18. februar 2021 (EIRNS) — NASA’s Mars-rover, Perseverance, programsat til at ankomme til Mars i eftermiddags, bragede ned gennem atmosfæren og landede kl. 15.55, EST, nøjagtigt efter planen. Det var femte gang, NASA med succes landede et rumfartøj på Mars. For første gang var amerikanske og europæiske rumfartøjer, der allerede var i omløb om Mars, målrettede og i nogle tilfælde omplaceret for at fotografere og filme fartøjets indrejse, nedstigning og landing. Perseverance var i sig selv for første gang udstyret til at optage lydene [produceret af det danske firma DPA-mikrofoner] og nogle billeder af dets indrejse, nedstigning og landing (Entry Descnet Landing). Det blev beskrevet som 'første gang vi har ører på en anden planet'. Inden for få minutter efter landingen havde Perseverance selv sendt billeder af sine omgivelser tilbage. Missionschefer forventer at modtage flere billeder i løbet af den kommende dag eller deromkring.

Under en briefing efter landingen rapporterede EDL-projektleder Al Chen med glæde, at Perseverance havde fundet en god "parkeringsplads" i Jezero-krateret, godt inden for dets målområde, og var landet med meget lille hældning (1,2 grader). 'Surface-teamet', der vil fungere indenfor en Mars-tidsramme synkront med deres marsbil er allerede på arbejde og tjekker marsbilens status, hvor dens elektriske systemer så godt ud lige efter landing. Marsbilen vil blive "pakket ud" – forskellige arme og instrumenter åbnes – i løbet af de næste par dage, og holdet begynder derefter at finde ud af, hvorhen den vil rejse og på hvilken rute, hvordan den undgår sandkrusninger og undersøger forskelle i terræn, når den kører ud for at finde et godt sted for en heliport til at teste 'Ingenuity', det første flyvende fartøj, der nogensinde er indsat på Mars.

Perseverance, kendt som “Percy” af hendes udviklere og beundrere, er et stort fremskridt i forhold til sin soldrevne forgænger på størrelse med en golfvogn. Percy vejer et ton og er på størrelse med en bil, og den er atomdrevet. (Holdet beskrev, hvordan der ikke længere er grund til at bekymre sig om, at der kommer sand på solpanelet.) Der er masser af pålidelig strøm til den toårige mission. Den understøtter avanceret udstyr, specielt designet til at søge efter liv på Mars.

Jezero-krateret er stedet for en gammel sø. Det blev udvalgt på grund af sin unikke status på Mars – efter tydeligt at have kanaler til ind- og udgang af vandet. Nær indgangen er en meget rig "delta"-region, der anses for at være ideel til at finde Mars-mikroorganismer. Medlem af videnskabsteamet Matt Wallace beskrev stedets geologiske rigdom, og sagde at de har "år med videnskabelige undersøgelser" foran sig.

Et af de mest spændende træk ved denne mission er dens indsamlingssystem til at indsamle og opbevare overfladeprøver, der skal udvindes og returneres til Jorden i forbindelse med den første "tur-retur" Mars-mission, som må følge efter. Rørene, der bruges til at indsamle prøver, har været gennem en meget streng desinficeringsproces for at sikre, at alle fundne mikroorganismer rent faktisk ville stamme fra Mars.

Præsident Biden ringede for at lykønske holdet, og sagde at han ville lykønske dem personligt.

Billede: WikiImages from Pixabay 

18. februar (EIRNS) — Det amerikanske Mars-landingsfartøj, Perseverance, landede med succes på Mars i dag kl. 15:56. EST, alt imens Mars-rumfartøjerne fra Kina og De forenede arabiske Emirater, der ankom blot få dage forinden, kredsede om planeten. Det er vanskeligt at forestille sig et bedre billede af en forenet menneskehed, der har påbegyndt en fælles mission, der udgør essensen af menneskets rolle i universet: 'Håb', 'Himmelske Spørgsmål' og 'Udholdenhed' (Hope, Tianwen-1 og Perseverance, navnene på de respektive rumprogrammer, red.)

I sit ugentlige webcast i går talte grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, om denne mission: ”Dette er fremtiden, hvis mennesket skal leve som en udødelig art – hvilket var en forestilling, som min afdøde mand skabte – fordi vi er forskellige fra andre arter, fordi vi har kreativ fornuft. Vi kan løse ethvert problem gennem videnskabelige og teknologiske gennembrud ved at opdage nye love i universet. Og da det menneskelige sind er det mest avancerede element af dette univers, er der al grund til optimisme, at når vi først afstemmer vores egen eksistens og vores egen praksis med universets love, er vores chancer for at blive den udødelige art absolut tilstede. Men det kræver rumfart som en forudsætning, og jeg tror, at denne idé om nationer, der arbejder sammen for at opdage universets smukke hemmeligheder, giver en forsmag på, hvordan menneskehedens fremtid kan se ud, når vi beslutter at blive voksne”.

I tankerne kan man modstille det billede af mennesket som en kreativ, rumfarende art med det billede, der har ført til det nuværende bratte fald i potentiel relative befolkningstæthed bredt over den transatlantiske region, med alle deraf følgende konsekvenser: en planetarisk pandemi; evindelige krige og risikoen for atomkrig; massearbejdsløshed og desperate bølger af migration og nu et dramatisk fald i den gennemsnitlige forventede levealder i selve USA. Ifølge en ny undersøgelse fra CDC faldt den gennemsnitlige forventede levealder alene i de første seks måneder af 2020 med et helt år: fra 78,8 i 2019 til 77,8 i løbet juni 2020. Det er det største enkeltfald siden Anden Verdenskrig, og det afspejler både den direkte og indirekte virkning af COVID-19-pandemien i USA og internationalt.

Pointen er ligetil: Det er den fysiske økonomi, fjols!

Og essensen af den menneskelige fysiske økonomi er ubegrænsede gennembrud inden for grundlæggende videnskab og klassisk kultur, af den slags indvarslet af menneskets mission til Mars. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche udtrykte det i sit seneste webcast: ”På dette tidspunkt kommer den eneste fornuftens stemme virkelig fra LaRouche-organisationen og den politik, som min afdøde mand fremmede. Men der behøves en bred mobilisering blandt befolkningen for at ændre denne udvikling".

Billede: WikiImages from Pixabay 

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!

16. februar (EIRNS) – Denne nyhedstjeneste har sammen med Schiller Instituttet, ledet af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, organiseret en global mobilisering for at identificere to eksistentielle trusler mod menneskeheden, som åbent bliver støttet af regeringer i den transatlantiske region – 'Green New Deal' og marchen imod atomkonfrontation med Rusland og Kina. I løbet af det sidste døgn er der givet væsentlige modsvar på disse farer fra ledende personligheder i USA, modsvar, som må massecirkuleres internationalt imellem mennesker med god vilje.

For det første, blot få dage efter frigivelsen af EIR–specialrapporten, ’The Great Leap Backward – LaRouche Exposes the Green New Deal’ (Det store spring tilbage – LaRouche afslører den ’Grønne nye Plan’), blev advarslen i rapporten om det dødbringende resultat af at være afhængig af primitive energiformer som sol og vind demonstreret i form af ødelæggelserne i Texas og andre stater som følge af en polar hvirvelvind, et fænomen, som må forventes af enhver, der overvejer livsbetingelser på længere sigt. Med frosne vindmøller og solpaneler nedgravet i sne, har mere end 4 millioner mennesker været uden strøm i frostgrader.

Den tidligere guvernør i Texas, Rick Perry, der også fungerede som præsident Trumps energiminister, kom med en førstehånds redegørelse for katastrofen i Tucker Carlsons show på Fox News mandag aften, og udtrykte sig i termer meget lig dem i EIR ’s specialrapport. ”Vi begyndte med at nedlægge kulkraftværkerne, derefter atomkraftværkerne", sagde Perry. ”Vi er nødt til at have en diversificeret energiforsyning, som er der, når der er brug for den. Det betyder fossile brændstoffer, LNG (Liquid Natural Gas, red.) kompakte atomreaktorer. Vi er nødt til at se på fusionsreaktorer – der gøres store fremskridt inden for dette område lige nu. Jeg hører ikke den nye administration, the 'Green New Deal', tale om andet end sol og vind”. Han fremskrev situation med 10 år, hvis man har en “AOC-verden” (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, demokratisk Kongresmedlem, red.) med kun sol og vind, når den næste polarstorm rammer: “Hvis der ikke er energi til opvarmning, vil man dø! Utallige liv kan gå tabt med den form for hensynsløshed, der følger med en sådan filosofi. Det er ikke videnskabeligt. Under kampagnen hørte vi hele tiden: ”Man er nødt til at holde fast ved videnskaben”. Nuvel, videnskaben fortæller os, at hvis man kun har vind og sol, vil det blive meget koldt om vinteren og forfærdeligt varmt om sommeren”.

