Mette Fredriksen og den danske regering har udvist forbilledligt lederskab i håndtering af den nuværende sundhedskrise og fik Danmark hurtigt lukket ned, da det var klart, at der forekom udbredt smittespredning i Danmark. Den danske befolkning har reageret godt på lederskabet og det ser ud til, at vi har formået at sænke smittespredningen fra omkring 2,8 nye smittede per smittet til omkring 2,0. Det lyder af lidt, men det er ufatteligt godt gået og har købt os ekstra tid. Med en smitterate på 2,8 vil antallet af nye smittede på 6 uger være 1350 gange større. 1.000 smittede bliver altså til 1,35 mio. Med en smitterate reduceret til 2,0 vil antallet af nye smittede efter 6 uger være 128 større. 1.000 smittede bliver altså i stedet til 128.000 nye smittede over de 6 uger. Dermed har vi købt kritisk tid til at undgå, at vi får katastrofale tilstande, som dem vi har set i sundhedsvæsenet i Italien her i Danmark.

Dette var det erklærede mål for nedlukningen af Danmark, så det ser ud til at blive succesfuldt, men det rejser et ligeså stort problem: Hvornår kan vi genåbne Danmark uden at se en eksplosiv udvikling i antallet smittede af COVID-19?

Studiet fra Imperial College i London (Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand), der blandt andet fik den britiske regering til at lukke Storbritanien ned og overbeviste den amerikanske regering om alvoren i COVID-19-epidemien, kommer frem til, at en nedlukning er nødvendig for at undgå en katastrofe, men slår samtidigt fast, at man må forvente en kraftig opblomstring af epidemien, så snart man går tilbage til det normale liv, og smittespredningen dermed bliver større. Rapporten konkluderer, at det er sandsynligt, at man det meste af tiden frem til udviklingen af en eventuel vaccine, som man forventer kommer på banen om tidligst 12-18 måneder, eller til at så stor en del af befolkningen har været smittet (ca. 60 %) til at give en flokimmunitet i befolkningen, må fastholde en nedlukning af samfundet med blot enkelte åbne perioder ind imellem, hvor man så lukker ned igen, når epidemien begynder at vokse for kraftigt.

En sådan hel eller delvis nedlukning af Danmark i op til 12-18 måneder vil være katastrofal for det danske samfund og den danske økonomi. Derfor må vi introducere andre redskaber, der kan give os nye fordele i kampen mod COVID-19 end blot af satse på udviklingen af flokimmunitet eller udviklingen af en vaccine om 12-18 måneder. Et sådant redskab, der har vist sig effektivt andre steder, er en aggressiv opsporing og isolering af COVID-19-smittede, som bl.a. i Kina og Sydkorea har gjort at man har kunnet holde epidemien i skak. Vi vil selvfølgelig ikke kopiere deres metoder til fulde, da vores samfund fungerer anderledes, men benytte erfaringerne og indsætte dem i en dansk sammenhæng. Samtidig er et ekstra vigtigt redskab på trapperne, der om få dage vil gøre det muligt, at finde ud af, om en person har været smittet med COVID-19. Det kan give os flere fordele både med at bekæmpe smitten her, og holde Danmark åbent mest muligt – uden at risikere et sammenbrud af det danske sundhedsvæsen og unødigt mange døde blandt den danske befolkning – og samtidigt hjælpe i den globale kamp imod COVID-19.

Vi skal bruge det pusterum, som vi har fået gennem den effektive nedlukning af Danmark, til hurtigst muligt af få et så komplet overblik over udbredelsen af smitten her i landet og få identificeret og isoleret flest muligt COVID-19 smittede. Vi skal have gang i den form for effektiv smittesporing, der ophørte, da man lukkede Danmark ned og sundhedsstyrelsen erklærede, at inddæmning nu var umulig. Alt, hvad vi ved, om hvem, der er er smittet eller har været smittet og om, hvordan og hvornår de blev smittet, er nemlig guld værd i bekæmpelsen af epidemien. Og i at sikre, at vi kan holde Danmark mest muligt åbent.

Det største problem med COVID-19 er nemlig, at den spreder sig vældigt effektivt fra menneske til menneske og at mange smittede, ikke udviser kraftige symptomer eller bliver meget syge, men alligevel kan bringe sygdommen videre “under radaren”. Som når det gælder isbjerge, så ser man kun en meget lille del af det egentlige problem. Det betyder, at sygdommen sandsynligvis kom til Danmark langt inden, at vi fik den såkaldt første smittede (TV2-medarbejderen) den 27. februar.

I løbet af de seneste dage har man fundet ud af, hvordan vi hurtigere og lettere kan teste sekret fra mulige smittede for COVID-19. Inden for de næste dage, vil vi også kunne teste blodprøver for anti-stoffer til COVID-19, og dermed kunne fastlægge, om en person har været smittet med COVID-19. At vide, at man har haft COVID-19 og har overlevet, er en god information at have, da man i så fald (medmindre vi ser nye mutationer af COVID-19) ikke længere kan blive smittet og heller ikke risikerer at kunne smitte andre. Men det er også en vigtig information at have for at kunne fastlægge, hvor og hvornår den enkelte blev smittet. Det giver overblik over, hvordan epidemien har udviklet sig og hvordan den fremadrettet vil udvikle sig. Vi skal så vidt som muligt have et billede over samtlige smittekæder i Danmark. Det kræver massiv testning og en kortlægning af COVID-19’s liv og virke i Danmark.

Operation “Fjern virus fra skindpelsen”

Vi skal have kortlagt COVID-19 i Danmark, så vi kan holde epidemien stangen, og det kræver (udover den indsats, der ydes på de danske hospitaler) en massiv testindsats fremadrettet:

1. Alle, der udviser selv svage symptomer på COVID-19, skal omgående testes og i tilfælde af COVID-19-smitte sættes i hjemmekarantæne indtil 48 timer efter, at de betragtes som symtomfri og raske. Forløbet afsluttes med en yderligere blodprøve, der viser, at de har nok anti-stoffer imod COVID-19 til, at de ikke længere at kan huse sygdommen. Mens sygdommen står på skal patienten indsende daglige rapporter til sundhedsmyndighederne over, hvordan man har det, sygdommens udvikling, symptomer etc. Dette er vigtigt, ikke blot for at overvåge den enkelte patient og i tide kunne yde nødvendig hjælp til behandling af sygdommen, men også for at få et langt bedre overblik over sygdomsforløbet og dens symptomer til fremtid smittesporing og sygdomsbekæmpelse. Alle familiemedlemmer og andre tætte kontakter skal testes (både for COVID-19 og evt. også for anti-stoffer) og på lignende vis selvovervåges, for at sikre, at de ikke også er smittede. Dette fortsætter i en karantæneperiode, som afsluttes med yderlig en test. Der laves samtidig klassisk smittesporing for at finde alle mulige smittekontakter den/de syge har haft, dels for at finde personen/personer de er blevet smittet af, men også de personer, som de muligvis har smittet. Hjemmekarantæne og daglig indrapportering kræves af dem, som vurderes at være mulige smittede.
2. Alle, der mener, at de eventuelt har været smittet, skal så hurtigt som muligt testes for anti-stoffer imod COVID-19, for at finde ud af, om de har haft sygdommen. Hvis disse tests i dag sendes ud af landet, som en del af det internationale forskningssamarbejde, skal dette arbejde så vidt, det er muligt, hjemtages for en hurtige informationsstrøm (mens vi selvfølgelig samtidig fortsat vidensdeler med vore forskningspartnere). Finder vi personer, der har været smittede med COVID-19, så starter smittesporing for at finde ud af, hvor og hvornår de blev smittet, og hvem de eventuelt selv har smittet. Selv om dette i mange tilfælde involverer personer, der ikke længere er smittede, så er det vigtig information for at etablere smittekæder og finde mange af de smittekæder, der indtil nu er gået under radaren. Det vil også hjælpe i arbejdet med at fastlægge forskellige typer af COVID-19, forskellige smittemønstre, symptomer og evt. også senere differentieret behandling.
3. Der forskes flittigt i udvikling af behandlingsmetoder, mange gange med brug af allerede godkendte lægemidler eller en kombination af dem, til at lindre og evt. også forkorte sygdomsforløbet hos indlagte patienter. Der skal forberedes en hurtig implementering af nye modaliteter i takt med at der er lovende resultater fra forskningen.

At lave dette arbejde med testning og smittesporing er ganske omfattende, men vil i stor udstrækning ikke overlappe med de ressourcer, der kræves i kampen imod COVID-19 på hospitalerne. Det er andre ressourcer, der skal mobiliseres fra samfundet, borgere og virksomheder for at sikre, at vi så hurtigt som muligt kan lukke Danmark op og holde Danmark åbent mest muligt indtil COVID-19 er besejret. Samtidigt vil det bibringe vigtige data om COVID-19, der hjælper ikke blot Danmark, men hele verden i kampen imod COVID-19.

Ressourcer, der skal bringes i spil for at kunne håndtere denne indsats, inklusive 50-100.000 testninger per dag, involverer bl.a.:

1) Der skal oprettes en lang række teststeder (bl.a. drive-in-teststeder), hvor folk kan få taget sekret fra de nedre luftveje til COVID-19-test. Dette skal fungere med personale, der ikke må tages fra den normale behandlingsindsats på hospitalerne. Eventuelt med personer, der allerede har haft COVID-19.

2) Der skal oprettes kapacitet til at behandle 50-100.000 COVID-19 prøver om dagen. Kapaciteten kan findes på eksisterende laboratorier på universiteter og lignende, men også, hvis de bliver spurgt, på danske virksomheder, som nok gerne vil bidrage med testkapacitet, som Novo Nordisk har valgt at gøre det. Vi har mange medicinalvirksomheder i Danmark, og de fleste vil ikke takke nej, hvis de bliver bedt om at hjælpe til. Det forberedes selvfølgelig at kunne tage og behandle endnu flere tests, hvis det skulle blive nødvendigt.

3) Der oprettes et lignende beredskab til at tage blodprøver for at konstatere anti-stoffer imod COVID-19, hvis det nuværende system ikke er i stand til at håndtere den øgede volumen. Der oprettes flere enheder til hurtigt at omsætte blodprøver for anti-stoffer til COVID-19 til brugbare testresultater.

4) Der skal oprettes en del enheder til smittekortlægning og smittesporing. Samtidig skal der være enheder til at håndtere alle de data, som man får ind fra testresultater, daglige tilbagemeldinger fra COVID-19-smittede, folk i karantæne etc. Det vil være langt større mængder af data, end man har været vant til, og det kræver evt. en oprustning på databehandlingssiden. Danske virksomheder med ekspertviden på området vil sandsynligvis med glæde bistå med at udvikle de nødvendige digitale værktøjer i ekspresfart, hvis de bliver bedt om det.

5) Med hensyn til hjælpemidler til testindsatsen og værnemidler til personalet på alle COVID-19-områder, der evt. er mangel på i dag, osv. så vil de af dem, som man ikke kan anskaffe hurtigt på markedet til rimelige priser, sandsynligvis kunne fremskaffes fra, eller produceres af danske virksomheder, hvis man blot beder dem om det. Lokaliser evt. flaskehalse og find ud af, hvem i Danmark, der vil kunne hjælpe. Hvis man spørger om hjælp, så vil man blive positivt overrasket over, hvor mange, der blot venter på at kunne hjælpe til.

Udover at være en uvurderlig hjælp i at inddæmme COVID-19 så meget som muligt, så vil brugen af udbredt testning og smittesporing give os de nødvendige redskaber til at forstå og håndtere sundhedskrisen langt bedre. Vi vil gennem det langt bedre overblik over COVID-19 og dens aktiviteter bedre kunne forhindre en kraftig opblomstring af epidemien på et senere tidspunkt, og gennem den tætte overvågning vide, hvornår vi eventuelt må lukke dele af Danmark ned igen, for at få kontrollen over COVID-19 tilbage.

Alle disse tiltage er ikke gratis, men den samlede indsatspakke er billigere end blot en enkelt dags nedlukning af Danmark. Samtidig kan man også håbe, at de store mængder indsamlede data gør os i stand til bedre at forstå COVID-19, og dermed kunne bekæmpe COVID-19 langt mere effektivt både i Danmark og globalt indtil vi forhåbentligt snart kan endegyldigt besejre COVID-19 og få vores normale samfundsfunktioner tilbage.

For Schiller Instituttets forslag til de nødvendige økonomiske og finansielle tiltag i forbindelsen med COVID-19 se andre artikler og videoer på vores hjemmeside.

Verden er i en alvorlig krise, som er uhørt, uden sidestykke. De gode nyheder er, at eftersom situationen er resultatet af de sidste årtiers forfærdelige politik, vil det være umuligt at “vende tilbage til normal praksis”. Helga Zepp-LaRouche har opfordret unge mennesker til at tage lederskab på dette tidspunkt med store forandringer, for at bekæmpe de to dødelige virusser som nu truer menneskeheden – coronavirus-pandemien og nedsmeltningen af det globale finanssystem.

Vi må komme ud af denne krise med et helt nyt paradigme for fredelig sameksistens mellem nationer og et nyt økonomisk system baseret på samarbejde om fremskridt for hele menneskeheden. Som det bliver mere og mere graverende med coronavirus-pandemien, vil det blive en hasteprioritet at bygge et moderne globalt sundhedssystem for at sikre retten til liv for alle mennesker på jorden.

Videokonferencen er en mulighed for unge mennesker at tale med Helga Zepp-LaRouche og tilslutte sig kampen for dette nye paradigme.

Efter indledende bemærkninger af Helga, vil repræsentanter fra hver nation give en 2 til 4 minutter lang rapport om deres organisering, og en spørgerunde vil herefter følge.

HVORNÅR

31. marts kl. 16-18, dansk tid

HVOR

Voom video konference

Klik her for at tilmelde dig: http://LPAC.co/hz-youth

Del venligst med dine unge kontakter!

Schiller Instituttets formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche offentliggjorde, d. 18. marts, en presserende appel, som hun understregede i sit webcast, d. 19. marts, for at lukke finanssystemet ned i flere dage, således at der vil være tid til at indføre nødvendige reformer, begyndende med en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, for, gennem en konkursbehandling, at reorganisere det nuværende finanssystem. Det neoliberale system er bankerot, sagde hun, pga. det skifte der begyndte for 50 år siden, væk fra efterkrigstidens Bretton Woods-systems faste vekselkurser, over til en dereguleret, spekulativ kasinoøkonomi.

