1

Schiller Institutterne i Danmark og Sverige holdte en videokonference den 25. maj:
Vi har brug for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer,
ikke en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke.
Vi anbefaler NEJ til at afskaffe EU forsvarsforbeholdet og NEJ til svensk/finsk NATO medlemskab.

Invitation til at deltage i et
gratis internationalt onlineseminar arrangeret af
Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og Sverige:  

Vi behøver en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur

for alle nationer, 
ikke en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke
 
Schiller Instituttet anbefaler:
 
NEJ ved den danske folkeafstemning den 1. juni om afskaffelse af EU’s forsvarsforbehold
NEJ til Sveriges og Finlands optagelse i NATO 
 
Dato: Onsdag den 25. maj 2022
 
Tid: 13:30-16:30 dansk tid (CEST)
 
Online via Zoom
 
Gratis adgang
 
Seminaret vil blive afholdt på engelsk.
 
Tilmeldelse kan ske til si@schillerinstitut.dk, 53 57 00 51
 
På seminaret hos Schiller Instituttet vil følgende emner blive drøftet:
 
* Hvad er årsagen til den nuværende ekstremt farlige militære og økonomiske krise?
 
* Hvorfor en styrkelse af EU’s militære enhed med dansk deltagelse og Sveriges og Finlands optagelse i NATO blot vil forværre de geopolitiske konflikter.
 
* Hvilke principper kan vi anvende til at skabe en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur til gavn for alle nationer og befolkninger?
 
Program:
 
* Verden har brug for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur. 
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident.
dansk oversættelse

 
* Baggrunden for krigen mellem Ukraine-NATO og Rusland.
Jens Jørgen Nielsen, uddannet i idé- og kommunikationshistorie, Moskva-korrespondent for det dagbladet Politiken i slutningen af 1990’erne, forfatter til flere bøger om Rusland og Ukraine, leder af organisationen Russisk-Dansk Dialog og lektor i kommunikation og kulturforskelle ved Niels Brock Handelshøjskole i København.
afskrift på engelsk
dansk oversættelse

 
* Hvorfor vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur? 

Jan Øberg, ph.d., freds- og fremtidsforsker og kunstfotograf, ph.d. i sociologi, gæsteprofessor i freds- og konfliktstudier i Japan, Spanien, Østrig og Schweiz, medstifter og direktør for det uafhængige TFF, Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, i Lund, Sverige, og forfatter.
dansk oversættelse

 
* Kinesiske forslag til en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur: Xi Jinpings forslag fra april om en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og det globale udviklingsinitiativ.
Li Xing, ph.d.,
professor i udvikling og internationale relationer ved Institut for Politik og Samfund, Det Humanistiske og Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet, og forfatter.
dansk oversættelse
transcript in English
  
* Hvorfor Danmark bør afstå fra et intensiveret geopolitisk militært engagement. 
Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand, Schiller Instituttet i Danmark
dansk oversættelse 

 
* Hvorfor Sverige og Finland ikke bør tilslutte sig NATO. 
Ulf Sandmark, formand, Schiller Instituttet i Sverige
afskrift på engelsk

 
Information: si@schillerinstitut.dk. +45 53 57 00 51 

———————
 
Som baggrund er her uddrag af en tale, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlæggeren og præsidenten for Schiller Instituttet, holdt på en online-konference med unge den 7. maj 2022. Hele talen kan læses nedenunder.
 

“Vi befinder os faktisk  i et utroligt farligt øjeblik. Men der er også håb…. Det er kun muligt, hvis vi overvinder idéen om geopolitik.

Geopolitik er den idé, at der altid vil være en blok af nationer eller en nation, som vil definere eller er nødt til at definere sine interesser over for en anden blok af nationer, og at der altid vil være en dødbringende kontrovers, hvor enten den ene eller den anden vinder, og det hele vil være et nulsumsspil. Det er netop hvad der må og kan overvindes.

Det vi skal gøre er at etablere en international orden, hvor det princip, som denne orden grundlæggende er baseret på, er tanken om, at hver nation har ret til, og mulighed for, at udvikle alle deres borgeres potentialer. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor vi har brug for en systemisk ændring: En fuldstændig fornyelse af systemet. Grunden til, at jeg nævner dette, er, at situationen er meget presserende.

Flere og flere analytikere og eksperter er enige om, at faren for Tredje Verdenskrig er akut, at situationen er farligere end på højdepunktet af Den kolde Krig….

Så vi er et hårsbredde fra den menneskelige civilisations udslettelse…. Hvis den nuværende politik fortsættes, kan denne verden nemlig ende meget pludseligt om få minutter, om få dage, uger eller måneder, og krigen i Ukraine er naturligvis et brændpunkt. Men hele denne krise handler ikke om Ukraine. Den handler om, hvilken slags verdensorden der skal eksistere: Skal det være en unipolær verden, domineret af en eller to nationer? Skal det være en “regelbaseret orden”, hvor en lille klub af nationer udstikker reglerne? Eller skal den være multipolær, og skal den være baseret på folkeretten, som den er udtrykt i FN-pagten?…

Jeg tror, at det er det, der er udgangspunktet: Kun hvis man gør det klart for sig selv, at atomkrig mellem de to største atommagter, USA og Rusland, betyder udslettelse af menneskeheden, og derefter mobiliserer for, at krigen skal stoppe, og kæmper for et alternativ, som skal starte med tanken om, at krigen skal stoppe; diplomati og forhandlinger skal straks starte for at finde en løsning, der er acceptabel for alle parter….

Nu skal vi gøre os klart, og det er holdningen hos alle, der arbejder med Schiller Instituttet, at krig ikke kan være en metode til konfliktløsning i en tid med atomvåben; og jeg siger ikke, at denne krig skulle have fundet sted, men man er nødt til at forstå årsagerne til, at den fandt sted.”

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, “Det hele startede i forbindelse med den tyske genforening, da Berlinmuren faldt, og den amerikanske udenrigsminister James Baker III lovede Gorbatjov, at NATO ikke ville flytte sig en tomme mod øst.

En pensioneret tysk general ved navn Harald Kujat, som havde været formand for NATO’s militærkomité i 2002-2005, har netop givet et interview til et tysk tidsskrift, hvori han sagde, at hovedvægten ikke længere ligger på at beskytte og bistå Ukraine i dets forsvarskamp mod et russisk angreb, hvilket er i strid med folkeretten, men på at svække Rusland som strategisk rival på lang sigt….” 

[Nationer med] 2,2 milliarder mennesker, de nægter alle at blive trukket ind i en geopolitisk konfrontation mellem USA og NATO på den ene side og Rusland og Kina på den anden side.

Samtlige af disse lande holder fast ved idéen om alliancefrihed, og det tror jeg er nøglen til fred lige nu. Fordi principperne for den alliancefri bevægelse, som var principperne i FN-pagten, Bandung-konferencen, de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, som er suverænitet, ikke-indblanding i det andet lands indre anliggender, accept af det andet samfundssystem….

Jeg mener, at vi i traditionen fra Den Westfalske Fred, som afsluttede 150 års krig i Europa, har brug for en sikkerhedsarkitektur, som først og fremmest tager hensyn til udviklingslandenes interesser; der skal ske en forøgelse af levestandarden for hvert enkelt individ, både i Europa, USA, Rusland og Kina. Jeg mener, at det er afgørende for, om menneskeheden kan overleve. Det betyder, at vi har brug for et nyt paradigme i vores tænkning, nemlig idéen om, at hver nation har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale. Hvert barn, alle børn, der fødes, uanset i hvilken nation i verden, har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale, hvilket betyder, at det skal have en universel uddannelse….

Vi har aldrig været på et vigtigere tidspunkt i historien, og farerne har aldrig været så store, men potentialet for at skabe en helt ny verden har aldrig været så tæt på: At gøre en ende på kolonialismen, at skabe en økonomi baseret på termonuklear fusion, hvilket ville betyde, at vi har energi og råstof sikkerhed for alle nationer, at vi kan få et internationalt samarbejde om udnyttelse af rummet, at menneskeheden bliver voksen, og at geopolitiske krige bliver et spørgsmål fra fortiden.”

Vi håber inderligt, at du vil have mulighed for at deltage i denne vigtige begivenhed, og at du vil dele denne invitation og opfordre andre mennesker til at deltage. 

Hjemmesider:

Danish: Schiller Instituttet

Swedish: Schillerinstitutet

English: The Schiller Institute | A New Paradigm for the Survival of Civilization 

——————————–
English:

Invitation to a free international online seminar by

the Schiller Institutes in Denmark and Sweden:

We need a new security and

development architecture for all nations,

not a strengthening of geopolitical blocks

The Schiller Institute recommends:

NO in the Danish June 1 referendum about abolishing the EU Defense opt-out, and

NO to Sweden and Finland joining NATO

Date: Wednesday May 25, 2022

Time: 13:30-16:30 CEST

Online via Zoom

Free admission

The seminar will be held in English.

Please register here: si@schillerinstitut.dk, +45 53 57 00 51

The Schiller Institute seminar will discuss:

  • What caused the current extremely dangerous military, and economic crisis.
  • Why strengthening the EU military arm with Danish participation, and Sweden and Finland joining NATO would only exacerbate geopolitical conflict, and
  • What are the principles upon which we can create a new security and development architecture, for the benefit of all nations and people.

Program:

The world need a new security and development architecture. 
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the Schiller Institute founder and international president.

Background to the Ukraine-NATO-Russia war.
Jens Jørgen Nielsen, degrees in the history of ideas and communication, a Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken in the late 1990s, author of several books about Russia and Ukraine, a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization, and an associate professor of communication and cultural differences at the Niels Brock Business College in Denmark.

Why we need a new security architecture.
Jan Øberg, PhD, peace and future researcher and art photographer, PhD in sociology, visiting professor in peace and conflict studies in Japan, Spain, Austria, and Switzerland, co-founder and director of the independent TFF, the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, in Lund, Sweden, and author.

Chinese proposals for a new security and development arcitecture: Xi Jinping’s April proposal for a new international security architecture; the Belt and Road Initiative and the Global Development Initiative.

Prof. Li Xing, PhD, professor of Development and International Relations in the Department of Politics and Society, Faculty in Humanities and Social Sciences, Aalborg University, and author.

Why Denmark should not intensify its geopolitical military engagements.
Tom Gillesberg, chairman, the Schiller Institute in Denmark

Why Sweden and Finland should not join NATO.

Ulf Sandmark, chairman, the Schiller Institute in Sweden


Information:
si@schillerinstitut.dk. +45 53 57 00 51 (Denmark)

Schiller-institutet@nysol.se, +46 98 30 10 (Sweden)

—————————————

As background, here are excerpts from a speech given by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and president of the Schiller Institute, to an online conference with young people on May 7, 2022,

“The world is facing an incredibly dangerous moment. But there’s also hope…. That is only possible if we overcome the idea of geopolitics.

“Now, geopolitics is the idea that you always will have a bloc of nations, or a nation which will define or has to define its interest against another bloc of nations, and that there will always be a deadly controversy, where either one wins, or the other, and the whole thing will be a zero-sum game. And that is exactly what needs to be overcome, and which can be overcome.

“[W]e have to establish an international order, where basically the principle on which this order is based, is the idea that every nation has the right and the means to develop all potentials of all of its citizens. We are in a situation where we need a systemic change: A complete change of the system. The reason why I’m saying this is because the situation is very urgent. More and more analysts and experts agree that the danger of World War III is acute, that the situation is more dangerous than at the height of the Cold War….

“So we are a hair-trigger away from the annihilation of human civilization…. [I]f the present policies are continued, the world could end very abruptly, in a few minutes from now, in a few days, weeks or months, and obviously, the war in Ukraine is the flashpoint. But this whole crisis is not about Ukraine. It’s about what kind of a world order should exist: Should it be a unipolar world, dominated by one or two nations? Should it be a “rules-based order,” where a small club of nations makes the rules? Or should it be multipolar, and should it be based on international law as it is expressed in the UN Charter?…

I think that that is the starting point: That only if you make it clear to yourself, that nuclear war between the two largest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, means the annihilation of the human species, and then mobilize that the war must stop, and fight for an alternative which has to start with the idea that the war has to stop; diplomacy and negotiations have to immediately start to find a settlement agreeable to all sides….

“Now, we should be clear, and this is the position of everybody working with the Schiller Institute, that war cannot be a method of conflict resolution in times of nuclear weapons; and I’m not saying this war should have happened, but you have to understand the reasons why it did happen….”

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated, “starting at the time of the German reunification, when the Berlin Wall came down, the U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III did promise to Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch to the East….”

“A retired German General, named Harald Kujat, who had been the chairman of the Military Committee of NATO in 2002-2005, just gave an interview to a German magazine, in which he said, that the center of gravity is no longer to protect and assist Ukraine in its defensive struggle against a Russian attack, which is contrary to international law, but to weaken Russia as a strategic rival in the long term.

“[Countries with a population of] 2.2 billion people, they all are refusing to be pulled into geopolitical confrontation between the U.S. and NATO on the one side, and Russia and China on the other side.

“And all of these countries are sticking to the idea of non-alignment, and that I think is the key to peace right now. Because the Non-Aligned Movement principles, these were the principles of the UN Charter, the Bandung Conference, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which is sovereignty, non-interference into the internal affairs of the other country; acceptance of the other social system….

“I think we need, in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended 150 years of war in Europe, a security architecture, which takes into [account] the interest of the developing countries first; there must be an increase of the living standard of every single individual, of Europe, of the United States, of Russia and China. I think that is the make or break issue for humanity to survive. This means we need a new paradigm in thinking, namely the idea that each nation has the right to develop its fullest potential. Each child, each baby born, no matter in what nation in the world, has the right to develop its fullest potential, which means it has to have a universal education….

“[T]he dangers have never been as great, but the potential that we can create a completely new world, has never been so close: To end colonialism; to have an economy based on thermonuclear fusion, which would mean, we have energy security for all nations, raw materials security; that we can have international cooperation in space exploitation; that mankind will become adult, and that geopolitical wars will become a question of the past.”

We sincerely hope that you will be able to join us for this important event, and that you will share this invitation, and encourage other people to participate.

Homepages: English: The Schiller Institute | A New Paradigm for the Survival of Civilization

Danish: Hjem – Schiller Instituttet

Swedish: Schillerinstitutet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   




Behovet for et nyt paradigme. Åbningstale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger
og international præsident, ved Schiller Instituttets videokonfernece
For at etablere en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer den 9. april 2022

Kære konferencedeltagere fra hele verden! Det der bringer os sammen her i dag, med deltagere fra over 60 lande fra fire kontinenter, er vores dybeste bekymring over, at selve menneskehedens eksistens er i alvorlig fare. Formålet med vores konference er at gøre de stadig mere omfattende samfundsmæssige kræfter i verden opmærksom på, at der på grund af faren ved den nuværende eskalerende strategiske konfrontation snart kunne opstå en fuld militær konfrontation mellem NATO og Rusland, som kunne føre til en verdenskrig, der efter al sandsynlighed ville betyde menneskehedens udslettelse i en efterfølgende atomvinter. Formålet med vores konference er derfor at demonstrere på den mest kraftfulde måde, at der findes et umiddelbart tilgængeligt alternativ, et nyt paradigme, som kan lægge denne dødelige trussel bag os og indlede en ny æra i menneskehedens historie i overensstemmelse med menneskehedens sande natur som den eneste hidtil kendte art, der er i stand til at ræsonnere.

Denne fare for nævnte store krigsfare begyndte ikke den 24. februar i år. Som min afdøde mand Lyndon LaRouche forudsagde med forudseenhed i august 1971, efter at Nixon havde erstattet Bretton Woods-systemets faste valutakurser med flydende valutakurser, at en fortsættelse af denne pengepolitik – hvis den ikke korrigeres – uundgåeligt ville føre til en ny fascisme og en ny verdenskrig. Og 50 år senere er det præcis, hvor vi befinder os lige nu. Den akutte fare for krig, den større krig, skyldes at det transatlantiske neoliberale finanssystem allerede var på et fremskredent stadium af sammenbrud, meden hyperinflatorisk eksplosion af et håbløst bankerot system, før krigen i Ukraine begyndte.

For at forstå de virkelige årsager til krisen i Ukraine må man gå tilbage til årsagerne til, at den store historiske chance, der eksisterede efter Sovjetunionens opløsning for at etablere en ægte fredsordning, som vi foreslog med programmet for den eurasiske landbro dengang, blev forpasset. Et godt udgangspunkt, et vindue til at få et indblik, er et dokument, der oprindeligt blev lækket til New York Times af en whistleblower i marts 1992, og som blev kendt som Wolfowitz-doktrinen, der blev skrevet i ånden fra det tidligere Project for a New American Century. Dokumentet fastslog, at en del af den amerikanske mission ville være at sikre USA’s rolle som den eneste supermagt i den post-sovjetiske verden, der ville have tilstrækkelig militær magt til at afskrække enhver nation eller gruppe af nationer fra at udfordre USA’s forrang. Den 8. marts 1992 skrev New York Times: “[D]et er Pentagons hidtil klareste afvisning af kollektiv internationalisme, den strategi, der opstod efter Anden Verdenskrig, da de fem sejrsmagter søgte at danne et FN, der kunne mægle i konflikter og overvåge voldsudbrud.”

Wolfowitz-doktrinen var den egentlige årsag til, at det løfte, som udenrigsminister James Baker ved tre forskellige lejligheder i februar 1990 gav Gorbatjov om, at NATO ikke ville udvide “en tomme mod øst”, ikke blev holdt. Wolfowitz-doktrinen, der var baseret på det angloamerikanske særlige forhold, var det grundlæggende aksiom for en hel række politikker der fulgte, begyndende med den såkaldte “chokterapi” til de IMF-støttede liberale reformer i Rusland i 1990’erne, som i lyset af Ruslands rigdom på råstoffer og videnskabelige ekspertise udtrykkeligt havde til formål at eliminere en potentiel fremtidig konkurrent på verdensmarkedet, og som reducerede Ruslands industrielle kapacitet fra 1991-1994 til kun 30 %. Det var grundlaget for de forskellige interventionskrige i Irak, bombningerne mod Jugoslavien, krigene mod Afghanistan, Libyen og Syrien samt de fem NATO-ekspansioner mod øst.

Putins tale på sikkerhedskonferencen i München i 2007 var en dramatisk protest mod indførelsen af den unipolære verden, som i det væsentlige forblev lige så ubesvaret som de forskellige definitioner af “røde linjer” vedrørende Ruslands centrale sikkerhedsinteresser, indtil den seneste til USA og NATO, som Putin fremsatte den 17. december. Konflikten mellem påstanden om at opretholde en i det væsentlige unipolær verden og fremkomsten af en multipolær verden, som var det naturlige resultat af Kinas økonomiske fremgang, BRI’s tiltrækningskraft for over hundrede lande, det strategiske partnerskab mellem Rusland og Kina og senest mange lande, såsom Indien, Pakistan, Brasilien, Sydafrika og andre lande, der nægter at blive inddraget i den geopolitiske konfrontation mellem Vesten og Rusland og Kina. Denne konflikt er kernen i den nuværende fare.

Det er forfærdeligt, at vi har en krig midt i Europa, men det var krigene i Irak, Afghanistan, Libyen, Syrien, Yemen osv. også, men de fandtes næsten ikke i nyhederne. Og var der nogen der troede, at det russiske militær kunne have draget andre konklusioner, da de så indførelsen af stadig hårdere sanktioner, gennemførelsen af diverse Rand-tænketanksscenarier og koret af vestlige politikere om at “knuse” den russiske økonomi, “knuse” Putin, “knuse” det russiske system, den største atommagt på planeten? Og nu, efter at forhandlingerne mellem de russiske og ukrainske delegationer i Tyrkiet havde nået et første håbefuldt skridt, bruges billeder af krigens grusomheder, uden blot et minut af princippet om uskyldsformodning indtil det modsatte er bevist, til at indføre yderligere sanktioner, udvisning af diplomater og en åbenlys trussel om at ruinere Rusland.

Politikken er åbent rettet mod et regimeskifte i et forsøg på at gøre ikke blot Putin, men også hele Rusland til en paria blandt nationerne i en ubestemt fremtid, udelukke landet fra FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, ja, endog FN og G20, hvilket vil ødelægge disse institutioner. Det vil medføre en fuldstændig politisk og økonomisk afkobling mellem Vesten og Rusland og Kina. Denne politik har allerede gjort og gør ødelæggende skade på den fysiske økonomi på verdensplan, de såkaldte forsyningskæder, og den bringer antallet af potentielle ofre for en global hungersnød op på 1 milliard mennesker, dvs. en ottendedel af hele menneskeheden! Der er allerede hungerprotester i mange lande i Mellemøsten, Afrika og Latinamerika! I mellemtiden truer inflationen i priserne på fødevarer, energi og råvarer med at halvere industriproduktionen i mange lande. Der truer massearbejdsløshed og et totalt sammenbrud i kaos.

Et nyt system er allerede ved at opstå, centreret omkring Kina og BRI, Rusland, Indien og andre. Der er mange nye strategiske tilpasninger på vej; SCO, BRICS, OIC, Kina-forbindelserne, de mange forbindelser mellem det globale syd. Men selv opfattelsen af en multipolær verden løser ikke problemet, fordi den stadig indebærer faren for en geopolitisk konfrontation: Vi har brug for en markant og pludselig ændring i den måde, vi organiserer vores anliggender på. Den må starte med en ærlig, entydig erkendelse af, at en fortsættelse af den nuværende politik risikerer en konflikt, hvor der ikke ville være nogen vinder. Derfor er der behov for en ny fredskonference i traditionen fra den Westfalske Fred.

Erkendelsen af at den eneste mulighed, der var tilbage, var at føre fredsforhandlinger, gik op for de stridende parter efter 150 års religionskrig i Europa, hvoraf Trediveårskrigen kun var kulminationen; da de indså, at ingen ville være tilbage i live til at nyde sejren, hvis krigen fortsatte. I dag, hvor mange byer i en atomkrig ville være døde i løbet af få timer, ville resten af menneskeheden lide og sygne hen i en atomforurenet verden, indtil enten alt liv ophører, eller de få ulykkelige overlevende ville overveje, hvorfor menneskeheden ikke var i stand til at forhindre sin egen ødelæggelse.

Derfor må der straks indkaldes til en krisekonference i den Westfalske Freds ånd, hvor “For fredens skyld skal alle forbrydelser begået af den ene eller den anden side tilgives og glemmes”, og “For fredens skyld skal al politik tage hensyn til den andens interesser”.

Der må være en hensigt om at skabe en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som tager hensyn til sikkerhedsinteresserne for hvert enkelt land på planeten. Der skal øjeblikkeligt indføres en våbenhvile. Og der skal skabes et nyt kreditsystem til erstatning for det bankerotte finansielle system, som er den egentlige årsag til krigsfaren. Det skal være baseret på principperne i det oprindelige Bretton Woods-system, som det var tiltænkt af FDR, men som på grund af hans tidlige død aldrig blev gennemført.

Disse principper, som Lyndon LaRouche skitserede i et “Udkast til aftalememorandum mellem USA og U.S.S.R.”, der blev offentliggjort den 30. marts 1984, efter at Sovjetunionen havde afvist præsident Reagans tilbud om at samarbejde om at gøre atomvåben forældede ved hjælp af teknologiske midler, er stadig absolut gyldige i dag. I dette memorandum hedder det:

“Artikel 1: Generelle betingelser for fred

“Det politiske grundlag for varig fred må være: a) Den ubetingede suverænitet for hver enkelt og alle nationalstater, og b) Samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater med henblik på at fremme ubegrænsede muligheder for at deltage i fordelene ved teknologiske fremskridt til gensidig fordel for alle og enhver.

“Det mest afgørende træk ved den nuværende gennemførelse af en sådan politik for varig fred er en dybtgående ændring i de monetære, økonomiske og politiske relationer mellem de dominerende magter og de relativt underordnede nationer, der ofte klassificeres som “udviklingslande”. Medmindre de uretfærdigheder, der hænger tilbage i kølvandet på den moderne kolonialisme, gradvist afhjælpes, kan der ikke blive nogen varig fred på denne planet. For så vidt som USA og Sovjetunionen” – i dag Den Russiske Føderation og Folkerepublikken Kina – “anerkender, at fremskridt i den produktive arbejdskraft på hele planeten er i deres og begges vitale strategiske interesser, er de to magter i denne grad og på denne måde bundet af en fælles interesse. Dette er kernen i den politiske og økonomiske politik, som er uundværlig for at fremme en varig fred mellem disse to magter.”

Forpligtelsen til at engagere sig i et globalt program til udryddelse af fattigdom, som det f.eks. er skitseret i Schiller Instituttets rapport “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” eller Kinas forslag om et samarbejde mellem Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, USA’s Build Back Better-program og EU’s Global Gateway-program, kan blive det egentlige udviklingsmæssige grundlag for en global sikkerhedsarkitektur. Ukraine kan i stedet for at være kanonføde i en geopolitisk konfrontation udgøre en bro mellem Europa og de andre eurasiske nationer.

I lyset af den nuværende og den fremtidige fare for pandemier må der opbygges et moderne sundhedsvæsen i alle lande. I betragtning af den hungersnød, der truer 1 milliard mennesker på livet, og den forventede befolkningstilvækst skal regeringerne træffe hasteforanstaltninger for at fordoble verdens fødevareproduktion for at sikre en sund kost for alle mennesker.

Folkeretten, som den udviklede sig på baggrund af den Westfalske Fred og blev fastlagt i FN-pagten, skal genindføres uden begrænsninger. De fem principper for fredelig sameksistens skal være retningslinjerne for samarbejdet mellem alle nationer.

Den nuværende eksistentielle krise har vist, at menneskeheden har en fælles fremtid eller ingen, og at vi må sætte den fælles menneskeheds interesse før alle nationale interesser, og at alle nationale interesser fra nu af må være i samhørighed med hele menneskehedens interesse.

Det er et udtryk for vores menneskelige civilisations rigdom, at den har skabt forskellige kulturer. Vi må fremme dialogen mellem de bedste traditioner fra disse kulturer, de smukkeste frembringelser inden for videnskab og kunst, som et bevis på menneskets unikke kreativitet og på den måde skabe en ny renæssance, der vil indlede en ny æra for menneskeheden.

Vi vil erstatte had og fordomme mod andre kulturer, som kun eksisterer, hvis vi ikke kender dem, med en nænsom kærlighed til hele menneskeheden, fordi den er det mest værdifulde gode i det kendte univers.

