Vær med på Schiller Instituttets eksemplarisk online-konference, for studerende og unge over hele verden. Deltagerne får mulighed for at gå i dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche og andre fremtrædende paneldeltagere.

Unge: Tilmelding for at deltage aktivt via Zoom:
https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/sept_26_conf

Hvor ville menneskeheden være i dag, hvis Lyndon LaRouche – og hans ideer – ikke var blevet uretfærdigt fængslet, gennem det der er blevet beskrevet som “bevidst og systematisk embeds- og magtmisbrug” og et “tragisk justitsmord”? Hvis hans ideer var blevet hørt uden fordomme i den nationale og internationale politisk debat, havde vi måske allerede udviklet en videnskabelig koloni på Månen, udryddet fattigdom for altid og mestret fusionskraft, hvilket ville have ført til en global økonomisk og videnskabelig renæssance. I dag er behovet for hans frifindelse måske mere presserende end nogensinde.

Schiller Institute indkaldte til en ekstraordinær online-konference for at diskutere LaRouches frifindelse. Deltagerne var unge fra mere end 25 lande fra alle verdensdele. Sagen om LaRouches frifindelse blev præsenteret for dem af nogle af dem, der kender allermest til den;
LaRouches enke, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ledere, der kæmpede for hans prøveløsladelse og efterfølgende frifindelse – Jozef Mikloško, tidligere vicepremierminister for den tjekkiske og slovakiske føderale republik; Marino Elsevyf, advokat i den Dominikanske Republik; og Theo Mitchell, tidligere statssenator fra North Carolina – samt LaRouches kollegaer, som blev sendt i fængsel sammen med ham, Paul Gallagher og Dennis Small.
Videoklip af LaRouches ledende advokat, Odin Anderson, den tidligere statsadvokat Ramsey Clark og Lyndon LaRouche selv, som alle vidnede i LaRouche-sagen ved de “uafhængige høringer om misbrug af det amerikanske justitsministerium” i 1995, udpenslede de forbrydelser, der var blevet begået.

Programmet på engelsk:
Panel 1: “The World Needs the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche”
10:00 AM – 1:00 PM EDT Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder and Chairman, Schiller Institute

– Jozef Mikloško, Former Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic
– Marino Elsevyf, Attorney-at-Law, Dominican Republic, Member of 1995 MLK Tribunal
– Paul Gallagher, EIR Economics Editor, Former Political Prisoner
– Dennis Small, EIR Ibero-American Editor, Former Political Prisoner

Panel 2: LaRouches idéer præsenteret af unge:
“Videnskab, kultur og store projekter i en global renæssance”

Talere:

– Yao Fei, Ministerråd for Folkerepublikken Kinas ambassade i Spanien: “Kinas syn”.
– Michele Geraci, tidligere italiensk viceminister for økonomisk udvikling.
– Marcelo Muñoz, grundlægger og præsident emeritus, Cátedra Kina, Spanien: “Kina og Vesten: To verdener”.
– Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og præsident, Schiller Instituttet, Tyskland: “Konfutse og Schiller: menneskets æstetiske uddannelse”.
– Dr. Ángel Álvarez, ingeniør, Cátedra Kina, Spanien: “Kinas svagheder i informations- og kommunikationsteknologi i lyset af den aktuelle konflikt med USA”.
– Jacques Cheminade, præsident for Solidarité & Progrès, Frankrig: “Økonomisk sameksistens for at overvinde geopolitik”.

Præsentationer om:

• Verdenslandbroen: udryd fattigdom for altid.

• Tunnellen under Bering-strædet: Forbind verdens kontinenter

• En alliance blandt præsidenter: LaRouches plan for Latinamerika

• LaRouches plan for Afrika: springet ind i et nyt paradigme

• Europas udvikling og en mission for de unge

• Johannes Kepler og sansernes dårskab

• Tænk som Beethoven!

• Kreativitet i en tid med kunstig intelligens

• Alexander Hamilton, LaRouche og kreditsystemet

Se alle fire paneler her.

Ordstyrer Dennis Speed dedikerede konferencen til to af LaRouchebevægelsens langvarige medlemmer, Ted Andromidas og Phil Rubinstein, der døde for nyligt. Derefter blev der afspillet en video med et uddrag af en tale af Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019).     

   DENNIS SPEED: For at påbegynde vores første panel i dag er det mig en ære at introducere Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Instituttet.   

   HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg hilser jer, hvor end I befinder jer på Jorden, og lad mig i dette meget farlige øjeblik i historien fortælle jer om formålet med denne konference. Hvis menneskeheden skal formå at overvinde den nuværende trussel mod vores eksistens, så må denne konference – samt mobilisering af netværk over hele verden, som er i kontakt med os – skabe en vigtig intervention, der kan trække verden tilbage fra afgrundens rand, atomkrigens afgrund, og dermed – og dette er ikke en overdrivelse – den mulige udslettelse af den menneskelige art! 

Formålet med denne konference i Schiller Instituttet er at foreslå koncepter og løsninger til den indeværende hidtil usete krise. Vi har – som aldrig før – en kombination af en pandemi, der er ude af kontrol, hungersnød, den største økonomiske krise siden afslutningen af 2. verdenskrig, et verserende finansielt sammenbrud og – mest fatalt – risikoen for en ny verdenskrig, samt, sidst men ikke mindst, en dyb kulturel krise. På grund af den enorme størrelsesorden af disse forbundne kriser, kan der ikke være separate løsninger for disse problemer, eller delvise aspekter heraf. Hvad, der er behov for, er et helt nyt paradigme, en løsning på et højere niveau end det, hvorpå alle disse kriser brød ud. Vi er nødt til at skifte til et nyt niveau for tænkning; noget, som Nikolaus Cusanus kaldte »Coincidentia Oppositorum«, modsætningernes sammenfald. 

Hvorfor befinder vi os på randen af krig, og hvorfor kan den nuværende konfrontation meget hurtigt blive en ny verdenskrig? Det korte svar er, fordi det britiske imperium hellere risikerer udslettelsen af den menneskelige art end at lade imperiet erstattes af et system med suveræne republikker. Lige siden præsident Trump til deres overraskelse vandt valget i 2016, har et ubarmhjertigt kupforsøg udfoldet sig, tilskyndet af MI6 i samarbejde med Obama-administrationens efterretningsapparat. Russiagate, som vi vil høre om fra [fhv. teknisk chef for USA’s Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur NSA] Bill Binney, en indsats for en bedragerisk rigsretssag, og et igangværende oprør fra dem, som Trump selv benævner det militær-industrielle kompleks og »den dybe stat« – herunder med voldelige optøjer. 

Ikke alene lovede Trump i 2016, at han ville arbejde for at genoprette forholdet til Rusland – hvilket Russiagate som helhed var designet til at modvirke – men fra Det britiske Imperiums synspunkt var hans præsidentembede et uheld, som aldrig skulle have været tilladt. Tag i betragtning, hvad I netop har hørt i videoklippet med Lyndon LaRouche, hvilket stadig er sandt i dag. Det grundlæggende strategiske spørgsmål i dag er, at der i det væsentlige er to politikker, som står i grundlæggende modsætning til hinanden: Den ene er Det britiske Imperium og den anden er forbundet med principperne i USA’s uafhængighedserklæring og indledningen til USA’s forfatning.    

Den grundlæggende konflikt   

Hele historien igennem de sidste 250 år i den såkaldt vestlige verden og derudover skal ses i perspektivet af denne grundlæggende konflikt. Det britiske Imperium forligede sig aldrig med tabet af deres mest dyrebare koloni. De forsøgte at vinde den tilbage med krigen i 1812, samt i borgerkrigen, hvor Storbritannien åbenlyst var allieret med Sydstaterne. Efter at de indså, at de ikke kunne vinde Amerika tilbage militært, besluttede de at undergrave det amerikanske etablissement for at få dem til at vedtage modellen for Det britiske Imperium fra det britiske Round Table og Fabian Society til H.G. Wells ’»Open Conspiracy« og læren fra William Yandell Elliott, mentoren for et helt samfund af anglofile fra Kissinger til Samuel Huntington og Zbignew Brzezinksi. Med administrationerne under Bush junior og senior samt Obama – Clinton var i det mindste opmærksom på problemet – lykkedes den britiske overtagelse af amerikansk politik endelig. »Project for a New American Century« (Projektet for et nyt amerikansk århundrede), PNAC,  var etablissementets svar på Sovjetunionens sammenbrud og havde sigte på endelig at realisere Bertrand Russels utopi for et verdensimperium: en unipolar verden, hvor alle genstridige regeringer efterfølgende skulle elimineres gennem farvede revolutioner, regimeskifte, interventionistiske krige eller direkte mord, som i tilfældet med Gaddafi. 

Og her var så Trump, der ønskede at normalisere forholdet til Rusland, afslutte de uendelige krige, bringe de amerikanske tropper hjem, og som i starten af hans periode endda talte om venskab med præsident Xi Jinping. 

Der er også andre udtryk for det samme forsøg på at etablere en unipolær verden. I løbet af de seneste år og måneder har der i stigende grad været en acceleration i geopolitiske konfrontationer med Rusland og Kina, der sigter mod at isolere Rusland og inddæmme Kina,  regimeskifte imod præsidenterne Putin og Xi Jinping, samt fuldstændig økonomisk afkobling fra Rusland og Kina – til trods for de strategiske realiteter – for at tvinge verden tilbage under den unipolære »regelbaserede« orden, der køres under kontrol af det angloamerikanske »særlige forhold«. 

Det seneste aspekt af dette er operationen omkring den påståede forgiftning af Navalny med den kemiske nervegift Novichok – berømt fra Skripal-sagen – som angiveligt dokumenteret af et specielt laboratorium i det tyske forsvar i samråd med det britiske laboratorium i Porton Down, Salisbury, som spillede en meget mærkelig rolle i Skripal-affæren. Forskerne bag udviklingen af Novichok, Leonid Rink og Vladimir Uglev, sagde grundlæggende, at hvis der var brugt Novichok, ville Navalny være død, og alle andre mennesker, der havde haft kontakt med ham, ville være blevet forurenet. Så det er totalt latterligt. Hvis Putin ville have Navalny dræbt, hvorfor skulle han så lade flyet lande i Omsk? Hvorfor ikke bruge tiden på hospitalet der til at dræbe ham? Hvorfor ikke nægte ham at blive fløjet til Tyskland? 

En meget tvivlsom rolle i dette spilles af »Cinema for Peace Foundation«, der betalte for et special-team af læger og hyrede et dyrt chartret fly i flere dage. Hvis man ser på, [hvem der sidder i] den internationale komité for denne organisation, finder man Gary Gasparov, David de Rothschild, brødrene Klitschko, Joschka Fischer og andre. Af en eller anden grund bragte Merkel denne sag op på EU- og NATO-niveau. Berygtede høge som Norbert Röttgen, krævede øjeblikkeligt – som en vred, knurrende hund, der blev sluppet løs –  »Lad os nu ophæve Nordstream II«. 

Så hvis man ser på »cui bono« (hvem har gavn) i denne sag, er det tydeligvis ikke Putin. Det gavner klart den side, der ønsker økonomisk afkobling fra Rusland og Kina. At afkoble Rusland og ramme Tyskland på samme tid. 

Forhøjet international spænding   

Igennem de seneste uger har der været en acceleration i antallet af militære flyhændelser, der var tæt på at udvikle sig til ulykker, hvilket er et udtryk for den øgede internationale spænding. Et par eksempler ud af mange:    

Et amerikansk kampfly kom ind i luftrummet i det nordlige Kina, hvor PLA (People Liberation Army, den kinesiske hær, red.) holdt en øvelse med skarp ammunition. Kineserne reagerede ved at opsende to missiler fra to forskellige steder til i det sydkinesiske hav. I forbindelse med en NATO-øvelse, der blev afholdt samtidigt i alle NATO-medlemslandene, fløj B-52-bombefly over Østersøen og blev stoppet af en skarp »intercept« af to russiske Su-27-kampfly. Der var også »intercept« af et RC-135 rekognosceringsfly over Sortehavet. Der blev også opsendt et russisk MiG-31-kampfly fra Nordflåden for at afskære et P-3C Orion maritimt patruljefly fra det norske luftvåben over Barentshavet. Rusland har rapporteret om et dusin sådanne begivenheder på en måned.  

Nogle af disse »intercepts« var på meget tæt hold. Hvis der bliver begået en menneskelig fejl, kunne det øjeblikkeligt udløse en større optrapning. Folk skal reflektere over det faktum, at hvis verdensfreden på nuværende tidspunkt afhænger af en pilots flyveevner, befinder vi os i store problemer. 

Husk på, at alt imens alt dette finder sted, males fjendebilledet af Rusland og Kina hver dag i stadig mere uhyggelige farver, og virkeligheden vendes på hovedet; en farvet revolution og et nazistisk kup påbegyndt af Obama, Biden og Victoria Nuland mod Ukraine fordrejes til en fortælling om, at »Rusland ændrer grænserne til Krim med magt«; Putin forgifter sine modstandere; Kina er ansvarlig for spredningen af coronaviruspandemi og den økonomiske skade forårsaget af nedlukninger; kineserne står bag optøjer i amerikanske byer. Hvor kommer alt dette fra?  

De økonomiske udviklingsplaner af Xi og LaRouche    

I september 2013 i Kasakhstan annoncerede præsident Xi Jinping politikken for Den Nye Silkevej, som hurtigt skulle blive det største infrastrukturprogram i historien. Schiller Instituttet offentliggjorde straks derefter en 360-siders rapport, »Den nye silkevej bliver til verdens-landbroen«, en opdatering af vores økonomiske platform gennem 40 år om, hvordan man overvinder fattigdom og underudvikling i udviklingslandene. Vi var meget begejstrede, fordi der var store lighedstræk mellem Xi Jinpings politik og livsværket fra min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, og vores bevægelse, som allerede i 1975 foreslog at erstatte IMF med Den Internationale Udviklingsbank, idéen om at have en reel udviklingspolitik i udviklingslandene.    

LaRouche nedsatte allerede i 1973 en biologisk arbejdsgruppe til at undersøge, hvordan IMF-betingelserne – ved at sænke levetidsstandarden for hele generationer over en lang periode – ville øge faren for en genopståen af gamle og opståen af nye sygdomme, såsom den nuværende pandemi. 

Han udviklede Oasis-planen for Sydvestasien i 1975. Vi udarbejdede en første udviklingsplan for Afrika i 1976. I 1982 arbejdede vi med Mexicos præsident López Portillo på en plan for at udvikle Latinamerika. En 40-årig udviklingsplan til udvikling af Indien. Det strategiske forsvarsinitiativ i 1983, som var et koncept for at overkomme militærblokkene – NATO og Warszawa-pagten – samt at udnytte den hertil forbundne videnskabelige udvikling til en gigantisk teknologioverførsel til udviklingslandene. Rapporterne »Den Productive: Trekant Paris-Berlin-Wien« (1988) og »Den Eurasiske Landbro« (1991) indeholdt de mange versioner af LaRouche’s genopretningsprogram, herunder hans forskellige programmer til genopretning af USA, som fremført i forbindelse med hans præsidentkampagner. 

I Lyndon LaRouches opfattelse af fysisk økonomi er tanken, at den eneste kilde til rigdom er individets kreativitet. Opdagelsen af nye universelle fysiske principper anvendt som videnskabelig og teknologisk fremskridt i fremstillingsprocesserne, hvilket leder til en forøgelse af arbejdskraftens produktive evne og kapacitet. Dette kræver en voksende befolkning, en større grad af arbejdsdeling, en stigning i den relative potentiel befolkningstæthed samtidig med stadigt højere energigennemstrømningstætheder.   

En sådan opfattelse af økonomien vedrører naturligvis menneskebilledet. Menneskeheden ses som den hidtil eneste kendte kreative art i universet. Menneskelig kreativitet er den mest magtfulde geologiske kraft i et anti-entropisk univers under udvikling. Og det er denne kraft, der fremskynder denne udvikling på anti-entropisk vis. 

Med Xi Jinpings Nye Silkevej er verdens næststørste økonomiske magt nu i overensstemmelse med denne idé om, at overvinde underudviklingen i udviklingslandene. Dermed trækkes der også tråde tilbage til Franklin Roosevelts hensigt og hvad det oprindelige Bretton Woods-system kunne være blevet til, hvis ikke Roosevelt var død i utide. Idéen om, at fred i verden som helhed kun er muligt, hvis alle menneskers levestandard forøges. 

Dette var kontroversen mellem Roosevelt og Churchill; at stille det amerikanske system for politisk økonomi til hele verdens rådighed, i modsætning til det britiske koloniale system med dets opretholdelse af de øverste klassers privilegier på bekostning af flertallet af befolkningen – såvel de britiske undersåtter som dem, der blev underlagt i kolonierne. 

Det var forbløffende: Snart udvikledes det største infrastrukturprogram i verdenshistorien nogensinde. Med en enorm udviklingshastighed havde man snart seks store økonomiske korridorer, togforbindelser, dæmninger, broer, industriparker. I starten af 2017 var der mere end 130 bilaterale og regionale transportaftaler, 365 internationale vejruter, 4200 direkte flyvninger, der forbinder Kina med 43 Bælte og Vej-lande og 39 godstogsruter mellem Kina og Europa. I april 2017 besøgte præsident Xi Mar-a-Lago, og i maj 2017 afholdtes Bælte og Vej-Forum, som jeg var så heldig at deltage i. Og jeg oplevede, hvad der var sket. Hvordan verden havde ændret sig og blev inspireret af ånden i Den Nye Silkevej. 

Hvad denne ånd indebærer, er et perspektiv for udviklingslandene om for første gang at overvinde underudvikling. Det er muligheden for at overvinde geopolitik ved at lægge et win-win-samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater på bordet. Kina agtede eksplicit ikke at erstatte USA som en hegemon, men at respektere den anden parts sociale system, ikke-indblanding i de interne anliggender. En vision om den ene menneskehed og Xi Jinpings opfattelse af et fællesskab omkring menneskehedens fælles fremtid. 

I mellemtiden har der været gentagne tilbud fra Kina om at åbne Bælte og Vej-Initiativet for alle; at have win-win-samarbejde. De har gentagne gange tilbudt USA et stormagts-forhold. Det kom, der aldrig rigtigt et svar på. I november 2017 aflagde Trump et besøg i Beijing – det, som kineserne kaldte et »statsbesøg-plus« – med tilbuddet om et fuldstændigt indblik i Kinas 5000 år gamle historie. Præsident Trump talte på det tidspunkt mange gange om »Min ven, præsident Xi Jinping«. 

Det Britiske Imperium slår tilbage   

Alt dette fandt sted, og der var så godt som ingen dækning af Den Nye Silkevej i de store massemedier i over fire år! Men bag denne mur af tavshed foretog det militærindustrielle kompleks forberedelserne til en komplet geopolitisk modreaktion. Hvad, der udviklede sig, var et vildt og voldsomt modangreb – af kræfter i Det britiske Imperium – for at forhindre, at »den internationale orden efter 2. verdenskrig« – dvs. opretholdelsen af den koloniale, malthusianske kontrol over udviklingssektoren, og principperne om den »regelbaserede orden« – ville blive undermineret ved, at Rusland og Kina tilbød dem adgang til industriel og videnskabelig udvikling såsom atomkraft, infrastruktur, eller endda at springe til de mest avancerede teknologier ved at tilslutte sig »Rum-Silkevejen«. 

I december 2017 var der offentliggørelsen af den amerikanske nationale sikkerhedsstrategi NSS under ledelse af H.R. McMaster, den daværende fungerende nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, som for første gang på en meget skarp måde definerede Rusland og Kina som geopolitiske rivaler, og udtaler:  

»Kina og Rusland udfordrer amerikansk magt, indflydelse og interesser og forsøger at udhule amerikansk sikkerhed og velstand. De er fast besluttede på at gøre økonomierne mindre frie og mindre retfærdige, at udvide deres militær og at kontrollere information og data for at undertrykke deres samfund og udvide deres indflydelse«.    

NSS-doktrinen krævede en genovervejelse af politikken i de foregående to årtier. Dette refererer til accepten af Kina i Verdenshandelsorganisationen WTO og Fukuyamas erklæring om »historiens afslutning« – troen på, at ved at integrere Rusland og Kina i de vestlige institutioner, så ville de til sidst tilslutte sig den liberale model for økonomi og det vestlige demokrati. I stedet udviklede Kina en model meget tættere på det originale amerikanske system: En meget dirigistisk politik med kinesiske karakteristika – men genoplivede samtidigt Kinas 5.000-årige historie. NSS-doktrinen antog, at »Deres inklusion ville gøre dem til godartede aktører og pålidelige partnere. I det store og hele viste denne forudsætning sig at være falsk«, konkluderes det. 

Tilbuddet fra Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet (BRI) til udviklingslandene – og endog de EU-medlemmer, hvis økonomiske udvikling er blevet undertrykt af EU-Kommissionen, såsom de øst- og sydeuropæiske lande – om at deltage i BRI-projekterne, blev betragtet som »at skabe indbyrdes splid mellem vores allierede og partnere«. Dette ville alt sammen underminere amerikanske fordele, og derfor vil USA’s opgave være at »sikre, at amerikansk militærs overlegenhed varer ved«. 

Rusland og Kina blev betragtet som en langt mere alvorlig trussel mod USA end global terrorisme. De »udvikler avancerede våben og kapaciteter, der kan true vores kritiske infrastruktur og vores kommando- og kontrolinfrastruktur«. Kina og Rusland kaldes »revisionistiske magter«, idet det hævdes, at Kina ville forsøge at fordrive USA fra Indo-Stillehavs-regionen, udvide rækkevidden af sin statsdrevne økonomiske model og omorganisere regionen til sin egen fordel.    

Og Rusland – hvilken forbrydelse – »søger at genoprette sin stormagtstatus« (efter at Jeltsin med succes havde samarbejdet med det vestlige oligarki for at gøre Sovjetunionen til et tredjeverdens råvareproducerende og eksporterende land, og blev fornærmet af Obama som værende blot en »regional magt«. De beskylder Rusland for at forsøge at genoprette »indflydelsessfærer nær dets grænser«, fordi de ønskede at udvide NATO op til Ruslands grænser. Dette blev betragtet som generende.    

Kort sagt: »de bestrider vores geopolitiske fordele og forsøger at ændre den internationale orden til deres egen fordel«. Derfor konkluderer dokumentet, at USA og dets allierede skal bevare den militære overmagt, og overbevise modstanderne om, »at vi kan og vil besejre dem – ikke bare straffe dem – hvis de angriber USA«. 

Farlige ændringer i militærdoktriner   

Blot en måned senere, den 19. januar 2018, annoncerede Pentagon »National Defense Strategy«, et dokument, der stadig er klassificeret; denne gang under ledelse af forsvarsminister James Mattis. Det hævder:    

»Det er i stigende grad klart, at Kina og Rusland ønsker at forme en verden, der er i overensstemmelse med deres autoritære model, idet de får vetoret over andre nationers økonomiske, diplomatiske og sikkerhedsmæssige beslutninger«.    

Dokumentet understreger opbygningen af et militært beredskab til »en mere dødbringende fælles styrke«, der prioriterer beredskab til krig, afskrækker aggression i tre nøgleregioner – Indo-Stillehavet, Europa og Mellemøsten – modernisering af nøglekapaciteter, herunder atomstyrker, krigskamp-evner i rummet, cyberspace, kommandokontrol og efterretningssystemer, missilforsvar osv. 

I februar 2018 fulgte Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), der viderefører Obama-administrationens modernisering af atomvåbnene indenfor alle tre ben af »triaden« og tilføjede »supplementer«, som inkluderer udrulningen af sprænghoveder med lav sprængkraft, hvilket de hævder, ikke vil reducere tærsklen til atomkrig – som alle ved, at det gør – men som de hævder, vil hæve denne tærskel – og udstyre et mindre antal Trident ubåde med sådanne sprænghoveder med lav sprængkraft og også hav-lancerede krydsermissiler med atomsprænghoveder. 

Med frigivelsen af disse doktriner skete der også pludselig et skift i alle større transatlantiske tænketanke, som havde ignoreret BRI i fire år. Nu vedtog de alle linjen om, at Kina bliver den strategiske rival. 

I februar 2018 udsendte den tyske tænketank MERICS en undersøgelse kaldet »Authoritarian Advance« (autoritativ fremgang), som, i tråd med amerikanske tænketanke, pressede på med linjen om, at Kina er et autoritært land; Silkevejen er bare en gældsfælde; det sociale kreditsystem spionerer på egen befolkning. Dette er optrappet til den indeværende forstærkede McCarthyisme vendt mod kinesiske studerende, professorer, medier og diplomater i USA. 

En måned senere, den 1. marts, annoncerede præsident Putin nye atomvåbensystemer, det hypersonisk  Avantgardmissilkompleks, det hypersoniske Kinzhal-krydsermissil, et nyt interkontinentalt missil med en hastighed på 20 gange lydens hastighed med fremragende manøvredygtighed, og som derfor kan udmanøvrere alle eksisterende luftforsvar og missilforsvarssystemer og gøre dem overflødige, herunder atomdrevne krydsermissiler, hurtige drone-ubåde og laservåben. 

I de to et halvt år siden har USA’s forsvarsministerium gennemgået en total omorganisering i henhold til de nævnte doktriner. De tilføjede en ubåd med ballistisk missil i Ohio-klassen, som nu inkluderer et eller flere missiler, bevæbnet med W76-3-sprænghoveder med lav sprængkraft og atomvåben-bærende B-52-bombefly, der flyver inden for rækkevidden af russisk og kinesisk luftforsvar. En amerikansk rumkommando blev etableret, og en amerikansk rumstyrke blev oprettet. Rumdoktrinen gør det klart, at målet er amerikansk dominans for at forhindre Kina i at definere nye regler i rummet. Den nye øverstbefalende for US Space Force, hærgeneral James Dickinson, sagde i en nylig tale:    

»Selvfølgelig vil vi forsøge at undgå konflikter, men for at gøre det helt klart: Hvis afskrækkelse ikke lykkes, er vores ordre klar. Vi vil vinde. Jeg vil koncentrere mig om at udvikle, fremme og acceptere en kultur med rumkrig«. 

Alle disse forandringer i militærdoktrin skete i tæt koordinering med briterne. Flere uger efter at NPR blev frigivet, var den britiske minister for de væbnede styrker, Mark Lancaster, i Washington og understregede, at NPR’s politik, NSS, NDS, også var den britiske regerings politik, og at de to programmer var tæt afstemt med stærk vægt på modernisering af alle disse stridskræfter. 

Ud over Pence, der holdt den første store anti-Kina-tale i henhold til disse idéer i 2018, er det Bolton, om hvem Trump korrekt sagde, at hvis han ikke havde smidt ham ud, ville sjette verdenskrig allerede være indtruffet, FBI’s direktør Christopher Wray, National sikkerhedsrådgiver Robert O’Brien, direktør for handels- og fremstillingspolitik Peter Navarro, justitsminister William Barr, og især udenrigsminister Michael Pompeo, der har stået i spidsen for kampagnen mod Kina.    

Pompeo, der i begyndelsen af juli i år i London mødtes med de selvsamme britiske kredse, der indledte russiagate-historien og kuppet mod Trump, tweetede, at det er »fantastisk at være tilbage i London for at bekræfte »det særlige forhold«, som vi deler med vores nærmeste allierede«. Pompeo satte sig derved åbenlyst i selskab med Kissinger, som den 10. maj 1982 fremsatte disse berygtede bemærkninger i Chatham House: »Som national sikkerhedsrådgiver holdt jeg det britiske udenrigsministerium bedre informeret og tættere engageret end det amerikanske udenrigsministerium«. 

Går vi i søvne ind i Tredje Verdenskrig?    

Så i betragtning af al denne militære sabelraslen og opbygning, herunder den nylige militære rapport fra Pentagon, som skildrer Kinas militære magt fuldstændigt ude af proportion i forhold til USA’s fokus på den »asiatiske pivot«-politik, der har været på plads siden Obama administration, og rækken af 400+ militærbaser, som USA har bygget i en ring omkring Kina, og NATO’s nylige bestræbelser på at udvide sin globale politik til Indo-Stillehavet, går vi så i søvne ind i tredje verdenskrig? 

Ja og nej.    

Nej, fordi nogle af militærstrategerne åbenlyst nærer en illusion om, at en regional atomkrig kan vindes; hvilket Rusland igen og igen har advaret imod, og har designet sin egen militære doktrin med henblik på at ødelægge denne mulighed for enhver tænkende modstander. Dette blev gentaget den 2. juni i år, hvor Rusland igen offentliggjorde de betingelser, hvorunder det ville blive tvunget til at gå over til en politik med at bruge atomvåben først. 

Ja, søvngængeragtigt, for som Lyndon LaRouche skrev i en artikel, hvori han diskuterede metoderne til den britiske manipulation af befolkningen i hele verden, »The Toynbee Factor in British Grand Strategy«:    

»I en ordentlig republik (og lige nu har vi ikke en ordentlig republik) – hvilket kræfterne omkring Benjamin Franklin og George Washington forstod korrekt – er den største enkelte kilde til potentiel fare for republikken en slags fremmedgørelse af borgeren fra en rationel forståelse af de nationale politiske spørgsmål, som er fremherskende i USA i dag. Dette spiller, som vi snart vil demonstrere, direkte ind på Toynbee-syndromet«.  

Se, det er i sandhed det største problem. At vi befinder os på randen af 3. verdenskrig; noget, der kunne udløses når som helst, og for hvilket, de militære doktriner er baseret på illusioner om at kunne vinde en mulig regional atomkrig, og at krigen vil kunne stoppes, når der først er taget atomvåben i brug. Jeg tror, at alle, der har beskæftiget sig med skrifter fra sådanne personer som Ted Postol, klart kan se, at når man først har taget atomvåben i brug, så vil hele arsenalet blive brugt. Det er denne fremmedgørelse af den almindelige borger, der ikke er opmærksom på dette, ikke bekymrer sig om det, som gør folk så ekstremt modtagelige for Russiagates synkroniserede propagandakampagner. Og nu, med hensyn til Kina, som den systemiske modstander, og den samtidige internationale dæmonisering af såvel Trump som Putin og Xi.  

Hvad må der gøres?  

Vi er nødt til at vække folk op til den overhængende fare for tilintetgørelse. Vi er nødt til at mobilisere verden over for at topmødet med præsidenterne for de fem permanente medlemmer i FN’s sikkerhedsråd finder sted i denne måned. Disse præsidenter og premierministre må vende tilbage til der, hvor Franklin D Roosevelt – som de alle tidligere har omtalt positivt – ikke var i stand til at realisere sin hensigt med den originale Bretton Woods-aftale. De skal erklære deres hensigt om at afslutte kasinoøkonomien, etablere en global Glass/Steagall-lov, etablere et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem for at tilvejebringe langfristede, lavt forrentede kreditter til genstart af økonomierne i de industrialiserede lande, og give kredit til et seriøst industrialiseringsprogram for udviklingslandene; hvilket naturligvis må starte med opbygningen af et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert eneste land på planeten, så denne og fremtidige pandemier kan besejres.  

Undersøgelserne, som Schiller Instituttet udviklede, om hvordan »Den nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen« [Fig. 1]  i kombination med et lynprogram til realisering af fusionskraft og et internationalt samarbejde om koloniseringen af Månen og Mars [Fig. 2], som præsident Trump har understreget i sit Artemis-program, kan etablere den nye økonomiske platform, hvorved alle nationer kan drage fordel af en højere produktivitet i økonomien.  

Den reelle velstand, som vil blive skabt af sådanne stormskridt i produktivitet, vil meget hurtigt kompensere for de angivelige tab forårsaget af et stop for stadigt større våbenhandel. Men i modsætning til sidstnævnte vil det øge samfundets reelle velstand i stedet for den slags primitiv akkumulering af den fysiske økonomi, forårsaget af den militære opbygning.  

Når der først er enighed om at erstatte geopolitisk konfrontation med win-win økonomisk samarbejde til menneskehedens fælles bedste, findes der et grundlag for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. Præsident Trump har gentagne gange udtalt, at han betragter en ny aftale om atomvåben med Rusland som det største udestående problem i verden. Topmødet bør derfor bekendtgøre, at det er hensigten at forlænge den nye START-traktat, samt atter at bekræfte princippet om at udelukke atomkrig.  

Verden står helt klart ved en korsvej, og det er op til disse fem ledere at sikre, at der ikke vælges en blindgyde, der fører til den egentlige afslutning på historien.  

Tag ikke det værste, men det bedste fra alle store kulturer  

Vi er nødt til at tilføje endnu en dimension. Vi må afvise den afstumpede populærkultur, som alle imperier til alle tider har brugt til at fordumme befolkningen, hvor man kontrollerer den ved at fornedre deres impulser, præcis ligesom romerne gjorde ved at lade masserne samles for at se drab  i cirkus og blive medskyldige i beslutningen om, hvorvidt gladiatorerne skulle leve eller dø. Og vi må drage vores konklusioner af det faktum, at Biden afslørede fordærvet af hans egen modkultur ved at forsøge at gøre sig mere attraktiv ved at samarbejde med sådanne »stjerner« som Cardi B, hvis video, WAP (Wet Ass Pussy), afslører et menneskesyn, som oligarkiet er mere end glade for at befolkningen har, fordi en befolkning, der er så fornedret, aldrig vil udfordre deres magt.  

Hvis menneskeheden skal undslippe den truende katastrofe, har alle store kulturer i verden brug for at frembringe deres bedste traditioner, de højeste idéer fra deres filosoffer og digtere, deres komponisters mest forædlede kompositioner, de smukkeste kunstværker indenfor maleri, skulptur og arkitektur. Vi bør alle blive inspireret af de skatte, som menneskeheden hidtil har produceret og begynde at tænke som patrioter og verdensborgere som en helhed. Ikke kun på planeten Jorden, men som medlemmer af den samme art, der snart vil bo sammen i en beboelse på Månen og en by på Mars. De fem ledere på det kommende topmøde må have modet til at formidle en storslået vision om fremtiden for den menneskelige art, for de millioner af genier, der endnu ikke er født, og som de er nødt til at beskytte ved at skabe et nyt paradigme i internationale relationer. Og de må tænke og handle på niveau med »Coincidentia Oppositorum«, modsætningernes sammenfald.  

Afslutningen 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche afsluttede det første panel som følger:  

»Som svar på spørgsmålet fra Virginia om, hvordan vi kan få folk til at se til stjernerne og løfte sig op over den nuværende fornedrende kultur, og jeg synes virkelig, at det er det vigtigste spørgsmål af alle, for det er min absolutte overbevisning, at enhver politik, uanset hvad den måtte være, udgår fra folks menneskesyn. Hvis man har et fornedret menneskesyn, eller hvis man tror, at kun nogle mennesker tilhører en elite, eller at andre mennesker kan betragtes som kvæg, der kan decimeres, som heloterne i Sparta eller slaverne i Rom, så dikterer dette menneskesyn alle aspekter af ens politik.  

»Så derfor mener jeg – i kombination med dette P-5 eller topmøde mellem fire stormagter, uanset hvilket det måtte være – at der er behov for et topmøde. Hvad der er brug for, hvad der absolut må inkluderes, er en renæssance af klassisk kultur. Dette er meget vigtigt, og jeg har nævnt det allerede, men jeg ved, at mange afroamerikanere synes, at hun er en stor stjerne, denne Cardi B. Men for mig er dette den absolutte inkarnation af slaveri, at acceptere en fornedret sindstilstand, og hvad vi i stedet har brug for – og jeg ved, at folk er meget ejendommelige med hensyn til deres musiksmag – men vi er i Beethoven-året (Beethovens 250-års fødselsdag, red.), og hvis man sammenligner den slags musik med den absolut ophøjende, forædlende ånd fra Beethoven og mange andre klassiske komponister – så burde det være indlysende, at hvis menneskeheden ikke løfter sig ud af dens nuværende tilstand nu, ved at gå tilbage til de største traditioner i hver kultur, så tror jeg ikke vi vil nå det.  

På den anden side er stor kultur absolut tilgængelig, og i morgen vil vi høre en smuk opførelse af sådan musik, og jeg vil gerne have folk til at reflektere over, at vi ikke løser disse problemer, med mindre vi ændrer den måde folk tænker på. Jeg er enig med Friedrich Schiller – og det er grunden til, at Schiller Instituttet er opkaldt efter ham – at det kræver stor klassisk kunst for at gennemføre æstetisk uddannelse, moralsk forædling af mennesker. Jeg kan fortælle jer, at hvis man ser på nutidens unge mennesker; hvis ikke vi forbedrer dem moralsk, hvis vi ikke gør noget, har vi ikke et snebolds chance i helvede for at komme ud af denne krise. Så spørgsmålet om kultur er den absolutte forudsætning for at løse alle disse kriser«. 

