementation of this instruction along to his subordinate, Oliver “Buck” Revell, recently retired from the FBI, I believe. 

The first inkling I had of this, was in about April of 1983, at which time a New York banker, John Train, who is very intelligence-witting, shall we say, of the private bank of Smith and Train in New York City, held a salon at which various government agents, private individuals, the Anti-Defamation League, for example, and also NBC-TV News, the {Reader’s Digest,} the {Wall Street Journal}, and others, were represented. 

The purpose was to coordinate an array of libels, a menu of libels, which would be commonly used by the news media, in an attempt to defame me, and hopefully, from their standpoint, to lead to criminal action against me and my associates. 

In January of 1984, this attack came into the open, launched by NBC-TV, which had been a participant in this salon of Train’s, which launched the pattern, which was the pattern of coverage by all U.S. news media — major news media, and many minor news media. From the period of the end of January 1984, through the end of 1988, I saw no case of any significant coverage of me or mention of me, in the U.S. print media, particularly the major print media, the Associated Press, in particular, which was an active part of the prosecution, in fact, or in the national television media, network media, especially; not a single mention of me which did not conform to the menu of libels concocted by this salon, which had been established under John Train, as part of this operation. 

This salon, including the Anti-Defamation League, NBC-TV, others, the Associated Press, actively collaborated, beginning sometime in 1984, with forces inside the government, which were determined to have a criminal prosecution against me and my associates. The criminal prosecution was launched at about the time of the 1984 presidential election, in October-November 1984. And from that point on, it was a continued escalation, until a Federal case in Boston led to a mistrial, occasioned largely by government misconduct in the case, in May of 1988. 

Following that, on or about October 14 in Virginia, a new prosecution was opened up, and that led to my conviction in December of 1988, and my sentencing, for 15 years, in January 1989. I believe Mr. Anderson has described the nature of the case. And that resulted in five years of service in Federal prison, from which I’m now released on parole. 

The motivations of the case against us, I think, are, in part, obvious, perhaps partly not. 

In 1982-83, there were two things which greatly excited my enemies. Number one, I had been involved, in 1982, in presenting a proposal which was based on my forecast in the spring of 1982, that a major debt crisis would break out in South America, Central America, and the expectation that Mexico would be the nation that would have a debt crisis. I’d been involved with many of these countries and personalities in them, in projecting alternatives to this kind of inequitable system, where the “colonial nation” had been replaced by the term “debtor nation.” And the debt of South America, Central America was largely illegitimate, that is, it was a debt which had not been incurred for value received, but had been done under special monetary conditions, under the so-called floating exchange rate system, where bankers would come to a country, the IMF in particular, would say, “We just wrote down the value of the currency; we’re now going to re-fund your financing of your foreign debt, which you can no longer pay on the same basis as before.” 

So I proposed, that the debt crisis be used as the occasion for united action, by a number of governments of South and Central American countries, to force a reform in the international debt relations, and to force a reform within international monetary relations. This report was entitled {Operation Juárez}, largely because of the relationship of President Lincoln to Mexico during the time that Lincoln was President; with the idea that it was in the interest of the United States to accept and sponsor such a reform, to assist these countries in the freedom to resume development of the type which they had desired. 

This report was published in August of 1982, ironically a few weeks before the eruption of the great Mexico debt crisis of ’82, and was presented also to the U.S. government and the National Security Council, for the President’s information at that time. There was some effort, on the part of the President of Mexico, to implement my proposal in the initial period of the debt crisis. He had, at that time, some support from the President of Brazil and the government of Argentina. But under pressure from the United States, the government of Brazil and Argentina capitulated, and President José López Portillo, the President of Mexico, was left, shall we say, “hanging out to dry.” 

As a result, in October of 1982, he capitulated to the terms which were delivered to his government and people around him, by people such as Henry A. Kissinger, who made a trip to Mexico at that time, to attempt to intimidate the Mexicans to submitting to these new terms. This was one issue between me and Kissinger, and his friends. 

The second issue was, that sometime about December of 1981, a representative of the U.S. government approached me, and had asked me if I would be willing to set up an exploratory back-channel discussion with the Soviet government, because the Soviet government wanted, according to them, an additional channel to discuss things. And I said I didn’t reject the idea, I said, but I have an idea on this question of nuclear missiles. It was becoming increasingly dangerous, forward-basing, more precise missiles, electromagnetic pulse, we’re getting toward a first strike. It would be very useful to discuss what I proposed in my 1980 election campaign, with the Soviet government, to see if they’d be interested in discussing such a proposal. This might prove a profitable exploratory discussion. 

And so, from February of 1982, through February of 1983, I did conduct such back-channel discussions with representatives of the Soviet government in Washington, D.C. Those were somewhat fruitful, but ultimately abortive. Kissinger and others became aware of this discussion, during the summer of 1982, and their circles were very much opposed to that. The general view was expressed, that I was getting “too big for my britches,” and I had to be dealt with: on the question of debt, which some of these people were concerned about, and on this question of strategic missile defense, where I had this proposal, which the President adopted, at least initially, in the form of what became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. And when the Strategic Defense Initiative was announced by the President on March 23, 1983, there were a lot of people out for my scalp. 

Those are the at least contributing factors, in what happened to me. But they may not be all. There probably are others, as well…. 

We have, in my view, a system of injustice whose center is within the Department of Justice, especially the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The problem lies not with one administration or another, though one administration or another may act more positively or more negatively. You have permanent civil service employees, like Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jack Keeney and Mark Richard, who are coordinators of a nest of institutions in the Criminal Division, which show up, repeatedly, as leading or key associates of every legal atrocity which I’ve seen. 

This is the case with the so-called Frühmenschen operation, which is largely an FBI operation, but which cannot run without cooperation from these people. … 

We have an out-of-control Justice Department, in my view, where the rot is not in the appointees, as much as it is in the permanent bureaucracy. We have a permanent sickness, in the permanent bureaucracy of part of our government. 

In my case, when the time came that somebody wanted me out of the way, they were able to rely upon that permanent injustice in the permanent bureaucracy of government, to do the job. As in the Frühmenschen case, the Weaver case, the Waco case, the case of Waldheim, the case of Demjanjuk, and other cases. Always there’s that agency inside the Justice Department, which works for contract, like a hitman, when somebody with the right credentials and passwords walks in, and says, “we want to get this group of people,” or “we want to get this person.” 

My case may be, as Ramsey Clark described it, the most extensive and the highest level of these cases, in terms of the duration and scope of the operation. … 

So my case is important, in the sense it’s more extensive, it’s more deep-going, long-going. But when it came to getting me, it was the same apparatus, that, I find, in my opinion, was used in these other cases. And that until we remove, from our system of government, a rotten, permanent bureaucracy which acts like contract assassins, using the authority of the justice system to perpetrate assassination, this country is not free, nor is anyone in it. … That’s my view of the matter. Thank you. [applause] 

MANN:  Thank you. 