 




Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Løgne og sandheder om Ukraine

Skriv gerne under og del:
Link: Underskriftindsamling: Indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere
en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer

Mandag den 28. februar 2022 — Jeg taler til jer, fordi jeg ønsker at overbringe jer et ekstremt vigtigt budskab. Som I ved, har russiske tropper, de seneste par dage været i Ukraine i en militær operation. Som en reaktion har Vesten indført meget, meget hårde sanktioner mod Rusland, som vil få umådelig store konsekvenser, ikke kun for Rusland, men også for hele verden. Præsident Putin har sat de russiske atomvåben i alarmberedskab.  Enhver yderligere optrapning af denne situation indebærer en risiko for, at tingene kommer helt ud af kontrol og i værste fald fører til en atomudveksling og tredje verdenskrig, og hvis det sker, er der chancer for, at ingen vil overleve. Det kunne betyde menneskehedens udslettelse.

For at forstå, hvordan vi er nået til dette punkt, må man se på den nyere historie – i hvert fald de sidste 30 år – for vi er gået som søvngængere fra et punkt, som var utroligt håbefuldt, til en forværring af situationen – trin for trin, trin for trin – og de fleste mennesker var aldeles ubekymrede for, hvad der skete.

Man skal erindre, at i 1989, da Berlinmuren faldt, var mange af de unge mennesker ikke engang født dengang, og har ikke en egentlig fornemmelse af, hvad denne periode indebar: Det var et øjeblik med et utroligt historisk potentiale, fordi man kunne have opbygget en fredsorden, fordi fjenden var væk, eller var ved at forsvinde; Sovjetunionen udgjorde ikke længere en trussel, fordi Gorbatjov havde accepteret en demokratisering af de østeuropæiske lande, og det var det, vi kaldte “menneskehedens stjernestund”, et af de sjældne øjeblikke, hvor man kan udforme historien til det bedre.  

Dengang udgjorde Sovjetunionen ikke nogen trussel, og derfor var det helt forståeligt, at [USA’s udenrigsminister] James Baker III den 9. februar 1990 i en diskussion med Gorbatjov lovede: “NATO vil ikke udvide sig en tomme mod øst”. Nu siger [NATO’s generalsekretær] Stoltenberg i dag, at der aldrig blev udstedt et sådant løfte, men det er ikke sandt. Jack Matlock, som var USA’s ambassadør i Moskva på det tidspunkt, har mange, mange gange erklæret, at der faktisk blev afgivet et sådant løfte. 

Der findes en video med den tidligere tyske udenrigsminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, hvor han bekræfter dette, og for blot et par dage siden gennemførte den daværende franske udenrigsminister Roland Dumas et interview, hvor han absolut bekræftede dette, og sagde: “Ja, vi lovede dette”. Der er også dukket et nyt dokument op, som befinder sig i de britiske arkiver.   

Så der er overvældende beviser for, at der blev afgivet et sådant løfte. Når Putin nu siger, at han føler sig forrådt, er der derfor konkrete beviser, for Putin kom også til Tyskland i 2001, hvor han talte til den tyske Forbundsdag på tysk, og han var fuld af forslag og forhåbninger om at opbygge et fælles europæisk hus, at samarbejde. Han talte om det tyske folk, om kulturens folk, om Lessing og Goethe. 

Der var potentiale til ligefrem at omgøre situationen i 1990’erne, med Jeltsin og chokterapien. For på det tidspunkt var der desværre sket det, at visse kredse i Storbritannien og USA besluttede at opbygge en unipolær verden. I stedet for at opbygge en fredsorden sagde de: “Okay, nu er der mulighed for at opbygge et imperium efter det Britiske Imperiums forbillede, baseret på det særlige forhold mellem Storbritannien og USA: Det blev benævnt PNAC, Project for a New American Century.  Langsomt, trin for trin, begyndte de at foretage regimeskifte af alle, der ikke var enige i dette, at gennemføre en farverevolution, at gennemføre humanitære interventionistiske krige, som resulterede i Afghanistan, Irak, som var baseret på løgne; den utrolige løgn over for FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om Libyen; forsøget på at vælte Assad [i Syrien]; krige, som har ført til, at {millioner af mennesker} er døde, at millioner af mennesker er blevet flygtninge og har fået et ødelagt liv. 

Så dette var et område, hvor Ukraine fra starten udgjorde en stor del af regnestykket. Der var i alt fem bølger af NATO-udvidelser, og i 2008 blev det på topmødet i Bukarest lovet, at Ukraine og Georgien ville blive en del af NATO, hvilket set fra Ruslands opfattelse, bestemt ikke er acceptabelt. I stedet for at NATO ikke bevægede sig “en tomme mod øst”, flyttede det sig 1.000 km mod øst!  De sidder nu i de baltiske lande, på grænsen til Rusland, men Ukraine ville medføre, at offensive våbensystemer ville være i stand til, at nå Moskva på mindre end 5 minutter, og reelt gøre Rusland forsvarsløst.  Man må forstå, at det er Ruslands vitale sikkerhedsmæssige interesse, som, hvis NATO ville inkludere Ukraine, ville krænke denne interesse, og derfor er al denne diskussion om, at ukrainerne har ret til at vælge deres egen alliance, reelt ikke troværdig!  Eftersom det også er et princip i alle officielle dokumenter, at man ikke kan garantere et lands sikkerhed på bekostning af et andet lands sikkerhed, hvilket i dette tilfælde ville være Rusland. 

Så det der skete var, at da EU forsøgte at inkludere Ukraine i EU’s associeringsaftale i slutningen af 2013, erkendte den daværende præsident Janukovitj, at det var uacceptabelt, fordi det praktisk talt ville have åbnet Sortehavet og NATO for de ukrainske havne, så han trak sig ud af aftalen. Straks fulgte demonstrationerne på Maidan; og det siges altid, at det blot var demokratiske individer – selvfølgelig var der demokratiske mennesker, som ønskede at være en del af Europa og en del af Vesten. Men lige fra begyndelsen var der elementer, som efterretningstjenesterne havde holdt skjult siden Anden Verdenskrig, Stepan Banderas netværk, som var den person, der havde samarbejdet med nazisterne under Anden Verdenskrig. Stepan Bandera blev faktisk agent for MI6; hans netværk havde kontorer i München, de var en del af den anti-bolsjevistiske blok af nationer, de blev holdt skjult af efterretningstjenesterne, MI6, CIA, BND, med henblik på en eventuel konfrontation med Sovjetunionen.  Disse netværk blev mobiliseret på Maidan, som en del af en operation for regimeskifte, en farverevolution, og så til sidst kuppet, som USA – ifølge Victoria Nuland – havde brugt 5 milliarder dollars på at opbygge ngo’er og grundlæggende forsøge at manipulere befolkningen til at tro, at hvis de blev medlem af EU, ville de fra den ene dag til den anden, blive rige i lighed med Tyskland, hvilket naturligvis aldrig var planen.

Derfor indtraf kuppet naturligvis, og med kuppet i februar 2014 kom der netværk til magten, som var ekstremt undertrykkende over for det russiske sprog og den russiske befolkning, det var derfor, at befolkningen på Krim stemte for at blive en del af Rusland.  Det var ikke Putin, der annekterede Krim, det var en foranstaltning til selvforsvar for den russisktalende befolkning på Krim, for at få mulighed for at stemme ved en folkeafstemning.  Befolkningen i Østukraine besluttede at udråbe sig til uafhængige republikker af samme grund. 

Minsk-aftalen skulle have indeholdt en forhandlingsmodel, der kunne give disse uafhængige republikker mere autonomi i Ukraine, men den ukrainske regering har {aldrig} gennemført dette – både Tyskland og Frankrig, som skulle være en del af Normandiet-drøftelserne, herunder Tyskland, Frankrig, Ukraine og Rusland, lagde aldrig pres på den ukrainske regering, så det førte ingen steder hen.  I mellemtiden var der flere og flere manøvrer omkring Rusland, så dette eskalerede til det punkt, hvor der i november var manøvrer, hvor der ligefrem befandt sig flyvende fartøjer, som testede og indøvede et atomangreb på Rusland i en afstand på 22 km. fra Ruslands grænse.  

Det var denne følelse af øget omringning, som er årsagen til, at Putin den 17. december sidste år erklærede, at han ønskede sikkerhedsgarantier for Rusland fra USA og NATO om, at de juridisk forpligtende, ville garantere Ruslands sikkerhed, hvilket ville omfatte: 

NATO må ikke ekspandere yderligere mod øst. 
Ukraine må aldrig blive medlem af NATO, af de grunde tidligere nævnt. 
Der må ikke placeres offensive våben ved Ruslands grænse. 

Men han fik ikke nogen respons. Han fik et svar fra USA og NATO, som grundlæggende reagerede på sekundære spørgsmål, f.eks. en vis aftale om at genoptage våbenforhandlingerne, men han fik ikke svar på de centrale krav. Jeg tror, at det eksempelvis er årsagen til, at Rusland og Kina nu har indgået en meget tæt strategisk alliance, hvilket skete den 4. februar, og Putin forsøgte at afprøve, om der var villighed fra europæiske nationer, som Tyskland – hvis kansler, Scholz, tog til Moskva, og den franske præsident Macron, som tog til Moskva – men han kom til den konklusion, at der ikke var nogen beredvillighed til at stå op imod NATO’s og USA’s fortsatte bestræbelser på at fortsætte Ruslands omringning. 

Nu kan man indvende, at krig er meget slemt, og naturligvis er det det mest forfærdelige, der kan ske. Men man må forstå, at hvis man sætter Ruslands centrale sikkerhedsinteresser i fare, ja, så er det, hvad man risikerer at få!  Man er nødt til at forstå Ruslands historie: For der har allerede to gange tidligere været en invasion af Rusland.  Den ene var med Napoleon, som, hvis man husker det, eller hvis man kender historien, havde en enormt stor hær og gik ind i det meget vidtrækkende område i Rusland. Der var en plan om at besejre Napoleon ved at lokke ham ind i de fjerne regioner, ved at få ham til at trække en lang operationel linje, ved at udnytte det faktum, at Napoleon ødelagde alt på vej ind, for i bund og grund at gøre det umuligt for ham at få flere forsyninger af fødevarer og andre materialer. De tillod endda, at Moskva blev brændt ned for at sikre, at der ikke var noget, som Napoleon kunne anvende for at overleve vinteren, så han måtte træffe beslutningen om at trække sig tilbage, i vinteren, med sneen. Da Napoleons tropper endelig kom tilbage til Ruslands grænser, var der kun nogle få mennesker fra en tidligere gigantisk hær.  Det var en traumatisk oplevelse, allerede dér.

Der var selvfølgelig også Hitler, som ligeledes invaderede Rusland, og for russerne er det en oplevelse, som er dybt indgroet i deres DNA, kan man sige, for de mistede 27 millioner mennesker!  For dem er det at forsvare Rusland det vigtigste – det er et spørgsmål om liv og død. 

Så hvad der nu skete var, at da alt dette eskalerede, udtalte Rusland: Vi trækker absolut en rød streg; da disse røde streger ikke blev respekteret, var dette så en handling, som skulle gøre det meget klart. Putin sagde, at han ville iværksætte en “militær-teknisk reaktion”, og jeg tror ikke, at Rusland har til hensigt at besætte Ukraine. Jeg tror de ønsker en vis neutralisering, de ønsker en afnazificering. Ærlig talt, med den nuværende kombination – Zelinskij blev ganske vist demokratisk valgt, men Azov-brigaden er der stadig som en del af forsvarsstyrkerne, og der er stadig medlemmer af parlamentet, en masse højreorienterede elementer. Zelinskij har forandret sig fra en fredselskende eller lovende fredspræsident til en person, der udelukkende er et redskab, og som ikke engang tør bringe Minsk 2 på banen, fordi han føler sig truet af at blive væltet, eller det der er værre, hvis han går ind for Minsk 2. 

Så det er en situation, hvor vi er nødt til at acceptere, at en afnazificering ikke er russisk propaganda, men at den rummer et reelt aspekt. Det er en komplet skandale, at Vesten med deres såkaldte frihedselskende, vestlige værdier, “regelbaserede orden”, demokrati, menneskerettigheder – er blevet lidt skrøbelige efter alle disse interventionistiske krige. Især det der blev begået og bliver praktiseret i Afghanistan, hvor folk bliver efterladt til at dø. Det er alt sammen en bevidst politik, fordi man vidste, hvad der ville ske, hvis der ville være en så hastig tilbagetrækning, der efterlod det afghanske folk med absolut ingenting.  

Så vi befinder os i en meget, meget farlig situation.  I søndags er der sket et epokegørende skift: Tyskland, som har gode grunde til at sige “aldrig mere” ønsker vi krig, fordi vi har haft to verdenskrige på vores jord, og i alles hukommelse, især hos de ældre, har vi vores forældres og bedsteforældres historier i baghovedet om, hvad krig gør, når den foregår på ens jord!  I søndags var der et jordskælv, hvilket jeg finder er en absolut katastrofe, fordi kansler Scholz afgav en regeringserklæring i Parlamentet, som i realiteten gjorde den tyske regering til et krigsministerium.  De ønsker nu at styrke Bundeswehr, og har oprettet en særlig fond på 100 mia. euro alene for i år; de ønsker at øge militærudgifterne og sender allerede våben til Ukraine, hvilket i realiteten var i strid med ethvert princip, som Tyskland anvendte, fordi landet havde den opfattelse, at man aldrig skulle sende våben til kriseområder.  

Alt dette er ved at ske.  Den tyske befolkning befinder sig i en fuldstændig tilstand af hjernevask.  I Frankrig er det ikke meget anderledes, men i Tyskland er det langt værre.  Folk på stedet, som kender til begge situationer, rapporterede, at det kun kan sammenlignes med det chok, som den amerikanske befolkning fik efter 11- september.  Jeg var i USA på det tidspunkt, og jeg husker, at man ikke kunne tale med nogen, fordi folk var fuldstændig vanvittige, opstemte og ophidsede, og det er nu tilfældet i Tyskland.  

Da jeg hørte kansler Scholz’ tale i går, mindede det mig om den forfærdelige tale, som kejser Wilhelm II holdt den 6. august 1914, da han bekendtgjorde, at Tyskland i princippet forberedte sig på Første Verdenskrig. Vi ved alle, at ved begyndelsen af Første Verdenskrig forventede ingen, at det ville tage fire år i skyttegravene, – frem og tilbage, frem og tilbage – meningsløse drab, og til sidst blev en hel generation ødelagt. Versailles-traktaten var en uretfærdig traktat, som ligefrem skabte forudsætningen for Anden Verdenskrig.

Så hvad gør vi nu? Jeg tror, at den eneste chance er, at vi omgående mobiliserer for en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, som skal tage hensyn til sikkerhedsinteresserne hos alle nationerne på kloden, både Rusland, Kina, USA, de europæiske nationer og alle andre nationer på kloden. Modellen for dette er den Westfalske Fredstraktat.  Traktaten blev indgået, fordi man havde 150 års religionskrig i Europa, hvis højdepunkt var Trediveårskrigen, og den førte til ødelæggelse af alt: en tredjedel af værdierne, af mennesker, af landsbyer, af dyr – så til sidst kom folk til den konklusion, at hvis de fortsætter denne krig, ville der absolut ingen være tilbage til at glædes over sejren. I fire år, fra 1644-1648, sad folk sammen og udarbejdede en traktat, som fastlagde meget vigtige principper. Det vigtigste princip var, at fred kun kan vindes, hvis en ny ordning tager hensyn til den andens interesser. Den havde andre principper, f.eks. at man for fredens skyld skal føre udenrigspolitik på grundlag af kærlighed, at man skal tilgive forbrydelserne på begge sider, for ellers ville man aldrig nå frem til en aftale. Den opstillede det princip, at staten skal spille en vigtig rolle i genopbygningen af økonomien efter krigen, og det førte til den økonomiske model ”kameralisme”. 

Denne Westfalske Fred var begyndelsen på folkeretten, og den afspejles i dag i FN’s charter, det er den model, der skal bruges for at få nationerne til at sætte sig sammen for at finde ud af, hvilke principper vi skal følge for at skabe en orden, der giver alle nationer mulighed for fredelig sameksistens.  Og det tilsvarende kameralistiske princip fra den Westfalske Fred må være, at denne nye kombination af sikkerhedsarkitekturer skal tage højde for den egentlige årsag til krig, nemlig det vestlige finanssystems forestående sammenbrud, som er ved at bryde sammen længe før denne situation med Ukraine udviklede sig, men som nu vil blive forværret af sanktionerne og alle konsekvenserne heraf; og den må anvende de foranstaltninger, som Lyndon LaRouche allerede definerede for adskillige år siden.

Det er nødvendigt at gøre en ende på kasinoøkonomien, for det er den, der er drivkraften bag denne konfrontation.

Der må indføres en global Glass/Steagall-aftale om adskillelse af bankerne; der skal oprettes en nationalbank i hvert enkelt land i Alexander Hamiltons tradition, og der skal etableres et nyt Bretton Woods-system for at skabe et kreditsystem til langsigtet udvikling, der kan løfte udviklingslandene gennem industriel udvikling.

Alt dette skal fokusere på den presserende udfordring med pandemien: Vi har brug for et globalt sundhedssystem, for uden det vil denne pandemi og fremtidige pandemier ikke forsvinde; vi har brug for en forøgelse af verdens fødevareproduktion, for vi har en hungersnød af “bibelske dimensioner”, som David Beasley fra Verdensfødevareprogrammet konstant fremhæver; vi har brug for en indsats for at overvinde fattigdommen i alle lande, hvor den er en truende kendsgerning, f.eks. i Afrika, mange latinamerikanske og asiatiske lande, ja, selv i USA og Europa. 

Udgangspunktet er naturligvis Kinas tilbud til USA og Europa om at samarbejde med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, om muligvis at tilslutte sig USA’s Build Back Better-program og EU’s Global Gateway-program, ikke at betragte det som konkurrence, men som en mulighed for samarbejde. For kun hvis verdens nationer samarbejder økonomisk til gavn for alle, har man et grundlag af tillid til at etablere en sikkerhedsarkitektur, som kan fungere.

Så jeg mener, at vi har udsendt en sådan opfordring til en konference og en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, og jeg opfordrer jer til at udbrede denne idé, få mange mennesker til at underskrive dette opråb, få folk til at skrive artikler, kommentere det, skabe en international debat om, at {vi har brug for et nyt paradigme}: For enhver fortsættelse af geopolitik med det såkaldte “fjendebillede” af den ene eller den anden part vil føre til en katastrofe, og hvis det kommer dertil, vil der ikke være nogen tilbage til overhovedet at kommentere det, fordi det vil være menneskehedens undergang.   

Så jeg opfordrer dig: Deltag i vores mobilisering, fordi det er dit liv og hele vores egen fremtid.

Skriv gerne under og del:
Link: Underskriftindsamling: Indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere
en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer

 




Video: Samarbej med Kina. Det er ikke fjenden.
Interview med Li Xing, PhD, professor i udvikling og internationale relationer ved Aalborg Universitet

KØBENHAVN, 27. januar 2022 — Schiller Instituttet i Danmark har gennemført et vigtigt, timelangt videointerview med Li Xing, ph.d., professor i udvikling og internationale relationer ved Aalborg Universitet i Danmark. Li Xing er medlem af det samfundsvidenskabelige fakultet på Institut for Politik og Samfund og leder af forskningscentret for udvikling og internationale relationer. Han er oprindeligt fra Jiaxing nær Shanghai og arbejdede i Beijing, inden han kom til Danmark i 1988 for at tage sin kandidat- og ph.d.-grad.

Det omfattende interview dækker Kinas forbindelser med USA, Europa (USA–Kina-rivalisering), Rusland (Kina ville støtte Rusland, hvis det blev smidt ud af Swift-betalingssystemet), Europa og Afrika (Kinas udviklingsprogram er en hjælp for Europa i forbindelse med flygtningeproblemet), Latinamerika (Kina har fremmet den økonomiske udvikling i USA’s baghave, mens USA har været fokuseret på krige og farverevolutioner), Afghanistan (med helhjertet støtte til Operation Ibn Sina) og andre udviklingslande.

Det omfatter også, hvad professor Li Xing ville sige til præsident Biden om forbindelserne med Kina, Xi Jinpings Davos-tale, Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og Xinjiang-spørgsmålet. Han opfordrer USA og Europa til at samarbejde med Kina om deres respektive nødvendige infrastrukturudvikling, for at fremme udviklingen af de underudviklede lande og for at droppe den geopolitiske taber-strategi. Han slutter med at rose Schiller Instituttets udviklingsprogrammer for verden.

Interviewet, der blev foretaget af Michelle Rasmussen, vil blive transskriberet til offentliggørelse i EIR og er nu tilgængeligt på Schiller Instituttets YouTube-kanal i Danmark.

Here is a pdf version published in Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 49, No. 5 (www.larouchepub.com/eiw). We encourage you to subscribe.:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

INTERVIEW

Professor Li Xing

Cooperate with China – It Is Not the Enemy

The following is an edited transcription of an interview with Prof. Li Xing, PhD, conducted on Jan. 26 by Michelle Rasmussen, Vice President of the Schiller Institute in Denmark. Dr. Li is a professor of Development and International Relations at the Department of Politics and Society, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Aalborg University. Li Xing was born in Jiaxing, China, near Shanghai. He earned his BA at the Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages. He came to Denmark from Beijing in 1988 for his MA and later completed his PhD studies at Aalborg University.

Subheads have been added. A video of the interview is available here . https://youtu.be/rulm1czmaTE

Michelle Rasmussen: Welcome, Professor Li Xing, thank you so much for allowing me to interview you.

Prof. Li Xing: Thank you too.

Michelle Rasmussen: Li Xing, as we speak, there is an overhanging threat of war between the United States and NATO against Russia and China, countries which the war faction in the West sees as a threat to the disintegrating, unipolar Anglo-American world dominance.

On the other hand, the Schiller Institute has led an international campaign to try to get the U.S. and Europe to cooperate with Russia and China to solve the great crises in the world, especially the pandemic, the financial and economic crises, the underdevelopment of the poor countries, and the cultural crisis in the West. Our international president, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has stated that the U.S.-China relationship will be the most important relationship in the future.

You recently gave a lecture at the Danish Institute for International Studies about the U.S.-China rivalry. And you are a contributor to the book The Telegram: A China Agenda for President Biden by Sarwar Kashmiri, which was published in 2021 by the Foreign Policy Association in New York City. The book is composed of statements by the contributors of what each would say if they were granted a personal meeting with President Biden. What would your advice be to President Biden regarding China?

Advice to President Biden

Prof. Li Xing: Thank you for giving me this chance for this interview. If I had the chance to meet the President, I would say to him:

Hello, President Biden. I think that it is a pity that you didn’t change Trump’s China policy, especially regarding the trade war and the tariff. We can see from the current situation that in the U.S., the shortages issue, the inflation issue, these are all connected with tariff issue. Many congressmen and senators are calling for the removal of the tariffs. So, I really think that the president should give second thoughts to continuing the trade war. Contrary to this, though, the data from 2020 and 2021 shows that the China-U.S. trade actually surged almost 30%, compared with early years. So, the trade war didn’t work.

The second issue is the competition in the area of high technology areas, especially regarding the chip industry. I’d say to him:

Mr. President, the U.S. has the upper hand in that technology, and China has the largest market. I think that if the U.S. continues to use a technology sanction on Chinese chips, then the whole country and the whole nation will increase the investment on the chips. Once China has the technology, then the U.S. would both lose the market, and also lose the advantage in that technology.

So, this is the second issue, I think the president should give a thought to.

The third issue, which I think is a very touchy issue, is the Taiwan issue. I would really advise the President:

Mr. President, to play the Taiwan card needs caution, because Taiwan is the center of Chinese politics, in its historical memory, and the most important national project in the unification process. So, to play the Taiwan card really needs caution.

But still, I would also say to the President:

Mr. President, China and the U.S. have a lot of areas for cooperation. For example, climate change; for example, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan; and last but not least, because China has great technology and skill in terms of infrastructure, so you, Mr. President, should invite China to come to the U.S. and play a role in the U.S. infrastructure construction projects. That would be an ideal situation to promote bilateral relations.

Attitude of the U.S. Toward China

Michelle Rasmussen: In your statement in the book, The Telegram, you address whether the United States should consider China as an enemy or as rival. What would you say to the American people about the attitude that the United States should have towards China?

Prof. Li Xing: I don’t think that the U.S. should regard China as an enemy, but as a rival. I think there is a truth in that because China is obviously a rival to the United States on many, many grounds, both in materials and also in ideation. Nevertheless, it is not an enemy. China and the U.S. have so many areas of cooperation as you point out, that this bilateral relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world. Were this relationship turned into an enemy relationship, it would be a disaster for the world.

Michelle Rasmussen: On January 17, Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos. What do you think is most important for people in the West to understand about his speech?

Prof. Li Xing: Xi Jinping was invited to the World Economic Forum, and he sent some messages. In his address he admitted that economic globalization has created problems, but that this should not constitute a justification to write off everything regarding globalization, regarding international cooperation. So, he suggested that the world should adapt and guide globalization.

He also rejected the protectionist forces on the rise in the West, saying that history has proved time and time again that confrontation does not solve problems; it only invites catastrophic consequences.

President Xi also particularly mentioned protectionism, unilateralism, indirectly referring to the U.S., emphasizing that this phenomenon will only hurt the interest of others as well as itself, meaning that the U.S. trade war, or sanctions against China, will hurt both. It’s not a win-win, it’s a lose-lose. President Xi delivered a message that rejects a “zero sum” approach. I think it was a very constructive message from President Xi Jinping. He totally rejects, if I interpret his address correctly, the Cold War mentality. He doesn’t want to see a Cold War mentality emerge in either the U.S., or in China.

The Belt and Road Concept

Michelle Rasmussen: Let’s move on now to the question of the Belt and Road Initiative. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Schiller Institute has worked to establish a new Silk Road, the World Land-Bridge, and many of these economic principles have been coming to life through China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Li Xing, in 2019 you wrote a book, Mapping China’s One Belt One Road Initiative, and have lectured on this. How has the Belt and Road Initiative created economic development in the underdeveloped countries?

Prof. Li Xing: First of all, I think that we need to understand the Belt and Road concept—the historicity behind the Belt and Road; that the Belt and Road is not an international aid program. We have to keep that in mind. It is an infrastructure project attempting to link Eurasia. It has two routes. One is a land route, consisting of six corridors. Then, it has another route called the Maritime Silk Road. Globally, about 138 countries, ranging from Italy to Saudi Arabia to Cambodia, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China. Just recently another country in Latin America signed up with the Belt and Road.

The idea of the Belt and Road is founded on two basic Chinese economic strengths. One is surplus capital. China has a huge amount of surplus capital in its banks, which it can use for investments. The second is that after 40 years of infrastructure development in China, China has huge technology and skill, particularly in the infrastructure development area. So, the Belt and Road is basically an infrastructure development project.

The driving force of China’s Belt and Road is that after 40 years of economic development, China is experiencing a similar situation experienced by the advanced countries in world economic history—for example, rising wages, overproduction, overcapacity, and a lot of surplus capital.