Se alle fire paneler her.

1. Jacques Cheminade (Frankrig), leder af Solidarite & Progres, tidligere præsidentkandidat

2. Marcia Merry Baker (USA), EIR-redaktionen

3. Bob Baker og amerikanske landbrugsledere:

Ron Wieczorek, South Dakota cattle rancher, LaRouchePAC
Nicole Pfrang, Kansas Cattlemen’s Association Secretary-Treasurer, cattle rancher
Mike Callicrate, Colorado, cattle rancher, Owner, Ranch Foods Direct:
4. Paul Gallagher (U.S.), EIR Editorial Board

5. Fred Haight (Canada), Schiller Instituttet

6. Michael Billington (US), chef for asiatiske anliggender, Executive Intelligence Review

7. Spørgsmål og svar

8. Beethoven-messe i C-dur, opførelse af Schiller Instituttets kor i New york
City.

1. Dennis Small (USA), latin-amerikansk redaktør, EIR

2. Dr. Natalia Vitrenko (Ukraine), præsident for Progressive Socialist Party, tidligere parlamentsmedlem og præsidentkandidat

3. Michele Geraci (Italien), tidligere minister for økonomisk udvikling

4. Hassan Daud Butt (Pakistan), tidligere projektdirektør, CPEC; Administrerende direktør for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Board of Investment & Trade

5. Marcelo Muñoz (Spanien), grundlægger og præsident emeritus for Cátedra China, dekan for spanske forretningsmænd i Kina

6. Dr. Björn Peters (Tyskland), fysiker, iværksætter og politisk rådgiver inden for energi, bæredygtighed og råvarer

7. Spørgsmål og svar, del 1

8. Dr. Joycelyn Elders (USA), tidligere chef for USA’s sundhedsvæsen m.m.

9. Marlette Kyssama-Nsona (Republikken Congo), farmaceutisk kemiker, politisk leder af Panafrican League UMOJA og specialist i folkesundhedsspørgsmål

10. Spørgsmål og svar, del 2

1. Jason Ross (USA), videnskabsrådgiver ved Schiller Instituttet

2. Dr. Bernard Bigot (Frankrig), generaldirektør for den internationale termonukleare eksperimentelle reaktor (ITER), tidligere direktør for den franske kommission for alternativ energi og atomenergi (CEA)

3. Sergey Pulinets (Rusland), Principal Research Scientist, Space Research Institute, Det Russiske Videnskabsakademi

4. Dr. Stephen O. Dean (USA), præsident, Fusion Power Associates (10)

5. Michael Paluszek (USA), Princeton Satellite Systems

6. Philip Tsokolibane (South Africa), head of LaRouche South Africa

7. Dr. Kelvin Kemm (South Africa), CEO, Stratek Business Strategy Consultants, former board chairman, South African Nuclear Energy Corporation

6. Spørgsmål og svar

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 8. august 2020. Jeg slår alarm! De fleste af vore samtidige undervurderer den eskalerende amerikanske kampagne mod Kina, og kinesiske analytikere frygter, at det kan føre til en militær konflikt inden det amerikanske præsidentvalg i november. Den tidligere australske premierminister Kevin Rudd advarer i en artikel i Foreign Affairs med den skæbnesvangre titel: »Pas på »augusts kanoner« – i Asien«, med en klar henvisning til udbruddet af Første Verdenskrig: »Det engang utænkelige resultat – egentlig væbnet konflikt mellem USA og Kina – ser nu ud til at være muligt for første gang siden afslutningen af Korea-krigen. Vi står med andre ord overfor udsigten til – ikke kun en ny kold krig, men også en varm krig«. [1] Den nuværende australske premierminister Scott Morrison deler denne frygt for, at krig mellem USA og Kina, der »tidligere var utænkeligt og endog ikke blev anset som et muligt eller sandsynligt udfald«, ikke længere betragtes således«.

Den samme bekymring kommer også fra russisk side: På 75-årsdagen for brugen af atomvåben i Hiroshima advarer den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov mod en ændring i den amerikanske militære doktrin, der nu betragter atomvåben som »anvendelige«.

Blot 75 år efter afslutningen af Anden Verdenskrig, der efterlod store dele af verden i ruiner, hvordan har verden kunnet nå frem til dette punkt med potentiel udryddelse? For det ville være følgen af den tredje, termonukleare verdenskrig. Det startede med metoden til »Schrecklichkeit« (afskrækkelse), med demonstrationen af en så frygtelig handling, at man overbeviser en potentiel modstander om, at han alene kan redde sig ved ubetinget underkastelse.

Lyndon LaRouche havde allerede fordømt denne brug af atomvåben som militært unødvendig for 25 år siden, i en kommentar til 50-årsdagen for Hiroshima og Nagasaki. Japan var blevet besejret for længe siden og havde undersøgt muligheden for en overgivelse og en afslutning på krigen så hurtigt som muligt gennem forhandlinger mellem kejser Hirohito og Giovanni Montini, som var daværende sekretær for pave Pius XII og senere blev pave Paul VI. Disse rapporter, som LaRouche modtog gennem samtidige vidner, er nu blevet bekræftet af dokumenter, der er tilgængelige i Nationalarkivet i Washington, og rejser spørgsmålet, om det ikke er på høje tid, at denne uhørte handling behandles og diskuteres som en ekstraordinær krigsforbrydelse. Denne handling, der blev begået med Storbritanniens godkendelse, og på baggrund af hvilken mere end 200.000 mennesker, for det meste civile, omkom, mens utallige flere efterfølgende led og døde.

»Der var ikke behov for en militær invasion af de japanske øer. Der var ingen militær grund til at smide disse atomvåben på to byer, Hiroshima og Nagasaki, for Japan var blevet fuldstændig besejret; der var kun et britisk geopolitisk motiv, som næsten ikke havde noget at gøre med Japan som sådan«, skrev LaRouche. [2]

Krigen var praktisk talt forbi. Japan blev afskåret fra sine forsyningslinjer af den amerikanske marineblokade og den russiske besættelse af Korea og det nordlige Kina. »I denne situation«, understregede den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov, »var USA’s atombombning faktisk bare en magtdemonstration og en test af kernevåbnenes virkning på civile«. Scott Ritter, tidligere FN-våbeninspektør i Irak, skrev i en kommentar til denne årsdag, at Trumans inderkreds, inklusive udenrigsminister James Byrnes og krigsminister Henry Stimson, gik ind for anvendelsen af atomvåben, fordi de troede, at det ville hjælpe med at skræmme Sovjetunionen fra en fremtidig krig.

Afskrækkelse som metode
Bag dette lå hele strategien, som HG Wells gentagne gange havde understreget, allerede før Anden Verdenskrig, og som Bertrand Russell offentliggjorde i sin artikel i 1946: »Atombomben og krigsforebyggelsen«, nemlig at gøre oplevelsen af krig så forfærdelig, at enhver mulig modstander, og især Sovjetunionen, kunne tvinges til at opgive sin suverænitet og underkaste sig en verdensregering.

Ritter citerer også direktøren for Manhattan-projektet, der fremstillede de to atomvåben, general Leslie Groves, som sagde til de involverede forskere: »Formålet med hele projektet var at underkue russerne«. Så det handlede ikke om at redde menneskeliv og afslutte krigen i Stillehavet på den mest humane måde, som den tidligere, officielle version om Hiroshima og Nagasaki har hævdet, men som teoretikeren for inddæmningspolitikken mod Sovjetunionen, George Kennan, har udtrykt det, handlede det om at organisere efterkrigstiden »i vores billede«.

I en artikel i Los Angeles Times den 5. august opfordrede Gar Alperovitz til en »ærlig national samtale« om den skæbnesvangre første brug af atomvåben, som »fortsat truer vores overlevelse.« [3] Hvad, der virkelig er behov for, er en international debat, der inkluderer Churchills dominerende rolle i forhold til Truman, samt de anglofile kredse omkring Averell Harriman.
Det er ikke en akademisk øvelse at identificere hensigten bag den oprindelige brug af atomvåben mod civilbefolkningen, eftersom det ser ud til, at det nuværende amerikanske etablissement er vendt tilbage til at bruge »afskrækkelse« som en metode til at fremme dets interesser, ikke kun mod Kina.

Hvad skal det ellers betyde, når de tre amerikanske senatorer, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton og Ron Johnson, skriver i et brev til ledelsen af havnene i Sassnitz og Mukran på den tyske ø Rügen, at de enten afslutter samarbejdet med Northstream 2-gasledningen, eller USA vil træffe foranstaltninger, der ødelægger havnenes økonomiske levedygtighed. Rørledningen er allerede 90 procent færdig og er vigtig for energiforsyningen ikke kun i Tyskland men også i andre dele af Europa, men i brevet siges det: »Sanktionerne er obligatoriske, og der vil ikke blive lagt fingre imellem i forhold til at håndhæve dem… Hvis I fortsætter med at levere varer, tjenester og støtte til Nord Stream-projektet, herunder ved at stille [rørlægningsskibe] Fortuna og Akademik Cherskiy til rådighed, vil I ødelægge den fremtidige økonomiske levedygtighed af jeres virksomhed«. [4]

Hvis det er tonen, når man taler til de såkaldte »allierede«, hvad skal lande så tænke, når USA officielt har erklæret dem for at være »strategiske modstandere« og »fjender«?

Den britiske terroroffensiv
Efter at Pompeo opfordrede til oprettelse af en interna​​tio
nal alliance mod Kina og {de facto} udstedte en opfordring til det kinesiske folk om en opstand mod regeringen, blev indsættelsen af den amerikanske flåde i det Sydkinesiske og det Østkinesiske Hav såvel som amerikanske jagerfly langs den kinesiske kyst forøget. Sundhedsminister Azars besøg i Taiwan provokerede igen Kina. Dette er det højest rangerede besøg fra USA siden 1979 og betragtes af Kina som en klar krænkelse af »ét-Kina-politikken«, som hidtil har været grundlaget for forholdet mellem USA og Kina. Den officielle reaktion fra Beijing var, at besøget bringer freden i fare.
Med Obamas politik om en »akse til Asien« blev udvidelsen af militærbaser i Stillehavsregionen fremskyndet, hvilket i dag repræsenterer en komplet omringning af Kina med over 400 sådanne baser fra Australien til Japan, Korea til Afghanistan og Indien. Forskellige krigsplaner fra Rand Corporation, herunder en med titlen »Krig med Kina: gennemtænk det utænkelige«, konkluderer, at jo før krigen begyndes, jo færre amerikanske tab ville der være. Jo mere Kina kan udvide sin A2AD-kapacitet (’anti-access area denial« er en militær kapabilitet), jo færre vil de kinesiske tab være, hvilket ville reducere den amerikanske evne til at angribe. Amitai Etzioni, som for mange år siden skrev en bog om at undgå krig med Kina, udtrykker bekymring over, at de igangværende krigsforberedelser kunne overbevise Kina om, at et forebyggende angreb for at eliminere dets atomvåben kunne være under forberedelse, hvilket kunne give Kina et frygteligt valg, om hvorvidt man skal angribe først, hvilket ville føre til en atomkrig.

Hvor langt vi er kommet ad denne vej fremgår tydeligt i en artikel af chefredaktøren for Global Times den 7. august. Under overskriften: »Hvis der udbryder krig mellem Kina og USA, hvilken side vil stå stærkest?« diskuterer Hu Xijin spørgsmålet om, hvad der sker, hvis Taiwan, som er en af Kinas kerneinteresser, af USA opfordres til at overskride den røde linje, og der opstår en militær styrkeprøve.

Uanset det faktum, at USA’s samlede militære magt er den stærkeste, er det, der tæller, når det kommer til Kinas kerneinteresser, kombinationen af militær gennemslagskraft, moral og viljen til at kæmpe. Hvem ville være den stærkeste i en krig ved Kinas kyst? Kina ville på ingen måde afgive det første skud, men Kina er godt forberedt på at afgive et andet skud som svar på det første. Når det kommer til Kinas kerneinteresser, vil det ikke bakke ud igen.

Fortællingen, sammenstykket af tidligere MI6-chefer Sir Richard Dearlove og John Sawers, Henry Jackson Society og Niall Ferguson, om, at Kina var ansvarlig for den verdensomspændende spredning af coronavirus-pandemien, var udformet til at bestemme valgtemaerne for det indeværende præsidentvalg i USA. Denne fortælling er sort propaganda beregnet til at tjene som baggrund for den militære konfrontation med Kina.

Løsningen i form af et topmøde
I betragtning af den hidtil usete kombination af kriser, som menneskeheden i øjeblikket står over for, er topmødet med de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, der er taget initiativ til af præsident Putin, muligvis den sidste chance for at afvige fra den nuværende selvmordkurs og opnå et nyt højere samarbejdsniveau blandt de atombevæbnede nationer. Dette topmøde må afhjælpe den egentlige årsag til krig – det bankerotte transatlantiske finanssystem – ved at etablere et nyt kreditsystem, et nyt Bretton Woods-system og etablere en ny platform for internationalt samarbejde i bekæmpelsen af pandemien. Dette topmøde må føre til en fredelig orden, der begynder med opførelsen af et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert eneste land på Jorden, og som fokuserer på de fælles mål for menneskeheden, som f.eks. den forestående realisering af nuklear fusion og internationalt samarbejde inden for rumrejser.

Enhver person og enhver nation med interesse for menneskehedens overlevelse bør aktivt støtte gennemførelsen af dette topmøde. Dette er intet mindre end prøvestenen for vores moralske egnethed til at overleve.

–zepp-larouche@eir.de

1. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-08-03/beware-guns-august-asia

2. https://larouchepub.com/lar/1995/hiroshima.html

3. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs

4. https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/2020.08.05%20Final%20Mukran%20Port%20Letter.pdf

Panel I: Se det engelske afskrift nedenunder. Her er talerlisten:

1. Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Tyskland), grundlægger og præsident, Schiller Instituttet

2. Andrey Kortunov (Rusland), generaldirektør for Det russiske råd for internationale Anliggender

3. Dr. Edward Lozansky (US), American University i Moskva; Moskow State University

4. Martin Sieff (USA), senior korrespondent for udenrigsanliggender, UPI; Senior Fellow, American University i Moskva

5. James Jatras (USA), tidligere rådgiver, det amerikanske senats republikanske lederskab

6. Spørgsmål og svar, del 1

7. Marco Zanni (Italien), formand, Europa-Parlamentets gruppe for identitet og demokrati

8. Oberst Richard H. Black (USA ret.), Tidligere leder af hærens strafferetlige afdeling i Pentagon; tidligere statssenator, Virginia

9. William Binney (USA), tidligere teknisk direktør, National Security Agency og Kirk Wiebe, tidligere Senior Analyst, National Security Agency

10. Spørgsmål og svar, del 2

Hele konferencen:

Dato: Lørdag og søndag den 5.-6. september 2020

Tid: kl. 16 – 24 dansk tid, eller fra arkivet bagefter.

Sted: Hvis du tilmelde dig her, får du et link sendt direkte til din e-mail.

Ellers vil vi lægge YouTubes live stream på vores danske hjemmesides forside.

Paneler: Talerlisten findes nedenunder

PANEL II (Lørdag 21:00 – 24:00 dansk tid)
Videnskabens rolle i skabelsen af menneskehedens fremtid:

PANEL III (Søndag 16:00 – 20:00 dansk tid):
Bælte- og Vejinitiativet bliver til Verdenslandbroen & Franklin D. Roosevelts uafsluttede projekt:

PANEL IV (Søndag 21:00 – 24:00 dansk tid):
Opbygning af tillid i internationale relationer: Klassisk kulturs rolle og bekæmpelse af global hungersnød:

Tilmelding: Klik her for at tilmelde dig og modtage talerlisten og opdateringer

Ellers kan den ses her: www.schillerinstitut.dk eller www.schillerinstitute.com 

Kontakt: for mere information: Michelle Rasmussen +45 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk

Foreløbigt konferenceprogram:

Arrangementet udsendes live på Zoom og YouTube. Der vil være simultantolkning på spansk, fransk og tysk på Zoom-platformen.

 (Det følgende er en delvis liste over talerne. Hvert panel indeholder rigelig tid til spørgsmål og svar.)

PANEL II (21:00 – 24:00 ): Videnskabens rolle i skabelsen af menneskehedens fremtid
1. Jason Ross (USA), videnskabsrådgiver ved Schiller Instituttet

2. Dr. Bernard Bigot (Frankrig), generaldirektør for den internationale termonukleare eksperimentelle reaktor (ITER), tidligere direktør for den franske kommission for alternativ energi og atomenergi (CEA)

3. Sergey Pulinets (Rusland), Principal Research Scientist, Space Research Institute, Det Russiske Videnskabsakademi

4. Dr. Stephen O. Dean (USA), præsident, Fusion Power Associates (10)

5. Michael Paluszek (USA), Princeton Satellite Systems

6. Philip Tsokolibane (South Africa), head of LaRouche South Africa

7. Dr. Kelvin Kemm (South Africa), CEO, Stratek Business Strategy Consultants, former board chairman, South African Nuclear Energy Corporation

6. Spørgsmål og svar

PANEL III (16:00 – 20:00): Bælte- og Vejinitiativet bliver til 'Verdenslandbroen': Franklin D.
Roosevelts uafsluttede projekt
1. Dennis Small (USA), latin-amerikansk redaktør, EIR

2. Dr. Natalia Vitrenko (Ukraine), præsident for Progressive Socialist Party, tidligere parlamentsmedlem og præsidentkandidat

3. Michele Geraci (Italien), tidligere minister for økonomisk udvikling

4. Hassan Daud Butt (Pakistan), tidligere projektdirektør, CPEC; Administrerende direktør for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Board of Investment & Trade

5. Marcelo Muñoz (Spanien), grundlægger og præsident emeritus for Cátedra China, dekan for spanske forretningsmænd i Kina

6. Dr. Björn Peters (Tyskland), fysiker, iværksætter og politisk rådgiver inden for energi, bæredygtighed og råvarer

7. Spørgsmål og svar, del 1

8. Dr. Joycelyn Elders (USA), tidligere chef for USA's sundhedsvæsen m.m.

9. Marlette Kyssama-Nsona (Republikken Congo), farmaceutisk kemiker, politisk leder af Panafrican League UMOJA og specialist i folkesundhedsspørgsmål

10. Spørgsmål og svar, del 2

PANEL IV 21:00 – 24:00): Opbygning af tillid i internationale relationer: Klassisk kulturs
rolle og bekæmpelse af global hungersnød
1. Jacques Cheminade (Frankrig), leder af Solidarite & Progres, tidligere præsidentkandidat

2. Marcia Merry Baker (USA), EIR-redaktionen

3. Bob Baker og amerikanske landbrugsledere:

Ron Wieczorek, South Dakota cattle rancher, LaRouchePAC
Nicole Pfrang, Kansas Cattlemen’s Association Secretary-Treasurer, cattle rancher
Mike Callicrate, Colorado, cattle rancher, Owner, Ranch Foods Direct:
4. Paul Gallagher (U.S.), EIR Editorial Board

5. Fred Haight (Canada), Schiller Instituttet

6. Michael Billington (US), chef for asiatiske anliggender, Executive Intelligence Review

7. Spørgsmål og svar

8. Beethoven-messe i C-dur, opførelse af Schiller Instituttets kor i New york
City.

Mange mennesker rundt om i verden, som er uvidende om, at en løsning til de mangfoldige kriser i den nuværende verden potentielt eksisterer, reagerer med stadigt større fortvivlelse og radikalisering på den ene eller anden måde, eller trækker sig tilbage til deres privatsfære. Mistilliden til regeringer og førende institutioner i størstedelen af verden har aldrig før været så stor. På et og samme tidspunkt er vi konfronteret med en pandemi, der er ude af kontrol, et økonomisk sammenbrud udløst, men ikke forårsaget, af pandemien, et kommende kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem og den stigende fare, ikke blot for en ny kold krig, men for at det utænkelige rent faktisk kunne ske, og en tredje, denne gang atomar, verdenskrig kunne bryde ud. Vi er i sandhed konfronteret med et systemisk sammenbrud – enden på en epoke.

Det bliver nu stadigt tydeligere for mange kredse rundt om i verden, at Lyndon LaRouches advarsel i 1971 var absolut profetisk: at Richard Nixons ophævelse af Bretton Woods-systemet, ved at erstatte de faste valutakurser med et internationalt system for flydende valutakurser, og åbningen af vejen til monetarisme, ville føre til faren for en ny fascisme, depression, pandemier og krig. Det er også klart, at hvis vores verden skal undslippe disse meget reelle farer, så må vi implementere en presserende reorganisation af verdens finansielle og økonomiske system i den fysisk-økonomiske tradition fra Leibniz og Hamilton, som LaRouche har været fortaler for i årtier.

Lyndon LaRouche har i lang tid opfordret til en firemagts-aftale mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien, som det bedste udgangspunkt for at påbegynde et sådant nyt paradigme. I dag er den eneste synlige struktur, som, realistisk set, hurtigt kan føre i denne retning, en konference blandt de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd, som foreslået af Præsident Putin i januar. De fem atommagter har et særligt ansvar for at blive enige om principper, som kan garantere menneskehedens overlevelse på lang sigt. Dette er særligt presserende i lyset af det faktum, at vores verden, med ophævelsen af så mange internationale traktater om våbenkontrol og andet, er faretruende tæt på at styrte ind i lovløshedens æra.

Men disse fem nationer må understøttes af et kor af andre nationer, individer og institutioner fra hele verden, som må kræve, at de trækker verden tilbage fra afgrundens rand. Dette topmøde må tilskyndes til at adoptere følgende:

– En mekanisme til at løse alle internationale problemer gennem dialog og diplomati.

– Et Nyt Bretton Woods-system – i overensstemmelse med Franklin D. Roosevelts intention og uddybet af Lyndon LaRouche – med det eksplicitte formål, at overvinde fattigdom og underudviklingen af de såkaldte udviklingslande, og som må begynde med skabelsen af et moderne sundhedssystem i alle lande.

– En aftale om at gøre programmet »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen« til grundlaget for sikringen af de mest moderne standarder i infrastruktur og industriel udvikling for alle lande på kloden.

– En ny sikkerhedsarkitektur baseret på verdenssamfundets fælles økonomiske interesser, hvilket indebærer sikkerhedsinteresserne for hver enkelt nation. De farvede revolutioner og destabiliseringer, som i øjeblikket orkestreres af det Britiske Imperium og dets bankerotte finansinteresser, mod regeringer, som de ikke kan lide, må have en ende – dette inkluderer blandt andet destabiliseringen af Donald Trumps, Xi Jinpings og Vladimir Putins regeringer.

– Et internationalt samarbejde i et forceret program for at bemestre fusionsenergi, et internationalt samarbejde indenfor rumfart for at bygge en by på såvel Månen som Mars, og et videnskabeligt samarbejde om forståelsen af liv.

– En aftale for at påbegynde en sand kulturel dialog, hvor hver kultur og civilisation forpligter sig til at lære om de bedste traditioner og universelle bidrag af andre, som grundlaget for fred og forståelse, og en ny verdensomspændende renæssance.

Der er præcedens for sådan en tilgang. Efter 150 år af religiøs krigsførelse i Europa, hvilket kulminerede i Trediveårskrigen, blev alle grupper, der tidligere havde bekriget hinanden, enige om vedtagelsen af Den Westfalske Fred. De indså, at hvis kampene fortsatte, så ville der ingen være nogen tilbage, som kunne nyde sejren. Den aftale etablerede det moderne grundlag for alle internationale love blandt nationer. Det er nu på tide, at basere international lovgivning på den lovmæssighed der findes i det fysiske univers. Det er det eneste sprog, som har evnen til at eliminere enhver misforståelse og tilsyneladende interessekonflikter på et lavere niveau.

Schiller Instituttets kommende konference vil stræbe efter at bidrage med idéer hen imod dette mål.

Tilmelding: Klik her for at tilmelde dig og modtage talerlisten og opdateringer

Ellers kan den ses her: www.schillerinstitut.dk eller www.schillerinstitute.com 

Den 3. august 2020 (LaRouchePAC) – Roger Stones rapport om den absolut beskidte, løgnagtige taktik, der er blevet anvendt imod ham, bekræfter hvad vi har lært af de undersøgelser af kuppet, som vi og en håndfuld andre har foretaget: at de der prøver at fjerne præsident Trump er kriminelle, som handler i desperation for at forsvare en verdensorden, der er i færd med at kollapse. Stone påpeger, at Trump blev udpeget som skydeskive af samme grund som Lyndon LaRouche: fordi han er en “outsider”, som repræsenterer en trussel imod det system, der er under verdensomspændende sammenbrud. Stones civilcourage ved at modstå disse kriminelle, bør inspirere os til at fordoble vores bestræbelser på at besejre dem, så vi kan genoprette det amerikanske system.

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.

I sine afsluttende bemærkninger i dagens dialog fremhævede Helga Zepp-LaRouche korruptionen i hele systemet, som ansvarlig for den civilisations krise vi står overfor. Hun henviste til sin bemærkning for flere år siden, på tidspunktet af Madoff boblen, om at hele systemet er et ponzi-spil med ingen interesse for det almene vel, men kun forøgelsen af den private profit. 
 
Hvad enten man betragter den hurtige forringelse af amerikansk-kinesiske forhold, den forværrende trussel fra Corona-pandemien, faren for massedød blandt børn pga. kollapset af fødevareproduktion og distribution eller  stigningen i sociale kriser som stammer fra den voksende fattigdom, fører det alt sammen tilbage til oligarkiets Malthusianske hensigt. 
 
Løsningen er den fulde implementering af LaRouche-Planen, som ville genoplive det Amerikanske økonomiske system. Det er det, som må forme dagsordenen for det topmøde, som Præsident Putin organiserer. Hun opfordrede seerne til at blive en del af kampagnen, for at sikre at topmødet finder sted og at LaRouches politik er på dagsordenen ved topmødet. 

MEGAN BEETS: Good afternoon, or good evening as the case may
be. I'd like to welcome everyone to the third and final panel of
the Schiller Institute conference, "Will Humanity Prosper, or
Perish? The Future Demands a 'Four-Power' Summit Now." My name is
Megan Beets, I'm with the Schiller Institute in the United
States, and I'll moderating the panel this evening.
	Just a note by way of housekeeping, in the previous panel
this afternoon, we were unable to show a presentation by Mark
Sweazy for time reasons, but we will be posting that video on the
conference page so that it can be included in the proceedings and
people can view that. [That that presentation is included in the
Panel 2 transcript, where it was originally scheduled -- ed.]
	The title of this evening's panel is "The Job of Youth," and
we are going to begin with a musical offering to set the tone for
our discussion. What you'll hear is My-Hoa Steger, who is a
member and organizer with the Schiller Institute in San
Francisco, California, performing Johann Sebastian Bach Prelude
and Fugue in C-minor, from the {Well-Tempered Clavier}....
	If we look back through history at moments of great
revolutionary change, we see that most of them have been brought
about either in part, or on the whole, by youth movements: The
Italian Renaissance, the American Revolution, the Apollo
Moon-landing. This is not by chance; there's a principle
involved, a principle that Lyndon LaRouche recognized going back
to the very beginning of his own political activity in the 1960s
and in the decades since. Young people do not just represent the
future, they create it. They are not necessarily trapped by the
old, failed axioms of the previous generations. To quote Percy
Bysshe Shelley, "young people resonate with the gigantic shadows
which futurity casts upon the present."
	Today is no different, and today's huge crisis requires the
leadership of youth, But youth who are qualifying themselves to
lead this new paradigm of civilization. So, let me introduce our
speakers on the panel tonight, and give you a sense of how this
is going to work. We'll hear first from the leader of the leader
of the LaRouche Youth Movement, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, followed by
Daniel Burke, who's a leading organizer with the Schiller
Institute, and is also currently a candidate for U.S. Senate in
the state of New Jersey. We'll then hear from a number of
different people, including some of the people who are leading
the effort to reach out to and educate young people in various
parts of the world: Carolina Domínguez Cisneros in Mexico;
Chérine Sultan in France, and you'll also hear from some of the
young people who have been participating in an ongoing series of
dialogues with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and in making organizing
interventions in their own nations on behalf of the policies for
a new paradigm. You'll hear from José Vega in the United States;
Sebastián Debernardi in Peru; Andrés Carpintero in Colombia;
Daniel Dufreine Arévalo in Mexico. You'll hear from Franklin
Mireri from YouLead, in Tanzania; Areej Atef in Yemen; Sarah
Fahim from Morocco, studying in Paris; and Lissie Brobjerg in the
United States.
	We'll then go to a dialogue, where you'll hear more young
voices who are part of this growing chorus.
	So, before I turn it over to Helga, I'ld like to go to a
short clip from the founder of the LaRouche Youth Movement,
Lyndon LaRouche. This is from an address that LaRouche made to a
gathering of young people, the LaRouche Youth Movement, in
February of 2003. What you'll hear him discuss is both the power,
but also the responsibility, of youth.

 https://larouchepub.com/lar/2003/3007cadre_sch.html
	LYNDON LAROUCHE: Because I saw the condition of society. And
historically, only a certain kind of youth movement can change
things.
	Your generation, as well as those among your parents'
generation, who are still alive and viable, are confronted by the
fact that your parents' generation gave you a {no-future} world.
There's no way you can make a deal with this culture, which
prevails today. No way. Because you can't survive! This culture
cannot deliver you the means to survive....
	So, you know that. What are you going to do about it? You
know that you don't have a future unless you can change society.
But you're a generation which is not in a controlling position in
policy-making of society. So what you do, is you go out like
missionaries, and begin to organize the dead generation, your
parents' generation, in society. And you see the impact you have
when you go into these various places, like the campuses--go into
places such as the state legislatures, or the Congress--you see
the effect you have. The presence of four, five, or six of you,
walking in, knowing what you're talking about, which is more than
most of these legislators can do, and others: You have an effect
on them.
	What happens then, is not magical, it's principled. Whether
people know it or not, the difference between man and a monkey,
is the fact that the human species can do what no monkey can do,
no ape can do, no Al Gore can do: Actually assimilate valid ideas
of principle, and transmit them to a next generation. That's the
difference between man and the ape. Man is capable of discovering
universal physical principles by a method of discovery which is
illustrated by Plato's dialogues. Or illustrated by the case of
Kepler, or illustrated by the case of Gauss, or the case of
Leibniz. Man can do that--and transmit these discoveries, about
what's out there in terms of principles in the universe, and
transmit this to new generations.
	These discoveries, and their transmission, increase man's
power in the universe, per capita and per square kilometer.
Therefore, the most important thing about man, is society. We all
die. Everyone is going to die. The mortal life of everyone will
come to an end. So, you've got a mortal life; what are you going
to do with it?
	How long it is, is not the most important thing. It's what
you go out of this life, leaving behind.
	And what do you leave behind? You leave behind younger
people. You leave behind successive generations of younger
people. You leave behind what you transmit to them, what you
contribute to their development, to the circumstances of their
work in life, to the conditions of society, to coming
generations....
	And when you're wise, and you're living in a generation, you
think about dying. Not in the sense of a morbid thing, but you
say, "I'm going to die eventually. Now, while I'm still here, I'm
going to get a certain job done. And my job is, to guarantee, to
the degree I can contribute to this, that the next generation
will have everything we have, in terms of knowledge, and the next
generation will have a better life than we had. And that future
generations will benefit from what we, in our generation, have
done." [end audio]

	BEETS: Now we're going to go to Helga Zepp-LaRouche who is
joining us from Germany, who is the founder and chairwoman of the
Schiller Institute. Helga, please go ahead.

	HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just want to bring to your attention
a very important writing by Friedrich Schiller, after whom the
Schiller Institute is named, and that is "Why Do We Study
Universal History?" This was an address which Schiller gave to
students in Jena in 1789, where he talked to a room full of
students like you are now assembled here on this webinar, and he
said that the fact that we have assembled here -- and you can
actually refer this to our situation as well -- you have to take
all of universal history into account: All of you come with a
very specific history, family, background, cultural experiences,
something which made you join this webinar. And he basically then
says, it is that which brings people together which makes them
uniquely qualified to respond to the historical moment in which
they are.
	Now, we would not be here without the man you just listened
to, namely, my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, who was really the
most spectacular, knowledgeable -- he knew just about everything.
He ran eight times for President, he was known throughout the
world. We had many leaders in India, in Mexico, in African
countries, who all expressed one thing, namely, that he was about
the only American they could trust. And he had developed a unique
method of scientific knowledge, of forecasting; he predicted
every single aspect of this situation in which we find ourselves.
He talked about the pandemic; he talked about the systemic
collapse of the financial system, when it was absolutely not
apparent, because everything supposedly went well. But if people
would have listened to him, we would not be in the situation we
are now.
	He had an incredible vision where mankind should be, which
is expressed in a beautiful movie he made, "The Woman on Mars";
[https://larouchepac.com/20170321/woman-mars] it's expressed in
his writing {Earth's Next Fifty Years}; which were all extremely
visionary ideas where mankind should be. But I want to emphasize
one quality, which I think distinguishes him from all other
people, because he had the most unbelievable passion for mankind.
And since it's now not so fashionable that young people should
have passion for mankind, I would like to encourage you to take
that specific aspect, the agape of Lyndon LaRouche, because if we
are going to save civilization, and you are going to save
civilization, because it's your future, I think you need exactly
that incredible love for humanity, and then, there is no problem
which is unsurmountable. That's really what I wanted to tell you.

	BEETS: Thank you very much Helga. Next we're going to hear
from Daniel Burke. Daniel is an organizer with the Schiller
Institute in the United States, and he will speak to us on the
topic of "If You Sat Where They Sit, What Would You Do?"