For det andet sponsorerede Schiller Instituttet lørdag den 13. februar en rundbordssamtale: "Forværring af de amerikansk-russiske relationer – vend situationen med et nyt paradigme eller imødese atomkrig (“Worsening U.S.-Russian Relations — Reverse Them with New Paradigm, or Face Nuclear War”), med en tidligere CIA-analytiker, en tidligere amerikansk senator og lederen fra det amerikanske universitet i Moskva samt Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Harley Schlanger fra Schiller Instituttet. Advarslen fra disse eksperter om den ekstreme fare for krig, blev også for nylig italesat af professor Lyle J. Goldstein fra 'US Naval War College', en ekspert i både Rusland og Kina. I en ledende artikel i Washington Times den 3. februar omtalte Goldstein den "truende togkollision" af forholdet mellem USA og Rusland", at USA og Rusland "praktisk taget var på krigsfod". Han skrev: ”Den vestlige presse er nu fikseret på den russiske oppositionsleder Alexej Navalnys skæbne og relaterede protester”.

Denne mobilisering må optrappes overalt. Den 27. februar vil en anden rundbordssamtale i Schiller Instituttet fokusere på begge fronter af den angloamerikanske krigskampagne mod Kina og Rusland, samt det presserende behov for 'LaRouche-løsningsmodellen' – en afslutning af den britiske imperialistiske opdeling af verden i geopolitiske blokke gennem et nyt globalt finanssystem blandt suveræne stater til finansiering af udvikling af verden og derudover – fred gennem udvikling. Der findes ingen halve løsninger.

14. februar (EIRNS) – 12. februar 2021 markerede toårsdagen for Amerikas største statsmand og filosof, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr, der døde på Abraham Lincolns fødselsdag i 2019 i en alder af 96 år. LaRouche-organisationen og Schiller Instituttet, som blev grundlagt af hans hustru Helga Zepp-LaRouche, fejrede dagen med en 19-timers live stream af Lyndon LaRouches taler og foredrag; dagen blev indledt og afsluttet med den mindeværdige koncert, der blev afholdt i New York City den 8. juni i året for hans død.

Livestream'en indeholdt nogle af LaRouches mest afgørende, historieforandrende interventioner – men for dem, der kender ham og hans arv, ville det være nødvendigt med langt mere end 19 timer til at gense blot en brøkdel af de taler og lektioner han holdt, der ændrede historien. I den henseende var Lyn en ægte videnskabsmand, der altid udfordrede dagens fremherskende antagelser, inklusive sine egne, og udviklede en "højere hypotese".

For dem der begyndte at se med, uanset på hvilket tidspunkt i løbet af den daglange begivenhed, var det "næsten umuligt at løsrive sig", sagde flere af LaRouches medarbejdere, inklusive denne skribent. At tillade sig selv, gennem denne videotur, at tilbringe timer i nærværelse af et sådant sind, var en velkommen og glædelig kontrast til det forræderiske og bedrageriske skuespil, der fandt sted i USA's Senat i den anden rigsretssag mod tidligere præsident Donald Trump; retssagen er endeligt afsluttet med den forventede frifindelse, men fortsætter i pressen.

Lige så foruroligende er de nylige bemærkninger fra ’StratCom’-kommandør Adm. Charles Richard om nødvendigheden af at forberede sig på muligheden for atomkrig samt den fortsatte dæmonisering af Rusland og Kina. Den nye COVID-nødhjælpslov ville af LaRouche blive betragtet som en syg vittighed, og er blot en yderligere bekræftelse af hans 'Triple Curve'-funktion fra 1996, som blev illustreret i dagens næstsidste video.

Selv efter at have set blot et par minutter af Lyndon LaRouche, eller fra andre at have hørt om den dybtgående indflydelse han havde på deres liv, er det klart, at USA lider meget under manglen på en sådan inspirerende ledelse, som LaRouche legemliggjorde i årtier, herunder i særdeleshed gennem sine otte præsidentvalgkampagner. Og USA lider fortsat under hans uretfærdige, femårs fængselsdom som politisk fange, og det faktum, at han den dag i dag ikke er blevet renset og frifundet.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche beskrev sin afdøde mand i hendes introduktion til sin videoerklæring for 'LaRouche Legacy Foundation, så udviklede Lyndon LaRouche fra starten af en analyse af, på den ene side hvad der gik galt med systemet, og på den anden side den nødvendige løsning: "Jeg tror, at en af de vigtigste opfattelser var, at han i 1975 for første gang præsenterede en omfattende idé om, hvordan et sådant nyt verdensøkonomisk system skulle se ud: Den internationale Udviklingsbank – ideen om, at der skulle være en overførsel af teknologi til en værdi af 200 mia. dollar hvert år til at overvinde underudvikling gennem store projekter. Denne idé greb øjeblikkeligt om sig. I 1976 traf de ”Alliancefrie landes Bevægelse” på deres sidste konference i Colombo grundlæggende en mere eller mindre endelig beslutning om vedtagelsen af denne politik, ord for ord.

"I de følgende år arbejdede Lyn sammen med Indira Gandhi og med López Portillo om disse idéer. Jeg synes, det er en meget rig historie. Vi rejste i disse årtier til mere end fyrre lande. Vi mødtes med ledere fra praktisk taget hvert eneste land på planeten. Fra min egen erfaring kan jeg forsikre jer om, at alle disse mennesker så på Lyn med et utroligt håb om, hvad USA kunne være".

Videoen kan ses her

11. februar (EIRNS) – Den 12. februar er det toårsdagen for Lyndon LaRouches bortgang. Hvilken bedre måde at fejre hans ekstraordinære bidrag på så mange områder til menneskehedens fremtid end med ankomsten af Kinas Tianwen-rumfartøj til kredsløb om Mars den 10. februar, dagen efter ankomsten af UAE’s 'Hope' – som vil blive fulgt af USA's rumfartøj 'Perseverance' om mindre end en uge. Lederen af UAE's rumfartsagentur, Sarah al-Amiri, fangede den samme ånd af videnskabeligt vidunder og formål der kræves for at løse de forfærdelige kriser, som menneskeheden står over for, som Lyndon LaRouche gav udtryk for gennem hele sit liv. I en video fra 2017 sagde hun:

"I dag er vores region, Mellemøsten, fyldt med uro. Det er en region, der gennemgår nogle få af dets mørkeste timer. Og det vi gør med Emiraternes Hope-mission, er at vi sender et signal. I Mellemøsten udgør ungdomsårgangene 50 %. Dette projekt med Hope udføres af et hold på under 35 år, et hold bestående af 34 % kvinder. Gennemsnitsalderen er 27. En hel nation sætter dens lid til et ungdomshold og præsenterer regionen for en besked… for mig er videnskab den mest internationale form for samarbejde. Den er ubegrænset. Den er grænseløs. Og den drives af enkeltpersoners lidenskab til gavn for menneskelig erkendelse".

I dag tweetede Helga Zepp-LaRouche som svar til Sarah al-Amiri: "Tillykke med din fantastiske vision! Du skal blive inspiration for alle statsoverhoveder på planeten, og der vil være fred på jorden! HZL".

Også, i anledning af toårsdagen for LaRouches bortgang, udsendte 'LaRouche International Youth Movement' (LaRouches internationale Ungdomsbevægelse) en erklæring, hvori de opfordrede ethvert universitet og uddannelsescenter rundt om i verden til at tage studiet op af "den amerikanske økonom Lyndon LaRouches metode og bidrag", som et spørgsmål om presserende strategisk nødvendighed.

"Det, vi indpoder i de unges sind og hjerter gennem deres uddannelse", siger erklæringen, "vil give dem værktøjerne til at beslutte, hvad de vil gøre med deres liv, idet de påtager sig opgaven med en 'forpligtelse over for samfundet' for at forbedre universet. Med den metode, som Lyndon LaRouches ideer repræsenterer, vil ordet "engagement" ikke skræmme dem. De vil deri se realiseringen af deres idealer, i takt med at de forbedrer sig selv og derfor søger forbedring til gavn for deres medmennesker… Disse er de ideer, som Lyndon LaRouche forfægtede i livet, og vi unge har påtaget os ansvaret for at tage dem i anvendelse med endnu større styrke i dag". Erklæringen konkluderer: "Den tidligere mexicanske præsident José López Portillo sagde i 1998: "Det er nu nødvendigt, at verden lytter til Lyndon LaRouches kloge ord"; og vi tilføjer: "Det er nu nødvendigt, at han studeres ved ethvert uddannelsescenter i verden".