J.L. CHESTNUT:  You and I had a little chat in Selma, Alabama. … I guess you can understand, that even somebody like me, sometimes, feels {overwhelmed}, and wonders whether or not America is just a lost cause. I hate to sound that way, but after 40 years, I’ve got {serious} reservations about whether we can save this country, about whether this country even {wants} to be saved. 

LAROUCHE:  Well, I take an evangelical view of this. I’ve been associated with many lost causes in my life — as you have — and, once in a while, we win them. [laughter] … 

The problem of people, as I see it, is people don’t trust the leadership; and I don’t blame them for not trusting their leadership. I blame them for being too pessimistic. And it’s up to us and others, to get enough people moving, to create a movement. 

Like the case, just, of Martin Luther King. Now, I never personally met Martin Luther King, but I watched him closely. And I know something about Martin Luther King, from people who knew him, and his circumstances. And here was a man, he was a good man, he was a preacher, a Baptist preacher, I don’t know. They run to this way and that way. 

But one day, somebody appointed him, nominated him, to be a leader of the civil rights movement; out of a crowd, so to speak. He took the job, as an appointee, like a federal appointee! Only this was a civil rights movement. He went from crisis to crisis, in a few years, from the time that he received that appointment, until he went to his death, knowing he was facing death. 

And in that period of time, he made a number of public speeches of great power and pith. Each of those speeches corresponded to a point of crisis in the history of the civil rights movement. And I saw, on television, and I read in the recorded speeches, I read a man who had gone into private, into his own Gethsemane, probably inspired by reading the New Testament, and said: “I will drink of this cup.” And he came out with an {idea}, with a lot of people swarming around him. But he came out with the {idea}, and he presented a concept, which took a whole people who were looking to him and the civil rights movement; and he {ennobled} them. 

He said, “You’re not fighting for African-American rights. You’re fighting for everybody’s rights! You’re fighting to make the Constitution real!” And it was a new idea, a different idea. And, as he did with his “Mountaintop” speech that he gave just before he went — again, a man who had walked into Gethsemane and said, “Yes, Lord, I will drink of this cup, as my Savior before me.” And he went out, and he drank of the cup; and he inspired people. 

Now, we don’t know who among us is going to be the great leader of this period. But we know, as the civil rights people of the 1960s, who had been at the civil rights business for many centuries, in point of fact, many of them with a conscious family tradition. They assembled together. They picked people from their midst as leaders; and among these leaders, was a Martin Luther King. 

And I think, if enough of us assemble today around these kinds of issues, and show the nation that there {is} something moving, something which is of concern to the average citizen, that from among those we gather, together for that purpose, we will find the leaders we need. 

[closing music] 

Se også Schiller Instituttets Venners hjemmeside www.sive.dk

Idet hun erklærede det netop afsluttede Bælte- og Vejforum i Beijing for en stor succes, rapporterede Helga Zepp LaRouche om den globale deltagelse i arrangementet og det udvidede omfang af BVI-aftaler. Hun betegnede den aktive inddragelse af en række europæiske ledere som “meget interessant”. Med henvisning til hendes LaRouchePAC-studiekreds aftenen før, opfordrede hun seerne til at se det klip hun brugte med Lyndon LaRouches tale fra 1997, hvor han insisterede på at USA måtte tage del i den Eurasiske Landbro – og med henblik på hvad der lige er sket i Beijing, sagde hun, at man igen ser, hvor profetisk han var med hensyn til at imødekomme menneskehedens fremtidige behov.

Nu, hvor Trump åbenlyst identificerer Russiagate som et “kup”, der er udtænkt til at drive ham ud af embedet – hvilket medierne, hvor utroligt det end måtte være, praktisk talt har ignoreret, – er det klart, at den britiske rolle i organiseringen af kuppet vil komme ud, sammen med deres rolle i at angribe BVI. Hun understregede, at i betragtning af at de der står bag kuppet kommer fra de samme netværk, som engagerede sig i de massive bagvaskelser af Lyndon LaRouche, er kampen for hans frifindelse afgørende for USA’s overlevelse.

Ligesom Cusas genoplivelse af Platons værker var afgørende for at skabe Den italienske Renæssance, er en fordybelse i LaRouches videnskabelige og filosofiske værker ligeledes afgørende for at sikre succesen for det nye paradigme i dag. Den ekstraordinære internationale indsats der var involveret i de fantastiske fotografier taget af et “sort hul” er en anden demonstration af dette princip: at det er vigtigt at udfordre alle aksiomerne fra et højere synspunkt. Internationalt samarbejde i rummet er afgørende for at inspirere dagens ungdom til at favne ægte videnskab for at skabe en bedre fremtid.

Her er begyndelsen af Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Se mere i videoen ovenover.

Lyndon LaRouche døde den 12. februar 2019. Han stiftede en politisk bevægelse midt i 1960erne, som Schiller Instituttet, stiftet af LaRouches kone Helga Zepp-LaRouche i 1984, er en del af.

Den 21. februar (EIRNS) – Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., den US-amerikanske økonom og statsmand, der fra 1957 til 2007 udarbejdede og fremlagde verdens mest nøjagtige række af økonomiske forudsigelser, sov stille ind tirsdag morgen den 12. februar 2019. Han udgav i sit lange virke tusindvis af artikler og mere end hundrede bøger, boglange hæfter samt strategiske studier. LaRouche var en af de mest kontroversielle politiske personer i hele USA’s historie.

En afgørende årsag dertil var, at LaRouche igen og igen stolt og energisk førte i alt otte præsidentkampagner til hvert valg mellem 1976 og 2004 med den hensigt efter mordene på John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr. og Robert F. Kennedy mellem 1963 og 1968 at genetablere USA som en selvstyret nation på grundlag af den amerikanske forfatning. En anden årsag var, at det lykkedes ham at etablerede det, der vurderedes som verdens bedste uafhængig nyhedstjeneste, med et efterretningsapparat, der gav ham og hans samarbejdspartnere evnen til at indsamle ufiltrerede efterretninger fra hele verden. Dette gjorde dem i stand til på nøjagtig vis at gengive og rapportere om USA’s økonomis sande tilstand og om US-amerikanske og internationale politiske processers egentlige forløb, der ellers forekom mystiske.

LaRouche skabte også en international filosofisk forening, hvis udgangspunkt det var at genskabe en forståelse af det årtusind-gamle kontrovers, der har udspillet sig mellem den platoniske tradition og den aristoteliske skole, kampen mellem den republikanske statsmodel og det oligarkiske imperielle system.