So, China is looking for what the Marxist analytical lens calls a ”spatial fix,” as in its domestic market, the mass production manufacturing is getting extremely large. In looking beyond Chinese territory at Chinese neighbors, China has discovered that all the countries around China are actually very, very far behind in infrastructure development. So, it’s kind of a win-win situation. The idea behind the Belt and Road is a kind of a win-win situation.

Historically, the Post World War II Marshall Plan in Europe, and the military aid to East Asia, were, you could say, like Belt and Road projects, helping those countries to enhance economic development. I recently came across a World Bank study pointing out that if the Belt and Road projects were successfully implemented, the real income level throughout the entire region would rise between two or four times. At the global level, the real income can rise between 0.7 -2.9%. So, you can say, the international financial institutions, and economic institutions like World Bank, are also very positive toward the Belt and Road.

However, the Belt and Road also has four areas which we need to be concerned about. Number one: the debt trap, which has been discussed quite a lot at the global level. Number two: transparency, whether the Belt and Road projects in different countries are transparent. This, too, is an issue for debate. Number three: corruption, whether Chinese investments in countries creates corruption by local officials. The number four area for concern is the environmental and social cost. So, these definitely need to be taken care of, both by China and those countries.

As a whole, I think the Belt and Road project is huge. It’s very constructive. But we also need to consider its potential to create bad effects. We need to tackle all these effects collectively.

‘Debt Trap’ Diplomacy

Michelle Rasmussen: When you spoke just now about a debt trap, our correspondent Hussein Askary, who covers the Muslim world, and also developments in Africa, has argued against the idea that China is creating a debt trap, pointing out that many of the countries owe much more money to Western powers, than they do to China, and that China has done things like forgiving debt, or transferring physical assets to those governments, because the debt trap accusation has been used as the primary argument against the Belt and Road. Do you think that this is a legitimate argument or that this is overplayed to try to just create suspicion about the Belt and Road?

Prof. Li Xing: No, I fully agree, actually, with the comment you just quoted from another study. It is true that the “debt trap” has been used by Western media, or those politicians who are against the Belt and Road, as an excuse, as a kind of a dark picture. But, according to my research, China actually understands this problem, and very often, the Chinese government uses different measures, or different policies, to tackle this problem. One is to write off the debt entirely, when the borrowing country would really suffer, if it had to repay. For example, the Chinese government announced that during the pandemic, debt service payments from some poor countries is suspended until their economic situation improves.

China is a central-government-based country. State policy plays a bigger role than in the political system of the West, where different interest groups drive their countries’ policies into different directions. Therefore, the Chinese central government is able to play a bigger role than Western governments in tackling debt problems.

Michelle Rasmussen: What has this meant for the underdeveloped countries, for example, in Africa, and other poor countries in Asia, in Ibero-America? What has the Belt and Road Initiative meant for their economic development?

Prof. Li Xing: The increasing number of countries that have signed up with the Belt and Road, shows that the Belt Road project is comparatively quite welcomed. I have also followed many debates in Africa, where many African leaders were asked the question and they completely agree. They say that the situation regarding the debt of the old time, their experiences with the colonial countries, is quite different from the debt incurred with China’s investment projects or development projects. So, they still have confidence in China’s foreign development policies, especially in the Belt and Road project. From the many studies and reports I have read so far; they have strong confidence in that.

Infrastructure Means Development

Michelle Rasmussen: What would you say about the role of infrastructure development in China in creating this unprecedented economic growth and lifting people out of poverty? What role has infrastructure played in the incredible poverty elimination policy that China actually succeeded in achieving this year?

Prof. Li Xing: The entire 40-year history of China’s economic growth and economic development, and China’s prosperity, is based on the lesson that infrastructure is one of the most important factors leading to China’s economic success. China has a slogan: “If you want to get rich, build a road.” Infrastructure is connected with every aspect of national economy. The raw materials industry, the metal industry, you name it. Cement industry, etc. Infrastructure is really the center of a nation’s economy, which can really get different areas of the country running. So, I think this experience of China is really a good lesson, not only for China itself, but also for the rest of the world, especially for developing countries.

That’s why China’s Belt and Road project, identified as infrastructure projects, is really welcomed by many people, and especially President Biden. Even though his budget was not passed, because of the resistance, or even if it’s shrunken, the idea about improving U.S. infrastructure, became a kind of hot spot. I think that the U.S. needs to increase its infrastructure investment as well. Definitely.

Europe-China Relations

Michelle Rasmussen: Let’s move on to Europe and China relations. You have edited the book China-U.S. Relations at a Crossroads: “Systemic Rivalry” or “Strategic Partnership.” What is your evaluation and recommendation about European-Chinese relations? When we spoke earlier, you had a comment about how the impact of African development, if there would be development or not in Africa, would impact Europe. Could you also include your idea about that?

Prof. Li Xing: EU-China relations are increasingly complex, and affected by a number of interrelated factors, such as China’s rise, the growing China-U.S. rivalry, U.S. global withdrawal, especially under the Trump administration, the trans-Atlantic split, the Brexit, and at the same time, the China-Russia comprehensive alliance. Under these broad transformations of the global order, EU-China relations are also getting very complex. Right now, I feel that the EU and China are struggling to find a dynamic and durable mode of engagement, to achieve a balance between opportunities on the one side, and challenges on the other, and also between partnership and rivalry.

For instance, China and the EU successfully reached what is called the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment treaty in December 2020. It was a joyful moment. However, in 2021, due to the Hong Kong events, the Xinjiang issue, and mutual sanctions in 2021, this investment treaty was suspended. Not abandoned but suspended. You can see that the relationship can be hurt by events. It’s really difficult to find a balance between strategic partnership and systemic rivalry. “Systemic rivalry” was the official term used in a European Commission document, “EU-China—A Strategic Outlook,” issued March 12, 2019. That document states that China is “simultaneously … an economic competitor in the pursuit of technological leadership, and a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance.”

So, you can see that a systemic rival means alternative normative values. That’s why it’s a new term, when used in that way. It shows that China’s development has both a material impact, and, also, an ideational impact—that many countries are becoming attracted by the Chinese success. For that reason, the Chinese, and the rise of China is increasingly regarded as a systemic rival.

On the other hand, the message from my book is also that the EU must, one way or another, become autonomous, and design an independent China policy. Sometimes I feel that the EU-China policy is somehow pushed around or carried by U.S. global interests, or affected by the U.S.-China competition. I really think Europe needs an independent China policy. You know, the EU is thinking of developing “defence independence.” That is, it is pursuing autonomy in defense. But that’s something else.

According to data from Kishore Mahbubani, a very well-known Singaporean public intellectual and professor, the Belt and Road has special meaning for Europe in relation to Africa. This is of importance to your question about Africa.

According to his data on the demographic explosion in Africa, Africa’s population in the 1950s was half of that of Europe. Today, Africa’s population is 2.5 times that of Europe. By 2100, Africa’s population will be 10 times of that of Europe. So, if Africa still suffers from underdevelopment, if any crisis appears, where will African refugees migrate? Europe!

From Kishore’s point of view, the Belt and Road is doing Europe a “favor,” so Europe should be very supportive of China’s Belt and Road project. I totally agree with that. What he says is also a part of the message of my book.

A ‘Differentiated’ Europe

Michelle Rasmussen: You were speaking about Europe becoming more autonomous in its relations with China. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stated openly that Germany should not be forced to choose between the United States and China, that Germany needs to have relations with both. Can you say more about that? Is China Europe’s biggest trading partner?

Prof. Li Xing: Yes, since November last year.

Michelle Rasmussen: There’s differentiation inside Europe. For example, the Eastern European countries have a forum called “16+1,” where 16 Eastern European countries, plus China, have a more developed Belt and Road cooperation with China, than the Western countries. And there’s differentiation in the western European countries. You mentioned that some are making Hong Kong and Xinjiang into obstacles to improving European relations to China. What would you say to these concerns?

Prof. Li Xing: China-EU relations are being affected by many, many factors. One is, as you mentioned, about 16+1, but now it’s 17+1, because, I think two years ago, Greece became a part of 16+1, so now it’s 17+1. And the western part of the EU, was quite worried about the 17+1 because some think that the Belt and Road plays a role in dividing Europe. Because Europe has this common policy, common strategy, and common action toward the Belt and Road, they also see the 17+1 grouping as somehow playing a divisive role. So, the EU is not very happy about that. Because you’re right, the Belt and Road is more developed in the eastern part of the EU. This is one issue.

The second issue is that the EU has to make a balance between China on the one side, and the U.S. on the other. Right now, my assessment is that the EU is somehow being pushed to choose the U.S. side. It’s fine with me, from my analytical point of view, that the EU, most of the countries in the West, the traditional U.S. allies—like including Denmark—if they choose the U.S., that’s fine. But my position is that their choosing sides should be based on their own analysis, their own national interests, not purely on the so-called values and norms, that the U.S. and EU share norms, and therefore should have a natural alliance. I think that is not correct. I always advise Western politicians, thinktanks, and policy makers that they should study China-U.S. relations or EU-China-U.S. relations and try to find their own foreign policies. What is the correct direction? And based on their own judgment, based on their own research results, not based on what the U.S. wants them to do.

Michelle Rasmussen: One of Denmark’s top former diplomats, Friis Arne Petersen, has been Denmark’s ambassador to the United States, to China, and to Germany. At the Danish Institute for International Studies, he recently called for Europe to join the Belt and Road Initiative. Why do you think it would be in the interest of Europe and the United States to join or cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative, instead of treating it as a geopolitical threat?

Prof. Li Xing: Well, on the Belt and Road, as we have already discussed, we must first understand what it is. I fully agree with Friis Arne Petersen. When he was Ambassador to Beijing, I met him at one of the international conferences. He was always very positive towards Denmark-China cooperation. I fully agree with his point on the Belt and Road. But we have to understand, first of all, why the West is nervous about the Belt and Road. This is very important, because the European’s or the American’s worry is based on two perspectives. One is geopolitics. The second is norm diffusion. Geopolitics means that through the Belt and Road, China’s economic political influence will gradually expand to cover all of Eurasia, which is not in the interest of the West. This is a geopolitical rationale.

Then the second perspective is norm diffusion, which means that through the Belt and Road, the Chinese development model spreads. As I mentioned before, because of the global attraction to China, the Chinese development model will be consolidated and extended through the Belt and Road, and that is also not in the interest of the West. That’s why China is a “systemic rival,” because it has a norm diffusion effect. We have to understand these two aspects.

But why should Europe support the Belt and Road? I have already discussed this issue in my answer to your previous question regarding the importance of infrastructure development, and regarding why Europe should support the Belt and Road, especially in the context of Africa.

Michelle Rasmussen: And you also spoke about the need for infrastructure development in the United States. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the United States a grade point average of C- for the state of its infrastructure. Looking at high speed rail in China and in the United States, there’s nothing to compare.

Prof. Li Xing: No, no.

Michelle Rasmussen: In its 14th Five-Year Plan, China has committed itself to increase its high-speed rail lines by one third, from the present 38,000 kilometers to 50,000 kilometers by 2025. The U.S. has maybe a hundred and fifty kilometers.

Prof. Li Xing: I was told by American friends that the U.S. has not invested heavily in infrastructure for many, many decades, about half century, something like that. I was shocked to hear that. So, I think Biden’s idea of infrastructure investment is great, but somehow the bill could not be agreed on by the Congress, and also the Senate, due to partisan conflict.

Michelle Rasmussen: And it was not very ambitious in any case.

Prof. Li Xing: Yes, totally.

Reordering the World Order

Michelle Rasmussen: It was a step in the right direction, but was not very ambitious.

Let’s move on to Latin America, which we in the Schiller Institute call Ibero-America. That’s because our members say that the Spanish language did not proceed from Latin. The Iberian Peninsula is Portugal and Spain, so Ibero-America is a better term. In any case, Li Xing, you are working on a study, China-U.S. Rivalry and Regional Reordering in Latin America. Can you please share the main idea with us?

Prof. Li Xing: Yes. I’m working on this book, together with a group of Latin American scholars from different countries in the region. The objective of the book is to provide a good conceptualization, first, of the changing world order, and the reordering process. When we talk about that the world order is changing because of the U.S.-China rivalry, at the same time, we also suggest that the world is experiencing a reordering process, that we do not know the future order, or the new order, but the world is in the process of reordering, driven by the China-U.S. rivalry.

The book will also try to convey that the U.S.-China rivalry, according to our conceptualization, is “intra-core. According to the world system theory, you have a core which is the advanced economy countries, then you have a semi-periphery, and then you have a periphery. The semi-periphery is between periphery and the core, and the periphery is the vast number of developing countries. So the China-U.S. rivalry, competition, especially in high technologies in the security areas, is between these two core countries, or is intra-core.

The China-U.S. rivalry also represents a struggle between two types of capitalism. On the one side is Chinese state capitalism, very centralized, state led, with central planning. On the other side is the U.S. free market, individual capitalist economy. Somehow the China model is gradually appearing to be more competitive. Of course, the U.S. doesn’t agree with that assessment, at least from the current perspectives.

So, this rivalry must have a great impact on the whole world, especially on the developing world we call the Global South. Here we’ve tried to focus on the U.S.-China rivalry, and its impact on the Latin American and Caribbean region.

The message of the book is, first, that global redistribution of power is inevitable. It’s still in process, and the emerging world order is likely to be dominated by more than one superpower, so the world order will likely look like a polycentric world, with a number of centripetals competing for high positions or strong positions. This is the first message.

The second message is that the situation shows that the world is in a reordering process driven by the competition between the two superpowers, and it poses opportunities, and also constraints, to different regions, especially for the Global South, such as Latin America, because Latin America is the U.S. backyard; it is the subject of American doctrines—that North America and South America, are a sphere of U.S. influence.

The Monroe Doctrine

Michelle Rasmussen: You’re talking about the Monroe Doctrine?

Prof. Li Xing: The Monroe Doctrine. Thank you very much. North America and South America have to be within the U.S. hegemonic influence. No external power is allowed to have a hand in, or interference in these two regions. You can say that China’s relations with Latin America has really been increasing tremendously during the past two decades.

At the same time, the U.S. was busy with its anti-terrorism wars, and its creation of color revolutions in other parts of the world. If you look at the investment in infrastructure, and also imports of agriculture, China-Latin American trade and Chinese investment in Latin America are increasing tremendously, dramatically, which becomes a worry, a really deep worry, to the U.S.

The different scholars, the book’s chapter authors, will use different countries and country cases as examples to provide empirical evidence to our “theoretical conceptualization.” This book will be published around summertime by Brill, a very good publisher in Holland.

Michelle Rasmussen: Well, actually, the Monroe Doctrine was adopted in 1823, in the very early history of the United States. This is after the United States had become a republic and had freed itself from the British Empire. It was actually John Quincy Adams—

Prof. Li Xing: Exactly.

Michelle Rasmussen:—who was actually involved in the idea, which was that the United States would not allow imperialism, imperial powers to bring their great power games into Latin and South America, but that the United States would help those countries become independent republics. So the question becomes, will Chinese policy strengthen the ability of the Ibero-American countries to be republics and enjoy economic development, or is China’s intention also a kind of imperialism?

Prof. Li Xing: Based on your definitions, on your conceptualization of the Monroe Doctrine, you can say that there are two implications. One is that the U.S. should defend these two regions from imperialist intervention. The U.S. itself was not an imperial power at that time. The U.S. didn’t have intentions to become a global interventionist then, but today it is a different situation.

Second, that the U.S. definitely interprets Chinese investment and infrastructure cooperation, and economic investment in Latin America as “helping,” to consolidate the country’s independence? No, I don’t think that is the case. That would be a kind of positive-sum game. Today, unluckily, these two countries are trapped into a zero-sum game. Whatever China is doing in the South American region, is interpreted as not being good for United States. That’s a very unfortunate situation.

Michelle Rasmussen: Actually, we in the Schiller Institute have said that if the United States were to join with China to have even better economic development in Ibero-America; that would be a win-win policy. You spoke about the immigration challenge from Africa to Europe. It’s the same thing from Ibero-America to the United States. People would much rather stay in their own countries if there were jobs, if there were economic development,

Prof. Li Xing: Yes.

Michelle Rasmussen: And if the United States would join with China, then instead of—

Prof. Li Xing: —building the wall! Instead of building the wall!

Michelle Rasmussen: Exactly, exactly.

Prof. Li Xing: Yeah, I agree with you.

Operation Ibn Sina

Michelle Rasmussen: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the President of the Schiller Institute, has stated that one very important way to lessen the war danger between the United States, Russia and China would be for these countries to join forces to save the people of Afghanistan, where there is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world now, after the war, the drought, and the freezing of Afghanistan’s central bank assets by the western countries. She has proposed what she calls Operation Ibn Sina, named after the great physician and philosopher from that region, to build a modern health system in Afghanistan to save the people from disease, and as a lever to stimulate economic development.

I know that when we spoke about Afghanistan before, you also referred to very important discussions now going on in Oslo, for the first time, between the Taliban and Western governments, including in the United States.

But what do you think about this idea of China and the United States, and also Russia and other countries, joining hands to act to alleviate the terrible crisis for the people of Afghanistan?

Prof. Li Xing: It’s a superb idea. This is one of the initiatives by the Schiller Institute. When I read your website, you have many development projects, and this one is a great idea. This is one of the areas I mentioned where the U.S. and China have a common interest. Unfortunately, what is happening today is the Ukraine crisis and the China-U.S. rivalry—so many battle fronts—puts Afghanistan more into the background.

Right now, the Taliban delegation is talking with the West in Oslo, and I really hope there will be a constructive result, because after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s Taliban government immediately went to China. And it was a Chinese interest. It was in China’s fundamental interest to help Afghanistan, because if Afghanistan is safe and prosperous, then there will be no terror and terrorism coming from Afghanistan across the border. Many of the terrorists in Xinjiang actually based themselves in Afghanistan. So it is in China’s national interest to help Afghanistan.

Right now, I don’t know whether it is still in the U.S. interest to help Afghanistan. The U.S. might be tired of that region, because the U.S. lost two trillion dollars in the Afghanistan war, without any positive results. So, I do not know. I cannot tell the what the U.S. politicians’ feelings are, but the U.S. holds $9.5 billion of Afghanistan assets. And I think that money has to be released to help in the country’s rebuilding.

And particularly, the Schiller Institute’s suggestion of a health care system is the priority. When people are in good health, then people can work, and earn money. When people have a job or have a family, normally, people do not move. According to refugee studies, people normally do not move just because of a shortage. People move because of a situation devastated by war, by climate change, by various crises. Otherwise, people are relatively stable and want to stay in their homeland.

Xinjiang

Michelle Rasmussen: You mentioned Xinjiang again now. Do you have something to say about Xinjiang for people in the West?

Prof. Li Xing: I think that there are a lot of misunderstandings between the West and China, especially the misunderstanding from the Western side concerning Xinjiang. The other day, I saw a debate at Oxford University between an American former politician and a British former politician, about whether China is a friend or a foe. The American representative put forward the claim that in Xinjiang, we are experiencing what is called genocide. But later, at the end of his discussion, he admitted that there is no genocide, but he deliberately used genocide as a kind of provocation in order to receive attention from the world. The British representative asked if this view caused such a bad misunderstanding, misperception, then why not just give it up?

Do not use genocide. You can criticize China for human rights abuses. You can criticize China for its minority policies, etc. But to deliberately defame China is not a good way. I don’t think it’s a good way. We also have to be fair.

On the one side, you can criticize China’s policy treating problems in the minorities and others. But you have to also condemn terrorist actions because there were a lot of terrorist bomb killings in that region, especially from 2012-2015, around that time.

I was in Xinjiang as a tourist in 2011, and I was advised to not pass by some streets, because there could be some risks. You can see that it was a very tense situation because of a lot of bombings. People pointed out to me, here were some bombings, there were some bombings. You don’t understand. So, the West should be fair and condemn these things, while at same time, also advising the Chinese government to develop a more constructive policy to resolve the problem, rather than using harsh policies. It has to be fair. This is the first point.

Second, is that genocide not only defames China, it’s also contrary, it’s opposite to the facts. Twenty years ago, 30 years ago, Xinjiang’s Uighur population was about five million or eight million. But after 30 years, I think it’s about 11-13 million. I do not know exactly, but there has been a growth of population. How can you claim genocide, when the local population is increasing? Do you understand my point? So, this is not a good attitude. It is not a very good way to discuss with China and it makes China much more resistant in talking with you, when China fears that it is being defamed.

When some Western sources, in particular one German scholar, use a lot of data from a Turkish scholar, who is connected to the “minority resistance” from Xinjiang, then the credibility, reliability of the source is in question. You understand my point. So, the Xinjiang issue is rather complicated, but the West and China should have a dialogue, rather than use in this specific discourse rhetoric to frame China in a way that China is the bad guy. It should be condemned. I think this is not constructive.

The SWIFT System

Michelle Rasmussen: Going back to the war danger, what do you think the impact on China and on the world economy would be, were the U.S. to force Russia out of the SWIFT international payment system, or similar draconian measures?

Prof. Li Xing: Let me tell you that Olaf Scholz, the current German Chancellor, already expressed it very well, saying that if Russia were sanctioned and pushed out of the SWIFT payment system, then Europe could not pay Russia for its gas and oil. “If we can’t pay Russia, then Russia will not supply us. Then what should we do?”

I read in the news today that the U.S. said, “We could supply most of Russia’s oil and gas.” Then Europe began to ponder: “Well then, this war has become your war, you know—a very egoistical interest, because you actually want to replace Russia’s gas and oil supply. That’s why you want to instigate the war.”

So, I think it’s the U.S. that has to be very cautious in its sanctions, because the only sanctions possibilities for the United States today against major powers is financial, is payment—it’s the U.S. dollar. That’s the intermediate currency, the SWIFT system.

And when China sees this, that only strengthened China’s conclusion to develop what we call electronic currency. China is using a lot of energy today investing in electronic currency. This electronic currency is a real currency. It’s just electronic. It’s being implemented in some big cities in test trials.

Then, back to the SWIFT system, [if a country were thrown out] it would be rather impossible or would rather create a lot of problems in the international payment system, then the whole system will more or less collapse, because most countries watch this, and they will try to think about how they should react in the future if the U.S. uses the same system of sanctions against them. I just mentioned China, but also many other countries as well. They have to find an alternative.

One other alternative is to use currencies other than the U.S. dollar as much as possible. I just read in the news today that the Chinese yuan has surpassed the Japanese yen as the fourth international [reserve] currency. And the situation will accelerate in that direction. So, I think that the U.S. should think twice.

On China-Russia relations, I definitely think that China will help Russia in case the U.S. really implements a sanction of pushing Russia out of the SWIFT payment system. China definitely will help Russia, because both face the same pressure, the same struggle, the same robbery from the U.S.

So, it is very bad. It is extremely bad strategy from the U.S. side to fight, simultaneously, on two fronts with two superpowers. This is what Henry Kissinger had said many times during the entire Cold War period. The U.S. was able to keep relatively stable relations between U.S. and China and between U.S. and the Soviet Union, keeping the Russia and China fighting against each other. But now it’s the opposite situation. The U.S. is fighting with two big powers simultaneously. I don’t know what is in the mind of the U.S. politicians. I really think that the U.S. needs to redesign its strategic foreign policy.

The Schiller Institute

Michelle Rasmussen: Yeah. We’ve been speaking mostly about the U.S., but the British really are an instigator in this: the British Old Empire policy of trying to drive a wedge between the United States, Russia and China. That also has a lot to do with the current situation. We spoke before about that the Schiller Institute is trying to get the United States’ population to understand that the whole basis for the existence of the United States was the fight against the British Empire, and against this divide and conquer strategy, and, rather, to cooperate with Russia and China.

In conclusion, this conversation has been very wonderful. Do you have any parting words for our audience? We have many people in Europe and in the United States. Do you have any parting words of advice as to how we should look at China and what needs to be different about our policy?

Prof. Li Xing: No, I think that I want my last words, actually, to be invested in talking about the Schiller Institute. I think that some of your programs, some of your projects, and some of your applications are really interesting. The Schiller Institute has a lot of ideas. For example, you just mentioned your campaign for an Afghanistan health care system, but not only in Afghanistan. You promote these ideas for Africa, in developing countries. I really think that the Schiller Institute should continue to promote some of the ideas—a health care system in every country, especially now, considering the pandemic. The rich countries, including China, are able to produce vaccines, but not the developing countries. The U.S. has more vaccine doses stored up than necessary [for itself]. But Africa still has only a very low percentage of people [who have been vaccinated].

Michelle Rasmussen: I think 8%.

Prof. Li Xing: And we claim the Omicron variant of the coronavirus came from Africa. That’s an irony. That’s an irony, because it’s definite that one day, another variation will come from Latin America, or from some other part of the world.

So, it’s rather important for the West, and for China, to think about some of the positive suggestions by your Institute. I’m glad that you invited me for this interview, and I expect to have more cooperation with you. Thank you very much.

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Li Xing.




Pressemeddelelse den 6. januar 2021:
Hvorfor USA og NATO bør underskrive traktaterne foreslåede af Putin. 
Interview med rusland-ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen til Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Læs afskriftet på engelsk nedenunder.

KØBENHAVN — I lyset af den eskalerende spænding mellem USA/NATO og Rusland, som kan føre til en varm krig, ja endog atomkrig, foretog Schiller Instituttet i Danmark et timelangt engelsksproget video/lydinterview med Rusland-ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen den 30. december 2021.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen er cand. mag. i idéhistorie og historie, og var i slutningen af​​ 1990’erne Politikens Moskva-korrespondent. Han er forfatter til flere bøger om Rusland og Ukraine, leder af Russisk-Dansk Dialog og lektor i kommunikation og kulturelle forskelle på Niels Brock handelshøjskole. Jens Jørgen Nielsen underviser på Folkeuniversitetet og andre steder, ligesom han arbejder med danske eksportvirksomheder, der vil ind på det russiske, ukrainske og hviderussiske marked. Han har i mange år arrangeret rejser til Rusland.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen, med mange års erfaring i at analysere Rusland, Ukraine og vestlige holdninger og handlinger i forhold til Rusland, taler tydeligt om konsekvenserne, hvis ikke Vesten er villig til seriøst at forhandle en diplomatisk løsning på de “røde linjer”, som Putin og andre førende russiske talsmænd har udtalt er ved at blive krydset: Hvis Ukraine tilslutter sig NATO, og hvis NATO’s ekspansion mod øst fortsætter, og hvorfor USA og NATO burde underskrive Putins foreslåede traktater om disse spørgsmål.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen tager fat på de ændringer, der er nødvendige på den vestlige side, som vil afgøre, om de kommende forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland om disse “røde linjer” den 10.-13. januar vil lykkes med at trække verden tilbage fra randen af krig.

Interviewet er endnu vigtigere efter bekendtgørelsen den 3. januar 2022 for første gang af en fælles erklæring fra stats- og regeringscheferne for de fem atomvåbenstater, som også er de permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om, at “atomkrig ikke kan vindes og aldrig må udkæmpes”, og dermed anerkendelsen af hvad der er på spil under den nuværende krise.