       - If You Sat Where They Sit, What Would You Do? -

	DANIEL BURKE: [as delivered] The Schiller Institute has
convened this conference with the urgent goal of bringing about a
summit of the leaders of the so-called Four Powers: Russia,
China, India, and the United States. I address my presentation to
the youth of the world, to encourage them to investigate for
themselves, what should be the character of such a summit. For,
without a personal notion of what should be accomplished, how can
you genuinely demand this meeting to occur?
	So my question is, "If you sat where they sit, what would
you do?" You can also stand, sitting is not mandatory.
	It may be useful to begin by asking, just who is it that we
are sitting in for? Not in the sense of, who are Trump, Putin,
Xi, and Modi personally -- but, who is a national leader and what
are their obligations?
	What authority is conferred upon you, when you take their
place, and where does that authority spring from?
	Some, like John Bolton, perhaps, would say that the
authority of the U.S. Presidency lies in its vast power -- its
military power. Its power to kill. These are the heirs of
Thrasymachus, outright Satanists, who, in fact, obliterate the
notion of "authority" by crowning "force" supreme -- force
without regard for its author. This concept of authority is
exactly the one {preventing} a summit from taking place.
	It's like Mike Pompeo's doctrine of deterrence -- kill them
first, that way they can't do anything wrong!
	To many Americans, the source of a President's authority
lies in the notion of "democracy." Since we elected our
President, he gets his authority from the people. He should
represent their will. These are the people who put, "Not {my}
President!" on their bumper stickers. But, it raises a question:
What if your citizens have become a bunch of raving degenerates,
on account of the misleadership of the past, or their own moral
failings? What if their will is to take drugs and play video
games? That would make for a terrible summit!
	If we change our approach, and say that this authority comes
from the "consent of the governed" rather than "the will of the
people," an obvious question follows: By what authority do
individuals confer their consent?
	In our nation's Declaration of Independence, we answered
this question by appeal to the unalienable rights conferred on
all human beings by their Creator -- to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
	Ultimately, therefore, the President's authority, and,
indeed, the authority of the leader of any sovereign nation do
not derive from the people, or even from the Constitution or the
Declaration of Independence (no words jumped off the page to give
him the keys to the White House), but rather from the natural
rights of the human individual in the living image of God. Should
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be promoted, the
obligations of that authority are fulfilled. The same concept is
known in China as the "mandate of heaven."
	This creates another problem -- you'd better figure out what
this thing called happiness is! So, if you're depressed, you're
going to have to give that up.
	I submit to you -- that the greatest happiness is that
corresponds most closely with our unique human characteristics.
{We are not animals!} We are {creative} creatures. We think, we
discover, we devote ourselves to the future. {Not} to the present
-- to the future!
	Here, I can disabuse you of the idea that you are important
because you are youth! It's not so. It's because you are humans!
I will quote from Mr. LaRouche: "Natural Law is the hypothesis
which corresponds to the necessary and sufficient reason for
mankind's successfully continued existence." That is -- human
progress in the universe towards a greater and greater mastery
over its principles, is an essential function of that universe.
We're acting on behalf of the universe, when we do that.
	As the German-American space pioneer Krafft Ehricke put it,
"By expanding through the Universe, man fulfills his destiny as
an element of life, endowed with the power of reason and the
wisdom of the moral law within himself."
	So, I think it is {not} at all an exaggeration, to say that
the authority of these Four Leaders, to create this New Paradigm,
depends upon the future colonization of the Solar System, and,
implicitly, the Galaxy. In that that is the most human thing that
we can do.
	Their actions today, these leaders, are necessary to the
task before us, which will have been vitally important to
creating that future -- today, we have to overturn the unjust
rule over world relations by Thrasymachus! He has palaces in the
City of London, in Lower Manhattan, and we should repossess them,
and his weapons of mass destruction -- financial derivatives --
should be buried in a cave where they can't harm anyone.
	And if we act in that way, we can unleash a Promethean age
-- we can create miracles such as as the founding of a freedom
from material want for every human child. A future where even the
Moon and the Earth, who have been lovers forever, according to
Percy Shelley, they will finally marry, the ceremony held at the
founding of the first international Moon village. And in case you
think I am too optimistic, consider the words of Lysander
Spooner, from his 1860 treatise, "The Unconstitutionality of
Slavery":
	"Natural law may be overborne by arbitrary institutions; but
she will never aid or perpetuate them. For her to do so, would be
to resist, and even deny her own authority. It would present the
case of a principle warring against and overcoming itself.
Instead of this, she asserts her own authority on the first
opportunity. The moment the arbitrary law expires by its own
limitation, natural law resumes her reign."
	Here I find, then, the job of the youth. Regarding yourself
not as youth per se, but as practitioners of the natural rights
of man -- discover for yourself the limitations of the arbitrary
law of oligarchy, which has prevented humanity as a whole from
acting in accord with natural law.
	What are the limits to a tyrant's power? Where is the weak
flank of the enemy?
	I think it lies in the flimsiness of the postmodern
paradigm, so-called. "The prevailing narrative" tells us that we
want to be free from judgment, free from responsibility, free
from rules or limits on our behavior. Free wifi. Or, increasingly
popular, we're encouraged to run society the way that the Big
Tech firms run social media. Block anyone whose views differ from
you -- they are not human, you are justified in ruining their
lives by any means necessary.
	And stacked on top of those narratives is a meta-narrative:
namely, that the universe as such is fundamentally unknowable,
and that "narratives" are how we impose meaning on our lives --
while we all acknowledge, with a knowing glance, that such a task
is, in fact, meaningless.
	You can know whether you like death metal, or lo-fi hip hop,
or K-pop, but you cannot know the meaning of your life in history
-- you can know if you identify as left-libertarian, or
right-authoritarian, but you cannot know how to end poverty.
Poverty, human suffering, these are merely part of the pastiche
-- the millimeter-deep collage of experiences that comprise our
lives.
	That fraudulent and quite Satanic view of the universe {is}
a weak flank. Across the world, the real physical economic
conditions have asserted themselves. The passions of the people
are erupting, and being manipulated to drive us further toward
the mass killing of the impoverished populations of the world.
But, it's my faith that a small number of people committed to
developing a higher, more beautiful concept of the nature of man,
can sound a certain note, and change the course of history. And
it's my view that this is not a hopeful wish, but it is hope
itself, upon which we have always depended.
	So, ultimately, will you find within yourself the moral
leadership, to cause yourself and others, to discover the
principles of natural law?

	BEETS: Thank you very much, Daniel. Next, we're going to
hear from Carolina Domínguez Cisneros, who is leading the Youth
Movement of the Schiller Institute, in Mexico. She'll be joined
by three others, Sebastián Debernardi in Peru; Daniel Dufreine
Arévalo in Mexico; Andrés Carpintero in Colombia. The title of
their presentation is "Getting Back the Great Ideas That Were
Stolen from Us."

   - Getting Back the Great Ideas That Were Stolen from Us -

	CAROLINA DOMÍNGUEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Carolina
Domínguez from Mexico. I'd like to welcome you to this
international conference, which is a result of the efforts of the
Schiller Institute, which I've been a member of, for a number of
years. I would like to share with you our enthusiasm and hope in
creating an international youth movement.
	Throughout his life, Lyndon LaRouche, and his movement which
we are part of, defended the idea of creating a youth movement
that studies the most profound ideas that humanity has produced.
These profound ideas represent the creation of new institutions.
LaRouche always said that, if you want to educate a president and
transform a society, you should create a youth movement. And that
is what we have done.
	The youth movement which we are now creating is based on the
idea of giving youth what has been stolen from them in their
universities, their schools, and in general. They have stolen
from them the idea that they can know the universe, they can
understand the universe, and master the principles which run the
universe that man lives in. In addition to understanding those
universal principles, they can take them, master them, and apply
them for the welfare of all society.
	As you have seen throughout this conference, it is essential
that youth and the new generations master these concepts.
	So our work in Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Argentina,
Venezuela and in general in Spanish-speaking countries, the task
we have taken up is to gather together these youth who are
interested in transforming history, in being participants in an
international process with other youth who are not willing to be
told by the media that yes, this is a sad situation, that lots of
people are dying daily--but rather that they have to change it.
They cannot just wait to some day be part of those statistics,
but they have to act.
	And that is what the LaRouche movement exists to do, to be
that guide. We have weekly meetings studying Kepler, the
astronomer LaRouche tasked us to understand. Kepler showed how
human beings are able to understand those principles, and he left
us documents that allow us to understand his method and his
thinking. We also study Friedrich Schiller--right now we are
reading the Letters Upon the Aesthetic Education of Man, which
has totally stunned the youth about how they have been denied all
these ideas in the universities. The younger people in these
meetings are the ones who are most struck, thinking that their
education has only been to learn things, pass an exam, and then
forget them. Now they recognize, by participating in our
movement, that the knowledge and method they are learning is
useful to transform society.
	So the message I want to give you is to join and participate
in this movement. I don't expect you to agree with all of the
ideas that he have discussed on these panels, but I do believe
that we have all felt at some point that things are not right,
and that it is necessary to do something, to assume
responsibility as young adults.
	The following messages that we are going to hear are from
youth whom we have asked to comment on what they think of the
work we've done with them--youth from Peru, Colombia and Mexico,
who have taken up the opportunity to know the ideas that were
stolen from them in their formal education.
	So I invite you to participate in this. We have meetings
every week, and this movement is growing. All of the work which
Lyndon LaRouche developed has allowed us to master ideas that
will help us change history, and not be reconciled to a totally
uncertain future. That is my message to you; we're here so that
all youth can participate in this process. Thank you, very much.

	SEBASTIÁN DEBERNARDI: Good afternoon. My name is Sebastián
Debernardi of Lima, Peru. I want to tell you about a Dialogue
Meeting that we held on June 17, with the participation of
Schiller Institute youth from Latin America, on the subject of
the proposal to create 1.5 billion new, productive jobs in the
world. That program is in response to the economic and health
crises globally, and to the urgent need of the population as a
whole to have greater development for their lives, and those of
their families.
	Various great projects proposed for our countries by the
Schiller Institute can have a major impact both on the creation
of jobs that improve the quality of life for people, such as
access to a better education and culture to be able to carry them
out, as well as benefits they would bring in the short term.
	The Dialogue Meeting was characterized by a shared optimism,
as a result of the joint search for answers to the problems of
the age, which are overwhelming our countries. And so we met
virtually this time, hoping to be able to actually meet soon as a
result of the completed great projects.

	ANDRÉS CARPINTERO: Hello, friends. My name is Andrés from
Bogotá, Colombia. I'd like to invite you to get to know the
proposals of the movement that Helga and Lyndon LaRouche have
created, to reverse the economic and social entropy that has
brought us the chaos we are in today. We need to learn and
acquire the tools to create a clean and sustainable future,
inspired by reason, morality and art. We youth will build the
world of the next 50 years. Join and participate in this
marvelous movement.

	DANIEL DUFREINE ARÉVALO: Hi, how are you? I'm Daniel, and
I'm very happy to greet you from Mexico. I have a very important
message for you, especially the youth. We are living in a world
that is changing ever more quickly, but the only thing that
hasn't changed is oppression by the powerful, who are toying with
the world's people. We are living in mankind's most important
age, a mankind whose purpose is to grow and improve those aspects
of life which make us human: love, passion, joy and methodology.
The powerful have taken all of this from us, and they will
continue to do so, unless we change this reality.
	Fortunately, there is a plan, a plan inspired in the
profound thinking of Lyndon LaRouche, which essentially is an
educational for fighting against the problems caused by the sick
ambitions of the Wall Street and City of London circles. That
plan requires the greatest possible number of youth, with their
dreams and hopes, in order to make a better world in which to
live, and not merely survive.
	The Glass-Steagall Act will be implemented; the banks will
be quarantined because they are bankrupt; and the toxic
derivatives bubble will be frozen. We will demand that the
leaders of Russia, China, the United States and India meet to
decide on the next stage of industrial growth, which will allow
us to grow more, while using less. Connecting the world with
hundreds of thousands of kilometers of high-speed rail lines;
creating more than 1.5 billion jobs in the whole world.
	The time for changing the world has arrived, and we need you
now. Let us fight now, to make this reality possible. Let us all
fight to free the world, to bring down national barriers, to
eliminate ambition and hate. Let us fight for the world of
reason, for a world where science, where progress lead us all to
happiness. Brothers, in the name of freedom, we must all unite.

	BEETS: So, you've now heard from the United States and from
Ibero-America. We're going to go across the Atlantic now, where
it's much later at night, and we're going to hear next from
Franklin Mireri, who is the partnership's coordinator for
YouLead, which is an organization I think he'll tell you
something about, which is based in Arusha, Tanzania.
	Hi, Franklin. Nice to see you. Go ahead.

    - The Greatest Want of the World Is for True Leaders -

	FRANKLIN MIRERI: [as delivered] Hi Megan, nice to hear from
you. Thank you, it's a pleasure.
	Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow citizens of the world. Allow me
to greet you in the famous Swahili greeting, "{Jambo}!" which
simply means "Hello."
	My name is Franklin Mireri, from Kenya, representing the
YouLead program. YouLead is East Africa's flagship Youth
Leadership and Development Program working to unlock youth
leadership potential for a prosperous region. YouLead is a
collective-action youth program hosted by MS Training Centre for
Development Cooperation (MSTCDC) and the East African Community
Headquarters in Arusha, Tanzania. It is co-owned and supported by
the YouLead Consortium of over 25 State and Non-State Partners
across all the 6 East African Countries (EAC) and Member States
of the EAC.
	We are cognizant of the wonderful work that being done by
the Schiller institute in advocating for and mobilizing
governments to respond definitively to the current crises,
especially through the efforts of impassioned youth across the
world, who are committed to taking responsibility of persuading
their governments into action.
	Last month, YouLead, a consortium organization in the six
East Africa countries, launched a sovereign report on the
disruptions of the coronavirus in the youth life in East Africa.
The study, which was conducted between March and April, laid bare
the bare the startling socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 to the
livelihoods here in East Africa: 59% of the respondents had
extremely severe negative impacts to their income and this was
just at the beginning of the crisis in March; 57% had experienced
severe impact to their education, while 34% were not working from
home because of the nature of their work. We believe that the
economic impact will be most severe in developing countries,
since many countries do not have social security safety nets.
	At YouLead we are developing an online jobs platform for
East African Youth, to mitigate the economics effects that have
been brought about by the coronavirus. The platform will bring
together skilled youth and potential employers on the same
platform, with an emphasis on verified skills and a scoring
system from successfully completed tasks, which build trust. The
platform will provide three distinct features: a platform to
reskill and retool youth; a one-stop shop for employers and
employees; and a youth employer mobility passport, the year's
passport. And finally, skilled and unskilled jobs without
borders. This is to overcome the challenge of labor mobility in
East Africa.
	The creation of 1.5 billion new jobs across the world and
dedicated financing for efficient health infrastructures in every
country will definitely require more than just talk. Sadly, many
of the noble ideas that have been advanced in the past, like the
Millennium Development Goals, then the Sustainable Development
Goals, the Global Goals, and action towards curbing climate
change, have been clawed back because of a lack of leadership.
	The greatest want of the world right now is for True
leaders. Leaders who will not be bought or sold, leaders who are
true and honest to the plight and needs of their citizens and
humanity. Leaders who do not fear calling impunity and servitude
by its name, leaders who will stand for what is right, though the
heavens fall.
	Allow me to end by quoting a famous Swahili phrase --
"{Hakuna Matata}," which means "All is well." I am sure most of
you have heard that saying in many cartoons or animation films.
The phrase appeals to the optimistic good-natured spirit of human
beings all over the world. The truth is that the world is
presently faced with a uniquely challenging combination of
threats on every side.
	This is the time for decisive action by everyone: young and
old, rich and not-so-rich, from every religion, race and kindred.
If we do not move and act decisively, together -- the
consequences will be dire.
	Thank you

	BEETS: Thank you very much, Franklin. Next we're going to
hear from Sarah Fahim, who is a student from Morocco who is
studying in Paris, and she's been working alongside our Schiller
Institute friends in Paris, France. Hello, Sarah.

	SARAH FAHIM: Hello, everyone's hearing me? OK.
	I study in the Schiller Institute's press my thoughts on the
situation in young people's fate in my country and across Africa,
because many of the causes are still present there today. So real
phenomena are at the source of the failure of these young people
to enter the professional world.
	Morocco is divided country. Politics have unfortunately made
of the national educational system something singularly reserved
for less privileged social classes. There are way too many
students and they're growing towards a school system that does
not lead them out of poverty, and towards success. There are way
too few teachers and they're discouraged by mediocre conditions,
and educational structure. Then comes trouble with language: In
public school classrooms French is not well taught, even when
this language is, especially since the French protectorates that
ended 1956, essential in today's job market. This language, as
well as the Arabic language, is spoken daily across the country.
These young people then find themselves less trained, pushed
aside, and see their future constricted by these conditions.
	At the same time, another part of the population is
benefitting from quality teaching. The educational system itself
has never before been this developed. This minority has access to
an education that, while expensive, still guarantees admission
into prestigious universities as well as very good jobs, the best
in the country. This evolution has led to a very real crisis,
driven by the loss of confidence in one school, its role,
efficacy, and equality. Public schooling, though supposed to
bring children from various backgrounds together, as opposed to
separating them, has failed. This observation is a real threat to
African development. Governors do not ask for the required
urgency to repair and invest in young people's educations, to
offer them training that will ensure job acquisitions down the
line.
	This is how creating job opportunities as mentioned in the
LaRouche plan will be achieved. Indeed, we need to remember that
in the '60s, economists created a positive correlation between
human investments and economic growth. The development process of
industrialized countries as well as developing countries has been
structurally shown to accompany a general growth the skills and
educational levels of their population. The essence of creation
of job opportunities lies in education which is one of the
strongest weapons against mass poverty.
	While we stand to support the African development process, I
always wondered if there was this conscious will to deprive
Africa from developments and education for its youth? Can
knowledge be dangerous? The answer to this question came to me
when I paid closer attention to colonialism in this continent. It
is important to understand that, in today's world, as claimed by
LaRouche studies and conferences led by the Schiller Institute,
every country's prosperity contributes to the well-being of the
general population.
	To me, at 19 years old, the only way to save the youth from
this vicious cycle is to train them. Exposure to social media is
stronger than ever nowadays. We must use all the digital
resources we have access to and take advantage of this potential.
With around 364 million Africans ages 15-35, this continent has
the youngest population on Earth. The United Nations predicted
that Africa will be home to over 40% of the global youth
population by 2030. The challenge of how to successfully
integrate these new people into the formal economy needs to
become a top priority for governments, policymakers, and
development practitioners.
	I was lucky enough to be born to a couple of hard-working
parents, that had the privilege to offer me an education, that
could help me succeed. I want this opportunity to become a right.
The children of my country, of my continent, of the entire planet
deserve these rights. But even the paradoxical reality between a
youth that is sabotaged by our educational system and this
enormous potential young people have, complete with the will to
act and in an awareness of the battles to come, it is our duty to
provide them with the necessary tools and the new job
opportunities will naturally follow. Thank you.

	BEETS: Thank you so much, Sarah. Next we're going to go to
Chérine Sultan, in Paris, France. She will be speaking in French.
I'd like to make sure the interpretation is working before we get
underway. We have to fix an echo. Thanks to everyone for being
patient.
	OK, now we're working. Go ahead.

	CHÉRINE SULTAN: [as translated] I would like to thank Sarah
for developing this question of digital, as a chance to develop
youth. But I would like to raise the negative point of the
digital culture today and see what we can do. We could call that,
"the youth and the digital and the future, how to employ
digital?" Because often, you get children whose parents are
telling them, you have to work in order to earn money, and you
have to get good results in school. And when you have good
results in school, the parents say, "well, I'm going to give him
one hour of television, one hour of internet, because he's
deserved it." So, it's a kind pathway to push children to
education.
	The problem is that the good results in school are not so
good, because the level of education has been going down. So
international studies which are showing competencies of children
in OECD, show that that the levels are lowering and equalities in
measurement of the levels.
	So this success is not at school. But we see the young
people have a lot of success in the social networks, that is,
that is the new way to have success. So you will see, on
Instagram, on YouTube. And the objective of these media is to be
seen to have a lot of viewers. So the young people want to be
"influencers." It's become a competition, and the negative point
in that is, some of them are becoming Manhattan sellers, even
against their well, but they're just selling things, selling
themselves, selling products: for instance, makeup, clothes,
drinking. Imagine that, for the very famous influencers, we can
have $20,000 for some minutes of video, and some of them are less
than 18 years old, so the parents are dealing with that; and some
of them are very happy to have this money, because of the
unemployment. So that is a big challenge.
	Because I'm just asking the question, who is gaining, who is
earning the money, really? Actually, it's not the people who are
selling the product, it is the companies. Because the companies
are just using those young people to selling things. So we can
see that the videos are touching more and more people than
advertising in the metro stations, because it's spreading very
widely on the internet. And so, if you know Edward Bernays on
propaganda, he developed the concept of advertising, this idea of
making people commercialized, to sell people was already
developed.
	One of the favorite hobbies of youth is TikTok, today.
TikTok is one of the main occupations of children. I don't know
how many millions of young people have subscribed to this
network. You have a lot of young people dancing, and you have to
manage to do a perfect dance movement on the video, to enter the
application and you can share the video -- and you can do it
again and again, before you share it. And so you're repeating all
the movements. Now you have children in classrooms or at home,
are doing the movements unconsciously, so it's kind of a
robotization of the body's movement. So their behavior is
modelled by this kind of dance. People are more and more sharing
their pictures without really going to other places; they're
staying at home, sharing pictures, and not traveling or going
anywhere to share.
	Finally, people are becoming enslaved by social networks.
You could say that those young people who want to be influencers,
you could say that -- (I'm trying to get the idea); so you have
those young people who have access to a higher degree, and they
want to be not influencers as such in the social networks, but
they want to build startups. And the problem is that even in this
world of the startup, the small companies growing up, there is a
trap, because you need a lot of finance at the beginning, and the
finances coming from the big companies, if you don't have money
to invest at the beginning, you have to submit to the big
companies like Google, Microsoft, and you will have to work for
them. But because in France you have something, just call it,
Station F, which is a startup incubator -- like you have a lot of
young people going things, and to go in that you have to pay
rent, you have to access to employment, often, you have to be
dependent on a big company like the GAFAM, which is Google,
Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft. And if you are clever
enough to develop something, the big company will help you but
you will be under the circumstance of being employed by the
company.
	So your competence is used by those big companies. So maybe
you are clever, you've done good studies, but we have to change
the social environment and the economic environment, to ensure
that the intelligence of people is used for the common good, not
for those who have power. The question is, who will be instructed
politicians, because now you have a lot of politicians who are
discouraging, they are showing a lot of mediocrity.
	So if you want to really be a startup to change the system
you have to join our movement. If you want to start to develop as
a young student, you have to join our movement, study how Kepler
discovered the Solar System, that's what we're working on, that's
what determines our capacity to understand the Four Laws that
LaRouche has developed, for instance. So on that, I want to thank
you.

	BEETS: Thank you very much, Chérine, for that challenge.
Now, we're going to go back across the Atlantic, back to the
United States, to Lissie Brobjerg, who is an organizer with the
Schiller Institute, formerly in Denmark and now in United States.
Her speech is "Are You a Large-Scale Geological Force?"

	LISSIE BROBJERG: [as delivered] Thank you, Megan.
	I will begin with a quote from the great Russian-Ukrainian
biogeochemist, Vladimir Vernadsky: "The noösphere is a new
geological phenomenon on our planet. In it, for the first time,
man becomes a large-scale geological force. He can, and must,
rebuild the province of his life by his work and thought, rebuild
it radically in comparison with the past. Wider and wider
creative possibilities open before him."
	Now, what will your role be in the shaping of future
geological phenomena? How will future geologists see the
irrefutable trace of your life in their geological studies? Will
the soil reveal but your biological remnants? Or a large-scale
noetic geological force?
	Vernadsky revolutionized the study of the nature of life.
Looking into the chemical composition of soil, he observed that
all organisms create a whirlpool of atoms passing through the
body by way of respiration, metabolic activity and reproduction.
This process tends toward manifesting itself to the highest
degree. Furthermore, the evolution of species has a
directionality which is not random, but which increases this
biogenic migration of atoms. Looking at the build-up of fossils
and life in the ocean, he recognized a steady increase over
geological time of biomass, fleshiness, metabolic activity,
energetic lifestyle (such as predation and swimming), and
increase in food supply. Let's look at a few examples of this.
	Four hundred million years ago the sponge class
{Sclerospongiae} was dominating. Afterwards they declined and the
classes {Demospongiae} and {Hexactinellida} took over dominance.
The living tissue of the old class was confined to a thin veneer
outside a 2-dimensional skeleton; whereas the new classes had
developed erect, interlocked 3-dimensional skeletal structures,
which enabled them to inhabit areas with strong currents,
utilizing the waterflow for nutrition, thereby increasing their
biogenic migration of atoms.
	At the same time, the dominating corals were of the orders
{Tabulata} and {Rugosa}. After they went extinct, {Scleractinia}
took over. Whereas the old orders were barely able to attach
themselves to the substrate, making them vulnerable to
disruptions, {Scleractinia}, through its ability to cement itself
to the substrate and build large colonies, could sustain
communities that were able to survive even severe storms. Such
communities underwent symbiosis with microorganisms which enabled
them to inhabit low-nutrition environments.
	Then, 240 million years ago, the only orders of
{Articulata}, a class of brachiopods, that did not go extinct,
were those that developed strong pedicles, enabling them to
optimize their position in currents, and those that developed
their feeding system to filter through more water for nutrition
and prevent the influx of indigestible particles.
	At the same time, the dramatic increase of the diversity of
{Bivalvia}, a class of mollusks, was due to the development of
full mantle fusion and siphons, which enabled it to burrow more
efficiently and thereby invade new eco-spaces.
	These are examples of the directionality of life toward
maximum manifestation and evolution directed through the increase
of the biogenic migration of atoms in the biosphere.
	Now, the noosphere, the domain of the mind, is able to
direct this increase through cognition rather than biology. In
Vernadsky's words, since the appearance of civilized humanity
tens of thousands of years ago, "the face of the Earth transforms
itself and virgin nature disappears." Our thoughts are able to
change the chemical composition of the universe like no other
species, and over short timespans, through exceptional individual
contributions.
	Shall your life, then, be reflected mainly through the
biosphere or the noosphere? Do you choose to become a large-scale
geological force?
	What would Shakespeare say?
	"Be not self-willed, for thou art much too fair
	"To be death's conquest and make worms thine heir."

	BEETS: Thank you, Lissie. Next, we have a short video
message from Areej Atef. Areej is the Vice President of the
Education Committee of the BRICS Youth Parliament, in Sana'a,
Yemen.

        - -Youth of the World Face Two World Systems: -
                    - The Old and the New -

	AREEJ ATEF:

 Thank you for giving me the opportunity
to be able to talk with you about the youth at the present time
and the future. I'm Areej Atef, the Vice President of the
Education Committee in the BRICS Youth Parliament. The experience
we got in the BRICS Youth Parliament has given us the ability to
see two world systems: the old, and the new. All the things with
available knowledge of the LaRouche "5 Keys" to advance the BRICS
countries and its definition has reached Yemen, in English
language and Arabic.
	As I'm responsible for health education in the BRICS Youth
Parliament, I trust that all youth of both genders have the will
to face the war on policy-viruses, like they're able to face
deadly viruses. And this through the right health education,
which is built on physical economy, which we have learned from
the late Lyndon LaRouche.
	As for the beauty of Yemen: The civilization of Yemen has a
fragrant smell. This civilization is the identity that triggered
the reports of the "Happy Economic Miracle" because of the
pairing of the old frankincense trade and the New Silk Road. It
is a model report and all countries should pursue its rules.
	Finally, I would like to share with you that on the coming
Tuesday [June 30] we will be celebrating World Parliament Day.
The world has been celebrating this day since 2018, so there they
can encourage the development in the parliamentary work. So, if
the world is going to celebrate this day, let the Alliance
college in Yemen be lifted, so we can achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals nationally and internationally.
	Thank you. [end video]

	BEETS: Thank you to Areej, who is doing some very important
work in Yemen.
	Our final speaker for the presentation portion of the panel
will be José Vega, who will speak to use from the Bronx, in New
York City in the United States, and his presentation is "A New
Space CCC."

	JOSÉ VEGA: [as delivered] Hello everybody, I'd like to start
by reading a quote by Schiller, later put into song by Beethoven:

	Be embraced, O ye millions!
	Here's a kiss for all the World.
	Brothers, above the canopy of stars,
	A loving Father must surely dwell.
	Do you feel Him near, O ye Millions?
	Do you sense your Creator, World?
	Seek Him above the canopy of stars!
	Above the stars must he reside.

	I don't think even Beethoven realized it, but he was
actually calling for a space program long before Kennedy.
	Through classical composition, Beethoven's entire symphony
serves to develop the ideas and essence of Schiller's poem, which
is that of Mankind's beauty under the image of the Creator.
Beethoven was incredibly challenged to set music to the poem,
saying that it may not have been possible to create a symphony as
beautiful as the poem. Beethoven's composition of the {Ninth
Symphony} is similar to the Apollo space program, in that it
required the composer to make new creative discoveries that would
allow for such a composition to even exist.
	In our pursuit to seek a loving father above the canopy of
stars, we must make new discoveries that'll enable us to go
farther and faster than ever before. But what does it take to
actually accomplish this? Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his
letter from a Birmingham jail "Human progress never rolls in on
wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of
men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard
work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social
stagnation." What does that mean to be God's co-worker? It
demands that you use everything you have, no matter how big or
small it is. That requires big thinking, not small-mindedness.
	Take the poorest district in the United States, which has
the highest COVID transmission and infection rates, the highest
levels of poverty and drug use, and also the highest amount of
"essential workers." How can anyone who lives in these conditions
be expected to believe me, when I tell them that humanity is
greater than this, and that within them is the potential for
greatness? Well, truthfully they no longer have a choice. They
have to believe me because if they don't the country, and the
world around them will implode. The fight for an honest future
begins with those who need it the most. Because it is within them
that the real future begins.
	We must demand a New Deal-era policy, where a new kind of
Conservation Corps is brought about, and it will be called a
Space Civilian Construction Corps. Where anyone between the ages
of 18-26 is allowed to use their God-given right to develop their
creative capacities to bring forth a real future.
	Suppose the people who go through the program are now
running around building hospitals in their communities where
millions will be born long after their deaths, and building
schools where those millions will receive an education similar to
theirs. These same people start developing higher forms of energy
flux density where it'd be more expensive to send you a bill
every month than to actually power your home. But then they go
beyond their communities and even their own countries. As they
get older and other programs start popping up all over the world
they become teachers, passing down what they've learned, so that
those they teach can then do for the world, what the original
group did for their country. I would like to think that Martin
Luther King, Jr. would agree with me when I say that this is one
of the highest forms of non-violence.
	I'd like to finish off with a quote from Beethoven's {Choral
Fantasy}. "Only when Love and power are wed/ Mankind has God's
blessing." So with that being said, are you ready to be
co-workers with God?

                - Question and Answer Session -

	MEGAN BEETS: All right! Thank you very much, José. So, we're
going to move into our question and answer session now. What
we're going to do is, we have a number of young people who I
mentioned earlier are part of the chorus of voices who are
organizing, educating themselves on, and demanding a New
Paradigm. So, we're going to bring some of them in to ask
questions of the panel. What we really want to build here is not
just some kind of formal Q&A, but a real discussion with the
panelists.
	We are going to start with a question -- or maybe it's a
comment, he'll have to tell us -- from an honorary member of the
youth movement, State Senator Theo Mitchell. Senator Mitchell is,
as I said, a former state senator from the state of South
Carolina in the United States. He is a Board Member of the
international Schiller Institute, and a long-time friend of
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. He's also a long-time fighter,
courageous fighter for justice. So, Senator Mitchell, welcome.
Can you hear us? We can't hear you. We're going to come back to
Senator Mitchell after trying to solve those audio problems.
	In the meantime, I would like to go to a question from our
panel of questioners assembled in a Zoom meeting. We're going to
go first to Maddie Hirst. Maddie, are you there?

	MADDIE HIRST: I wanted to thank José first off for that
impassioned speech, because that's what we need. We need somebody
who's going to connect with people. I also wanted to note on a
kind of theme that's been throughout the entire program, and that
is that history is made by individuals. Every single one of us
has the potential to change the world. Unless we act on that, the
future we all dream of is not going to come into being. That's
mainly what I wanted to say.

	BEETS: OK. José, do you want to start us off?

	JOSÉ VEGA: Sure. To your response, yes, it is true. History
is changed by individuals. But what good is writing the greatest
symphony, or a great treaty, or the greatest essay if nobody is
going to read it or listen to it? You really have to organize
people around your ideas. Martin Luther King, Jr. was an amazing
reverend, preacher, organizer, non-violent promoter. But it was
the people around him, the people who organized with him who
really made that possible. So, I don't think you can forget about
the unsung heroes, as we put it. They're just as important, if
not more important. I'll just say one thing. I know that there is
a great philosopher from the 13th century whose name is escaping
me at the moment who writes about civilizations that were so
great, that were lost to war and famine. And no one has ever
heard of them since. So, how do we stop that from happening to
us? That requires everybody to come together to prevent from
getting lost and destroyed.

	BEETS: Right, well I think that raises to a certain degree
what Chérine was bringing up about the culture. And I wonder if
Chérine would like to come in on this, and say something.

	CHÉRINE SULTAN: I don't know exactly what I can add.
Creativity is a big word that attracts people. And often we don't
know exactly what we are talking about. When you are really
creative, maybe you don't recognize it in the time, but if you
are confident in the long time, finally you will see the
difference between a false creativity and the true one. So, I
would like to encourage people to make this tough work, to work
on science, to work with others, because to do it by yourself is
quite difficult.

	BEETS: Thank you. For any young people who are watching
this, we do have classes of the exact kind of group educational
sessions that Chérine was referencing. So, I would invite you to
get involved in that. Would anybody else on the panel like to
respond to Maddie before we move on? OK.
	It looks like we have Senator Mitchell back. Senator
Mitchell, can you say something? Let's see if we can hear you
now. Still can't hear you.
	Let's take another question from our Zoom meeting here,
while we fix Senator Mitchell. I'm going to go to

,
and then after Senator Mitchell, I would like to go to Vicente or
Mauricio. Is that Senator Mitchell? Welcome!

	THEO MITCHELL: Thank you. Thank you very much. I certainly
want to pay my respects and regard to my good friend Helga, for
having this the temerity to put on this panel, this conference;
and certainly to Lyn, my long-time friend too in giving
recognition to his contribution and his foresight and his
perspective as far as even today is concerned. It's really
perplexing to see that we are living in a time and an
administration that has little interest at all in doing the right
thing, especially on exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche.
	I have been active for quite a while with the Schiller
Institute. We dealt with the Operation Freuhmenschen and the
human rights abuse concerning Lyndon. The Operation
Freuhmenschen, of course, was targetted at the African-American
elected officials. We managed to bring that to a standstill or
halt. and consequently we don't know what if anything Lyn paid
the price for, for he served time for nothing: it was abuse.
Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark said that it was the chronic
case of abuse of the so-called system of justice that he had ever
seen. And this man was in the Attorney General's office, one of
the Cabinet offices. Consequently, he came out in support of Lyn.
We all did.
	We are all happy to know that there are so many young people
who are now participating in this saga. There's a lot of work to
do, but we always have to remember this: To be able to get the
justice that Lyn deserves and the exoneration, we're going to
have to press people into the service, as far as this world is
concerned. How can we act, when there's still abuse? No matter
what you talk about as far as the Four-Power conferences are
concerned, they're not going to spend one nickel or time on
Lyndon LaRouche; especially this administration. This is a
program that we certainly can't forget. It is something that we
must continue working on. Of course, at this time, the abuse of
the police departments, George Floyd, and the one in Atlanta, Mr.
Ahmaud Arbery: it's an abuse. It's open season. Still, open
season on the black male. Consequently, I'll ask this
distinguished panel, what suggestions if any to you have to be
able to help save us? Thank you. Exonerate our good friend Lyndon
H. LaRouche, Jr.

	BEETS: Thank you so much, Senator Mitchell. Before I turn
that question over to the panel, let me just say that we will put
a link in the video description to the petition to exonerate
Lyndon LaRouche, so people can go there. There's also a really
wonderful video on Lyndon LaRouche's exoneration which people
should watch and help us disseminate.
https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/petition_exonerate_larouche
	Let me turn that over to the panel. Let me start with
Daniel, and see if you have a response to Senator Mitchell's
question.

	DANIEL BURKE:  Thank you, Senator Mitchell; thank you,
Megan.  I'd like to respond by saying that the most important
thing that we can do in my view is to create 50 million new
productive jobs in the United States, and 1.5 billion jobs in the
whole world.  This is not a jobs program; this is a fulfillment
of what Mr. LaRouche was fighting for in his life.  It is a
policy of transforming the human species to a new and more noble
level of activity.  It means that we're going to be invigorating
all Americans with a mission for the future.  Because it is only
means of the future that we have any ability to unify Americans.
It's always been that way; we're always for a "more perfect
union" to fulfill the promissory note known as the Declaration of
Independence.  It's in that effort, as people commit themselves
to creating such a future, I believe, that we'll be able to solve
the abuses of people that exist.  Intolerable crimes that are
committed against people in the name of -- for all types of
justifications.  We're going to have to take a look at a
universal standard of man that demands of us that we fight with
such a passion to overcome the brutality of this system in all of
its representations by establishing a scientific optimism about
the future.
	To put it very directly, I am perhaps more optimistic than
you are, that we could get this administration to exonerate Mr.
LaRouche.  I think that this is a time for miracles, and whatever
circumstances stand in our way that appear to be objective, the
fact of the matter is that their system is in a total breakdown
crisis.  So, the rules that have been set up to keep this system
going are crumbling, because the system is crumbling.  Therefore,
I'm committed to the idea that it is possible in a short amount
of time to create a breakthrough on the recognition of Mr.
LaRouche in the United States.  And that perhaps the most
important thing we can do, in addition to fighting for his
exoneration itself, is to recruit people to this vision that he
developed.  Which includes taking the people of the
post-industrial cities of the United States, taking the people of
the poor areas of our nation, and giving them a means to
contribute to the future.  This is how we're going to give people
a deeper identity and get them out of a feeling of nihilism and
despair, which is clearly inundating the country.

	BEETS:  Would anyone else on the panel like to say something
in response to Senator Mitchell on the issue of justice?  José,
yeah, go ahead.

	JOSE VEGA:  If Black Lives Matter, why isn't there a space
program in the Bronx, or in Oakland, California?  That's my
response.
	I live just a few blocks away from Gouverneur Morris' grave,
and Gouverneur Morris was the person who penned the Constitution.
He also wrote the words to the Preamble of the Constitution.  In
it, there is a section on promoting the General Welfare.  So, if
we're promoting the General Welfare, doesn't that include
developing the minds of all Americans, and giving them the
opportunity to educate our youth?
	I'd like to reference the story of Caliph Browder.  He was
wrongfully put in Riker's Island prison, over a dispute of
stealing a backpack.  He was there for three years; his mother
could not afford bail.  Eventually, he was found innocent.  He
refused to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit, and three
years after leaving Riker's Island, he committed suicide.  There
was no more hope; there was no future for him, in his mind.  That
is a tragedy.  That is what's happening to many young Americans
today who feel as if there is no future and no hope.  We will
give them one.
	I'd like to also reference Plato's {Meno} dialogue.  Because
in the {Meno}, Socrates and Meno, a slave master, are having a
discussion about virtue and where does knowledge come from.
Socrates says, I'd like to see one of your slave boys.  So, Meno
brings out a slave boy, and Socrates asks about the slave, was he
born here, and can he speak the language?  These two things imply
that this is not a native Grecian.  This is somebody who does not
look like them, or may not even sound like them.  What he does
is, he brings him to the beach, and he tells the boy to double
the area of the square.  What does that mean, exactly, to the
slave boy?  The slave boy does it, and the slave boy is not
learned.  He has not studied at all, nobody's ever taught him
anything.  And yet, he was able to find the solution to a complex
geometrical problem, which is not so complex.  The point is, he
could easily be the slave master, as Meno could be a slave.
	The way we're going to solve this, is just develop the minds
of people, so that 50 million years from now, when everybody owns
their own galaxy, what will the questions be?  Will the question
be, do black lives still matter?  Or what do they become?  How do
you transform the future in that way?  I'll leave it there.