Det finansielle sammenbrud, som finder sted samtidig med coronapandemiens udbreddelse, kan ikke løses gennem flere redningspakker, hvilket blot forlænger ødelæggelsen af den virkelige økonomi. Yderligere vil dette underminere indsatsen undervejs for at rette op på kollapset af sundhedssystemets verden over, der blev saboteret med ”sundhed for profit” for øje (i profitmaksimeringens navn). Hvad der nu er brug for, er et fuldt samarbejde mellem de førende nationer – en global solidaritet – som må erstatte det geopolitiske syn. Selvom at der er taget nogle positive skridt i denne retning, forbliver de økonomiske tiltag indenfor neoliberalismens pålagte rammer, i mens nogle embedsmænd, såsom USA’s udenrigsminister Pompeo, fortsætter med at søge den geopolitiske konfrontation, som ses i hans angreb på Kina.

For at lykkes i kampen mod den globale pandemi, sagde hun, bør vi lytte til lægestaben fra Wuhan, som førte en heroisk kamp mod sygdommen. Hvad der er brug for er kærlighed, ikke ubegrundede anklager. Krisen har givet os muligheden for at kassere alle geopolitiske og neoliberale aksiomer, og i stedet handle i solidaritet med vore medmennesker.

Afskrift på engelsk:

SHUT DOWN THE NEOLIBERAL CASINO ECONOMY NOW, IT IS HOPELESSLY BANKRUPT!

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, March 19, 2020

With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, with our weekly webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, our founder and president. It’s March 19, 2020.

Let me begin by simply saying that we had intended to do this webcast yesterday, but the sheer volume of activity on the internet has made it questionable. Hopefully, we will be able to get through the briefing and discussion today, but please bear with us if there’s some shakiness or jumpiness in the picture. These are extraordinary times, and it does require a certain amount of patience and concentration.

We’re facing a situation which is a worldwide emergency, and Helga, we’ll start with your call yesterday. You issued an emergency call for a bank holiday, which I think addresses the problem of the corona virus and the financial crash simultaneously. So, why don’t we start with what you said yesterday?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the need to address the fact that we don’t only have the coronavirus crisis, which is a pandemic, but we also have clear signs that the financial system is collapsing. So, that is why I issued a call to close the markets for a few days, which I will specify, in order to take the absolutely necessary reforms of the financial system, which has to start with the immediate implementation of a Glass-Steagall banking separation. Followed then by the other measures which we have been asking and demanding for, namely; a national bank in every country; a New Bretton Woods credit system in order to restart the economy and concentrate on the physical economy. This is absolutely necessary because, while it is clear that now, finally, after a quite significant delay, all the governments of the trans-Atlantic sector are clearly taking measures. For example, the European Union has suspended the rules of the stability pact, Trump has invoked the National Defense Act, there are obviously many measures being taken. For example, the various bazookas which have been taken out, giving credit to firms to delay tax payments, to even talk about helicopter money — in other words, directly handing out money to everybody who needs it. All of these things are necessary steps to just keep the economy going, and also calm down the population, which is really in a difficult state of mind. And physically, many people have existential worries about their livelihoods.

But this is all missing one essential point. That is, the reason why we are in this crisis has to be addressed. That is something which absolutely only we can bring on the agenda. So, the very first step would be to close the financial markets in order to implement Glass-Steagall. Now that is obviously something which requires a different kind of approach. It requires the intervention of the most powerful governments in the world working together. And that is the need to have the summit of the United States, Russia, China, and India; then other countries can support that. But you need a decision on the level of the heads of government to end the casino economy, to go in the direction of a world credit system which enables a world health system. Because it should be very clear that this pandemic will not be fought in one country, but you need a health system in every single country of the world, and that is absolutely not possible under the present circumstances. So therefore, the shutting down of the financial markets is the absolute necessary first step, but it must be followed by the whole package.

SCHLANGER: In saying that, and looking at the importance of taking emergency measures, I think it’s really important that people step back and recognize what you just said. This is something that’s been in the making for many years, and your expertise in this comes from your long working relationship with your husband, who forecast this back in 1971. It was clear to him back then that this is what we were facing; and yet, governments missed these warnings. Why don’t you just review for a moment his forecasting on this, and how we missed the boat?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: My late husband, in 1971, was probably the only economist who with absolute clarity recognized the significance of Nixon abandoning the fixed exchange rate system and abandoning the coupling of the dollar to the gold standard, and going in the direction of unregulated monetarism. He said in August 1971 that if the world would stay on this course, it would absolutely necessarily lead to a new depression and the danger of a new fascism, or you would replace the system with a completely different one; namely, a just, new world economic order. Then, at every step of the way, whenever the financial oligarchy moved in the direction of further deregulation, he absolutely pointed to the consequences of that. He predicted the crash of 1987, he absolutely recognized the significance of the 1997 so-called Asia crisis as being really the eruption of a global crisis. And he made this famous video on the 25th of July in 2007, saying this is the end of the system, and all which we see right now will be coming to the surface of the total bankruptcy of the system.

Obviously, the measures which were taken by the central banks and the G-20 after the 2008 collapse, just amplified the problem by pumping more liquidity into the system. Now we are at the absolute end phase of that process. He also was very much on the record saying the consequences in the physical economy of this monetarism would lead to the eruption of pandemics. It would lead to the re-emergence of old diseases, and the emergence of new epidemics, pandemics; because you cannot lower the living standard of entire continents over a long period of time without causing such breakdowns of the health system, the immune system. That is exactly the point we are at right now, and that is why we are saying that you cannot remedy it by just controlling this pandemic. Because if you don’t remove the causes, the danger is that new viruses, new diseases will emerge. So, we are at an absolute fundamental point that we have to change the whole system.

SCHLANGER: I think we’re seeing some governments beginning to recognize that this is more than just a simple crisis. Macron, for example, announced the suspension of the so-called reforms he was pushing. Macron and others are saying we need to look into what caused the failures of the system. But up to this point, Helga, have you seen anyone addressing the need to reject the whole casino economy and go back to the measures that would feed the physical economy?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. I think that the measures that have been taken by, for example, Germany — Merkel was yesterday in a TV speech where she really didn’t say anything significant. All she said is, “It’s up to you to flatten the curve of the spread of the pandemic.” Now, I don’t think that is the way to go about it at all. Naturally what is behind that is how all the Western governments are now confronted with the fact that the takedown of the health system over the last decades, the privatization, the shutting down hospitals, shutting down other facilities for the sake of profit, is now haunting everybody, because we have a severe shortage of such facilities. But, I think the approach which was taken by China has been a completely different one. They did not talk about flattening the curve; they took in Wuhan and Hubei province very decisive measures. They closed down the entire area of 60 million people and acted in solidarity in the whole country; all of China was supporting that. They were successful in reducing the number of new cases erupting. So, they basically have it under control for the situation in China. That is a successful model. Also, Singapore and South Korea took a similar approach. There is no reason one cannot replicate what China did, if there is solidarity.

Obviously, in the EU, that has been lacking so far. There was no solidarity. This just shows you the deficiency in the neo-liberal and liberal model of everything — the markets, the health system, the cooperation among countries. I think that the situation now is very severe. You can see it in Italy, which was the country which, because of its positive relations with China, did apply the Chinese model to a very large degree. But in northern Italy, in Bergamo, in Lombardy, they are now faced with the situation that the capacity simply is not sufficient. So there is de facto triage, not because they intend it, because the doctors and the nurses around the clock and they are near the point of breakdown; but they simply don’t have enough facilities, so they cannot treat every patient. This is a total catastrophe.

But China, which not only totally successfully contained the virus, is now worried that it may come back from abroad, because other governments did not apply the same rigorous methods. But the Chinese are providing help. They have sent medical experts to Iran, to Iraq, to Spain, to Italy. They have offered help to any country which wants to take it. They are sending massive supplies to Italy, Spain, and France, who they regard as having shown to have been friends with China. I think the only thing to draw as a conclusion is to stop this anti-China bashing. First of all, it’s completely insane; it is not justified. Cooperate. I think this is the moment where you have to work together as a human species. China has provided the way to go.

You need to learn the Chinese lesson from Wuhan, and that is the best thing the Europeans and others like the United States can do right now.

SCHLANGER: On the question of the takedown of the public health system and replacing it with a totally for-profit health care, which has obviously failed, even the New York Times admitted this today. I just want to read a couple of quotes from an article there where they said that it’s now the EU austerity which has left the health care systems unprepared. We’re talking about Europe, but the same thing can be said about the United States. They said, in the southern European countries, they’re ill-prepared for a pandemic. They describe this as “tragically vulnerable”, that the countries are tragically vulnerable.

Now, we had in the United States, a standard set with the Hill-Burton system, of 4.5 hospital beds per 1000 people. This was taken down starting in 1974. Helga, you were talking about a world health standard. What would that take to get a Hill-Burton standard for the whole world now?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, you would need a crash program approach, where obviously those countries which have the capability would have to help those who don’t. But all together, it would mean to build 35 million new hospital beds worldwide. It would require having the necessary electricity, which would mean the creation of 358 gigawatts of new electricity; most of which would also have to be built in a crash program. You would need the increase of clean water supplies by 40% of the existing capabilities. So that obviously is a completely different approach, and would require a completely different approach in terms of real industrialization of the Southern Hemisphere. That brings you to the absolute point where this went wrong. We are now at the point where we have to make a fundamental decision: Do we want to in the direction of a Malthusian world order, which indeed would mean what the British system has been pushing? Like Jeremy Warner in the Daily Telegraph, wrote a couple of weeks ago, that the coronavirus has a benefit; namely that it is culling older people. That notion of culling, that you treat the human species as a herd of animals which must be culled, this has been our attack against the British Malthusian genocide approach for a very long time. This is now what obviously is coming to the fore. We have to make a fundamental decision, that we absolutely reject this idea that there are useless people, which obviously is behind some of the thinking, because the danger is that we come out of this with a Green approach, with a Malthusian approach. We have to absolutely go in the opposite direction, and go for the full industrialization of the world economy. We have to have the industrialization of Africa, of Southwest Asia. That is the key moral decision which the whole human race has to make at this point.

SCHLANGER: As you said, this would require international solidarity. I think there is still the proposal that you made, and was somewhat adopted by others, that there be an emergency summit of the great powers. How could they act to bring about not just this new world health standard, but a new financial system?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I made this proposal for an emergency summit of the United States, Russia, and China following the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani on the third of January this year, because there was the immediate danger of an escalation which could have gone into a superpower conflict. Subsequently, President Putin called for a summit of the Permanent Five of the UN Security Council to establish the principles for the continued collaboration and survival of the human species. Now in the meantime, all the governments of the Permanent Five have agreed — the US, China, Russia, France, and Great Britain — that they would agree to this. I still think that the absolutely necessary combination is the United States, Russia, China, and India, being representative for the whole world, and then other countries should cooperate. I think we have reached the point where we have to different principles in the international cooperation. Geopolitics must be absolutely put aside forever. We have to define the common aims of mankind; we have to agree on those principles which constitute the one humanity. That would first of all mean to establish a system of new international relations of countries respecting the sovereignty of everyone, of non-interference, of accepting the different social system of the other one. And then agree on joint economic development programs to overcome poverty, to overcome underdevelopment.

I think the only realistic proposal on the table is what Chinà proposed with the New Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative, which already 157 countries are participating in. The Schiller Institute, already several years ago, started to publish reports — “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” — which is a comprehensive economic study of how to bring industrial development to every continent on this planet. Some of these projects are in different degrees of realization, but that would be the kind of platform which has to be agreed upon by the top governments in the world. That way you could start a real economic development plan following such a summit right away. It would mean you completely change the orientation. In a certain sense it’s like the end of the Thirty Years’ War, where people recognized that if they continued, there would be nobody left to enjoy the victory, so-called. That is the point humanity has reached right now.

We have reached a point where we either become rational and cooperate, or we may not only face a Dark Age, but we may actually face a real holocaust of the whole human race.

SCHLANGER: I think a lot of people would like to get your assessment of the so-called financial measures that are being taken, beyond those that are emergency funds to provide care or funds for people who are losing jobs, a moratorium on foreclosures — at least for a month or two. But what we see from the Federal Reserve in the United States, as an example, is a bail-out of the speculators of extraordinary level of so-called credit; basically, funny money. What’s your assessment of that? Obviously, this goes against what you’re talking about in terms of the financial bankruptcy reorganization.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: That just reflects the intention of Wall Street to keep the casino economy going. They bring out what they call the big bazooka, I think the Federal Reserve put in $1.2 trillion in various support actions, buying up bonds, buying up all kinds of debt to keep the derivative bubble going. The European Central Bank has announced 750 billion, and that is not the end of it. If they keep doing that, and there is right now the clear intention to do so, it will lead to a hyperinflationary blow-out of the whole system.

I’m not saying that these temporary measures to keep individual families and firms going by giving all kinds of support measures, that may be useful in the short-term. But you need to end the casino economy. You absolutely have to have Glass-Steagall, because this would shut down the casino economy for good. You put the commercial banks under state protection, you put a firewall between the commercial banks and the investment banks and all the other operators and players. If they have no more access to the savings of the commercial banks, or do not get bail-outs from the taxpayers any more, they will have to bring the books in order on their own and if they can’t do it, they have to be closed down. That is the kind of intervention which now absolutely needs to exist. If this thing is continuing, you will end up in a hyperinflationary blow-out like what happened in Germany in 1923. That is the complete expropriation of the life savings of the population, and that would lead to a social explosion such as I don’t even want to imagine.

So, I call upon all rational people to support our action that this approach — that you need a summit of the most important governments of the world, and they have to end the casino economy, and they have to adopt a system of integrated cooperation for world development. If there is sufficient support for that, it can be done, because there is already motion in this direction. So, I’m calling upon you, that you sign this appeal which will be below this webcast [https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/four_laws_new], and that you help us to circulate this idea. Because there is a lot of confusion right now, a lot of panic, a lot of chaos. But you have to elevate the whole discussion on a much higher level, and that has to be one of unity of the entire world. Then we can solve it.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned ending the casino economy, I found it somewhat interesting that yesterday the state of Nevada shut down the casinos in Las Vegas. That’s a good step in the right direction.

Helga, come back to this question of international solidarity, and why that’s necessary. Unfortunately, we have someone who hasn’t gotten that message; namely, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who continues to rant against China, talking about escalating sanctions against Iran, which is one of the countries that has been badly affected by the coronavirus. What can you say about that? Obviously, this is the opposite of solidarity.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think President Trump has been capable of getting rid of some of his bad advisors in the past, like Bolton. And I think he would be very well advised to get rid of Pompeo. What Pompeo is doing right now in his anti-China campaign is really dangerous. The relationship between the United States and China has been deteriorating. It’s very difficult to assess all of this, because there is a lot of fake news being circulated right now, and one has to be very careful in assessing this.