Lyndon LaRouche selv udtrykte den dybeste indsigt i betydningen af ethvert menneskeliv, inklusive sit eget, og dets forhold til videnskabelige menneskelige bestræbelser såsom koloniseringen af Mars. I sin klassiker fra 1983, "Der er ingen grænser for vækst", skrev LaRouche om at opbygge en jordlignende kunstig atmosfære på Mars og tilføjede:

"Kolonialisterne fra Jorden vil ikke være tilfredse med det. Man kan høre et barns stemme: 'Men far, hvor er træerne?' Vi skal forudse barnets spørgsmål. Vi må have en skov eller to på Mars, alene fordi mennesker kan lide træer".

Sådanne videnskabelige bestræbelser er menneskets karakteristiske natur:

"Så når vi arbejder med dette formål, bidrager hver enkelt af os med noget af vedvarende værdi til kulturen. Denne aktivitet er vores fornøjelse, vores kilde til de største glæder. Denne glæde er forbundet med handlingen med at bidrage til menneskeheden, at nære de guddommelige potentialer i løbet af de kommende generationer. Dette er en glædelig handling af kærlighed til menneskeheden. Uden en sådan kærlighed er viden en død ting…

"Lad os hver især dø med glæde, med et smil på læben, og tanken: 'Det har været et godt liv, og jeg vil ikke opgive så smuk en ting, så længe jeg har midlerne til at holde mig i live et minut længere'. Nogle gange er det nødvendigt at risikere døden, men kun for at andre og det gode kan leve videre efter os. Vi kan viljemæssigt overgive vore egne liv alene for livets sag, og for det gode som livet skal opnå. Af den grund skal vi dyrke en skov på Mars".

Billede: Sikarin Fon Thanachaiary – Foundations World Economic Forum is licensed under CC BY 2.0

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

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

Se Helgas webcast her: Webcast

Afskrift på Engelsk:

We Have So Much to Discover’ About Our Universe

The LaRouche Organization Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week!

Den 7. februar (EIRNS) – HARLEY SCHLANGER fra LaRouche-organisationen interviewede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet, om rapporten, som vil blive frigivet i denne uge af Executive Intelligence Review om 'the Great Reset', ’Den store Nulstilling’ og dens forhold til 'the Green New Deal', politikken for malthusiansk befolkningsreduktion, som blev afsløret af hendes afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, i slutningen af 1960'erne. ’The Great Reset’ var emnet for en online-konference, som Davos-milliardærerne afholdt den 25.-29. januar.

SCHLANGER: Helga, hvorfor bliver der skubbet så aggressivt på med dette lige nu?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Realiteten er, at hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er håbløst bankerot. Man gjorde ikke noget ved det, da den systemiske krise brød ud i 2008, bortset fra massive kvantitative lempelser, trykning af pengesedler, og nu er boblen ved at briste. Og dette er hele tricket: Den store nulstilling og den grønne nye aftale betyder, at de vil skyde 30 billioner $ ind i næste og sidste boble, hvorved det kun er dem, der deltager i spekulationen, dvs. milliardærerne, der bliver rige, mens hovedparten af befolkningen vil blive forarmet. Dette er ikke gennemførligt.

SCHLANGER: De kalder dette en "ændring af det finansielle regime". Hvad mener de med det?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nuvel, regeringer og parlamenter skal ikke længere foretage den lovgivning, der afgør hvordan tingene skal forvaltes, men man ønsker at have et grønt diktatur, hvor det er centralbankerne, der beslutter, hvor meget kød man må spise, om noget i det hele taget; hvor mange rejser man må foretage, hvilken slags bil eller e-bil man kan køre, eller hvad som helst. Dette vil betyde et økodiktatur, der får ethvert tidligere diktatur til at ligne en skovtur.

SCHLANGER: Da din mand tog dette op første gang i 1971, beskrev han det som en schachtiansk korporationspolitik (efter Hjalmar Schacht, https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht –red). Hvad betyder det? Hvad er betydningen af ’Schachtianismen’?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det er en form for selvkannibalisering af arbejdsstyrken. Problemet er, at hvis man udskifter kul og fossile brændstoffer, og man ikke går over til kernekraft, bliver man helt afhængig af såkaldte grønne vedvarende teknologier og energikilder, så man får en meget lav energitæthed, hvilket betyder at man ikke kan opretholde moderne industrinationer. Dette vil være et hidtil uset anslag imod levestandarden, og for udviklingslandene vil det indebære folkedrab; fordi, som folk ved, har vi en pandemi, der er ude af kontrol; og som lederen af ​​Verdensfødevareprogrammet, David Beasley, advarer om igen og igen, kommer dertil en hungersnød af "bibelske dimensioner". Så hvis man således ødelægger den industrielle kapacitet i de industrialiserede nationer, efterlader man Den tredje Verden i en katastrofe. Man inviterer apokalypsens fire ryttere – sult, sygdom, pest og krig – og det vil føre til en gigantisk affolkning. Dette er essensen af, hvad Hjalmar Schacht (Hitlers centralbankmand og finansminister) drejede sig om, fordi det endte med koncentrationslejrene, og det er, på en anden vis, hvad vi ser på i dag.

SCHLANGER: Du har kaldt dette "den nye fascisme". Hvad er forskellen i forhold til ’schachtianismen’ fra 30'erne og 40'erne, og hvad mener du med "ny fascisme" i dag?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Bare fordi den ikke har alle aspekterne af den gamle fascisme i tradition af Mussolini, Franco, Hitler og så videre; hvis man indfører den form for reduktion af levestandarden, og man går til energi-gennemstrømningstætheder, som indebærer strømsvigt, hvilket igen vil betyde et sammenbrud af industriproduktionen, så er effekten den samme. Så man skal ikke se på etiketten, men på effekten af denne politik, som er en fuldstændig ødelæggelse af arbejdskraftens produktive evne.

SCHLANGER: Du har netop offentliggjort en artikel om faren for en atomkrig. Hvordan er dette relateret til Den store Nulstilling? ("Helga Zepp-LaRouche om budskabet fra Biden-administrationen: Atomkrig er en reel mulighed, '" http://laroucheorganization.com)

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det forholder sig sådan, at der en utrolig anti-Kina-, anti-Rusland-kampagne, hovedsageligt fordi Kina er for opadgående, Asien er for opadgående, og der er en indsats fra visse oligarkiske kræfter i Vesten for at inddæmme denne opstigning. Hvis nu man ødelægger de vestlige økonomier; hvis man afindustrialiserer Europa, USA og muligvis andre lande, der følger efter, vil man uundgåeligt komme i konflikt med Kina og Rusland. Kina vil muligvis snakke den grønne dagsorden efter munden, men Kina går efter rene, moderne kulkraftanlæg, kernekraftsanlæg; de har et meget ambitiøst program for termonuklear fusion, hvor de er så godt som førende i verden. Så den geopolitiske opposition siger allerede, i lighed med admiral Charles Richard, chefen for den Amerikanske strategiske Kommando, at en atomkrig er sandsynlig, og at Pentagon er nødt til at skifte fra tanken om, at en krig ikke er sandsynlig, til at det er meget sandsynligt. Jeg mener, hvis man lægger alle disse ting sammen, vil denne politik uundgåeligt føre til 3. Verdenskrig.

SCHLANGER: På trods for alt dette har du i de sidste par dage udtrykt en vis grad af optimisme for, at dette kan overvindes: Hvad er grundlaget for din optimisme?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg mener, ​​at denne politik er så åbenlys, at der er folk, der begynder at diskutere det. Og jeg tror, ​​at den eneste måde at besejre det på er at få budskabet spredt ud så vidt muligt, om hvad der ligger bag denne politik, at sørge for at alle ved det. For eksempel sagde G77-landene og De alliancefrie landes Bevægelse på klimatopmødet i København i 2009, at de ikke vil underskrive en sådan selvmordspagt. Jeg er helt sikker på, at Rusland og Kina er meget opmærksomme på, hvad meningen er med denne politik. Jo flere mennesker, industrifolk, ledere af små og mellemstore virksomheder, iværksættere, fagforeninger – jo flere mennesker, der diskuterer det og forstår, at der findes et alternativ til det, nemlig at indføre Lyndon LaRouche's 'fire love' – en global Glass/Steagall-politik; nationalbanker i hvert land; og indlemme disse nationalbanker i et 'Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem, nøjagtigt som Franklin D. Roosevelt havde til hensigt; og derefter gå over til en massiv industrialisering af Afrika og Mellemøsten, som har presserende brug for det. Så kan vi ændre dette. Og jeg tror, ​​at flere og flere mennesker inden for USA og Europa vil forstå, at det er i deres bedste interesse ikke at følge denne politik.