	BEETS:  Franklin, go ahead.

	FRANKLIN MIRERI:  Thank you.  It's been wonderful hearing
from the fellow panelists and even from Senator Mitchell, and how
passionate he is about the issue of exonerating Lyndon LaRouche.
I think while many people outside of the United States may not
have heard of Lyndon LaRouche, personally I first heard about him
this year, when I started taking the economics classes being
offered by the Schiller Institute.  When I many people may not
have heard about him, what I know resonates across the world is
what he stood for.  For example, the way the financial systems
are currently skewed against developing countries.  So, that's
just one aspect.  As we then seek, as we then sign the petition,
let us not forget the importance of global solidarity towards
that cause.  You never know; the more people who get to hear the
wonderful works he did, the more gradual pressure might be put on
any administration.  It might be this administration, or the
coming one; but ultimately what he stood for was greater than
just in the United States.  That's my submission, thank you.

	BEETS:  Thank you, Franklin.  Thank you so much for joining
us, Senator Mitchell.
	I'd like to go back to our Zoom call, our collection of
young panelists there.  Actually, Calvin I said you could go
next, but first I want to check and see

	VICENTE:  I would like to ask the panelists if they can
clear me a doubt that I've been thinking about.  Today, as we can
see, it is inevitable and it is impossible; we cannot implement
all these projects of the LaRouche movement and the Schiller
Institute without the concepts for embracing globalization and
various alternatives like the multipolar world, and this is
talked about in the BRICS and the New Silk Road.  So, I wanted to
say these are all new alternatives for globalization, but as we
can see in nature, so as in the spirit of the human, there
doesn't exist multipolarities, so I wanted to ask if the new
embracement of multipolar world for globalization, if it coexists
with the physical laws of the universe?  Because in nature, there
is no multipolarity and neither in the human spirit.  There is
only the Earth is a polar world and as the Chinese law of change
-- they call it the sooyi or iching -- they say that you can
bypass the polar concept, but you have to go beyond the polar
concept.  It's not anymore polar; it's passive.  It's not any
more active, it's beyond.  So, these are not active spaces on
Earth; these are passive spaces on Earth.
	So, I wanted to ask if the multipolar world of the
alternative of globalization being embraced in BRICS and the New
Silk World, if it is coexists with the universal laws of physics
and the human spirit?

	BEETS:  OK.  I believe we also have Carolina on our Zoom
call.  So, if she's on, we should test the translation first.
I'd like to see if she would like to respond first, and then open
it up to the other panelists.  So, Carolina, are you on?  It
doesn't sound like it.  I'm going to open up Vicente's question,
which is really wonderful, to the other panelists, and if
Carolina is on and we can get the translation going, then we'll
do that.  Actually, Lissie, would you like to answer that one to
start us off?

	LISSIE BROBJERG:  I think we have to start from the
standpoint of trying to understand what the nature of the
universe is.  So, I don't think that we just look, when we look
at how life has been developing biologically, we see that new
solutions are found all the time in order for life to manifest
itself more effectively all the time.  It's interesting how
animal life and plants develop new biological technologies in
order to do that.  But the mind is superior to that, and
Vernadsky discusses how suddenly you have an explosion in the
world because of human cognition.  We make all these discoveries.
	So, I don't think that the nature of our universe comes down
to a question of multipolar or not.  I think what's interesting
is our creative ability to find solutions and to manifest
ourselves in our thoughts and our ideas more effectively in this
universe.  What do you think about that?  Was it Vicente?

	VICENTE:  Yes, well, I think that the universe is as Lyndon
LaRouche said, is negentropic, and as we can see the mathematics
and its closed system can't understand it because it's an
entropic model.  I was asking because if in politics and in the
economy, we create on Earth and embrace a new concept of the
alternative of globalization based on the multipolar world idea,
it is as we can see if we just study old civilizations.  They say
it is proven scientifically that Earth is based on two poles --
the North Pole and the South Pole.  This is gravitational and
electromagnetic, so I don't understand the concept of a
multipolar world when you want to embrace it on Earth.  I wanted
to understand if this is an entropic system or a negentropic
system that can coexist with the universal laws of physics?  This
is in the aspects of politics, economy, and globalization, so is
this negentropic or entropic?

	BEETS:  Carolina, can you hear us?

	CAROLINA DOMÍNGUEZ CISNEROS:  Thank you.  What I can say to
you about this question is that you're going to have to discover
this for yourself.  You could discover this.  We're working on
Kepler, and that's the best method.  There's a document that
LaRouche wrote for all youth, people who are younger than me,
people young like you and even younger people.  It's called "My
Encounter with Leibniz and with Kepler," which is a document for
young adults.  So, I'm not going to save you the hard work that's
required, but let's keep studying Kepler every Monday in the
evening, and that's my answer to you.  Thank you.

	BEETS:  OK, great.  Daniel, you want to say something?

	DANIEL BURKE:  Yeah, if I can, briefly.  I just want to
respond because this question of a multipolar world and the idea
of globalization.  What do we mean when we say "globalization"?
This is something that Helga LaRouche has referenced more than
once.  It is not her view, and I concur, that there is such a
possibility of a multipolar world.  In other words, one in which
you have multiple poles of influence, who are collaborating; it's
meant to be in opposition to what's called the unipolar world,
which is where you have a collection of power in one center.
Neither of these theories of the world really cohere with what is
happening, which is that we live in an era of oligarchy.  One of
the tools of oligarchy which is, in my view, centered in these

 ... groupings across the world, these institutions
that Mrs. LaRouche in the first panel referred to as the British
Empire.  That this operation to suppress humanity is the key
enemy that we have.  It's not a matter of one nation holding
power over others, although the United States has often played
the role of the brawn for the British brains, but rather, it's a
matter of creating a community of nation-states.  Or, as the
President of China refers to it, a community of shared destiny.
A community of principle is what John Quincy Adams called it.
	The point is, and this is what I was trying to get across in
my comments: if the whole purpose of a nation and the whole
purpose of our republic here in the United States is to advance
the pursuit of happiness for our population.  But it's based on
the idea of universal rights of the individual that extend
naturally beyond Americans per se, as Franklin emphasized, then,
we have the prospect of national governments working together for
the common aims of humanity.  If we want to demonstrate that the
world is not a closed system, not an entropic system, as you're
raising, Vicente, then it's my view that the strongest way to do
that is to have collaboration between Russia, China, and the
United States, and other countries.  All other countries that we
possibly can bring into this, on the exploration of the Solar
System and the galaxy.  Because as José said, it's some future in
which we're all going to have our own galaxy.  There are 2
trillion galaxies out there, and there's more than enough room
for the human population to extend out there.  It's a
demonstration that there's not such a thing as fixed resources,
or a closed system, or that we have to manage through a unipolar
or multipolar system.  What we need is a level of recognition of
sovereignty, respect for the sovereign governments of many
nations, that they can form agreements in which they can work
together for the benefit of all.  This realm of space science
would be a great frontier by which we could change everything.

	BEETS: OK, great.  Now, we're going to go to Calvin.
Calvin, are you there?

	CALVIN:  Mine is more of a question.  I think it was Dennis,
I'm not sure who said this, but there was a comment one of the
guys made about people who are becoming slaves of white social
networks and social platforms, and he further went on to
criticize young people for making a huge amount of money by doing
things such as selling make-up and making a lot of videos.  That
criticism about the way people choose to make money kind of
reminded me of a conversation I had with someone last week about
how when people do Uber and Lyft, those aren't real jobs.  They
aren't really productive, and they don't provide a sense of
security for people.  We talk about a lot of advances, but me
personally, I see a lot of advances in this society
technologically and non-technologically in both ways.  I do think
the result of some of these advances let's some of the white
people choose to make money.  But my question is, what's wrong
with people making money off of selling videos and doing Uber and
Lyft and things like that?  I'm all for the 1.5 billion
industrial jobs and things like that, but I think some people
have to be realistic.  Not everyone wants an industrial job; some
people are satisfied with selling make-up for the rest of their
lives.  I'm just trying to understand what's wrong with making
money off of making videos and stuff like that.  I hope the
question made sense, I know I was all over the place.

	BEETS:  It made sense to me.  Chérine, I think maybe we
start with you; that's your territory there.

	CHÉRINE SULTAN:  Yes.  I think that there is a common point
between this and in the past when people had still productive
jobs, the less-educated were workers, and the more educated ones
were the bosses.  It's to simplify, but that was the question.
Because you asked yourself, do I need to find a job on my own and
the society won't help me?  So, I have to fight for my future on
my own.  The question today is quite the same.  If I will use all
my means on my own, if I can make videos in my bedroom, in my
bathroom, I will make it.  I will own my life, and if I have more
skills, I can produce some software, some applications, I can
invent something.  At the same direction, there is no collective
work.  We have to work on this issue.

	BEETS:  Yeah, Sarah?  We can't hear you.  Why don't we work
on your audio, and we'll go to somebody else and come back to
you.  José, why don't you go ahead?

	JOSÉ VEGA:  Sure.  First of all, Calvin, always a pleasure
talking to you, pal.  I actually had this conversation with a few
friends the other day.  Is it immoral to want to make a living
for yourself, and want the best conditions for yourself, if that
involves you working a menial job or selling content -- whether
that be stupid videos on the internet or whether that be dirty
pictures and videos on the internet?  My point is simple:  I
think you're worth more than that.  I think you're worth more
than a 9-5, and I think you're worth more than any salary or any
amount of money that you could ever make in the world.  I think
everybody is worth

 dollar amount.  But where is that
worth?  That worth is in the soul and in the mind; that's what
makes you beautiful.  I'm simply saying the country needs the
means to develop that beauty that lies within everybody.  That's
where your real worth is.  You could die with $50 million in your
bank account, 5 homes in Beverly Hills, 20 luxury cars.  I think
Jay Leno has a robot that he can use.  None of that will mean
anything.  You die, and you've contributed nothing.  Is that what
you want your life to mean?  Because life is not defined by the
present, but the future.  If you live in the present, you will
die when you die.  But if you live in the future, you become
immortal.  And that's really where true beauty and meaning in
your life exists; in the future.  That's my response to you,
Calvin.

	CALVIN:  José, I truly and honestly agree with everything
you say, 100%.  But maybe it's just me -- I don't know if there's
bias on my end, but I think those jobs have value.  It's good to
live for the future, but I think we also have to live for now.
I'm going to use a few examples:  Uber and Lyft drivers, for
example.  Not everyone is in the position to afford a car.  Some
people have to get a job.  It's more affordable than catching a
cab.  Selling make-up; that's a huge industry.  The make-up
industry is a huge one in America right now.  We have beauty
standards in America, unfortunately, you have to look a certain
kind of way to get a job; have a certain kind of hairstyle to get
a job.  These are jobs that help satisfy those requirements to
get those jobs or get to work and things like this.  Don't you
think it's a bit odd to say that those jobs have no value when
they in a way satisfy certain things that are needed today?  I
don't know; I hope that makes sense.  I think those jobs that
people consider unworthy are worthy.

	BEETS:  Franklin, did you want to say something in response
to Calvin?

	FRANKLIN MIRERI:  I just wanted to say I totally understand
where Calvin is coming from.  I am a content producer, by the
way.  I produce gospel music when I'm not doing youth engagement
work.  What I can say is that I think I heard the contributor
saying is it isn't bad to be making content and to be spending
your time using your talent -- whatever it is -- to get a living,
and as José was saying, explore your creative aspect.  But what I
see most young people doing is that they see it as a means to an
end.  It stops there.  The intellect is not growing.  Because
yes, you can be making music, but also develop your mind.  When
you look at how even structures are, I think one of the
contributors was saying in the medieval times, and while the
economy was developing, the ones whose intellect was more
developed were the bosses, and the rest of them were the
peasants.  Sadly, that's how the world is. When your intellect
and your ingenuity is not explored to the fullest, you are, so to
speak, confined to now trying to just the menial crumbs of the
economy.  Yet, we could do much better.  In Africa, for example,
let me give our context for example.  A lot of youth are spending
more time trying to be YouTubers, trying to be on TikTok.  It's
not bad, but we could be doing so much more, like exploring
funding opportunities, exploring opportunities to be computer
scientists.  So, that is the whole aspect.  We are not saying
that yes, content production is not bad, but let us do more.  And
with that, we will open up a whole new basket of opportunities
for the economy.  That is my input.

	BEETS:  Thank you.  Lissie, go ahead.

	LISSIE BROBJERG:  I just have a question for Calvin.  What
kind of culture, what kind of thinking is needed among people
today and in the future for us to face a situation in 2 billion
years where the Sun will burn out?  How will we solve that?  Yes,
we have creative abilities, we have the ability to solve
problems.  But what kind of culture do we need in order to do
that?  Many animal species went extinct, and if we are not acting
on a higher level, if we're just acting on some kind of basis
where we're  not developing and making new discoveries, and
developing in a way that will make us able to solve that crisis
in 2 billion years, then we could go extinct.  What's special
about man is our minds; that's the most precious thing we have.
Therefore, I think in terms of necessity, necessity changes.
Once the person can make a new discovery that makes a lot of what
you can call practical jobs or anything obsolete.  What do you
think?  What kind of thinking do you think is needed for facing
that in 2 billion years?

	CALVIN:  Critical thinking, logical thinking most definitely
some form of intellectual thinking would be needed to at least
that kind of future, or contribute to that kind of future.  So,
it would most definitely be a culture of critical thinking.
That's my answer.

	LISSIE BROBJERG:  Yeah, well we have to look.  It's not an
easy question, so we really have to look into how do we answer
that question.  Lyn had a huge attack on the educational system,
because you have this drill and grill method where people have to
learn as if they are like a box.  You fill the thing and you
basically just have to learn like a dog that learns tricks.  But
he actually was challenging people, especially young people, to
go through the discoveries.  Who made the biggest changes for
mankind?  Who had these huge, large-scale geological influences
on behalf of mankind?  Carolina was talking about Kepler, who
discovered how the Solar System works.  So, we should look at
those people who actually did change physically and through the
noösphere, and redefined mankind and the role of mankind, and the
future of mankind.  And look at how did they think; we should
rediscover their discoveries, so that we actually become also
qualified to answer that question.  What do you think?

	BEETS:  Can we see if Sarah's audio is working now?

	SARAH FAHIM:  To answer that question, I think the problem
is deeper than just selling products.  I think that the problem
is the fact of what kind of society are we thinking if we just
reduce all our visions to social media?  We are encouraging a
lack of ambition, we are encouraging this idea of easy money, of
not developing our minds because we can have a normal life by
just selling products on Instagram or something.  I think the
problem is that we are not educating people if they think that
there is a future in that type of work.  It can be a first step;
you can sell products to win money to create another project.
But it can't be a vision.  This is not the way we should imagine
a society; this is so small.  Social media is part of our lives
now, we can learn to live with it.  But we can't make it the
major part of our vision.  I do not agree with that, because I
don't want my society to not be educated and to dream about
selling products and nothing more.  This is what I have to say.

	BEETS:  Thanks, Sarah.  So, we have a question from Joshua
Kisubika, if he's still in the Zoom.

	JOSHUA KISUBIKA:  I just wanted to pose a question to
Daniel, maybe, just to get to know the position of the LaRouche
group to support the youth in Uganda.  So, I was saying that over
700,000 people reach working age every day in Uganda.  This is
expected to rise to an average of 1 million in the decade from
2030 to 2040.  It's already creating a mismatch between labor
demand and supply.  While Uganda's youth are known for being
highly enterprising, fewer than  4% of Ugandans are employers,
32% [?] are working for themselves only.  43% are unpaid family
workers.
	So, you can see that even this, it all goes back to maybe
leadership.  I was trying to look at which strategies can we
decide and fight together with you to help the youth in Uganda to
start living life to the full.

	DANIEL BURKE:  Thank you very much, Joshua.  I think that
what you're raising is the prospect of dialogue and discussion
about, most importantly as we are discussing here -- the
epistemology of economics.  Because what you're describing -- it
depends upon your point of view.  The point of view expressed by
this British imperial, oligarchical financial system is the point
of view that if you have many mouths to feed and you don't have
enough food, or if you have many youth to employ, but you don't
have enough jobs; then that means that you're poor.  But from the
standpoint of the American System -- which is to say, I'm not
referring to what the United States has been doing recently or
even over most of its history, but rather the so-called American
System of economics from Alexander Hamilton -- which has been
developed by Lincoln's economist, developed under Franklin
Roosevelt, developed under John Kennedy, and in particular, by
Lyndon LaRouche as an economist and an individual.  Under that
system, you look at a large number of youth and you say, "My
goodness!  What incredible wealth we have," because of the
creative powers of their minds.  And because we understand, as
Hamilton did, that it's through the function of the human mind
making discoveries that we actually are able to increase our
wealth, our ability to provide for the population and for the
future population.  If we approach the circumstance from that
respect, then we will immediately begin to look at what are the
great projects that need to be built that would establish a new
platform of infrastructure, a new platform of capability for the
nation and for the region and for the continent, and therefore,
for the world, which provide a basis for new qualities of
economic activity that otherwise were not possible?  That you
create a future with a future.  You create some kind of next step
to the whole system.
	But it's most important that this be under the idea of a
leapfrog.  We say leapfrog to signify go beyond any of the
so-called intermediate steps that the IMF demands that people
take, which is total nonsense.  You may have seen on panel 1,
that Daisuke Kotegawa, former Japanese representative to the IMF,
dealt with this idea: that it's ridiculous that we should be
expecting nations to go step by step by step up the ladder of
industrialization and so forth.  That's nonsense!  We should go
to the highest technology that's available, and overmaster all of
the problems that have come before, and go for the most rapid
possible advance of productive capability.  So, what we would
like to discuss with you would be, what are the principles by
which this can be achieved in Uganda, in the region, in the
continent, and in the world.  And what are we demanding from
governments?
	That's why presently, given the conditions of total
breakdown of the system, which is what we're faced with right
now, we're seeing that we really have got to bring forward youth
leadership to demand this summit.  A summit of the nations that
are capable of initiating a New Paradigm.  Because if we want to
get that kind of project rolling, that kind of new platform, then
we're going to have to change the whole financial system.  We
cannot allow the continued suffocation of the so-called
developing countries.  What the Schiller Institute is proposing
is 1.5 billion new jobs.  The discussion is that this could mean
$125 trillion of international credit, provided by international
credit institutions to nations.
	So, we'd like to discuss this with you and the youth that
you work with, and provide a basis for dialogue in which we can
have shared understanding of what is necessary.  Then, have a
basis by which to demand that of the government there, and of the
people of the world, and the governments of the world.  Thank you
very much for participating.

	BEETS:  Thank you very much, both of you.  We have
unfortunately come up on time.  That's very unfortunate, because
we have many more people who I know have questions, both live and
we also got a number of email questions which we don't have time
to take on this panel right now.  I would encourage everyone who
did not get an opportunity to ask a question, to send your
question in.  We will direct it to the panelists, so that we can
continue this fun, fruitful, and important dialogue.
	What I'm going to do is ask each of the panelists who remain
with us if they'd like to say anything in closing before we end
our panel.

	CHERINE SULTAN:  I would like to emphasize on the question
of leadership and so on, saying once you have discovered a kind
of truth, a kind of direction society is, maybe you didn't aim to
take leadership, but this fate coming on you owes you to take
leadership.

	LISSIE BROGJERG:  To all of you, I would just like to say
that we will all become very old and wrinkled and ugly and all
that, in old age.  So the question is, when you are there can you
think about your life and say that "Certainly, my life was
important, and I am not just going to worm food."  That's all.

	CAROLINA DOMINGUEZ CISNEROS:  I appreciate and thank
everyone for having participated in this.  I'm very happy.  This
is the first time we've had a forum of this sort for youth.  I
think that what helps me to understand and organize youth is to
not be judgmental, but to actually try to inspire them.  To view
them from the standpoint of agape, of love.  If we see the pain
of seeing youth who are on drugs or doing those kinds of things,
if this causes pain, we have to realize that perhaps there is
something better that's an option.  So, I think that we should
take the occasion to try to communicate the idea that we can
change all of this.  We have tremendous potential.  The more
people die from drugs in the streets, the worse it is; rather,
they can have lives based on creativity and agape towards others.
Thank you very much for this seminar.

	SARAH FAHIM:  I think this is extremely amazing to be all
gathered today to fight for our ideas and for a better world.
This is so powerful and inspiring at the same time.  I'm really
happy that we're slowing changing our world, and I'm glad to be a
part of that change.

	DANIEL BURKE:  I want to echo what Sarah said; I totally
agree.  It's inspiring; it sets a standard that encourages us to
go higher.  So, I just want to quote the immortal words of Lyndon
LaRouche:  "Have fun!"

	JOSE VEGA:  Think like Beethoven!

	MEGAN BEETS:  So, I'd like to thank all the panelists,
everyone who got on to ask questions, and I'd like to thank our
audience for watching today.
	Let me put out a call:  Get active!  If you're young, if
you're old, get active with the Schiller Institute.  We need you
to become a member of the Schiller Institute.  We need to sign
and circulate our petition for a global health system.  We need
you to circulate our program for 1.5 billion productive jobs.
And we need you to organize.
	Thank you very much.  Thank you to everyone who watched the
conference today, and we'll see you again soon.

Panel 2: “Why a 1.5 Billion Productive Jobs Program Can End War, Famine, Poverty, and Disease”

DENNIS SPEED: Good afternoon. Welcome to the second panel of the Schiller Institute’s June 27th conference “Will Humanity Prosper or Perish? The Future Demands a ‘Four Power’ Summit Now!” This is the second panel of our conference and it is entitled “The World Needs 1.5 Billion New Productive Jobs To End War, Famine, Poverty and Disease.”

Our first panelist is Jacques Cheminade, President of Solidarité et Progrès in France. He’s speaking on “How Food Production Can Unite the World.”

JACQUES CHEMINADE: Good day. I’m very honored to be with you today, because of all you have done until now, and mainly because of what we all are going to do after this Schiller conference.

Food production unites the world: We are all conscious of the fact that the two first human rights to be upheld, are to be fed and to be kept in a good healthy condition, in order to contribute to the common good and the future of our societies. If we look at the world as it is we cannot but recognize that these two human rights are continuously and constantly violated and that the present policies of the main states and institutions, with a few remarkable exceptions, are leading us towards a world which is going to be much worse, if we allow it. We are set to become inhuman.

The question is therefore not to comment any more about what is happening or to complain, but to do something about it. That’s why we are here, to mobilize the best of our cultures and our nations to generate a world where the true creative powers of humanity will prosper, against all odds. It starts by food production which unites all people beyond and above cultural and language barriers. It seems commonplace to say such things, but the fact that we are morally and economically compelled to do so is precisely the sign of the inhuman condition in which we have been plunged, with the immediate threat that 100 million of our fellow human beings could die from hunger — 300,000 a day — while the farmers are trapped into a Malthusian world where they literally can’t breathe.

If we start from what humanity needs, taking into account the requirements for an adequate quantity and quality diet, sufficiency for everyone and the indispensable need to create food reserves, we must first double our food production. To produce 5 billion tons of grain, for example, means to more than double the present world harvest.

We hear in the Unites States “We American farmers can feed the world” and it’s true. We hear in Europe, “We European farmers can feed the world,” and it’s true. And we hear in the rest of the world, “We also can secure our food security and sovereignty,” and it’s true.

So what is happening? What’s happening, which makes this potential to not be actualized.

First, the whole world is ruled by the financial dictatorship of Wall Street and the City of London, which cannot care less for people and, in fact, openly promote world depopulation. Unable, in their own terms, to keep their power and to feed the world at the same time, they prefer to keep their power and envisage a world populated with less than 2 billion human beings. Their policy is to kill, either by murderous action, or by voluntary neglect. They let their ideologues openly front for it, under black or green colors.

Second, the outgrowths of this financial dictatorship, i.e., the food and farming cartels, dominate or control all the chains of transportation, distribution and sales in foodstuffs, including the property of vast domains of land.

Third, an anti-productivist ideology is promoted among the urban sectors of the service economy, dominant in numbers among Western countries, betting on both their ignorance of what a productive life is (they don’t even know what a productive life is!), and on their cultural pessimism, induced by the media and the entertainment sectors. There were no stocks of masks or tests in our Western states to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, just as there are almost no grain reserves today to deal with food shortages: the World Trade Organization and the cartels left it up to the marketplace. As a result, China has one-year grain stocks for its needs, Russia six months, the United States much less, and the European Union at best 45 days! Under its Green Deal, the European Commission has decided to cut by 50% the use of pesticides, by 20% the use of fertilizers and by 50% the use of anti-microbials for livestock and aquaculture. It expects to transform 25% of the land into organic bioproduction against 7.5% today. The point here is that, under the guise of caring for us, they obey their real financial masters and cut the means of production without providing any alternative to feed us and feed the world.

It’s criminal not to maintain food reserves. It is criminal to have brought farming prices below the cost of production. It is criminal to have pitted the producers of the world against each other, to lower the prices paid to them for the benefit of the worldwide cartels in grains, meat, seeds, seafood…. It is criminal, that in the poorest countries of the world, 70% of the production is allowed to be lost because there are no cold chains and too many rodents. It is criminal to compel those countries to pay more for the debt service to financial agencies than for building and maintaining hospitals or schools . It is, as Lyndon LaRouche repeatedly said, the model of the private British East India Company spread all over the world, controlling the chains of production, transportation and trade.

So this crisis should be the opportunity to recognize the absolute right to produce food and to get rid of the cartel monopoly system. This, of course, cannot be done as a thing in itself. It demands the shutdown of their source of money supply: the Wall Street and City of London rule, the British Empire. The criminal policies in the area of food and health, are, in that sense, for the people of the world the visible side of the oligarchy’s iceberg and our main weapon to fight the oligarchy. To show the peoples of the world that to fight for a new Glass-Steagall Act, a public credit policy, a National Bank, is not a technical question but a very concrete matter of life or death. The present financial system cannot be maintained through the rule of an unjust law and order, which has mutated into a system of chaos and disorder, based on an “everything bubble” which kills all the more as it inflates.

Therefore we have to come back and rethink about how we can inspire a strategy based on the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, because they represent the architectural, unifying body for a change. To put it more concretely, the only possible exit door from the present fire.

As I am in Western Europe, I feel obliged to tell you how something which had a good start, failed because its environment was not shaped by a coherent principle corresponding to the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche: I am talking about the European Common Agricultural Policy, launched on July 30, 1962. It was based on four goals: increasing productivity; securing a fair living standard for food producers; establishing a sort of parity price including reinvestment; securing the food supplies and a reasonable price for consumers. It worked for about 30 years, based on a self-sufficient single market, with a productive priority connected to industrial progress (modern tractors, fertilizers, pesticides…), plus financial solidarity and a European preference. The financial aid and support were given in the form of a minimum price guaranteed to the producer, called “indirect aid.” As a result, the Common Market members, as it was called in those days, became self-sufficient and Western Europe grew to be the second world exporter of foodstuffs. The farms grew moderately in size, and the whole agricultural sector underwent a period of relative prosperity, despite its in depth and fast transformation.

Today, we have all the European farmers desperately protesting, hostages to the banks and living on subsidies, having become indebted, working hard and gaining very little, with their sons and daughters abandoning their farms to go to the cities. What happened?

First, under the pressure of the global financial deregulation, the Common Agricultural Policy was changed in the 1990s, the same period characterized by de-industrialization, banking rule and deregulation, mainly in France, but also in all Western Europe. The indirect aid based on price guarantees disappeared and were replaced by so-called direct aid, proportional to the surface of the farms. This was done under the pressure of the World Trade Organization with the pretext of avoiding “price distortions.” As a result, within a context of falling purchasing power of foodstuffs, the aid, decoupled from production, went mainly to the big landowners such as the Queen of England, the Prince of Monaco and the Duke of Kent. The small and medium-sized farmers were strangled through price decreases and the fall of aid. Their only option was either to leave or to be further strangled by the banks, including the farmers’ bank, the Crédit Agricole, which became a bank like all the others and even worse to its old clients! The European Union budget for agriculture was reduced in purchasing power and has decreased in percentage of the total EU budget. Add to that the vulnerability of all producers to the system of floating exchange rates, the middle-sized or small ones sinking and the big ones becoming more like “experts” of the Chicago market than real farmers!

Today, the main talk is to replace the “direct” aid based on farm surfaces, by “environment and climate aid,” of which only the very big ones can benefit. This is a policy of desertification and agricultural depopulation within a context of a green world depopulation. Within this system, there are a few Scotch tape measures proposed, which are maybe relatively helpful but not of a nature to change the situation. For example, it is proposed that the distribution of aid be based not on the surface of farms, but on the number of persons active in them. Others call for stocks of food security against the instability of the markets, fair prices and measures to fight against world hunger. Good intentions, but nothing tackling the depth of the challenge.

Our commitment is precisely to do that, to go to the roots of the problem. The Common Agricultural Policy failed because it did not deal with its global environment. Same thing for parity prices in the United States. You cannot do it within a system which creates all the conditions to go in the opposite direction. Besides, even in its best years, the Common Agricultural Policy was mainly defensive, in French terms, a kind of a Maginot Line doomed to fail under flanking attacks or attacks from above. And whereas it temporarily solved the food crisis within Western Europe, it did nothing to organize markets and food stocks at the needed level of an alliance of world nations of world population.

Clearly, we have now with the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, not as mantra, but as a roadmap for the fight, the means to break with the existing rules of the game, which was not done under the Common Agricultural Policy. But for that we need to inspire and put pressure on the peoples of the world so that they pressure their governments, as was said in the preceding panel. That is for each of us an issue of life or death. And it can only win with a winner mind, with a tenacious commitment renewed every morning.

For that reason, let me tell you about two things, as a conclusion.

First on the way through which we can inspire. There are LaRouche’s Four Laws as a reference to explore, facing their numerous challenges for real, in the existing world. There is their application in our recent two programs: Build a global health system now! LaRouche’s “Apollo mission” to defeat the global pandemic crisis, and I would add “and beyond” the global pandemic crisis, and LaRouche’s Plan to reopen the U.S. economy: the world needs 1.5 billion new, productive jobs. It is only through this anti-parochial organizing, based on a dynamic development, that we can inspire people who are today so submerged by information and permanently thrown into situations leading them to emotional cop-outs as we see on both sides of the Atlantic. It is through our personal example, based on a tenacious directionality every single day of our lives, that we can lead them to become free organizers.

Second, I would like to give you an example of that, directly linked to our subject matter: It is that of the Maisons Familiales Rurales (Rural Family Houses), a project created by Abbot Granereau, a French countryside priest who introduced a new way of learning in the rural areas of France and beyond. There are now 432 of these MFR rural houses in Europe, 112 in Latin America, 118 in Africa (Mauritania, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea…) and in the Indian Ocean and a few in Asia. In France this education is run in association with the state and the local governments, but with absolute emphasis put on the involvement of the families.

Abbot Granereau was the son of a peasant family, who at a very early age questioned both the Napoleonic, pyramidal organizing of the French education system and the fact that the public education system led the best sons of the farmers to quit farming, leave the countryside and often break with their traditionally-oriented families. He decided to solve the problem by launching a new system of his own, that the families could afford and that he called on “Our Lady of the Social Revolution” for inspiration. His idea was to have the high-school age students reside one week every month at an educational home for professional training, which he provided; he went around, buying places to have the students spend a week there, which he provided, not far from their homes and run jointly with the families and later with the teachers. The program ran from November to April, so that the parents could have their children the rest of the time to work at the farm. The education was to be paid by the parents and the status of the students was one of apprenticeship. During the three other weeks of the month, the students were provided with two hours of homework every day. The key to its success was the associative responsibility of the families family integration, and also the students educating their families; this concept of family integration which would be very useful today; the respect of the individual personality of every student, not as units but as persons; and the promotion of actions of social development: visits to farms, producing modern tools, tractors or fertilizers.

Granereau started in 1935 with three farmers, committed to support his project and four apprentices. And he managed in about 30 years to change the fate of the rural world and avoid, at the time, its debasement.

The secret behind his method was to be very rigorous and at the same time to make the students responsible. For every activity one of them was appointed to be responsible for all the others. His commitment was to give to all a good level of education, giving back their dignity to his brother farmers, a knowledge of the new methods of production within an education for their souls. For him, a good farmer had to be what he called “a scientist of the land.” When enough pupils and students came, he separated the functions of teaching, under a good and committed teacher from the Purpan high-level school of agriculture in Toulouse, from those of guidance, which was his full-time responsibility. Granereau wanted to create “peasant leaders” to enter the coming new world with Christian principles. He invented “in his way,” an active method based on exploration, cooperation, participation and mutual trust. He himself did change during all his life: he created a section for young women and girls, then organized a mixed-gender school, carefully promoting a mutual respect of the two sexes; and finally opened up his schools to all families, understanding that the notion of family and mutual respect was key and above religious affiliations. A lot of people were shocked, but he was delighted.

I am convinced that such an approach, based on the respect of every individual mind and the service to the other, should be thoughtfully considered as an inspiration to our methods of teaching today, those against which Lyndon LaRouche has so often polemicized. Not to copy it as such, of course, but to follow its spirit of exploration and creativity. In the countries with a longstanding family farming culture, like in Africa, it would be a model to ensure the transition of agricultural labor, as it has been in France.

The case of Granereau is also a good reference for how to change things. We should ourselves think much more about what Lyndon LaRouche did at the beginning: gathering a few persons in a pilot project addressing not academic questions but, from top down, the key challenges of our times, and sending memos and launching debates all the time. Then you have the best kind of excitement of actually discussing and enriching a program, all the time, and even the higher excitement to make it exist. Let’s do it.

Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you, Jacques.

We’re now going to hear from Diogène Senny, the founder of the Pan-African League — UMOJA. He is a Professor of International Intercultural Management, specialist in economic intelligence and international economic relations, Founder of the African School of Management (EAM) in Congo.

He’s speaking on the topic, “Prosper or Perish: An Introduction to the Geopolitics of Hunger and Poverty”

DIOGÈNE SENNY: Dear Speakers, Dear Participants, Dear Guests, First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Schiller Institute for having associated me with this discussion at this very special time.

I. Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen, far from the one-off event, the circumstances in which this conference takes place make of it an Historical Moment, because the enormous health, economic and social consequences connected to COVID-19, are like “Challenges” and “Confrontations” launched against societies and men in the sense of the British historian, Arnold Toynbee.

For once, we are going to connect the issues of Hunger, Poverty and Health with History; not only in a memorial function, but also and above all to view history as the most powerful manifestation of social energy and the will of man to survive.

STORICISMO, in other words Historicism, as the Italians would say, is the act by which one creates one’s own action, one’s own thought, one’s own poetry by moving from the present consciousness of the past. We know that at least 13 billion people, twice the world’s population today, could be fed by the world’s agriculture. Therefore, the destruction of tens of millions of women, men and children by hunger is unworthy of such a rich century! Can we seriously consider alternatives to Hunger, Poverty and Health while maintaining a historical amnesia on matters of the economic and social rights of peoples?

II. Fight against Amnesia

Ladies and Gentlemen, who remembers that a third of the civilian and military deaths of the Second World War were due to malnutrition, tuberculosis and anemia? Who remembers the heaps of coffins have piled up in the churches of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague because of hunger? And especially in Poland and Norway, the fact that some families survived by eating rats and bark of trees? 1947, two years after this appalling reality, who recalls still this attack by the ambassador of Great Britain, while working with the Commission responsible for drawing up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I quote: “We want free men, not well-fed slaves!” End of quote. Who recalls the direct response of his Ukrainian counterpart, I quote: “Even free men can starve to death,” end of quote? This exchange illustrates the beginning of a new geopolitical order, that is to say, the Cold War, and the defeat of the recognition of economic and social rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948.

However, how to believe that the civil and political rights can be effective, without the economic and social rights? It took 45 years, almost half a century, in June 1993 for the UN to adopt a new Declaration in Vienna, making all rights (civic, political, economic, social and cultural) indivisible and interdependent. Alas, what wasted time !