LaRouches internationale rækkevidde opstod som et resultatet af hans vellykkede rekruttering af hundredvis af studerende med interesse for politik fra mange nationer, især europæiske samt syd- og nordamerikanske. Denne selvudpegede intelligentsia gav ham magten til at fostre og iværksætte politiske kursændringer via beskedne, men veluddannede og yderst velinformerede enheders indsats, der katalyserede meget større kræfter i forskellige nationer og undertiden gjorde, at disse fungerede som »ét sind på tværs af mange kontinenter.«

LaRouche var kendt for sin insisteren på, at hver borger i USA – såvel som borgere fra enhver suveræn nation – har ansvaret for at uddanne sig selv på de områder, der har afgørende betydning for de politiske beslutninger, som berører deres nationers og menneskehedens fremtid; for udelukkende at lave og forsvare politiske forslag, der »fremme[r] almindelig velfærd […] for os selv og vore efterkommere« (fra fortalen til USA’s forfatning – red.); og for at bekæmpe rovgriske økonomiske foranstaltninger, der vedtages for at opnå klodens affolkning, undertiden forklædt som »miljøbeskyttelse« eller »bæredygtig udvikling« og især rettet imod nationer i Afrika, Asien og Syd- og Centralamerika.

Selvom fremtrædende internationale personligheder og institutioner på det seneste er begyndt at rapportere om LaRouche, har ingen »større mediekilde« endnu haft modet til at citere Lyndon LaRouche for hans faktiske synspunkter på nogen af de områder, som han bidrog væsentligt til. Dette til trods for, at LaRouche var en af USA’s mest produktive forfattere. Denne frygt for LaRouche er bemærkelsesværdig, men ikke ny. Det har altid været tilfældet, at LaRouches modstandere havde en mindst lige så dybfølt frygt for den kraft, som LaRouches idéer besad, som de havde for personen LaRouche. Denne frygt vil ingenlunde aftage med hans fysiske bortgang.

Det anses stadig for utilladeligt, at LaRouches Fire Love; hans forslag til en firemagtsaftale mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien; hans opfindelse af Det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI) – som daværende præsident Ronald Reagan præsenterede på nationalt TV 23. marts 1983 – og hans enestående fem årtier lange kamp for udviklingen af fusionskraft nævnes i massemedierne, sågar i anledning af LaRouches død. Kendte USA’s befolkning til disse politiske idéer, og dermed til, hvordan en påtvunget stilhedens sammensværgelse i årtier har nægtet dem adgang til LaRouche – især under de sidste 15 års finansielle kriser og nytteløse ødelæggende krige – ville de straks komme frem til, at nogen med stor ihærdighed i alle disse år må have prøvet at holde dem væk fra Lyndon LaRouches idéer.

Disse mennesker ville ikke længere finde sig i ordene »LaRouche er en slem fyr, men vi kan ikke fortælle dig hvorfor,« som forklaring på, hvorfor de ikke – heller ikke nu – bør vide, hvem Lyndon LaRouche er. Lykkes det os i dette historiske øjeblik at bryde de falske nyheders grænser ned, kan den virkelige Lyndon LaRouche endelig blive hørt og kendt. Til dette formål præsenteres følgende korte og meget ufuldstændige redegørelse for hans liv og arbejde.

Udviklingen af en global statsmand

LaRouche etablerede sig gennem mere end fire årtier som Det Britiske Imperiums største fjende, både i den form det tog før Anden Verdenskrig og i dets nuværende Commonwealth-form. At LaRouche tjente i Anden Verdenskrig, især i Indien-Burma-Kina-området, var personligt afgørende for ham: »Min livslange kamp for, at USA i efterkrigstidens skulle blive en verdensleder i arbejdet for at etablere en verdensorden viet til at fremme den økonomiske udvikling af de lande, vi i dag kalder ‘udviklingslande’, tog sin begyndelse med oplevelsen i Kolkata i 1946,« skrev LaRouche i sin selvbiografi The Power of Reason: 1988. LaRouche begyndte at kæmpe med den moderne udgave af Det Britisk-Ostindiske Kompagnis »politisk-økonomiske teoretikere« og slavehandlere, hvis teorier dominerede de US-amerikanske universiteters økonomiske fakulteter i kølvandet på Anden Verdenskrig.

LaRouche modsatte sig heftigt den opfattelse, som udbredtes af Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Parson Thomas Malthus og John Locke, at mennesket er et dyr. I stedet genoprettede LaRouche videnskaben »fysisk økonomi« i USA, en videnskab etableret i 1672 af den tyske polyhistor Gottfried Leibniz, ophavsmanden til calculus og medopfinder af dampmaskinen. Gennem en intensiv studietid mellem 1948 og 1952 gjorde LaRouche fremskridt i sine uafhængige studier af fysik for at kunne udvikle sin metode til økonomiske forudsigelser. I bogen LaRouche: Will This Man Become President? hedder det: »I 1952 anerkendte LaRouche for første gang, at han ved at antage en opfattelse af energi, der er aldeles i overensstemmelse med Riemanns afhandling fra 1854 med titlen Om de hypoteser, der ligger til grund for geometrien (Ueber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen – red.), kunne måle både teknologi og økonomisk vækst med denne forståelse af, hvad energi er. I LaRouches værker måles økonomisk værdi – reel økonomisk vækst – primært i form af stigninger i samfundets relativt mulige befolkningstæthed.«

LaRouche anså imidlertid alt sit arbejde med fysisk økonomi som et særligt udtryk for og en del af en dybere epistemologisk opgave. I sit skrift Beethoven as a Physical Scientist fra 1988 skriver han:

»På alle de områder, hvor jeg har bidraget, grunder mine vigtigste opdagelser i min vellykkede afvisning af det berømte kantiske paradoks, som gentages i Immanuel Kants Kritik af dømmekraften. Kant hævdede to ting, der er relevante her.«

»For det første insisterede han på, at, omend der findes kreative processer, som er ansvarlig for gyldige grundlæggende videnskabelige opdagelser, ligger det hinsides enhver menneskelig mulighed at forstå disse processer. Jeg beviste, at dette var forkert. Og fra dette bevis udviklede jeg en måde, hvorpå disse kreative processer, og dermed underforstået målingen af teknologisk udvikling som sådan, kunne fremstilles på forståelig vis.«

»For det andet argumenterede Kant på baggrund af den første antagelse for, at der i æstetikken ikke kan opstilles nogen forståelige kriterier for sandhed eller skønhed. At Tyskland og andre har godtaget denne tese, som Kant og efter ham Friedrich Carl von Savigny udbredte, har været årsagen til, at der i dag er så udbredt en tolerance indenfor alle kunstformer for enhver type af moderne irrationalisme.«

Lyndon LaRouches store produktion af skrifter om musik, økonomi, historie, sprog og de fysiske videnskaber inspirerede mange samarbejder og udvekslinger med mennesker over hele verden. LaRouche var først og fremmest en statsmand – ikke en politiker. Han udøvede statsmandskunst på en sokratisk-athensk vis.