SCHLANGER: I betragtning af dette internationale potentiale er det afgørende hvad der sker i USA. Så hvad skal vores lyttere gøre for at sikre, at vi besejrer 'the Great Reset' og 'the Green New Deal'?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Få som sagt nyhederne ud så vidt man kan, om hvad der ligger bag dette; gør dine venner, dine bekendte, dine kolleger og fortrolige bekendt med dette; sørg for at dit kongresmedlem, dine andre valgte embedsmænd, borgmesteren, byrådet, at de alle ved besked om det, fordi indførelsen af denne politik vil lande på bordet hos de valgte embedsmænd, og det vil bringe dem i en helt utrolig konflikt med deres samvittighed og med de mennesker, hvis interesser de repræsenterer.

SCHLANGER: Helga, tak for dine indsigter i dette og for dit arbejde med at få denne rapport ud. Den udkommer i indeværende uge i det kommende nummer af {Executive Intelligence Review}, og kort derefter vil der være et mindre afsnit af det i en pjece distribueret af LaRouche-organisationen. Så Helga, tak, og vi ses snart igen.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Vi ses.

Her er de gratis artikler fra specialrapporten:

The New Deal for Humanity Is Not Green, But Human!  
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Prince Charles Invented and Runs the ‘Green New Deal’  
by Richard Freeman
 

British Crown Think-Tank: We Intend To Take Away Your Food  

by Gretchen Small

Bestil hele rapporten fra os: +45 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

zepp-larouche@eir.de

Billede: DOD/Lisa Ferdinando

4. februar (EIRNS) – "Mennesket længes opad, mod udforskning af rummet med ét altoverskyggende formål: Menneskehedens fulde udvikling på jorden". Således slutter Lyndon LaRouches artikel fra 1996, 'Space: The Ultimate Money Frontier'. Med tre rumfartøjer, der går i kredsløb omkring Mars eller lander på selve den røde planet i denne måned, er de økonomiske erfaringer som LaRouche underviser i særligt relevante for at skabe en fremtidsorienteret politik i modsætning til den grønne ondskab i 'the Great Reset' (Den store Nulstilling).

Når vi ser tilbage, skabte det amerikanske måneprogram, Apollo, samt de teknologiske, videnskabelige og industrielle fremskridt, der var nødvendige for at muliggøre det, et tifoldigt investeringsafkast. Dette afkast var ikke monetært, såsom det var for de institutionelle investorer, der tjente milliarder på stigningen af GameStops-aktier, men fysisk. Post-Apollo-økonomien, og samfundet, blev beriget med specifikke teknologier, forbedrede værktøjsmaskiner og produktionsteknikker og en overflod af dygtige ingeniører og arbejdere.

I øjeblikket repræsenterer de tre rumfartøjer, der når Mars i de kommende uger – USA's 'Perserverance', Kinas 'Tianwen-1' og De forenede arabiske Emiraters 'Hope' – disse nationer og deres partneres forpligtelse til at forøge deres kapaciteter og løfte sløret for universets hemmeligheder.

'Perseverance' har mikrofoner til optagelse af dets indrejse og aflytning af lyden af dets rejse over Mars-terrænet; to dusin kameraer til at optage landingen, styre navigationen, se mineralprøver, bruge røntgenfluoroskopi og synligt lys til at bestemme den kemiske sammensætning af klipper ved at zappe dem med dets laser og skabe 3D-visninger af rejsen; en syv fods robotarm, komplet med en boremaskine med udskiftelige hoveder til udboring af prøver; et plutoniumbatteri og en række antenner til at holde kontakten med Jorden og kredsløbsmodulet. Det vil også bringe den første helikopter til Mars.

'Hopes' kredsløb vil gøre U.A.E. den femte part, der når frem til Mars efter USA, Sovjetunionen, Den Europæiske Rumorganisation og Indien. Kredsløbsmodulet vil studere Mars’ atmosfære. Kinas 'Tianwen-1' kommer i kredsløb blot en dag senere, hvilket gør denne nation til den sjette, der når den røde planet. Ligesom 'Perseverance' består ’Tianwen-1’ af et kredsløbsmodul og et landingsmodul med en marsbil, der er udstyret med kameraer, sensorer og en overfladegennemtrængende radar.

I fremtiden vil menneskehedens formål i rummet udvides til at omfatte en familie af rumstationer i kredsløb om Jorden, gennemgribende fremskridt med at bringe nyttelast i kredsløb, minedrift af helium-3 på månen som et fusionsbrændstof, atomdrevne raketter og en videnskabskoloni på Mars. Som LaRouche skrev i 1996: ”Universet er tæt besat af astrofysiske anomalier, som vi ved eksisterer, men mangler midlerne til at undersøge på en mere effektiv måde… antallet af nye grundlæggende opdagelser, som venter menneskeheden, fra selv de indledende næste skridt mod Mars-kolonisering, er utrolig stort: disse anomalier alene ville sikre os adskillige store videnskabelige gennembrud inden for videnskabspraksis på Jorden”.

Vi bliver nødt til at arbejde hårdt for at nå disse mål! Sikring af en global udvikling af infrastruktur – såvel 'hård' (transport, elektricitet, vand, sanitet, hospitaler) som 'blød' (uddannelse, sundhedsarbejdere, videnskabelige institutioner) – betyder en forpligtelse til at vælte det rådne imperialistiske paradigme for finanser og befolkningsreduktion, der forurener så mange sind og institutioner i den transatlantiske verden. Den formentlig mest destruktive mentale forurening, som kræver nødhjælp, er den grønne ideologi, der ser menneskelig handling og udvikling som en unaturlig ødelæggelse af den præ-menneskelige (og derfor "perfekte") naturtilstand. Evnen til at håndhæve denne ideologi på verdensplan har store problemer i kraft af uafhængigheden af nationerne Rusland og Kina og den hæsblæsende vækst i sidstnævnte land – vækst, som det eksporterer gennem sit Bælte- og Vejinitiativ.

For at forhindre muligheden for at USA beslutter sig til en mission for vækst og samarbejde med andre stormagter, har kampagnen for at fremstille Rusland og Kina som en kombination af 'autoritær', 'ondartet' (et ord der har mistet enhver betydning), eller som at de 'søger at udvikle deres egne imperier', nået et nyt niveau med direkte angreb rettet mod præsidenterne Putin og Xi, såvel som regimeskifte-operationer, som med tilfældet Alexej Navalny.

Det er det britiske imperium, der har skabt og presser på med disse grønne og geopolitiske myter, og det er dette imperium, som vil blive besejret ved at afsløre den morderiske sandhed om 'Great Reset'/'Green New Deal', og ved at afsløre den utrolige fremtid som kan blive vores, hvis vi vender vore blikke og tanker opad mod stjernerne.

Ligesom vi ser frem til gode nyheder fra Mars denne måned, kan vi også se frem til stærke efterretninger fra EIR og LaRouche-Organisationen for at besejre den grønne forurening, der truer med at trække os ned i snavset.

Billede: "Earth and Mars to scale." by Bluedharma is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 4. februar 2021, kan også ses her:

Mens det globale oligarkiske etablissement i London følger en politik, der sigter mod at påtvinge et globalt diktatur af bankdirektører og indlede nye krige, fremhævede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, hvad hun optimistisk beskrev, som "babyskridt" hen imod et nyt paradigme, baseret på videnskabeligt samarbejde mellem suveræne stater. I sin ugentlige dialog pegede hun på aftaler indgået imellem Rusland og Kina på den ene side og nationer i Europa – inklusive Tyskland – og Sydamerika, om at levere COVID-19-vacciner, som bevis for, at der er bevægelse mod at realisere hendes opfordring til at udvikle et "globalt sundhedssystem", som den eneste måde at besejre pandemien, og forhindre udbrud af andre pandemier i fremtiden. Hun talte også om den spændende udsigt til, at tre nationer – De forenede arabiske Emirater, USA og Kina – har Mars-missioner, der når planeten i løbet af de næste uger i februar.