III. The Disappointments of the End of the Cold War

Ladies and Gentlemen, The hope raised by the end of the cold war in terms of economic and social rights was very quickly lost because of the fact that the planetary power of transcontinental agro-industrial companies and Hedge Funds, these funds that speculate on food prices, arable land, seeds, fertilizers, credits, etc., is significantly higher than that of states. Hunger is not inevitable, it comes from organized crime. 90% of peasants in the south, in the 21st century, only have the following working tools: hoe, machete and scythe. FAO reports in the 2010s indicate that 500 million farmers in the South have no access to selected seeds, mineral fertilizers, or manure, and do not own animals. The overwhelming majority of farmers in India, Peru, Burkina Faso, Niger, Ecuador, etc. have no irrigation system. How can you be surprised then that 1 hectare of cereals gives about 700 kilograms to Africans, against 10,000 kilograms for the same space for their colleagues from the Gironde in France. As we have already said, Hunger is not inevitable. It is the result of the will of a few. And it is by the determination of men that she will be defeated.

Some examples to illustrate predation situations by multinationals of the agro-industry in Africa:

In Cameroon: In 2006, we remember the admirable struggle lead by the Development Committee of the N’do region, which brought together farmers’ unions and civil society in the fight against the grabbing of 11,000 arable lands by SOSUCAM (Société Sucrière du Cameroun) , authorized by the Cameroonian government. It should be noted that SOSUCAM is the property of Alexandre Vilgrain, a French industrialist and that this company had already acquired 10,000 hectares in Cameroon in 1965. Here, the colonial continuum is still in full swing in the economic field.

In Senegal: Here it was the Great Senegalese estates (GDS), belonging to French, Spanish, Moroccan, etc. financial groups which acquired tens of thousands of arable land in Saint-Louis, depriving the peasants of necessary spaces for basic crops. As in Cameroon, the farmers of Walo reduced to modest harvests on only 1 hectare of rice, organize themselves to resist with much dignity. In Nigeria, Benin and Mali: International hedge funds also rely on local oligarchs to organize land grabs.

This is how the wealthy merchants of Sokoto and Kano got hold of tens of thousands of hectares of food land.

In Benin, it is the political and economic barons who accumulate hectares, voluntarily left fallow, while waiting to resell them for a higher price instead of investing in the region of Zou, the former breadbasket of Benin’s Wheat.

Finally, we note the same trading mechanism in Mali where wealthy businessmen from Bamako are used to acquire arable land at low prices for resale at gold prices to Saudi princes or Hedge New York Funds.

In Conclusion

Ladies and Gentlemen, The ruin of the economy and the disasters that are looming following the coronavirus pandemic are part of what is known as Cyclical Hunger. Its peculiarity lies in the suddenness and unpredictability of the highly visible damage generated. Its spectacular nature should not blind us to these real causes. However, what has been described throughout this intervention is structural hunger. Structural hunger has root causes. It is permanent and unspectacular, psychically and physically destroying millions of human beings. Structural Hunger exposes millions of malnourished mothers to give birth to deficient children.

Ladies and Gentlemen, We will precede the alternative presented by this conference “Prosper or Perish,” by the word Unity. Because, for us pan-Africanists, the question of Hunger is less about Food Security than Food Sovereignty. Only Political Unity will give us the weapons necessary to protect the immense resource of arable land all over the African continent. It is at this price that Food Sovereignty will be guaranteed to all Africans!

Umoja Ni Nguvu, Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, particularly for that idea about food sovereignty. So people just know, we were listening to a translation from French.

We’re going next to Walter Formento, Director, Center for Political and Economic Research, Argentina. His topic is, “South America on the New Multipolar Road.”

WALTER FORMENTO: Good Afternoon: My name is Walter Formento. I’m the director of the Center for Political and Economic Research (CIEPE), and also a member of the Latin American Social Sciences Network, which is involved in all five continents.

It means a lot to us to be part of this conference, and we hope we can contribute to the dialogue that is beginning here.

In terms of the development and contributions of the New Silk Road and the World Land-Bridge which connects us all, we believe that South America—extending from Mexico to Argentina-Brazil, going through Colombia-Venezuela, Peru-Bolivia and Paraguay—has in its Hispano-American and South American history, a real and concrete accumulation of capabilities for building sovereignty, strategic industries, science and technology—both to contribute and to receive. This stems from each one of these nations individually and then, from an organized pluri-national, South American community, based on their common Hispano-American origins, but even more specifically, on the 2001-2015 period based on UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations), and CELAC (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).

Looking first from Argentina: This South American nation launched the development of its strategic industries from the very moment of its battle against the British invasions of 1805-1807. At the beginning of the 20th century, the process continued with the development of its oil-related energy industries and hydroelectric projects, always interacting with the international context and receiving feedback from that framework.

From the Great Depression which was caused by the systemic crisis of 1929-1944, Argentina, together with Chile and Brazil—the ABC Alliance—deepened the process of sovereign development, strengthening their rail, maritime and river transportation as well as automobile and aircraft industries, which then became the basis for the development of their aerospace and submarine industries. While these industries maintained international ties, they always collaborated with each other, which allowed for their own joint scientific and technological development, This was once again a function of an international context favorable to South America, and particularly to Argentina, Brazil and Chile.

In the Argentine case, beginning in 1946, this positive process led to the creation, between 1963 and 1991, of a state-run, public-private industrial, technological and scientific matrix, in which 80% of the goods and services and parts required for national development were produced in our internal market. This also consolidated a social reality in which 90% of the labor forcé was formally employed, with a strong university-educated, technical-professional component, and in which the unemployed labor force was also formally recognized as well. So, from the standpoint of values, this was an integrated and committed social reality.

That is why South America (or Hispano-America), based on its own experience, recognizes the importance of developing a national strategic-industrial-technological complex, but also a South American community of nations as well.

The war and defeat which the London and New York-based Anglo-Dutch oligarchy imposed on Argentina and on South America, and did so with a vengeance, beginning with the 1976 coup d’état in Argentina, followed by the 1982-1991 Malvinas War period, put an end to this virtuous cycle and launched a cycle of decadence enforced by global financial neoliberalism.

Thus today, when we reflect on the New Silk Road and new multipolar financial system, and in that context the World Land-Bridge and its empowering the productive abilities of humanity and nature, including the Dialogue of Civilizations, we see this as auspicious and hopeful. We are called on to commit ourselves, to contribute to and transmit those initiatives promoting aerospace, transportation and new energy technologies.

In some ways, we’re already part of this. There’s the [bioceanic] rail transportation corridor from Brazil, traversing Bolivia and ending in Peru. We’re also involved in the modernization of a rail line, which extends from Buenos Aires (with its factories and workshops for maintenance of machinery and railroad cars), from the province of Santa Fe to Córdoba, Chaco, Salta and Jujuy in the north, then connecting to the main trunk line. In a joint effort, with Russia supplying components and new technologies together with Argentina, we are building a modern new railroad system capable of developing this area even further. We are also developing nuclear reactors, using Chinese and Argentine technology, as well as new hydroelectric projects in the southern Patagonia, close to Antarctica and the islands of the South Atlantic, with their natural interoceanic route that connects the three great oceans: the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic.

After 2008-2010, into 2014, the financial crisis of 2008-2009 again paralyzed the world, which revolved around speculative financial earnings.

But today there is another world, the multipolar world seen in the World Land-Bridge, the world of the New Silk Road, committed to interacting with all continents, and with all nations for a peaceful, harmonious development integrated into a new reality for all humanity—and for nature. We are a committed part of this process; we see ourselves as committed—in thought, in practice and in action—committed through our entire history.

This is our first contribution to these conferences you have been holding, and connecting us to the five continents and with the actors who are the great historical power— in this new commitment to humanity and nature in terms of social and integral inclusion.

I send you a warm abrazo and hope to be able to contribute further to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Formento.

We have gone from Europe, to Africa, to South America, and now we go to the Caribbean. Dr. Kirk Meighoo, political economist, broadcaster, and former Senator, Trinidad and Tobago: “The Caribbean’s True Importance in the Making and Re-Making of the Modern Global Economy”

KIRK MEIGHOO: Hi. My name is Dr. Kirk Meighoo, I’m a political economist, broadcaster, and former Senator from Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean. It’s a real pleasure to be here, to be part of this conference, with the Schiller Institute and I thank the organizers for inviting me.

I’ve been friendly with the LaRouche movement and the Schiller Institute for a number of years now. There are so many things that we share in common, and there’s a lot of projects that I want us to collaborate on, and this certainly is one them.

Now, I’m also a member of the official opposition party. We do have an election coming up this year, and we hope to take government. The platform, the manifesto of our party — and this is from before the COVID crisis — was to create 50,000 new jobs in the economy. And in our small economy, we have 1.3 million people in our island, and the labor force is about 650,000, so 50,000 was a big number. However, with the COVID-19 lockdowns and what it’s done to our economies and the whole global economy, we need to increase that number, at least to 150,000 and by combining it with this program from the LaRouche movement for 1.5 billion productive jobs around the world, there is an incredible synergy that we must take advantage of.

Now, one of the things that I’m always concerned about, is that we small states in the Caribbean, we are actually one of the bigger islands, with over a million population; like Jamaica has 2 million, a little over 2; many of the other islands are much, much smaller; there’s a tendency for us to be overlooked, for us to be forgotten in such schemes, and that is part of our lack of development here. But it is not just a matter of a lack of development, it’s also the type of development we’ve been undergoing.

I’m also part of a tradition of intellectuals here, started in the 1960s, soon after our formal independence, called the “New World Group.” And it’s incredible, the overlap with the LaRouche movement in terms of our analysis and our goals and our solutions. I have always found that to be an amazing thing, and it’s just another illustration on how the truth is one, and we can all arrive at the same truth from our very different points in time, space, and circumstance, and this is certainly one of those instances.

For the Caribbean, the point I’m making about the inclusion of the Caribbean in this global program that the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement is proposing, is not just a matter of charity. Because what the LaRouche movement is proposing is an end to the trans-Atlantic system, what might traditionally be called “imperialism,” to the imperial system, to the post-Columbus system, if you want to put it in those terms, and that is precisely what we have been calling for, for decades ourselves. Because, you see, the Caribbean has a special place in this 500-year modern world economic system, that we need to understand, because our participation in it was central. The Caribbean was where the modern world began: It’s where Columbus came in this voyage, it’s where the first global production of sugar, rum, alcohol, etc., which enriched New York, Boston, the East Coast of the United States, fed into the industrial revolution. The organizing of these huge plantations in the Caribbean was a forerunner to industrial capitalism in Europe, and our great intellectuals, such as Dr. Eric Williams, our first Prime Minister spoke about that in his seminal book from 1944, Capitalism and Slavery.

So, we’ve had a long experience, analyzing this, our own experiences. Because we represent the dark side of this modernity. Of course, modernity has brought a lot of good to the world. But in the Caribbean, this type of economy now has become, let’s say since the 1980s and ’90s, the neo-liberal system, but it really starts from the system of slavery in the Caribbean. Because, think about it: These economies were founded on slave labor, which is imported farm labor at cheap or free cost. It decimated local economies. We made nothing for ourselves here. Everything was around sugar production, mainly; sometimes some other people had other crops, but whatever the early English colonists had here for their own self-development — tobacco, food crops, etc.—local settlements, colonies in the true sense of the word, where you’re making your own settlement elsewhere — part of this imperial system that the Caribbean was central to, and this global sugar production, the triangular trade where we were central — this is actually what’s going on in the rest of the world. Because when they established it here, they had to gut out the independent farmers; they had to buy out all the independent landowners, so that the big sugar interests could own all the land, control all the production, in a global system of raw-materials export, where the value added would be done elsewhere, and you break up the whole chain of production.

What did that mean? That meant no manufacturing here. What did that mean? That meant that we were connected to the metropole, rather than to ourselves. So, for example, it’s easier for us in Trinidad to go to New York, and it’s cheaper for us to fly there, than it is to a neighboring island, like Curaçao, or even Antigua, or St. Kitts. Because our communications and infrastructure were always to the metropole. We did not have an internal economy with manufacturing: We did not make our own clothes, we did not make our own food, we did not make our own basic commodities and services for survival. They were all imported. We were a pure import/export economy and we remain so, whether it be in tourism or offshore banking, or oil and gas, like we have in Trinidad and Tobago.

So we’re been struggling with this issue and problem for a very long time. We have some great insight into it, which we can offer the world. And what we see is that this same process is happening around the world, to other countries. So it’s as if they took this early model, pioneered in the Caribbean, which produced tremendous inequality, tremendous misery, tremendous underdevelopment, this is what the trans-Atlantic system is projecting to every country in the world.

Now, solving the problems here will help us solve the problems for the rest of the world. This is where it started. We pose some challenges because of our size, but there are also some opportunities. Our small societies in the Caribbean are like the small city-states of ancient Greece, where Plato and Aristotle and the great philosophers flourished. It’s like the Florentine city-states: These places were 40,000 people at their maximum population. We live in human-scale societies, and these massive, mega-cities which are part of the whole trans-Atlantic system, mainly financial centers processing these huge, global, faceless corporations, those are inhuman environments. And I think it is not coincidental, that much of the violence that we’re seeing in the world is happening in these big cities, where there’s so much anomy, so much alienation, and a lack of humanity, of the face-to-face societies that we have here in the Caribbean, that have produced such amazing creativity, such amazing thinkers, like V.S. Naipaul, like Sir Arthur Lewis, like Derek Walcott, like C.L.R. James, from such tiny, tiny, small islands.

So, this is a plea, a reminder, to think of how we can take our outlying territories, which seem like outliers are the world system, but were essential for the development of the modern world system, and I daresay, we can play an essential part in the remaking of that world system to a more humane, global system.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to make our presentation. I look forward to questions and to interacting with you and also partnering in the future.

Thanks very much.

[Editor’s note: For time reasons, the prerecorded remarks of Mark Sweazy, former UAW trade union leader, were unable to be aired in the panel. We include here his complete remarks, on “Returning the U.S. Work Force to a Culture of Scientific Progress.”]

MARK SWEAZY: Hello, and welcome! My name is Mark Sweazy. I’m the Past President of Local 969 in Columbus, Ohio of the United Auto Workers’ Union. I learned a lot about the Labor Department and how labor works in the United States. With the international union, I chaired for six years the meeting of the 21 Delphi [auto parts] plants in Detroit. When we come together obviously we discussed our problems and the future. What we saw was, the door was shut on our future. 17 of those 21 plants closed. It changed people’s lives forever and ever. I also learned that our history, that you’ve heard some about, teaches us that the struggles and the conflicts and the wars have consequences that become a negative and seldom produce a positive or good result. So, we faced these things over a period of time.

What we face today is the need to put people back to work, regardless of where you live or what you do. We need to get people gainfully employed in the workforce so that we can make better lives for the people themselves, better lives for their families, and better lives for the area in which they live. So, this is a worldwide situation; it’s not just one locale, or one area of a country. This is worldwide. I hope you understand that little bit of an entry, because it’s important. This affects each and every one of us. If we have pride, we want to restore — let’s say we want to restore a great workforce as infrastructure projects have produced in the past. We’re looking to put people back to work regardless of occupation. You can start one place, and transfer to another. There’s nothing that says in the workforce that you have to continue to do something that you’re not fond of, or you just don’t like that job. You can always retrain and become trained to do another job. So, keep that in mind also.

What rewards do we expect? Our rewards in life are in direct proportion as to what we contribute. So, if we contribute something to life itself, we’re going to see the rewards. That’s important to me, because there’s nothing more rewarding than seeing a person who enjoys what they’re doing, and the fact that what they’re doing is productive to our culture. There’s nothing worse than seeing people that don’t have opportunities. As I visited Mexico, Mexico City, Monterrey, what have you, 9 cities in Mexico, I saw people who were educated, become college graduates. But the opportunity to work was not there, and it broke my heart because I’d look into the eyes of these graduating classes, and I’m saying to them, “Are you happy?” And they’d look at me, and they’re questioning — why would I ask them are they happy? Well, there’s no opportunities to work in Mexico; it’s a darn shame. Very few. They’ve got taxicab drivers that should be an attorney. You’ve got taxicab drivers who could have been an engineer. You’ve got taxicab drivers that could’ve been a doctor. I can’t imagine that. In the country I come from, the United States obviously, I can’t imagine somebody going to school and having that type of training, but not having the opportunity to use that training.

So, this is an opportunity to get worldwide training. Not just in the labor fields, but completely through skilled trades, machine tool trades, tech center trades, the building trades — of course, that’s plumbing, pipe-fitting, welding. There’s no end to what this can offer. And how the unions will actually gain, and all the independents who work without unions will gain as well. But who will gain in the end? The communities and the families. The opportunity is there; we just got to look for it. We’ve got to honestly make it happen. This is not a project that’s going to last one year, six months, one or two years. We’re talking 10-20-year projects.

So, LaRouche organization has lined up projects all over the world. And of course, now Helga’s at the helm, and we have a good leader. We want to continue to carry on with that leadership and get people to work so we have viable jobs. People doing what they can for their own families, and possibly in a few years we’ll see these results. And everybody will benefit. The unions will benefit, the independents will benefit, everybody will benefit on that spectrum. It’s a great opportunity for those that need to be employed, and that’s anybody that’s graduating from a high school or tech school or what-have-you. But take it from there. We’ve got people 30, 40, 50 years old looking for jobs. Everybody knows that; it’s not a secret. And not only in this country. So, the benefits are greater than we’ll ever imagine, and what an opportunity we’ve got today to do it in.

Our world deserves today, tomorrow, and in the future, an immediate effort to develop this program, or this type of program. So, the opportunity is ours; the hard work is yet to happen, but it can be done. And that’s what I want everybody to understand. The work can be done. The infrastructure projects are in front of us. So, let’s pick up our shovels, push out our chairs, let’s get up and go back to work. I think we’ll not only enjoy a better life, but I think we’ll enjoy a better future for our nations, as we work together to solve some of these worldwide problems that can be solved through cooperation. To me, I think that’s the real answer that I would have, is worldwide cooperation. We need that today, more than ever. Working together, forming solidarity, and hoping that we can stay employed because of what took place. This program was the beginning. As we look back, we’ll say, “Well, I was part of that in the beginning.” That’s to me the most rewarding aspect that we could ever say for each of our nations today.

So, with that, I’m not going to hold you to your chairs and hope that you take heed to this, but I pray you will. Because it’s necessary and needed. I want to thank you, take care, and remember, the LaRouche organization is there for you. All you have to do is ask the question; they’ll get you an answer. Thank you. Mark Sweazy over and out.

SPEED: Thank you, also.

Now, we’re going to hear from Bob Baker, who’s the agricultural desk for Schiller Institute, and he’s going to be introducing the next video which is by Mike Callicrate.

BOB BAKER: Thank you, Dennis, and thank you Schiller Institute, Mrs. LaRouche, panelists and participants throughout the world.

Image 1. Coronavirus

Look at the state of farming and food in the world, and you see huge disruptions. Just one little microbe—the new corona virus, coming on top of the system already in breakdown, has led to terrible things.

There is a disaster in the meat industry. The mega-global, cartelized packing houses from Australia to Germany to the Americas, are in a breakdown crisis, as workers are sick and living in poor conditions. Masses of meat animals are stranded. And the farmers were hit hard as they’re forced to kill their own livestock.

IMAGE: 2, 3, 4 Doctors Without Borders, or a migrant worker

There is a disaster in fruits and vegetables. Thousands of workers, who travel between countries, and work in hard and poor conditions in fields and orchards, are sick, from California, to Spain and the Middle East. It’s so bad, Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières) went into Florida last month, to care for thousands of poor farmworkers who had nowhere to turn. In Canada, 60,000 such workers—one-half of them from Mexico—are getting hit, and with the sickness hitting so many Mexican workers in Canada, Mexico’s government suspended travel this week, until something can be worked out.

There is a disaster in the staff of life—wheat, corn, rice. It is—fortunately—not because of a bad crop failure somewhere, except for the locusts in Africa and South Asia, but because we are growing far too little grain. Period.

Lyndon LaRouche would say that the way to think of how much food the world needs, is to start from 24 bushels of total grains per person a year. What that would mean is, we should be having a world harvest of 5 billion tons of all kinds of grains together. Currently, the world is growing less than 3 billion tons. And that would mean enough for direct eating as bread, noodles, tortillas—whatever you like, and milk, meat, eggs and so on. Plus, another 25% for reserves, which now, because of the World Trade Organization, does not exist.

In Biblical terms, it’s seven lean years and seven fat years. We should have strategic storage reserves, we should have silos and warehouses all over the world, of grain, cheese, butter, sugar and other basics. Stockpiles in case of storms, epidemics, fires, locusts. We must double food production.

IMAGE 5: World Map of Hunger

Instead, we’ve had decades of what should be called a “famine policy.” The City of London/Wall Street circles have cartelized the farm-food chain so extremely, so they can “harvest money.” Yes: harvest money. They decide where and how anything is produced, and who gets to eat or not. They ripped off the farmers with below-cost of production prices and make record profits from the consumer by jacking up the retail price. And that is how you cause hunger for millions throughout the world.

IMAGE 6 & 7: June map of locust spread

No wonder we are vulnerable to locusts, and diseases. The locusts in South Asia and East Africa are now heading westward. By August they may reach Mauritania. This must be stopped. A fellow speaker today, from Kansas-Colorado area, will be talking more about the physical conditions connected with just “harvesting money” instead of food. And we will soon hear from the Mexican grain belt.

IMAGE 8, 9, 10: Astronaut farmer

How did we get this way? It is not because we had no alternatives.. We are in the age of the astronaut farmer. We can produce food for all. And it wasn’t like we were all given a pill to make us dumb—except that comes from the entertainment and news media: communication monopolies.

We are all played off against each other, and that must stop. Farmer vs. city people. Nation vs. nation. There is all the talk about “competition” in world food trade. And about having a “level playing field.” It’s all Bunk! It’s not a game. It’s not a playing field. It’s food. It’s the means to life! And farmers are on the streets again in Germany with tractorcades for the right to grow food!

In conclusion, I think of President Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s, when the whole United States nation was played off against each other. In fact, the British sent in forces to help bust up the new nation. Still, during Civil War and a great depression, in only a year, Lincoln and others implemented measures for science and hope. They created science-based farm colleges (the Land-Grant system), settle the entire Midwest with the Homestead Act, crossed the country with a new railroad and corridors of development, and issued a new credit called the Greenbacks.

In this same tradition, a hundred years later, with the help of the two fathers of the scientific Green Revolution, Henry Wallace and Norman Borlaug, a scientific Green Revolution spread from Mexico and the U.S. among international scientists, to make India food self-sufficient in 1974, and China self-sufficient in 1984. Let’s make the whole world self-sufficient in food! Let us begin with Africa right now on an emergency basis; and then, open up the universe!

Thank You.

I’d like to now take this opportunity to introduce Mike Callicrate, who is a board member of the Organization for Competitive Markets, a rancher, and a meat producer from the Kansas-Colorado area. His topic is “Food Unites People Around the Planet.”

MICHAEL CALLICRATE: I’m Mike Callicrate, I’m in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I have a company called Ranch Foods Direct. I also produce livestock on my operation in northwest Kansas, which I’ve done for the last 45 years. But my focus has really been to try to build an alternative food system to the industrial one that we have now.

When I’m asked the question, “Prosper or perish?” it makes me think of David Montgomery’s book Dirt. In his book, David Montgomery talks about the erosion of civilizations and the importance of soil. Without soil, we basically don’t have life. So, I’m going to kind of come at this question of “Will humanity prosperity or perish?” from that perspective, because I think soil is critical to our survival as human beings. The impoverishment and nourishment of a civilization is directly with the consolidation and industrialization of the food supply. Concentration of power and wealth is the greatest threat to any free society. Rather than creating new wealth from healthy soil, the current system is mining and destroying our land for the short-term benefit of a few global corporations. This is a photograph from northwest Kansas where I live. This photograph was taken in December 24, 2013, Christmas Eve. The dirt cloud extended 200 miles from Colorado Springs to the Kansas border. It was 12,500 feet high above sea level to the top; 4 miles across, moving at 50 miles per hour. This is soil; this is the blowing away, the destruction of civilization currently. Much of eastern Colorado’s topsoil is already gone. I fly back and forth between my rural community of St. Francis, Kansas and the urban center of Colorado Springs, where we market our meats that we produce. This is what you see across the eastern plains of Colorado, is the mining of these soils. The withering away of that topsoil. Previously, when it had fertility, it grew healthy plants that fed livestock, which in turn became food for human consumption.

We’re mining our water resources. HBO’s “Vice” did a documentary called “Meat Hook; End of Water” that talked about the global water supply being consumed and used up. This is another indication that humanity is going to perish if we don’t change our ways. We’re pumping the precious fossil water from the Ogallala Aquifer, just to name one of many around the world that is being pumped dry for the benefit of industrial agriculture. Again, an example of a mining operation.

We’re ravaging the environment; we’re building factory farms in low-lying areas. These low-lying areas on the East Coast of North Carolina, South Carolina, places where there’s a lot of rainfall. We’re locating these facilities in low-lying areas because it’s the cheap land. It’s also the place where the cheapest workforce resides. So, this is exploitation of the environment, of the workers. Think about being an animal in one of these facilities, inside one of these barns. Again, in Hurricane Florence, we flooded the factory farm facilities, and rather than let these animals out, they sort of learned their lesson. They kept the animals in the barn, where they starved and consumed one another before they died. This is the earlier Hurricane Floyd, where they let the animals out, and so we’ve got a total disregard of animals, which is another indication of a failing system in a failing society. St. Francis of Assisi said, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” Which is certainly what we’re seeing today.

“This global cartel, controlled food system rather than nourish the people who sustain it, consumes them. The result is a food system that concentrates money and power at the top, and poverty at the bottom, while compromising food access, quality, and safety in the process.” That’s a quote from Albert Krebs, Agribusiness Examiner.

With the help of the U.S. government, global gangsters have turned our agriculture into a massive agribusiness mining operation. Meet felons Wesley and Joesely Batista of JBS, who have been in prison, and have recently because they’re considered essential, been invited back to run the biggest meat company in the world — JBS. JBS is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado, and has been part of the four big meatpackers now under investigation for lowering prices to livestock producers at the same time they’re raising prices to consumers. These men should not be involved in anything to do with a critical industry, especially food; but our government allows them to operate.

Allan Savory I thought put it well. He said, “We have more to fear from USDA than any foreign power.” USDA refuses to enforce the Packers and Stockyard Act, which would have prevented the shared monopoly that the Batista brothers hold with Tyson, Cargill, and Marfrig (another Brazilian company). USDA makes life for small plants extremely difficult; making it impossible for them to operate, and giving the advantage to the biggest meat plants who have now failed us in this COVID-19 outbreak.

The industrial food system did fail the COVID-19 test. It has no resiliency. It has extracted, it does not create and build well, it extracts well. It destroys our very mechanisms that we create wealth from; that is, the soil. On the left, you see my store in Colorado Springs, on the same day — March 13, 2020 — on the right is the big box stores in Colorado Springs. Shelves were completely empty; no meat was available. Yet in my store on the left, which is about a 200-mile supply chain from St. Francis, Kansas to Colorado Springs, Colorado, you see full shelves. So far, our supply chain has held up well. We don’t stack employees on top of each other; we remain healthy in our operation.

So, let’s look at what I think we ought to be doing. I think we ought to be returning to a regenerative farming and ranching operation. One that’s made sustainable because it’s supported by consumers who care about the soil, who care about communities and people and the environment in general. So, I’ve set up what I call the Callicrate Cattle Company Regenerative Farming and Ranching concept, where basically it’s a circular economy, not a linear economy that extracts. It’s a circular economy that puts back into the soil, into the community, into the people. So, we start with the soil, and we return to the soil. Critical to this concept working is our ability to access a marketplace that demands what we produce.

“The soil is the great connector of lives; the source and destination of all. It is the healer and restorer and resurrector by which disease passes into health, age into youth, death into life. Without proper care for it, we can have no community, because without proper care for it, we can have no life” (Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture).

Creating community around local food will be essential in supporting this new regenerative approach to agriculture and food systems, where family farmers, ranchers, and small businesses can prosper, and consumers can have access to safe, dependable, and healthy food. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you. Our final presentation today is by Alicia Díaz Brown, of the Citizens Movement for Water, Sonora, Mexico. We’re going to play an excerpt of this, because of time constraints. Her presentation is,

“Let Us Return to the Best Moments of the U.S.-Mexico Relationship.”

ALICIA DÍAZ BROWN: Let’s turn to the best moments in the U.S.-Mexico relationship. We thank the Schiller Institute and its President Helga Zepp-LaRouche for kindly giving us the opportunity to participate in this international gathering, in which special importance is given to the problem of food production. In every civilizational crisis the threat of hunger, epidemics and war appears. That is why we agree with the title which headlines this meeting: Will humanity prosper, or perish?

My name is Alicia Díaz Brown and I live in the Yaqui Valley in the south of the state of Sonora in Mexico. I belong to a family of agricultural producers, pioneers in this valley, and I am a member of the Yaqui Agricultural Credit Union and of the Citizens Movement for Water.

For many years, I have been involved in the discussion of problems related to the production of basic grains; but in the last decade I’ve been more intensely involved, because the public policies in Mexico have grown in their disregard of the countryside, to the point of proposing to take water from this region to divert it towards activities which they consider more profitable monetarily, even though that means reducing the land under cultivation and with it the production of food. They don’t care about harming a region that produces 50% of the nation’s wheat production, as well as a significant percentage of its corn production.

I recently saw a photograph that captures a very evocative moment of historical intimacy and common purposes that Mexico and the United States shared in the noble task of producing food to relieve hunger in the world. The picture takes us back to the decade of the 1940s, and the photo shows the then Vice President of the United States Henry Wallace touring a wheat crop in the Texcoco region of Mexico, and receiving a technical explanation from Dr. Norman Borlaug. accompanied by Mexico’s Secretary of Agriculture and ex-President Lázaro Cárdenas. The government of President Ávila Camacho was just underway.

That was a time in which Mexico and the United States enjoyed governments with sufficient social strength to enforce the principle of the general welfare. Those efforts culminated with the Green Revolution, whose improvements in seed genetics made it possible for there to be substantial increases in yields per acre, principally of wheat and corn. The entire world benefited from this; the hunger of hundreds of millions of human beings was relieved for a time, and it turned out to be a fundamental experiment which demolished the Malthusian and anti-population theories which accept hunger and its aftermath of death as a matter of fate.

The Yaqui Valley in Sonora and the Texcoco region in the State of Mexico were experimental centers, in which Borlaug shared with Mexican researchers and producers his own research, his discoveries, but above all his human conviction that, with the systematic use of science, you can constantly maintain growth of production and combat the blights and fungus that damages plants. They proved that hunger is not an inexorable evil, but rather the result of twisted practices in economic and marketing criteria.

So Mexico and the United States share the prize that, at one point in history, we were able to relieve hunger in the world, because this knowledge was taken to India and to the countries most affected by hunger on the African continent.

But we lost that mission, and the production of food, as with other strategic areas of our economies, was trapped by the corporatization of the economy and by monetarist criteria, in which monetary profits comes first and foremost, and physical production is no longer a moral imperative, and instead becomes an optional element dominated by financial speculation. These policies took over at the beginning of the 1990s and they govern the free trade agreements among the United States, Canada and Mexico.

During the last 30 years, national grain production in Mexico has lacked a price policy which would guarantee the producer his capitalization. Parity prices were eliminated—they had been the cornerstone for the country to be able to achieve an important degree of self-sufficiency in wheat, corn, beans and rice. The state withdrew from the marketing process; the domestic market was abandoned; and national production passed into the hands of international corporations which monopolize world trade and speculate on grain prices on the Chicago Board of Trade

The result of all this is that Mexico has become an importer of basic grains. The current government talks about food self-sufficiency, but they confuse it with self-consumption, and they disperse resources to regions of the country that only consume what they produce, but which lack the ability to produce the food that the country needs. The regions with the greatest productive capabilities in wheat and corn have been left to the mercy of the big corporations that control the international markets, and they withdrew the compensatory support that allowed them to survive.

They try to make Mexican producers believe that these policies benefit North American producers. But at this meeting we see that authentic American producers are complaining about the same problems. If these policies are harming the producers of both countries, we should ask ourselves: Who are the big winners and predators under these rules of the game?

The big winners and predators are not engaged in producing food; they speculate with existing production. They control the prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, and they have turned the market into a dictatorial instrument. They are not interested in producing. Their preferred world is one of shortages and hunger. And what is sorrier still is that our governments have given in to those interests. In that way, the U.S. loses, Mexico loses, and the world loses.

When governments give in, we citizens have the moral and political duty to enforce the principle of the general welfare. At the beginning of my remarks, I referred to a photograph which bears witness to a historical moment of excellent relations between Mexico and the United States. For now, we do not have in our governments people of the moral stature and courage of those who were shown in that photograph.

For that very reason, I believe that now is the time for citizens to make their governments rise to the challenge. Let these meetings serve to begin to weave an alliance of Mexican and North American producers with the ability to exercise the required political and moral pressure on our governments, and in that way establish common goals in terms of how to increase food production; how to reestablish parity prices; how to increase yields per acre; how to build great infrastructure projects of a bi-national nature to manage increased quantities of water and power, which will allow us to significantly increase land under cultivation.

These are some of the tasks we have before us; but what is most urgent is to tell the world that we have initiated this relationship, that we are going to maintain it, and that we are going to resume the historical impetus of the best moments of the Mexico-U.S. relationship, to demand the required agreements among the world’s powers that are morally obligated to lift humanity out of the uncertainty in which the shocking economic crisis has placed us, with its inherent threats of pandemics, hunger and war.

Thank you very much.

Questions & Answers

SPEED: What we’re going to do now is bring our entire panel — everybody that’s live with us — up on screen. We’ve got one or two pieces of business from the first panel that we have to conclude. One question in particular which we are going to direct to Jacques Cheminade, which will get us started. Then Diane has two questions which will be addressed to the entire panel.

So, this question is from Ambassador Dr. A. Rohan Perera, former Permanent Representative of the Republic of Sri Lanka to the United Nations. I’m going to direct this to Jacques. He says:

“The biggest foreign exchange earner for Sri Lanka has been the tourism sector, which had been dependent on tourist arrivals from Europe, and on the garment export sector, mainly to the U.S. market. The total estimated loss as a consequence of the coronavirus lockdown is in the region of $10 billion. In the garment sector, recovery efforts will require liberal access to the U.S. markets.

“Overall, Sri Lanka will require debt restructuring arrangements with lending agencies like the World Bank and with the developed countries who determine their policies. It may be recalled that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit Declaration — adopted in Colombo at the Fifth Summit in 1976 — cited the New International Economic Order which referred to, among other things, debt restructuring, debt moratoria, and the restructuring of multilateral financial institutions like the World Bank. The idea of BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — is a step in that direction.

“Please comment on the vital question of debt restructuring, amidst this coronavirus crisis, and new institutions that may be required. Thank you.”

JACQUES CHEMINADE: First, on this tourist issue. Very different countries, like Sri Lanka, Cuba, or France, had, because they were not able to develop industrially or to really have a fair development of agriculture, have to make money on tourism; on their beautiful things to see in Sri Lanka, in Cuba, or in France. But this tourism was of a kind not of an educational treatment of the culture of the country, but to a kind of servant economy transformation of the country where there was a service economy based on let’s say arranging things for people who wanted to have fun. This has been a complete disaster. This is because of a lack of a commitment to an economic physical development, like Lyndon LaRouche developed during all his life, and industrial development connected to, as part of representing this in-depth economic development. Therefore, what happened is that progressively, despite the benefits of tourism — I would say because of the type of economy what was created — the countries were trapped into a debt system. This affected first the countries of the Southern Hemisphere. It affected countries of Ibero-America, countries of Asia, and in particular Africa. Through a system of accumulation of interest over interest, this is what our friend Dennis Small calls the banker’s economy or free market. The free market becomes sort of a flee market where they rob you; it has become that. So, it has become debt that accumulates over debt, and you have normally, or if you follow this accumulation of debt because in an unfair economy, you have to pay two, three, four times more debt that what you got from the loans. This is what was imposed on the countries of the South. It is coming inside countries like Spain, Italy, or France at this point.

So, you have the whole world trapped into this debt system. And the whole economy now is an economy which is no more, I would say, a free market economy. It is a controlled free market economy by the laws of the British Empire imposed by central banks. So, this is only maintained through fake money. You have flows and flows of fake money dumped on the markets, which don’t go to the producers, don’t go even to the consumers. This fake money goes into the whole financial secrets of the oligarchy. So, this is what has to be forever eliminated. It’s the British system of Anglo-ization of Anglo-Dutch system of an economy which is not based on a human level and human development, but it’s based on financial dictatorship. Which I call now the system under which we are; a market economy without a market; a dictatorship of these financial interests in all sectors, including culture.