Han etablerede organisationer ved at undervise. Først gav han adskillige forelæsningsrækker i 1966, i løbet af hvilke han gjorde yderligere fremskridt i og debatterede om sin metode for at lave økonomiske forudsigelser, især på universiteterne. Mange stødte først på LaRouche, mens han debatterede med de personer, der skulle blive 1970’ernes økonomiske og politiske akademiske autoriteter. Dette stoppede efter LaRouches berømte debat med økonomen Abba Lerner i 1971. Lerner tabte, da han gav udtryk for sin holdning om, at hvis man havde fulgt den tyske finansminister Hjalmar Schachts nedskæringspolitik i 1920’erne, »ville Hitler ikke have været nødvendig.« Indenfor få måneder kunne man ikke længere finde nogen, der ville debattere med LaRouche, og ingen yderligere debatter af denne art fandt sted.

LaRouches foredrag om, hvad der på det tidspunkt blev kaldt »dialektisk økonomi« var netop det – dialoger mellem LaRouche og filosofiske, økonomiske og videnskabelige personligheder fra historien, der er skildredes af ham med en fortællers nøjagtighed, altid uden noter og ofte uden nogen bøger overhovedet. De studerende blev forsynet med et omfattende pensum af læsemateriale, med foreslåede læseplaner, der angav hver uges anbefalinger. En student fortæller, at »vi blev henvist til passager fra et værk som Kants Kritik af den praktiske fornuft, for eksempel. Vi blev bedt om at læse det. Hvis man gjorde det og kom til forelæsningen den næste uge, ville han først beskrive, hvordan han forstod passagen, hvilket han gjorde både overbevisende og nøjagtigt. Han ville derefter splitte det ad stykke for stykke, og fordi man havde læst det og accepteret det, opdagede man nødvendigvis vildfarelserne, der lurerde på bunden af ens eget sind. Han viste os forskellen mellem at læse og at tænke. Det var ikke forelæsninger, det var en dramatisk monolog. Og det var sådan vi blev interesserede.«

LaRouches kerneorganisation, »National Caucus of Labor Committees« (NCLC), som senere blev til »International Caucus of Labor Committees« (ICLC), var en filosofisk forening organiseret omkring et »system af konferencer,« som normalt afholdtes to gange om året. Fra denne forening udsprang mange andre organisationer såsom »Fusion Energy Foundation,« »the U.S. Labor Party,« »the National Democratic Policy Committee,« the »Anti-Drug Coalition« og andre. LaRouche grundlagde og arbejdede også med organisationer i Frankrig, Tyskland, Italien, Sverige, Canada, Danmark, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Australien og mange andre nationer.

I december 1977 giftede LaRouche sig med Helga Zepp fra Tyskland, der senere grundlagde Schiller Instituttet, en politisk institution til fremme af statsmandskunst og en renæssance i klassisk kultur.

»I efteråret 1977 foreslog jeg, at vi skulle gifte os. […]. Jeg var lidt overrasket, men på behagelig vis, da hun indvillige i det. […]. Der var intet ordinært ved nogen af vore liv, og det var heller ikke sandsynligt, at det nogensinde ville blive anderledes. Vi blev gift i Wiesbaden 29. december 1977. Vielsen foregik på tysk; tjenestemanden fra Standesamt spurgte mig på tysk, om jeg vidste, hvad der foregik. Dette spørgsmål gav i de følgende uger anledning til megen latter blandt mine venner.« De nåede at dele et godt 41 år langt ægteskab.

Den kamplystne karakter og polemiske stil i LaRouche og hans samarbejdspartneres kampagner, valgkampagner såvel som andre, var unikke i USA’s politiske liv i 1970’erne, 1980’erne og 1990’erne. Da LaRouche i 1976 købte 30 minutters sendetid til udsendelsen af hans Emergency Address to the Nation, var det første gang nogensinde, at en uafhængig kandidat havde købt den mængde tv-tid i et US-amerikansk nationalt valg. Under præsidentvalget i 1984 optrådte LaRouche femten gange på fjernsyn i 30-minutters segmenter og opfandt så at sige, hvad senere tider efterlignede med de såkaldte »infomercials.« LaRouches præsidentkandidatur og hans samarbejdspartneres kandidaturer ved forskellige valg, herunder opstillingen af omtrent 1000 kandidater til valg i 1986 alene, skræmte hans modstandere i USA. Og de inspirerede andre og gav dem mod til ikke blot at stille op til valg, men at bakke op om politiske idéer skabt til at gavne hele menneskeheden, og ikke kun deres »lokale mudderhul.«

Den Internationale Udviklingsbank (International Development Bank, IDB), som LaRouche fremlagde som koncept fra 1975 og fremefter, og som skulle erstatte Den Internationale Valutafond (IMF – red.) og udvikle det, der blev kaldt »Den Tredje Verden,« ved at skabe grundlag for eksport af hele byer og ikke kun US-amerikansk bygget teknologi, er et godt eksempel på et sådant politisk koncept. Disse byer skulle opføres som træningscentre, hvor befolkninger i udviklingssektoren hurtigt kunne tilegne sig de kompetencer, de skulle bruge, for at de kunne skabe deres egne på alle områder selvforsynende økonomier, frem for at blive gældsslaver, hvilket var, hvad der faktisk skete.

Personer som Frederick Wills, den daværende udenrigsminister for Guyana, talte for LaRouches IDB-forslag ved FN’s generalforsamling 27. september 1976. Mexicos daværende præsident José López Portillo og Indiens daværende premierminister Indira Gandhi mødtes med Lyndon LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche og vedtog aspekter af hans forslag, som ofte blev udgivet i boglange afhandlinger såsom Operation Juárez for Mexico og The Industrialization of India: From Backwardness to Industrial Power in Forty Years (Indiens industrialisering: fra tilbageståenhed til industriel magt på fyrre år) og A Fifty-Year Development Policy for the Indian-Pacific Oceans Basin (50 års udviklingspolitik for Stillehavets og Det Indiske Oceans bassiner), hvis kernebetragtninger, på trods af at de alle er skrevet i begyndelsen af 1980’erne, stadigt er aktuelle, ikke kun i dag, men for det næste årti eller mere.

Den ukonventionelle metode, som LaRouche anbefalede til at sprede disse idéer, var sokratisk: at tale med mennesker direkte og personligt. Den daglige gadeorganisering fandt sted ved jobcentre, posthuse, lufthavne, trafikkryds og på gadehjørner, i midtbyen og i indkøbscentre. Denne direkte kontakt med USA’s befolkning resulterede i, at LaRouche havde en bedre føling med, hvad der rørte sig blandt den almindelige befolkning i USA, end nogen anden politisk kraft i landet. Korrupte elementer i justitsministeriet, og »angiveligvis-ikke-statslig organisationer« som blev givet grønt lys til ulovligt at afbryde LaRouches samarbejdspartneres forfatnings-garanterede ret til at organisere, var nødte til at karakterisere organisationen som en »kult« for at afskrække borgerne fra at bidrage til LaRouches organisationer.