—————————————-

 Nogle højdepunkter:

Et højdepunkt er Jens Jørgen Nielsens personlige diskussion i 1989 med Mikail Gorbatjov om NATO-udvidelse mod øst:

“Faktisk havde jeg en lang snak med Mikhail Gorbatjov, den tidligere leder af Sovjetunionen, i 1989, lige da NATO begyndte at bombe Serbien, og da de indlemmede Polen, Tjekkiet og Ungarn i NATO. Man bør huske på at Gorbatjov er en meget rar person. Han er en meget livlig person, med godt humør og en erfaren person. Men da vi begyndte at snakke, spurgte jeg ham om NATO-udvidelsen, som foregik præcis den dag, hvor vi snakkede. Han blev meget dyster, meget trist, fordi han sagde: Altså, jeg talte med James Baker, Helmut Kohl fra Tyskland og flere andre personer, og de lovede mig alle ikke at flytte en tomme mod øst, hvis Sovjetunionen ville lade Tyskland forene DDR (Østtyskland) og Vesttyskland, for at blive ét land, og komme til at blive medlem af NATO, men ikke bevæge sig en tomme mod øst.’… Det stod ikke skrevet, for, som han sagde, “Jeg troede på dem. Jeg kan se, at jeg var naiv.” 

Et andet vigtigt afsnit er, hvad Jens Jørgen Nielsen ville sige til Biden, og andre NATO-statschefer, i en privat diskussion før de kommende forhandlinger mellem USA/NATO og Rusland. “Jeg ville sige, ’Se, Joe, jeg forstår dine bekymringer. Jeg forstår, at du ser dig selv som en forkæmper for frihed i verden, … men ser du, det spil, du nu spiller med Rusland, er et meget, meget farligt spil. Og russerne, som et meget stolt folk, man kan ikke tvinge dem’, angående USA’s og nogle europæiske landes politik, til at skifte Putin ud med en anden præsident. “Jeg kan forsikre dig, Joe Biden, vær sikker på, at hvis det lykkes, eller hvis Putin dør i morgen, eller de på en eller anden måde får en ny præsident, kan jeg forsikre dig om, at den nye præsident vil være lige så hård som Putin, måske endda hårdere… Jeg tror,​​det ville være klogt for dig, lige nu, at støtte Putin, eller at handle med Putin, engagere sig med Putin og lave noget diplomati, fordi alternativet er en mulighed for krig, og du burde ikke gå over i historien som den amerikanske præsident, der sikrede menneskehedens udryddelse. Det ville være et dårligt, meget dårligt eftermæle for dig.’ 

Han forholder sig til den reelle mulighed for, at vi søvngængeragtigt går ind i atomkrig, som før 1. Verdenskrig, som svar på Schiller Instituttets memorandum Er vi søvngængeragtigt på vej til atomar 3. verdenskrig? den 24. december 2021.

“[Man] kan forestille sig, hvad der vil ske, hvis Kina, Iran og Rusland havde en militær alliance, der gik ind i Mexico, Canada, Cuba, måske også opstillede missiler dér… [T]anken om en atomkrig er forfærdelig for os alle, og det er derfor jeg synes, at politikere må komme til fornuft… for milliarder vil dø i dette. Og det er et spørgsmål, om menneskeheden vil overleve. Så det er et meget, meget alvorligt spørgsmål. Og jeg tror vi bør spørge om Ukraines ret til at have NATO-medlemskab, som dets egen befolkning egentlig ikke ønsker, er det virkelig værd at risikere en atomkrig for? Sådan vil jeg sige det.”

——————————

Interviewet har andre afgørende afsnit: 

Baggrund om NATO’s udvidelse mod øst.

Fuld støtte til seriøse forhandlinger med Rusland og underskrivelse af de to foreslåede traktater, som opfordret af Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Forkerte forestillinger i vesten om Rusland og Putin, og manglen på vilje til at håndtere andre kulturer som ligeværdige, medmindre de er ligesom os.

Hvordan pro-vestlige holdninger i Rusland, herunder af Jeltsin og Putin, blev afvist, og Rusland derefter vendte sig mod Kina.

Hvordan Ukraine-krisen ikke startede med “annekteringen” af Krim, men med det han kalder “et kup” mod den ukrainske præsident Janukovitj, som ønskede økonomiske forbindelser både med EU og Rusland; plus baggrunden for Krim-spørgsmålet.

Vigtigheden af​​ en dialog mellem kulturer, herunder “Musikalsk dialog mellem Kulturer”-koncerterne i København, arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet, Russisk-Dansk Dialog og Det kinesiske Kulturcenter i København. 

Jens Jørgen Nielsens opbakning til mange af Schiller Instituttets idéer og indsatser.

Mere information, eller for at aftale et nyt interview, kontakt:

Michelle Rasmussen fra Schiller Instituttet i Danmark: 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk, www.schillerinstitute.comwww.schillerinstitut.dk

Afskrift på engelsk: (Kortet på side 15 viser NATO, hvis Ukraine og Georgien bliver medlemmer.)

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Forhenværende dansk diplomat, Friis Arne Petersen,
opfordrer Europa til at slutte sig til Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet
og lære om infrastrukturøkonomi fra Kina

There is an English version below.

København, 10. november (EIRNS) – Den tidligere danske ambassadør Friis Arne Petersen holdt en yderst vigtig tale i går, hvor han opfordrede Europa til at slutte sig til Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet (BRI), og udfordrede Europa og USA til at lære fra Kina, hvordan man skaber økonomisk vækst ved hjælp af investeringer i storstilet, højteknologisk infrastruktur. Hans konklusion var, at vi bliver nødt til at forstå infrastrukturens rolle i at skabe økonomisk vækst. Hvis vi sørger for vandforsyning, energi og transport, så vil der være vækst, fordi mennesker er kreative.

Friis Arne Petersen var dansk ambassadør til USA, Kina og Tyskland (5 år i hvert land fra 2005 til 2020), såvel som tidligere direktør for det danske udenrigsministerium. Før dette var han direktør for udenrigsministeriets russiske og østeuropæiske afdeling. Han er også økonom.

Konferencen »Geoøkonomi eller Geopolitik«, som både fandt sted fysisk og blev live-streamet, blev afholdt på Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), den førende udenrigspolitiske tænketank som er tilknyttet det danske udenrigsministerium. Den kan ses på engelsk ovenover eller her: http://www.diis.dk/en/event/geoeconomics-or-geopolitics

En repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet uddelte konferenceindbydelser til alle deltagere og stillede to spørgsmål (ved 1 time 54 minutter). Se nedenfor.

Først forklarede Lars Erslev Andersen, en DIIS-forsker, Halford Mackinders idé om britisk geopolitik og det eurasiske kerneland (11:50 minutter inde). Han stillede spørgsmålet, hvad det betyder for Europa, at Kina investerer i det centralasiatiske kerneland – er det geopolitik eller geoøkonomi?

Her er højdepunkterne fra Friis Arne Petersens tale, som havde titlen »Er Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet geoøkonomi eller geopolitik?« (begynder 30 minutter inde).

Lær af Kina: Vi koncentrerer os ikke nok om, hvordan Kina skabte deres succesfulde økonomiske udvikling. Hvorfor er infrastruktur så vigtigt for Kina, både indenfor og udenfor landets grænser?

Finansiel udvikling: Kineserne var utilfredse med Den internationale Valutafond (IMF) og Verdensbanken, så de oprettede Den asiatiske infrastruktur- og Investeringsbank (AIIB). Til trods for opposition fra USA, efter at Storbritannien tilsluttede sig, og dernæst Frankrig og Tyskland, ringede Friis Arne Petersen til København og sagde, at vi bliver nødt til at varetage nationale interesser og tilslutte os.

Infrastruktur for en forenet nation: Udfordringen for Kina var ikke blot ulighed, men nationens samhørighed. Det vestlige Kina måtte udvikles. Det har også en global indvirkning. De opbyggede industrierne for at forsyne infrastrukturen med goder. De forsøgte at udvikle de bedste, billigste teknologier og i deres målrettethed forårsagede de en overproduktion, hvilket BRI hjælper dem af med.

Manglen på strategiske visioner indenfor infrastruktur i USA og Europa: Han kritiserede USA’s program med kvantitative lempelser, siden Obama og fremefter, for ikke at investere i de nyeste transportteknologier ligesom Kina, der byggede et højhastighedstognet på tusindvis af kilometer. Han henviste til Los Angeles’ forældede havn og transportinfrastruktur som den medvirkende årsag til den nuværende forsyningskrise.

Europa: Friis Arne Petersen fortalte en historie om den tid, da SF’s formand, transportminister Pia Olsen Dyhr, mødtes med den kinesiske transportminister, imens Friis Arne Petersen var ambassadør. Den kinesiske minister spurgte hende om den nyligt forhandlede (meget uambitiøse) danske togfond og bemærkede, »Tja, det er en begyndelse, men vi eksperimenterer allerede med tog, der kan køre 500 km/t«. De skaber forskningsbaseret innovation. Den danske ambassade i Kina begyndte gradvist at forstå transportøkonomi. Tyskland var et negativt eksempel ved at nægte at hjælpe Danmark med at bygge Femern Bælt-forbindelsen (mellem Danmark og Tyskland).

Tilbagevisningen af beskyldningen om gældsdiplomati: Friis Arne Petersen citerede en rapport fra forskere fra Johns Hopkins University og Harvard Business School, »Kinesiske banker er villige til at omstrukturere betingelserne for de eksisterende lån, og har faktisk aldrig beslaglagt et andet lands aktiver, mindst af alt havnen i Hambantota [i Sri Lanka]«. Han sagde også, at landene langs BRI har en større gæld til vestlige kreditorer, end til Kina. (Den tredje taler ved begivenheden, DIIS-forsker Yang Jiang, satte også spørgsmålstegn ved beskyldningen om gældsdiplomati.)

Den tredje tale, »Centralasien: Konkurrencen om Kernelandet«, givet af Yang Jiang, omhandlede forskellige asiatiske landes, samt Tyrkiets, investeringer i Centralasien.

Spørgerunden: Efter at have identificeret sig selv, takkede en repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet, Michelle Rasmussen, Friis Arne Petersen for hans vigtige tale og sagde, at Schiller Instituttet har kørt en kampagne for at Danmark, Europa og USA tilslutter sig BRI, frem for at betragte det som en trussel. Hun henviste til sin uddeling af flyveblade og sagde, at videokonferencen denne uge vil besvare nogle af disse spørgsmål.

Hun stillede to relaterede spørgsmål. Det første var, hvordan vi kan få USA og Europa til at holde op med at betragte Kina, og særligt BRI, som en trussel, og i stedet se fordelene ved et økonomisk samarbejde. Vores motto er Fred gennem økonomisk Udvikling, fordi fortsættelsen af at betragte Kina og Rusland som trusler, og forfølgelsen af en konfrontationspolitik, fører til faren for krig.

Det andet spørgsmål var, hvad han mente om at integrere Afghanistan med BRI – kineserne er beredte på at gøre dette. Ville det ikke være vigtigt for USA og Europa – særligt de lande der var engagerede i krigen – at håndtere denne skrækkelige økonomiske krise i Afghanistan gennem et samarbejde med Kina?

Friis Arne Petersen svarede, at der er for mange opdelinger, snak om rivalisering eller de mange usikkerheder, som findes i forbindelse med Asiens fremgang. På samme tid som der er en vækst i den vestlige handel med Asien, for eksempel USA’s køb af mange kinesiske produkter nu efter pandemien, er vi fuldstændig besat af ideen om politisk konfrontation og systemiske udfordringer.

Jeg betragter verdensordenen gennem økonomi. Fremskridtet i retningen af FN’s udviklingsmål, takket være Asiens økonomiske præstation, giver mig en optimisme mht., at disse alarmister og folk, som ønsker at politisere og se farer og militære modstandere overalt, vil tabe. Vi bliver nødt til at betragte vores nationers samlede interesser.

På den ene side har Kina, med sine 14 nabolande, en større strategisk udfordring end USA, men Kina ser altid disse nabolande som muligheder, ligesom det som BRI for eksempel kunne opnå i Afghanistan. USA og Vesten har en meget klar interesse i at Afghanistans naboer, som for eksempel Kina, Pakistan og Indien, forsøger at tage vare på deres region, fordi de muligvis kan gøre dette bedre, end vi gjorde det i løbet af de sidste 20 år.

——————————-

English:

COPENHAGEN, Nov. 10 (EIRNS) — Former Danish ambassador Friis Arne Petersen gave an extremely important speech yesterday calling for Europe to join the Belt and Road Initiative, and challenging Europe and the U.S. to learn from China how to generate economic development through large scale, high-technology infrastructure investment. His conclusion was we have to understand the role of infrastructure in growth economics. If we ensure water, power and transportation, there will be growth, because humans are creative. 

Friis Arne Petersen was the Danish ambassador to the U.S., China and Germany (5 years in each country from 2005-2020), as well as the former director of the Danish Foreign Ministry, and, before that, director for the Foreign Ministry’s Russia/Eastern Europe division. He is also an economist.

The event, "Geoeconomics or geopolitics," both on-site and streamed, was held at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), the leading foreign policy think tank, affiliated with the Danish Foreign Ministry. See it, in English, here. (www.diis.dk/en/event/geoeconomics-or-geopolitics) 

A Schiller Institute representative distributed conference invitations to all attendees, and asked two questions (at 1 hour 54 minutes), see below. 

First, Lars Erslev Andersen, a DIIS researcher, explained Halford Macinder’s idea of British geopolitics and the Eurasian heartland (at 11:50 minutes). He posed the question, what does it mean for Europe, that China is investing in the Central Asian heartland, is it geopolitics or geoeconomics? 

Here are highlights from Friis Arne Petersen’s speech, entitled, "Is the Belt and Road Initiative geoeconomics or geopolitics?," (at 30 minutes). 

Learn from China: We are not concentrating enough on how China created their successful economic development. Why is infrastructure so important for China, both inside and outside the country? 

Financing development: The Chinese were dissatisfied with the IMF and World Bank, so they created the AIIB. Despite opposition from the U.S., after the UK joined, then France and Germany, Friis Arne Petersen called Copenhagen and said that we have to take care of our national interest and join. 

Infrastructure for a unified nation: The challenge for China was not just inequality, but the cohesion of the nation. Western China had to be developed. It also has global impact. They simultaneously built up the industries to provide the products for the infrastructure, trying to develop the best, cheapest technologies, and in their zeal, causing overproduction, which the BRI helps alleviate. 

Lack of strategic infrastructure vision in the U.S. and Europe: The U.S.: He attacked the U.S. stimulus programs from Obama onwards, for not investing in the newest transportation technologies, like China, which built thousands of miles of high-speed rail. He referenced the Los Angeles port’s antiquated harbor and transportation infrastructure as the contributing cause for the current bottleneck. 

Europe: Friis Arne Petersen told an anecdote about the time SF's chairman Pia Olsen Dyhr met with the Chinese transportation minister while Friis Arne Petersen was ambassador. The Chinese minister asked her about the newly negotiated (very unambitious) Danish train plan, and he replied, “Well, that’s a beginning, but we are experimenting with trains that can run 5-600 miles per hour.” The Danish Embassy in China gradually started to understand transportation economics. Germany was a negative example for refusing to help Denmark build the Fehmarnbelt tunnel (between Denmark and Germany). 

Debunking the debt diplomacy accusation: Friis Arne Petersen cited a report from researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Harvard Business School, “Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota [Sri Lanka].”  He also said that BRI countries owe much more to Western lenders, than China. (The third speaker at the event, DIIS researcher Yang Jiang, also challenged the debt diplomacy accusation.)

The third speech was “Central Asia: competing for the Heartland,” about investment in Central Asia by different Asian countries and Turkey by Yang Jiang.

Q&A: After identification, Schiller Institute organizer Michelle Rasmussen thanked Friis Arne Petersen for his important speech, and said that the Schiller Institute has been campaigning for Denmark, Europe, and the U.S. to join the BRI, instead of looking at it as a threat. She referenced her leaflet distribution, and said that our video conference this weekend will answer some of these questions.

She posed two related questions. One is, how can we get the U.S. and Europe to stop looking at China, and specifically the BRI, as a threat, and to see the advantages of economic cooperation? Our slogan is peace through development, because if we continue to regard China and Russia as threats, and pursue a confrontation policy, we are threatened with war. 

The other question is what you think about integrating Afghanistan into the BRI — the Chinese are ready to do that. Wouldn’t it be important for the U.S. and Europe, especially the countries in the war, to deal with this terrible economic crisis in Afghanistan, through cooperating with China?

Friis Arne Petersen said that there are too many division lines, talk of rivalry, or the many uncertainties that lie in the advance of Asia. At the same time that there is an increase of western trade with Asia, for example, the U.S. buying so many Chinese products now after the pandemic, we are totally obsessive about political confrontation, and systemic challenges. 

I approach the world order through economy. The progress towards the UN development goals due to the economic performance of Asia makes me optimistic that these alarmists, and people who want to politicize and see danger and military adversaries everywhere, will lose. We have to look at the total interests of our nations.

On the one hand, China, with its 14 neighboring countries, is more strategically challenged than the U.S., but China always sees the  neighboring countries as opportunities, like what the BRI will do in Afghanistan. The U.S. and the West have a very clear interest in having Afghanistan’s neighbors, like China, Pakistan and India, try to manage their region, because they, possibly, can do that better than we did during the last 20 years.




20 år efter den 11. september 2001:
Mindekoncert og videokonference, lørdag den 11. september eller bagefter

Videokonference: 
Vejen Frem: 11. september, Afghanistan og overvågningsstaten
Lørdag den 11. september 2021 kl. 20 dansk tid eller bagefter

—————————–

Mindekoncert med Schiller Instituttets NYC kor:
Beethovens Missa Solemnis ”Agnus Dei”
Fred for os selv og verden
Lørdag den 11. september 2021 kl. 1 eller bagefter 
Billetter (35 kr. eller mere) 

purchase tickets here      https://www.musae.me/sinycchorus/experiences/1140/911-memorial  

Mere på engelsk:

This weekend, exactly 20 years after the horrific 9/11 attack at the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and United Flight UA 93 in PA, the Schiller Institute's Annual 9/11 Memorial Commemoration to honor the victims and their memory, will be followed by an important "Look forward–where do we go from here?" event.  The Commemoration is a Classical music concert on Friday evening, and the "Look forward" event is the Schiller Institute Conference on Saturday. You are invited to attend both events.

The concert requires a ticket for $5 (or more if you wish to contribute), and can be used to view the concert anytime after the live event. The Saturday Conference is free, at www.schillerinstitute.com and will be archived immediately after the event.  Please join us for these two events at this moment of great peril, but also of great opportunity for mankind. "Dona Nobis Pacem."

INVITATION:

SCHILLER INSTITUTE NYC CHORUS PRESENTS:

9/11 Memorial Concert: Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis “Agnus Dei”

Peace for Ourselves, and the World 

Lørdag den 11. september kl. 1 dansk tid eller bagefter Biletter: 35 kr. eller mere   

purchase tickets here      https://www.musae.me/sinycchorus/experiences/1140/911-memorial  

Purchase your ticket, wherever in the world you are, using the above link. You may then use that ticket to view the concert either during the performance or at any time thereafter. 

Beethoven’s inscription above the “Dona Nobis Pacem” section calls for “inner and outer peace”: Bitte um inneren und äußeren Frieden, i.e., a plea for both spiritual and worldly peace. If there is any doubt of what outer peace refers to, no one will miss the operatic changes of scenes bringing in the trumpets and drums of war, the assertive entreaties following the stormy orchestral interlude replacing the calm plea for peace in the earlier section. This monumental piece resolves quietly and peacefully, but not without the lingering echo of drums in the distance. 

The concert will be broadcast live by MUSAE from Our Lady of Pompeii Church at 25 Carmine St. in New York’s Greenwich Village, with a mixture of prerecorded and live performances. Along with the final movements of the Missa Solemnis, the program will include live performances of works of Schubert, Schumann, Verdi, Moses Hogan and Harry T. Burleigh. More information about the Schiller Institute NYC Chorus can be found at sinycchorus.com.

—————————–

SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE

THE PATH FORWARD:
SEPTEMBER 11, AFGHANISTAN, AND THE SURVEILLANCE STATE

 Lørdag den 11. september  · kl. 20 dansk tid on schillerinstitute.com

Twenty years ago, America walked away from the U.S. Constitution, down the path of permanent war. “Preventive war,” which had been declared a “crime against humanity” at the 1949 Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis, was carried out by the United States against Iraq. This happened after Bush 43 told the world that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But within hours, the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency had determined that the British report was false; the documents upon which the war was based were forged. The war happened anyway, as did several others.

Trillions of dollars, millions of lives, and several destroyed nations later, we must admit the failure of our assumptions. A World Health Platform, as proposed by Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, providing clean water, public sanitation, and abundant energy, food and medicines to the world, is now the only truly human military strategy that the world can afford. A United States freed from the imperial designs of Great Britain’s City Of London should join its historical allies China and Russia and, in collaboration with the world’s nations, move humanity forward as a whole. That starts through a crash world public health platform, by means of which victory over the economic conditions that breed pandemic disease is a tangible as well as universal victory for all.

Speakers include Helga Zepp-LaRouche, VIPS members William Binney and Ray McGovern and others,

Please post these invitations everywhere, and print and ciirculate this PDF invitation,: 
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/laroucheorganization/pages/752/attachments/original/1630966641/20210911_leaflet.pdf?1630966641   

 

 

 




Schiller Instituttets Afghanistan opfølgningskonference 21. august 2021:
Fremskynd de økonomiske projekter; Tal med regeringen under dannelse

Resumé:

21. august (EIRNS) – Schiller Instituttet var vært for en international webcast i dag, "Nu, mere presserende end nogensinde: Afghanistan – mulighed for en ny epoke for menneskeheden", der samlede talere med bred erfaring fra seks nationer – USA, Tyskland, Pakistan, Canada og Italien. Tre hovedtemaer blev berørt gentagne gange i dialogen: Kast paradigmet for "endeløse krige" helt bort, tal med den nye afghanske regering, der er undervejs, og få gang i økonomiske projekter.
 
Talerne var Zepp-LaRouche – grundlægger og international præsident for Schiller Instituttet, oberstløjtnant Ulrich Scholz (pens.) (Tyskland), en militær og filosofisk ekspert; Pino Arlacchi (Italien), tidligere chef for FN's kontor for narkotikakontrol (1997-2002), nu professor ved Sassari University; Hassan Daud (Pakistan), administrerende direktør, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 'Province Board of Investment'; Ray McGovern (USA), tidligere CIA-analytiker og medstifter af 'Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity' (VIPS), og Nipa Banerjee (Canada), professor ved Universitetet i Ottawa. Et spørgsmål blev taget op af Khalid Latif, direktør for 'Center for Pakistan og International Relations' (COPAIR).
 
Her er Helga Zepp-LaRouches indledende bemærkninger:
 
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Lad mig hilse på jer, uanset hvor I måtte befinde jeg. Faktisk finder jeg det ret tilfredsstillende og interessant, at vi for præcis tre uger siden her på denne kanal havde et seminar om situationen i Afghanistan. På det tidspunkt sammenlignede jeg situationen – med hensyn til dens betydningsfuldhed – med Murens fald i 1989, som var begyndelsen på enden af ​​Sovjetunionen. Jeg sagde, at det måske ikke er helt så stort som Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, men det der sker i Afghanistan er af samme karakter, fordi det er enden på et system. Nu er jeg ikke sikker på, hvor mange mennesker der fandt, at denne beskrivelse var akkurat, men blot få dage senere havde man det meget pludselige sammenbrud af den afghanske hær. Taliban overtog begivenhederne, der stadig er temmelig kaotiske for nuværende. Så i en vis forstand er alt det, som vi sagde for tre uger siden, om hvad der må gøres, hvad der skal være løsningen – en økonomisk integration af Afghanistan i Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, der forener de allerede udviklede projekter mellem CPEC [Den kinesisk-pakistanske økonomiske Korridor], Khyber-passet til Centralasien – alt dette er stadig helt sandt. Så da dette skete, indtraf der en utrolig opstandelse. Der var diskussioner, som for eksempel da CDU’s kanslerkandidat i Tyskland, Armin Laschet, sagde, at dette er den værste krise i NATO siden dens begyndelse. Andre mennesker talte om Saigon 2021, og udtaler, at dette er Vestens absolutte fiasko.
 
Jeg tror, at denne diskussion vil fortsætte, fordi en hel masse spørgsmål melder sig. Hvorfor var der sådan et sammenbrud af hæren? Hvorfor kæmpede hæren ikke? Hvorfor tog efterretningstjenesterne så grundigt fejl? Hvad fremkom der om USA’s og de europæiske regeringers manglende evne til at tage hånd om deres egne soldater, endsige de afghanske medarbejdere, der har hjulpet under opholdet igennem 20 år, at evakuere dem? Det hele er i bevægelse.
 
Jeg mener, ​​at vigtigheden af ​​at presse på for en hurtig økonomisk udvikling er af allerstørste betydning, fordi Afghanistan allerede er blandt de ti fattigste lande i verden. Det er ramt af en frygtelig tørke. Hver tredje i Afghanistan er underlagt fødevareusikkerhed. Så har vi en pandemi, naturligvis. Så det værste der kunne ske er, at nogle kloge mennesker – eller ikke så kloge mennesker – i Vesten tænker i baner af økonomisk krigsførelse, og siger: “OK, den militære mulighed er tabt, fordi man ikke kan vinde i Afghanistan; det er blevet demonstreret af briterne, Sovjetunionen og nu NATO; man kan ikke vinde militært i Afghanistan. Så hvorfor bruger vi ikke økonomisk krigsførelse”? Og begyndelsen på handlingen kunne udvikle sig til dette; nemlig, at USA har indefrosset den afghanske regerings aktiver, som er omkring 9 milliarder dollar i Federal Reserve og andre amerikanske banker. Heraf er omkring 1,2 milliarder dollars i guldreserver, og der er omkring 300 millioner dollars i form af udenlandske reserver. Den tyske regering har afskåret al humanitær bistand. Lige nu er faren, at Vesten – i denne utroligt skrøbelige situation – beslutter at rejse et militært oprør kombineret med økonomisk krigsførelse i håb om at skabe kaos, så Taliban vil forsvinde, eller hvad som helst. Dette skal vi diskutere. Jeg mener, ​​at dette ville være den største tåbelighed, man overhovedet kan tænke sig.
 