Let me bring in another element of this. There is a geopolitical dimension in a lot of things that are happening right now. There was, for example, a scenario played out in October 2019, where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, the CIA, and the UN, and a couple of other institutions had a scenario acting out a new pandemic hitting the world with the coronavirus, and they basically came to the conclusion that this would cause 65 million deaths. Now that was the very same day the military games were conducted in New York on the very same day in Wuhan the military games started, and subsequently the Chinese Foreign Ministry raised the question, if the virus had not originated in Wuhan, but possibly coming from US soldiers participating in these war games. There is a big story as to what was the role of Fort Detrick, which was closed down last July. In any case, I’m not in a position now to assess the validity of all of this. And as I said, there is a lot of psywar fake news, disinformation. But this whole question has now led to a brawl whereby Pompeo is continuously talking about the China virus. The Chinese government correctly refuted that as a racist policy. This is going back and forth, and unfortunately, President Trump has repeatedly also used that language of the China virus.

This is very dangerous, and naturally, there is also this question of Iran. The oil price right now is at $20/barrel for Brent crude [North Sea], and that means the entire shale-gas industry at this point is completely bankrupt. So, there is absolutely the danger that on top of this present crisis, you could have a war in the Middle East, with the intention to drive up the price of oil. I’m just saying that we are in a situation where if this present situation is not brought under control in the way I said before, that we could really end up in a complete strategic disaster. This is why I think President Trump is doing a lot of positive things. He has started a very useful cooperation, for example, with Governor Andrew Cuomo from New York. There are lots of things where people overcome bipartisanship. But there is also this other tendency. So, I think the absolute necessity right now is to go for an international cooperation and address the common aims of mankind as an absolute necessity of surviving for all of us.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned earlier the period of the Thirty Years’ War and the end of the Thirty Years’ War, which led to the Peace of Westphalia. This actually does give us an opportunity to reflect on the actual nature of man, as opposed to being totally focussed on material wealth, greed, making money. You actually have an opportunity to sit back and reflect on why we’re here. And I think it would be very useful, Helga, at this moment of great anxiety and stress, for you to reiterate points to what is that nature of man? And how do we regain this concept of the cooperation among beautiful souls?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think that the medical team of doctors who worked in Wuhan, they just issued a very beautiful video and message, where they told what incredible strain one goes through in this period. But then they say they came out of it with the idea that what was really needed was love. That each individual human being is mortal, but what is immortal is love. Love for your loved ones, your family, your nation; love for mankind. And that that is the kind of spirit which needs to be evoked. I think this is really the true tendency you can clearly see. You have those people who are for humanity, like for example, the unbelievable work being done by the many doctors and nurses around the world, and other people who help to make this situation function. And people who grow, who show a humanity which goes beyond anything which was there before. But then you also have the people who are displaying their evil nature. I think in a certain sense, we are now at the point where we have to shed all the axioms which led to this situation; which is geopolitics, monetarism, Darwinism, the liberal system that everything is allowed. And we have to replace it with the idea that the human species is the only creative species known in the universe so far. That we have to employ these creative capacities to relate to each other from that standpoint to respect the creative mind of the other; to show the kind of solidarity which has been demonstrated, especially by such doctors in China in Wuhan. That should be an inspiration of how we get out of this crisis.

SCHLANGER: I would encourage all of our viewers to take the time now, especially if you are off work or you have limited hours, instead of sitting there worrying, or wasting your time watching CNN or MSNBC, go to the Schiller Institute website; go to the LaRouche PAC website; and familiarize yourself with the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, particularly related to the Four Laws of Economics, and also the Four Power Agreement.

So, Helga, do you have anything else to add?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I can only add that a lot of people in Italy are now going to their balconies and singing. You have opera houses playing for free to be transmitted on the internet. Since we are in the year of Beethoven, I can only say that the best thing to get the inspiration is to listen to a lot of Beethoven. Otherwise, I really think that if you go into the archives of our website and study the works of Lyndon LaRouche, that is actually a very good advice. Because we have to come out of this present crisis with a completely different approach. I think between Beethoven and LaRouche, you will find a lot of the inspiration needed. So, we will come back with other programs as the situation unfolds. So, stay tuned, and help us to change this paradigm.

SCHLANGER: OK, Helga. Thank you very much.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: ’Til soon.

SCHLANGER: ’Til soon.

https://www.larouchepac.com/20200319/shut-down-neo-liberal-casino-economy-it-hopelessly-bankrupt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Helga gentager de seriøse advarsler fra ledende tyske eksperter indenfor smitsomme sygdomme og ser på Wuhan-modellen for at bryde smittevejene i begyndelsen. Helga beder lande om at koordinere deres indsats for at besejre denne pandemi, inklusiv at dæmme op for de økonomiske indvirkninger på den globale økonomi, men det betyder ikke at redde Wall Street! (Se hendes opdaterede underskriftsbegæring)

Helga og Harley diskuterer svindelen med her-og- nu-økonomien, og påminder folk om Lyndon LaRouches advarsel, at hvis vi fortsatte ned ad vejen mod nulvækst, ville Vesten ikke længere være i stand til at opretholde sig selv og ville sprænges indad. Hun kræver en ende på geopolitik, og at alle kræfter må være fokuserede på at løse den fælles virus- og finanskrise. Pas på dig selv, og tak for at du følger vores arbejde.

Afskrift på engelsk:

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s March 11, 2020. And now we’re very deep into a process which has been unfolding rapidly with the coronavirus, the emergence of a pandemic worldwide. And Helga, this is something that people in the West have been trying to wish away, but it’s something that’s going to be wished away: It requires a total change in thinking. Why don’t you start with your thoughts on that, because you have been very out front in the need for an emergency call to reject this old paradigm, and move to the new.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think the situation is very serious. It probably will not be possible without a lot of casualties, but nevertheless, if there are decisive measures now, and a complete change in the attitude, the damage can be minimized. Otherwise, it will be catastrophic.

Now, I think it is useful to listen to the experts from Germany who are making regular podcasts, Christian Drosten, the virologist from Berlin Charité hospital, and Professor Lothar Wieler from the Robert Koch Institute, and they put out very drastic warnings. What Drosten said is that there will be no lessening of the increasing in the spring and summer period, which some people temporarily assumed, because we will face a virus wave, and naturally, in the summer period, the virus will continue to spread to the summer hemisphere, where it will be winter, and then in all likelihood return even more, and with possible mutations in the fall, and a vaccine, as of now, cannot be expected before a year or so.

So, Merkel announced what is now commonplace among many leaders of countries, that the infection rate probably will infect 70% of the population, and unfortunately, it is absolutely not true what our Health Minister Jens Spahn still thought in January, which is really incredible, where he said that the coronavirus does not represent a danger for Germany, and that the mortality rate of the coronavirus would be lower than of the common flu — that’s what he said in January.

Now, obviously, that that was not the case was clear, already if people looked to China, which in the month of January was waging an incredible battle, and by closing down the entire city of Wuhan and Hubei province, effecting a lockdown for 60 million people, implementing it and also enforcing it and having a population which was very cooperative in doing so, according to the World Health Organization, China has set a new standard in dealing with such pandemics. And the West could have taken that as an example, but people in the West are just too arrogant, too Euro-centric, or too Western-centric, so they thought they could ignore, or even think “this is affecting China and not coming to Europe or the United States”; so they lost three valuable months, maybe not entirely, but obviously, a completely different attitude would have been necessary.

And now, it is spreading and changing by the hour, so people are completely aware of the fact that this is out of control. And I do not want to add to any panic, but it is very clear that the numbers which are announced right now are not accurate. I talked to my colleagues in France, today, and there are only a little bit more than 1,000 tests which have been made in France so far! That is not a representative figure which comes out, then. And we have some cases where people clearly have symptoms, and they try to get tests, and they were told, there are no tests in France right now, France doesn’t have the production capability and all the tests have been bought up and there simply are no tests. So, obviously, the fact that in Germany, there are only two deaths so far, as of this webcast [midday in Germany March 11 — ed], they attribute that to the very well testing — now, we have to see.

I think the lesson from Wuhan, and now that all of Italy is basically a red zone, after some very irrational behavior on the side of some citizens, after the north was locked down, you have quite an advanced situation; but I think the lesson to be learned from all of that is that is that we have to learn from China. We have to get rid of our Western arrogance, and simply look at the way how China effectively dealt with it, and then the only conclusion is, that you have to enforce these measures before you have a mass of cases. That means that if you have anywhere, a region, like some cities or areas in North Rhine-Westphalia, one should apply the Wuhan model immediately. It should be closed down, there should be a quarantine for a certain number of weeks, and these measures must be taken early on, because everything which counts in this is the speed, to take preemptive measures before the virus spreads completely out of control.

So I think we are in a very serious situation, but it’s not some moment where you can completely panic, but there are clear ways, and I think the Chinese efficiency with which they dealt with this, should be a lesson for everybody.

SCHLANGER: When you speak of the arrogance, I think you’re referring, in particular, to the continued adherence to geopolitics, to the neo-liberal model, the whole idea that the West is superior, the West has solved all the problems. Isn’t this what hampers the thinking of people at the European Union and many of the people in the U.S. Congress, and think tanks in the United States?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the reaction so far by the leading politicians, for example, the European finance ministers — the so-called Eurogroup — they have a meeting on March 16, and on their agenda is first, the European Stability Mechanism, and then something else, and then only third, the coronavirus attack, and it is very clear that the reason why the reaction was so late, and why they didn’t use the word “pandemic,” because they were more concerned about the stock market, the efficiency and the profits coming from the so-called “pandemic bond” — which is an absurdity all by itself, that you would try to finance the cost of pandemics with bonds from which people can make a profit, but only if you have the maturity of the bond. So, I think the thinking is still very much dominated by the geopolitical idea: For example, yesterday, I was listening — and one should actually stop doing that! — I was listening to the ZDF news and this moderator reported about the coronavirus crisis, but then, instead of praising what the Chinese accomplished in Wuhan, he took the occasion to blast China and attack it, or to continue to attack Russia, China, that has to stop! Because if you look at it, the only way how humanity will get out of the crisis, is international cooperation. Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, has just telephoned the Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, and the Chinese offered share their experience, to send their experts; they’re donating masks, protective suits, and tests to Italy. This is a completely different approach. And I think the West has much to learn how to respond to challenges which all of humanity is facing. And this whole geopolitical thinking is really one of troglodytes and should be eliminated completely.

SCHLANGER: We see people like U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continuing to attack China; he calls coronavirus the “Wuhan virus” — you have this kind of attitude, when in fact, what we’re seeing is a significant drop of cases in China. And you mentioned earlier the importance of President Xi Jinping going to Wuhan to talk to the people who are on the front lines. I think it’s important to report this, Helga, because it’s not going out in the Western press.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I have proposed something, which may look impossible to some people, but I dare the prediction that the situation will — because of this ineffectiveness of Western response — that the situation will soon come to the point where more and more people are recognizing that what I’m saying is the only way to address this problem. What I have reiterated is my call to have an emergency summit by Xi Jinping, Putin, Trump, Modi, as a minimum combination, to address all these problems. Because it’s very clear that we need an international cooperation concerning the coronavirus pandemic. This is already threatening the international financial system: We saw, in the last several weeks, several plunges, absolutely of the same dimension as after the 2008 systemic collapse, or after the September 11, 2001 attack; and only because the central banks have now decided to flood the markets, to lower the interest rates — like the Bank of England lowered the interest rate by a half-percent, 50 basis points, today — as if the simple pushing of liquidity would remedy any of the real, physical causes for why the system is collapsing. So, I want to have a mobilization of the population to demand that the leaders of the most important governments — of the United States, Russia, China, and India — need to discuss the Four Points which were proposed by my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, in June 2014, because you need to have an immediate end of the global casino economy, by implementing a Glass-Steagall system; we have discussed this many times on this program, but it is the only combination of measures which would address the problem. Then, you need a national bank in every country; in Germany, we could extend the functions of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau; have a national bank in every other country; have an international cooperation among these national banks, reinstate fixed exchange rates, and then have agreements about industrial development projects, like the industrial development of Southwest Asia, of Africa, and this will become then, a New Bretton Woods system. There must be cooperation with the Chinese New Silk Road to have these kinds of development plans. And we need a crash program to go into a new platform of higher productivity of the economy, joint cooperation in advanced technologies, like fusion, like biophysics, like space research cooperation. And then, such a summit could implement these measures, and then could have a series of such summits, and that way change the geopolitics, and move towards an international cooperation, a shared future of humanity.

And that shift has to occur. And I’m predicting, and I think I’m on the safe side in doing so, that the crisis will accelerate, there will be many more unfortunate consequences, and people will recognize that to establish a completely different level of thinking will be the only way out for all of mankind.

If you agree with that, you should help this mobilization. There is a resolution, which is attachéd to this webcast [https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/four_laws_new], please sign it, please spread it among your friends and colleagues, get more people to sign it: Because we need a public discussion about this, and public demand that the whole world should move into a completely new way of cooperating and solving these kinds of problems.

SCHLANGER: I’ve received a few emails from people who have asked, why do we focus on “neo-liberalism” as the problem? What does that have to do with the virus? And I think it’s important to look at what Dr. Redfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had to say about the need to rebuild the system: That the so-called “just-in-time” system, which has been accepted as an economic model doesn’t work. We need redundancy. And Helga, I think it would be very useful for you to just review again, why this neo-liberal system is the cause, or sets humanity up for these kinds of crises. Because this is what your husband was warning, going back to 1971, with the Biological Holocaust Task Force he set up, and so on.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The prognosis of Lyndon LaRouche, which he made on Aug. 15, 1971, when Nixon dissolved the Bretton Woods system by going to floating exchange rates, by decoupling the dollar from the gold-reserve standard and that way, opening the deregulation of the markets which has escalated ever since. My husband at that point had made the prognosis that if the West would continue on this road, of liberalizing the markets, of going with neo-liberal, monetarist policies, that it would end up in a new depression and the danger of a new fascism; or, one would go to a completely new economic system.

Now, that prognosis has proven to be absolutely on the mark. And the Biological-Ecological Holocaust Task Force which you just mentioned, he set up in 1974, and it was to study the effects of the policies of the IMF and World Bank on the economic system, especially in the developing sector. And in meantime, we have produced many studies, which you can all see in our archives, that if you impose such austerity or zero growth policies, especially on the developing countries, that you would inevitably cause the emergence of old diseases and new diseases, because you cannot consistently lower the living standard of entire continents, as the IMF and World Bank have done in the last 50 years, without creating conditions of breakdown. And that is exactly what you see right now: Because you don’t have only the coronavirus crisis, you have the locust situation getting completely out of control in many African states, in the Horn of Africa, and in the Arabian Peninsula and Pakistan-India, even threatening to go into China.