Ingen af LaRouches kritikere er i stand til at benægte den række af korrekte økonomiske forudsigelser, som han har fremlagt, herunder Bretton Woods-systemets sammenbrud 15. august 1971, sammenbruddet af Wall Streets aktiemarked i oktober 1987 (forudsagt af LaRouche i maj samme år) og forudsigelsen 25. juli 2007, der udsendtes som et webcast med titlen The End of the Post-FDR Era, af det finanskollaps, der fra september 2008 og fremefter førte til en billion-dollar-stor redningspakke. Nogle af de mest forbløffende af LaRouches forudsigelser var imidlertid ikke strengt taget økonomiske. På Columbusdag 12. oktober 1988 sagde Lyndon LaRouche i en tale på Kempinski Hotel Bristol i Berlin:

»Af profession er jeg økonom i tradition med Tysklands Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz og Friedrich List og USA’s Alexander Hamilton og Matthew og Henry Carey. Mine politiske principper er de samme som Leibniz’, Lists og Hamiltons, og de er også i overensstemmelse med Friedrich Schiller og Wilhelm von Humboldts principper. I lighed med vor republiks grundlæggere har jeg en kompromisløs tro på princippet om aldeles suveræne nationalstater, og jeg er derfor imod enhver overnational myndighed, der ville kunne undergrave nogen som helst nations suverænitet. Men ligesom Schiller tror jeg, at enhver person, der stræber efter at blive en smuk sjæl, bliver nødt til at være en sand patriot for sin egen nation og på samme tid verdensborger.

»Af disse årsager er jeg gennem de sidste 15 år blevet specialist i mit lands udenrigspolitiske anliggender. Som et resultat af dette arbejde har jeg opnået en voksende og betydelig indflydelse blandt visse kredse i min egen regering vedrørende USA’s udenrigspolitik og landets strategi, to indbyrdes forbundne emner. Et godt eksempel på dette er den rolle, jeg spillede i løbet af 1982 og 1983, hvor jeg arbejdede med USA’s nationale sikkerhedsråd for at få gennemført vedtagelsen af et politisk initiativ, der blev kendt som Det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI). Selvom detaljerne er hemmelighedsstemplede, kan jeg godt fortælle jer, at mine synspunkter om den nuværende strategiske situation har større indflydelse i USA i dag end på noget tidligere tidspunkt. Derfor kan jeg forsikre jer om, at det, som jeg nu præsenterer for jer om udsigterne for genforeningen af Tyskland, er et forslag, som vil blive studeret seriøst blandt de relevante kredse i det US-amerikanske etablissement. Under de rette forhold ville mange i dag være enige om, at tiden er kommet til at tage de indledende skridt mod Tysklands genforening med det åbenlyse prospekt, at Berlin kunne genoptage sin rolle som landets hovedstad.«

Udpeget som mål for eliminering

To dage efter hans tale på Hotel Kempinski rettede den US-amerikanske stat anklager mod Lyndon LaRouche og adskillige af hans samarbejdspartnere. Senere, da han talte om anklagerne i den Nationale Presseklub, udtalte LaRouche: »Man kunne sige om selve anklagen, at alle, der begår lovovertrædelser mod Gud, menneskeheden eller begge, før eller siden straffes.« Anklagerne fulgte to år efter et mordforsøg mod LaRouche 6. oktober 1986, om hvilket LaRouche i 2004 skrev følgende i sit hæfte med titlen ‘Convict Him, or Kill Him!’ The Night They Came To Kill Me (»Døm ham eller dræb ham!« Natten de kom for at dræbe mig):

»6. oktober 1986 holdt det, der praktisk talt var en hær på mere end firehundrede bevæbnede personer, sit indtog i byen Leesburg, Virginia, for at gennemføre en politirazzia mod EIR (Executive Intelligence Review – red.) og dets medarbejdere, og for at gennemføre en anden, mere dyster mission. De lokaler, hvor jeg på det tidspunkt opholdt mig, blev omringet af en væbnet styrke, mens luftfartøjer, pansrede mandskabsvogne og andet personel ventede på ordre om at rykke frem og åbne ild. Heldigvis fandt drabet ikke sted, fordi en person med højere myndighed end chefen for justitsministeriets afdeling for kriminalitet, William Weld, beordrede angrebet på mig afbrudt. De styrker, der stod klar til at trænge ind på mig, min kone og en række af mine samarbejdspartnere, blev trukket tilbage om morgenen.«

»Dette var det andet fuldt dokumenterede tilfælde, hvor USA’s justitsministerium var involveret i operationer, der var målrettet mod at eliminere mig personligt fra politik.«

Omend LaRouche og seks andre blev fundet skyldige ved en domstol i Alexandria, Virginia, i december 1988 og blev fængslet 27. januar 1989, fortsætter den internationale og nationale protest mod disse korrupte domme til denne dag. Den tidligere amerikanske statsadvokat Ramsey Clark karakteriserede LaRouche-sagen som følger: Sagen »repræsenterede en bredere vifte af bevidst udspekuleret og systematisk embedsmisbrug over en længere tidsperiode ved brug af statsapparatets magtmidler end nogen anden retsforfølgelse ført af den US-amerikanske regering i min tid eller til mit kendskab.« Executive Intelligence Reviews dossier fra september 2017 med titlen Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him (Robert Mueller er en amoralsk juridisk lejemorder: Han gør sit job, hvis du giver ham lov) giver et omfattende indblik i, hvordan Donald Trumps nuværende særlige anklager var en nøglekomponent i denne politiske forfølgelse af Lyndon LaRouche i 1980’erne.

Under sin afsoning fortsatte LaRouche med at skrive, hvilket ofte foregik ved, at han dikterede hele kapitler af et bogmanuskript over telefonen, naturligvis uden at have adgang til nogen form for baggrundsmateriale. Udover samlingen med titlen The Science of Christian Economy and Other Prison Writings (Videnskaben der ligger til grund for kristen økonomi og andre skrifter fra fængslet), skrev eller optog LaRouche mange andre dokumenter, hvoraf nogle er ved at blive samlet med andre ikke tidligere offentliggjorte skrifter.

Da det i løbet af 1989 blev klart, at Sovjetunionens indflydelsessfære kendt som Comecon oplevede stigende økonomiske vanskeligheder, indledte LaRouche og Helga et intensivt samarbejde om et program, der fik navnet The Productive Triangle Paris-Berlin-Vienna (Den produktive trekant Paris-Berlin-Wien), som efter Sovjetunionens opløsning blev udvidet til Den Eurasiske Landbro. Efter jerntæppets fald foreslog han med dette program, at Europas befolkninger og industricentre skulle sammenkædes med Asiens gennem såkaldte udviklingskorridorer. Det var den eneste omfattende fredsplan for det 21. århundrede, som på daværende tidspunkt lå på tegnebrættet, en mulighed, som briterne og USA’s anglofile neokonservative heftigt modarbejde. Disse gennemtvang i stedet deres ideologi om en unipolær verden med et neoliberalt system. Den Eurasiske Landbro blev snart kendt som Den Nye Silkevej. Mere end to årtier senere er det kinesiske Bælte og Vej Initiativ, som voksede ud af dette koncept, blevet det primære lokomotiv for verdens fysiske økonomi.