Jeg er meget glad og taknemmelig for de andre paneldeltagere, der mødes her, fordi jeg synes, at vi straks har brug for at etablere ideen om, at den eneste måde man kan rette op på situationen er at tilbyde bistand til den nye regering i Afghanistan. Jeg forstår, at nogle af Taliban-lederne og også tidligere præsident Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah og forskellige andre kræfter samles i Kabul i dag for at diskutere dannelsen af ​​en regering. Jeg tror, ​​at dette skal stabiliseres, og at der ikke må tænkes i geopolitik, for som vi diskuterede det i det første panel for tre uger siden, på den ene side har man krisen i Afghanistan; men dette er en afspejling af et meget dybtliggende problem i den måde, som Vesten har ført disse endeløse krige på – Afghanistan, Irak, Syrien, Yemen, Libyen; listen er meget lang, hvilket reflekterer hvorvidt denne politik er levedygtig? Eller om Afghanistan ikke snarere er 'Mene Tekel', 'skriften på væggen', ​​ildbogstaverne på væggen i Belshazzar. Nogle af jer – Ray McGovern er jeg sikker på – kender dette smukke digt af Heinrich Heine om Belshazzar. Er mon Afghanistan 'Mene Tekel' for hele den vestlige civilisation? Og er det ikke på høje tid at ændre disse aksiomatiske antagelser om Rusland, om Kina, om Bælte- og Vejinitiativet? Fordi tilbuddet om samarbejde er der stadig og; fra kineserne, fra russerne. Så jeg mener vi virkelig står i en utrolig dramatisk situation, præcis som vi diskuterede det for tre uger siden, men i mellemtiden har begivenhederne vist, at vores diskussion var absolut forudseende.
 




Ny Afghanistan videokonference den 21. august 2021:
Nu mere presserende end nogensinde:
Afghanistan er en mulighed for et nyt epoke for menneskeheden

På engelsk:

Aug. 18 – With nearly all policy-makers and strategic analysts in the trans-Atlantic sector of the world in a clueless state of utter chaos and hysteria over the developments in Afghanistan, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche today convoked an urgent international seminar for this coming Saturday, August 21 to pursue the only available solution to the crisis: peace through development. The seminar will continue the prescient discussion held by the Schiller Institute on July 31, with many of the same panelists, as well as new ones.




Schiller Instituttets Afghanistan-konference:
Spred ideen om et fælles udviklingsprogram med det samme

31. juli (EIRNS) — Schiller Instituttet samlede i dag diplomater og eksperter fra mange nationer, herunder Afghanistan, Rusland, Kina, Pakistan, USA, Italien og andre til en intens diskussion på en international virtuel konference om temaet: "Afghanistan: Et vendepunkt i historien efter tiden med de fejlslagne 'regimeskifter'.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Tyskland), præsident og grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet, som har ledet en proces med institutionel og uformel dialog igennem de sidste 18 måneder, sagde ved afslutningen af dagens begivenhed, at vi nu ”har et perspektiv på hvilken vej vi skal gå". Prioriteten er "at lægge 'udvikling' frem på bordet, hvilket vil være svært for nogen at afvise", og at give al den støtte, der er mulig for at få det til at ske. Dagens sidste taler, Hussein Askary (Sverige), Sydvestasien-koordinator for Schiller Instituttet, udtrykte på det kraftigste, at vi skal "gøre 'udvikling' til det første punkt" i enhver forhandling, ikke det sidste. Han advarede: "Hold krigsherrerne og briterne ude!" Askarys præsentation, der dækkede konkrete aspekter af udvikling, havde titlen: "Sæt Afghanistan på bæltet & vejen til fred".

Arrangementet blev åbnet af ordstyrer Dennis Speed (USA), der sagde, at drøftelserne ville ændre den sædvanlige opfattelse af krig eller fred gennem deltagelse i diplomatiske bestræbelser på at formulere politik for gensidig forståelse og udvikling. Han introducerede en kort video fra 1985 af statsmand og økonom Lyndon LaRouche, der med henvisning til præsident Abraham Lincolns gerninger pointerede, at indflydelsen af infrastruktur forvandler en økonomi. Zepp-LaRouches indledende bemærkninger understregede, at vi befinder os i et særligt øjeblik i historien, hvor geopolitisk konfrontation må afsluttes og et nyt paradigme påbegyndes – ikke kun for eurasisk integration og velstand, men for universel historie. Hun viste det smukke kunstværk "Gyldne Maske" for at pointere den 5.000 år lange historie i den centralasiatiske region.

Professor Pino Arlacchi, der deltog fra Italien, spillede en hovedrolle i diskussionen fra start til slut. For indeværende er han professor i sociologi ved Sassari Universitet, tidligere var han administrerende direktør for FN's kontor for narkotikakontrol og kriminalitetsforebyggelse (1997-2002) og tidligere observatør for Afghanistan i Europa-Parlamentet. Han talte om: "Udryd opium i Afghanistan, udvikl moderne landbrug, opbyg nationen nu." Han beskrev sin oprindelige plan, som i 2001 næsten havde elimineret opiumsvalmuens vækst i Afghanistan, hvilket sidenhen vendte i de følgende år fra 2001 pga. amerikanske og NATO's militære operationer. Arlacchi foreslog igen i 2010 en plan, som blev forpurret af EU, Storbritannien og USA. I dag er Afghanistan kilden til over 80% af verdens opiumsstoffer. Arlacchi fremlagde hvad der kan og må gøres i dag. Den nødvendige metode baserer sig på alternativt landbrug – støtter landmænd til at skifte til andre afgrøder og lignende realistiske metoder. Arlacchi understregede, hvor relativt billigt dette er i betragtning af narkotikakartellernes enorme indflydelse. Landmænd i Afghanistan får muligvis 300 til 350 millioner dollars for deres opiumafgrøde, som derefter er 20 milliarder dollars værd for organiseret kriminalitet i Europa. Der er mange alternative afgrøder med stor brugsværdi, for eksempel safran.

Diplomaterne præsenterede et bredt udsnit af den nuværende situation. Ambassadør Hassan Shoroosh (Afghanistan), Afghanistans ambassadør i Canada, talte fra Ottawa og sagde, at der er et "nyt kapitel i partnerskab" forude, som skal udarbejdes. Hans tale hed: "Vejen frem for Afghanistan." Han sagde, at hans land er "positioneret til at tjene som landbro" i Eurasien og gennemgik i detaljer forskellige transportkorridorer, fra Lapis Lazuli-korridoren, til 'Five Nations Railway route'.

Ambassadør Anna Evstigneeva (Rusland) talte fra New York City, hvor hun er stedfortrædende fast repræsentant ved Den russiske Føderations mission i FN. Hendes præsentation havde titlen: "Ruslands udsigter for Afghanistan og Eurasien". Hun understregede, at målet er stabilitet, og at der ikke er nogen militær løsning. Der er vigtige ramme-institutioner blandt naboerne i regionen, herunder CSTO og SCO og bilaterale forbindelser. Der er en særlig rolle for den 'udvidede trojka', som har været på plads i mange år. Der vil finde møder sted i den nærmeste fremtid. Transport og infrastruktur har stor betydning.

Dr. Wang Jin (Kina), stipendiat ved Charhar Institute, talte om emnet "Afghanistan og Bælte- og Vejinitiativet". Han præsenterede fire centrale aspekter af Kinas bekymringer: 1) at der ikke er nogen spredning af ustabilitet; 2) at der er en fremtid med fremskridt for Afghanistan; 3) at ekstremisme og terrorisme ikke vinder frem; og 4) at Kina og Afghanistan har positive bånd.

Hr. Hassan Daud talte fra Pakistan. Han er administrerende direktør for 'Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province Board of Investment & Trade'. Han påpegede, at Afghanistan er et af "de mindst økonomisk integrerede [lande]" i den central- og sydasiatiske region efter årtiers stridigheder. Han talte om den store "økonomiske oversvømmelse" der vil følge, idet Pakistan udnytter sin position og sine ressourcer til at blive et logistisk knudepunkt og udvider fordelene for Afghanistan gennem Bælte- og Vejinitiativets flagskib, 'Kina-Pakistan-økonomisk Korridor' (CPEC). Vi skal have "ånden fra den gamle silkevej" igen. Han efterlyste flere seminarer om dette, der involverede forskere, handelskamre og andre.

Fra USA talte Ray McGovern. Han er tidligere analytiker i USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) og medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Han tog fat på emnet: "The Real Interest of the United States in Asia" og fremførte mange stærke punkter, herunder at rækken af militære chefer, der løj om hvad USA foretog sig i Afghanistan, i Irak samt andre steder må ”drages til ansvar”. Han påpegede dramatisk, at der ikke engang var blevet foretaget kompetente "situations-estimater", hvilket der ellers skulle, om terræn, vejr, LOCS-kommunikationslinjer og forsyninger og andre standardvurderinger af, hvad USA foretager sig på steder. I 2010 betalte den amerikanske flådes logistik 105 $ pr liter for at fylde brændstof på kampvogne og militære køretøjer i Afghanistan! Han langede hårdt ud efter den racisme, der var involveret i at formode, at man kan foretage sig alt muligt, hvor som helst; han citerede Kipling.

Mange andre var involveret i de to spørgerunder med vigtige udvekslinger om centrale emner. F.eks. fremhævede Earl Rasmussen, næstformand i Eurasian Society, nødvendigheden af at opbygge tillid. Dr. Stephen Fischer, en amerikansk læge, rapporterede om et år han tilbragte i sundhedsforvaltningen i Afghanistan, hvor han arbejdede sammen med et lokalt genopbygningshold. Zepp-LaRouche understregede mange gange, at det, i forbindelse med den langvarige pandemi, er bydende nødvendigt, at vi i Afghanistan og overalt tager skridt for folkesundhed og moderne lægelig infrastruktur. Dr. Walter Faggett og generalmajor Peter Clegg (fhv.), begge med i 'Komitéen for modsætningernes Sammenfald, deltog i den første spørgerunde. Alaha Ahrar, administrerende direktør for Kindness Sharing Project ringede ind fra Virginia for at spørge, hvad der ville ske med de fremskridt, som kvinder havde opnået i Afghanistan, hvis Taleban skulle tage magten?

Ambassadør Anna Evstigneeva drog den konklusion, at det er "vigtigt at hæve sig over geopolitikken". Hun sagde, at vi i Rusland "på alle niveauer, inklusive præsident Putin er klar til samarbejde". Helga Zepp-LaRouche opfordrede paneldeltagere og alle blandt seerne til at bidrage til perspektivet om udvikling, der blev diskuteret, og mobilisere herfor. Professor Arlacchi, der har udgivet en ny bog, Against Fear: Violence Is Diminishing, The True Threats to World Peace (på italiensk) talte i sine afskedsord om, at "fred er stærkere end krig. Lad os være mere modige. Ikke ofre for store bedrag”. Hele konferencen er arkiveret til visning. Nu er det tid til at slutte sig til Schiller Instituttet.




Schiller Institut internationale videokonference lørdag den 8. maj kl. 15.
Det vestlige systems moralske sammenbrud råber på et nyt paradigme

Panel 1:

 

Panel 2:

 

Tilmeld dig her i dag.

Ellers kan du bare se den på vores danske eller amerikanske hjemmesider.

Se invitationen nedenunder:

Speakers list in English:

Panel 1 — Lørdag den 8, maj 15:00 dansk tid

The March of Folly: Can Mankind Still Extinguish the Now-Lit Fuse of Thermonuclear War?

1. Keynote Speech: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder and Chairman, Schiller Institute: "Is Mankind the Immortal Species or More Stupid than Animals?"

2. Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, Political and Media Advisor to the Syrian Presidency: “Restore International Law: Respect Syria’s Perfect Sovereignty”

3. Col. Richard H. Black (US), former State Senator (Virginia), former head of the US Army’s Criminal Law Division, US Pentagon: “The Immorality of Sanctions: The Case of Syria”

4. Dr. Hans Koechler (Austria), University Professor of Philosophy, Vienna; President, International Progress Organization: “Unilateral Economic Sanctions: “Immorality and Arrogance of Great Powers”

5. Professor Dr. Wilfried Schreiber (Germany), Senior Research Fellow, World Trends Institute for International Politics, Potsdam, Germany: “Global Governance – An Answer from China and Russia”

6. Minister-Counsellor Sayed Mujtaba Ahmadi, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Afghanistan, Canada: “A Perspective for the Economic Development of Afghanistan in the Setting of the New Silk Road”

7. Prof. Eric Denece (France), Director, French Center for Intelligence Research: “Reflections for a New Foreign Policy”

8. Daisuke Kotegawa (Japan), former Ministry of Finance official, former Director for Japan at the IMF: “The Obama Sanctions Sabotaged Japan-Russia Development”

9. Caleb Maupin (US), Journalist and Political Analyst; Founder, Center for Political Innovation: “Sanctions Against Syria, Conflict with China: Who Benefits?”

Panel 2: Lørdag den 8. maj kl. 19 dansk tid

The Method of the Coincidence of Opposites: Only A United Worldwide Health Effort, Without Sanctions, Can Reverse A Worldwide Pandemic

1. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President, The Schiller Institute: Introduction

2. Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States: "Join or Die: Why A World Health Platform Protects Each of Us”

3. Dr. Walter Faggett (US), Former Chief Medical Officer, Washington D.C. Dept of Health, co-chair DC Ward 8 Health Council, and Ms.Genita Finley (US), Medical Student, Howard University: “Report: The Coincidence of Opposites Committee in Washington, D.C.

4. Pastor Robert Smith (US), Pastor of New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church, Detroit, Michigan; Chairman Foreign Mission Board of the National Baptist Convention, USA INC., "'Physician, Heal Thy Self': Saving a Nation in Crisis Through Love"

5. Dr. Khadijah Lang (US), Chairman, National Medical Association (NMA) Council on International Affairs; President, Golden State Medical Association, and Marcia Baker (US), Editorial Board, Executive Intelligence Review: “Report on Mozambique Pilot Aid Project—Toward World-Scale Mobilization”

6. Alf Schmidt (Germany), Independent farmer: “German Farm Protest Leaders: ‘Green Deal‘ Cuts Farmers, Food & People! – video exerpt of an interview in Berlin, March 23 2021

7. Rainer Seidl (Germany) Land Creates Connection (Land schafft Verbindung, LsV): “German Farm Protest Leaders: ‘Green Deal‘ Cuts Farmers, Food & People!” – video excerpt of an interview in Munich, February 7, 2021

8. Luis Vasquez (Peru), The Schiller Institute, ”Do Not Forget: The Global Concentration Camp Oven Is Now Nuclear”

9. Antonio Sanchez (Venezuela/Chile), Int’l. LaRouche Youth Movement: “They Knew or Should Have Known: the Cases of Venezuela and Chile”

_____________

Invitation:

Og selvom en mand tror,​​ at han virkelig ved noget, oplever han alligevel let, at det som han tror ​​han ved, kan erkendes mere sandfærdigt.

—Kardinal Nikolaus fra Kues (Cusanus), arrangør af kirkerådet i Firenze, 1439

Schiller Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i en webcast den 28. april, den påtrængende nødvendighed af Schiller Instituttets kommende international videokonference den 8. maj: 

"Jeg synes, at det faktisk er forfærdeligt, hvor få mennesker der er opmærksomme på den akutte fare, som civilisationen befinder sig i. Der er kun få stemmer, der advarer om atomkrig. En af dem, Tulsi Gabbard (tidligere kongreskvinde fra Hawaii, fhv. kampsoldat og præsidentkandidat), påpegede, for omkring to uger siden i et fjernsynsprogram med Tucker Carlson, det faktum, at hvis en krig ville bryde ud, ville den blive atomar, den ville nå USA’s territorium… og ingen ville overleve.” 

Stigende spændinger mellem Rusland og USA, og Kina og USA, alle atommagter, kan fremprovokere "det utænkelige". Dårskaben ved at lege "atomart kyllingespil”, som er blevet diskuteret i amerikanske militærdoktriner som "Prompt Global Strike", kan sammenlignes med at tænde en tændstik i en lejlighed fyldt med gas. De første øjeblikke af en sådan konflikt vil også være de sidste øjeblikke af konflikten.

”En lignende advarsel kommer fra en analytiker fra USA’s Flådeakademi (Naval War College), Lyle Goldstein, der sagde, at en atomkrig med Kina kunne afslutte livet på Jorden. 

Og der er også en graverjournalist, Caitlin Johnstone, der netop har publiceret flere artikler om, at faren for atomkrig er fuldstændig undervurderet. Jeg kan kun sige, at når man studerer hele det strategiske billede, hvordan disse forskellige scenarier udfolder sig, er det på høje tid at vågne op!” 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche beskrev konferencen således:

"Vi vil have to paneler: Det ene vil være om den strategiske situation, hvor vi allerede har arrangeret yderst højtstående talere fra mange lande, på tværs af Atlanterhavet og også Asien. Det andet panel vil dreje sig om Komitéen for modsætningernes Sammenfald. Dette er vores bestræbelse på at sammensætte en anti-malthusiansk maskine af mennesker, der kæmper for at få et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert eneste land på planeten, noget vi har sagt fra starten.

"Så hvad vi blandt andet vil diskutere er, hvad vi må gøre for at standse pandemien, ved at skabe et globalt sundhedssystem for at stoppe verdens hungersnød, som er omfattende, især i lande som Syrien, Yemen, men også Haiti og mange andre lande ramt af sanktioner. Vi kræver, at alle sanktioner ophæves. Sanktioner er en brutal form for krigsførelse mod de fattigste! Børnene, de gamle, dem der ikke rigtig kan hjælpe sig selv. Dette er en opfordring til handling for at ændre hele situationen og få flere mennesker til at forstå, at vi har brug for at ændre politikken, fordi vi er på vej mod en katastrofe. Og folk er nødt til at forstå det, og så er de nødt til at bevæge sig, og bevæge sig hurtigt sammen med os." 

Panel 1 – lørdag 8. maj, kl. 15 dansk tid 

Dårskabens march: Kan menneskeheden stadig slukke den nu antændte lunte med atomkrig?

Hovedtale: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale formand 

Panel 2: lørdag 8. maj, kl. 19 dansk tid 

Metoden bag Modsætningernes Sammenfald: Kun en samlet verdensomspændende sundhedsindsats, uden sanktioner, kan vende en global pandemi 

Tilmeld dig her i dag.

Ellers kan du bare se den på vores danske eller amerikanske hjemmesider.

—————-

Den første invitation:

21. april (EIRNS) – Det Internationale Schiller Institut holder en international videokonference lørdag den 8. maj om dette emne, såvel som Komitéen for modsætningernes Sammenfalds arbejde for at tackle den humanitære nødsituation i Syrien og Yemen.

”Dette må stoppe, og Cæsarsanktionerne [imod Syrien og andre nationer, som handler med Syrien] skal ophæves. Og alle medlemmer af den amerikanske kongres, der ikke ophæver disse sanktioner, gør sig selv medskyldige i enhver død, der sker i regionen. Dette har nået et punkt, hvor verden enten vågner op og begynder at afhjælpe dette, eller ikke vil overleve på grund af vores egen moralske fiasko som menneskelig art. Jeg opfordrer jer: Arbejd med Schiller Instituttet. Arbejd med instituttets Komité for modsætningernes Sammenfald, der arbejder med hjælpeprogrammer og genopbygning. Jeg appellerer til jer: Kom i forbindelse med Schiller Instituttet, og reagér på opfordringen fra kardinal Zenari”. — Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Our upcoming international conference on Saturday, May 8 will, in part, focus on the almost unthinkable horror of an exchange of nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia that now seems possible in the growing provocations against Russia in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Czech Republic. We can face, and reverse, such insanity.

Lørdag den 8. maj 2021
Panel 1: kl. 15 dansk tid
Panel 2: 19 dansk tid

Tilmeld dig for at modtage talerlisten og opdateringer.

Ellers kan du bare se den på vores danske eller amerikanske hjemmesider.




Provokationerne i Ukraine truer med at nedkalde krig over Europa – og verden

2. del kommer senere. 9. april – Efter regimeskiftet i februar 2014, som væltede den valgte regering i Ukraine – hvilket ikke kunne have fundet sted uden åbenlys støtte fra USA og regeringer i NATO – advarede russiske ledere gentagne gange om, at Ukraines indtræden i NATO var en "rød linje", som Rusland ikke kunne tillade. Natos stadige udvidelse mod øst, efter den fredelige opløsning af militæralliancen Warszawa-pagten i 1991, brød løfter der blev givet til de sovjetiske ledere om, at der ikke var nogen hensigt om at flytte NATO-styrker tættere på Ruslands grænser.

Det er af på grund af dette, at Ukraines præsident Volodymyr Zelenskys underskrivelse af præsidentdekret nummer 117/2021 den 24. marts 2021, der proklamerer, at Ukraines officielle politik er at tage Krim tilbage fra Rusland, førte til en dramatisk forøgelse af spændingerne, hvilket kan have været hensigten med denne provokation. Da der forekom en bevægelse af russiske tropper ind i grænseområdet, hvilket russerne sagde var en del af planlagte træningsmanøvrer og en styrkelse af de russiske styrker på Krim, hævede USA beredskabet for sine militære styrker i Europa til det højeste niveau. Der udbrød spredte kampe mellem ukrainske styrker og de militære enheder, som forsvarer "udbyderrepublikkerne" Luhansk og Donetsk; kampene omfattede ukrainske styrker, der afskød granater i Donbas sammen med ubekræftede rapporter om ukrainske soldaters død og brud på en skrøbelig våbenhvile.

Spændingerne steg igen, efter at den amerikanske Præsident Biden fortalte Zelensky, at han bekræfter USA's "urokkelige støtte til Ukraines suverænitet og territoriale integritet i lyset af Ruslands igangværende aggression i Donbas og på Krim". Bidens samtale med Zelensky blev efterfulgt af en række diskussioner mellem administrationens embedsmænd og deres ukrainske kolleger, herunder opkald fra udenrigsminister Blinken, den nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, Sullivan, forsvarsminister Austin og chefen for USA's militære stabschef, general Milley.

Samtidigt udviste Zelensky en hovedkulds mentalitet. Den 5. og 6. april talte han med Storbritanniens premierminister Boris Johnson, Canadas premierminister Trudeau og med NATO's generalsekretær, Jens Stoltenberg, om krisen og Ukraines ønske om at blive accepteret i NATO. I sin diskussion med sidstnævnte udtalte en rapport fra hans kontor, at han opfordrede til en større NATO-tilstedeværelse i Sortehavet, hvilket ville have en "stærk afskrækkende virkning på Rusland", som han beskyldte for at fortsætte "den store militarisering af regionen", og handlinger som "forhindrer handelsskibsfart". Han besvarede anmodningen om, at Ukraine gennemfører militære reformer for at kvalificere sig til medlemskab, ved at insistere på at de er indstillet på at gennemføre reformer, "men at reformer alene ikke vil stoppe Rusland. NATO er den eneste måde at afslutte krigen i Donbas på. "At gå ind på Ukraines NATO-handlingsplan (MAP), tilføjede han", vil være et 'vink med en vognstang' til Rusland".

Den 6.-7. april var formand for NATO’s militærkomité og ledende militærrådgiver for Stoltenberg, luftmarskal Sir Stuart Peach, i Kiev til et møde med Zelensky. Han mødtes også med øverstbefalende for Ukraines væbnede styrker, generaloberst Ruslan Khomchak. Efter sit møde med Zelensky sagde han, at NATO fordømmer Ruslands "ulovlige annektering af Krim og dets aggressive handlinger i det østlige Ukraine", og tilføjede at "Ukraine er en af ​​NATO’s nærmeste og vigtigste partnere". 'Annekteringen' af Krim fandt sted for næsten syv år siden, efter at dets befolkning overvældende stemte for at blive indlemmet i Rusland igen.

I takt med at presset for at bringe Ukraine ind i NATO stiger, afholder NATO 'Defender Europe 2021'-øvelser. Formålet med disse manøvrer er – ifølge repræsentanten for Ukraine i den trilaterale kontaktgruppe om Donbas, Alexey Arestovich, på YouTube-kanalen UKRLife.TV – at forberede sig på en mulig militær konfrontation med Rusland. Denne øvelse, uddybede han, er designet til at koordinere aktioner fra Østersøen til Sortehavet for at forberede sig på "krig med Rusland, scenariet med væbnet konfrontation med Rusland". Øvelserne strækker sig gennem maj og juni og vil være de største i 25 år og involverer 28.000 styrker fra 26 nationer, inklusive Ukraine.

I lyset af disse provokationer udtrykte Kreml-talsmand Dmitry Peskov tvivl om, hvorvidt den ukrainske præsident, Volodymyr Zelensky, overhovedet kontrollerer den ukrainske hær langs den kontaktlinje, som våbenhvilen etablerede. ”Indtil videre kan vi ikke se indikationer af, at den ukrainske side ønsker at køle lidt ned, droppe krigsretorikken, der ligger skjult bag talen om en eller anden imaginær trussel, og tage kontrol over sine hærenheder der er indsat direkte langs kontaktlinjen [i Donbas ], og det bliver ofte en kilde til provokationer”, sagde han, ifølge TASS.

"Det er afgørende," tilføjede han, "at sikre sig, at intet tilskynder de ukrainske væbnede styrker til at starte fjendtligheder mod deres eget folk, de mennesker der bor i de selvudråbte republikker".

Et mønster af tilskyndelser

Atlanterhavsrådet, en tænketank, der er domineret af krigshøge fra USA og NATO-landene, er blandt de institutioner med bånd til Biden-administrationen, der har pustet til ilden for en NATO-russisk konflikt over Ukraine. Bemærkelsesværdigt er en rapport fra 16. februar med titlen: "Hvorfor er Ukraine stadig ikke med i NATO?" Den omfattede et interview givet af Zelensky til Axios nyhedstjeneste den 23. januar 2021, kun få dage efter Bidens indsættelse, hvor han blev spurgt hvad han ville sige til Biden, når de skulle tale sammen for første gang. Zelensky sagde, at han ville stille et simpelt spørgsmål: "Hr. Præsident, hvorfor er vi endnu ikke med i NATO"?

I dette interview siger han, at hvis Ukraine allerede var med i NATO, "ville der ikke have været nogen optrapning i den østlige del af Ukraine". Hvis Kreml har taget sigte på Ukraine nu, "hvem står så for næste gang? Det kan være ethvert europæisk land, det kan være USA". Han advarede om, at Vesten ikke kun står over for trusler fra det russiske militær, men også "informationskrig, cyberangreb". Han tilføjede, at mens "sanktioner er effektive" til at holde Rusland tilbage – med henvisning til forsøgene på at lukke ned for Nord Stream 2-gasrørledningen, som udenrigsminister Pompeo pressede på med under Trumps præsidentskab, og som nu Biden og Blinken insisterer på – så er det ikke nok. Han afsluttede med at sige, at Krim skal tilbage på dagsordenen. "Siger du, at vi skal opgive Krim"?, spurgte han intervieweren.