Denne positive udvikling stillede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i modsætning til de dystre udsigter, der blev præsenteret i Davos, da finansoligarker desperat forsøgte at påtvinge en grøn finansiel boble for at redde deres kollapsende system; med EU's manglende evne til at håndtere pandemien og den økonomiske krise, kendetegnet ved udsigten til en Draghi-regering i Italien; og med regimeskiftsoperationer rettet mod Rusland omkring Navalny-affæren og mod Kina med Atlanterhavsrådets hvidbog, "Det længere telegram (The Longer Telegram)", der anvender den geopolitiske metode, som førte til den langvarige kolde krig mod Sovjetunionen, hvilket kunne provokere en atomkrig i dag.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche talte også om den dysfunktionelle polarisering af den amerikanske politiske scene med rigsretssagen i Senatet planlagt til næste uge. Hun beskrev Nancy Pelosi, flertalsleder i Repræsentanternes Hus, og andre som folk, der er "gået grassat", især med deres ubehagelige hævngerrighed overfor Trump og hans tilhængere.

Disse babyskridt hen imod samarbejde kan danne grundlag for at fremprovokere en nødvendig "ændring i tænkningen" på verdensplan for at bryde ud af det farlige paradigme skabt af City of London og dets allierede i USA og Vesteuropa.

Mens det globale oligarkiske etablissement i London følger en politik, der sigter mod at påtvinge et globalt diktatur af bankdirektører og indlede nye krige, fremhævede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, hvad hun optimistisk beskrev, som "babyskridt" hen imod et nyt paradigme, baseret på videnskabeligt samarbejde mellem suveræne stater. I sin ugentlige dialog pegede hun på aftaler indgået imellem Rusland og Kina på den ene side og nationer i Europa – inklusive Tyskland – og Sydamerika, om at levere COVID-19-vacciner, som bevis for, at der er bevægelse mod at realisere hendes opfordring til at udvikle et "globalt sundhedssystem", som den eneste måde at besejre pandemien, og forhindre udbrud af andre pandemier i fremtiden. Hun talte også om den spændende udsigt til, at tre nationer – De forenede arabiske Emirater, USA og Kina – har Mars-missioner, der når planeten i løbet af de næste uger i februar.

Denne positive udvikling stillede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i modsætning til de dystre udsigter, der blev præsenteret i Davos, da finansoligarker desperat forsøgte at påtvinge en grøn finansiel boble for at redde deres kollapsende system; med EU's manglende evne til at håndtere pandemien og den økonomiske krise, kendetegnet ved udsigten til en Draghi-regering i Italien; og med regimeskiftsoperationer rettet mod Rusland omkring Navalny-affæren og mod Kina med Atlanterhavsrådets hvidbog, "Det længere telegram (The Longer Telegram)", der anvender den geopolitiske metode, som førte til den langvarige kolde krig mod Sovjetunionen, hvilket kunne provokere en atomkrig i dag.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche talte også om den dysfunktionelle polarisering af den amerikanske politiske scene med rigsretssagen i Senatet planlagt til næste uge. Hun beskrev Nancy Pelosi, flertalsleder i Repræsentanternes Hus, og andre som folk, der er "gået grassat", især med deres ubehagelige hævngerrighed overfor Trump og hans tilhængere.

Disse babyskridt hen imod samarbejde kan danne grundlag for at fremprovokere en nødvendig "ændring i tænkningen" på verdensplan for at bryde ud af det farlige paradigme skabt af City of London og dets allierede i USA og Vesteuropa.

Billede: Mars Rover. Licens: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication

Download (PDF, Unknown)

30. jan (EIRNS) – Det følgende er taget fra Dennis Speeds indledende bemærkninger til LaRouche-organisationens Manhattan Project Dialog den 30. januar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vnSlSGUBPs&feature=youtu.be

I over fire årtier fungerede Lyndon LaRouche og hans organisation som en slags skyggepræsidentskab i USA. Politikker blev formuleret, tilbudt, diskuteret, debatteret, undertiden afvist; men ufortrødent fremsat af Lyndon LaRouche. Hans samarbejde og dialog med forskellige ledere over hele verden, inklusive tidligere præsident Ronald Reagan og andre, førte til politiske ændringer. Ændringer, som ofte blev mødt med – skal vi sige – stor foruroligelse og undertiden juridiske indgreb imod hans organisation. Men LaRouche gjorde det, fordi han, som et resultat af sit arbejde inden for fysisk økonomi og hans fremskridt med dette arbejde, var blevet opmærksom på, at der var en proces i gang indenfor det der blev kaldt den transatlantiske sektor, som dømte denne sektor, og dømte det monetære system, der blev etableret efter 1944-45 i Bretton Woods, til undergang, efter at præsident Richard Nixon fjernede dollaren fra guldstandarden den 15. august 1971.

Siden den tid har den transatlantiske sektor været involveret i en nu accelererende selv-kannibaliserende proces. Folk har kaldt det for økonomiske opsving; de har kaldt det alle mulige ting. Men hvad der er sket er, at processen med i stigende grad at ødelægge vores egen tunge industri og energiproduktion, hvilket nu er blevet kodificeret i de seneste handlinger, der blev taget af Biden-administrationen for at bringe USA tilbage til Paris-aftalen, er udtryk for et andet problem. Dette problem er en manglende evne til at forstå eller tillempe, ikke kun den grundlæggende lære af Den amerikanske Frihedskrig og dens forfatning, oprettelsen af en forfatningsmæssig republik, men endnu vigtigere, de avancerede idéer vedrørende samme republik, som Lyndon LaRouche fremsatte.

Det, vi vil gøre i dag, er at præsentere en form for panel for at prøve at komme ind på spørgsmålet om, hvordan folk må begynde at genoverveje, hvordan de skal tænke i denne situation. Man har en situation, hvor spørgsmålet om, hvad der virkelig foregår, er et grundlæggende spørgsmål, der konfronterer mennesker.

For eksempel for indeværende i USA, enten på venstre- eller højrefløjen, som forresten faktisk ikke eksisterer. Men de mennesker, der mener at være til venstre eller til højre, taler om frygt for en borgerkrig. Nogle mennesker taler om behovet for en borgerkrig i USA. En sådan ting ville i det væsentlige ende med milliarder af døde mennesker. Dette er ikke en amerikansk affære; det er ikke en intern sag. Det indikerer, at folk skal overveje, om det egentligt ikke er den manglende evne til at forstå, hvordan man tænker ligesom Abraham Lincoln tænkte, der er deres grundvilkår. Måske det faktum, at Lincoln manglede nogen formel uddannelse i det hele taget, men snarere hans tillid til Bibelen, Shakespeares værker og den skotske digter Robert Burns poesi som den grundlæggende inspiration til hele hans liv – måske det er det, der kvalificerede ham til at vide, hvordan man tænker som han gjorde, og derved bevarede Unionen fra løsrivelsen, som undertiden fejlagtigt kaldes borgerkrigen.

Lærdommen af den slags tanker og handlinger til at mestre dette lands sande historie og den virkelige videnskab om fysisk økonomi var, hvad Lyndon LaRouche viede hele sit liv til. LaRouche, der døde den 12. februar 2019, var den mest fremtrædende fysiske økonom i verden. Det, vi ønsker at gøre i dag, er at bruge hans tankemetode til at angribe de problemer, der i øjeblikket forvirrer folks tænkning ikke kun i USA, men over hele kloden.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: (via Zoom)

eller her på YouTube.

Lyd:

Xi Jinping om multilateralisme og innovation: I sin tale som bar titlen: ”Lad multilateralismens fakkel oplyse menneskehedens vej frem", udtrykte Xi tillid til, at verden vil overvinde pandemien, men at tingene ikke bare vil vende tilbage til, hvad de var før Covid”. Den første opgave for menneskeheden, sagde han, er at bruge makroøkonomisk politik “til at bringe økonomien ud af junglen”. ”Vi er nødt til at forandre drivkræfterne og vækstmodellerne for den globale økonomi og forbedre dens struktur, for at sætte kursen for en langsigtet, sund og stabil udvikling af verdensøkonomien. ”For det andet bliver lande nødt til at ”opgive ideologiske fordomme og i fællesskab følge en vej med fredelig sameksistens, gensidig fordel og win-win-samarbejde”. Lande er forskellige og har forskellige kulturer og civilisationer, sagde Xi, og denne mangfoldighed bør respekteres, da den er kilden til verdens styrke…

Den vej, som Kina vil gå, er ikke at påtvinge folk nedskæringer, men ved hurtigt at komme videre med udviklingen af videnskab og teknologi. ”Videnskab, teknologi og innovation er nøglefaktorer for menneskelige fremskridt, et stærkt våben til at tackle mange globale udfordringer og den eneste måde for Kina at fremme et nyt udviklingsparadigme og opnå udvikling af høj kvalitet", sagde Xi. “Kina vil investere mere i videnskab og teknologi, og prioritere udvikling af et system der muliggør innovation, omdanne gennembrud inden for videnskab og teknologi til faktisk produktivitet i en hurtigere takt og forbedre beskyttelse af intellektuel ejendomsret, alt sammen med det formål at fremme innovationsdrevet vækst af højere kvalitet”.