Forandrede tusinder af menneskers liv

Efter hans løsladelse fra fængslet 26. januar 1994 fortsatte LaRouche sin karriere med at lave forudsigelser. Han udviklede i 1995 et pædagogisk værktøj ved navn »tripelkurven« for at illustrere for ikke-økonomer, hvordan en proces af »hyperinflation a la Weimarrepublikken« havde grebet den transatlantiske verden og havde udplyndret den i en sådan grad, at der ikke kunne gøres noget for at bevare det gængse pengesystem, og hvordan det var nødvendigt at omorganisere pengesystemet fra top til bund, idet man tog Glass-Steagall-loven fra Franklin Roosevelts »New Deal« i brug som første skridt i en reorganisering af bankerne. I januar 2001 advarede LaRouche om faren for et voldsomt terrorangreb på en eller flere amerikanske byer. En advarsel han fremlagde i forbindelse med en gennemgang af, hvorfor og hvordan det finansielle system var overgået til en tilstand af en »high-tech boble« i 1999-2000.

LaRouche talte om muligheden for en slags rigsdagsbrand i takt med, at USA, der med hastige skridt nærmede sig økonomisk ruin, blev stadigt mere umuligt at regere. I tråd med hans forudsigelse fra maj 1987 om et sammenbrud af aktiemarkedet i oktober samme år, udtalte LaRouche 25. juli 2007, et år før nedbruddet af Lehman Brothers/AIG i september 2008:

»Det verdensomspændende monetære finanssystem er faktisk i øjeblikket i færd med at falde fra hinanden. Der er intet mystisk i det; jeg har talt om det i nogen tid, det har været under udvikling, det tager ikke af. Hvad der er bogført som aktieværdier og markedsværdier på de internationale finansielle markeder er nonsens! Disse værdier er rene fiktive beløb. Der er ingen sandhed i det; bedraget er enormt. Der er ingen mulighed for, at det nuværende finanssystem ikke går ned – ingen! Det er slut, nu!«

»Det nuværende finanssystem kan ikke fortsætte med at eksistere under nogen omstændigheder, under nogen præsident, under noget lederskab eller nogen form for internationalt lederskab. Kun en grundlæggende og pludselig forandring af verdens monetære finanssystem vil forhindre et alment, øjeblikkeligt kædereaktionslignende sammenbrud. Hvor hurtigt det vil gå, ved vi ikke, men det vil fortsætte, og det vil være ustoppeligt. Og jo længere det fortsætter, jo værre vil tilstanden blive.«

LaRouche fortsatte, som det fremgår af ovenstående forudsigelse fra hans 84. leveår, med selv at frembringe originale bidrag op i en enestående høj alder, men det var ikke alt. Ved årtusindskiftet gik LaRouche i spidsen for en bevægelse, der rekrutterede unge mennesker – en bevægelse der fik så stor success, at Demokraterne i forskellige dele af landet forsøgte at overtage den. Tusindvis af unge gennemgik denne dannelsesproces. LaRouches ungdomsbevægelse frembragte banebrydende bidrag, bl.a. i deres præsentation af fysikeren Johannes Keplers arbejde, i oplæringen i bel canto klassisk sang af både gymnasieelever og som modgift imod kulturel selv-degradering og i audiovisuelle præsentationener af USA’s historie, herunder US-amerikansk nutidshistorie (i modsætning til »aktuelle begivenheder« eller de endnu mere ødelæggende »nyheder«), såsom dokumentaren 1932, som er blevet set af over 1,2 millioner mennesker.

Siden LaRouche for første gang optrådte som offentlig person for over halvtreds år siden, har den eneste tragedie, der karakteriserede hans liv, været, at han aldrig, hverken som præsident eller som rådgiver for en siddende præsident, fik lov til at føre de økonomiske reformer ud i livet, som ville have forbedret livet for millioner af US-amerikanere og for milliarder af mennesker rundt om i verden.

Selvom Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. vil være savnet af mange venner blandt ledende figurer indenfor videnskab, musik, økonomi og politik, var hans største ven – når vi tillader os at se bort fra hans enke Helga Zepp-LaRouche – de glemte mænd og kvinder i USA og i mange, mange andre lande.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., filosof, videnskabsmand, digter, statsmand, døde tirsdag i en alder af 96 år. Det var på Lincolns fødselsdag, en amerikansk præsident, som Lyndon LaRouche elskede og hyldede i sine skrifter.

De, der kendte og elskede Lyndon LaRouche, ved, at menneskeheden har lidt et stort tab, og i dag forpligter vi os selv til på ny at realisere de store ideer, som historien vil ære ham for. For dem der ikke kendte ham, eller kun for nylig har lært hans ideer at kende, er der ingen bedre vejledning til denne unikke personlighed end LaRouche selv. Her er hvordan han talte om livet her på jorden i en tale på en konference i 1988, midt i en politisk forfølgelse, der har en slående lighed med den, vi ser finde sted mod en amerikansk præsident i USA i dag:

Der er ingen del af samfundet, ingen vælgergruppe, der ikke har samme interesser. Der er ingen nation, for den sags skyld, hvor folk har andre interesser end i enhver anden nation. Vi taler om fremtiden for hundredvis af milliarder ufødte sjæle, foruden hvis succes vore liv intet betyder. Det er denne fælles interesse, der forener hver og en af os, sådan, at der om dette spørgsmål ikke er nogen forskel på nogen af os, i forhold til denne sag, denne interesse. Hvis vi kæmper på den måde, hvis vi kæmper med kærlighed til menneskeheden, ved især at tænke på de hundredvis af milliarder af sjæle, der venter på at blive født, og også tænker på dem, hvis martyrium og andre ofre gav os, hvad der var vores potentiale, og vores gæld til dem, med respekt for, hvad vi videregiver til fremtiden. Og vi tænker på vore liv, ikke som noget vi lever fra øjeblik til øjeblik, men som en lille smule erfaring, med en begyndelse og – ikke meget senere – en slutning. Og tænker på vore liv, ikke som en fornøjelse i sig selv, men som en mulighed for at opfylde et formål, et formål som afspejles i hvad vi testamenterer til de hundredvis af milliarder af sjæle, der venter på at blive født, under deres omstændigheder. Således, at hvis vi på noget tidspunkt skulle forkorte vores dødelige liv ved at bruge det på en måde, som sikrede de hundredvis af milliarder af sjæle, der endnu ikke er født, kunne vi gå i døden med glæde, fordi vi havde færdiggjort vort liv, opfyldt det. Vi er måske blevet nægtet chancen for at opfylde det i endnu højere grad, men alligevel har vi opfyldt det. Glæden ved livet, livets sande glæde, som har at gøre med hvad Det Nye Testamente kalder  agape på original græsk, caritas på latin og velgørenhed i kong James version (af Bibelen, red.), som nævnt i ’Paulus’ Første brev til Korintherne, 13’, kvaliteten af agape, kærlighedens kvalitet, kvaliteten af den hellige kærlighed, som forener os som individer med de hundredvis af milliarder af ufødte sjæle, for hvis kærlighed vi kan give vore liv, og med hvem vi smilende kan gå med glæde, og vide at de på en måde elsker os, også, selv om de endnu ikke er født.