Blandt Bidens førende rådgivere om Ukraine er Michael Carpenter, der er en ikke-hjemhørende 'senior fellow' i Atlanterhavsrådets 'Eurasia Center'. Carpenter, der tidligere fungerede som viceforsvarsminister i Obama-administrationens afdeling for Rusland, Ukraine, Eurasien og Balkan, og som særlig ekspert på Ruslands-området for Det Nationale Sikkerhedsråd, er også administrerende direktør for University of Pennsylvanias 'Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement'.  I 2018 var han eskorte for den ukrainske nynazist og embedsmand Andrij Parubij under hans rejse til Washington. Da han blev konfronteret med Parubijs offentlige tilknytning til nazistbevægelsen, som bidrog med 'muskelkraft' til kuppet i 2014, forsvarede han ham som en "patriot" og "stor leder". Carpenter var sammen med Biden medforfatter af ​​en artikel, der blev offentliggjort i Council on Foreign Affairs journal Foreign Affairs i januar-februar 2018-udgaven med titlen ’How to Stand Up to the Kremlin: Defending Democracy Against Its Enemies’ (Hvordan man trodser Kreml: Forsvar af demokratiet imod dets fjender).

 

I artiklen begynder de med de sædvanlige bagvaskelser mod Rusland og præsident Putin, at Rusland "brutalt angriber fundamentet for det vestlige demokrati" ved hjælp af en række forskellige åbenlyse og skjulte midler. At Kreml "nærer en fejlagtig, men stædig – måske endda sygelig – tro på, at Washington aktivt forfølger regimeskifte i Rusland", hvilket involverer en "sammensværgelsesteori" om, at USA var involveret i at fabrikere oprør i områder omkring Rusland, herunder Ukraine i 2004 og 2014. (Denne særlige erklæring er absurd: i betragtning af Bidens personlige rolle i tilsynet med kuppet i 2014 sammen med andre amerikanske embedsmænd, såsom den daværende assisterende udenrigsminister, Victoria Nuland, er det næppe en "sammensværgelsesteori" at identificere den amerikanske hånd bag kuppet!).

 

Blandt de forslag, som de to fremsætter, er, at USA bedst kan imødegå Kremls "ondartede indflydelse" ved "at forøge afskrækkelsen af russisk militær aggression"; fremme energisikkerhed (for eksempel deres insisteren på, at Nord Stream 2 skal lukkes) og være parat til at "pålægge Rusland meningsfulde omkostninger, når de opdager bevis for dets ugerninger". Afgørende for at opnå dette er, at fortsætte "med at sende tropper og militære kapaciteter videre til Østeuropa", herunder overvejelse af Georgiens og Ukraines ønske om at tilslutte sig NATO og EU.

 

Hvad er den amerikanske holdning til Ukraines optagelse i NATO?

 

Da de amerikanske embedsmænd blev bedt om at kommentere Zelenskys bøn om at blive bragt ind i NATO, var ingen villige til at kommentere. Militære embedsmænd holder fast ved den holdning, at Ukraine først skal gennemgå "reformer", før de kan tages i betragtning, hvilket Zelensky sagde ikke ville afskrække Rusland. Og Biden har, til trods for at være enig med en interviewer i et ledende spørgsmål, om han mener at Putin er en "morder", udtalt, at han ikke ønsker at starte en ny kold krig.

 

Men Bidens historik som krigshøg er tydelig, når det kommer til hans tilgang til Rusland og Ukraine. Der er en kontinuitet fra hans rolle i tilsynet med Maidan-kuppet til hans nuværende udsagn. Den 30. april 2014, kun to måneder efter regimeskifte-kuppet i Kiev, fortalte Biden – med Carpenter ved sin side – til et publikum hos CFR (Council of Foreign Relations, red.), at Ruslands bekymring over USA's politik vedrørende Ukraine ikke har "noget at gøre med udvidelsen af NATO. Den blev undfanget i Kreml. Den blev født i Putins sind". Han beskrev sig selv som en "stolt atlantiker", og sagde at NATO og det transatlantiske forhold "aldrig har været mere relevant, end de er i dag," og bekræftede de "højtidelige forpligtelser" i henhold til artikel 5 i NATO-traktaten til at komme Ukraine til hjælp "som svar på russisk aggression". I tilfælde af russiske krænkelser af Ukraines suverænitet, "skal vi være beslutsomme med at pålægge en pris". Og i en forsmag på, hvad der synes at være hans administrations politik i dag med truslen om sanktioner mod Nord Stream 2-rørledningen, sagde han så, at "når det kommer til energi, bør Rusland ikke være i stand til at bruge sin ressource som et politisk våben mod sine naboer".

 

Vedrørende Ukraine er et umiskendeligt tegn på, at Biden ikke har genovervejet den fare, der implicit ligger i hans støtte til Maidan-kuppet, hans udnævnelse af Victoria Nuland til stillingen som 'nummer 3' i udenrigsministeriet, som 'viceudenrigsminister for politiske anliggender'. Nuland tilhører den hårde kerne af neokonservative, og tjente som koordinator på stedet under Biden i forbindelse med Maidan-kuppet i 2014. En del af koalitionen, som hun havde tilsyn med, omfattede tilhængerne af Ukraines nazistiske bevægelse, tilhængerne af Stepan Bandera og Azov-bataljonen, der i dag er forankret i det statslige militær- og sikkerhedsapparat og tager føringen i konfrontationen mod udbrudsrepublikkerne og Krim. Da det viste sig, at Zelensky kort efter hans valg var åben for en diplomatisk løsning med Putin, modtog han og hans tilhængere drabstrusler fra disse netværk.




Formand Tom Gillesbergs blev interviewet på DR P4, om at stille op som løsgænger,
den 23. februar 2021

3 minutter:

Schiller Instituttet · Tom Gillesberg På P4 23.2.21

København, 23. februar 2021 (Schiller Instituttet i Danmark) — I dag blev Tom Gillesberg interviewet af DR’s populære landsdækkende radiokanal P4 i et program om løsgængere. De to værter, Knud Lind og Lotte Friis, ønskede at diskutere, hvorfor der i øjeblikket er det største antal løsgængere i Folketinget nogensinde, som alle har forladt de politiske partier, de blev valgt til at repræsentere, efter at de var blevet valgt. P4-værterne kontaktede Tom Gillesberg, fordi de ønskede at tale med ham om faktisk at stille op som en løsgænger, og fordi de erkendte, hvad der forstås af mange, at han er blevet en politisk institution i Danmark på grund af sine mange valgkampagner. Her er et udskrift af det 3 minutter lange interview, som blev sendt direkte kl.10.40.

P4 vært: (Efter at have forklaret, at de nuværende løsgængere havde forladt deres partier efter de var blevet valgt, fortsatte værten) Men der er også dem, der stiller op til valg som løsgængere. Og nu skal vi helt til bunden med måske den meste erfarne herhjemme i netop det, at stille op til valg som løsgænger, Tom Gillesberg, velkommen i " Formiddag på 4'eren."

Tom Gillesberg: Tak.

P4: Du er formand for Schiller Instituttet og har været stillet op til samtlige kommunal- og Folketingsvalg siden 2005. Man er fristet til bare indledende at spørge, hvorfor meldte du ikke ind i et parti? Så kan det være, at chancen for at komme ind er større?

Gillesberg: Fordi hele min idé var at ændre hele den politiske diskussion – at tage de virkelig store spørgsmål op, der bestemmer, hvordan fremtiden se ud, og så inddrage befolkningen i dem. Og det er ikke, hvad de politiske partier gør, så min platform har ikke været, at jeg skal have en politisk karriere. Siden jeg mødte Lyndon LaRouche og blev politisk aktiv, var det, at få de store spørgsmål, der bestemmer fremtiden, sat på dagsorden. Og det at stille op som løsgænger eller til kommunalvalget har været en måde for mig at komme ud med de visioner og idéer.

P4: Ja, fordi nogle af dine mærkesager gennem årene har været, at vi skal hente stoffet helium-3 på Månen og bruge det til at lave fusionsenergi her på Jorden, og du har også haft, at der skal oprettes et dansk magnettognet, der skal kobles til den Nye Silkevej, som er en togrute til Beijing. Og der er intet i vejen  med det, og points for det overordnet set, men jeg har lyst til at spørge, har du overvejet nogle lidt mere enkle mærkesager?

Gillesberg: Det er de her store spørgsmål, der kommer til at bestemme, hvilken fremtid vi får. Hvis vi vil have det gode liv for hele Jordens befolkning uden at skulle få, for eksempel, et fossil mareridt, som mange frygter, så skal man bruge helium-3, så skal vi have fusionsenergi. Og det er noget, som ikke kommer af sig selv. Det kræver en intensiv indsats i et-to årtier af mange nationer, og hvis vi er med i det i Danmark, så skaber vi den her fantastiske fremtid.

Men hvis ikke vi tager de her store dagsordener ind, så er der ikke nogle gode løsninger. Så bliver det sådan noget med, at vi skal spare, for at andre kan få det bedre, og det, mener jeg, ville være komplet tåbeligt.

P4: Men Tom, noget af det at være politiker er, et eller andet sted, at vil have noget af det igennem, kort sagt. Hvordan bliver du ved med at tro på det her?

Gillesberg: Det gør jeg ved – vi har, lige i den her uge, faktisk tre nationer, som netop er kommet til Mars. Og når jeg tidligere har snakket om Mars, og at vi skal ud i rummet, så siger folk, "Hvad er det for noget mærkelig fremtidsmusik? ” Men det sker. Spørgsmålet er: Kina gør det her. Kina kommer til at tage helium-3 ned fra Månen til fusionsenergi på Jorden. Så det kommer til at ske. Spørgsmålet er så, om vi her i Danmark og vi her i Vesten, skal være med til det? Om vi skal være en del af den spændende fremtid, eller vi bare bliver sådan et eller andet museum, hvor folk kan komme og danse folkedans, og se hvordan man levede i gamle dage.

P4: Tak skal du have, Tom Gillesberg.




Dødsfald fra strømsvigt i Texas er et forvarsel om hvad der vil ske,
hvis der kommer en Grøn New Deal.
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, den 17. februar 2021

c

 

I sin ugentlige dialog advarede Helga Zepp-LaRouche om, at de totalt unødvendige dødsfald og lidelser i Texas og andre amerikanske delstater på grund af en polarkoldfront giver et tegn på hvad der vil ske, hvis den ”store nulstilling” og dens grønne New Deal ikke stoppes. Disse dødsfald er ikke resultatet af en "naturkatastrofe", men en advarsel om hvad for en fremtid vi står overfor, hvis nedlæggelsen af​​ kul- og atomkraftbaseret elektricitetsproduktion ikke tilbagerulles. Den nye EIR-rapport, ”The Great Leap Backwards” ("Det store spring bagud"), giver både en analyse af de tydelige farer ved at vedtage en grøn dagsorden, og et alternativ baseret på hendes afdøde mands, Lyndon LaRouches, videnskabelige idéer.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche diskuterede også, hvordan kampagnen for konfrontation med Rusland og Kina udsætter menneskeheden for truslen om atomkrig på et tidspunkt, hvor samarbejde ikke kun er bydende nødvendigt, men også opnåeligt. Hvis NATO insisterer på sanktioner mod Rusland over den meget opblæste Navalny-affære, burde nationer som Tyskland, Frankrig og Italien forlade NATO. Tilsvarende viser EU’s manglende evne til at beskytte sine borgere mod COVID-pandemien ved igen at forkludre leveringen af ​​vacciner, at denne form for overnational institution ikke er i stand til at sørge for borgernes behov – en fiasko, der også ses i de sandsynlige ødelæggende virkninger af dets kampagne for en europæisk Grøn New Deal, hvilket kunne føre til en nedbrydning af det europæiske energinet.

Hun stillede de økonomiske og strategiske tragedier, der udvikler sig i de transatlantiske nationer, i modsætning til det optimistiske potentiale i de tre samtidige rummissioner til Mars. Det faktum, at De forenede arabiske Emirater startede sit rumprogram for kun seks år siden, giver håb om at, med internationalt videnskabeligt samarbejde, kan nationer bevæge sig hen imod en fredelig udforskning af vores univers, med enorme fordele for alle.

Afskrift på engelsk:

Deaths from Power Outages in Texas Give a Foretaste of Things To Come with the Green New Deal

The LaRouche Organization Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. It’s February 17, 2021, and Helga, we have an extremely dramatic development, which seems ironically to coincide with the release of our Special Report, and that is the cold front that has hit Texas, leaving between 3 and 4 million people freezing in the dark. This is really quite dramatic, isn’t it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, it is actually very horrible, because already 26 people died. Now, this is incredible, and you have the state of Texas, where the wind turbines froze up, the solar panels were covered with snow, so the energy production went down from an average of 25,000 MW to only 12,000 MW, and naturally you have blackouts, not only in Texas, but now there are rolling blackouts in 14 other states in the United States.

Now, this is absolutely unnecessary, and it’s not a natural catastrophe. People should not look at it this way, because if you had normal coal-generated energy and nuclear energy, you would not have this situation, so people should not say this is a “natural” catastrophe. Because I would rather say, if we want to have a good note about it, we should take it was a warning from St. Peter, a warning sign what could happen with the weather if you don’t have the energy required to deal with it.

Since we have this new report out, “The Great Leap Backward—LaRouche Exposes the Green New Deal,” and the Great Reset, there we have warnings in it, that this will lead to blackouts and the blackouts could be even more dramatic. We have the case of the EU, where studies were made by the scientific advisory service to the German Parliament, already nine years ago, that you could have a collapse of the entire European energy grid, and that would have much more devastating consequences that even this. But this is bad enough. I think 4 million people in Texas, in the U.S., and 5 million people in the north of Mexico are without electricity. Now, that means people can die in the cold, they can die of the effects of it in various ways, and I think it’s quite important that the former governor of Texas, Rick Perry, who was also the Energy Secretary in the Trump administration, blasted this in a very powerful way, saying that if you cut out coal, if you cut out nuclear energy, then you are completely dependent on an ideologically based energy policy, and people are dying! And that is what would happen if you have an energy policy defined by such people as AOC [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] and the like.

So, this is a very serious warning, and I can only advise people to get the Special Report EIR has put out, because the consequences of what the Great Reset would do, the Texas developments give you a meager foretaste of the kind of economic collapse which would result as a consequence of the implementation of this policy. And this could lead to very dramatic developments, social chaos; it would have a devastating effect on the strategic situation, because some parts of the world are not so stupid—Japan, for example, when they had a snowstorm, I think it was last December, the Energy Minister immediately said that Japan must turn back on all of its nuclear plants; and obviously, Russia, China, India, they are all massively investing in the production of fission energy, of the third generation fission energy, and naturally, very much emphasis on fusion power [research]. But the idea that the world can live without coal plants, modern coal plants which are absolutely environmentally friendly, I think this is really an illusion and must be corrected immediately.

SCHLANGER: One of the things I found most interesting, is that Rick Perry, in his discussion also mentioned the advances of nuclear fusion, so that’s a very good sign that there are at least some people thinking.

But Helga we have another problem that this comes up against, which is the absolute dysfunction of the political parties in the United States, with a feud going on in the Republican Party which broke out this week; with the Democrats somewhat chaotic and stuck with nothing but the Green New Deal. How does this look to you?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It looks very worrisome, because also the fact that Kamala Harris is now conducting foreign policy with President Biden resting in Camp David. This has caused the raising of quite some eyebrows, because normally a Vice President participates maybe, in overseas phone calls, but here, Kamala Harris is conducting foreign policy all by herself. So the question is, in what condition is President Biden? Naturally, the situation in the Republican Party is one of utmost chaos.

And I think the only way how this can be addressed, is that we have to organize with The LaRouche Organization and the Schiller Institute to really promote, absolutely, the solutions of my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, and hopefully large segments of the population will understand that a change of the paradigm is absolutely necessary. At this point, the only voice of reason is really coming from The LaRouche Organization and the policies promoted by my late husband. But it needs a broad mobilization of the population to change the course of these developments.

SCHLANGER: One of the things that The LaRouche Organization is doing is conducting a series of dialogues, such as the one from last Saturday on U.S. Russia policy. [https://laroucheorganization.nationbuilder.com/forum_worsening_u_s_russian_relations_reverse_them_with_new_paradigm_or_face_nuclear_war] It is clear that the war machine that was never removed under President Trump is now back on all gears, targetting Russia and China. Where do you see this headed?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is extremely dangerous. We had the Atlantic Council Paper, “The Longer Telegram,” so-called, basically referring to the “long telegram” paper by George Kennan from 1946, now referring to the need to have regime change against China, especially targetting Xi Jinping to be toppled. Now, if you put yourself in the shoes of such a government as China, and you hear that coming from the largest nuclear power, and probably still the largest economy in the world, it has consequences. It leads to a hardening of positions. And in a certain sense, this is going on against Russia, with the Navalny campaign. So I think it’s quite interesting that Prof. Lyle Goldstein, who is from the Naval War College, he made a couple of warnings, both in the radio and also in the Washington Times, basically saying that this is leading to a situation where there is practically a warlike situation between the United States and Russia, and that the people who are pushing the Navalny campaign should be aware of the fact, is it really in the interest of the West to have a very sizable nuclear power like Russia to have chaos, or is it not in the interest of the Western countries, that the nuclear weapons of Russia should be under the control of a stable, unified force—I mean, just imagine, you have a civil war in Russia and then these nuclear weapons would get into the hands of some strange, terrorist kind of forces!

I think that there is actually the need to really be aware of that, and come to the conclusion that this whole policy of sanctions against Russia is not functioning; this was, for example, just made as a statement by the head of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy [https://www.ifw-kiel.de/], Mr. Gabriel Felbermayr, who said that the whole idea of sanctions against Russia does not function, because you don’t get countries like China, or India, or other partners of Russia to cooperate, so therefore, the only forces which are hurt by the sanctions, is, in this case, emphatically Germany. So, this whole policy of geopolitical confrontation can only lead to a complete catastrophe, if it is pursued.

SCHLANGER: There’s also a very sharp warning coming from Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, about the policies of the EU, which are definitely part of this anti-Russian grouping.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. He said that if this is stopped, if these sanctions are not stopped, that Russia is prepared to break off all relations to the EU. Now, there was a rather stupid article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, basically pooh-poohing it, saying this is just meant to cause people to now say, “Oh, we should do something now that this doesn’t happen.” But these liberals, and the FAZ is full of them, they don’t understand the connection between cause and effect, but these policies, as I said, they lead to dramatic changes.

I mean, if you put yourself in the shoes of Russia and China, what is the natural consequence of these policies coming from the U.S., from the EU, from Great Britain? Already in October 2020, at the annual Valdai conference, Putin raised the possibility—this is not the first time it was raised, but he raised it publicly at this Valdai conference—the possibility of a Russian-Chinese military alliance. And this was brought up again on Feb. 4, this year, in a meeting between Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, and Sergey Lavrov, discussing this option. Now, Putin in some context, also said it’s not necessary, but obviously, it would be a major change in the strategic situation. What it would do is, it would protect China, if China would sort of come under the nuclear umbrella of the Russian nuclear forces, which are sizable, they’re extremely modernized; Putin had introduced these new weapons systems, the hypersonic missiles, the nuclear-powered submarines—all weapons systems which sort of make the previous plans for a global missile defense system by the U.S. and by NATO obsolete; obviously, all these countries are working high-speed in their own hypersonic missiles, so it’s a dangerous arms race.

But, it would mean, if China would come under the nuclear umbrella of Russia, it would completely change the situation for good; it would basically make a limited nuclear attack on China impossible, unless you want to have World War III all the way. It would basically allow China a greater flexibility in dealing with the problems in the South China Sea, in respect to Taiwan. It would definitely have an incredible signal effect on all the countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. It would basically give them assurance that there can be a peaceful win-win cooperation.

Now, obviously, the efforts by the U.S. is to counter that, and that was going on already with the Trump administration, Pompeo and Esper, to build the Quad, that is, the Indo-Pacific alliance, trying to pull India into an alliance with the United States against Russia and China. But that is the kind of geopolitical games which really is what led to World War I and World War II, and I think it is really something we have to overcome: Because if this kind of geopolitical maneuvering is going on, the Damocles Sword of nuclear extinction hangs over the world. And people should really wake up.

The only consequence for European nations is to stop the sanctions campaign against Russia, to stop supporting Navalny, who is—it’s a typical Western intelligence-promoted operation for regime change in Russia. I think his support in Russia is very little. He has maybe a few hundreds of supporters—that looks big when they go on the street—but in reality it’s a very tiny fraction of the Russian population, and as we discussed previously, Ahurkov, one of the campaign managers of Navalny had begged the British second in command in the Moscow Embassy for money so they could do these operations. This is really something which should not happen! Regime change policy is a complete interference into the sovereignty of a country, and it is what Obama and Tony Blair were doing, the so-called “humanitarian interventions,” “spreading democracy”; democracy has gotten a very bad name as a result. And what should happen instead, is that the European nations, like Germany, France, Italy and others should leave NATO and rethink what is their security interest. I think we need to discuss a new security architecture, and that must represent the security interests of every single country on the planet, if we want to overcome the danger of nuclear war.

So, I think the consequence of this is to really leave the kind of NATO alliance, which has become obsolete in any case, after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and right now, the idea to expand NATO as a global force, is really—it will lead to World War III if it’s not stopped.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned China possibly going into an alliance with Russia: The Chinese made a threat that they may withhold rare earth materials that are necessary for aircraft construction and other kinds of defense contracting. How serious is that threat?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it’s being seriously looked at. I think the Chinese government has started an investigation, exactly of what the effect would be, as you say, on the military sector, on the production of fighter jets, and if this escalation increases, one could actually see that happening. That would be a sort of nuclear bomb, but it would be one of these signs of a prewar situation if it happens.

SCHLANGER: And speaking of pre-war, we’re seeing a number of developments in Southwest Asia around Yemen, also around Syria with the Israeli strikes on Syria, threats to Iran. How does this situation look from your standpoint?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The situation in Yemen is a complete tragedy, and also I can only say the world community which allows this to happen—I mean, the Yemen population is the worst humanitarian catastrophe in years; it’s escalating; everybody knows it, nobody does anything decisive about it. Right now you have 2 million Yemeni children under the age of 5 who are in acute malnutrition; 400,000 of those are in acute severe malnutrition, which is acute danger of starvation. Now how easy would it be to tell the Saudis, “you open the ports, you allow the entrance of food aid,” and if the EU and the United States and some other countries would really put their foot down, it could be remedied, practically in a week! The fact that this is not happening, I really think that the EU policies on the question of refugees, what they have done with Frontex [EU’s border guard] backing and participating in the pushback operations against refugees, all of these policies are completely inhuman, and I think any nation in Europe that wants to have a decent policy should leave the EU! The EU and NATO, right now, are really alliances which are completely against the interests of the member states, and there is no need to have a bureaucracy in Brussels.

Look what they did in terms of getting vaccines: Ursula von der Leyen is a complete failure; this woman was a problem when she German Defense Minister. Now her record as the so-called President of EU Commission is a disaster. Why does she not resign? She should resign! And I think the European nations should leave the EU and form an alliance as republics of “fatherlands” as de Gaulle was calling for it, and you can have a multinational cooperation for the development of Africa, for the reconstruction of Southwest Asia, and you don’t need a supranational bureaucracy.

These things have to be remedied, and these policies are clearly not in the interests of the European nations. And in the case of Yemen, I really appeal to all of your viewers—that is, you—to help to change the policy in respect to this genocide which is going on before our very eyes.

SCHLANGER: Now, speaking of the EU, we have the man from the British royal yacht Britannia, who is now moving into power in Italy, Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank: This is just another disaster, and he’s committing himself to the entire policy of so-called “monetary integration.” Is this going to go over in Italy?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We have to see. Right now, you have the Lega being in the government, and they have one minister post; I think one big test case will be what happens to the Messina Bridge and also the Taranto steel plant, which Draghi basically wants to shut down, and the EU wants to shut down: This steel plant is the production facility which could actually produce the amount of steel needed for the Messina Bridge [to Sicily], which obviously would completely change the dynamic in terms of the Mezzogiorno, bringing real development to Southern Italy and Sicily. And the Lega basically wants to convince Draghi to go ahead with this bridge. Let’s see how this plays out: Draghi made his first speech in the Senate which was unfortunately, everything one could expect. He made the absurd statement saying that the more there is European integration, the more Italian, the Italians become. He also called for Schumpeter-like “creative destruction,” saying that some industries are not worth saving. So this is exactly what one could expect from somebody who has been in the ECB for many years, and demanding all kinds of “reforms” which created the problems in which Italy right now finds itself. So this does not look good.

SCHLANGER: To conclude, we want to go back to this question of Lyndon LaRouche’s solutions, and you’ve been speaking very enthusiastically about the development of the space program in the United Arab Emirates. We now have a Chinese mission on Mars, and as of tomorrow, there will be U.S. rover landing on Mars. How significant is this? This really does represent—when you talk about the Texas situation being the foretaste of the bad things that could come from the Great Reset, doesn’t this project around Mars give us a foretaste of the good things that could come out of international scientific cooperation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Obviously. Look, for the Mars missions—I’m still most impressed by this U.A.E. operation, because this was a Mars mission which was only started, I think six years ago; so, in an incredible speed, they caught up, at least with Japanese help, but nevertheless, and they have now an spacecraft in Mars orbit. This shows you that any developing nation—after all the Gulf States only discovered oil less than 30 years ago—and turned from total desert states into, in some cases, states which are really doing quite remarkable things, in terms of for example, the Emirates have an island which they irrigated and turned into beautiful gardens and forests. And when my husband and I were in Abu Dhabi in 2002, he made a speech there on the future of oil; this was organized by the Zayed Center. And he basically said, look, forget oil as a fossil fuel, it’s too precious and should be used for chemical production, for pharmaceutical production, and use the revenue to invest in the production of water, that will green the deserts. [https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2002/eirv29n23-20020614/eirv29n23-20020614_006-the_middle_east_as_a_strategic_c-lar.pdf]

And he advised basically to go for innovation and leapfrog—and this is exactly what the Emirates have done, and other Gulf States are going in a similar direction. They are cooperating with China on the Belt and Road Initiative, and now you have this Mars mission.

Now, if you think what incredible technologies are opened up with space research and space travel, we have seen it many years ago with the Apollo Project, where it’s often cited that every cent investment brought back fourteen cents in terms of value as computers, as all kinds of spinoff products. But we are now on the verge of getting fusion power as a propulsion, which is the only way how human beings could safely get to Mars. There is discussion about studying the weather patterns, the underground water, the traces of life. And obviously, not only manned Mars missions are what is being looked at, but also a village on the Moon, a city on Mars, creating the conditions for longer term existence of man on these planets, as a stepping stone for future interstellar travel. Now, that means that the character of humanity will completely be transformed, because it’s very clear that once you undertake such endeavors, you cannot have a geopolitical war on Mars, or else you will not live, and you will not exist.

And the kind of international cooperation among astronauts which we have seen on the International Space Station (ISS), that is the model for the future cooperation among nations, like the United States, Russia, China, India, Europe—the best policy of Europe is their work on ESA, the European Space Agency, where its head, Mr. Jan Wörner, is enthusiastically speaking about the village on the Moon all the time; and ESA has just put out a request for young people to be trained as astronauts. That program should be enlarged. Europe should have a much, much larger space program, and if a small country like the Emirates can have a Mars mission, why cannot Germany have a Mars mission on its own? You know, Germany right now is in place 27, in terms of the number of people being vaccinated; the Emirates are in place 6 or 7.