Then, as part of this geopolitical, liberal scheme of the West, the refugee crisis: It’s not a natural phenomenon, it is the result of the interventionist wars conducted by the Bush Administrations and Obama, with the idea that you have to spread “democracy” and “human rights” and that it’s legitimate to made interventionist wars against Iraq — doesn’t matter if it’s based on lies that there are so-called weapons of mass destruction which Nancy Pelosi, in the meantime has admitted that they all knew it was lie and they did it anyway; Iraq, Afghanistan — these are all the reasons why you have a refugee crisis. The underdevelopment of Africa is a result of these policies.

So that is why I am saying, if we don’t get rid of this paradigm, which has many elements — it has geopolitics, it has neo-liberal economic policies; but it also a Malthusian dimension to it. The Green axiom which says that nature, or some spiders or some ants somewhere are more important than human beings; and I even go so far as to say that I think the reason why there is such an absolutely bestial attitude — I mean, on the coronavirus, do you think that most African countries or Asian and Latin American countries that do not have the health systems we have, do you think they are testing their people? I don’t think so. So the figures are in all likelihood completely off, and the ability of these countries to remedy it is much, much less. And I’m absolutely convinced that there are some people who say, “Oh, there are too many people anyway,” like Bertrand Russell, who said, you need a pandemic every generation — these are quotes we have published many times! And the absolutely disgusting way how the EU is dealing with the refugee crisis, now again erupting at the Turkish-Greek border, that is a mindset which is disgusting! And it is the reflection of geopolitics, of the Malthusian idea that there are too many people anyway.

Now, Erdoğan, obviously, is playing his own, terrible games. But I think in this moment, where innocent people who have nothing, — the whole thing is that these refugees, even if they’re sitting in camps for years on end, and have begun speaking Turkish, and now Erdoğan is instrumentalizing them, that may all be true — that’s what the Greeks are saying — but what is the solution to that? You have to stop insisting that you have regime change in Syria, that has to stop. There has to be recognition that the only legitimate government in Syria is the one which the Syrian people themselves elect. There was a constitutional process under way, which is now stopped again; that has to be resumed. There has to be an end to the war. Turkey should not be backed by NATO — this is an insane idea. The U.S. special envoy for Syria James Jeffrey just demanded that NATO should fully back up Turkey against Syria, that is complete insanity: What needs to be done is you have to have peace with Syria, and then you have to have an orderly negotiation between the Assad government and the opposition, to arrange for the return of the Syrians to their own country, which is what most people want to do, anyway.

So I think all of these assumptions, that you just keep going with the policies which have proven to be a failure, that that has to absolutely stop. I don’t see a sign that the European establishment is capable of doing it. That just means we need a mobilization of the population, because this is becoming a serious existential crisis for all of us, and we have to take responsibility to put in a new paradigm — a paradigm of cooperation, and then we can solve most problems; at least over time, we can find solutions to such problems as coronavirus. But we need to change the view of the West towards China and Russia, and this whole idea that regime change is allowed under the pretext of spreading democracy and human rights, is one of these imperial, colonialist ideas which have to go.

SCHLANGER: Another perfect example of that is the expansion of sanctions against Iran and Venezuela for regime change, in the face of this growing pandemic.

I’d like to come back to one other point, which I think you alluded to earlier, which is the financial crisis: We now see, if something is going to be quarantined, we ought to quarantine Wall Street and the Bank of England. The idea that lower interest rates will solve something, but what’s going on with the repo lending, the incredible demand for liquidity without any concern for solvency, this is the other aspect of Mr. LaRouche’s warnings over many years.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I don’t know how long this will continue. And I think what the central banks are proposing is completely irresponsible, because the continuous flooding of the markets with money, and the idea to go even to negative interests rates, all of this is already eating up the savings and life’s earnings of the population, and is threatening at some point to go into a hyperinflation. So these derivatives must be absolutely written off — this is why Glass-Steagall is so crucial — and I think the whole EU program as it was announced by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in this presence of this deplorable Greta Thunberg, that has to go, too! Because you cannot have an industrial state and implement these policies. I think if you want to have hospitals, if you want to have enough intensive care units to deal with such a situation, you have to have a productive society. And that Green policy of von der Leyen it has to go. We need the full package that I talked about before: Glass-Steagall, and the return to Hamiltonian banking, which every time there was a successful economic system in history, whether it was the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, whether it was the reconstruction of Germany in the postwar period, these were the principles which were applied, and that is what is urgently required.

SCHLANGER: And while this is all going on, we have this incredible soap opera in U.S. politics around the Democratic nomination. I think it would be very useful, as we come toward the end of this webcast, for you to emphasize again, what do you think people should do, to make sure we can change the paradigm? There’s a hunger for change, people are still extremely unhappy, and now, very nervous, both because of the financial crisis and the coronavirus, what should people do? How should they respond?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Since you mentioned the U.S. situation, I think it’s a big problem, because, unfortunately Trump said he had a hunch that the mortality rates of the coronavirus is much less than what the World Health Organization was saying. Now, I think that he’s probably saying that because of the election campaign and he thinks that this will intervene. But I think the reality will assert itself very quickly: This will come as fast as it came in Europe, maybe faster even, and the U.S. right now is really unprepared! The health delivery system was taking even more than in Europe. The Democrats have this Biden now as a major candidate — I can only advise people, there is a very interesting collection of videos which was published by Consortium News, the author is Caitlin Johnstone [https://consortiumnews.com/2020/03/06/stop-calling-it-a-stutter-dozens-of-examples-show-bidens-dementia-symptoms/], and she collected about 20 or so videos of speeches of Biden where you clearly can see that he doesn’t have it any more — he’s lost it. So the idea to somebody who has clear signs of aging (to put it mildly), to think that you can run him through the Democratic Convention, the election campaign, and then win the election in November against Trump, is also a sign of extreme mental deterioration of the people who think they can do that and get away with it.

So if you look at all of these things, we need a completely new thinking: We are in a Dark Age, the Dark Age is absolutely comparable to the 14th century when the Black Death killed one-third of the European population, and people just went crazy! You see signs of this insanity, already now, and we need therefore, a completely different approach, like it came with the 15th century and the Golden Renaissance in Italy. We can talk about that some other time, but, I think people have to really recognize, we are in a Dark Age, and we have to reject all the assumptions which have led to this present situation.

And I actually would like to make one other point: I think the coronavirus will force lockdowns, it will force measures, schools and universities are already closed for several weeks in several countries; you don’t know yet what will be the effect of all of this on the financial system, on the real economy, and I think on these circumstances, where Merkel is talking about 70% of the population will become infected, and if you assume worldwide it may be 100 million people, and then, if you take present mortality rates, it will be 2-4 million people — under these circumstances, we should not have war games. And therefore, I think we need to stop the present NATO maneuver in Eastern Europe, the Defender-Europe 2020: Because obviously, the virus does not stop in front of the military. And to have these kinds of things going on, when you have an immediate health threat to the population, is really something which doesn’t make any sense. So this NATO maneuver should stop. Presently I think the highest commander of the U.S. forces in Germany is a victim of the coronavirus and is in quarantine in Wiesbaden: So, that should just give people to think that the virus does not stop in the face of the military.

And I think we should go in the direction of mobilizing for the summit: I know people think that this is too big, but sometimes, when you are in a real crisis, only if you reach a completely new level of thinking, namely the idea that all the major countries of the world — the United States, Russia, China, and India, as a minimum; and then other countries can come together with these countries — only if you change the level of thinking, and the level of approach, can you find a solution. So if you agree with that, then help us in this mobilization, because, you know, we will do other things: We will call for the rebuilding of the health delivery system, there are other things we can do. But I think because of the complexity of the world situation, the interaction of all of the elements of the breakdown, that we will not solve the problem unless we go to a completely new paradigm, a new system of international relations, and you should help us in this mobilization, and that’s the very best thing you can do for your own life and your own future.

SCHLANGER: And I would recommend, toward that end, that people circulate this webcast, get this webcast around, so people can hear the extent of the crisis and the solutions; and secondly, go to our website, and download the call for emergency summit from Helga Zepp-LaRouche, take that to your city council, to your trade union group — well, maybe you shouldn’t go too far, but you can certainly use the internet to get it around and get people signing it and support it.

So, Helga, anything else you want to add?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. I think this is a moment where people will be freaked out and it’s understandable: But sometimes a shock is also healthy if it helps you to get out of a wrong idea, and to think things through and then move ahead and find a solution. So, I would urge people to overcome your present fears and be confident that if we work together as one humanity, we can solve this.

SCHLANGER: OK, well, with that, we’ll see you again, next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

Opdateret den 8 marts 2020

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, præsident for Schiller Instituttet

De fleste sundhedseksperter betegner nu officielt coronavirus som en pandemi, og kun et fåtal undgår dette udtryk for ikke at ‘puste for meget til’ markederne og investeringerne i “pandemiske obligationer’. Det står også klart, at denne pandemi vil være dødsstødet for det i øvrigt allerede bankerotte finanssystem, hvor det største aktiemarkedskollaps siden 2008, det hidtil usete fald i udbyttet på 10-årige amerikanske statsobligationer og meddelelsen fra Bostons centralbankdirektør, Eric Rosengren, om at gå over til ”helikopterpenge”, er alarmerende og ubestridelige signaler.

I stedet for at tage ved lære af Kina, som ifølge WHO har sat en ny standard for håndtering af en sådan krise, har de fleste regeringer (Italien og Japan er undtagelser) ikke brugt den tre måneder lange varselstid, som de fik på grund af Kinas effektive alarmberedskab. Det er chokerende – men ikke overraskende – hvor fuldstændig uformående det liberale etablissement har vist sig at være i forhold til at reflektere over det faktum, at det er deres politik, der er årsagen til at hele den menneskelige civilisation nu er truet, og i forhold til at drage konklusionerne og ændre deres fremgangsmåder.
Allerede i 1974 oprettede Lyndon LaRouche en økologisk-biologisk ‘Holocaust- arbejdsgruppe’ for at undersøge virkningerne af IMF og Verdensbankens politik for nedskæring af fødevare- og energiforbrug samt sundhedsudgifter i udviklingslandene – der viste at dette ville føre til biologiske katastrofer, fremkomsten af gamle og nye sygdomme og pandemier. I de følgende årtier offentliggjorde LaRouche og hans bevægelse mange flere advarsler samt fremlagde konkrete udviklingsprogrammer for alle kontinenter, hvis udførelse ville have forhindret den nuværende krise i at komme ud af kontrol.

Selvfølgelig vil de såkaldt industrialiserede lande på en eller anden måde klare krisen, men til hvilken pris? På grund af privatiseringen – dvs. profitorienteringen – af sundhedssektoren, er der nu alt for få senge til intensiv behandling. Den belgiske læge og leder af den nationale lægefagforening, Dr. Philippe Devos, har netop advaret om, at denne mangel vil føre til nedprioritering af gamle mennesker for de unges skyld, når antallet af tilfælde overstiger antallet af tilgængelige faciliteter til intensiv behandling, hvilket han forventer vil ske. Vil vi vende tilbage til skråplanet med at afslutte “uværdige liv”, som blev fordømt i Nürnberg-retssagerne?

Og hvad med de fattige lande, som ikke engang har kapacitet til test, endsige behandling? Hvad med lande som Haiti, Nigeria og Bangladesh? Hvad med Iran, hvor sanktionerne af medicinske forsyninger helt klart allerede forårsager unødige tab af mange menneskeliv?

Hvad med græshoppeplagen i afrikanske og asiatiske lande, en fare, som har været kendt i mange måneder, og hvor den latterligt lille påkrævede økonomiske hjælp på $ 76 millioner ikke er blevet ydet, så der nu er fare for, at græshoppesværmene udvikler sig til en fuldgyldig invasion, der truer millioner af menneskers liv i løbet af kort tid?

Hvad med de barbariske optrin ved den græsk-tyrkiske grænse, hvor politi fra begge sider bruger tåregas mod flygtninge; hvor den ene side muligvis “iscenesætter” disse mennesker, der absolut ingenting ejer, men den anden side, ikke mindre barbarisk, forsøger at opretholde ”beskyttelsen” af EU’s ydre grænser? Tror EU-etablissementet virkelig, at de kan bygge en ny ‘Limes-linje’ rundt om Europa, (Limes Germanicus var den befæstede grænse, der adskilte Romerriget fra de germanske stammer, red.) mens Sydvestasien og Afrika sprænges indad af en coronavirus-pandemi, en græshoppeplage, sult og desperation?

Dette etablissement vendte det blinde øje til Bush- og Obama-administrationernes interventionskrige, som trods alt er hovedårsagen til flygtningekrisen. De har ikke haft nogen interesse i at opbygge infrastruktur i Afrika i de seneste årtier, hovedsageligt på grund af deres neo-malthusianske ideologi. Har de i virkeligheden accepteret ideen om at lade denne pandemi og denne græshoppeplage følge deres ”naturlige gang”? Og falder dette ikke i tråd med den grønne ideologi, der forkynder at det er godt for miljøet at have færre mennesker?

Der er en løsning på denne eksistentielle krise, men når den såkaldte ”elite” er moralsk uegnet til at indføre de nødvendige reformer, har vi brug for en bred mobilisering af befolkningen, der må blive ”statsborgere” (Staatsbürger). Der må være et udbredt, folkeligt krav om, at de førende lande i verden – startende med USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – støttet af andre – må gennemføre følgende trin i omorganiseringen af det nuværende finanssystem:

1) Der må omgående indføres et globalt system med bankadskillelse, efter nøje forbillede af Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov af den 16. juni 1933. Inden for dette system skal de almindelige banker stilles under statslig beskyttelse og adskilles fuldstændigt med en brandmur fra de spekulative investeringsbanker, der ikke længere har adgang til de almindelige bankers formuer eller til skatteyderbetalte redningsaktioner. Disse bankers giftige papirer, indbefattet løbende derivatkontrakter, skal afskrives. Berettigede fordringer, der har med den reelle økonomi at gøre eller med den arbejdende befolknings pensioner og andre formueværdier, skal også anerkendes som gyldige i det nye system. Visse former for betalingskrav må dog foreløbig indefryses og undersøges af statslige institutioner for deres berettigelse.

2) Der må oprettes en nationalbank i alle lande, i traditionen fra Alexander Hamiltons Bank of the United States eller i stil med den tyske Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau efter 2. Verdenskrig, således at statslige kreditter kan forsyne den fysiske økonomi med de nødvendige midler for produktive investeringer. Udstedelsen af disse kreditter må rette sig efter principperne om en høj energistrømningstæthed og en optimal forøgelse af produktionsmidlernes og arbejdskraftens produktivitet gennem en betoning af videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt.