Hele talen kan findes her: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-01-25/Full-text-Xi- Jinping-s-speech-at-the-virtual-Davos-Agenda-event-Xln4hwjO2Q/ index.html

Merkel: Vi skal ikke vælge mellem USA og Kina

Et andet udtryk for fornuft i forbindelse med internationale relationer kom fra den tyske kansler Angela Merkel. Hun skabte overskrifter ved tage stilling til fordel for præsident Xi Jinpings opfordringer til et nyt system for multilateralisme i implicit modsætning til præsident Bidens bestræbelser på at danne en global anti-kinesisk blok. Merkel sagde, ”Den kinesiske præsident talte i går, og han og jeg er enige. Vi ser et behov for multilateralisme… Jeg vil meget gerne undgå at opbygge blokke. Jeg tror ikke, det ville yde retfærdighed over for mange samfund, hvis vi siger, at dette er USA, og derovre er Kina, og vi grupperer os omkring den ene eller den anden. Dette er ikke min forståelse af, hvordan tingene burde være… ”

Putin: 1930'erne førte til verdenskrig; Kan konflikten undgås i dag?

27. januar (EIRNS) – "I øjeblikket er der ingen direkte paralleller i historien", sagde den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin i sin tale på Davos Agenda Forum. "Imidlertid sammenligner nogle eksperter… den aktuelle situation med 1930'erne… Som man ved, førte manglende evne og manglende vilje til at finde egentlige løsninger på problemer som disse i det 20. århundrede til katastrofen med 2. verdenskrig. Naturligvis, håber jeg, er en sådan ophedet global konflikt principielt umulig. Det er det jeg sætter min lid til, for dette ville være slutningen på menneskeheden. Som jeg imidlertid har sagt, kan situationen tage en uventet og ukontrollerbar vending – medmindre vi gør noget for at forhindre det. Der er en risiko for, at vi står over for et formidabelt nedbrud i den globale udvikling, hvilket vil være fuld af krig med alle mod alle og forsøg på at tackle modsætningerne ved at udpege interne og eksterne fjender, samt ødelæggelse af, ikke kun traditionelle værdier som familien, men de grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder…

”Vi har et fælles ansvar for at forhindre dette scenarie, der ser ud som en dyster dystopi, og i stedet at sikre at vores udvikling tager en anden bane – positiv, harmonisk og kreativ”, fortsatte Putin, der derefter identificerede tre store udfordringer, som det internationale samfund står over for…

Se hele talen her: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64938

Se Helgas Ugentlige webcast, her:

Mens de utopiske fascister fra den globalistiske erhvervselite har planlagt at bruge den nuværende Davos-konference som det tidspunkt, hvor de gennemtrumfer deres globale bankdiktatur for at indføre en dødbringende Grøn New Deal, er der tegn på, at en opposition vokser, centreret omkring Kina og Rusland, som også inkluderer nogle europæiske elementer. Helga Zepp-LaRouche beskrev konferencen hidtil som "en pose blandede bolsjer" og sagde, at finansoligarkerne, der fremmer negativ økonomisk vækst og befolkningsreduktion, er stødt ind i ledende nationers hensigter, som ikke er villige til at overgive deres suverænitet for "aktionær-kapitalismens” skyld. Begge præsidenter Xi og Putin opfordrede til samarbejde og multilaterale løsninger, og Xi sagde, at den unipolære model, der afhænger af at sætte nationer op mod hinanden, er forældet. I det som Zepp-LaRouche kaldte et "tidens tegn", støttede Tysklands kansler Merkel Xis appel for multilateralisme, som hun sagde, stred mod den idé, som præsident Biden søsatte for et "demokratisk topmøde" for alle nationer mod Kina og Rusland.

Mens Helga Zepp-LaRouche var forsigtigt optimistisk med hensyn til Biden-Putin-aftalen om at ratificere en femårig NY START-atomnedrustningsaftale, sagde hun, at Bidens belæring af Putin om de sædvanlige geopolitiske spørgsmål viser, at dem der står bag ham stadig er fast besluttet på en strategisk orientering, der kan føre til krig. Yderligere betyder de rige landes manglende evne til at yde hjælp til fattigere lande med at bekæmpe COVID19-pandemien, at vi enten fremtvinger en ændring i tankegangen, eller også vil pandemien ikke blive overvundet. Den eneste løsning på de problemer, som Xi og Putin rejste i deres taler, er den fulde indførelse af Lyndon LaRouches plan for en firmagtsaftale [mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien] for at etablere et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem, og at gennemføre LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love på verdensplan. Hun opfordrede seerne til at slutte sig til Schiller Instituttet for at hjælpe til med at realisere potentialet for et globalt system, der giver mulighed for udvikling af alle nationer.

Engelsk afskrift:

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger, welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche: It’s Jan. 27th, 2021.  And I think we should start with the ongoing summit of the World Economic Forum, the Davos billionaires, the gathering of corporatists from around the world to talk about the “Great Reset.”

Helga, what’s the latest you have on what’s going on there?

 HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  It’s a mixed bag, because on the one side, you have all the CEOs of the large firms and banks, BlackRock, Standard Chartered, you have basically the people who—they don’t talk about the Great Reset any more because that has been discredited a lot, so they’re calling it the “Great Transition.” For example, Bill Winters who’s the CEO of Standard Chartered bank, said this is the great $50 trillion opportunity for the next ten years; others like Philip Hildebrand, the Vice President of BlackRock and so forth, they’re all saying they need a lot private finance, private investment.  Basically this is a scheme to transform the world economy, get rid of fossil fuels, naturally no emphasis on nuclear energy, and it would mean to bring the energy flux-density of the world down to a level where, for sure, the present level of more than 7 billion people cannot be maintained.  As a matter of fact, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the former head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, he had said many times that he thought the ideal population for the world is 1 billion, and if these policies of these people would be implemented, you would destroy the world’s industrial capacities. Because if you eliminate fossil fuels—first of all there are clean coal plants now; secondly if you eliminate coal plants, especially for the developing sector, there is no way how you can prevent mass death!  And obviously, this is the hidden, or not so hidden, implication of all of these schemes.

This is a big danger, because these are people who are allied with the central banks, the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England, all the large corporations, but they’re not the only ones in the world who count, because there was also Xi Jinping, who gave the keynote. For some reason WEF director Klaus Schwab asked him to give the keynote, and he had a quite different tone.  First of all, he said the mode of setting countries against each other is outmoded and that what is needed is a multilateralism which is in the interest of all participants.  He also emphasized a lot the role of science and technology innovation, that China is continuously intending to help the other countries of the South to overcome poverty.

So I think the fact that China is just existing, and is offering a different model of development, including having now started to deliver vaccines for the COVID pandemic to 150 countries, is setting a different tone.  And if these oligarchs of the big banks and corporations want to push through their scheme it just means they will dismantle the industries of the United States and Europe and other countries that go along with that; but I don’t think that they can win.  So it is a sign of the times that Chancellor Merkel, who spoke after Xi Jinping basically supported Xi Jinping in his idea of having multilateralism.  She said she does not want to be put in a position where she has to choose where one bloc is centered around the United States and another one is centered around China, and that she thinks future relations must be based on multilateralism.

Now, this is very important, because, as we know, President Biden has been pushing, or had hoped to have this “Democracy Summit” which was his idea to collect all the NATO countries and get them all lined up against China and against Russia; so that is obviously not functioning, so you see a new—it’s still in a nascent form and baby steps, but you see a tendency in Europe to not want to be treated like the colonies of whatever is being said in Washington, and indirectly, naturally, with London given the marching orders from behind.  So this is an interesting development.

