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.

3 minutter:

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.

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!

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!

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 

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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	AREEJ ATEF:

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

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

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

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

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

                - Question and Answer Session -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	BEETS:  Franklin, go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

	BEETS:  Carolina, can you hear us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	BEETS:  Thank you.  Lissie, go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	JOSE VEGA:  Think like Beethoven!

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

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/

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

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

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

Schiller Instituttets internationale hjemmeside

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

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

Panel Moderator: Dennis Speed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:30–2:00 — Q&A continued

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

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

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

Plus additional experts

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

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

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

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

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

William Warfield, “A Poetic Musical Offering”

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

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

and other experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and other experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HVORNÅR

31. marts kl. 16-18, dansk tid

HVOR

Voom video konference

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

Del venligst med dine unge kontakter!

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, March 19, 2020

With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHLANGER: OK, Helga. Thank you very much.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: ’Til soon.

SCHLANGER: ’Til soon.

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Helga, anything else you want to add?

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

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

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lydfil:

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

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

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

Her er vores optagelse mens vi lyttede til interviewet:

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

Fra Transport og Boligministeriet pressemeddelelse den 19. januar 2020:

Billedet fra Transportministeriet.

Regeringen vil fortsat undersøge en fast forbindelse over Kattegat

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

19. januar 2020

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

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

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

Resten af pressemeddelelsen kan læses her.

Se også en video trailer 6 min.:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

EN MUSIKALSK DIALOG
MELLEM KULTURER

Gratis adgang
29. november 2019 kl. 19

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

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

Også: DANMARK: SCHILLER INSTITUTTETS KOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Max Caspar on Kepler as a Philosophical Mind
John Sigerson

Schiller: “Die Teilung der Erde”
Frank Mathis

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

Læs også afskriftet (på engelsk) nedenunder.

Trailer:

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

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

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

The Case for the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche 

June 21, 2019 

[music] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[from Oct. 6, 1986] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Dear Attorney General Reno, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The [inaudible 54:09] rocket docket. 

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

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

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

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

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

MANN:  The session will come to order. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that was essentially our commitment as an association. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MANN:  Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[closing music] 

Talere: Liliana Gorini, John Sigerson

Lyndon LaRouches ideer afspejler i Italien et fremskridt for den videnskabelige og kunstneriske revolution i det 15. århundredes florentinske renæssance. Dette fremskridt omfatter en tilbagevenden til en naturlig musikalsk stemning, hvilket Giuseppe Verdi krævede for mere end et århundrede siden; Italiens nylige skridt til at gennemføre LaRouches forslag om en Glass/Steagall-banklovgivning, en tilbagevenden til Hamiltons principper om økonomisk politik; og Italiens dristige beslutning om at tilslutte sig Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ for verdens udvikling.

Grundlæggende er der imidlertid ikke noget specifikt italiensk knyttet til disse fremskridt; Italien er den gode muldjord, som bærer de nuværende frugter af de platoniske ideer, der opstod i det gamle Grækenland, videreført af Nicolaus Cusanus, Johannes Kepler, den tyske matematiker og fysiker Bernhard Riemann, og det musikalske geni Wilhelm Furtwängler. Furtwängler var omtrent ene om at redde den europæiske musikkultur fra at blive destrueret af den britiske golem Adolf Hitler. Senere blev han den ledende inspiration for LaRouches insisteren på at musik ikke udfoldes i lyd, men i det riemannske komplekse domæne.

Historien om kampen for en retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden (NWEO), baseret på nord-syd-samarbejde og udvikling, er et perfekt eksempel på hvordan ideer, og faktisk udelukkende ideer, skaber historien. De ideer, omkring hvilke de første kampe for en NWEO blev udkæmpet, især i perioden 1979-1983, og begrebet om hvordan man fører denne krig, blev udviklet af Lyndon LaRouche. Hans tilgang var ikke blot at foreslå ideen, og at påvise at denne politik ville være til gavn for både nord og syd. Hans metode var faktisk at fremlægge de underliggende filosofiske begreber og det videnskabelige fysisk-økonomiske grundlag for at bevise, at en sådan tilgang rent faktisk kan fungere. De politiske relationer mellem de store hovedpersoner i denne kamp, Mexicos José López Portillo og Indiens Indira Gandhi, blev også bevidst fremmet af LaRouche. Og da en flanke opstod, da Ronald Reagan overtog præsidentskabet i USA i januar 1981, kastede LaRouche sig over den for at bringe de kræfter, der rent faktisk kunne besejre fjenden og vinde den strategiske krig, ind i kampen. Dette er genstand for en lektion i uafsluttet krig.