3) Mellem deltagerlandene må der indføres et system med faste valutakurser, og der skal indgås samarbejdsaftaler mellem suveræne stater angående nøje definerede infrastruktur- og udviklingsprojekter. Disse aftaler udgør tilsammen faktisk et nyt Bretton Woods-system i Roosevelts forstand, med det udtrykkelige formål at fremme udviklingslandenes udvikling.

4) Den yderst nødvendige forøgelse af verdensøkonomiens produktivitet for at kunne forsørge en global befolkning på næsten otte milliarder mennesker i dag må tilvejebringes gennem et internationalt hasteprogram, for at virkeliggøre fusionsenergi og andre avancerede teknologier, såsom optisk biofysik og biovidenskaberne, for at kunne finde løsninger på problemer som coronavirus, såvel som et internationalt samarbejde inden for rumfart og rumteknologi; dette kan skabe den nødvendige næste økonomiske platform for verdensøkonomien, sådan som økonomen Lyndon LaRouche har udviklet det.
Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, der blev indledt af præsident Xi Jinping, og som 157 lande allerede har tilsluttet sig, tilbyder et konkret perspektiv for at bringe den industrielle udvikling til Sydvestasien og Afrika, hvilket der er et presserende behov for. Kina har tilbudt at samarbejde med alle lande på planeten i et ‘win-win-samarbejde’ om at udvide Den Nye Silkevej til Sydvestasien og Afrika og på denne måde give et konkret udviklingsperspektiv, hvilket er den eneste humane måde at løse flygtningekrisen på. USA og alle europæiske nationer må og skal samarbejde om denne plan.

Vi, de undertegnede, retter denne indtrængende appel til de nævnte regeringer om nu at handle i dette øjeblik med dets voldsomme udfordringer for hele menneskehedens sikkerhed og eksistens, for at korrigere fejlene i det nuværende system der førte til den øjeblikkelige krise, og vende tilbage til principperne for det almene vel, nationalstatens suverænitet, fødevare- og energisikkerhed, medens vi antager en vision for menneskehedens fælles mål og et fremtidigt fællesskab for menneskeheden.

Der er intet bedre tidspunkt til at gennemføre disse nødvendige forandringer end lige nu, her i Beethoven-året, hvor hans monumentale værk udgør et smukt billede af et nyt mønster for en bedre fremtid for menneskeslægten.

Underskriv gerne på: https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/four_laws_global

Jacques Cheminade, LaRouche-bevægelsens leder i Frankrig og fhv. præsidentkandidat, og Tom Gillesberg på en tidligere konference.

Den 4. februar 2020 organiserede det franske Schiller Institut et meget vellykket seminar i Paris med titlen: “Dialog mellem Kulturerne eller Handelskrig: Frankrig ved en skillevej.” Tæt ved hundrede personer – kontakter, diplomater, foreninger, iværksættere og Kinaeksperter – fyldte lokalet på rådhuset i Paris’ 5. arrondissement. Såvel Schiller Instituttets internationale grundlægger og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche som formand for det danske Schiller Institut, Tom Gillesberg, sendte varme hilsner samt meddelelser til begivenheden.

Meddelelse fra Tom Gillesberg, formand for det Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:

Jeg er ked af, at jeg på grund af sygdom ikke kan være med jer i dag, men her er nogle tanker jeg gerne vil dele med jer.

I Danmark, og i resten af Skandinavien, har vi gennem de sidste par år set en voksende kampagne i medierne – og med støtte fra efterretningstjenester og regeringsinstitutioner – for at dæmonisere Kina, i lighed med, hvad der igennem nogen tid har været tilfældet for Rusland. Presset kommer fra USA og deres kontrollanter i Storbritannien, og udøves ofte gennem “soft power” ved at sprede historier om Kina såvel som Rusland der skal vise, at de er diktaturer, som man virkelig ikke kan stole på. På det seneste er dette set i den massive kampagne imod at lade det kinesiske firma Huawei, verdens førende leverandør af G5-teknologi, levere udstyret til det nye G5-netværk i Danmark og på Færøerne. Nogle prøver endda at bruge udbruddet af en ny form for koronavirus i Wuhan som et eksempel på, hvordan Kina og dets indflydelse verden over bringer os alle i fare.

Derfor besluttede Schiller Instituttet i Danmark i 2017 at imødegå denne voksende fjendtliggørelse med et projekt for en “Dialog mellem Kulturerne”. Sammen med venner, der var aktive i det dansk-russiske samfund, arrangerede vi en koncert, hvor vi havde klassisk musik og dans fra Rusland, Kina, Afrika, Indonesien og mange europæiske lande, for at vise, hvor berigede vi alle bliver ved at få adgang til alle disse andre nationers kultur. Kinas Kulturinstitut i København var også medsponsor, og arrangementet blev afholdt i det russiske Center for Videnskab og Kultur.

Koncerten var en stor succes. Vi havde en fuldt pakket sal, og på trods af at vi fik ekstra stole bragt ind, var vi nødt til at afvise mange der kom. Publikum blev imponeret og bevæget af mangfoldigheden og skønheden af bidragene ved koncerten. Især afsyngningen af en kinesisk folkesang af en kinesisk studerende sammen med Feride Istogu Gillesberg, vicepræsident for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og hovedorganisator af begivenheden, betog publikum. Hvordan er det muligt, at en europæer kan synge på kinesisk og skabe så bevægende og smuk musik?

Siden dengang har vi haft yderligere to meget succesfulde koncerter, med fremtrædende og smuk deltagelse fra både russiske og kinesiske musikere, og musikere af høj kvalitet fra mange andre lande. Vi er blevet lovet, at den årlige koncert i 2020 kan finde sted i Kinas kulturcenters nyistandsatte faciliteter i København, som snart åbner.

Samtidigt har vi forsøgt at få information om Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet ud til offentligheden på enhver måde, vi kan. I København afholdt Schiller Instituttet et seminar sammen med ‘Confucian Business Institute’ ved CBS, og i Sverige har Schiller Instituttet samarbejdet om stiftelsen af BRIX, Bælte- og Vej-Instituttet i Sverige. BRIX har afholdt en række seminarer med pæn deltagelse fra akademikere og industrifolk, der er blevet adresseret i fællesskab af den kinesiske ambassadør og ledende medlemmer af BRIX og Schiller Instituttet. På samme tid har vi interveneret i mange møder og diskussioner om Kina, der finder sted  i Danmark og Sverige, for at sikre, at den rigtige historie om Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet – og nødvendigheden af at de vestlige landes aktivt deltager i dette store foretagende for menneskeheden – kommer ud, så de løgne og falske bagtalelser om det i ‘mainstream’ medierne bliver modsagt.

Som det ses med udbruddet af det nye koronavirus i Wuhan er der mange udfordringer, når man søger at løfte 1,4 milliarder mennesker ud af dyb fattigdom og at blive en moderne nation. På trods af fremragende nationalt lederskab, kan lokal inkompetence skabe store problemer. Men jeg er sikker på, at Kina vokser med udfordringen, og vi ser nu, at den kinesiske regering intet sparer for at besejre denne trussel imod menneskeheden bestående af sygdom og død.

Da den nationale regering først blev opmærksom på epidemien, handlede den hurtigt for at besejre den. Oplysninger om koronavirus blev hurtigt sendt ud over hele verden, og resten af verden kunne forsvare sig mod sygdommen på en måde, som den lokale regering i Wuhan undlod at gøre. Og forhåbentligt vil samarbejdet mellem Kina og medicinske forskningscentre i resten af verden snart føre til behandling og en vaccine. I mellemtiden yder Kina enorme menneskelige og økonomiske ofre for at få epidemien under kontrol, og udgør menneskehedens bolværk imod en verdensomspændende pandemi.

Forhåbentligt vil de enorme ressourcer, som nu indsættes i Kina, og med hjælp fra verdenssamfundet, bære frugt, og besejre den nye koronavirus. Og forhåbentlig bliver det et eksempel på, hvordan Kina og verden kan arbejde sammen om en endnu farligere dræber: fattigdom. Kina har vist, hvordan det har været muligt at løfte 850 millioner kinesere ud af dyb fattigdom. Og med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet har de igangsat det største udviklingsprojekt, som menneskeheden nogensinde har set. Vi behøver fuldt internationalt samarbejde for at sikre sejr over fattigdom overalt i verden, ved at anvende videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt til først at etablere den nødvendige infrastruktur, og derefter den nødvendige industrielle udvikling, til at løfte hele menneskeheden ud af fattigdom.

Men hvis Danmark og andre vestlige lande skal deltage i disse, for menneskeheden nødvendige tiltag, må vi først besejre det mentale angreb, der finder sted imod befolkningens sindelag. Kina og Rusland er ikke vores fjender, men er vores vigtige samarbejdspartnere i sikringen af den bedst mulige fremtid for hele menneskeheden. Lad os derfor erstatte den kunstigt skabte frygt og splittelse med en dialog mellem kulturerne, og lad os alle deltage i Bælte- og Ve-Initiativet. Så vil vi se en verdensomspændende renæssance af de bedste bidrag fra alle de forskellige kulturer, og vi vil se en eksplosion af menneskelig kreativitet og udvikling, der ikke alene forvandler livet på Jorden, men også vores solsystem, og det der ligger derudover, når vi får ubegrænset billig energi på Jorden ved at høste helium-3 på Månen og bruge det til fusionsenergi, som kineserne har tænkt sig at gøre.

Se på ‘Verdens-Landbroen’. Dette er det levende billede af de smukke ord, som vi hører i Beethovens 9. symfoni:

Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt!
Brüder! über’m Sternenzelt
muss ein lieber Vater wohnen.

Vær omfavnede, millioner!
Dette kys til hele verden!
Brødre, over stjerneteltet
må der bo en kærlig far.

Og den kærlige far bliver realiseret gennem vores handlinger; mænds og kvinders handlinger for at forandre verden til det bedre.

Lydfil:

Magnettog over Kattegat: Tom Gillesberg på Radio 4
Den 20. januar 2020 kontaktede programmet 4- toget på den nye nationale radiostation Radio4 Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og tidligere kandidat til Folketinget, og interviewede ham i 18 minutter om at opføre en magnettoglinje på tværs af Kattegat (en del af Toms slogan til Folketinget i 2007 var »Efter finanskrakket – magnettog over Kattegat«). Dette skete dagen efter, at regeringen besluttede at videreføre en forundersøgelse af bygningen af en kommende Kattegatbro, men i modsætning til den forrige regering, inkludere en togforbindelse.

Tom Gillesberg havde mulighed for at diskutere mange ting, deriblandt: Kina og Japan udvikler nye magnettog; Den Nye Silkevej; fordelen ved at gå til et højere teknologisk niveau; at tænke ud fra fremtidens teknologier og ikke reparere tidligere teknologier; at broen kunne betale sig selv ved at øge produktiviteten i den samlede økonomi; at han kunne forudsige det økonomiske nedsmeltning i 2008, fordi han lyttede til Lyndon LaRouche; behovet for videnskabelig og teknologisk fremskridt, inklusive fusionsenergi, i stedet for at blive et friluftsmuseum med forældede teknologier som træflis og vindmøller. Efterfølgende sagde en af værterne, »Jeg håber, at DSB lyttede med. Det var oplysning, om noget.«

Her er interviewet på 4-Togets podcast. Interviewet er fra tidspunktet 6:21 til 25:11:

Her er vores optagelse mens vi lyttede til interviewet:



Interviewet med Tom Gillesberg er også tilgængeligt på www.radio4.dk/programmer/ . Kik efter program 4-togets podcast side den 20. januar 2020 time 2, tidspunktet 6:21 til 25:11.

Fra Transport og Boligministeriet pressemeddelelse den 19. januar 2020:

Billedet fra Transportministeriet.

Regeringen vil fortsat undersøge en fast forbindelse over Kattegat

Regeringen har besluttet at videreføre den igangværende forundersøgelse af en fast forbindelse over Kattegat, som blandt andet ser på mulighederne for en kombineret vej- og jernbaneforbindelse. Transportministeren offentliggør i dag delkommissorierne for de videre undersøgelser.

19. januar 2020

Regeringen ser store perspektiver i en fast Kattegatforbindelse, som vil kunne binde Øst- og Vestdanmark tættere sammen og forkorte rejsetiden mellem landets to største byer med op til halvanden time for både bilister og togrejsende. Regeringen har derfor videreført forundersøgelsen af projektet på finansloven, ligesom regeringen i dag offentliggør delkommissorierne for undersøgelserne.

Regeringen er optaget af, at vi med forundersøgelsen får belyst de klima- og miljømæssige aspekter ved at anlægge en fast Kattegatforbindelse.

– Det er afgørende, at vi undersøger en kombineret vej- og jernbaneforbindelse og ikke bare en ren vejforbindelse, som den forhenværende minister oprindeligt ønskede, siger transportminister Benny Engelbrecht ….

Resten af pressemeddelelsen kan læses her.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche bragte klarhed til en situation, som har efterladt mange mennesker forvirrede, desorienterede og/eller fatalistiske, mens de prøver at forklare den strategiske fare i kølvandet på USA’s snigmord på den iranske leder Soleimani. Begyndende med Putins stærke advarsler i løbet af hans tale til nationen, påpegede hun, at der er betydningsfulde personligheder, som forstår hvorfor et hastetopmøde mellem Trump, Putin og Xi er nødvendigt, såsom den tidligere tyske forsvarsembedsmand Willy Wimmer, der sagde, at snigmordet satte verden på randen af tredje verdenskrig.

Hun gennemgik den britiske rolle i denne krises udvikling, fulgte dens rødder tilbage til midten af det 19. og det 20. århundredes imperiale geopolitik, frem til deres rolle i at forme krigsfraktionen i USA i dag. Krigskampagnen finder sted samtidigt med, at det neoliberale finanssystem accelerer mod et kollaps. I denne sammenhæng er det indtrængende nødvendigt, at vores seere og støtter forstår hvordan et samarbejde imellem stormagterne, på de strategiske og økonomiske områder, er den eneste måde hvorpå farerne skabt af imperiet kan overvindes.

Hun opfordrede seerne til at deltage i mobiliseringen, og at mestre de store idéer der er nødvendige for at forhindre at blive fanget i de fælder, der stilles af dem der nægter at erkende, at hvis vi forbliver i deres paradigme, vil det føre til menneskehedens udryddelse.