So there’s something right which the Emirates are doing, and something fundamentally wrong what Germany is doing and the EU is doing. However, this is the future, and if mankind is supposed to live as an immortal species—and that was a notion which was coined by my late husband—because we are different from other species, because we have creative reason. We can solve any problem through scientific and technological breakthroughs, by discovering new laws of the universe. And since our mind is the most advanced part of that universe, there is all the reason for optimism that once we attune our own existence and our own practice with the laws of the universe, our chances to become the immortal species is absolutely there. But it does require space travel as a precondition, and I think this idea of nations working together to discover the beautiful secrets of the universe, that gives you a taste of what the future of man can look like, when we decide to become adults.

SCHLANGER: Well, Helga, it’s always good to end with a healthy dose of optimism, as you just did. For our viewers, let me remind you: You can get the new report “A Great Leap Backward—LaRouche Exposes the Green New Deal” on why we have to defeat the Great Reset and the Green New Deal, go to https://schillerinstitute.com and get an invoice for it.

And Helga, I guess that’s what we have now, so we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: And join the Schiller Institute!




“Vi har så meget at opdage” om vores univers
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med
Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 10. februar 2021

I sin ugentlige dialog i dag stillede Helga Zepp-LaRouche de spændende horisonter, der blev åbnet af tre næsten samtidige rumflyvninger med ankomst til Mars, i modsætning til det igangværende polariserende cirkus i det amerikanske senats retssag mod tidligere præsident Trump. Mars-missionerne, sagde hun, "viser, hvor menneskeheden skal hen… Vi har så meget at opdage." Hun pegede på de russiske og kinesiske forskeres vellykkede udvikling af COVID-vacciner og deres vilje til at dele dem, som et andet eksempel på den form for samarbejde, der kræves i en krisetid som denne.

Se i stedet på den utrolige situation i USA rettet imod Donald Trump og hans tilhængere. De seneste afslørninger der viser, at ledere af oprøret fra de "Stolte drenge" (Proud Boys) og "Ed-vogtere" (Oath Keepers) var forbundet til FBI, gør det klart, at angrebet på kongresbygningen den 6. januar ikke blev tilskyndet af Trump, men faktisk var en "fælde". Og mens skueprocessen fortsætter, er der en optrapning for regimeskifter mod Putin og Xi, der anføres på vegne af dem, der presser på for den store nulstilling (Great Reset). Hun opfordrede seerne til at studere den kommende EIR-specialrapport om den store nulstilling/grønne New Deal (www.larouchepub.com/eir) og til at deltage i rundbordsdiskussionen om optrapningen af konflikten mod Rusland denne lørdag kl. 19 dansk tid (www.schillerinstitute.com), som nødvendige skridt til at blive de oplyste borgere, der kræves for at skabe et nyt paradigme for samarbejde blandt suveræne stater.

Se Helgas webcast her: Webcast

 

Afskrift på Engelsk:

 

We Have So Much to Discover’ About Our Universe

The LaRouche Organization Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Wednesday, February 10, 2021 https://laroucheorganization.nationbuilder.com/20210210-zepp-larouche-webcast

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger. Welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s February 10, 2021.

And we’re seeing some extraordinary developments in the United States, of chaos, of the circus-type environment around the impeachment. Helga, what’s your best reading of what’s going on around this situation?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is a circus, but let me say something optimistic in the beginning: because you have three Mars missions—one is already in orbit from the U.A.E., another one today from China, and then still another one from the United States on Feb. 18. So that shows you where mankind should be going. But before we come to that, let’s look at what needs to be overcome, and one of those situations is exactly what you are referring to, the unbelievable situation in the United States. Looking at it from a distance, so to speak, I think it’s a very, very dangerous development because you have a clear effort to declare former President Trump a non-person; you have a trampling on the Constitution. Yesterday, 56 Senators voted for impeachment, which means they don’t respect the Constitution, because the Constitution says you can only impeach a sitting President or official, but not a former one. And it is clearly designed to completely confuse the population, brainwash the population.

It will increase the polarization, and the whole thing is phony, because there is now plenty of evidence that the storming of the Capitol was planned long before Jan. 6, probably immediately after the election took place, there were preparations. The FBI now has evidence that there were 200 people, whom they arrested on Jan. 6, who were involved in the preplanning: Some of these people were FBI informants, or had high-level security clearance from the FBI, such as some of the people from the Proud Boys, and also the so-called Oath Keeper head Caldwell. So, this is a sting operation if you ever have seen one, and it is clearly designed to make sure that Trump can never run for office again, so the whole thing is fraudulent.

But you have to see it in the context of other things which are going on in the United States as well: And that is, censorship. What we had seen already beginning against then-President Trump when he gave press conferences, the major TV stations intervened and said, “no, we don’t agree with the content of what he is saying,” overriding and overruling the President of the United States. Now you have a whole pattern of blogs and websites are being banned by the social media. You cannot mention certain words any more. If you say “vote fraud” you are being banned; if you say certain other things which don’t fit the official narrative, so it completely suppresses any kind of open discussion and the First Amendment. And then, you have this very worrisome effort to criminalize the Trump base: Naturally one is against violence of any kind, but when the former CIA station chief for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Director of the CIA Counter Terorism Center—a person called Robert Grenier—says one has to use the same methods one used against insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq against those domestic terrorists, because they swim in a larger environment of support in the population.

This is really incredible: This should upset any person who loves democracy, for that matter, or freedom. And I think it is creating an atmosphere of real—I think McCarthyism is a mild word for saying it—and it’s a very dangerous development. So I can only call on all people to keep free debate, keep open truth-seeking of matters, and—I think it’s a very dangerous development, that’s all I can say.

SCHLANGER: What I find interesting is that parallel to what’s being done against Trump and the Trump supporters, is the escalation for regime change in Russia against Putin, which sort of goes back to the whole issue of Russiagate as targetting both the United States and Russia. What’s the latest you have on this anti-Putin move?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, this Navalny story is really a concoction. First of all we should remember that Navalny was not very well-known in Russia until recently, until this so-called “poisoning” through the Russian government was supposedly happening.

As a matter of fact, if you look at his older statements, he is a rightwing person, he called some people “cockroaches” and using a language which we know from Germany from 80 years ago, so he’s not exactly a hero or a nice person. But he is being used to absolutely go for street demonstrations to finance those; there is this video which was published by RT, where one of his top campaign managers, Vladimir Ashurkov, is seen in 2012, where he talks to a member of the British embassy who in reality was an MI6 agent, where Ashurkov asks this British so-called diplomat for $10-$20 million a year, because that would enable them to organize mass demonstrations in Russia.

So this is the reality of this operation, and Maria Zakharova just said in a press conference, that it is very clear that there are powerful circles behind Navalny from the West, and some of them demonstrated in these street demonstrations, members from the embassies and consulates, from Germany, from Poland and from Sweden, which is going against any statutes and standards of the diplomatic service. So Russia expelled these individuals; then, in a reciprocal move, these countries expelled Russian diplomats. But then the thing was crowned by an unbelievably provocative event, which just took place in Brussels, in the Polish mission to the EU, with EU participation, but also U.K., U.S., and Canada, and they basically discussed with Ashurkov and also another person, Leonid Volkov, who is another person from the Navalny team. And they discussed how all these countries should respond together to the jailing of Navalny.

This is a real intelligence operation, and it is aimed to create an environment where you have internal opposition emerging against Putin, and it has the same character as we discussed last week, with the paper of the Atlantic Council targetting Xi Jinping for regime change. [https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/the-longer-telegram/]

Now, needless to say, that if from one nuclear power, and the EU, they are running regime change operations against the other two major nuclear powers, this is really very, very dangerous. And I think, it’s completely disgusting. Then also the so-called “foreign minister” of the EU Josep Borrell went to Moscow; he had discussions with Lavrov, supposedly they were very relaxed and friendly. But when Borrell went back to Brussels he gave a press conference and said that he mainly discussed Navalny and the question of human rights, so that then Lavrov said there are two stories: One is what Borrell said at the press conference in Moscow, and another was what he said when he was back in Brussels, so who is running EU foreign policy?

Lavrov also said, and this is extremely worrisome, that Germany would have opened secret files to Navalny when he was in Germany making this so-called movie about luxury mansion of Putin. In other words, the German secret services gave Navalny files which is extremely provocative. And it turns out now that this so-called luxury palace has been empty for many years; Putin has never been in it, and it is being restored to become a hotel. But it was manipulated with Photoshop methods, to look like a private mansion. So these are these methods, which are really prewar creating an enemy-image of a country, and I think it’s completely disgusting.

Even more disgusting is that the German foreign minister Heiko Maas spent €21 million, obviously, of taxpayers’ money, to finance the opposition in Belarus.

Now, I don’t know—this is all really counterproductive, and it should be denounced. It’s a kind of warmongering, and any clear-thinking citizen should really distance himself or herself from these kinds of operations.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned the Atlantic Council paper targetting Xi Jinping. There’s also the commander of StratCom, the Strategic Command for the nuclear defense of the United States, talking about the likelihood of nuclear war, and the Chinese are continuing to very strongly discuss that. At the same time, they’re holding open the possibility of a better relationship. What’s your reading on that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: There was a very interesting article in People’s Daily, where the author makes the point that if the United States is worried about a nuclear war, then the easiest thing not to have it, is not to make a strike against Russia or China, because it is China’s policy under all circumstances, to have a no-first-nuclear-strike policy. And as you say, they again and again say now is the time to have a new definition of the relationship between the United States and China. So it is very clear that the warmongering comes not from Russia and people should not fall into this trap, because once you are in the dynamic where you keep shouting negative things, you know, you get a reaction. And the Global Times chief editor Hu Xijin, answered and said, “Well, obviously, China must increase its nuclear arsenal, and build at least 1,000 ICBMs to be credible,” but that is the kind of reaction you get. And I think the world is really confronted with so many real problems, that this kind of geopolitical warmongering is really more superfluous than anything else on this planet.

SCHLANGER: One of the problems we’ve been focussed on is the push for the Green New Deal, a global green economy, a green financial bubble, and this just continues to unfold with Biden’s initial executive orders. But there is a real reaction against it from certain countries. How is this developing over the last week?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is a bubble, as we discussed many times. The financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. The central banks have pumped money, trillions and trillions into the system since 2008, when you already had a systemic crisis, and it is very clear this cannot be maintained forever. So in one sense, this idea to pump another $30 trillion into the system for green investments, which will ruin the economy! If you go to these low energy flux-density levels, you cannot maintain a modern industrial power, and it really is a last-ditch effort to bail out the banks, to bail out the speculators. And it is more than cynical: One aspect is, and this is unbelievable, that the EU, otherwise famous for their pushback operation in the context of Frontex, which shows you what the mindset is of these bureaucrats; but what they have now done is they have made agreements with 31 African countries to mass produce solar and wind energy and turn it into hydrogen; ship the hydrogen then from Africa to Europe because if you go all green technology and energy in Europe, you cannot build as many wind parks (one shouldn’t call them “parks”)—offshore and onshore wind hubs and solar panels in Europe, because it would cover the entire territory with these things. So what they are planning to do, is to import 80% of their energy from these operations in Africa.

Now, obviously the African nations are poor and they are desperate for all kinds of deals, but it ruins the environment in Africa, it means no industrial development, which is what they really would need, and just shows you the absolutely cynical character of this Green policy, which one can only call an “eco-dictatorship” and in reality, “eco-fascism”: Because it does reduce the population capacity of the Earth, and therefore, one can call it an eco-fascist policy, for sure.

SCHLANGER: One thing we’re seeing in Europe, particularly in Germany, is rising prices for electricity, and also a new wave of industrial layoffs, and this is also pretty troubling.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, the economy is collapsing. You have massive layoffs in all major industries, Thyssen, MAN, and various others, but also many small and medium industries are going bankrupt. And the energy prices increase, I think there was in January alone, in Germany, an energy price increase of 7.5% at once, and when all of these schemes are implemented, it will get worse and worse. And the idea behind it is what the Greens have discussed since a long time: To change the behavior of the population by increasing the prices such that most people cannot afford electric appliances, or warm heating, or going by train somewhere. So it is really an absolute imposition of massive austerity policy, de facto, in respect to the living standard of the population. We should really fight against it.

We will be bringing out tomorrow, Executive Intelligence Review will publish a Special Report on the Green New Deal, on the Great Reset, and I can only encourage our viewers to get this report, because this is designed to explain to people what will be the effect of such a policy and what can be done against it.

SCHLANGER: The other thing we should take up is this question of what went wrong in Europe, in particular, with the vaccines, what EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen did to make it impossible for people to get vaccinated in many European countries. But at the same time, the Russian vaccine, which everyone was scoffing at and making fun of, now is becoming almost a prize for the Russians. What can you say about this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is very clear that the EU—that’s now being discussed everywhere—I mean, the EU does not care about its member states and their population. So they were falling behind very massively in ordering vaccines, and now there is a recognition that if European are going to get themselves vaccinated, they’d better buy vaccines from Russia and China. Even Alexander Dobrin from the [Bavarian Christian Social Union] CSU said that this is what should be done. And Merkel talked with Putin and also with Xi Jinping, so this is underway.

But if you look at China, they have now said that they will donate vaccines to 53 developing countries, and in addition to that, they have agreements for sale of vaccines to another 22 countries. They have developed altogether six vaccines, and I think all the slanders against China are really contradicted by what is happening in terms of deeds. So, I think there is a clear tendency to recognize that all these accusations against China are completely ill-founded.

SCHLANGER: I find it interesting: We started with the question of the Mars missions, and I know we’ll talk about in just a moment, but at the same time, we’re seeing the potential that exists in Russia and China for scientific breakthroughs that are of benefit to the whole world. And of course, in the United States as well, the vaccine program is moving ahead, although there are problems.

But let’s go back now to the question of Mars. This is really extraordinary—this is a big week. I don’t know if there’s an air traffic control system on Mars, but there’s a lot of incoming spacecraft!

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: This is really exciting, because yesterday, the orbiter Hope from the United Arab Emirates, the U.A.E., arrived in orbit of Mars, and they will make images of weather patterns on Mars for future expeditions. This is very exciting, because if you look at some of the pictures from the laboratories in the United Arab Emirates, you see all these men and women—the men dressed in their typical Arabic garb—and it’s just such a completely different image about the future of the Arab world. The last time the Arab world was in the forefront of science was in the Abbasid dynasty, around the time of Haroun al-Rashid, al-Mansur, al-Mamun, and at that time Baghdad was the most advanced science city in the world. The Caliphs gave gold to anybody who would bring a discovery, from Egypt, from Spain, from Italy, and weigh them in gold. And this time, the head of the U.A.E. Space Agency said that they chose one of the most difficult missions, namely to go to Mars, because they thought the challenge would be such that it would provoke the greatest leap forward, the leapfrogging in science and technology. And you know what the average age is of these engineers? Twenty-seven years! And one-third of them are women. So if there is any way to catch up with the future, and modern world, it is exactly that.

And they quote especially a poet, whose name is Al Mutanabbi, but he was born in 915, and they quote him saying, “If you ventured in pursuit of glory, don’t be satisfied with less than the stars.” So I think this is very beautiful.

And as I said, today is the Tianwen-1, it has reached the orbit of Mars. It will be there for a while, and then they will plan very carefully the landing on Mars; I think it will happen in three months. But then, they have a lander and a rover, so this will be a very carefully preplanned operation.

And then, on Feb. 18th, you will have the Perseverance mission from NASA, also a lander and a rover.

So I think this idea that the future of mankind is the colonization of space, and that the best thing which could happen is that all countries work together. The way to overcome geopolitical conflict on Earth is to start to really reach for the stars, to colonize the Moon and Mars, and prepare for future interstellar travel of mankind as one.

I mean, if you look at mankind from space, you see that our little, blue planet is very small, it’s very fragile, and the universe is incredibly big. We have not discovered the first secrets yet—there’s so much to discover, in 2 trillion galaxies, which we know for sure to exist. So it’s really time to overcome what I call the infancy of mankind, where people squabble over territory. If we go for space science, we can completely transform everything which is called a “resource,” and conflicts now which seem to be so big, will completely vanish once we reach the next phase, the next era of human civilization. So I think this is good reason for optimism.

SCHLANGER: Yes, of course, and in keeping with your late husband’s life work, to have that kind of cooperation, what your friend Krafft Ehricke called the Extraterrestrial Imperative. And we should note that we’re coming up on the second anniversary of Lyndon LaRouche’s passing. And on that date, Feb. 12, there will be on the website, 24 hours of videos for people to become more familiar with Lyndon LaRouche.

And Helga just to conclude, in terms of addressing the geopolitical crisis, the Schiller Institute is sponsoring a roundtable this weekend to discuss the situation in Russia. Do you want to say something about that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, this will be a roundtable of experts; we already have very renowned speakers, Sen. Mike Gravel, I think agreed; then, Professor Edward Lozansky from the American University in Moscow, we also have possibly; Mr. Alex Krainer, the author of Grand Deception, the book on Bill Browder; possibly another expert from Russia; maybe Ray McGovern. So it will be a very important round of people to discuss both what’s behind the operation and why the truth has to be gotten out to neutralize it. So you should all tune in on Saturday at 1 p.m. Eastern Time. So, see you then.

SCHLANGER: Yes, 1 p.m. this time. And I think people would find it not just fascinating but crucial, to address the crises we’ve been discussing. Helga, thanks for joining us, and we’ll see you again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week!




Den kommende mobilisering: Modstå og bekæmp den grønne ’New Deal’

25. januar (EIRNS) — EIR og Schiller Instituttet vil snart begynde at cirkulere en stærk afsløring af de finansielle oligarkers såkaldte “Green Deal”-plan, samt det strategiske modtræk med finansiering af højteknologisk udvikling til at besejre den. Denne rapport bygger på specialrapporten, som vi offentliggjorde i maj sidste år, "LaRouche-planen for genåbning af den amerikanske økonomi: Verden har brug for 1,5 milliarder nye produktive job", der stadig er den eneste fulde skitse for virkelig at vende de forfærdelige økonomiske effekter af COVID-19-pandemien, og forsvare os mod den næste.

EIR's 'Alert Service' har advaret om, at Det verdensøkonomiske Forums fem dages konference, 'Davos Agenda', der startede i dag, involverer en plan – "Great Reset" eller "Green Deal" – udarbejdet af britiske oligarker og bankfolk fra City of London, Wall Street og de største centralbanker om at forbyde "urene" moderne energiteknologier og bruge titusinder af milliarder på "nye", i realiteten primitive energiteknologier. Processen vil reducere den menneskelige befolkning, dens frihed og dens velfærd på måder, der er meget ubehagelige for milliarder af de "andre 99%". Kun inderkredsen omkring de britiske kongelige vil indrømme, at det er deres mål.

Med chok har den sydafrikanske regering måttet erfare, at dens nye kulkraftprojekter annulleres, og at den er under pres for, i indeværende årti, at lukke mange af kulkraftværkerne, der leverer størstedelen af elkraften til hele landet.  Verdens største fondsforvaltningsselskab, Wall Streets BlackRock, Inc., har presset Sydkoreas førende energitekniske firma, som bygger de sydafrikanske energi-komplekser, til at opgive dem. Andre projekter i Indonesien og Filippinerne er underlagt samme trussel. I Kenya forsvinder finansieringen til udvikling af et oliefelt, der var nøglen til en ny jernbane- og havnekorridor, der forbinder den nordlige del af landet med sine naboer. Præsidenten i Ghana kommer under hårdt pres for at droppe planerne om et atomkraftanlæg, der skulle være kernen i hans udviklingsprogram.

I London bekendtgør regeringsinstitutioner arrogant et tilbud på 1 mia. $ til hele Afrika og Indien som kompensation for nedlukning af kul og olie!

I USA er halvdelen af alle kulkraftværkerne i løbet af fem år nedlagt af BlackRocks og Sir Michael Bloombergs kampagne, "Beyond Coal", til trods for præsident Donald Trump.

I Tyskland eller USA indebærer den fortsatte indførelse af en ”Green New Deal” enorme priser på elkraft, industrielt kaos, blackouts… Men i Afrika, Indien eller hvilket som helst udviklingsland indebærer det befolkningsreduktion med millioner af unødvendige dødsfald.

Den siddende britiske kongelige malthusianske prins Charles og hans hold af øko-rådgivere og bankvenner i City of London mener, at de nu, efter 30 år med "Earth Summits", Davos-konferencer og Green New Deals, endelig har fået sat et finansielt kvælergreb ind mod menneskeskarerne og de "snavsede" fossile brændstoffer og "farlige" nukleare teknologier, der har gjort det muligt for den menneskelige befolkning at vokse. De jubler over afskedigelsen af præsident Donald Trump, som var den mest magtfulde modstander af deres Green New Deal, og som trak USA ud af den økonomisk dræbende Paris-klimaaftale. Nu mener de, at regeringerne ikke vil modsætte sig dem og storfinanserne, og at "the Green Finance", som de kalder det, vil udsulte disse, de mest produktive energiteknologier, for al kapital til at eksistere. Joe Biden tager Det hvide Hus med sig ind i deres lejr.

Men vi har også gjort det klart, at denne plan kan stoppes. I høj grad på grund af Kinas indflydelse, modsætter de asiatiske nationer sig; og det gør Putins Rusland også.

World Economic Forum udsendte et strategipapir til deres konference i denne uge, hvori det hævdede, at 30 billioner $ i kapitalfonde har forpligtet sig til "grøn finansiering"; at forhindre investeringer i fossile brændstoffer eller atomkraft. De vil angiveligt kun investere i miljømæssige, sociale og regeringsmæssige formål – øregas! Men de indrømmede, at kun 0,8% af denne “grønne økonomi” var i Asien!

I virkeligheden fører prinsen og hans oligarker en europæisk krig imod økonomisk fremskridt rettet mod Asien og Afrika. Kinesiske banker finansierer tre fjerdedele af kulkraftprojekterne i alle udviklingslande, og alt imens dets ledere bruger sproget i Paris-klimaaftalen, planlægger Kina stadig at producere halvdelen af sin elkraft fra kul i 2050 – med meget af den anden halvdel fra kernekraftværker. Indien og Rusland er lige så engagerede i kulkraft, atomkraft og det internationale lynprogram for fusionskraft, som Putin opfordrede til i juli 2018, samt til rumforskning og rumvidenskab.

Vi ved, hvordan denne form for udvikling kan finansieres uden nogen grønne finans- eller centralbankfolk – ved at skabe nationale bankinstitutioner efter Hamiltons principper i hvert land. Som en første opgave skal der opbygges et moderne sundhedsvæsen og et offentligt sundhedssystem i alle lande.

Vi er nødt til at kæmpe med Biden-administrationen for denne industrialiserings- og udviklingspolitik, som den uforlignelige økonom for det amerikanske system, Lyndon LaRouche, udtænkte den. Smid den store nulstilling ud. Afvis Bidens ideer om "Earth Day" -topmøder, fordi det er at spille det britiske oligarkis spil. Vi må kæmpe for en konference til at iværksætte LaRouches "Nye Bretton Woods." EIR’s kommende hvidbog vil være det indledende våben i denne kamp.

 

Billede:Senate Democrats, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

 




LaRouche-organisationen er grundlagt

25. december 2020 (EIRNS) —02 LaRouche-bevægelsen i USA har den 23. december dannet en ny organisation kaldet The LaRouche Organization (TLO), LaRouche-organisationen, som fremover er bevægelsens reference i USA sammen med tidsskriftet Executive Intelligence Review. Vi har ikke længere forbindelse med The LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC), som har truffet andre politiske valg end vi har. LaRouche-organisationens formål er at løse den globale eksistentielle krise, som menneskeheden i sin helhed står over for, hvilket var Lyndon LaRouches hensigt og livsværk. Hjemmesiden er www.laroucheorganization.com. 

Vi opfordrer alle mennesker af god vilje til at gå til den nye hjemmeside i denne tid, tilmelde jer for at modtage vores opdateringer, for at lytte til Harley Schlangers daglige ”Morning Briefing”, video-opdatering og Helga Zepp-LaRouches ugentlige webcast, og til at bidrage med jeres tid og indsats og jeres kreative evner til at mobilisere for at etablere det nye paradigme, som vi så desperat har behov for i det nye år.

Det internationale Schiller Institut: 
Formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som repræsenterer Lyndon LaRouches idéer og interventionsmetoder. 
Hjemmesiden er her.   

Schiller Instituttet i Danmark: Formand Tom Gillesberg 

LaRouche-organisationen udgiver et stiftende dokument: ’Hvem vi er’

23. december 2020 (EIRNS) – ”The LaRouche Organization” udgav følgende stiftende dokument i dag, som også kan findes på dens hjemmeside, www.LaRoucheOrganization.com

Hvem vi er

Formålet med LaRouche-organisationen (TLO) er alene at udbrede Lyndon LaRouches idéer og udbredelsen af hans livsværk, hans analytiske og videnskabelige tankegang, med intentionen om at realisere de løsninger han tilbød for at løse de mange kriser menneskeheden nu står over for.

Lyndon LaRouche (1922—2019) identificerede som bekendt den skæbnesvangre handling af præsident Richard Nixon den 15. august 1971 for at afslutte Bretton Woods-systemet, ved at erstatte de faste valutakurser med flydende kurser og afkoble dollaren fra en guldstandard, som en fremgangsmåde, der uundgåeligt ville føre til et systemisk sammenbrud af det finansielle system, en ny fascisme og i sidste ende fare for krig. Fra 1973 og fremefter konstaterede han også, at indvirkningen af den monetære politik og dens dertil knyttede nedskæringspolitik i de såkaldte udviklingslande – nemlig ved at sænke adskillige generationers immunsystemer på flere kontinenter – ville forårsage faren for en genopblussen af gamle sygdomme, og at der ville opstå nye, f.eks. pandemier. Den nuværende tilstand af et håbløst bankerot transatlantisk finanssystem (som siden 2008 kun er blevet holdt i gang af enorme mængder af centralbankernes ”kvantitative lempelser”), virkeligheden af Covid-19-pandemien, den overhængende fare for nye pandemier, og en hungersnød af ”bibelske dimensioner”, som truer 270 millioner liv i det kommende år, har vist, at LaRouches prognoser absolut har ramt plet.

TLO ser det derfor som sin opgave at arbejde hen imod gennemførelsen af de løsninger, både nationalt og internationalt, som LaRouche var forkæmper for, da han var i live, en mission, som nu er blevet taget op af hans enke og nærmeste politiske medarbejder i et halvt århundrede, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. USA må gå tilbage til det amerikanske system for økonomi, som blev udviklet af USA’s første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, ved at fremme den fysiske økonomi til gavn for det fælles bedste. Det var denne tradition, fortsat af Henry Clay, Friedrich List, Mathew og Henry C. Carey og genoplivet af Franklin D. Roosevelt og hans New Deal-politik, som gjorde det muligt for USA at overvinde den Store Depression.