However, I just got a report before we started this program, about the speech of President Putin, and while I didn’t have time to read it at length, I think some of the elements which he said are extremely important: Because he said that the danger is that the world risks a conflict of all against all if global development concerns are not taken care. And he also said that he really hopes that it will not come to a hot global conflict, because this could mean the end to our civilization.  [http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64938]

I think Putin, and the Russians in general, are very clearly aware of the dangers in general are very clearly aware of the dangers which are in the situation, and I think it’s very important that he expressed it with that clarity. 

I think this Davos virtual summit is just a measurement of where the different forces in the world stand. I think the decisions are being made by the central banks and the forces of Wall Street, City of London, Silicon Valley, and that is the new oligarchical power, which is the real problem. 

But as I said, it’s a divided world, and there is an alternative between absolute zero growth, or reduction of growth, poverty, leading to war and conflict, and the perspective of joining hands to attack the problems of underdevelopment together.  So I think it’s new and naturally, people like the BlackRock representative said there is now a new game change, a new landscape because Biden is the new President and he has brought the United States back into this Green New Deal arrangement—yeah, that’s true and it’s very problematic for the United States, but as I said, that is not the only story in town.

  SCHLANGER: To continue that thread a little bit, if you think about what you just said on what Putin said and what Xi said, it’s clear that the alternative to what’s being pushed by the central banks is your husband’s proposal for the four powers as having the strength to combat Wall Street, the City of London and so on. Now in that, when we’re talking about Biden and Putin, they had a discussion yesterday which had some interesting aspects to it, starting with the renewal of the START agreement, but what do you make of that talk?

 ZEPP-LAROUCHE: From the little which is known about it, I think it was useful, because they agreed that the New START Treaty will be extended for five years, which is what Putin had offered, and both sides expressed that it’s in their mutual interest.  [Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei] Ryabkov said that this is very good because it gives five years for a complete reevaluation and the refounding of the relationship between the United States and Russia.  Naturally, then of course, Biden could not help himself to bring in the usual geopolitical issues, like the Navalny case, the supposed hacking of SolarWinds, and similar things, so he had to say these things; but I think it’s important, because when the two largest nuclear powers stop talking, then this is the most dangerous. So while I’m not saying that this is resolving anything, I think it is an important first step. And it is important, because the world is really in a very dangerous situation, so I think that that’s what one can say about it.

SCHLANGER:  One of the dangers is the continuing inability of big powers, including the European Union and the United States, to bring the coronavirus pandemic under control.  This was discussed peripherally there, and Biden’s coming up with a plan.  But unless you deal with this as you proposed, as an international question, with a new health system for every nation, this is not going to be stopped by the kind of half-measures that are being taken.

 ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, there is obviously an effort to beef up the production of vaccines. I think there are efforts being made. But now, there’s a huge scandal in Europe, because—this is unfortunately true, that the EU was very slow in ordering vaccines; they clearly had the idea of saving money rather than ordering as many different products from different firms and then see which one comes first, and there is no danger to order too many, because if you have too much you can give it all the other countries in need.  So this was clearly not done by [European Commission President Ursula] Von Der Leyen; she’s now targetted even in {Bildzeitung}—this tabloid—that she did not order, and that the result is in Germany, it’s going very slowly; in other countries in Europe, it’s going very slowly, and this is a reflection of the same austerity  mentality which is really—I hope it shortens the career of Von Der Leyen, because she is just the wrong person to be in any leading position in Europe.

The real problem, however, is what the head of the African Union and President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa said, who pointed to the fact that so far the rich countries have mostly cared for themselves, and he said there will be no solution to the pandemic as long as one country is not having the necessary vaccines.  And Tedros from the World Health Organization said that the behavior of the rich countries so far, which got themselves 95% of all the vaccine orders, and leaving the so-called third world with only 5%, that this is a “catastrophic moral failure.”  One can only hope that this is being remedied as quickly as possible, because it now turns out that the idea that Africa was having relatively little problems with COVID-19, turns out not to be true, and as we suspected, it was only due to non-reporting, little testing; and now it comes out through a study from a university in Zambia, that especially the age group between 19 and 59 years of age have the highest mortality rate, {and} children! Now, as we also know there are new strains in Britain, in South Africa, and in Brazil, which are much more lethal and also spread more quickly; and there are now medical experts warning that what could happen is that one of these new mutations, new variants, could develop to become vaccine-resistant. If that would happen, then we would be in a very dramatic situation.

So I think there is not yet a recognition, at least not in any way necessary, of the leading institutions, to really understand that we are in a race against time, because it is very clear that the economic collapse coming from the COVID pandemic, is going to ruin a lot of industrial substance. For example, in Germany and other European countries, a lot of small and medium firms are not going to make it.  The situation now, where a possible lockdown will start again in a hard way in France, or it has started already, with lockdowns from 6 in the evening until morning, people are not allowed to leave their house; so a lot of economic hardship will follow, and a lot of substance will be destroyed. 

So either there is a change in the attitude, that people understand that you have to start to build modern health systems in every single country, or this cannot be controlled, that rethinking has not yet started in a serious fashion and that’s what the Schiller Institute is campaigning for.  Because unless we take this crisis to really start to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing countries in a serious way, there is no guarantee that this will not lead to a major crisis.  And I think Putin, in his speech in Davos reflected that dimension very clearly, that out of chaos you could have a global catastrophe.

The ILO just reported that the loss of jobs in 2020 was equivalent to 255 million fulltime jobs. I don’t think that covers all the shadow industry jobs, but that’s a significant number, and they expect another 130 million losses in 2021, and they say this does not yet take into account the likelihood of a fourth and a fifth wave.  So that all makes clear that we have to change the whole situation:  I cannot see a willingness right now on the side of the central banks in Europe, the United States, to go in that direction, but that will be a subject of mobilizing the population, because if these institutions are unable to reform—and you know, if you look at the situation, with the riots having now spread to Holland, where for four days you had massive riots in 10 cities; last week we had the same thing in Denmark.  This was not unlike the mob which stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 in the United States, and if you now have more job losses, more unemployment, the danger of blackouts—we have a huge danger that if this Green energy policy is implemented that you will have blackouts leading to complete chaos, I think this could really lead to major social upheavals, and the only way to avoid that would be to really go for our program, starting with the health system in every country.  And we have published this program for 1.5 billion productive new jobs, which have to be created [https://larouchepub.com/special_report/2020/larouche-plan-for-1500000000-jobs.pdf]. And despite the coronavirus condition there has to be a rethinking and there has to be a vision for the population to see the light at the end of the tunnel, that even if some of these things will be very difficult to implement under coronavirus conditions, I think it is important that there is a willingness by the leading institutions to address that.  

Xi Jinping in his speech in Davos also mentioned that he wants to strengthen the G20, because he said that that is the institution to build up global governance—well, that is important because as long as you have some countries at least in that combination that go in a different direction, it is important.  And just to mention it, China has had last year 550,000 new patents, which is an increase of 17%; that is because the Chinese government put a lot of emphasis on science and technological progress innovation, and there was just a study by a German university that found that the civil law in China is compatible to Western standards, essentially because they took the entire canon of civil law in Germany as a model to write their Chinese civil law.  So the university study comes to the conclusion that this an absolutely Western standard and there’s no reason to complain about it.

 And I think there has to be a rethinking about a lot of the prejudices in the anti-China/anti-Russia campaign, because if we want to solve the problems of the world, we have to stop geopolitical confrontation and find a way of putting our forces together to address these urgent questions which face all of humanity.

 SCHLANGER:  As far as being stuck in the old paradigm, we have this fight continuing in the United States against Donald Trump, with the impeachment bill from the House moving to the Senate for trial.  This is dividing the country once again.  It’s being used to create the kind of confrontation that would serve as a pretext for more crackdowns, more censorship. You mentioned that you are somewhat excited, or intrigued by what Tulsi Gabbard said, and also what Putin had said about this.  What’s your thought about what’s going on with this impeachment?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, there was the vote in the Senate where only five Republican Senators voted with the Democrats, so the impeachment trial will start on Feb. 9th, but I think it has almost zero chance to succeed, because they would need 17 Republican Senators to go along, and there are already now many voices that there is no basis in the Constitution to even do that, because the Constitution does not allow for private persons to be impeached.  So you can impeach a sitting President, but not a former President.  So that is a big argument. And the whole campaign is ludicrous in the first place, because Trump did not incite violence and the mob to storm the Capitol, despite the narrative which is being put out by the media and the Democrats.  He gave a speech to his supporters!  And then said, “let’s move down Pennsylvania Avenue,” and “we have to take back the country”—I mean, these are normal things to say; many politicians have said many things like that.  So it’s a complete orchestration, and to somehow now criminalize 75 million Trump voters is also not going to work. 