Afskrift på engelsk:

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, January 15, 2020

With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Day of Action for a Unique Solution: Build Peace through a Trump, Putin, Xi Summit

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, welcome to our webcast today with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is Jan. 15th, 2020: Today is an International Day of Action by the Schiller Institute and LaRouche PAC, to bring together the forces in the United States and around the world to insist upon an emergency summit of Presidents Trump, Putin and Xi to address the crisis that’s emerged between the United States and Iran. Helga, this was your call: You made this emergency resolution. How would you think this is going to function? It’s going to require the American people, especially, to demand this, isn’t it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Because, as we have gone into this mobilization to try to suggest to many people in the world, and in the United States and Europe, that such a summit must occur, to get out of the danger of confrontation which is now clearly escalating, and not really resolved at all between the United States and Iran, that you have to have a different level of approaching this whole question. We were talking to many, many people in the streets, in other discussions

… remarkable confusion in the population. You had people who said, there is no war danger, Trump has it all under control; or, it’s too late anyway. So people had absolutely emotional reactions and very little understanding of why we are saying this war danger exists.

So, today as you mentioned, we have an International Day of Action: We had friends of the Schiller Institute and associates mobilizing on five continents. We were in New York, near the Trump Tower, the United Nations; many other cities in the United States, but also Stockholm, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Berlin, Paris, even in Australia; and Latin America, Lima, Peru. We tried to put this same focus on the agenda on five continents around the globe, trying to intersect with many political forces around the world, with the idea to create a chorus, a chorus of people demanding that we were on the verge of World War III, and that is not an exaggeration at all. And we absolutely must change the agenda, because if you leave things as they are right now, the danger that things could go out of control completely is imminent.

This was, by the way, not only our view: Today, Putin gave his state of the nation address before the Federal Assembly, and there he basically picked up on the same line, saying that if you look at the developments in the recent weeks in Southwest Asia and North Africa — clearly referring to Libya — that we are in a situation where a regional conflict very clearly could become something affecting the whole global security situation. And he said it’s absolutely high time that the five founders of the United Nations, start to really establish a new order which makes these dangers impossible, and start to discuss the principles on which such a new order has to be built. I don’t disagree with that: If you have a meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the important thing is that you have the three most powerful nations sitting already at the table — namely, the United States, Russia, and China. You have, then two others, France and Great Britain, which I understand Putin’s position that he would make a suggestion like that. I think given the fact that Macron, in the recent period, has made several statements and taken action to make the point that no solution can be found without Russia, I think France could even play a positive, or at least neutral role. The big question, naturally, is the British role, but having three of the most powerful nations, they would have less opportunity to do their usual kind of destabilization.

So I think the important thing about it is that Putin, obviously, in the same way, sees the danger of this escalation. Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, suggested Russia to mediate in the relationship between the United States and Iran; and so, I think that is all going in the right direction.

But, it’s really important that people do not just say, “this is my opinion, there’s going to be war, or Trump has it all under control.” I have studied, and I know you have, Harley, we have studied this matter of how the situation in Iran, in particular, could be the cockpit for a global nuclear escalation, and this is not something we are saying on the top of our head, just saying it like that, but there are certain principles: Because if you target Iran, it is really Russia and China, and anybody who has studied the history of the region, and looked at the question of geopolitics, going way back to the inventors of geopolitics — Haushofer, Mackinder, Milner — before that, you know that it’s not Iran which is at stake, but it is really Russia and also nowadays, China.

I would urge people not to be opinionated about this: Study military history, study what we have published in many articles about it in the past; study why even the use of even one nuclear weapon has immediately the danger of an uncontrollable global nuclear war. And take it seriously, because it is.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned that there are some people who think that this kind of statement from you is an overreaction. But I think we’re actually getting some very interesting reflections of people who are saying something very close to what you are: for example, Willy Wimmer, a former official in the German Defense Ministry for many years; even Wolfgang Ischinger of the Munich Security Conference, issued a strong statement talking about why Putin is the one who should be involved in this. This is actually reflecting that there are some people who see what you’re saying.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think that Willy Wimmer put out a new statement today, on the day of Putin’s address to the nation, where he said that with the assassination of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, we are on the verge of a global war, and that is completely appropriate to talk about the danger of an imminent third world war. I think this is really important, because we’re not saying this to scare people, or to just create panic. But unless you realize that that danger exists, and I think also the fact that Angela Merkel went to Moscow with Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, and then very quickly — not all of a sudden, but relatively quickly, they have now organized a conference on the Libya situation for this coming Sunday in Berlin, where Merkel has invited both Trump and Putin! Now, there is so far no confirmation that either one of them is coming. From the U.S., it’s only Pompeo and O’Brien, but I think this also reflects a recognition that you have to bring people to the negotiation table.

Now, concerning the Libya issue as such, the military leader of the Libya National Army Khalifa Haftar, has not signed the ceasefire agreement, which he could have signed in Moscow, but it’s not ruled out that he will attend the Berlin conference. But I think there is a general recognition among older people who have the experience of world war, in Europe for sure — I think in the United States it’s different for the very reason that the United States has not been involved in any international war which would have affected American soil; the United States obviously was involved in many foreign wars, but they never had the experience of having a war on American territory since the Civil War. And that is very different in Europe, where especially Germany, I think there is a deep, deep — I would almost say a genetic memory in the Germany population, at least the older ones, who know what the horrors of world war are. And I think therefore, this whole push by Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the German defense minister, to now push to send German troops to Iraq, German troops in Africa, German Navy in South China Sea — this goes very much against the experience of Germany in two world wars.

The French and the British have a slightly different attitude because of their colonialist background, but I think that there are many people who really understand that this is a very grave situation — and Wolfgang Ischinger, of all people, he’s the head of the Munich Security Conference, he’s a completely dyed-in-the-wool Atlanticist, and he says Putin is absolutely crucial to get him involved in this situation. So, this all reflects that people really got shocked when this assassination of Soleimani happened. I know some people in the United States also don’t have that same view, but this has a very erosive effect on the international order: It has a bad effect on Kim Jon Un, for sure, because he will now remember what Bolton had said about Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi, and the North Korea thing is at a halt in any case. But it also has a bad effect what should young people around the world think, if you can simply do these kinds of things.

And I’m not blaming Trump, because Trump is in a completely difficult situation, because he’s surrounded by the same people whom he had attacked not very long ago as “the military-industrial complex,” and the Articles of Impeachment could be introduced into the Senate today.

But I think it’s also very clear, we cannot continue on this line, especially because it clearly shows the hand of the British in the design of this whole escalation.

SCHLANGER: And one of the obvious points is that President Putin is very active, at this moment. You see him with the Libya situation; you see him intervened in Syria — he was just in Syria recently to meet with Assad; he’s intervening in Ukraine with Zelensky; and also now offering to mediate in Iran. One of the major points in the attack on Trump, was to keep him from working with Putin, which brings me to this question you raised about the British role: The British were caught in the act of stirring up some of the regime-change sentiments in Iran, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry called them on that. What was that about, Helga — the British ambassador in Tehran?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Before I say something about that, let me just add, that Putin, in his speech of today, also said that Russia would open all historic archives concerning the Second World War, because it was extremely important to reestablish truth and facts, instead of the lies going around the globe on these issues. Which brings me to remind people that President Trump could also release all documents, because the role of the British in Russiagate, in the whole Christopher Steele affairs — I mean, there is the weapon of releasing documents, and I think that that is absolutely crucial.

Now, the Iranian Foreign Ministry completely attacked the role of the British ambassador in Tehran, who apparently even started the demonstrations against the Rouhani government. As you remember, there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets in Tehran and other Iranian cities, after the assassination of Soleimani, but then, when the Ukrainian aircraft was shot down by mistake by the Iranians, and it now looks and that’s what the Iranians have vowed to totally investigate, you had students in Tehran and many other cities, in anti-government/pro-American stance, which apparently was led, or triggered, or at least manipulated by the British ambassador. And the Iranian government — I think Rouhani himself — said the British should not forget that they’re no longer the Empire, where the Sun doesn’t set around the globe, and they basically threatened retaliation if this would not stop.

I think this is very important: Because if you look at it, at the surface, naturally, it’s Trump, it’s Pompeo, it’s the U.S. government who’s in this showdown with Iran. But, it goes back, way back — we had talked about this already last time, but I want to repeat it — it goes back to the doctrine of geopolitics, of absolutely preventing the countries of the so-called Eurasian land-mass to cooperate economically; it goes back to the “Great Game” of the 19th century against Russia; it goes back to the Bernard Lewis doctrine, the Samuel Huntington “Clash of Civilizations,” Brzezinski playing the Islamic card — there is a long historical tradition of trying to manipulated this region. The Sykes-Picot agreement during World War I was set up to create the conditions after the war for future manipulation. So you have to take all of that into account to then see how this recent escalation was set up: I mentioned it in my statement from Jan. 3: [https://larouchepac.com/20200103/helga-zepp-larouche-statement-assassination-qasem-soleimani] that the whole setup was prepared, when Bolton, in April of 2019 put the entire Revolutionary Guard — that is, the Iranian army — on the terrorist list. Because, according to that logic, then, any kind of attack would be sufficient to make such strikes. You know, they have a long drone list anyway. So, then Trump, after the Iranians shot down the drone, I think it was June, in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said (who knows what egged him on, or what was the environment), he said, if one more American is killed, then he would consider strikes against Iran. Now, that is a difficult and dangerous thing to say for any state leader — remember, this was Obama saying this red line concerning Syria, which almost led to an attack on Syria by the United States in 2013; and we now know, through the cables which were leaked, that the British ambassador in Washington at that time, Sir Kim Darroch, he wrote in cables back to London that it just takes an attack on one more American, and then there will be war, or strikes against Iran. He also, in these same cables, wrote that it was his job, as British ambassador in Washington, to “flood the zone,” meaning that they should influence all the people Trump is talking to, that Trump would have a habit of telephoning in the evening to people in Washington and elsewhere to try to find out what their thinking was, this Darroch basically said, we have to control this entire environment; we have to whisper into Trump’s ears, so that we create a completely controlled environment. And that was the setting!

And then, if you look how, even after Bolton is out, Pompeo is essentially continuing exactly the role Bolton had before. And if you look at the speech he gave at the Hoover Institution in Stanford University on Jan. 13, it is an incredibly bloodcurdling speech, which clearly is not the same intention as Trump. But people should watch this Pompeo speech in Stanford, to get a sense of what is the environment Trump is in. [https://www.hoover.org/news/secretary-state-pompeo-addresses-stanford-universitys-hoover-institution-following-strike-irans]

SCHLANGER: I think one of the important things in Darroch’s cables, was a reaction when Trump stopped the attack against Iran, when the U.S. drone was shot down: That angered the British terribly, because they thought that was going to cause a reaction, but Darroch wrote: One more act like that could cause another turnaround for Trump.

I wanted to mention one other thing about this British ambassador to Tehran, who was apparently at one of the memorial services when he was involved in leading a walkout of students in a demonstration, very much reminded me of Victoria Nuland handing out cookies and $5 billion in Maidan square in the Ukraine situation in 2014.

Helga, one of the important things which is also part of the context for this situation, is the ongoing disintegration of the neo-liberal economic system, and this is something which there’s been very little focus on, because with the impeachment, with the danger of war, there has hasn’t been a whole lot said about it. But you’ve been following this thing very closely — what’s the latest with the helicopter money and the insane effort to try and keep this system going?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we are in clearly approaching the helicopter money phase of this meltdown of the system. Yesterday, alone, the Federal Reserve pumped into another $82 billion in repo money, and it is now reported that this will go on, probably, until mid-February at least, but it may go on until summer. Jim Rogers, who is the cofounder of the Quantum Fund — together with Soros, he’s now separated from Soros — but he said, that the debt after 2008 has “skyrocketed” everywhere, and that he foresees a “horrible end,” that the central banks will keep pumping money up to the point where many investors will say, look, we don’t want this anymore, and then there will be a big crisis, and they will pump even more money, and then it will come to a horrible end. And he said, this will be the worst thing I have ever experienced in my whole life.

Now, take it for what it is — it’s the opinion of somebody who’s part of this same system, but I think it is useful to remind people that we absolutely need the Four Laws suggested by my late husband: Glass-Steagall globally, immediately; we need a national bank in every country; we need an international credit system, a New Bretton Woods system; and if there is such a UN Security Council meeting, it’s either that body of the G20, or some combination thereof, but since they will not do it, this is why we push for the summit of Xi Jinping, Putin, and Trump, as an absolute, urgent intervention to bring the world into order, not only on the question of the war danger, but also to say this system is about to blow, we have to have this package proposed by Lyndon LaRouche.

One immediate situation is Argentina. Yesterday, the largest province of Argentina, the Buenos Aires, on Jan. 6, this happened already, they could not pay $250 million. The federal government in Argentina said they couldn’t bail out that province, either, and there’s more money coming due. And if this turns out and develops into a complete debt crisis, you will have the derivatives problem with the swaps, and this could be the trigger for the collapse of the system. And there are many other such triggers.

So that all underlines the absolutely urgent need to really go for a reform, a reorganization for this entire financial system before it is too late.

SCHLANGER: I think it’s important, also, that if you look at the fourth of the LaRouche’s Four Laws, the science-driver side of it, it’s a perfect opportunity for the United States to work with China, with the Belt and Road Initiative, with space cooperation, and also what you’ve called for, in terms of dealing with Southwest Asia, these new platforms of infrastructure. And yet, we see, again, the crazed anti-China lobby in the United States Congress and the media, saying that China’s the enemy, when, in fact, working with China would be the solution, wouldn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the whole world would greatly profit: Instead of trying to contain China, — Pence, for example, made another raving speech against China; Pompeo compared China again to, I think Stalin, or something — it’s just completely out of this world.

If you look, really, at what China is doing, naturally, they’re growing, their economy is doing better than the economies of many other countries, but why? Because they continue to put emphasis on innovation, they just announced that they have now the first smart, high-speed, autonomous railway — I find this completely fascinating, because they have prepared this new railway, which will go between Beijing for the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in 2022, to all the different cities where the actual Olympics are taking place. Normally it would take 3 hours by train to get to these places in some mountainous regions; but with this smart, fast train, it will go down from 3 hours to 1 hour and even 45 minutes. This will be a train which will have an automatic driver — there is a human in it for emergencies who can intervene, but otherwise, it’s full automated; robots will help passengers to check in; there will be G5 technology, everything will be completely digitized. And I think this is really incredible.

So rather than trying to contain that, which you will not be able to do, unless you want to have World War III and extinguish the whole human species, why not cooperate with China? China has offered this many times, and even in his recent New Year’s speech, Xi Jinping offered to all nations to participate and cooperate, and I think that’s the only way to go.