So, we have to free ourselves from that. All the life of Lyndon LaRouche in particular as a point of reference historically, was in 1982 with Lopez Portillo, and in 1976 with our friend Fred Wills in Colombo, was to say we need to be freed from the debt. And we need a bank organized for the development of whole countries of the world. This is what the World Bank was intended to be after World War II. But then, as the Bretton Woods system, it was miscarried by all the Western leaders. What we need now, is what the Chinese with the New Silk Road are doing by let’s say directing economies. It’s an economy based on real physical development, and a growth based on the development of the creative potential of the human being, including in culture. There are efforts in China for Classical culture, for Classical Chinese poetry. And all of this is connected to the whole — which the West would never tell about that — to the whole development of the New Silk Road concept of the Belt and Road Initiative.

So you have that as a reference. And you have the whole fight of our lives which comes into this direction. And now we have a big chance that this becomes for us a real point existing in reality and accomplished. So, we have to go much further, and we speak about the World Land-Bridge. There has been a World Land-Bridge, as we said it with the United States, China, Russia, India, and all other countries that would be connected to this system. So, it demands a mobilization of the leaders of the world, but also the populations everywhere to put pressure on the leaders of the world and the economic system. It’s very interesting from that standpoint that the Yellow Vests in France are calling some of us to be experts in this debt moratorium or debt amelioration, which would get rid of this debt system and see what’s fair and unfair debt.

So, the Glass-Steagall proposal is absolutely a part of that. It means that banks which are involved in giving credit or organizing deposit accounts would be separated from banks which are involved in the markets and which are becoming elements or scions of this whole British system. So, the separation would clean the system.

We need much more, that’s why we need a credit system for the future, developing this type of physical economy with increasing productivity per unit of surface per human being and per matter brought into it. So, this is a sense of a high flux density economy; high energy-flux density should be the choice of this economy.

Among the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, this is the fourth law. What you should choose once you clean the system, and once you get rid of this debt system. That’s the key, because it’s there that you have to invest human creativity in things that put human beings at the border of this capacity to create. And it will connect the space programs — the astronaut, after all, has to work both with his brains and his hands; exactly like farmers have to work with their brains and their hands. The more advanced farmers in the United States or in Europe are, in their tractors, real astronauts on Earth. I liked a lot this presentation of our American farmer, Mike Callicrate, who said that the soil itself has to be seen as a living matter. It is something that is alive, and it has to be enriched and developed. It has not to be seen as a support or something that you take advantage of; it is something that you feed into for the future. I think that this concept is what links the astronaut and the farmer and which links all of us in this society. I raise this issue of farmer’s education, because I think, what we always discussed with Lyndon LaRouche, that the type of education that this requires is an education which creates or generates in human beings this constantly increasing capacity and this joy to create when you do something socially good for the others. It’s a big issue today, as Helga said before, is public health, because it’s a matter that involves the whole world. It demands world cooperation. And what I keep repeating is that instead of organizing hospitals through financial management, we should organize states as hospitals for the care and development of the people.

SPEED: Thank you, Jacques. Now, Diane, who is an orchestral conductor, has the following task. We have approximately 15 minutes all together. It means that what we have here is very little time for discussion. In fact, what’s going to happen is, she’s going to pose something that came from a couple of countries, and each of you is going to have approximately two minutes to say whatever you have to say, both to one another, you can choose to respond to the question or not, but that’s what you’re going to have. Diane will now take the floor, and if necessary, I will intervene.

DIANE SARE: OK. This question is from Ambassador Mauricio Ortiz, who is the Ambassador of Costa Rica to Canada. He says:

“In your proposal you mention ‘an emergency mission to build a fully functional health infrastructure for the world particularly in South America, Africa, and parts of Asia.’ This proposal is very much needed in those regions.

“Are the international financial institutions willing to invest in that proposal, and what will be the arguments from the Schiller Institute to these institutions to make it real?

“If your proposal is realized, you might note that our country, Costa Rica, has an efficient primary health system with more than 1,000 rural health posts and, along with Chile and Cuba, one of the best health programs in Latin America. This is a system that can be replicated in other countries, including developed countries.”

I’m going to ask the other question here as well. This one comes from the Mission from Colombia to the United Nations:

“Dear all, on behalf of the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the United Nations I would like to pose the following question: How can Latin America play a determining role in the consolidation of this new global configuration?”

“Best regards, Carolina Gutiérrez Bacci; Third Secretary”

SPEED: OK, so what we’re going to do is this. You can choose to address either of the questions or neither of the questions, because you only have, as I said, a couple of minutes. I’m going to start quickly with Bob Baker.

BOB BAKER: Thank you, Dennis. In terms of the health infrastructure and my particular focus on agriculture, I think it’s an absolutely vital situation to develop a food system where everybody can get a proper diet of nutritional food. That is the basis on which to build the argument why every community should have access to the most advanced healthcare that science has brought us to this day. But the driver in that obstacle behind the scenes is an international financial cartel that’s building world global monopolies to stop that. To the extent the nations of the world can expose that and unite the people to take a stand against it, that’s going to be a very important aspect of getting a healthcare system internationally. But this is also why this type of conference we’re having becomes very instrumental if not a key element of getting that done.

SPEED: Thank you. Now I want to go to Kirk Meighoo, whose presentation I particularly appreciated.

KIRK MEIGHOO: Thank you very much. I’ll quickly address the problem. We’re close neighbors of Costa Rica, and we have some links with them that we’ve established recently. This problem of self-sufficiency is something, especially for a small society, and all these small little islands, the question of self-sufficiency in everything is just simply not there.

So, people have even asked questions whether we deserve to be independent, or should we be permanent colonies? These are questions that stay with us, even after independence. It’s something we struggle with. We do have to have a system where we do access, just as the last speaker said, the best healthcare possible for all humanity. But we cannot simply be recipients, receivers of these things; dependents, colonial dependents as we have been for 500 years. We have to have a system where we are also producers.

So, what is the system of trading a local economy, of local production where we are contributing to our own development, as well as participating with others? That is the type of system that the global financial system has been against, and has never been for. It is the old imperial system, and they are just merely modern continuations of that. What we have to do, what our task is, is to create this new system. Not just money from the old system to create this, but how do we make the system where not only do we each benefit from the best the world has to offer, but that we are also contributors, as full human beings to it, as well. That is where I would like to leave it.

SPEED: OK, thank you. Walter Formento, you’re up.

WALTER FORMENTO: [as translated] All of the contributions that are made are very significant. It’s clear that for South America the call for the five nations that Putin made, which Helga also referred to, is a matter of great hope, because this would allow us to ensure that we could achieve peace. Therefore, it will be international politics that will allow us to decide things based on a dialogue of civilizations, a dialogue of peoples, of nations, what the future of mankind and nature will be. In Argentina in particular, the production of food — Argentina is a great producer of food, along with South America, along with Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay as well. The great multinational conglomerates involved in the food sector have taken control as of 30 years ago in Argentina, both in terms of our ability to produce as well as export.

Therefore, at this moment in Argentina and in South America, governments have changed, and with the backing of such an international conference that President Putin has called for, we can move forward in providing sovereign channels for both producing and exporting. The policies that can be carried out inside Argentina in the food sector have to do with allowing producers’ cooperatives to be a part of the great conglomerates that engage in production. We shouldn’t dissolve large-scale production and technology, but rather introduce the nations and all society through such cooperatives so that they participate in the solution, and to be part of the solution. Therefore, there is a way to democratize production.

SPEED: We’re going to have to stop. Thank you. Sorry, we’re going to have to move on. Mike Callicrate?

CALLICRATE: I was really moved by Dr. Meighoo’s comments about islands and the small economies on those islands. I can really get somebody pretty seriously depressed when we talk about the state of the world. But, I can also lift them and get them more excited when I talk about the possibility of going home. Going home to our communities and making them as good as we possibly can. Become wealth creators, grow things, make things, restore the primary wealth trading enterprises to societies around the world. Like with Kirk, if you can just stop the predators, the economic, financial, big food monopoly predators from extracting the wealth and leaving nothing but poverty behind, I think we can begin to repair this damage. Because we do control, as farmers and ranchers and citizens, we do to a large extent control our ability to create the wealth. It’s what happens to it after we create it. The last speaker talked about we shouldn’t dissolve the big corporations. I would argue yes, we should dissolve them. The big corporations should be broken up; not completely eliminate their facilities, but at least put them to where they have to perform in line with the public good. So, I love that analogy of those small islands of Trinidad and Tobago, and islands all across the Caribbean and how that is very much like the islands in rural America, in rural communities around the world. I’m saying let’s go back to making things and growing things, and teach that and kill this model of industrialization of these critical industries, like food.

SPEED: Thank you, very good. We’re trying to get Diogène Senny’s audio up. I don’t think we have it yet. So, let’s go to Jacques.

CHEMINADE: Just one word about Cuban doctors, to speak about that island. It’s proof that you can have the most advanced medicine, interferon, where French doctors have to go there to learn from them. Then you have the best doctors, because they stay and live where the patients stay and live. And third, they are involved in cooperation with other countries in the whole world. They send them, and they do a very good job. In particular, they are now in Doha, in Europe in Italy, and now in French Martinique, so the French have to recognize — and sometimes it’s difficult for them — that these were the best; a team of 15 Cuban doctors in Martinique now. So that’s proof that an island can do an excellent job in a very advanced field, and at the same time they are most human.

SPEED: Thank you. I hope that we have the audio for the Pan-African Congress representative. We are not going off until I hear that. We’re going to do a sit-in until we hear from him!

SENNY: [as translated] The global question of poverty is just a part of the world situation and the African situation. We all know that when we present the situation of the continent, we are more interested in the question of the debt, money, slavery, and we forget that, for example, monoculture which has been imposed by the international cartels have destroyed agriculture with the hedge funds that I denounce, because they want to make money with our land. They buy what we have in our continent, in our countries, to generate profit for them, for a small group of people. But not allow millions of lives of people to develop their land.

That’s why this question of agriculture and self-sufficiency in Africa is one of the most important problems. It’s not an agriculture, it’s a money culture; that’s the agriculture we have. If we want to have modern rice, we have to have modern developments. It’s very important for us, this agricultural question. We see that it is a world problem. What was used before by the African farmers are not in their own hands, because it is in the hands of the hedge funds, the speculative hedge funds.

It is very important to understand, and it is not very well known in the international debate now. That’s what I wanted to add. Thank you very much.

SPEED: Thank you very much. So, now Diane, you have 45 seconds, and I have 45 seconds. Do your postlude.

SARE: OK. I’ll be very brief. I think we should all remember that we have been blessed to have inhabit a beautiful, fertile planet which is very conducive to sustaining life, and in particular human life, if we are sane. But there are 2 trillion galaxies or more in the universe, and each of these many have many other planets. So, contrary to the views of the Malthusians and the money-changers, the creativity of each and every human being on this planet is urgently needed; because we are not capable of making too many discoveries to develop the universe as a whole. Therefore, we have to grow into a new era of mankind.

SPEED: Thank you. So, I will now conclude this panel — largely due to time — by just pointing out that we’ve had Europe, Africa, South America, the Caribbean, and the United States all on this panel in the form of discussion. This is the process that must be correlative to whatever happens among heads of state. And this process which the Schiller Institute is initiating, which is also bringing up various forms of important ideas and painful truths as well, is crucial to the actual success of the global Four-Power and related summit that we’ve been talking about. Finally, in the era of coronavirus, this is the only means by which people will be able to prosper and not perish; is this people-to-people dialogue we’ve conducted here.

I want to thank all of the panelists who were with us today. I think there’s a lot that can be done also in additional presentations that we may find in the future, pairing some of you together. I’d certainly like to see the Pan-African Congress together with Mr. Mike Callicrate. I’d like to see Kirk Meighoo involved in some discussions like that. Jacques is always welcome, and he’s always teaching us things. He had something new for us today; go back and take a look at his presentation afterwards, because he has some very interesting ideas that he put forward there.

So, we’re going to conclude now…

Invitation og live video link til Schiller Instituttets internationale konference lørdag den 27. juni kl. 16:
Vil menneskeheden blomstre op eller gå til grunde?
Fremtiden kræver et ‘Fire-magts topmøde’ nu

Og hér kan hele Politisk Orienteringen ses.

Den 17. juni (EIRNS) – To positive initiativer skiller sig i dag ud fra den omsiggribende pandemi samt andre voksende kriser. Schiller Instituttets ungdomsafdeling ledte en multinational aktionsdag, som opfordrede lederne fra de fire magter – USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien – til at hæve sig over stridighederne og mødes for at igangsætte tiltag for det almene vel, i særdeleshed mht. infrastruktur indenfor sundhed og medicin for at bekæmpe COVID-19, og for at skabe produktivitet i det økonomiske system gennem ”LaRouche-planen” for 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive arbejdspladser, og alt som hører til. For det andet, i samme ånd, blev der i dag afholdt et møde mellem kinesiske og afrikanske ledere, under titlen ”Kina-Afrika-Solidaritetstopmøde mod COVID-19”, som blev ledet og adresseret af Præsident Xi Jinping og den Afrikanske Unions formand, Cyril Ramaphosa, blandt andre.

Det ekstraordinære topmøde skabte en ny ”Platform for medicinske forsyninger til Afrika”, for at alle afrikanske nationer de næste seks måneder kunne få adgang til diagnostiske og terapeutiske forsyninger for at bekæmpe pandemien. Ramaphosa, som i den senere tid har påpeget vigtigheden af rumforskning og kernekraft, lagde vægt på tiltag for at tilsidesætte ubetalelig gæld i Afrika i denne nødsituation, for at bekæmpe virusset.

Schiller Instituttets aktionsdag inkluderede henvendelser, gennem alle former for kommunikation, til hundredvis af individer og organisationer, som har muligheden for at påbegynde de nødvendige initiativer til et nyt økonomisk system, hvis akutte mål er fokuseret på infrastruktur til global sundhed, som overskriften på Schiller Instituttets begæring lyder: ”Forsvar Jordens allervigtigste ressource – mennesket!”

Planen for denne aktivering findes i dokumentet: ”LaRouche-planen til at genåbne USA’s økonomi: Verden har brug for 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive arbejdspladser”. Rapporten, produceret af LaRouchePAC, vil blive diskuteret lørdag d. 20. juni, kl. 20:00 (dansk tid) af landbrugsledere, fagforeningsledere og andre, ved LaRouchePAC’s ugentlige, nationale ”rådhus”, under overskriften: ”1,5 milliarder nye, produktive arbejdspladser verden over – hvordan USA’s arbejdsstyrke bringes tilbage til videnskabsbaseret produktion”. Dette er lyset, som skinner gennem det der ellers kan synes et håbløst mørke af uretfærdighed og lidelse, uden nogen vej imod en produktiv fremtid. Dette er en opfordring til handling.

Det modsatte til denne kampberedte tilgang til et samarbejde om et nyt økonomisk system, blev udstillet i dag i nye amerikanske udenrigspolitiske initiativer mod Syrien, i et modbydeligt skue af britisk imperialistisk geopolitisk taktik for regimeskifte. Det bliver gjort værre af, at sanktionerne bemyndiges og har den samlede støtte fra de neoliberale og neokonservative tosser, der tilføjede det som en paragraf i den seneste Lov for den Nationale Forsvarsmyndighed (National Defense Authorization Act). Udenrigsministeriet bekendtgjorde 39 nye sanktioner mod den syriske præsident, Bashar al-Assad, hans kone, mange familiemedlemmer og andre syriske ledere, hvilket forbyder nogen som helst form for økonomisk støtte til nationen. Dette sker efter at detaljer om den desperate situation med mangel på medicin og fødevarer i Syrien blev formidlet til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd den 16. juni, og gennem advarsler om truende hungersnød i Syrien fra FN’s administrerende direktør for Verdens Fødevareprogram, David Beasley, i et interview den 12. juni med dagbladet The National i de Forenede Arabiske Emirater. Mere end 9 millioner mennesker i Syrien har ingen fødevaresikkerhed (uden tilstrækkelig føde, enten grundet mangler eller forsyninger), og yderligere 2 millioner står på randen.

En del af dette billede inkluderer Libanon, tæt forbundet hermed, hvor banksystemet er brudt sammen. Libanon, en nation med 5 millioner mennesker, har taget imod 1,5 millioner syriske flygtninge. I de seneste dage bliver der taget skridt hen imod et ”nyt paradigme” i samarbejde med Kina, med en intervention for udvikling af infrastruktur og mulig understøttelse af Syrien gennem russiske og iranske initiativer.

Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, talte i sit ugentlige webcast i dag, om hvordan det ”ikke er tid til geopolitiske spil”. Ønsker man at skabe ”et regimeskifte i Syrien gennem hungersnød?”

Efter en detaljeret beskrivelse af situationen, samt andre af dagens udviklinger, såsom at Tyskland og USA ”driver fra hinanden”, sluttede hun af med at understrege den generelle pointe om, hvad der er brug for blandt nationer. ”Tyskland og USA bør arbejde sammen for at løse flygtningekrisen, opbygningen af Sydvestasien, overvindelsen af pandemien, samarbejde om industrialiseringen af Afrika – dette er den slags ting, som vi skulle stikke hovederne sammen om. Vi bliver nødt til at have et andet paradigme og en fuldstændig anden måde at tænke på. Fordi nationale interesser er fine – jeg går fuldt ind for nationale interesser, herunder Tysklands. Men som Friedrich Schiller har sagt mange gange, man kan ikke have nationale interesser, som er i konflikt med menneskehedens. Derfor bliver man nødt til at være en patriot og en verdensborger på samme tid.”

”Så det er denne ånd som Schiller Instituttet forsøger at vække til live. Dette vil være emnet på vores kommende konference, d. 27. juni”. Find indbydelsen til konferencen her:

http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/2020/06/invitation-til-konferencevil-menneskeheden-blomstre-op-eller-gaa-til-grundefremtiden-kraever-et-fire-magts-topmoede-nu/

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.

Den 24. maj (EIRNS) – Følgende appel af Helga Zepp-LaRouche er det afsluttende kapitel i det netop udgivne LaRouchePAC-dokument  “The LaRouche Plan to Reopen the U.S. Economy: The World Needs 1.5 Billion New, Productive Jobs.”  (’LaRouche-planen for genåbning af den amerikanske økonomi: Verden har brug for 1.5 milliard nye produktive job).

Vi er kommet til det tidspunkt, hvor borgerne i USA er nødt til at huske den bedste tradition i deres historie: Den amerikanske Frihedskrig, Uafhængighedskrigen mod det Britiske Imperium, principperne der er udtrykt i forfatningen og Uafhængighedserklæringen, og principperne i det Amerikanske økonomiske System, som udviklet af Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay og Henry C. Carey.

Essensen af alle disse aspekter af den amerikanske historie fremgår meget klart i forordet til forfatningen:

”Vi – den amerikanske befolkning – forordner og etablerer denne forfatning for Amerikas Forenede Stater, med henblik på at danne en mere perfekt union, etablere retfærdighed, sikre indenrigs ro, sørge for fælles forsvar, fremme den generelle velfærd og sikre frihedens velsignelser for os selv og vores efterkommere”.

Hensigten med forfatningen, som udtrykt i forordet, om at fremme den generelle velfærd, ikke kun for den nuværende generation, men også for alle fremtidige generationer, indeholder en ubetinget afvisning af den såkaldte “aktionærværdi”-politik og globaliseringens uhæmmede frie handel, der dengang, som nu, blev promoveret af det britiske imperium, hvilket ikke alene har udvidet kløften i selve USA mellem en klasse af stadig rigere milliardærer og det stigende antal fattige, men også er ansvarlig for den katastrofale underudvikling i såkaldte udviklingslande.

Det står klart, at verden aldrig vil vende tilbage til den tingenes tilstand, der eksisterede før coronavirus-pandemien brød ud. Vi befinder os ved et absolut vendepunkt i historien, hvor vi enten vil være i stand til at bringe verden i orden, med det program vi har skitseret på disse sider for at besejre underudviklingen, eller vi trues med at styrte ned i en mørk tidsalder. Fasen med ubegrænset globalisering, som tilhængerne af en unipolær verden har forsøgt at gennemføre, især efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud i 1991, og som førte til en global bølge af protester, herunder valget af Donald Trump, er ovre for altid.

Lyndon LaRouche havde forudsagt den katastrofe, der nu udfolder sig for vores øjne i alle dens aspekter, fra hans karakterisering af præsident Nixons katastrofale ødelæggelse af Bretton Woods-systemet i 1971 og hans prognoser for faren for pandemier som følge af den monetaristiske politik, til det systemiske sammenbrud af det finansielle system. I løbet af det samme tidsrum, der strækker sig over et halvt århundrede, præsenterede han et hidtil uset antal løsninger til at overvinde kriserne i USA og internationalt, og det er i den samme ånd, at programmet her er udtænkt.

Enhver ærlig person, der læser disse analyser og program-forslag i dag, i lyset af den aktuelle pandemi og ødelæggelsen af den reelle økonomi, vil konkludere, at Lyndon LaRouche var en mand med forsyn. Idéen om forsyn er ikke her ment i en streng religiøs forstand, men i at hele hans tankemetode var i så stor overensstemmelse med principperne for det fysiske univers, at hans analyser og kreative forslag var af en enorm, næsten profetisk præcision. Han tænkte og arbejdede “i harmoni” med universets intention, og – hvis det forstås korrekt – med Skaberens.

Derfor er den største forbrydelse, der blev begået ved den uretfærdige fængsling og livslange bagvaskelse af LaRouche – foretaget af det samme McCarthyagtige apparat der er ansvarlig for det igangværende kupforsøg mod præsident Trump – ikke kun den skandaløse uretfærdighed begået mod LaRouche personligt, men frem for alt, at det har gjort det ekstremt vanskeligt for amerikanere og andre over hele verden at få adgang til disse løsninger. På mange måder er de enorme genvordigheder, som befolkningen nu døjer med på grund af kombinationen af pandemien og den økonomiske krise, resultatet af den politiske forfølgelse af denne ekstraordinære tænker. Og desværre er hans advarsel om, at ingen ville være sikker, hvis hans forfølgelse blev tolereret, gået i opfyldelse. Når man f.eks. overvejer, hvordan general Flynn er, og vil blive, retsforfulgt kommer man i tanke om Martin Niemöllers berømte citat: ”Da nazisterne kom efter kommunisterne, tav jeg; jeg var ikke kommunist. Da de spærrede socialdemokraterne inde, tav jeg; jeg var ikke socialdemokrat. Da de kom efter fagforeningsfolkene, var jeg tavs; jeg var ikke fagforeningsmand.”

Det er på høje tid, at Lyndon LaRouche, manden og hans ideer, bliver fuldstændig renset, og jeg opfordrer personligt præsident Trump til at gøre det.

Men Lyndon LaRouches ideer lever, hvilket dette program til oprettelse af 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive job verden over understreger. USA har nu nået et bristepunkt i sin historie, hvor enten ideerne i traditionen af den amerikanske forfatning realiseres, eller det britiske imperiums finansielle generobring af den amerikanske koloni vil kaste hele verden, sammen med USA, ud i en mørk tidsalder. Dette er tidspunktet, hvor de krav som Nicholas Cusanus – der med sine værker tilbage i det 15. århundrede allerede havde lagt grundlaget for den amerikanske republik – fremlagde i sin Concordantia Catholica, nu er blevet et spørgsmål om overlevelse for hele verden. Han fastslog, at det eneste legitime grundlag for en nations eksistens er dens forpligtelse til alle nationers almene vel, og til et sådant forhold mellem alle nationer. Netop dette var Benjamin Franklins intention med den amerikanske forfatning og Uafhængighedserklæringen mod det Britiske Imperium. Det var også præsident John Quincy Adams opfattelse, at USA udenrigspolitisk skulle være en del af en alliance med fuldstændig uafhængige suveræne republikker knyttet sammen af en fælles idé, og at Amerika ikke var påkaldt til “at gå udenlands på jagt efter monstre at ødelægge.”

Nøglen til at opbygge en sådan hårdt tiltrængt alliance i dag er positivt samarbejde mellem USA og Kina. Coronavirus-pandemien har unægteligt gjort det klart, at den kombinerede industrielle kapacitet i verdensøkonomien er udhulet, og ikke tilnærmelsesvis tilstrækkelig til at brødføde og opretholde værdigheden af verdens befolkning i dag. Samarbejde mellem de to største økonomier i verden er derfor en væsentlig forudsætning for at overvinde indvirkningen af pandemier, sult og fattigdom i Afrika, Latinamerika, dele af Asien og endda regioner i Europa og USA.

Selvom der, takket være manipulationerne fra de britiske hemmelige tjenester og anglofile politikere i USA, er blevet gjort stor skade på forholdet mellem USA og Kina gennem gensidige beskyldninger med hensyn til oprindelsen og håndteringen af coronavirus, og skønt den nuværende ”Kina-hetz” fremkalder de mørkeste erindringer fra McCarthy-perioden, er et konstruktivt samarbejde mellem USA og Kina ikke alene absolut muligt, men peger også på vejen til en ny æra i menneskets historie. Denne æra må være kendetegnet ved at overvinde geopolitikken og fremme alle nationers generelle velfærd på denne planet.

I betragtning af de eksistentielle problemer, som mange mennesker i Amerika står overfor på grund af pandemien, er der muligvis ikke megen offentlig opmærksomhed på den enorme kløft, der eksisterer mellem det image, som USA nød i verden på tidspunktet for Den amerikanske Frihedskrig og under præsidenterne George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln eller Franklin Delano Roosevelt, og så det USA der har ført uendelige krige i hele verden siden afslutningen af Sovjetunionen under Bush- og Obama-administrationerne. Engang blev Amerika betragtet af alle republikanske kredse rundt om i verden som et frihedstempel, og et fyrtårn for håb; som et land hvis forfatning tjente som model for republikanske forhåbninger i mange lande over hele verden. Men under Bush- og Obama-regeringerne veg beundring og venskab for frygt, eller det der er værre, den amerikanske militære magt.

Den er fem minutter i midnat, mht. at leve op til løftet om et konstruktivt forhold til præsident Xi Jinping og Kina, som opstod i de tidlige dage af Trump-administrationen. I betragtning af at “Russiagate” fuldstændig er miskrediteret og den sandsynlige retssag mod de britisk inspirerede kupmagere, er der intet der står i vejen for et konstruktivt samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland, som det er blevet vist af NASA og Roscosmos. Hvis USA nu tager føringen i det økonomiske genopbygningsprogram og skabelsen af 1,5 milliarder produktive job i verden, og hjælper med til at gøre den Nye Silkevej til ‘Verdens-Landbroen’, vil USA i hele verdens øjne genvinde den position, det engang havde: som en pioner for frihed og håb for hele menneskeheden.

— Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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.

HARLEY SCHLANGER d. 22. april, 2020:  Jeg opfordrer dig til at slutte dig til os ved denne konference, da vi klart står over for et øjeblik i menneskets historie, hvor din kreative aktivitet, og din stemme er vigtig, fordi du kan nu spille en rolle i historien.

Der er ingen tvivl om, at vi er ved et vendepunkt. Den kombinerede effekt af coronavirus-pandemien og det økonomiske krak gør, at vi befinder os i ukendt farvand, og vi ser, at der vedtages en politik, som er det nøjagtig modsatte af, hvad der burde gøres. Især i forhold til økonomien, med redningspakkerne, med den stigende mængde af likviditet der pumpes ud af Federal Reserve, den amerikanske centralbank. Men endnu farligere, som Helga påpegede i vores diskussion i sidste uge, er det rablende anti-kinesiske hysteri, der kommer fra de selvsamme mennesker, der bragte Russiagate, og de selvsamme mennesker som er ansvarlige for den økonomiske krise. Især har vi identificeret Henry Jackson-Selskabet og Atlanterhavsrådet, der havde en konference for to dage siden for at diskutere, hvorfor vi er ‘i krig med Kina’, og hvorfor vi taber, og nu opfordrer den vestlige alliance til at opgradere dets aktivitet for at besejre Kina.

I stedet for skal vi samarbejde! Stillet over for denne krise bør vi hæve vores blik såvel som vores hjerter til at omfavne menneskeheden, og samarbejde for at komme med løsninger. Og i weekenden 25.-26. april – lørdag og søndag – vil vi præsentere en konference, som er åben for dig her på siden, eller på

Schiller Instituttets internationale hjemmeside

Men lad mig give dig en fornemmelse af programmet, så du kan se, hvad vi skal diskutere, og dets vigtighed. Det vil forresten være online, så det vil være tilgængeligt for alle jer, der har adgang til internettet.

I dag lørdag kl. 16 dansk tid
Panel 1: “Det presserende behov for at erstatte geopolitikken med et nyt paradigme i internationale relationer”.

Panel Moderator: Dennis Speed

10:00 USA østkysttid— 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

Dette vil tage udfordringen op, som Lyndon LaRouche foreslog for mere end et årti siden, at de fire stormagter – Rusland, Kina, Indien og De Forenede Stater – mødes for at diskutere et nyt paradigme, herunder en Ny Bretton Woods-aftale, og inkluderende et samarbejde om LaRouches Fire Love for at muliggøre en global økonomisk genoplivning. Samarbejde, ikke konfrontation, ikke geopolitik, som er en britisk opfindelse. Vi er nødt til at afslutte regimeskiftekup, gøre en ende på de uendelige krige og i stedet arbejde sammen. Dette var præsident Trumps erklærede intention, da han blev valgt; dette er grunden til, at han blev angrebet med Russiagate, og til at der i dag er en samordnet indsats fra begge partierne, fra efterretningssamfundet og fra medierne for at vende præsident Trump mod Kina og mod Xi Jinping. Så i det første panel diskuterer vi, hvordan vi kan overvinde geopolitikken.

I dag lørdag kl. 21.00 dansk tid,
Panel 2: “For en bedre forståelse af hvordan vores univers fungerer.”

LaRouchePAC Science Team: Megan Beets, Benjamin Deniston, Jason Ross: “In Defense of the Human Species”

Plus additional experts

Dette er afgørende, fordi vi har set en forandring på områder inden for videnskabelig forskning, i mange tilfælde, som i tilfældet med den såkaldte “grønne” politik, til en anti-videnskabelig tilgang, der igen er designet til at beskytte det finansielle system, men ikke til at skabe fremgang for den menneskelige art. Og så vil vi tage spørgsmål op fra skikkelser som Kepler og Leibniz, Einstein, Vernadsky – hvad er i grunden videnskab? Og hvad er menneskets forhold til universet, det ikke-levende til det levende og det levende til noösfæren, fornuftsfæren, det vil sige domænet for menneskelig kreativitet.

Søndag 26. april kl. 17 dansk tid
Panel 3: “Kreativitet som den markant karakteristiske egenskab ved menneskelig kultur: Behovet for en klassisk renæssance.”

Beethoven, An die ferne Geliebte, John Sigerson accompanied by Margaret Greenspan

Lyndon LaRouche “I Have Insisted that Music is Intelligible!”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and and chairwoman, Schiller Institute

William Warfield, “A Poetic Musical Offering”

John Sigerson, “The Physical Power of Classical Poetry and Music”

Diane Sare, “On the Employment of Chorus in Politics”

and other experts

Sandsynligvis et af de vigtigste paneler, vi nogensinde har haft, Hvis man ser på alt det rænkespind og den dårskab der breder sig, hvilket i store træk ikke er uventet, i betragtning af fordummelsen af befolkningen, og også det virkelige stress og angst, som folk står overfor, idet vi ser civilisationen, som vi kender den, falde sammen, må folk have noget dybere at falde tilbage på for at komme med løsninger. Og en af de ting vi vil gøre, er at se på hvad det var, der gjorde det muligt for Renæssancen at opstå, den håndfuld af enkeltpersoner, videnskabsfolk, kunstnere, digtere, mennesker, der kiggede på menneskets forhold til universet og gjorde fremskridt gennem kreative opdagelser – i et øjeblik af dyb fortvivlelse, fordi Renæssancen kom efter, at den Sorte Pest havde fejet hen over Europa i midten af det 14. århundrede, og udslettet fra en tredjedel til halvdelen af befolkningen på hele kontinentet.

Så i dag, hvor vi står over for lignende kriser, kan vi ikke “vende tilbage til normalen”, fordi ‘business as usual’ var det der fik os ind i denne krise. Så ved at ændre den måde mennesket ser på sig selv, og vi ser på hinanden, som vi ser på andre nationer, at vi legemliggør Schillers princip om, at man skal være en patriot i forhold til ens eget land, men samtidig en verdensborger: Hvis vi ser på dette udtryk gennem kreativitet og musik og kunst, kan vi finde en bedre version af os selv, så vi kan arbejde på at løse disse problemer.

Søndag kl. 21 dansk tid på søndag
Panel 4: “Videnskaben om fysisk økonomi.”

Dennis Small, United States, Schiller Institute Director for Ibero-America: “LaRouche’s Legacy: Foundation of the Modern Science of Physical Economy.”

Sébastien Périmony, France, Schiller Institute representative: “When Africa Looks to the Stars.”

Phillip Tsokolibane, South Africa, leader of LaRouche South Africa.

Bob Baker, United States: “Feed the Future: Eating Is a Moral Right—A Dialogue With American Farmers.”

and other experts

Dette er LaRouches specielle felt; Lyndon LaRouche var en pioner inden for hele denne idé om fysisk økonomi. Og dette kombinerer videnskab, det kombinerer historie, det kombinerer kultur, psykologi, kan man sige, hvordan det går til, at vi kan opbygge en økonomi, der reflekterer de menneskelige væsener, som vi er.

Dette er en yderst spændende konference. Vi har talere fra hele verden. Vi håber at have deltagere fra hele verden, og jeg forventer, at mange af jer vil tage tiden til at overvinde jeres dysterhed, jeres apati, jeres frustration, jeres vrede, og tænde jeres sind og lytte til diskussionen, deltage om I vil – og for at gøre det, skal man registrere sig, så gå til Schiller Instituttets website og tilmeld dig, så du kan deltage. Det vil finde sted denne weekend, 25.-26. april, og starter kl. 16 i Europa.

Tak fordi du lyttede med. Jeg vender tilbage i næste uge med Helga LaRouche, men jeg forventer at se dig deltage denne weekend i vores konference. Tak, fordi du deltager. Farvel!

Det er kun idiotiske og selvbedragne folk der ikke indser, at vi står overfor en mørk tidsalder, medmindre vi mobiliserer for at etablere et nyt globalt sundhedssystem, indledte Helga Zepp LaRouche med at sige i denne uges webcast for Schiller Instituttet. Coronavirus-pandemien, som rammer nu, mens kasinoøkonomien er ved at falde sammen, kræver en total ændret tankegang.

Dette repræsenterer en moralsk test for menneskeheden, da der er mange som tror, at vi kan vende ryggen til fattige lande, eller værre, de indædte malthusianere der vil have befolkningsreduktion, og fortsætter med at insistere på at profit må prioriteres højere end menneskeliv. Hun opfordrede seere til at deltage i Schiller Instituttets mobilisering for et Nyt Paradigme, baseret på en kamp for
menneskehedens fælles interesser.

“Symptomerne på en mørk tidsalder er over alt”, sagde hun, idet hun pegede på eksempler som dem på plejehjem eller fænglser som er smittede og døende. Hun sagde, at hun forstår den smerte forårsaget af nedlukningen, enlige mødre hjemme uden nogen indkomst, små virksomheder som går nedenom, men at prøve på at komme tilbage til en “normal” tilstand øger risikoen for en endnu værre katastrofe, end den vi står overfor nu.

Lær ad hvad Kina og andre asiatiske lande gjorde for at håndtere pandemien. Bestræbelserne på at give Kina skylden for den globale pandemi er idiotisk, amoralsk og uærlig, tilføjede hun, idet hun understregede de sædvanlige mistænkte fra City of London og britisk efterretningsvæsen, som værende dem der fører an. Hun præsenterede den virkelige kronologi over den kinesiske mobilisering for at opdage hvad dette nye virus er og formidle dette videre til andre.

Det var Vestens arrogance, ikke et kinesisk røgslør, som har skylden. Den reelle antikinesiske kampagne har intet med coronavirus at gøre, men at Kinas fremkomst truer de neoliberale og geopolitikernes unipolære verdensorden.

Hun tilskyndede seerne til at støtte vores opfordring til en “Apollo-projekt”-mobilisering og for at organisere for Schiller Instituttets konference den 25.-26. april.

***

Afskrift på engelsk:

“We Must Mobilize To Defeat A Dark Age”

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger, with the Schiller Institute and welcome to our weekly webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s April 15, 2020.