Det giver en følelse af den sande betydning af vores liv, den sande glæde ved at være et levende menneske. Og vi må arbejde med hinanden i den forstand og med den indstilling til menneskeheden, menneskeheden historisk set, menneskeheden, der som en stor familie skylder sine tidligere generationer, og for nuværende skylder de fremtidige generationer. Kærligheden, der forener den familie er, i spørgsmålet om arbejde, det praktiske udtryk for den form for tro, fra hvilken styrken til at kæmpe og vinde denne krig stammer.

Hvis vi kan gøre dette, er jeg sikker på, at vi vinder. Jeg er bedre end de fleste til at forstå naturens love og naturlov generelt, og til at forstå sådanne dunkle begreber som absolut tid og den slags ting. Og jeg kan måske lettere end de fleste forstå, hvordan tro udtrykt på denne måde praktisk talt er sikker på at få succes. Vi er små hver især, vi er blot enkeltpersoner. Men hvis vi ved, at vi er forenede, at vi er forenede på denne måde, så ved vi, at hvad vi hver især gør som individer, på denne forenede måde, vil være årsag til succes.

Således har vi i dette forfærdelige øjeblik af menneskeheden historie risikoen for at civilisationen, som vi har kendt den i århundreder, vil blive taget fra os i de kommende to til ti år. Men vi har også muligheden for en heroisk løsning på denne krise, at blive den generation, som i vores tid – konfronteret med ‘bægeret i Getsemane’ – accepterede det, og således – i lighed med Kristus – forevigede grundlaget for fremtidige sjæles frelse.

Et år senere, efter at være blevet sendt i fængsel, skrev han i anledning af Martin Luther Kings fødselsdag den 17. januar 1990: “De af os, der befinder sig i Getsemane – et Getsemane hvor vi får fortalt, at vi må spille en ledende rolle med vore øjne rettet mod Kristus på korset – oplever ofte noget, som desværre er de færreste forundt. Vi har tendens til at se tingene fra en anden synsvinkel. Før jeg prøver at placere, hvordan jeg ser den seneste periode og perioden umiddelbart foran os, skal jeg forsøge at kommunikere, hvad mit synspunkt er, et synspunkt, som jeg ved, deles i en vis grad af alle, der er gået til Getsemane med øjnene rettet mod korset og siger: ‘Han gjorde det, jeg bliver nu fortalt, at jeg også må gå hans vej.

“Hvad jeg ofte foreslår, når jeg forsøger at forklare dette for en person der ikke har oplevet det, er at sige: ‘Forestil dig en tid 50 år efter at du er død. Forestil dig i det øjeblik, 50 år frem, at du kan blive bevidst og se tilbage på hele dit dødelige liv, fra begyndelsen til enden. Og snarere end at se det dødelige liv som en række erfaringer, ser du det som en enhed. Forestil dig at blive stillet spørgsmålet med hensyn til dette dødelige liv: “Var det liv nødvendigt i den samlede ordning af universet og menneskehedens eksistens, var det nødvendigt, at jeg var født for at lede det liv, summen af det antal år mellem fødsel og død? Gjorde jeg noget, eller repræsenterede mit liv noget, som var positivt gavnligt for nuværende generationer og implicit for fremtidige generationer efter mig? “Hvis ja, så burde jeg have gået igennem det liv med glæde, vel vidende at hvert øjeblik var værdifuldt for hele menneskeheden, fordi hvad jeg gjorde ved at leve, var noget der var nødvendigt for hele menneskeheden, noget gavnligt for hele menneskeheden. ” 

Senere, da han talte om Martin Luther Kings enestående geni i januar 2004, sagde LaRouche: Vi er alle dødelige. Og for at vække lidenskaben i os, mens vi lever, hvilket vil få os til at gøre det gode, må vi have en fornemmelse af, at vores liv og forbruget af vores liv, udgifterne til vores talent, vil betyde noget for kommende generationer. De bedste mennesker søger efter ting – som Moses – der kommer til at ske, når han ikke længere vil være til stede for at nyde dem. Det er denne følelse af udødelighed. Det er derfor, forældre i bedste fald ofrer sig for deres børn. Det er derfor samfund ofrer sig for uddannelse, for deres børn, for muligheder for deres børn. Du går gennem smerterne med lidelse og mangler, men du har en fornemmelse af, at du går et sted hen, at dit liv skal betyde noget. At du kan dø med et smil på læben: Du har besejret døden. Du har brugt dit talent klogt, hvorfor livet vil betyde noget bedre for kommende generationer. “

Den 12. februar (EIRNS) – Det er med bedrøvelse at vi må meddele, at Lyndon LaRouche gik bort i dag i en alder af 96 år. De, der elskede ham, sørger over ham. Det er et stort tab. Det er hverken muligt eller passende i disse første triste øjeblikke at forsøge at opsummere det dybtgående bidrag, som Lyndon LaRouche har ydet til menneskeheden. Men i lyset af dagens vurderinger, kan vi ære ham ved at oprette et imperativ, som han gentagne gange fremsatte: bedøm ideer og handlinger på grundlag af hvordan de bidrager til den fremtidige udvikling af menneskeheden. I dette perspektiv befinder vi os i et kritisk øjeblik i kampen.

For at begynde med den negative side, er der fortsat vildt dumme geopolitiske manøvrer i Europa, hvor regeringer slår om sig af mangel på at følge LaRouches paradigme om fremskridt. For eksempel blev der for nylig udgivet en ny rapport, “The Great Puzzle, Who Will Pick Up the Pieces” (‘Det store puslespil, hvem samler brikkerne op’) af ‘Münchens Sikkerhedskonference’, som mødes senere i denne uge. Rapporten henviser til uorden i den “liberale internationale orden”, hvilket har givet anledning til forslag, såsom at de vigtigste europæiske NATO-medlemslande ville være tjent med at distancere sig fra USA og NATO, og i stedet tilslutte sig Frankrig for at komme med ind i præsident Macrons nye militærblok.
 I mellemtiden har USA’s udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo besøgt Ungarn og Slovakiet i denne uge og opmuntrer centraleuropæere til at distancere sig fra Kina og Rusland og i stedet slå sig sammen med USA-blokken. Alle sådanne former for at spille den ene ud imod den anden er en intrigant blindgyde og meget farlig. Det er orkestreret lige ud af den britiske imperialistiske drejebog. Der vil sandsynligvis komme mere af samme slags i morgen i Polen, når den britiske udenrigsminister Jeremy Hunt kommer og tilslutter sig Pompeo og vicepræsident Mike Pence i et møde om sikkerhedsplaner for Mellemøsten.