If you look at Southwest Asia, we have had many discussions, and people have a hard time to imagine, what is “building the peace.” There are left groups who are anti-war, and while it is important to be anti-war and to warn against the dangers, that is not sufficient: You have to know how to build the peace. And if we would really work together with the United States, Russia, China, India, hopefully the European countries, to reconstruct the war-torn areas of Southwest Asia, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, it would be really easy to have a gigantic reconstruction. And my husband, in a video some years ago, said, look this region has been at war for thousands of years, because we have this historic tribal, and ethnic, and religious contradictions. But is that the condition for mankind for eternity? I don’t think so. There are also incredible traditions in this region, for example, the Persian history had an incredibly rich culture! The Caliphate of Baghdad of al-Mansur and Harun al-Rashid, they turned Baghdad at that time into the most developed city of the world, around 800 BCE. They brought in all the knowledge from around the world, all the people who would bring discoveries, and technologies, they would be weighed in gold, and at that time Baghdad was the most knowledgeable and most developed city.

So there are ways how you can reconnect, with Persian history, with the whole tradition of the ancient Silk Road, which went through this entire region. So there is absolutely the possibility to create peace. It would only function if — the first condition is Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping have to take the initiative, because otherwise there is no credibility; only if the three work together is there any hope that you can accomplish that. And therefore, I would actually ask all of you, our viewers, make sure this program, and also Harley’s morning update, which he does every day, is spreading — get it to your contacts, your friends, your social media. Help us to make this mobilization. Because while we have the Day of Action today, we are not stopping at that: because you have a tremendous social ferment. For example, the Yellow Vests, the strikes in France are continuing, there will be on Thursday, tomorrow, after three days of strikes, there will be huge demonstrations in France: We will intersect them, we will bring in this perspective of the summit of the three Presidents. There will be many demonstrations in Germany, among the German farmers, and other groupings. And this will not stop.

So I’m asking you, join this international chorus, and help us to build it, of people who say, “we have to overcome geopolitics, we have to establish a higher level of reason, and that is very, very urgent,” because nobody knows if the next time you have some incident, that the whole thing can be stopped. We were absolutely close to World War III, and we are not out of the danger zone, at all: So join our efforts.

SCHLANGER: Helga, I have nothing to add to that summary. I think it’s very important that people recognize: This is a moment where action must be taken — not talk, not being a spectator. You can go to our website and get the resolution that was drafted by Helga on the call for the emergency summit, and make sure it gets out widely to everyone. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/01/09/call-for-presidents-trump-putin-xi-to-convene-emergency-summit-to-address-danger-of-war/] And have the discussions that are necessary.

Is there anything further you want to add, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think, today is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, and King was one of the people who knew that peace is only possible through development. He was about to push that for the entire world, not just for the United States, when he was assassinated. He should have been President of the United States, and as my husband should have been President of the United States, but it’s these ideas which will determine if the human species will exist in the future or not. So, shape up and get on that level of thinking.

SCHLANGER: OK, Helga. Thank you very much, and we’ll be back next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hopefully.

Se også en video trailer 6 min.:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Arrangører: Schiller Instituttet, Russisk-Dansk Dialog,
Det Russiske Hus og Det Kinesiske Kulturcenter

EN MUSIKALSK DIALOG
MELLEM KULTURER

Gratis adgang
29. november 2019 kl. 19

Russisk Center for Videnskab og Kultur
Vester Voldgade 11, København, ved Rådhuspladsen

Medvirkende: Musikere fra Kina, Rusland, Albanien, Poland, Sverige og Danmark (se billedet)

Også: DANMARK: SCHILLER INSTITUTTETS KOR

I en tid, hvor der er alt for meget politisk splid i verden, og verdens lande i stedet burde arbejde sammen om menneskehedens fælles mål, er det ekstra vigtigt, at vi på alle måder bygger bro mellem verdens nationer og de mange forskelligartede kulturer. Når vi oplever det skønne i andre kulturer, skaber det gensidig forståelse og et grundlag for samarbejde og fred. Klassisk kunst er derfor en vigtig nøgle til en sådan dialog mellem kulturer, og det er grunden til, at vi afholder denne koncert!

Info: 25 12 50 33, 53 57 00 51 si@schillerinstitut.dk

I denne uges webcast fremhævede Helga Zepp-LaRouche sin appel for et hastetopmøde mellem præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi med henblik på at nedtrappe spændingerne i Mellemøsten og skabe en omfattende fredsplan for regionen. Mens chokket fra USA’s droneangreb, der dræbte den iranske general Soleimani, skubbede verden i retningen af en endnu større konflikt, skabte det samtidig et nøgternt øjeblik, som gjorde det entydigt klart, at en omfattende fredsplan bør være prioriteten, og dette kan kun ske gennem samarbejdet mellem USA, Rusland og Kina.

Helga henviser også til Patrick Lawrences nyeste artikel i Consortium News, hvor han kalder droneangrebet for en ”paladsrevolution” af medlemmer fra udenrigs- og forsvarsministerierne. Læs hele artiklen her.

PATRICK LAWRENCE: The Iranian General’s Intent

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

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

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

Krisen:

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

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

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

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

Løsningen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://action.larouchepac.com/trump_putin_xi_emergency_summit_petition

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

https://www.skrivunder.net/prasidenterne_for_usa_rusland_og_kina_ma_holde_et_hastetopmode_for_at_takle_faren_for_krig

A Three-Fold Anniversary
Address by Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Se afskriftet nedenunder)

Excerpt from video: “The Lost Chance of 1989”
Schubert/Schiller: Die Hoffnung
Michelle Erin, soprano – Margaret Greenspan, piano – Elliot Greenspan, speaker

Schubert/Schiller: An Emma
John Sigerson, tenor – Margaret Greenspan, piano

Shakespeare: Luciana’s Monologue from Comedy of Errors, Act 3, Scene 2
Leah DeGruchy

Max Caspar on Kepler as a Philosophical Mind
John Sigerson

Schiller: “Die Teilung der Erde”
Frank Mathis

Schubert/Schober: “An die Musik”
Lisa Bryce, soprano – Richard Cordova, piano

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Panel 2:

Panel 3:

Panel 4:

Den 17. nov. (EIRNS) – To begivenheder i den forgangne uge demonstrerer de to modsatrettede fremtider, som menneskeheden står overfor i dag. I Washington er den skandaløse og selvklart svigagtige rigsretsundersøgelse, der ledes af demokraterne og de korrupte efterretningsfolk og embedsmænd, som sidder tilbage efter George Bush’ og Barack Obamas mislykkede præsidentskaber – alt imens de keder de fleste amerikanere, ude af stand til så meget som at nævne hvilken forbrydelse der undersøges – ikke desto mindre en farlig fortsættelse af kupforsøget mod USA’s præsident; et kupforsøg, der hidrører fra den britiske efterretningstjeneste og deres nynazistiske allierede i den tidligere ukrainske regering. Med mindre dette kup afværges, vil det så godt som givet føre til verdenskrig på kort sigt. Samtidigt afholdtes Schiller Instituttets internationale konference med deltagelse af over 300 ”nationale patrioter og verdensborgere” (som Schiller definerede ægte statsborgerskab). Under titlen: “The Future of Humanity as a Creative Species in the Universe” (Menneskets Fremtid som Kreativ Art i Universet) var konferencen viet til mindet om Lyndon LaRouches levende ideer. Alt imens hovedtalen blev holdt af grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, inkluderede rækken af talere:

* Wang Weidong, ministerrådgiver, direktør for handels- og handelsafdelingen ved den kinesiske ambassade i Tyskland, om ”Potentialet for den Nye Silkevej for Europa”;

* Natalia Vitrenko, doktor i økonomisk videnskab, leder af det progressive socialistiske parti i Ukraine, tidligere parlamentsmedlem, Ukraine, om “LaRouches Videnskab om Fysisk Økonomi som nøglen til at løse verdens problemer, Eurasien og Ukraine”;

* Professor Andrei Ostrovskii, vicedirektør for Institut for Fjernøsten Studier ved Det Russiske Videnskabelige Akademi, om “Rusland i det kinesiske Bælte-og Vejinitiativ: Muligheder og udsigter”;

* Jozef Miklosko, tidligere vicepremierminister i Tjekkoslovakiet, om “LaRouche og videnskab”;

* Theo Mitchell, tidligere delstatssenator i South Carolina, om LaRouche, “manden, der skulle have været præsident for De Forenede Stater”;

* Nino Galloni, tidligere generaldirektør for budget- og arbejdsministerierne, Italien, om “Fædreland, nation og stat som set af progressive katolikker og af Lyndon LaRouche.”

Der blev endvidere holdt taler af andre medlemmer og venner af Schiller Instituttet fra U.S.A. Grækenland, Frankrig, Irak og Libanon. En koncert med musik af Beethoven, Schumann og Schubert blev afholdt på den første aften af todages begivenheden; koncerten var viet til mindet om Lyndon LaRouche.

Fru Zepp-LaRouche indfangede i hendes bemærkninger de afgørende aspekter af hendes afdøde mands ideer, der er nødvendige for, at nutidens ”verdensborgere” kan overvinde den permanente krigsførelse, kulturelle nedbrydning og det endelige sammenbrud af verdens finansielle system, som vi nu står overfor, og skabe et nyt paradigme baseret på en global renæssance af kunstnerisk og videnskabelig kreativitet:

”Det er absolut enestående for LaRouche, at han demonstrerer overgangen mellem relativistisk fysik og kreativiteten i det menneskelige sind som sådan, og forbindelsen mellem dette domæne og klassiske former for kunst og statsmandskunst. Lyn leverede rigeligt bevis for, at det alene er gennem klassiske former for poesi, drama og musik, at de åndsevner, der er i stand til at skabe gyldige hypoteser og nye indsigter i universets lovmæssighed, kan udvikles. Og hvorfor det er i musik, poesi og drama at de samme kampe mod reduktionistiske og deduktionistiske forestillinger må udkæmpes, og hvorfor kvaliteten af metafor, ironi og Furtwänglers idé om at spille mellem noderne er så afgørende for at hæve sindet til denne højere riemannske tankemåde. Hermed følger opøvelsen af følelserne væk fra det sanselige og profane område, til niveauet for lidenskabelig kærlighed til menneskeheden (agape). Den oligarkiske samfundsmodel og dets menneskesyn reducerer individet til en skabning af hedonistiske ønsker og begær, hvilket gør det let manipulerbart og modtageligt for rollen som ‘undersåt’ for Thrasymachos’ lov og orden’. Det er den kognitive oplevelse forbundet med klassiske former for komposition, der frigør individet ved at appellere til sindets skønhed og frigøre den form for ”agapisk” kærlighed til menneskeheden, som er nødvendig for at vælge det Nye Paradigme for menneskeheden, der kan sætte en stopper for den privilegerede klasses snæversynede og onde stræben efter påståede geopolitiske interesser på bekostning af de lavere klasser”.

Program for Schiller Instituttets Europæiske Konference d. 16.-17. november

Menneskehedens Fremtid som Kreativ Art i Universet

Lørdag d. 16. november

Panel 1: I en tid med strategiske omvæltninger: Vil Europa være i stand til at hjælpe med udformningen af det ’nye paradigme’?

* Vi kan forme en ny æra for menneskeheden!: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, formand for Schiller Instituttet

* Potentialet for den Nye Silkevej for Europa: Wang Weidong, ministerrådgiver, direktør for ‘handelsdepartementet’ ved den kinesiske ambassade i Tyskland

* LaRouches videnskab om fysisk økonomi som nøglen til at løse verdens problemer, Eurasien og Ukraine: Natalia Vitrenko, doktor i økonomisk videnskab, leder af det Progressive socialistiske Parti i Ukraine, tidligere parlamentsmedlem, Ukraine

* Ruslands deltagelse i det kinesiske “Ét Bælte Én Vej”-initiativ: Muligheder og fremtidsudsigter: Professor Andrei Ostrovskii, viceadministrerende direktør for Institut for Fjernøstenstudier ved Det Russiske Videnskabelige Akademi

* Broforbindelserne mellem Italien-Tunesien og Italien-Albanien: Forbindelsen af Bælte- og Vejkorridorerne: Prof. Enzo Siviero, direktør, E-Campus Universitet, Italien; Næstformand i Réseau Méditerranéen des Ecoles d’Ingénieurs (Netværk af Ingeniører i Middelhavsområdet)

* Udvikling af forbindelserne mellem Grækenland og ‘Bæltet og Vejen’: Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, ambassadør, Grækenland, tidligere generalsekretær for Sortehavets Økonomiske Samarbejdsorganisation

* Pragmatisme versus ideologier: Alain Corvez, konsulent i international strategi, Frankrig

Panel 2: De grundlæggende videnskabelige spørgsmål vedrørende fremtiden og den ‘Nye Silkevej i rummet’

* Kan Europa spille en nøglerolle indenfor videnskaben: Jacques Cheminade, præsident for Solidarité et Progrès, tidligere [fransk] præsidentkandidat

* Månebyen: Næste skridt mod en ny æra for menneskeheden: Sébastien Drochon, formand for rumpolitik, det franske Schiller Institut

* LaRouches opdagelser: Uddannelse af en ny generation: Megan Beets og Jason Ross, Lyndon LaRouches “kælder-team”

* Til forsvar for afrikansk suverænitet: Diogène Senny, præsident for den Panafrikanske ‘Umoja’-Liga

Klassisk koncert: en hyldest til Lyndon LaRouche med værker af Beethoven, Schubert og Schumann

Søndag d. 17. november

Panel 3: Hvem er Lyndon LaRouche?

* Fornuftens magt: Den levende arv efter Lyndon LaRouche: Dennis Small, koordinator for Latinamerika ved Schiller Instituttet

* LaRouche og videnskab: Josef Miklosko, tidligere vicepremierminister i Tjekkoslovakiet

* Manden der skulle have været USA’s præsident: Theo Mitchell, tidligere statssenator i South Carolina

* ‘Fædreland, nation og stat’ som set af progressive katolikker og af Lyndon LaRouche: Nino Galloni, tidligere generaldirektør for budget- og arbejdsministerierne, Italien

* LaRouche, betydningen af Lyndon LaRouches ideer for den arabiske verden: Hussein Askary, Sydvestasien-koordinator for det Internationale Schiller Institut

* LaRouche, et “florentinsk” sindelag: Claudio Giudici, formand, Uritaxi (Nationale Taxi Fagforening), Firenze, Italien

* Lyndon LaRouches kamp for fred og udvikling i Libanon og Mellemøsten: Bassam El-Hachem, professor ved det libanesiske universitet, Beirut, Libanon

* Hvor er Amerika på vej hen? LaRouches løsninger som vejen ud af kaos: Harley Schlanger, tidligere talsmand for Lyndon LaRouche, bestyrelsesmedlem i Schiller Instituttet

Panel 4: Skønhed og klassisk kunst som et ‘kald’ for menneskeheden: Den kulturelle silkevej

* Nødvendigheden af en klassisk renæssance for ungdommen: Diane Sare, direktør for Manhattan Kor-projektet

* LaRouche og harmonien mellem kunst og videnskab: Antonella Banaudi, Sopran og sanglærer, ekspert i Verdis kammertone

* Sand frihed gennem ægte kunst: ‘Negro Spirituals’ enestående bidrag til klassisk boglig dannelse i Amerika: Elvira Green, mezzosopran, 30-årigt medlem af Metropolitan Opera, grundlægger af Spirituel Renaissance Sangere i Greensboro/North Carolina, USA

Hvad var det i virkeligheden der skete i 1989, da Berlinmuren faldt, og hvad kan vi lære af at undersøge begivenhederne i denne historiske periode? Ved en gennemgang af hvad der rent faktisk skete for tredive år siden, da Berlinmuren blev revet ned, i modsætning til den officielle fortælling fremsat af de neoliberale og geopolitikerne, taler Helga Zepp LaRouche lidenskabeligt for, hvorfor det vil være anderledes denne gang. Chancen for verdenshistoriske forandringer findes kun kortvarigt, men denne gang, siger hun, er lejligheden gunstigere. I modsætning til 1989, hvor alene kræfter, der var tilknyttet hendes mand, Lyndon LaRouche, og Schiller Instituttet, havde en strategisk plan, er der i dag Bælte- og Vejinitiativet og en voksende erkendelse af, at der kommer et nyt [finansielt] krak, og at det vil være dødbringende at holde fast ved det gamle paradigme, der blev påtvunget [verden] af det britiske imperium.