We’re clearly in the middle of a situation in which decisions are being made about what to do with the coronavirus, what to do with the economy. There are new reports coming out that the virus pandemic is spreading into different areas, including Africa and India. So Helga, how do you want to address this problem? Why don’t you go ahead and give us a picture of what you have?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The situation really starts to look like a Dark Age, and I really wonder how long it takes some of these people who believe that this whole thing is just like a “flu,” or just a plot to impose world dictatorship, when they will realize this is a pandemic. And that because of the combination of the economic policies and the financial system failing, there is a real danger of a Dark Age. And those people who have not yet thought about it, should look at Decameron by Boccaccio, how he describes the Black Death in the 14th century: Because we are clearly, even in the so-called advanced sector, reaching, very quickly, such images. For example, in New Jersey, the authorities basically say that if people get sick in nursing homes, they should not be brought to the hospitals, because there is no space for them. Then you have an increasing number, for example, there is one nursing home in Richmond, Virginia, where out of 160 or so inhabitants, more than 120 are sick; 40 of them have died already. And a similar picture is developing in many nursing homes. Even in France, you have such situations, and in Italy, where people die at home, and they’re not being found. And then later they are being discovered. But especially, if the staff in nursing homes become infected, this is taking such a terrible development. Also, centers of juvenile delinquents in the United States, there is a very high ratio. The prison population and the staff in the jails and prisons are very much in danger and there is a high infection rate.

So then, you also have a situation where there is a collapse of the food supply. There was a food distribution in Nairobi, Kenya, where there was not enough food for the many people who were in need, and a riot broke out, and the riot police intervened with tear gas, causing these people to flee. A similar situation exists in many places, even in San Antonio, Texas, there was a food distribution through cars, and a line of 2,000 cars stretched out and in the end there was not enough food.

Similar situations are clearly threatening all over the place, and while the governments in the developing sector, in many instances have reacted more quickly than the so-called “Western” governments, because they had had Ebola, and other epidemics and disease outbreaks, so they did have early lockdown, but this is not sustainable. If you are sitting in a shack in Africa, with 10 people crowded in the same room, there is no point if you are being told to stay home, and you also cannot self-isolate. The Prime Minister of Ethiopia Abiy Ahmed, who is otherwise doing an excellent job, he basically said, it’s not sustainable; we cannot keep these measures up. The same goes, naturally, for India, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi just announced another extension by three weeks of the lockdown; but we had seen already these absolutely incredible scenes where service workers who only make income a day at a time, because everything is shut down in the service economy, they are trying to get back to the countryside, getting into overfilled buses, being stopped by police. The same is the situation in the favelas in Brazil.

I think the symptoms of a Dark Age are everywhere, and whoever does not want to see that is just morally unfit, because the only way how we can react to this situation is by doing exactly what the international Schiller Institute is doing: Namely, we are making a huge campaign to change the system, to build up a health system in every country, not just reconstructing health systems in the United States, Germany, France and other countries that used to have good health systems before the privatization over the last 30 years: But we need such a health system, on the top level in every single country, and that is the moral test for humanity to come out of this crisis.

SCHLANGER: Helga, one of the things that has happened in the last few days, is there has been aid being transferred from China, from elsewhere: There are these “Solidarity Flights” now going into Africa. This is small, but it does indicate the right direction, at least in terms of the immediate emergency, doesn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. This was very good. This was organized between the Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy, whom I just mentioned earlier; then also the Jack Ma Foundation from China, the African Union, the World Health Organization, World Food Program, and it was a full planeload of all medical supplies, and very urgently needed and most welcomed. And from Addis Ababa, it was then distributed to all other African nations. And there is the intention to build up similar hubs all over the world.

But if you look at the amount of money involved, it was in the low three-digit hundred millions, and what would be needed, is naturally several orders of magnitude more; and that is obviously the big challenge, right now. So, that is why I want you to join our campaign, because we need to have a completely news system: Because, with the present casino economy, and just private donations, this will not be sufficient. You have to create a new credit system; you have to have a national bank in every country to issue credit for the construction, not only of a health system, but also of a corresponding infrastructure, and the beginning of real development, industrialization and the development of agriculture. And that can only be done with a New Bretton Woods system. And you know, there are many calls right now, emerging: In Latin America, for example, the President of Argentina Alberto Fernández said the old system clearly failed, we need a new system. There are calls for a Glass-Steagall banking separation. There are even calls for a New Bretton Woods system, coming from one of the former collaborators and employees of the Banque de France, the French central bank.

But we need this to be on the agenda immediately: Because this pandemic will not go away. As it looks now, it will be with us for at least — at least a year, until vaccines come online, and it may be longer.

SCHLANGER: Helga, one of the things that is most striking is the pressure that’s being put on governments in the Western countries to reopen the economy. Clearly, there’s a lot of suffering going on, but this was an economic crisis that preexisted before the pandemic. What are your thoughts about this pressure coming, in many cases from bankers, but also from small businesses to reopen the economy quickly. I think the French have announced they’ll be sending children back to school in the beginning of May — what are your thoughts about this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I understand the pain for many people, who are cramped in small apartments, single mothers with yelling children, small businessmen who are losing their business, people losing their jobs — it’s a terrible crisis. But, at this point, if you loosen the economy too early, if you open up too quickly, it’s almost guaranteed that it will come back and be much more costly, than if you had followed what the Chinese did in Wuhan. And I can only repeat: If you open up now the economy now, without having a real testing of the population — and by testing, I don’t mean just the people who have symptoms. You have to do trial and error testing in supposedly unaffected areas, just to get a broad overview of what the condition of infection is, because if you’re not testing, you have no idea how widespread the infection is. Then, you have to have absolute protection of the population, you have to have a full supply of medical staff, medical facilities, protective clothes for the population whenever they go to a public function, like to work or shopping. All of these measures have to be in place beforehand. And I don’t think we have reached that condition yet. And there are many warnings that if you open up too early, you may pay a much higher price.

And naturally — and I’m not saying this goes for everybody — but it’s also very clear, some people could not care less about the developing sector and the population, and they couldnt care less about the elderly; and there is this very Nazi-like, Malthusian axiom, where people just think there are too many people anyway, and it’s a good thing that this is happening! I know that this is the case for some people, because they been speaking out quite openly, like Jeremy Warner, I think is his name, from the Daily Telegraph on March 3, wrote it quite openly like that.

So I think that we really have to fight for the adoption of what was learned in Asia in general — it was not just China, but China did the most efficient job, but it was in Singapore and South Korea, and I think that the Asian reaction was much, much more serious, than the Europeans or the Americans in their reaction. So, we have to really study what the Chinese did right, and just replicate it, because they have clearly have proven that they could defeat this virus in Wuhan. And naturally, such absolutely horrible ideas — fascist ideas — like “herd immunity”: “herd immunity,” if you have an infection rate of only 1%, well, that’s a lot of people dying! And some people take that into account, and just, you know, write if off. But I think the right way, is to try to completely wipe out the virus, and that requires harsh measures and not to loosen up too early.

SCHLANGER: And speaking of wiping out the virus, we have the other virus, which is that of the bailouts under way to keep the casino economy in business. It’s not going to work, is it, if you go ahead with the idea that we’re going to “go back to the old system,” because the old system was collapsing. It collapsed in 2008, and it was collapsing again back in September. That’s why there’s a real demand from you and the Schiller Institute, that we have a global health system, which includes economic policies. There’s an idiocy of the idea that we have to make a payday tomorrow, without thinking about the fact that the system itself is collapsed.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s almost like vultures eating off corpses: If you see right now that the very firm which is supposed to manage the trillion bail-out package of the Federal Reserve, BlackRock, they are basically gloating and bragging that they’re running this whole thing now. And I think that the idea that you can pump money, and the Federal Reserve and the other central banks are now buying everything! They’re buying junk bonds! There is a junk bond revival, and all kinds of financial charlatans are advising their customers, “now is the time to buy junk bonds, you will make a fortune!” Well, you know, this is really the last straw before the collapse of the whole system in a hyperinflationary collapse. And it’s really nasty! Because, the rating agencies are downgrading the developing countries, Argentina and such countries, and it’s really a brutal fight where these vultures are trying to make the last round of profit, to make the rich richer, and this is reaching a point where you cannot do this, because you will cause riots, you will cause social upheaval, and as this pandemic gets worse, real social chaos is threatening.

So, the only way how this can be answered, is by implementing Glass-Steagall, now, before, for example the oil shale sector in the United States is completely at the verge of collapse, the oil price did not go up, even after Trump and Putin and the Saudis tried to have some arrangements; the oil price as of today, I think, somewhere at $20/barrel, and this is absolutely a timebomb. And therefore, we have to have, now, a Glass-Steagall reorganization, and the whole package that was proposed by my late husband in 2014: National Bank, New Bretton Woods, and reorganize the whole system. Make a new credit system, and then we can finance this, and we can restart the economy, after the pandemic is under control. And there has to be such a change! Because we cannot continue with this insane casino economy, which is causing havoc all over the world. It was that casino economy, which destroyed the health system, by privatizing it; it was that system which kept the developing countries down and prevented their development; and that is what gave rise to these pandemics.

So if people do not recognize that we have to change our ways, now, I think that this is the moral test, if the human species is capable to survive or not.

SCHLANGER: Another area to look at, you had mentioned to study what the Chinese did to deal with the pandemic. They’re also beginning to reopen the economy, but they’re doing it on the basis of continuing the Belt and Road Initiative, the infrastructure development. And yet, what we’re seeing from key networks in the West is the most vicious anti-China campaign, and this is something that you’ve been calling out. Where does this come from?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it comes from a deep-seated geopolitical view that the rise of China necessarily means the downfall of the United States or the West in general. And I think that that view is a wrong view. China has, at no point threatened to replace the United States as the hegemonic power. They have offered cooperation on the basis of a win-win cooperation. They have offered to the United States a special great power relationship. And it is an absolutely absurd idea that one can prevent a country of 1.4 billion people, which has determined that it wants to go the road of scientific and technological progress, and has proven that that method functions, by lifting 850 million people out of poverty, and then, is starting to offer the advantage of such an approach, that you can stop that, other than by nuclear war! And that is, obviously, what some people are willing to play with.

China is not an aggressive force. But naturally, it does threaten the idea of a unipolar world order, which some neo-cons and British elements in the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union had tried to impose, and doing so by interventionist wars: The Bush Administration and then Obama, they did all of these interventionist wars, with the idea of regime change, color revolution, and that has gotten us to the crisis we have now in Southwest Asia and the refugee crisis.

But, you know, the idea that you have to stop the rise of China is very dangerous. And we see it right now that this campaign is absolutely led by British intelligence — as a matter of fact, the former head of MI6 came out yesterday, and after President Trump, unfortunately, very terrible, cancelled the funding of the WHO, by blaming them that they would have been responsible for many deaths, that they did misinform the United States — I don’t even want to comment on that, because it’s just factually not correct — this former British MI6 person said, that Trump should not have focussed on the WHO, but on China. And the Henry Jackson Society [in the U.K.], which is a totally neo-con, one of the worst reactionary institutions you can imagine, they came out and made a bill where they said that they want to sue China, so that China would have to pay for all the costs which have resulted as a result of the pandemic!

Now, the fact that the German tabloid Bildzeitung is publishing this today on page 2, the full story, quoting the Henry Jackson Society, having a long list of bills, you know, what was the cost for the taxi drivers, for the hotel owners, just 20 categories, that China should pay that — after yesterday, Pompeo on page 3 listed the whole arguments against China — that is the final proof that this Bild tabloid is part of the Integrity Initiative — formally or not, I don’t care — but de facto they’re spreading the propaganda of the British Empire. I mean, they just proved that in the last days, if it was necessary to still have a proof.

But they’re trying to hype up the population against China, and it is factually absolutely not true! I’ll just give you the figures, because, when they say that China was “hiding” information about the virus, it is factually not true. The first cases of some new, unknown disease became known in Wuhan on the Dec. 23 [2019]. Then, on Dec. 30th, they reported a suspicious number of people having pneumonia. Then on Jan. 3, the Chinese national health commission gave out guidelines how to treat these cases. And on Jan. 4, already, those medical people in Wuhan contacted their U.S. counterparts and the WHO and informed them about that. Then, three days later, on Jan. 7, the medical scientific personnel in Wuhan were able, for the first time, to isolate the coronavirus strain, and this was praised then by the whole international medical community, for the extraordinary speed in which they succeeded to isolate this new strain.

So, I think that that is the record. And I remember, because we paid attention to it when it happened.

And at that point, already, given the fact that there was SARS and MERS before, the Western governments could have absolutely mobilized their production of masks, of ventilators, hospital beds and so forth — but they didn’t do it! Instead, they kept repeating for weeks and weeks, “no, masks are absolutely of no use.” German Health Minister Jens Spahn said, “oh, the virus will never come to Germany.” He kept repeating that into February, saying, the German health system is perfectly prepared for any eventualities, but they really did not take it seriously, until March, when the whole thing erupted with a speed which left everybody breathless. And then, they kept say, you don’t need masks. And they did not say, you do need masks, you do need mass testing, let’s produce everything which is necessary, but they kept adjusting to the line about what was medically necessary to what their meager resources were. And that is a fact. You can say that for all European countries, and it’s still going on, to a certain extent, now.

So, I think that the attack on China is the most foolish, most immoral, and lying operation, because if there is one country which did succeed, at least for now — because it’s a pandemic, you never know what will happen down the road — but they were able to contain and stamp out the virus in the hotbeds of Hubei Province and the city of Wuhan. And rather than thinking, maybe it was the centralized government system which China has, which was the reason why they were able to react so quickly, gear up the production of the entire country; and maybe it was the extreme liberalism of the West which was the reason why it was not possible, maybe one should think that the liberal/neo-liberal system has some inherent flaws, and rather than discussing that, they go into this deflection and attack China.

I think it’s very dangerous, and it’s very stupid. And I think it should stop, and people should really not be led by the nose by these lying mass media, which have nothing to do with journalism: They’re really the forefront of the intelligence community, trying to feed propaganda in order to further their aims. But it has nothing to do with honest journalism, at all.

SCHLANGER: And it’s very dangerous that this propaganda is being backed up by military maneuvers. The so-called “elephant walk” which just took place in Guam. Maybe you can say something about that.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah! I think this is not the time to show military potency, in a macho kind of behavior. Because, I agree fully in this point, with UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres, who called for a ceasefire of all military action, to concentrate everything on fighting the pandemic. I fully agree that there should be a complete end to all sanctions against all the countries which are targetted by sanctions right now, because it does prevent these countries from fighting against the pandemic effectively. But I think, especially such military operations, like this “elephant walk” in Guam, which is essentially an exercise, rehearsing a mass takeoff of fighter jets, of bombers, of drones, helicopters, just the whole arsenal, in a show of force. Obviously, Guam, what is the obvious target? It’s China. Also, the continuous bellicose talk of NATO, that NATO has to be prepared for everything, even in the middle of this pandemic, it’s just stupid! It should stop.

I think the military should be used for a positive purpose right now: Whatever capacity they have in terms of Corps of Engineers, they should be employed — in part, they’re doing it already, in the United States, where it’s very useful, where they help the supply of medical goods, they help the disinfecting of apartments where people have died — these are useful jobs and they should be encouraged. The U.S. Army did that in Northern Italy, when there were too many corpses for the medical authorities in Italy to take care of it. So there is a useful role for the army in this situation.

But this is an absolute sign that if we don’t change the attitude right now, stop geopolitics and start to think about the common aims of mankind: This is the level we have to have. And there must be a retooling of a lot of this production: Why should we waste, and even President Trump talked about it a little while ago, where he said, he wants to enter discussions with Putin and Xi Jinping, because there is this incredible waste of huge military budgets. And in a world of such needs, why can we not retool all of this military production, and produce the kinds of things which are necessary? And the people who have made such an enormous amount of money off the military-industrial complex, up to this point — don’t they have enough? I mean, they have already multi-billions! So, I mean, there is a limit to all of this, and we are at a point where the common good of people, of many people in the world, of billions of people has to come first place.

And this is what will be the subject of our upcoming conference of the Schiller Institute, and I ask all of you to register for this conference [https://action.larouchepac.com/20200425_national_conference], and help to spread the news that it’s taking place, because the change of the paradigm will be the main subject of this conference. And it will be an extremely important intervention into this present crisis, with the aim to change the parameters, and establish a completely different paradigm.

SCHLANGER: And this will be an online conference, April 25-26. You need to pre-register, but you can find a registration form on the Schiller Institute website [https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/20200425_national_conference].

And Helga, finally, in terms of our mobilization, you’ve also been behind the drafting of a global health, almost a bill of materials call, which is also available on the website [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/04/11/larouches-apollo-mission-to-defeat-the-global-pandemic-build-a-world-health-system-now/]. What should people do with that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, as a matter of fact, we should put the link underneath this webcast, and I would ask people to read it, and if you agree — it’s basically a call, what needs to be done in terms of this health system in every country, what kinds of materials must be produced, how to go about it. If you agree with that approach, then I would ask you to distribute this “‘Apollo Program’ for a New World Health System,” as widely as you can, in social media, among your friends and colleagues, and help us in this mobilization. Because I think, as this Dark Age aspect that I mentioned in the beginning will become clearer — and unfortunately, I’m 100% certain that we will see much more horrible pictures in the next weeks and months — and the need to change the system, the entire system, will become clearer and clearer. So the more people are fighting for this world health system, the better the hope is that we can get it accomplished in time, and that we save many, many millions of people from dying. So, join this mobilization, distribute this call, join the Schiller Institute conference, and become active with us, because this is an existential question for all of humanity. And we need to reach a completely different paradigm of thinking, where war and geopolitics have to be put in the garbage heap of history, and we have to go for a new Renaissance of humanist thinking, of dialogue of civilizations, of cooperation instead of confrontation, and this is a worthwhile fight I’m asking you to join.

SCHLANGER: Well, Helga, I think you’ve made it very clear, and people should study what you’ve said on this, look at the material we’re putting out, and join us.

So, until next week, we’ll see you then.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week. And stay healthy!

15. april (EIRNS) – Dette er en pressemeddelelse fra Schiller Instituttet:

I dag offentliggjorde Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, følgende erklæring angående den modbydelige anti-Kina-kampagne, som udbredes i Vesten, specielt i USA. Det er et uddrag fra hendes internationale webcast den 15. april 2020.:

Jeg mener, at denne anti-Kina-kampagne kommer fra en dybtliggende geopolitisk opfattelse af, at Kinas opstigning nødvendigvis betyder en tilbagegang for USA, og Vesten generelt. Kina har på intet tidspunkt truet med at erstatte USA som den førende magt. De har tilbudt et samarbejde på grundlag af et ”win-win”-samarbejde. De har tilbudt USA et særligt stormagtsforhold. Og det er en fuldstændig absurd idé, at man skulle kunne forhindre et land med 1,4 milliarder mennesker, som har besluttet, at det ønsker at gå frem ad fremskridtets videnskabelige og teknologiske vej – og har bevist at denne metode fungerer ved at løfte 850 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom, og dernæst er begyndt at tilbyde fordelene ved en sådan tilgang til andre gennem Bælte-ogVejinitiativet – at man kan stoppe dette på nogen anden måde end med atomkrig! Og det er åbenbart, desværre, hvad nogle personer er villige til at sysle med.

Kina er ikke en aggressiv magt. Men de truer idéen om en enpolet verdensorden, som nogle neokonservative og britiske grupperinger har forsøgt at gennemtvinge i perioden efter Sovjetunionens fald, gennem interventionskrige. Bush-administrationen, og dernæst Obama, førte alle disse interventionskrige, ved brug af idéerne om regimeskifte og farvede revolutioner, og det har skabt den krise vi nu har i Sydvestasien, samt flygtningekrisen.

Men idéen om at man bliver nødt til at stoppe Kinas opstigning er meget farlig. Og vi ser lige nu, at denne kampagne bliver anført af den britiske efterretningstjeneste. Efter at Præsident Trump, desværre, annullerede USA’s støtte til Verdenssundhedsorganisationen (WHO), ved at bebrejde dem for at være ansvarlige for mange dødsfald, fordi de misinformerede USA – jeg ønsker ikke engang at kommentere dette, fordi det faktuelt simpelthen ikke er korrekt – da trådte den tidligere chef for MI6 i går faktisk frem og sagde, at Trump ikke skulle have fokuseret på WHO, men på Kina. Og Henry Jackson-Selskabet, som er 100 % neokonservativ og en af de værste reaktionære institutioner man kan forestille sig, fremlagde et forslag om, at Vesten burde sagsøge Kina, således at Kina ville være nødsaget til at betale for alle omkostninger, som hidrører fra pandemien!

Det faktum at den tyske frokostavis, Bildzeitung, i dag bringer denne ide på side 2, med hele historien, hvor de citerer Henry Jackson-Selskabet, med en lang liste af foreslåede regninger – hvad var omkostningerne for taxachauffører, hotelejere – i alt 20 kategorier – som Kina burde betale? Og efter i går, hvor de på side 3 havde Pompeo opføre en liste over alle argumenterne mod Kina – det er det endelige bevis for, at denne frokostavis, Bild, er en del af Integrity Initiative, den britiske efterretningsoperation, som kontrollerer den vestlige presse. Officielt eller ej, det er jeg ligeglad med – men de spreder i realiteten propaganda for det britiske imperium. De har lige bevist dette i de sidste par dage, hvis et sådant bevis stadig var nødvendigt.

Men de forsøger at opildne befolkningen mod Kina, og det er faktuelt, absolut forkert! Jeg vil bare lige citere et par tal, fordi når de siger, at Kina ”skjulte” information om virusset, er det faktuelt forkert:

• De første tilfælde af en ny, ukendt sygdom blev registreret i Wuhan den 23. december, 2019.

• Dernæst, 30. december, rapporterede de om et mistænksomt antal af mennesker, som havde fået lungebetændelse.

• Dernæst, 3. januar, fremlagde den Kinesiske Nationale Sundhedskommission retningslinjer for, hvordan disse tilfælde burde håndteres.

• Og allerede den 4. januar kontaktede det medicinske personale i Wuhan deres amerikanske kolleger samt WHO og informerede dem om dette.

• Dernæst, kun tre dage senere, 7. januar, var videnskabsfolk i medicinalbranchen i stand til, for første gang, at isolere coronavirussets genetiske kode. Den ekstraordinære hastighed hvormed de succesfuldt isolerede den nye genetiske kode blev lovprist af hele det internationale medicinske samfund.

Så, jeg tror, at det er en rekord. Jeg husker dette, fordi vi fulgte det nøje, da det skete.

Allerede på dette tidspunkt, i betragtning af det faktum at man kendte til SARS og MERS fra tidligere, kunne vestlige regeringer absolut have påbegyndt fremstillingen af masker, respiratorer, hospitalssenge, og så videre; men det gjorde de ikke! I stedet, blev de uge efter uge ved med at gentage: ”Nej, masker er til ingen verdens nytte.” Den tyske sundhedsminister Jens Spahn sagde: ”Åh, virusset vil aldrig komme til Tyskland”. Han fortsatte med at gentage dette helt ind i februar, og sagde at det tyske sundhedsvæsen var perfekt forberedt til alle eventualiteter. De tog det virkelig ikke seriøst, helt indtil marts, da hele situationen brød ud med en hastighed, som efterlod alle målløse. Og selv på dette tidspunkt blev de ved med at sige, at man ikke havde brug for masker. De sagde ikke: Vi har brug for masker, vi har brug for massetestninger, lad os producere alt, som er nødvendigt. I stedet blev de ved med at justere kravene for hvad der var nødvendigt, til hvad deres magre ressourcer var. Og det er et faktum. Det kan siges om alle europæiske lande, og det fortsætter stadig, til en vis grad, nu.

Så jeg mener, at angrebet på Kina er den mest tåbelige, mest amoralske løgnagtige operation, for hvis der er et land, som havde succes, i det mindste indtil videre – fordi det er en pandemi, ved man aldrig hvad der sker fremover – men de var i stand til at kontrollere og uskadeliggøre virusset i kriseområderne i Hubei-provinsen og i byen Wuhan. Og i stedet for at tænke: måske var det centraliserede system, som Kina har, grunden til, at de kunne agere så hurtigt, og øge produktionen i hele landet; og måske var det vestens ekstreme liberalisme, som var grunden til, at dette ikke var muligt; måske kunne det tænkes, at det liberale/neoliberale system har nogle iboende mangler. I stedet for at diskutere dette, foretager man denne afvigelse og angriber Kina.

Jeg mener det er meget farligt, og at det er meget dumt. Og jeg synes, at det skal stoppe, og folk skulle virkelig ikke lade sig tages ved næsen af disse løgnagtige massemedier, som intet har at gøre med journalistik. De er virkelig kun efterretningstjenesternes fortrop, der forsøger at sprede propaganda for at fremme sine mål. Men det har intet med ærlig journalistik at gøre, overhovedet.

Den 9. april (EIRNS) – Det følgende er Schiller Instituttets internationale erklæring om, hvordan den globale pandemi overvindes. Introduktionen er på dansk, og resten er på engelsk.

Den 10. april 2020 – På det tidspunkt hvor denne presserende opfordring til at oprette et verdenssundhedssystem blev skrevet, havde verden mere end 1,5 millioner bekræftede tilfælde af COVID-19, og antallet af dødsfald, der tilskrives pandemien, var over 80.000. Denne sygdom, der først ramte mennesker i december eller november 2019, har inden for få måneder spredt sig til næsten alle nationer i verden med en voldsom tilvækst i befolkninger, som ikke tager stærke foranstaltninger for at standse dens fremskridt. Dødeligheden blandt de smittede vurderes at være en størrelsesorden større end den for sæsonbestemt influenza. På det tidspunkt, hvor man læser denne opfordring til handling, vil tallene være større, muligvis meget, meget større.

Overvindelse af denne dødbringende virus kræver øjeblikkelig, koordineret global handling: intensive folkesundhedsforanstaltninger, herunder omfattende test og isolering af dem der konstateres smittede; en kraftig stigning i tilgængeligheden af sundhedsfaciliteter og udstyr; betydelige investeringer og ressourcer, der afsættes til at finde helbredelsesmetoder og en vaccine; store tiltag i sanitetsforanstaltninger, især i mindre udviklede nationer; og en ende på den historisk unødvendige mangel på udvikling – og ligefrem plyndring – i verden. Denne globale pandemi kræver i særdeleshed en global reaktion, da reservoirer af virusset i enhver del af verden kunne forårsage genopblussen i årevis.

Det kræver et verdenssundhedssystem, der dækker alle dele af planeten.

Centralt for en sådan global reaktion er koordineringen af USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien, en alliance af de fire magter, åben for alle planetens nationer. Lederne for disse fire nationer skulle holde et topmøde så hurtigt som muligt for at udarbejde fælles tilgange til at imødekomme verdens enorme sundhedsmæssige, materielle og infrastrukturelle behov, som et første skridt hen imod at skabe et helt nyt paradigme til erstatning for det gamle bankerotte system. Der findes ingen anden måde, intet mindre, der rent faktisk vil kunne besejre pandemien.

Selvom det i øjeblikket er COVID-19, der påfører menneskeheden en katastrofe, er det kun en af mange, som verden er modtagelig for på grund af den fejlslagne internationale orden igennem de sidste 50 år, især den dødbringende udplyndring af udviklingslandene. Solpletter kunne slå de fleste af verdens elledningsnet ud – hvorfor er man ikke blevet beskyttet imod dette, selv i de såkaldt ”udviklede” lande? En hidtil uopdaget asteroide eller komet kunne ødelægge et helt kontinent – hvorfor har vi ikke udviklet noget forsvar mod denne trussel? Der er 800 millioner mennesker på planeten, som mangler tilstrækkelig føde – hvorfor er dette blevet tolereret? En græshoppeplage truer i øjeblikket liv og levebrød for et tocifret antal millioner mennesker. En anden sygdom kan bryde ud når som helst – hvorfor har vi ikke bedre forsvar mod vira?

Verdenssamfundet må udvikle robusthed for succesfuld overlevelse på lang sigt, ikke kun på kort sigt, mens man håber på, at der ikke indtræffer usædvanlige begivenheder, men ved at forberede reel tryghed og sikkerhed. Dette kan ikke forekomme under det nyliberale økonomiske paradigme, der nu svigter. Det kan ikke forekomme under et regime med bankredninger og et syn på økonomiske værdier som hellige. Dette system, med sin spekulative boble på 1,8 billarder $ er nu fuldstændigt bankerot og må gennemgå en proces med konkursbehandling, der for længst er specificeret af den amerikanske økonom Lyndon H. LaRouche, tillige med det samtidige krav om at opbygge et nyt hamiltonisk kreditsystem, nationalt og internationalt, for at bringe menneskeheden tilbage på sporet af videnskabsdreven fysisk-økonomisk udvikling. Den langsigtede succesrige overlevelse og blomstring af den menneskelige art kræver et globalt system, der anerkender den guddommelige gnist af potentiel genialitet hos hvert individ, og som søger at fremme dette potentiale gennem økonomisk, kulturel og videnskabelig udvikling.

Nedenfor påtager vi opgaven med nærmere at skitsere det nødvendige verdenssundhedssystem ved at stille og besvare to spørgsmål:

1. Hvad er årsagen til denne, den muligvis værste krise som menneskeheden nogensinde har stået overfor?
2. 2) Hvad er det fulde sæt af foranstaltninger, der på alle fronter skulle træffes, både i USA og globalt, for at overvinde pandemien?

Vi begynder ikke med at opliste alle flaskehalse og mangler og forsøge at arbejde nedenfra. Vi starter i stedet med at finde ud af, hvad der kræves: Vi må bruge denne eksistentielle krise til endelig at få bugt med underudviklingen af store dele af menneskeheden, en tilstand, som ikke er værdig for menneskeslægten. Derefter fastsætter vi de fysisk-økonomiske betingelser for at opnå hvert trin undervejs, inklusive materialeregninger og krav til arbejdskraft, som defineret ud fra et industriteknisk standpunkt. Vi vender derefter tilbage til flaskehalsene og finder ud af, hvordan vi gennembryder dem, til planlagt tidspunkt eller tidligere. Vi vil opdage at vi, for at følge denne bane, vil være på en ilmarch, der kræver konstante teknologiske gennembrud; vi vil opdage, at vi er i det videnskabelige domæne af fysisk økonomi, hvor Lyndon LaRouches arbejde er vores eneste guide og køreplan.

Vi vil også erfare, at en sådan tilgang kræver fuldt internationalt samarbejde, især mellem USA og Kina, for at nå disse fælles mål for menneskeheden. Enhver der ville modsætte sig et sådant samarbejde burde, politisk set, klassificeres i samme slægt og art som coronavirusset selv.

Det var med denne fremgangsmåde, at Franklin D. Roosevelt mobiliserede nationen til at besejre fascismen under 2. verdenskrig. Sådan vendte NASA-ingeniører den truende Apollo 13-katastrofe til en succes. Og i vores nuværende bestræbelser på at overvinde coronavirusset over hele planeten, er fiasko heller ikke her en mulighed.

*****

Resten af rapporten på engelsk:

This Is a Crisis Fifty Years in the Making

The coronavirus was not caused by a Chinese proclivity to feast on bats. Nor was it cooked up in a secret military lab in the United Kingdom or the United States (although Prince Philip’s public promotion of his desire to return as a virus to help reduce the planet’s population, gives pause for thought). It was caused by an underlying physical-economic process that has been underway for at least a half century. In fact, Lyndon LaRouche forecast the current pandemic nearly 50 years ago, first in 1971 in his public warning about the end of the Bretton Woods system; and then repeatedly beginning in 1974 testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee where he warned of the danger of an impending biological holocaust, due to misguided economic policies.

In a 1985 document titled “The Role of Economic Science in Projecting Pandemics as a Feature of Advanced Stages of Economic Breakdown,” LaRouche explained that the actual cause of pandemics and similar phenomena is when society’s Potential Relative Population Density (PRPD) — the physical-economic power of a society to maintain a rising population at improved standards of living and longevity — drops below the actual population.

“Sustainable economic (and population) growth, is measured as an (ideally) constant rate of increase of the potential relative population-density of that society. This is the measure of the average potential for growth of the society as a whole, and is also the absolute measure of per capita productivity of labor in that society.” LaRouche explained that achieving a rising PRPD requires that the economy produce “free energy” above the “energy of the system,” and he specified:

“In economic processes, the ‘energy of the system’ is represented by the interdependency among three ‘market-baskets’ of consumption. Each of these ‘market-baskets,’ corresponds to a minimum value, required to maintain the economic process at a constant level of negentropic potential. These three are: 1) The ‘market-basket’ of households’ consumption, per capita; 2) The ‘market-basket’ of producers’ goods; 3) The ‘market-basket of ‘basic economic infrastructure: energy production and distribution, water management, transportation, etc.”

When do pandemics erupt?

“The ‘ideal’ case, at which economies are to be examined for economically-determined eruption of pandemics, is the case for which the potential relative population-density falls below the level of the existing population… [such as] the instance in which the average consumption is determined by a fall of potential relative population-density, below the level of requirements for the existing population.”

But there is also the case, LaRouche emphasizes, where “the differential rates of distribution of the households’ ‘goods market-basket’ falls below the level of ‘energy of the system’ for a large part of the population. We are most concerned with the effects on health, as the nutritional throughput per capita falls below some relative biological minimum, and also the effect of collapse of sanitation and other relevant aspects of basic economic infrastructure upon the conditions of an undernourished population… [In this case], the undernourished population might become a breeding-culture for eruption of epidemic and pandemic disease,..”

That is precisely what has occurred during the last 50 years of deadly looting of Third World populations, especially Africa, through the policies of the City of London, Wall Street, and of course the International Monetary Fund.

The full impact of such policies, LaRouche concluded, can only be understood by locating man’s development (or what Vladimir Vernadsky referred to as the noösphere) within the total biosphere.

“Society is an integral part of the biosphere, both the biosphere as a whole, and regionally… Rather than viewing a deep fall of the potential relative population-density, as merely a fall in the relative value for the society as such; let us examine this as a fall in the relative level of the biosphere including that society… This must tend to be adjusted, by increasing the role of relatively lower forms of life… [which] ‘consume’ human and other higher-level forms of life as ‘fuel’ for their own proliferation… In that variant, human and animal pandemics, and sylvatics, must tend to resurge, and evolve, under certain kinds of ‘shock’ to the biosphere caused by extreme concentration of fall of population-potential.”

Current Global Inventory

Hospitals

The world as a whole possesses a current inventory of 18.63 million hospital beds. This constitutes a tremendous deficit, rendering country after country incapable of defeating the novel coronavirus. To consider the needed level of beds, consider the United States 1946 Hill–Burton Act, which set a standard of 4.5 hospital beds per 1,000 people, per county, in order to ensure the health and well-being of the population. Current levels are 2.8 for the United States, 0.7 for South Asia, 0.7 for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, and 0.5 for Nigeria, which is one-fifth of the population of sub-Saharan Africa.

To meet the standard of 4.5 beds per 1000 people, the world would have to increase its hospital bed inventory to 35 million beds, nearly double the current level. This would require the construction of 35,200 new modern hospitals, especially in Africa, Ibero-America, and Asia, where the new beds would be immediately put to necessary use.

Beds themselves do not save lives. Medical staff are required, and acute cases demand additional equipment, such as ventilators.

Ventilators

The total global inventory of ventilators is hard to determine, but there are certain figures that point to the problems of dealing with COVID-19 in impoverished nations lacking health infrastructure. The United States has a total of about 170,000 ventilators for its 330 million people, which is about 5000 ventilators for every million people. Germany has about 25,000 ventilators for its 83 million people, about 3000 ventilators per million — the highest per capita level in Europe.

The picture in Africa, however, is absolutely devastating. According to Time, there are 500 ventilators for the 200 million people of Nigeria, which comes out to 2.5 ventilators for every million people — about 2000 times less than the United States on a per capita basis. In Sudan, there are 1.9 ventilators for every million people. The Central African Republic (population nearly 5 million) has a total of three ventilators, and Liberia, with a population of 4.7 million people, has none.

Estimates by the Brookings Institution and the Financial Times are that India has approximately 20,000 ventilators, which would be 15 ventilators for every million people.

For the entire world to be at the United States per capita level of ventilators would require a global inventory of 40 million.

Current Understanding of COVID-19

COVID-19 attacks the body in at least two ways. First, it has effects very much like the flu as it multiplies within the body. Fevers, body aches, headaches, and fatigue are common, as well as a cough, especially a dry cough. The cough is due to a specific characteristic of the virus: its targeting of lung cells and the immune system response it elicits. At the time of writing, it is believed that in many patients reaching the second stage of the disease, ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), the body itself is attacking the lung cells as a “storm” of cytokines trigger an escalating response against the virus and cells infected with it, as well as healthy cells.

The death rate for those afflicted with the disease ranges from 0.5% to over 5% and depends on the physiology of the individual and the capacity of their local healthcare system. It is also uncertain, due to low testing rates. The percentage of infected persons requiring hospitalization ranges from 10% to 30%.