Den modsatte, positive impuls ses i de gentagne opfordringer fra præsident Donald Trump, om at USA afslutter sit engagement i “evige krige.” Dette er en forudsætning for en fremtid til gavn for alle. For eksempel er planlægningen for Hanoi-topmødet den 27.-28. februar mellem Trump og den nordkoreanske leder Kim Jong-un, stærkt på vej. I dag er vietnamesiske embedsmænd i Pyongyang for at arrangere, ikke alene topmødet, men også et muligt statsbesøg af Kim i Vietnam, hvilket ville være det første af sin slags siden Kims bedstefar, Kim Il-sung, for 50 år siden. Kinesiske og russiske udsendinge mødtes i dag for at hjælpe med at Trump-Kim-mødet bliver fuldt vellykket. Om blot to måneder vil der være en verdenskonference med en oversigt over denne win-win-dynamik, nemlig det 2. Bælte- og Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde i Kina. Præsident Xi Jinping henviser til processen som opbygning af et “fællesskab med en fælles fremtid for hele menneskeheden.”
 Lyndon LaRouches livsværk har lagt grunden til dette, og meget, meget mere. Som han elskede at minde os om: Fremtiden bestemmer nutiden.

Fredag, 7. december, 2018
Interview
Webcast

De Gule Veste: En generalstrejke i Frankrig? Interview med Jacques Cheminade

Mens protester fejer hen over Frankrig for den tredje weekend i træk, giver den tidligere franske præsidentkandidat og leder af Solidarité et Progrès-partiet (S&P) – www.solidariteetprogres.org) – Jacques Cheminade et eksklusivt interview fra Paris, for at formidle potentialet og muligheden for at sikre en ny økonomisk orden for Europa og globalt, som bevægelsen med De Gule Veste repræsenterer.

For flere detaljer om S&P-programmet, se den nye videoserie “Crise cyclique ou crise systémique?”  https://www.solidariteetprogres.org/actualites-001/video-crise-cyclique-ou-crise.html

Den 4. december (EIRNS) – Det centrale spørgsmål i historien lige nu er: Kan vi få USA til at deltage i de igangværende bestræbelser for – på internationalt plan – at organisere et nyt paradigme på linje med Lyndon LaRouches opfordring til et Nyt Bretton Woods til erstatning for det Britiske Imperiums bankerotte system med plyndring og geopolitik?  Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche fremhævede det i dag, er dette det store billede der tegner sig i forbindelse med en vurdering af den strategiske situation efter G20-topmødet i Buenos Aires.

“Hvis man vurderer resultaterne af mobiliseringen for at få en fire-magts aftale mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien for at lancere et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem, hvilket ville indlede et nyt paradigme for internationale relationer til erstatning for geopolitikken,” udtalte Zepp-LaRouche, “kan man kan sige, at vi stadig befinder os i en dobbelt dynamik.”

På den ene side forsøger kræfterne bag det gamle system løbende at udøve maksimalt pres og skabe forstyrrelser for at forhindre, at det nye system vinder frem. Inden G20-mødet lancerede det Britiske Imperium en dobbelt operation med provokationerne fra ukrainsk side i Sortehavet og en eskalering af angrebene fra den særlige undersøger Robert Mueller på præsident Donald Trump, hvor der blev truffet en aftale om tilståelse med advokat Michael Cohen. “Alt dette var udtænkt for at forhindre topmødet mellem Trump og Putin,” sagde Zepp-LaRouche, “og man kan sige, at det var delvis succesfuldt – men kun delvist.”

De lykkedes at sabotere det planlagte møde mellem Trump og Putin, hvilket i betragtning af de strategiske spændinger virkeligt er uheldigt. Men på den anden side var der positive udviklinger på G20-topmødet, som var af strategisk betydning. G20 burde være det organ, der tager fat på spørgsmålet om faren for et nyt finansielt sammenbrud, og om at opbygge et nyt system – og som naturligvis ikke kunne forventes at gøre det, da der er nogle lande i det, der er ubøjelige modstandere af ethvert nyt system. Men på sidelinjen af G20 fandt mødet mellem den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og USA’s præsident Donald Trump sted, et møde, som begge sider betegner som meget succesfuldt.

“Måske endnu vigtigere,” fortsatte Zepp-LaRouche, “var det faktum, at der på Putins anmodning fandt et trepartsmøde sted med Xi, Putin og Indiens Modi. Og de var enige om regelmæssigt at holde sådanne møder i RIC- regi (Rusland, Indien og Kina). Det manglende fjerde land er naturligvis USA. Og det er for alvor stadig op til os at organisere for at sikre, at det sker.”

Præsident Trump har klart fornyet sit venskab med Xi, og han tweetede i går også om perspektivet om et møde mellem sig selv, Putin og Xi for at diskutere spørgsmålet om strategisk stabilitet. “Så det er klart hans hensigt,” sagde Zepp-LaRouche. “Men det betyder ikke nødvendigvis, at alle i hans administration er af den opfattelse.” Hele det britiske apparat forbliver i offensiven for at forhindre en sådan firemagts-forståelse for enhver pris.

“Der er ingen måde hvorpå det nuværende system kan fortsætte. Faren for et økonomisk sammenbrud, som vil føre til kaos, der atter vil føre til krig, vil absolut hele tiden være til stede, indtil systemet er udskiftet, “sagde Zepp-LaRouche. Hun pegede på Schiller Instituttets kommende konference i USA i februar som en lejlighed, hvor Lyndon LaRouches politik for et nyt globalt økonomisk system vil blive drøftet, med tanke på behovet for en klassisk kulturel renæssance som en del af det.

USA må på denne måde være internationalt orienteret med henblik på at arbejde sammen med Kina, Rusland, Indien og andre nationer for disse politikker. Dette er ikke en ny eller fremmed ide, understregede Zepp-LaRouche. Dette er selve den basis, hvorpå USA blev grundlagt: at gøre godt for andre. Det er arven fra Franklin, Quincy Adams, Lincoln, FDR og mange andre. Og det er det der gør Lyndon LaRouche til indbegrebet af en amerikaner.

Der er et helt kontinent, som skal organiseres ind i det nye paradigme, konkluderede Zepp-LaRouche. “Det store spørgsmål i historien lige nu er: Kan vi få USA til at ændre sig på denne måde? Vi kan gøre forskellen.”