Hun præsenterer de afgørende spørgsmål fra 1989, som en der selv deltog i dem, og forklarer hvordan det britiske imperium overlevede dengang ved hjælp af mord, trusler og korruption, herunder fængslingen af hendes mand.  Men det nye paradigme der dukker op globalt, udformet på basis af LaRouches ideer, ses i stigende grad som den eneste levedygtige mulighed i dag, hvor faren for et nyt krak er øget. De, der forsvarer den gamle orden i Europa og USA, bliver i stigende grad afsløret, idet efterforskningen af Russiagates oprindelse dagligt frembringer flere beviser.

Nu er tiden inde til at læse Schillers værker, sagde hun, for at blive opmærksom på potentialet for hvert menneske – inklusive dig selv! – til at blive en smuk sjæl, og bruge denne opdagelse til at blive en kraft til at skabe historie, og sikre at menneskeheden ikke går glip af denne mulighed.

I denne uge drøfter Helga Zepp-LaRouche Trumps seneste træk for at afslutte krigene for regimeskifte, hvilket han blev valgt til at udføre, og stiller den amerikanske befolknings støtte til præsident Trump, der sås ved forskellige stævner i hele landet, op imod de etablerede mediers forsøg på at fremstille en helt anden virkelighed. Med en skrøbelig våbenhvile på den syriske/tyrkiske grænse er det nu tid til at begynde genopbygningen af regionen ved at udvide Bælte- og Vejinitiativet til Mellemøsten!

Helga Zepp-LaRouche understreger også den rolle, som vores bevægelse spiller i USA og i Europa med at uddanne befolkningen i den forestående globale finanskrise. DETTE er den virkelige baggrund for hastværket med at afsætte Trump fra embedet. Han har bevist, at han er villig til at vælte skakbrættet med det militærindustrielle kompleks’ årtier lange politik for regimeskifte; så hvilken garanti har Wall Street for, at han ikke vil gøre det samme imod dem, i takt med at finanskrisen fortsætter med at brede sig?

Det er nu vigtigere end nogensinde at organisere en ægte økonomisk renæssance på planeten, begyndende med at omorganisere Wall Street og give de suveræne nationer mulighed for at samarbejde om deres egne økonomiske skæbner.

Tak for at følge vores arbejde og for din støtte.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zepp-LaRouche indledte med at drøfte, hvad hun beskrev som den historiske pressekonference med præsident Trump den 9. oktober, hvor han gjorde det klart, at han havde til hensigt at vende de sidste 50 års geopolitiske krige. Under henvisning til præsident Eisenhowers identifikation af det “militære industrielle kompleks” som årsagen til krig, afsluttede Trump med en bevægende personlig erklæring, idet han identificerede omkostningerne ved disse krige, hvad angår de amerikanske tab af menneskeliv, samt de millioner der går tabt på den anden side i krigene.

Hun vendte flere gange tilbage til vigtigheden af to ting: For det første, præsident Trump må nu samarbejde med Rusland gennem Astana-processen og inddrage Kina, for at afslutte krigene via reel økonomisk udvikling; for det andet, at vejledningen til denne udviklingsproces må være Lyndon LaRouches liv, hvis renselse er den nødvendige ingrediens for at få det til at fungere.

LaRouches stemme er desuden vigtig, da det økonomiske sammenbrud er i gang, og det er hans videnskabelige metode, nedfældet i hans Fire Love, som er nødvendige for at forhindre sammenbruddet i at udløse global elendighed. Vi må direkte tage fat på den panik og kulturpessimisme, som dominerer befolkningen – nu er tiden inde til, at vores optimistiske synspunkt, baseret på en forståelse af menneskets sande, kreative natur, former diskussionen.

Tak fordi I følger vores arbejde i et så spændende historisk øjeblik. Der står meget på spil for menneskehedens fremtid, og vi gør en forskel.

Del gerne det nedenstående flyveblad ud til unge mennesker:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Den igangværende kamp mellem to meget forskellige paradigmer, det ene for geopolitisk konfrontation og krig og det andet for fredeligt samarbejde og sameksistens, er også det centrale tema i den nylige turbulens i forbindelse med Donald Trumps nu aflyste besøg til Danmark. Som Trump i sine udtalelser gjorde klart, var Grønland det afgørende omdrejningspunkt for hans planlagte besøg til Danmark.

Den kreds af rådgivere omkring Trump, som f.eks. udenrigsminister Pompeo og sikkerhedsrådgiver Bolton, der konsekvent har arbejdet for en konfrontation med Rusland og Kina, ønsker at USA med Trump i spidsen skal gøre Arktis og Grønland til en geopolitisk kampplads. I sin tale til Arktisk Råd den 6. maj 2019 i Rovaniemi, Finland, chokerede Pompeo deltagerne ved at erklære, at den hidtidige politik for at forhindre en militarisering af Arktis nu var aflyst. USA betragtede nu Arktis som et konfliktområde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina. I direkte forlængelse af denne politik, er der et udtalt ønske fra disse kredses side om at forhindre kinesisk og russisk indflydelse i Grønland, hvad enten den er civil eller militær, og i stedet sikre en langt større amerikansk militær kontrol med Grønland. Det var baggrunden til ordren fra Washington til København om at kinesisk deltagelse i bygning af lufthavne på Grønland ikke kunne accepteres og måtte blokeres fra dansk side. Noget som skete prompte.

Hvis denne politik fortsættes vil det få katastrofale konsekvenser for Grønland, Rigsfællesskabet og Verden. Grønlands behov for opbygningen af en selvbærende økonomi gennem økonomisk og infrastrukturel opbygning vil blive tilsidesat og i stedet vil kun rendyrkede militære investeringer og amerikansk kontrol over Grønlands råstoffer være på dagsordenen.

Alternativet til sådanne sørgelige udsigter er at etablere et fredeligt samarbejde på Grønland, i resten af Arktis (og i verden i almindelighed), mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien. Hvis disse fire giganter indgår i Lyndon LaRouches forslag om en firemagts-aftale for økonomisk udvikling og videnskabeligt forskningssamarbejde, så har verden en farbar vej ud af alle de aktuelle problemer.

Det, Grønland og Arktis har brug for, er den form for økonomisk udvikling, som Kina mestrer, og som ses ved, at man har løftet 700-800 millioner kinesere ud af dyb fattigdom, og i den udvikling, velstand og øget selvstændighed, som Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet siden 2013 har skabt i stadig større dele af verden. Kinas succes er baseret på at yde langsigtede kreditter til infrastrukturprojekter, der transformerer den økonomiske aktivitet. I kølvandet på den forbedrede infrastruktur følger industrialisering og forbedrede levevilkår. Dertil kommer voksende deltagelse i den forskning og udvikling, som er grundlaget for videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt.

Den danske regering bør i samarbejde med det grønlandske hjemmestyre arbejde for, at Trump ikke falder i den geopolitiske fælde, der vil ødelægge Grønlands fremtid. I stedet bør vi arbejde for at få Grønland til at være et vigtigt omdrejningspunkt i et kommende internationalt samarbejde i Arktis. Grønland bør være centrum for et forskningssamarbejde mellem de arktiske nationer, bl.a. Grønland, Danmark, USA og Rusland, og dertil Kina og andre nationer, for udviklingen af Arktis og fælles aktiviteter for f.eks. bedre at forstå interaktionen mellem Solen, det Ydre Rum og Jorden.

I denne uges webcast gennemgik leder for Schiller Instituttet Helga Zepp LaRouche den seneste økonomiske svindel, der udgår fra Black Rock-gruppen som et eksempel på den desperate indsats for at købe  tid til forsvar for et system, som er under sammenbrud. Alt imens dets initiativtagere omtaler denne plan som en “regimeændring” i finanspolitikken, er det blot endnu et forsøg på at oversvømme systemet med “helikopterpenge” for at beskytte værdiløse aktiver på 1,5 billiarder $. Dette blev afsløret i 1990’erne af Lyndon LaRouche, der med sin “Triple Curve” udviklede det pædagogiske værktøj, der viser, hvorfor denne tilgang ødelægger den fysiske økonomi og vil føre til kaos.

Dette er baggrunden for den eskalerede destabilisering af Kina, der demonstrerer den ‘britiske hånd’ – og deres allierede som Bolton og Pompeo – i et forgæves forsøg på at forhindre Kinas opkomst og dens BRI-politik (Bælt og Vej-Initiativ). Mens Trump ønsker en aftale med Kina, sætter hans modstandere – både inden for og uden for hans administration – verden på en farlig kurs.

En markant, positiv udvikling, som hun identificerede, er dækningen i the Guardian, Washington Post og Financial Times af den middelalderlige ideologi bag økofascismen, og hvordan denne bruges til at skabe et grønt bonanza for ellers konkursramte finansfolk.

Denne udvikling er en del af en utrolig proces, der viser, at systemet ikke fungerer, og åbner udsigten til, at stigende antal mennesker kan bringes til at se, at løsningen afhænger af udbredelsen af videnskabelige ideer og stor kultur – og dette skaber grundlag for optimisme.

# 1: Oversigt: Den enkeltes rolle i historien. Klik her.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche. En person kan ændre historien, og den mest magtfulde kraft i historien er ikke våben, penge eller hære: det er ideer. Lyndon LaRouche udnyttede denne indsigt og brugte den til at ændre verden. I dag ses frugterne af hans årtier lange organisering, sammen med mange kolleger og hans kone Helga i potentialet for internationalt samarbejde, som eksemplificeret af det kinesiske Bælte- og Vejinitiativ. For at undgå den truende mørke tidsalder, som atomkonflikten mellem USA og Rusland udgør, er det vigtigt med en forståelse af den nødvendige renæssance.

# 2: LaRouches ufuldendte krig for en ny økonomisk verdensorden. Klik her.
Dennis Small. Historien om kampen for en retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden (NWEO), baseret på nord-syd-samarbejde og udvikling, er et perfekt eksempel på hvordan ideer, og faktisk udelukkende ideer, skaber historien. De ideer, omkring hvilke de første kampe for en NWEO blev udkæmpet, især i perioden 1979-1983, og begrebet om hvordan man fører denne krig, blev udviklet af Lyndon LaRouche.

Han påviste, at denne politik ville være til gavn for både nord og syd. Hans metode var at fremlægge de underliggende filosofiske begreber og det videnskabelige fysisk-økonomiske grundlag for at bevise, at en sådan tilgang rent faktisk kan fungere. De politiske relationer mellem de store hovedpersoner i denne kamp, Mexicos José López Portillo og Indiens Indira Gandhi, blev også bevidst fremmet af LaRouche. Og da en flanke opstod, da Ronald Reagan overtog præsidentskabet i USA i januar 1981, kastede LaRouche sig over den for at bringe de kræfter, der rent faktisk kunne besejre fjenden og vinde den strategiske krig, ind i kampen. Dette er genstand for en lektion i uafsluttet krig.

#3: Lyndon LaRouches unikke bidrag til videnskaben om universel historie. Klik her.
Will Wertz. I et essay han skrev, som blev udgivet i foråret 1993 med titlen »Om Gud«, skrev han: »Hvis vi måler historien med standarden, at hver person er imago viva Dei, får vi en komplet anderledes opfattelse af historien, end det, som er beskrevet i vores tåbelige lærebøger fra universiteterne og lignende steder«. I et efterfølgende essay, udgivet i tidsskriftet Fidelio i efteråret 1993 med titlen »Historie som videnskab«, fortsatte Lyndon LaRouche: En rigoristisk definition af begrebet »historie« begynder med det faktum, at den fortsatte eksistens af den menneskelige art er styret af et princip, som ikke eksisterer for andre arter.«

#4 (18. maj): Italiensk Videnskab og Kultur. Klik her.
Liliana Gorini og John Sigerson. LaRouches ideer afspejler i Italien et fremskridt for den videnskabelige og kunstneriske revolution i det 15. århundredes florentinske renæssance. Dette fremskridt omfatter en tilbagevenden til en naturlig musikalsk stemning, hvilket Giuseppe Verdi krævede for mere end et århundrede siden; Italiens nylige skridt til at gennemføre LaRouches forslag om en Glass/Steagall-banklovgivning, en tilbagevenden til Hamiltons principper om økonomisk politik; og Italiens dristige beslutning om at tilslutte sig Kinas Bælte og Vejinitiativ for verdens udvikling.

Klassisk musik: Den tyske dirigent Furtwängler blev den ledende inspiration for LaRouches insisteren på at musik ikke udfoldes i lyd, men i det riemannske komplekse domæne.

5. Det amerikanske system, LaRouche-Riemannsk økonomi, og et Måne-Mars projekt. Klik her. Den findes nederste på siden.
Ben Deniston og Paul Gallagher. Den 23. marts 1983 traf præsident Reagan en beslutning – trods stærk modstand fra sine rådgivere – om at gøre LaRouches strategiske forsvarsinitiativ (SDI) til USA’s politik. Det var en del af LaRouches rumprojektforeslag for en ny æra af potentielt set ubegrænset fremskridt.

Alle kan også ses på LaRouchePAC’s hjemmeside. Klik her.

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

Læs også afskriftet (på engelsk) nedenunder.

Trailer:

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

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

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

The Case for the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche 

June 21, 2019 

[music] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[from Oct. 6, 1986] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Dear Attorney General Reno, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The [inaudible 54:09] rocket docket. 

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

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

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

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

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

MANN:  The session will come to order. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that was essentially our commitment as an association. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MANN:  Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[closing music]