It is possible to target the following areas of disease transmission and morbidity: reducing the transmission rate through social distancing, hygiene, masks, and business closures; reducing the infection rate through vaccinations; treating the virus itself with antiviral medications; and preventing the acute respiratory distress syndrome that the virus causes in acute cases. These methods will be discussed in greater detail below.

Africa: A Case Study

Sub-Saharan Africa is home to 1.1 billion people, 14% of the total population of the planet. Due to their colonial past and present, the nations of the region suffer extreme poverty, lack of electricity, and slum conditions in its urban centers, at anywhere from 2–5 times the average global rate. Sub-Saharan Africa has:

14% of the world’s population

60% of the world’s extreme poor

70% of those worldwide lacking access to electricity

20% of urban dwellers worldwide living in slums.

Data Source: World Bank, which defines a slum* as a housing unit lacking one or more of the following: running water, adequate sanitation, sufficient living area, or durability of housing.

This is a part of the human race where the potential relative population-density has clearly plunged way below the actual population, courtesy of the genocidal policies of the British Empire and their Wall Street sidekicks.

Consider also the case of Haiti, by far the poorest country in Latin America and the Caribbean, with conditions similar to those of the most immiserated African nations. Haiti has a population of 11.1 million. Health experts have estimated that the COVID-19 pandemic could claim about 800,000 lives in Haiti — over 7% of the population.

Nigeria, with about a fifth of Sub-Saharan Africa’s total population, has key poverty and related indicators that are typical for the whole region. The problems that Nigeria faces in combating the coronavirus are emblematic of not only Africa, but the entire Third World.

In the developing sector in general, including countries like Nigeria, large percentages of their populations live in inhuman squalor. The majority of their workforces are in the “informal economy,” surviving from day to day on street activities that range from the gray to the black economy. In many cases, up to 70–80% of their workforce is part of the informal economy. “Sheltering in place” or locking down without work means literal starvation for very large numbers of people, as well as certain infection with COVID-19 in the slums where they live. Wash your hands repeatedly? This is a cruel joke to the millions and millions of Africans, Asians, Latin Americans and others who do not even have running water.

So how should the pandemic be addressed in such nations?

1) There must be a totally centralized national approach, in many countries centered on the military, which is often the only institution capable of organizing and carrying out such an approach. In many cases, for good or bad, they are also the only remaining national institution still standing, and with popular credibility.

2) The population, especially in the cities, has to be fully tested and segregated into two broad groups: Group A, who do not have COVID-19; and Group B, those who tested positive, even if they are asymptomatic. The health care and other public officials conscripted to perform the tests must be supplied with advanced testing equipment in sufficient supply, along with adequate PPEs and other protection.

3) “Group B” must be immediately quarantined in separate housing units, whether hotels, converted office buildings, sports and convention centers, or quickly constructed new modular housing units. Those new facilities must have work and recreational facilities in situ, for those well enough to use them, as well as necessary staffing of skilled personnel, including nurses and doctors. Those health professionals will also have to be quarantined, so as to not infect their own families and friends.

4) Sick and very sick patients must be hospitalized. New hospitals have to be built with sufficient beds to handle the patient load, and dedicated exclusively to COVID-19 cases. Adequate staffing by doctors and nurses has to be organized, including by nationally conscripting them.

5) “Group A” must be quickly formed into education and work brigades, both in industry and agriculture, much like FDR’s CCC project in the Great Depression in the United States. They must produce food, housing and clothing sufficient to feed themselves, as well as “Group B.” This will require a return to national food self sufficiency, which in turn will necessitate the importation of the capital inputs for modern agriculture — such as fertilizer, pesticides, tractors and irrigation. The local workforce must also start building the housing, hospitals, and other required infrastructure to get the job done. This will require on-the-job training and large-scale transfer of modern technologies

What China is already doing in Africa with the construction of new rail lines and other infrastructure is exemplary. The extension of the World Land-Bridge into Africa is essential, and will benefit enormously from in-depth cooperation between China and the United States in particular, as well as other countries.

But more must immediately be done by the world community to address the African situation, as we elaborate at the conclusion of this report.

Defeating the Pandemic, Part II: Public Health Measures

Health Care for Serious Cases

Hospitals

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (University of Washington School of Medicine) estimates, as of April 8, that a peak of approximately 100,000 hospital beds, 20,000 ICU beds, and over 16,000 ventilators will be required, based on current rates of spread and medical care. According to a survey by the American Hospital Association, in 2018 there were just shy of 800,000 staffed beds in U.S. community hospitals, and around 70,000–80,000 adult ICU beds. Since these beds are not typically empty, just waiting for patients to need them, the large number of beds does not mean that there will not be shortages, especially local shortages, as the number of hospitalized patients reaches its peak.

The current level of total hospital beds in the United States, in its broadest measure, is 2.8 per 1,000 people, barely one-third the 1970 level of 7.9 beds. On the basis of “community hospital beds,” which most of the population uses, there are only 2.4 beds per 1,000 people.

Consider the power, water, sanitation, and transportation requirements of hospitals. Using the United States as a case study, an additional 575,000 beds would be required to bring the national average to 4.5 per 1,000 people. According to a 2007 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the largest 3,040 hospitals, with approximately 915,000 beds (at the time of the study), used about 458 trillion BTUs of energy per year: 194 trillion BTUs in the form of electricity (57 billion kWh) and the remainder in the form of natural gas, district heating, and fuel oil.

Using this figure, hospitals with an additional 575,000 beds would require about 36 billion kWh of electricity per year. That translates into power plants supplying 5,000 MW at an 80% capacity factor. This would be the equivalent of five large nuclear reactors or two Grand Coulee Dams (running at average capacity). And that doesn’t even take into account the natural gas requirements!

In the same report, EIA estimated that these 3,040 large hospitals used 133 billion gallons of water per year. Hospitals with an additional 575,000 beds would require an additional 84 billion gallons per year. For a sense of perspective, the world’s largest proposed desalination plant, located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, would provide about 100 billion gallons of desalinated water per year.

To bring online another 15 to 20 million hospital beds — to bring the world hospital bed count to the Hill–Burton level of 35 million hospital beds — would require about 100,000 MW of generating capacity, as could be supplied by 100 large nuclear power plants or nearly 2,000 small scale modular nuclear plants. Global water requirements for these new hospitals would require about 4 trillion gallons annually, which is about half the volume of water contained by the Three Gorges Dam.

Hospital beds aren’t much good without doctors and nurses. The current crisis is seeing retired health care workers coming back to work, and there are cases of medical schools offering early graduation for students in their final year if they are willing to immediately go to work as doctors. As virus hotspots move around the world, healthcare providers able to travel should be encouraged to work in other regions and countries.

Ventilators

Using influenza pandemic scenarios considered in a 2005 planning study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there could be several million hospitalizations in the United States, with up to a million or more patients requiring ICU treatment and half a million requiring mechanical ventilators. Projecting from these figures to the present world population, 10 million people could require ventilators, with an estimated 1 million each in Africa, Latin America, and India.

Personal Protective Equipment

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is used at health care facilities to prevent patients from transmitting disease to health care workers or other patients. This includes gloves, respirators and masks, face visors, goggles, gowns, hair coverings, and full-body suits. Without the high-quality filtration afforded by a N95 (or equivalent) certified mask, workers are put at serious risk of catching the disease themselves. Shortages are causing enormous price increases and tensions among nations seeking to produce or to import equipment from those nations that manufacture it.

An industrial gear-up is required to ensure that adequate supplies of PPE are available.

The physical layout of a hospital or other care facility can have an enormous impact on the quantity of PPE required. In a healthcare setting that includes only confirmed COVID-19 cases, care need not be taken to avoid transmitting the disease from one patient to another, and health care workers can wear protective equipment through an entire shift. But if nurses must attend to patients of mixed COVID-19 status, best practices mandate that they equip themselves with PPE before entering a COVID-19 patient room, and then dispose of the equipment immediately upon leaving, to avoid carrying the virus to the uninfected patients they will next be visiting. With this setup, ten sets of PPE could be consumed per day per patient room. Thus, health care facility arrangements that separate COVID from non-COVID patients can permit significant savings of PPE. Accurately separating these patients requires testing.

Respirators

A properly fitted N95 respirator protects the wearer from 95% of particles over 0.3 microns in size. While the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus itself is smaller than this size, the virions do not float around entirely on their own and are effectively blocked by N95 respirator masks.

A 2015 study by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health, examining three scenarios of demand, estimated that if 20–30% of the U.S. population were to become ill, some 4 billion N95 respirator masks would be required. Extrapolating this figure to the world’s population, the global requirements would be on the order of 100 billion N95 masks for the duration of the outbreak: some 15 billion in Africa, 10 billion in Latin America, and 20 billion in India.

Rapid Point-of-Care Testing

Developments in testing technology now allow for thousands of tests to be processed per day by a single piece of equipment in a dedicated laboratory (high-throughput) as well as for rapid test results at the point of care. The development by Abbott Laboratories of a portable testing unit capable of delivering a positive result in as little as 5 minutes or a negative result within a quarter hour greatly speeds the process of processing patients presenting with possible COVID symptoms, allowing them to be sent to the appropriate COVID-only or non-COVID facility or hospital wing.

Health Care for Mild or Asymptomatic Cases

Isolation accommodations

Everyone confirmed to have the novel coronavirus should have the opportunity to be isolated from their neighbors, roommates, and families. This means that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals must be offered free room and board accommodations in facilities designed to keep them isolated and healthy. Hotels — which have occupancy rates in the single digits — could be repurposed to this effect, with adequate PPE supplies and training for a reduced hospital staff. The types of shelter arrangements provided following natural disasters would also be appropriate for these individuals.

This was the approach taken in Wuhan, in which every positive confirmed case was isolated under medical supervision, whether in a hospital, gymnasium, or hotel. Mild and asymptomatic cases could then socialize and engage in group exercise classes — far better for their mental health than hiding in a room at home, fearful of infecting their loved ones! Two negative nucleic acid tests for the virus, taken 24 hours apart, were required before people could leave the isolation facilities. This form of isolation, going beyond staying (and infecting) at home, helped drive Wuhan’s eventual victory over the virus.

In fact, China’s achievement in Wuhan remains the most successful model to date for combating the coronavirus.

Mass testing

Since anywhere from one-quarter to one-half of those infected with the coronavirus display extremely mild symptoms or no symptoms at all, it is impossible to rely on symptoms to locate all cases of the disease. Large-scale community testing — emphatically including for those without symptoms — will make it possible to isolate cases in an effective and targeted way and make contact-tracing more manageable. South Korea tested one in 170 people and used this knowledge to trace contacts, alert residents via text messages of nearby cases and hotspots, and reduce the spread of the disease.

The large-scale shutdowns currently used to crush the spread of the coronavirus do carry a toll, both economic and social. While these shutdowns are appropriate given a relatively low level of testing, truly large-scale testing will make it possible to make intelligent decisions about lifting restrictions.

To test the world at the South Korea level of one in 170, would require 45 million tests. But many people will require more than one test: Examples include a person who has tested negative but who has had recent potential exposure or a person in an isolation facility who is being tested to make sure it is safe to discharge them. To perform 60 million tests (factoring in some people being tested multiple times) at current worldwide testing rates would take the better part of a year.

The nasal swab tests most widely used at present operate by detecting components of the virus’s genome. These are referred to as PCR tests, named for the polymerase chain reaction process by which the genetic material is multiplied by 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 times to allow it to be detected.

Another kind of test would use blood, rather than swabs, and would detect, instead of the virus itself, antibodies produced by the body to fight the disease. These antibodies are present in people who were once infected but have since recovered. A virus test would come back negative, but an antibody test would be positive. With these tests, it will be possible to identify potential blood plasma donors (for convalescent blood serum therapy) and identify people who are no longer infected and likely to be immune. If further research reveals that the immunity enjoyed by those who have recovered is long-lasting, perhaps such people could be allowed to return to work, or be recruited to serve in the community as coordinators of meal deliveries, workers in isolation facilities for mild cases, etc.

Yet another form of testing could use samples of untreated sewage to detect the general presence and prevalence of the virus in a community.

Treatments and Vaccines

Pharmaceutical interventions can save lives and reduce disease in several ways. Vaccines “teach” the immune system about a pathogen, allowing it to immediately fight it when encountered in the future. Antiviral medications can target the virus itself, by preventing its entry into cells or its replication. Antibodies, derived from the blood of recovered patients or produced in a laboratory, can help the immune system fight the virus. Combating cytokine storms is a fourth approach, which could reduce the deadly respiratory effects of the virus, while not fighting the virus itself.

Readers eager to learn more can visit the accompanying information page “Pharmaceutical Interventions to Defeat COVID-19.”

Vaccines

Vaccines are used in advance to protect people from contracting a disease, by “priming the pump” of the immune system to get practice in defeating something that is similar to the pathogen but does not itself cause harm. People who are vaccinated against a disease are able to quickly fight it off if they come in contact with it, since their bodies are already prepared to do so.

The first phase of research is to establish the safety of the new vaccine. Researchers must make sure that the vaccine doesn’t itself cause problems. If study results are promising, the next phases of study will determine the effectiveness of the vaccine. Then manufacturing capabilities must be developed to produce the specific treatment. These multiple stages are the reason that a timespan of 12-18 months is given for vaccine development and production.

Antiviral Medications

Once the virus has taken hold in the body, treatments can prevent it from entering cells, prevent it from replicating, or target it for destruction by the immune system.

Several already existing medications are undergoing testing:

• Avigan (favilavir / favipiravir) — an anti-influenza drug developed by Fujifilm in Japan, it is now included in China’s treatment plan and is being studied in several countries, including the United States, China, and Japan.
• Remdesivir — undergoing trials in several nations, this drug was originally developed to combat Ebola by Gilead Sciences in the U.S., a company with significant experience treating other viral infections.
• Plaquenil (hydroxychloroquine) and chloroquine — originally used to treat malaria, these drugs have been used for auto-immune disorders as well. Trials are underway around the world, and many hospitals are already using hydroxychloroquine for their COVID-19 patients. Hundreds of millions of tablets are being produced even as its effectiveness is being studied.

Antibodies are structures created by the human immune system, which attach to pathogens, deactivating them, preventing their entry into cells, or marking them for destruction by the immune system. They can be created in the laboratory by using yeast, mice, or other animals as “factories.” At least a dozen groups are working on developing antibodies against the coronavirus.

Plasma of Recovered Patients

When someone recovers from the coronavirus, their blood continues to contain antibodies created by their own immune system to defeat the virus. Their donated blood can be transfused into severely ill patients to help their bodies fight the disease. U.S. hospital use of this technique began in the last weekend in March, and appeals on social media are now recruiting recovered COVID-19 survivors to donate their blood to help others.

Preventing Lung Problems

There are some drugs that do not target the virus itself, but seek to reduce the death rate and symptoms of COVID-19.

An advanced stage of the disease, in which severe and life-threatening respiratory problems develop, is associated with an excessive response by the body’s own immune system, in which the patient’s body damages healthy lung cells in addition to those harboring the virus. Two antibody drugs already approved for other conditions — Kevzara (sarilumab) and Actemra (tocilizumab) — are being studied and used to reduce this excessive immune system activity. Entirely new antibodies are also being developed for this purpose.

Steroids can be used to reduce the immune auto-response, although they have the side effect of weakening the immune system. They are also becoming widely used by physicians.

Social Stability

Society must maintain stability, and people who are ill must be able to follow public health measures.

Sick leave, unemployment benefits, basic income stipend payments

It is impossible to require people to remain at home if they rely on their daily work to supply their necessities of life. It is impossible to require homeless people to remain at home.

Employees must be provided with sick leave time to allow them to quarantine themselves to arrest the spread of the virus. Loans and grants must be made to businesses to allow them to continue to pay employees unable to work. Unemployment protection should be expanded to include those in nontraditional employment situations. To protect those who work informally and could not be expected to benefit from such programs, direct assistance in the form of basic income payments and the supply of necessities such as food and basic supplies is required. It is important that the isolation facilities for positive cases include people without homes, and that food and other necessities be included to allow everyone to isolate safely.

Moratorium on foreclosures, evictions, and utility shutoffs

Basic income to ensure the necessities of life will not be sufficient to pay mortgages, rent, utilities and car payments. A moratorium on foreclosures, evictions and utility shutoffs (including internet and telephones) must be implemented during the time of lockdown, and payments on mortgages and personal loans should be made optional. Businesses negatively affected by these policies will be able to apply for aid.

Securing financial system stability

The world’s financial system, particularly that in the trans-Atlantic world, includes quadrillions of dollars in financial instruments that can never be settled. There should be no general attempt to maintain the values of financial markets. The financial collapse now occurring may have been triggered by the coronavirus, but the conditions for the blow-out have been laid by decades of disastrous policies. As Lyndon LaRouche expressed concisely with his triple-curve image, the physical productivity of many so-called “western” nations (including the United States) has decreased in per capita terms over the last several decades, in a way that accelerated with the collapse of the Soviet Union, while financialization has increased at a rapid and accelerating rate.

The required summit of the leaders of the United States, Russia, China, and India must take up the need for an orderly bankruptcy-style reorganization of the financial markets, to set the stage for banking to play a useful role in financing a global economic and health gear-up.

Social Distancing / Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions

Closing of non-essential businesses

People whose daily work is not truly essential for the functioning of society should stay home. Financial and logistical arrangements required to support their livelihood must be implemented.

Masks

Everyone should wear masks when they are among other people (which should be kept to an absolute minimum). This will provide the wearers themselves some protection against infection and reduce the potential for wearers to spread the disease. They also reduce face-touching. Read why here. (Note that the CDC now does recommend wearing masks.)

Hand washing / sanitation

Frequent hand washing with soap can help reduce the spread of coronavirus, as does the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers.

But there are over three-quarters of a billion people on this globe without access to improved water. Two and a half billion people lack access to improved sanitation infrastructure. The costs to health and well-being are staggering. According to a fact sheet issued by the CDC, citing research published in the Lancet, every year 800,000 children under five years of age die from diarrheal diseases. Lack of sanitation and of water for drinking and hygiene contributes to 88% of deaths from diarrheal diseases worldwide.

Urging a community without sanitary facilities to practice frequent handwashing is both insulting and foolish. A crash program to develop sanitary facilities must be implemented, supplemented with the provision of hand sanitizer for hygiene purposes.

Contact Tracing

In the United States, the NSA’s intimate knowledge of the whereabouts of everyone with a cellphone can be put to good use! As one example, it could be used to provide text alerts to people who have been in the vicinity of someone who later tests positive. This approach was used in South Korea to help people get a better sense of their risk of exposure, and is part of the relative success that nation has seen in reducing the spread of coronavirus.

Travel Restrictions

When testing is performed at a high enough level to give a sense of the different incidence of the virus in different areas, travel restrictions may be sensible to prevent its spread from areas with significant community transmission. This may make more sense as the first wave of the pandemic is crushed.

Defeating the Pandemic, Part III: Industry, Infrastructure, and Political Requirements

Providing the health measures in Chapter 1 will require major investments into manufacturing and into basic economic infrastructure. Here in Part III, we take up the physical, economic, scientific, and political changes needed to make these measures possible on a global scale. The inexcusable condition of the world, in which poverty still exists in the year 2020, must be remedied. This is eminently possible, as China’s experience in eliminating poverty over the past four decades has shown.

Infrastructure

The platforms of physical improvements we make to our surroundings provide the human species with a synthetic, nurturing environment far superior to the “natural” environment we share with the apes. By controlling water flows, draining swamps, irrigating fields, building canals, railroads and roadways, developing water and wastewater systems, creating electrical and communication grids, and improving the flora and fauna, the human species has a unique power to make this Earth a garden. This infrastructure includes such soft infrastructure as an educated and culturally uplifted populace. Much of the investment into eliminating poverty will be of the form of basic economic infrastructure. And the current coronavirus pandemic points to the particularly urgent need of health infrastructure. But can a hospital be built where there are no roads or electricity? What are the requirements for the provision of health services?

Production Requirements

Medical equipment

Numerous companies have expressed interest in retooling for the production of ventilators, from automakers to aerospace companies. The list includes:

• Automakers General Motors (which will work with Ventec Life Systems to produce 10,000 units a week), Ford Motor Company (which has committed, with General Electric, to produce 50,000 by July 4), McLaren, Jaguar Land Rover, and the VW Group.
• Aerospace companies such as Brazil-based Embraer, Europe-based Rolls Royce and Airbus, and the American firm SpaceX.

Current producers are ramping up production:

• Philips is doubling production to 2,000 per week, and Getinge will increase production to 3,750 per week. Drager, Vyaire, and the Smiths Group are all working to produce additional ventilators for governments.

If all goes according to projection, the companies listed above would supply at least 300,000 ventilators by July. An April 9 Politico article reports that estimated demand solely from the United States and several Western European nations was for one million ventilators; the world’s needs will be higher.

PPE

3M intends to double its international production to 2 billion N95 respirators over the next year, and is presently producing about 100 million respirators per month.

Honeywell Industries has upgraded a facility in Rhode Island and is revamping its aerospace facility in Phoenix as part of their overall increase in production to 120 million per year.

Required Global Policy Changes

International Collaboration

The coronavirus pandemic now afflicting the world is only one of the deadly viruses we face. The financial virus chiefly centered in the City of London and in Wall Street has proven to be no less deadly over the past decades. The cultural virus infecting the addled minds of foolish politicians still fighting the Cold War threatens to wreck the potential for precisely the kind of collaboration required to defeat the other viruses.

A summit discussion involving President Donald Trump, President Vladimir Putin, President Xi Jinping, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi is urgently required to achieve the cooperation needed in the short term to address the menacing health crisis. Such a summit is also the means by which, according to Lyndon LaRouche, a new and just economic system can be put into place globally.

The world must join forces as a single humanity to stop the impending mass-death in Africa, in particular, as the coronavirus spreads. Brigades of engineers, medics, and other skilled personnel from scores of nations must be mobilized, deployed and coordinated under the United Nations and African Union, and with full respect for the sovereignty of all nations. Building health and sanitation infrastructure, assisting in supplying necessary medical and protective equipment, and assisting with administration of health systems are among the urgent jobs at hand.

African nations must also be granted an immediate cancellation of their foreign debts; the world must choose life over debt.

Similarly, all sanctions, armed conflict, border disputes and the like must stop internationally. Much better to use those resources for the common battle of mankind against the coronavirus.

A Paradigm Shift

Lyndon LaRouche warned nearly fifty years ago that President Nixon’s August 15, 1971 takedown of the Bretton Woods system would lead to devastating economic effects that would result, in the end, in fascism. This is seen today in, among other places, the green outlook whereby people supposedly concerned about the world’s future act to deny energy development to the world, condemning millions to early deaths. Some few years later, in 1974 and 1975, LaRouche warned that worsening economic conditions would create the conditions for the rapid spread of diseases, including new diseases, threatening a biological holocaust. While it may seem that China and major developed countries are bringing the current pandemic under some form of control, what will the next months bring to the developing world if there is not a radical and sudden change?

To create an economy resilient in the face of such crises as the emergence of new diseases, requires enormous investments in basic economic infrastructure, as well as a reconceptualization of economics.

Lyndon LaRouche was adamant that economics is not about money, or about values that could be expressed in monetary terms. Rather, the secret of economic growth is the ability of the creative human mind to discover and develop new physical principles that expand the capabilities of the human species. As a rough measure of the value of a discovery, or of a cultural outlook, Lyndon LaRouche used the metric of increase of potential relative population density — a measure of what the population density could be, relative to the quality of land and improvements made to it. That is, how many people could be supported, per square kilometer, on the basis of a certain repertoire of discoveries, technologies, and culture? And what sort of culture could act to increase that value? That is the location of economic value.

In one of his last policy papers, Lyndon LaRouche demanded the immediate implementation of four laws that he said were necessary for the United States. They are needed for the world as well. First, a banking reform based on principles of the 1933 Glass–Steagall law, to deny speculative investment the protection of government while ensuring commercial banking could play its useful role. Second, national banking arrangements whereby governments can make long-term credit available for physical economic purposes, rather than for financial stability as has been the practice of the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank. Third, metrics for the application of the needed credit, based not on financial gain but on physical economic growth. Fourth, the new discoveries needed for human growth over the next fifty to a hundred years: nuclear fusion, space research, and fundamental breakthroughs in biology, to name three powerful examples.

By unlocking the true economic potential of our current repertoire of scientific discoveries and the potential to further expand it, poverty and hunger can be entirely eliminated within a generation, or even within a decade. Nuclear fusion power will change our relationship to energy, water, and resources. Fusion-powered rockets will keep us safe from any asteroids threatening to careen into our planet. Biological advancements will cure disease and allow for the rapid eradication of newly emerging threats. And, most importantly, the fear of large-scale international conflict can be overcome as we come to realize our common aims, here on Earth, and beyond!

Lørdag den 4. april 2020. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Jacques Cheminade, LaRouche-bevægelsens leder i Frankrig og fhv. præsidentkandidat samt Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, talte om USA i forbindelse med LaRouche-bevægelsens mobilisering for at vedtage Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske politik globalt, for at tackle den udprægede mangel på udvikling rundt om i verden. Der er ingen ‘nationale’ løsninger på COVID-19 eller finansielle kriser som sådan, alene globale løsninger.

 HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Goddag. Jeg synes det bliver meget tydeligt nu, at vi befinder os midt i, eller i begyndelsen af, hvad der ser ud til at blive den værste krise i menneskets historie. Det står allerede klart, at sundhedssystemerne i Europa – i Italien og Spanien – i USA ikke slår til. Der er ikke nok medicinske forsyninger, ansigtsmasker, respiratorer, læger, sygeplejersker, intensiv-enheder. Det står også meget klart, at denne pandemi – pandemi betyder, at det er en verdensomspændende epidemi – spreder sig meget hurtigt til udviklingslandene. Man kan være sikker på, at hvis den rammer lande som Haiti, eller de 55 afrikanske nationer eller store befolkede nationer i Asien, vil situationen blive endnu værre. Det er meget tydeligt, at de ikke har tilstrækkelige medicinsk forsyninger; de har ikke engang et sundhedssystem. De har ikke rent vand. Idéen om at isolere sig selv og vaske sine hænder betyder intet, for sådan noget findes ikke for mindst halvdelen af befolkningen. Og det betyder, at denne ting er ved at komme helt ud af kontrol.

Så formålet med denne konference og dette møde i aften er at starte en kampagne for at sætte ét enkelt spørgsmål på dagsordenen. Det er, at vi er nødt til at reagere på dette som en enig menneskehed, og at vi må droppe alle andre dagsordener. Vi er nødt til at opbygge et verdenssundhedssystem; vi er naturligvis nødt til at geare op for at forsvare folket i USA, i de europæiske lande. Men i betragtning af det faktum at det er en pandemi, vil dette ikke være tilstrækkeligt. Denne virus vil mutere; den vil vende tilbage, og den vil vende tilbage i bølger, og i stigende grad ødelægge vores reelle produktion. Det vil have en alvorlig indvirkning på fødevareproduktionen. OECD (Organisationen for Økonomisk Samarbejde og Udvikling) har allerede fremsat erklæringer om, at de forventer, at den økonomiske effekt vil være en reduktion af den industrielle produktion i OECD-landene på 30%; man vil få millioner af arbejdsløse. Derfor er vi nødt til at have et komplet skifte i dagsordenen for udelukkende at producere for en effekt; nemlig at opbygge et sundhedssystem i hvert eneste land i verden med den samme energi, den samme lidenskab, de samme midler.

Præsident Trump har indført undtagelsesloven ‘National Defense Production Act’. Guvernør Cuomo har opfordret til en hidtil uset mobilisering af alt sundhedspersonale – læger, sygeplejersker, omskoling, uddannelse af unge. Dette er skridt i den rigtige retning, men det skal ledsages af en opbygning af den industrielle produktion for at producere alle de nødvendige midler til at bekæmpe denne pandemi. Det betyder hospitaler i hvert land; det betyder beskyttelsesdragter, ansigtsmasker, respiratorer. Hele industrien skal indrettes med dette for øje, indtil vi har besejret denne pandemi.

Der er ingen måde, hvorpå centralbankernes likviditetspumpe vil kunne fortsætte igennem denne mobilisering. Der er mennesker der siger, at dette kommer fuldstændig uventet, at dette er et komplet chok. Altså, vi kan bevise, at dette ikke er tilfældet. Lyndon LaRouche advarede siden 1971 om, at dette ville ske, da han advarede om konsekvenserne af, at Nixon forlod Bretton Woods-systemet. Siden 1973 og 1974 advarede han i særdeleshed om, hvad den økonomiske effekt af de betingelser som IMF og Verdensbankens politik pålagde udviklingssektoren ville være. Og han advarede om, at pandemier ville blive resultatet. Hele hans livsværk var at advare om den kendsgerning, at monetarisme – denne anden dødbringende virus som Dennis talte om – ville resultere i pandemier. Man kan ikke sænke levestandarden på hele kontinenter over længere tid uden at fremme lavere livsformer i biosfæren til at tage over; nemlig vira.

Ideen er at starte en mobilisering på verdensplan, en mobilisering som fuldstændig vil ændre paradigmet. Vi har opfordret til et topmøde med de vigtigste lande i verden – USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien – at de må holde et topmøde for at ændre systemet; at blive enige om at få en ny verdensøkonomisk orden, der skaber mulighed for, at ethvert land på denne planet kan overleve. Der er bevægelser i denne retning. Netop i dag talte præsident Trump i telefon med Macron, den franske premierminister, og de blev enige om at fremskynde et lignende forslag fremsat af præsident Putin i begyndelsen af januar, hvor de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd straks skal indkalde et hastemøde og enes om øget samarbejde mellem FN’s nationer om at gå i denne retning.

Schiller Instituttet indkalder til en international internetkonference den 25. og 26. april. Længe før omfanget af pandemien stod klart, var målet med Schiller Instituttets konference at formulere et program, der kan hjælpe med at forme diskussionen for topmødet mellem disse stormagter. Vi er nødt til at have en drastisk aksiomatisk ændring. Der er allerede mange diskussioner, som er nyttige og skal understøttes; såsom ophævelse af alle sanktioner for at give alle lande mulighed for at bekæmpe pandemien. At holde en øjeblikkelig våbenhvile; at stoppe for alle militære handlinger, men der er brug for mere. Der er brug for en massiv mobilisering med opbakning fra mange mennesker og mange organisationer, for fuldstændig at ændre dagsordenen.

Der findes en vellykket model for, hvordan coronavirus blev besejret, i det mindste midlertidigt; det var hvad Kina gjorde i Wuhan og Hubei-provinsen. Det vil sige, at man må have total testning; man bliver nødt til at have identifikation af de mennesker, der tester positivt, man må isolere dem og sætte dem i karantæne. På den måde kan infektionskæden brydes, og virusset kan besejres. Problemet er, at det har vist sig, at det ikke er muligt at gentage denne model i den transatlantiske verden, simpelthen fordi testudstyr ikke er tilgængelige, fremstillingsvirksomhederne var ikke klar endnu. De vestlige regeringer bortødslede den varslingstid, som de fik gennem den kinesiske intervention.

Men det må der nu sættes fart i, ved hjælp af den form for mobilisering som jeg talte om. Den apokalyptiske dimension af hvad vi står over for vil stå meget klar inden for kort tid. Al forvirringen, alle de falske nyheder om, at coronavirus kun ville være som en slem influenza, al denne misinformation vil fortone sig. Der vil være en åbenhed over for at diskutere et helt nyt paradigme.                     

Der er også behov for at gøre det meget klart, at bagmændenes ideer, de folk og kræfter der er ansvarlige for, at vi endte i denne situation i første omgang, ikke må sejre. I dag er der for eksempel en artikel af Henry Kissinger i Wall Street Journal med overskriften “Coronavirus vil for evigt ændre verdensordenen”. Vi skal huske, at Kissinger måske ved, at timen er ved at være inde, hvor den gamle verdensorden uopretteligt og for evigt forsvinder. Men vi må ikke glemme, at det var Kissingers politik med NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200 er et amerikansk dokument om befolkningsreduktion, red.) der blev aftalt i 1974, og som var en stor del af denne morderiske malthusianske affolkningspolitik mod udviklingslandene.

Dette memorandum, som først blev offentliggjort i begyndelsen af 1990’erne, sagde, at befolkningen i visse udviklingslande må reduceres og kontrolleres, fordi der er store ressourcer, som alle er i USA’s strategiske interesse. En anden af ‘gerningsmændene’ var den onde politik fra Romklubben, der begyndte at sprede denne idé om, at der er grænser for vækst, og at man er nødt til at gå over til en økonomi med nulvækst. En løgn som straks blev tilbagevist af Lyndon LaRouche, der skrev en meget vigtig bog med titlen ‘There Are No Limits to Growth’ (Der er ingen grænser for Vækst). Det var også John D. Rockefeller III’s politik, der på FN’s befolkningskonference i Bukarest samme år – 1974 – begyndte at tale om overbefolkning, befolkningseksplosion og andre sådanne malthusianske ideer.

Disse mennesker er mordere. Hvis I ønsker at se beviser, så se på hvad Jeremy Warner skrev den 3. marts i Daily Telegraph, hvor han sagde, at der er en fordel forbundet med coronavirus. Det er, at den frasorterer de ældre. Det er klart, at Warner er på linje med prins Philip, der på en offentlig konference om religion sagde, at han ønsker at blive reinkarneret som en dødbringende virus, så han bedre kan hjælpe med at reducere verdensbefolkningen. Eller lyt til hvad Sir David King, den ledende videnskabelige rådgiver for både Blair- og Brown-regeringerne, der åbent sagde, at de ældre må ofres af hensyn til økonomien. Disse malthusianeres synspunkter må bringes for en ny Nürnberg-domstol, fordi det helt klart gælder for dem, at de vidste eller burde have vidst, hvilke konsekvenser deres politik ville have for Den tredje Verden.

Selv den tyske hærs tænketank, Det Tyske Institut for Forsvar og Strategiske Studier, har netop fremsat et krav om en tilbundsgående undersøgelse af, hvordan verden så blindt kunne gå ind i katastrofen. En sådan undersøgelse er allerede foretaget. Den har vi foretaget igennem de sidste 50 år. Lyndon LaRouche advarede igennem et halvt århundrede om, at nøjagtigt dette ville ske. Også i det tyske parlament var der, i 2012, i forbindelse med SARS-pandemien, et scenarie på den såkaldte modi-SARS – hvilket betyder modificeret SARS – der sagde, at en mulig pandemi kunne nå frem til Europa, USA og Asien. Mærkeligt nok udelod de Afrika, så hvis man taler om pandemien og man udelader Afrika, er det meget underligt. Men det blev også ignoreret.

Hvad der er brug for nu, er en hidtil uset – og jeg mener virkelig hidtil uset – mobilisering. Jeg opfordrer jer alle til at deltage i at opbygge en alliance af mennesker, der vil deltage i Schiller Instituttets konference den 25. og 26. april. Og jeg vil have jer til at nå ud til mange organisationer og mennesker i Nordamerika, Europa, men også Latinamerika, Asien, Afrika. At nå ud til FN-organisationer, til ngo’er, til Verdenssundhedsorganisationer med det ene formål: At vi er nødt til at geare op for at opbygge et Silkevejs-sundhedssystem i alle lande. Vi må opnå en damptromleeffekt af mennesker, der straks kræver hospitaler, ICU-enheder, men også mad. Fordi der allerede er fare for, at denne pandemi ledsages af en fødevaremangel på grund af sammenbrud af dele af fødevareproduktionen, fra de berørte mennesker, osv.

Men hvis vi samtidigt ønsker at opbygge et nyt sundhedssystem på verdensplan, er det meget tydeligt, at det ikke kan gøres med den nuværende kasinoøkonomi. Så er der brug for Lyndon LaRouches fire love. Det vil være nødvendigt med en global Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling for at finansiere et sundhedssystem i alle lande. Vi har brug for en nationalbank i hvert land, og disse nationalbanker skal være tilsluttet et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem. Resultatet af dette må også være et helt andet sæt af værdier. Absolut ikke den liberale orden og ‘Oplysningstidens’ værdier, som Kissinger beder om, men hvad vi i stedet har brug for er en tilbagevenden til humanistiske værdier, til ideen om menneskeheden som én menneskehed. At vi sætter de fælles interesser for menneskeslægten foran de nationale interesser, og at vi kommer ud af dette med et helt nyt paradigme for kærlighed til menneskeheden og et nyt system for internationale relationer, der sætter samarbejde over konfrontation. Hvis vi alle er forenede i denne ånd, tror jeg, at vi kan forvandle denne forfærdelige krise til en chance for hele menneskeheden ved at ændre paradigmet til at blive virkelig menneskeligt, som en menneskelig art.

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.