TLO vil eftertrykkeligt fremme den idé, som LaRouche viede hele sit liv til, nemlig at USA, sammen med andre industrilande, vil agere for at overvinde underudvikling og fattigdom i den såkaldte udviklingssektor ved hjælp af avancerede teknologier. Denne økonomiske politik er i overensstemmelse med Franklin Roosevelts oprindelige hensigt med Bretton Woods-systemet om at øge levestandarden for alle mennesker på planeten, som den eneste levedygtige forudsætning for varig fred – en politik der aldrig blev realiseret på grund af Roosevelts alt for tidlige død.

I denne ånd siger vi: Det nye navn for fred er udvikling!

Mange amerikanere har på det seneste taget afstand fra dette centrale grundprincip i LaRouches livsanskuelse og metode, og afvist sådanne internationale spørgsmål indtil ”efter den vigtigere kamp internt i USA er vundet”. Men denne kamp, herunder den rasende kamp om forsvaret af den amerikanske forfatning og præsidentskabet, kan aldrig vindes på anden måde, end den der er foreskrevet af LaRouche: Ved en international kamp for at besejre en international fjende, hvor USA spiller en ledende rolle baseret på ”the better angels of our nature” (”de bedre sider af vores natur” – citat fra Abraham Lincolns første indsættelsestale i 1861 –red.)

Dette er hvem vi er.

USA må deltage i skabelsen af et nyt paradigme for internationale forhold, der er baseret på alle nationers perfekte suverænitet, og princippet om at acceptere forskelligheder i sociale systemer, som arbejder sammen om at skabe det fælles bedste for hele menneskeheden. En præcedens for denne tilgang til udenrigspolitik er John Quincy Adams’ (USA’s udenrigsminister 1817–1825 og 6. præsident 1825–1829) princip: ”Men USA drager ikke udenlands, på jagt efter at tilintetgøre monstre”. USA bør dog søge partnerskab med andre stormagter, såsom Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre for at overvinde faren for imperier af alle slags, i dag centreret omkring det britiske imperium.

De problemer, der er så store i dag kan kun kan løses gennem et tæt samarbejde mellem især de to største økonomier i verden, nemlig Kina og USA. Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ er fortsat et åbent tilbud om at samarbejde med alle nationer, som USA straks burde acceptere.

I denne bestræbelse på at sigte USA’s udenrigspolitik på at bidrage til skabelsen af en ny, smukkere æra for menneskeheden, er TLO fuldstændig inspireret af LaRouches intellektuelle arbejde i løbet af de sidste halvtreds år af sit liv, samt hans vision om Jordens næste halvtreds år, der forudser fremtiden for den menneskelige art, ikke ud fra sin nuværende kapacitet, men ud fra fremtidens potentiale, som omfatter frigørelsen af det kreative potentiale for hver enkelt person på planeten. Dette må indebære den bedst mulige udvikling af nationer i Afrika, Asien og Latinamerika, samt de dele af USA og Europa, som endnu ikke har været i stand til at realisere deres potentiale gennem industrialisering og udvikling af moderne landbrug. Dette kræver samarbejde mellem alle større industrinationer, baseret på en genoplivning af de bedste klassiske kulturelle traditioner i hver nation. Lyndon LaRouche holdt stejlt på, at det vil være skønheden i den klassiske musik, som Ludwig van Beethovens, og det ophøjede menneskesyn af de store digtere som William Shakespeare og Friedrich Schiller, der vil få menneskeheden ud af denne nuværende dybe civilisationskrise.

De principper, som LaRouche fremlagde i sit ”Udkast til et aftale-memorandum mellem USA og Sovjetunionen” (https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1991/eirv18n02-19910111/eirv18n02-19910111_026-the_larouche_doctrine_draft_memo-lar.pdf) i 1984, som en platform for samarbejde om den fælles gennemførelse af Det strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI), er stadig gyldige i dag. Han siger i afsnit 1 af dette dokument med underoverskriften, ”Generelle betingelser for fred”:

“Det politiske grundlag for varig fred skal være: a) Den ubetingede suverænitet for hver eneste nationalstat og b) samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater om at fremme ubegrænsede muligheder for at deltage i fordelene ved teknologiske fremskridt til gensidig fordel for hver eneste nation.

“Det vigtigste træk ved den nuværende gennemførelse af en sådan politik for varig fred er en gennemgribende ændring i de monetære, økonomiske og politiske forbindelser mellem de dominerende magter og de relativt underordnede nationer, der ofte klassificeres som ”udviklingslande”. Medmindre ulighederne i kølvandet på den moderne kolonialisme gradvist afhjælpes, kan der ikke være nogen varig fred på denne planet.

For så vidt som USA, Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre nationer anerkender udviklingen af de produktive arbejdskræfter i hele verden til at være af vital strategisk interesse for hver og alle, er disse magter – og andre der vil slutte sig til dem – forpligtede i denne grad og på denne måde af en fælles interesse. Dette er kernen i den politiske og økonomiske politik i praksis, der er nødvendig for at fremme varig fred blandt disse magter.

Forøgelsen af de produktive arbejdskræfter kræver relativt høje investeringer i teknologisk progressive former for kapitalgoder (maskiner, produktionsmidler) i alle produktionsområder. Der er tre generelle kategorier af videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, som menneskeheden må sætte sin lid til i den kommende periode:

1. Meget høj energigennemstrømningstæthed, kontrollerede termonukleare plasmaer, karakteriseret ved udvikling af ”kommerciel”fusionsenergiproduktion, den nye, vigtigste energikilde for menneskeheden, både på Jorden og i udforskning og kolonisering af det nærliggende rum,

2. Det internationale samarbejde om udforskning af rummet og kolonisering blandt de nuværende rumfarende nationer, samt inddragelse af andre nationer der ønsker at deltage i at opdage hemmelighederne i vores univers samt terraformning (at omdanne til jordlignende forhold) af Månen, Mars, og andre planeter i fremtiden, og

3. Forskning og anvendelse af biofysik og undersøgelse af princippet om livet som sådan.

Covid-19-pandemien og de allerede truende nye pandemier har gjort det klart, at der ikke er nogen lokal eller regional sikkerhed mod sygdomme: Hver nation skal have et moderne sundhedsvæsen. Ved at deltage i oprettelsen af sådanne systemer, herunder den nødvendige infrastruktur, kan USA begynde at levere stigende mængder af højteknologiske kapitalgoder til udviklingslandene og på denne måde fremme en øget omsætning i vores egne mest avancerede produktive sektorer.

Bortset fra spørgsmålet om den fortjeneste, der tilfalder USA fra en sådan eksport, som et biprodukt af sådanne øgede omsætningsrater, hastigheden for forbedring af teknologien vil øges på en sådan kvalitativ måde, at den amerikanske økonomi vil blive fuldstændig genopbygget. Alle ovennævnte kategorier vil i realiteten betale for sig selv, da den kredit, der ydes ved at vende tilbage til et kreditsystem baseret på Alexander Hamiltons principper, vil finansiere den fremtidige produktion, hvilket vil øge produktiviteten i hele økonomien med fuld beskæftigelse. Det er kendetegnende for det amerikanske økonomiske system, at skatteindtægterne fra denne øgede produktion altid er større end den oprindelige kredit, der blev ydet til investeringen på grund af den tilføjede fysiske økonomiske og teknologiske værdi, der således er skabt.

Alt dette kræver en øjeblikkelig konkursbehandling af det transatlantiske finansielle system, med dets spekulative boble på næsten 2 trillioner $, som City of London og Wall Street forsøger at bevare og forsvare, selv på bekostning af milliarder af menneskeliv. (Se Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love).

USA vil kun have en lys fremtid, når vi vender tilbage til at opretholde principperne i den amerikanske Uafhængighedserklæring og forfatning. Karakteren af USA må være som en republik, ikke en underordnet partner i samme imperium, som vi kæmpede og vandt Uafhængighedskrigen imod. Det er på høje tid, at USA vender tilbage til at være en kraft for det gode i verden, og igen bliver et fyrtårn af håb og et tempel for frihed. Ved at samle os omkring Lyndon LaRouches idéer, vil denne stolte tradition opleve en renæssance, som vil inspirere hele verden til at deltage i en virkelig menneskelig fremtidig civilisation.

december 2020




Beethoven 250 år og menneskehedens æstetiske opdragelse

Afskrift af en tale Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, holdt ved Schiller Instituttet i Danmarks videokonference: Verden efter valget i USA, den 8. december 2020

Se hele konferencen her.

Vi har en civilisationskrise: en konfrontationspolitik, som kan føre til krig med Rusland og Kina, en COVID-19-pandemi, økonomiske og finansielle kriser og en voksende sultkatastofe i Afrika.
Vil vi etablere en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden eller vil det ende i kaos og krig?

Det er en kamp mellem helt forskellige menneskesyn.
LaRouche understregede altid: hvad er forskellen mellem mennesker og dyr?
Er vi dyriske?
Eller har vi en iboende kreativ erkendelsesevne, som gør os i stand til at opdage nye principper — noget nyt, som ingen andre har tænkt på.
I videnskab opdager vi nye naturvidenskabelige principper.
I kunst opdager vi nyt om vores egne kreative evner, som kan deles med andre, som i et orkester eller kor eller med tilhørerene.

Skønhed, som Schiller sagde, forædle vores følelser og vores intellekt —
ikke kun rå følelser som dominerer os uden intellekt,
ikke kun intellekt uden medfølelse og næstekærlighed.

Men gennem at lege, speciel gennem kunst, at spille, kan de to går op i en højere enhed, som vi kalder en æstetisk tilstand, når vi er omfavnet af skønhed.

Det var Schillers løsning efter den franske revolution, som ikke endte som den amerikanske, men i et blodbad.

Platon skrev, at den vigtigste uddannelse for sjælen var musik — at fylde sjælen med skønhed og gøre den skøn.
Mennesket ville så lovprise skønhed, modtage den med glæde i sin sjæl, og blive til en skøn sjæl.

Den 16. december fejrer vi Beethoven 250-års fødselsdag.
Vi fejrer ham, som en af de mest kreative sjæle i historien, men vi fejrer også menneskehedens erkendelsesmæssige evner.

Studér Beethoven for bedre at forstå, hvad vi mennesker er.
Beethoven, selv da han ikke var i stand til at høre sin egne musik, hørte den alligevel i sit sind, og udfordrede sig selv til at lave det ene gennembrud efter det anden.

Der var ingen stilstand eller entropi, men hvad LaRouche kalder ikke-entropi.

At viljemæssigt blive mere og mere bevist om, at kende sine egne erkendelsesmæssige evner, og presse dem til det yderste for at kunne stige op til det næste niveau, og som han skrev, at nærme sig Guds egen skaberkraft.

Og han havde et formål: at opløfte den trængende menneskehed.
Han var bevidst om musikkens rolle med at forædle menneskene.

Gennem at spille, synge eller lytte, kan Beethovens kreativitet deles med andre —
noderne på papiret, er ikke kun toner, men nøglen til Beethovens kreative sind.

Og dermed kan andre mennesker bekræfte et positivt menneskesyn, som også havde en politisk dimension for Beethoven — stræben efter frihed.
Som Schiller sagde, vejen til frihed går gennem skønhed.

For at fejre Beethoven så lyt til eller syng og spil hans værker. Genoplev hans åndelige gennembrud, bekræft den menneskelig kreativitet, skab et samfund, hvor vi kan genopdage den tabte kunst at skabe skøn musik,
måske endnu mere kreativ end Beethoven, og udvikle vores erkendelsesmæssige evner, for hele menneskehedens skyld.

Så blev der spillet den første del af 2. sats af Beethovens 7. symfoni, dirigeret af Wilhelm Furtwängler, som eksempel.
Ud fra en enkel begyndelse tilføjes flere og flere stemmer for at skabe noget stort og opløftende.

Se også Deadlines indslag om Beethoven 250 år den 7. december 2020 14,

Klik her og så 14:46 minuter inde i programmet




International undersøgelseskommission for sandfærdighed i forbindelse med valg

Schiller Instituttet har indkaldt en “International undersøgelseskommission for sandfærdighed i forbindelse med valg”, som mødes lørdag den 28. november 2020 fra kl. 18 – 21 (dansk tid). Et panel med fremtrædende internationale jurister vil høre rapporter fra kvalificerede amerikanere forbundet til den igangværende valgproces i USA, hvilken er genstand for stor international opmærksomhed og bekymring. Dette er ikke et partipolitisk problem. Nogle af deltagerne er efter deres egne politiske synspunkter pro-Trump; nogle er anti-Trump. Men hvad der bringer dem sammen er et langt større emne: En bekymring over den universelle betydning af sandfærdighed i forbindelse med valg og behovet for at holde USA på samme høje standard som dens egen forfatning kræver.

Rapporterne vil dække både uregelmæssigheder i denne valgproces samt cyber-funktioner, der vides at eksistere, og som er blevet brugt i fremmede lande i de senere år, og som muligvis er blevet brugt i USA for første gang i 2020. Rapporterne vil blive leveret af blandt andre:

1) William Binney, tidligere teknisk direktør i USA’s Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur.

2) Oberst Richard H. Black (fhv.), erhvervsadvokat og tidligere formand for kriminalretten i det amerikanske forsvarsministerium, Pentagon.

3) Advokater involveret i efterforskningen af stemmesvindel i Michigan, Pennsylvania og andre stater (ubekræftede).

En international kommission af jurister vil høre rapporterne og tage stilling til de fremlagte beviser. Panelet kan også vælge at udpege en referent og efterfølgende udsende en rapport om deres resultater. Paneldeltagerne inkluderer:

1) Marino Elsevyf (Den dominikanske Republik): advokat; medlem af 1995 Luther King International Tribunal (med Ramsey Clark, Amelia Boynton Robinson og andre).

2) Simón Levy (Mexico): Doktor i retsvidenskab fra National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM); tidligere viceminister for turisme i Mexico; post-doktorand i kunstig intelligens, UC Berkeley.

3) David Meiswinkle (USA): Advokat med over 10 års erfaring i sager om stemmesvindel i staten New Jersey; præsident /administrerende direktør for advokatudvalget for undersøgelse af 11. september.

4) Juan Francisco Soto (Argentina): Forfatningsadvokat; juridisk rådgiver for Yacyretá Binational Entity (paraguayansk-argentinsk Yacyretá Dam).

Udvalgte medier vil blive opfordret til at deltage, som afholdes over Zoom med simultantolkning til spansk og andre sprog. Arrangementet streames også live over Schiller Instituttets YouTube-kanal.




Helga Zepp-LaRouche webcast: Stop den amerikanske valgsvindel
for at besejre det grønne, globale bankdiktatur

Mens kampen for at stoppe valgsvindlen, der er udformet til at gøre krigshøgen Joe Biden til præsident, går ind i den tredje uge, kommer City of Londons rolle atter ind i billedet. I sit resumé, der blev præsenteret i hendes ugentlige dialog om kampen for at vende bedrageriet, afslører Helga Zepp LaRouche Lord Malloch-Brown – bestyrelsesformanden for firmaet Smartmatic der fremstiller afstemningsmaskiner – som en vigtig britisk operatør, med bånd til regimeskifte-fanatiker George Soros, der har været en førende bagmand i den beskidte kampagne mod Trump. Smartmatic er blevet identificeret af Trumps advokat Sidney Powell som genstand for hendes efterforskning af, hvordan bedrageriet blev kørt mod præsident Trump; firmaet er blevet afvist af flere nationer, på grundlag af hvor let det kan programmeres til et bestemt udfald af et valg.

Hun roste NSA-whistleblowerne Bill Binney og Kirk Wiebe som “absolutte helte” i deres mangeårige forsvar af personlig frihed mod overvågningsstaten og ukrænkeligheden af retfærdige lovlige valg, og støttede opfordringen til Trump om at tilbyde benådninger og frit lejde i USA til Edward Snowden og Julian Assange for at hjælpe med at udrense overvågningsstaten og dens aktiver indenfor ‘Big Tech’.

Hun dissekerede også City of Londons rolle bag bestræbelserne på at etablere et globalt fascistisk bankdiktatur, der giver bankfolk kontrollen over regeringers finanspolitik, og hvordan disse bankfolk har til hensigt at bruge denne magt til at vedtage en dødbringende international miljøpolitik, ‘Green New Deal’. Hun opfordrede seerne til at registrere sig til Schiller Instituttets onlinekonference den 12.-13. december, som vil præsentere en oversigt over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at trække verden tilbage fra en geopolitisk, neoliberal march imod krig og depression, og etablere et nyt paradigme for fredeligt samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater.




Dansk videokonference søndag den 8. november:
Verden efter valget i USA

Talere:

Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:
Kan Trump og den amerikanske befolkning forsvare Trumps valgsejr imod valgsvindlen? (på dansk)

Gæstetaler: Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, bestyrelsesmedlem, Bælte- og Vejinitiativ Institut i Sverige (brixsweden.org):
Nu skal USA og Europa tilslutte sig Kinas nye Silkevej, og mobilisere fødevareressourcer til bekæmpelse af sult i Afrika. (på engelsk)

Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:
Beethoven 250 år. (på dansk)

Lyd:

Hussein Askarys præsentation som skærskilt video:

Hussein Askary’s presentation as a separate video in English:

Kan Trump og den amerikanske befolkning forsvare Trumps valgsejr imod valgsvindlen?

Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Resumé
USA: Valgsvindel med stemmerne i svingstaterne for at få Joe Biden valgt som USA’s præsident er en del af den farvede revolution i USA for at få et regimeskifte og få afsat Donald Trump.

Dette regimeskifte har været fokus for efterretningstjenesterne og deres partnere i medierne siden Trump vandt præsidentvalget i 2016. Først med beskyldningerne om tråde til Rusland (Steel-rapporten fra britiske efterretningstjeneste, der kom med falske beskyldninger), så løgnen om Russigate, der er blevet modbevist, rigsretssagen og 4 års angreb fra medierne.

Mediernes erklæring af, at Biden har vundet valget og NATO-landes lykønskning af Biden, er et forsøg på at etablere et fait accompli og forhindre at valgsvindlen bliver afsløret.

Trump forsøger at få valgene i delstaterne undersøgt så valgsvindlen kan blive afdækket og retfærdigheden ske fyldest. Mobilisering af vælgerne for at forsvare demokratiet og beskytte Trumps valgsejr.

Massiv censur i medierne og på sociale medier for at forhindre præsident Trump i at tale til befolkningen.

Trump fik over 7 millioner flere stemmer end i 2016 selvom ikke alle stemmerne på ham er blevet tilskrevet ham.

Konkrete historier om valgsvindelen begynder at komme frem.

Tidligere NSA tekniker beskriver hvorledes programmet “Scorecard” kan bruges til at ændre stemme rapporterne fra valgstederne.

Vil USA’s befolkning lykkes med at forsvare den demokratiske proces og Trumps valgsejr?

Hvis kuppet lykkes vil demokraterne forsøge at vinde de to sidste senatspladser i Georgia så Bidens kontrollører også kan kontrollere Senatet, udvide Højesteret og få magten der.

Hvis Biden bliver præsident er der konfrontation med Rusland og Kina på dagsorden. Vil vi få krig? Atomkrig?

Oveni COVID-19 krisen i USA og dens økonomiske effekter venter en nedsmeltning af finanssystemet. Med en grøn New Deal vil utilfredsheden i befolkningen blive enorm. Hvad følger efter den censur imod dissidenter, der allerede er i gang?

Topmøde i Davos 9.-11. november med blandt andet Mark Carney, den nye chef for Bank of England Andrew Bailey, Blackrocks Fink, IMF, ECB, Bill Gates etc. om at gennemtvinge kredittørke imod alle investeringer, der ikke er “grønne”. Digitale valutaer så centralbankerne får den fulde økonomiske magt.

Der er en verden uden for Vestens og NATO’s kontrol. Kina og Rusland er ikke kuede.

COVID-19 var et lille bump på vejen for Kina. Man har igen vækst og Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og international økonomisk opbygning fortsætter.

Vesten kan ikke stoppe Kina. Vil man forsøge krig? En atomkrig kan ikke vindes, men vil gale hoveder i Vesten forsøge alligevel?

Vil vi i stedet få en “Sputnik-effekt”, hvor Vesten må skifte kurs tilbage til økonomisk, videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt for at kunne konkurrere med Kina og alle de, der vil samarbejde med Kina? Eller vil Vesten blive irrelevant?

De, der satser på økonomisk vækst drevet af menneskelig kreativitet og videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt vinder i det lange løb.

Vi lever i farlige tider men står også potentielt over for det største spring fremad i menneskehedens historie.

Lyt til hele talen her.

 

Nu skal USA og Europa tilslutte sig Kinas nye Silkevej, og mobilisere 
fødevareressourcer til bekæmpelse af sult i Afrika.

Gæstetaler: Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, bestyrelsesmedlem, Bælte- og Vejinitiativ Institut i Sverige (brixsweden.org):

Hussein Askary præsenterede den akutte voksende sultekatastrofe i Afrika og hvordan den kan løses. Dels gennem en nødaktion for at fragte fødevarer fra USA, Europa, Rusland og Kina, men også gennem at opbygge Afrikas egne fødevareproduktion og skabe økonomisk udvikling, især infrastrukturprojekter og industrialisering i samarbejde med Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ. 

Hussein Askary præsenterede Afrikas egne udviklingsplaner, Kinas rolle i at virkeliggøre dem, og hvorfor USA og Europe skal deltage.  

Hussein Askary brugte en Powerpoint præsentation til illustration under talen, som også findes, som en særskilt video på engelsk her.

 

Beethoven 250 år og menneskehedens æstetiske opdragelse

Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Vi har en civilisationskrise: en konfrontationspolitik, som kan føre til krig med Rusland og Kina, en COVID-19-pandemi, økonomiske og finansielle kriser og en voksende sultkatastofe i Afrika.  
Vil vi etablere en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden eller vil det ende i kaos og krig? 
  
Det er en kamp mellem helt forskellige menneskesyn. 
LaRouche understregede altid: hvad er forskellen mellem mennesker og dyr? 
Er vi dyriske? 
Eller har vi en iboende kreativ erkendelsesevne, som gør os i stand til at opdage nye principper — noget nyt, som ingen andre har tænkt på. 
I videnskab opdager vi nye naturvidenskabelige principper. 
I kunst opdager vi nyt om vores egne kreative evner, som kan deles med andre, som i et orkester eller kor eller med tilhørerene. 
  
Skønhed, som Schiller sagde, forædle vores følelser og vores intellekt — 
ikke kun rå følelser som dominerer os uden intellekt,  
ikke kun intellekt uden medfølelse og næstekærlighed. 
  
Men gennem at lege, speciel gennem kunst, at spille, kan de to går op i en højere enhed, som vi kalder en æstetisk tilstand, når vi er omfavnet af skønhed.  
  
Det var Schillers løsning efter den franske revolution, som ikke endte som den amerikanske, men i et blodbad. 
  
Platon skrev, at den vigtigste uddannelse for sjælen var musik — at fylde sjælen med skønhed og gøre den skøn. 
Mennesket ville så lovprise skønhed, modtage den med glæde i sin sjæl, og blive til en skøn sjæl. 
  
Den 16. december fejrer vi Beethoven 250-års fødselsdag. 
Vi fejrer ham, som en af de mest kreative sjæle i historien, men vi fejrer også menneskehedens erkendelsesmæssige evner.  
  
Studér Beethoven for bedre at forstå, hvad vi mennesker er. 
Beethoven, selv da han ikke var i stand til at høre sin egne musik, hørte den alligevel i sit sind, og udfordrede sig selv til at lave det ene gennembrud efter det anden. 
  
Der var ingen stilstand eller entropi, men hvad LaRouche kalder ikke-entropi.  
  
At viljemæssigt blive mere og mere bevist om, at kende sine egne erkendelsesmæssige evner, og presse dem til det yderste for at kunne stige op til det næste niveau, og som han skrev, at nærme sig Guds egen skaberkraft. 
  
Og han havde et formål: at opløfte den trængende menneskehed.  
Han var bevidst om musikkens rolle med at forædle menneskene.  
  
Gennem at spille, synge eller lytte, kan Beethovens kreativitet deles med andre —  
noderne på papiret, er ikke kun toner, men nøglen til Beethovens kreative sind.  
  
Og dermed kan andre mennesker bekræfte et positivt menneskesyn, som også havde en politisk dimension for Beethoven — stræben efter frihed.  
Som Schiller sagde, vejen til frihed går gennem skønhed. 
  
For at fejre Beethoven så lyt til eller syng og spil hans værker. Genoplev hans åndelige gennembrud, bekræft den menneskelig kreativitet, skab et samfund, hvor vi kan genopdage den tabte kunst at skabe skøn musik,  
måske endnu mere kreativ end Beethoven, og udvikle vores erkendelsesmæssige evner, for hele menneskehedens skyld. 
  
Så blev der spillet den første del af 2. sats af Beethovens 7. symfoni, dirigeret af Wilhelm Furtwängler, som eksempel.  
Ud fra en enkel begyndelse tilføjes flere og flere stemmer for at skabe noget stort og opløftende. 

 

 

Billede af det amerikanske flag. WikiImages fra Pixabay 




Schiller Instituttets internationale videokonference den 5.-6. september 2020:
Krigsmagernes dommedagskurs, eller et nyt paradigme blandt suveræne nationer
forenet gennem menneskehedens fælles mål?
PANEL I video og engelsk afskrift (d. 5. sept.):
At overvinde geopolitik: Hvorfor et P-5-topmøde er presserende nødvendigt nu.
Også paneler II-IV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Spørgsmål og svar, del 1

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

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

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

10. Spørgsmål og svar, del 2

Hele konferencen:

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

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

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

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

Paneler: Talerlisten findes nedenunder

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Foreløbigt konferenceprogram:

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

5. Michael Paluszek (USA), Princeton Satellite Systems

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

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

6. Spørgsmål og svar

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Spørgsmål og svar, del 1

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

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

10. Spørgsmål og svar, del 2

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

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

3. Bob Baker og amerikanske landbrugsledere:

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

5. Fred Haight (Canada), Schiller Instituttet

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

7. Spørgsmål og svar

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 




Systemets korruption er det problem, som vi alle konfronteres med 
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche d. 29 juli 2020

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




Panel 3 “Ungdommens opgave” fra Schiller Institut konferencen
“Vil menneskeheden blomstre eller gå til grunde?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	AREEJ ATEF:

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

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

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

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

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

                - Question and Answer Session -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	BEETS:  Franklin, go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

	BEETS:  Carolina, can you hear us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	BEETS:  Thank you.  Lissie, go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	JOSE VEGA:  Think like Beethoven!

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



”Aktionsdag”: Ungdommen mobiliserer for 1,5 milliarder arbejdspladser verden over med
’LaRouche-planen’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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