It is the danger of a polarization, naturally, and what Tulsi Gabbard said is quite to the point. She said that the mob which stormed the Capitol, this is dangerous, but she said also dangerous is the John Brennans and the Adam Schiffs and the Big Tech, but they’re more dangerous because they’re more powerful.

 Now, also Putin, in his speech at the World Economic Forum pointed to the role of the Big Tech that they have more power than the elected governments, and I think this is something which should be of concern to everybody, because if these Big Tech firms can allow people to say one thing, and not allow another thing, make total censorship, this is really dictatorship.  And I think the population must be mobilized against it, and governments around the world must take measures to put these high tech  firms under control and under government regulation.  And Biden, if he doesn’t do it, will be discredited by that as much, as well.

 SCHLANGER: Also a reflection of the old paradigm is the effort to continue with sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 project, which is very far advanced in terms of the U.S., the U.K., NATO, and there’s a reaction growing against this from Germany.  What do you think is going to happen?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s going to be built. I think it’s only few kilometers left.  They restarted the completion of it, and the government spokesman of Merkel, Steffen Seibert said that this is not something which concerns the government, because it’s a private contract between private firms, and even the Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said these were contracts which were made many years ago, and it would put into question the reliability of Germany as a partner in any kind of trade deal if they would now stop it.  So I think this is interesting, and as I said, I do see baby steps of self-assertion on the side of the German government, and I think it is a tendency in Europe as well; and one could only hope that it would continue.

SCHLANGER: A lot of what you’ve been discussing today Helga, is related to the fight between the old paradigm and the new paradigm, which I think is becoming more obvious to a large number of people.  You’ve been at the center of this fight, you’ve made it the cause of the Schiller Institute to push for a move into a new paradigm, outside of the realm of the false choices that are presented by geopolitics, with neoliberalism.  What can you say to the viewers, that they need to do, to make sure we get this push for a new paradigm?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  We have a program. The program was in large part authored by my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, who said that we need absolutely to have a New Bretton Woods system which has one main goal: to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing sector. Now that happens to be exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt intended the Bretton Woods system to be, which it never became, because he died before it could be established. But I think that there is the potential to have a global system which allows the development of all nations.  It is the sign of the times. 

The fact that China, Russia, about 150 other nations are going in this direction, I think this is something which is a hopeful development, and I don’t think the efforts by the Biden Administration to go back to the old confrontation with China, with Russia—well, the only thing it can bring is World War III, in which case, nobody would enjoy it, not Biden, and not anybody of his cabinet.  They have no way of crushing this ferment without causing World War III.  Now, that’s a real danger and I don’t want to belittle it for one second.  But I think that if people really think about, there is a way to solve this problem, and that is to do exactly what the American System of economy was, in the beginning of the American republic, what the German economic miracle was in the postwar period, to go back to scientific and technological progress, to go in the direction of increase of productivity, the Four Laws which were designed by my late husband, to go for global Glass-Steagall, get rid of the casino economy; implement national bank in every single country on the planet; then go in the direction of a credit system, cooperate in long-term development projects—it would bring the whole world out of this crisis! 

And we have reached a point, where one year after the pandemic, at a point where it’s very clear the economy is in a very dangerous collapse phase, I mean: Are human beings capable of reflecting on the mistakes which were made and correcting them? I fundamentally think, absolutely yes.  It’s just that we need the kind of discussion, how should we shape the world for this coming period, for the next hundred years, and then take the vision of having the idea of peaceful cooperation.  Why don’t we just allow the different systems, if a country wants to have a different social system and is not trying to impose that on another one, why should we not accept that?  Accept sovereignty, accept non-interference into the internal affairs, accept the different social system.  Can we not have an alliance of republics working for the common good of all of humanity?  That’s what John Quincy Adams was advocating, and I think that that is exactly what is needed now. 

And I also think this must be combined with a cultural renaissance: I think we have to realize in the West that this exaggerated liberalism, where you replace moral standards with the principle of everything is allowed, the more pornographic, the more violent, the more perverse something becomes, the more interesting it becomes—that was a wrong way!  And I think we have lost our way in the West, and all we have to do, is to do the same thing that China is doing, what Russia is doing; they went back to their own high traditions of their high culture.  There is a big revival of 5,000 years of tradition in China.  Russia is doing the same thing.  And we could do the same thing as well!  In Europe, we have a {beautiful} European Classical period, we have the Italian Renaissance, the Andalusian renaissance, we have the Ecole Polytechnique in France; we have the German Classical period. In America, you have the principles of the American Revolution, the American System of economy.  We have so many wonderful traditions which we could revive and be an absolute important shaping factor in the future world.  And I think we have to mobilize the population to rally around that, and then solutions are possible.

So I want to invite all of you, our viewers, to join with us, and help us to get the world out of this crisis.

SCHLANGER: Well, Helga, thank you for your insights, and your optimism in this moment of pessimism, confusion, demoralization is really refreshing, and it ought to be something that will bring people to The LaRouche Organization.  We welcome all of viewers to go to the websites of The LaRouche Organization and the Schiller Institute, where you can much more in-depth material on what Helga has been discussing today.

Helga, thanks for joining us this week, and we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week!

Den følgende artikel blev udgivet i EIR tidsskrift den 21. januar 2021:

The following interview was conducted on February 27, 2018, at the Big Science Business Forum 2018 in Copenhagen, by Michelle Rasmussen of EIR Copenhagen. It was published in Europe at that time, but never published in the United States. The video of the interview can be seen here, and an interview with the Communications Director of Fusion For Energy, the European section of ITER, can be seen here. 

EIR: Hello. We’re reporting from the Big Science Business Forum 2018 in Copenhagen, Denmark. I’m very happy that Dr. Luo Delong, who is China’s director for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER China), has been kind enough to speak to us about the Chinese fusion energy program. Dr. Luo, could you say something about China’s involvement generally, why China thinks it’s important to develop fusion energy, and also, about China’s involvement in the ITER project, and any other projects?…

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Se Helgas Webcast på Schiller instituittets Youtube kanal her

I en vidtrækkende og meget provokerende dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte hun med at bemærke, at hvis Joe Biden virkelig er fast besluttet på at skabe "enhed", som han sagde i sin indvielsestale, skulle han vedtage pave Paul VI’s rundskrivelse, "Udvikling er det nye navn for fred ", som sin politik. Dette ville kræve, at "identitetspolitik" droppes, samt den grønne New Deal – som han ikke viser tegn på at gøre – til fordel for LaRouche-bevægelsens plan for at skabe 1,5 milliarder produktive arbejdspladser, herunder udvikling af et moderne sundhedssystem i enhver nation for at håndtere COVID-pandemien.

Hun spurgte også, om den paranoia, som Hillary Clinton og flertalsleder i Repræsentanternes Hus, Nancy Pelosi, viste over for Rusland og Trump-vælgerne, gør dem til "QAnon"-tvillingerne [QAnon er en højreekstremistisk konspirationsbevægelse]. På en indsigtsfuld måde forklarede hun, at QAnon er en operation for psykologisk krigsførelse. Hun beskrev, hvordan QAnon har fælles træk med den romantiske bevægelse, som blev skabt af oligarkiet efter Napoleonskrigene, for at ødelægge klassiske tænkemåder til fordel for dissociative følelser.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche berettede, hvorfor hun mener, at EU’s splittelse over den grønne New Deal, og de katastrofale virkninger det vil have på industrien, åbner døren til at besejre den.

Hun diskuterede også konsekvenserne af opdagelsen af ​​nye varianter af COVID 19.

Uddrag:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg overværede selvfølgelig indsættelsen og hans tale. Først og fremmest er jeg ikke imponeret over hans kunstneriske smag. Jeg fandt, at Lady Gaga var temmelig forfærdelig; Hvis man sammenligner Marian Andersons smukke fremførelse af nationalhymnen ved indsættelsen af John F. Kennedy [og Dwight Eisenhower i 1957] og så Lady Gagas, så får man en fornemmelse af, hvad der er galt med kulturen.

Lad os nu sige, at vi giver Biden kredit for, at han mener, hvad han sagde, at han ønsker forsoning. Nuvel, så har jeg et ganske godt råd til ham – han er katolik, og så burde han læse pave Paul VI’s Encyclical (rundskrivelse -red,), som han skrev i 1967, under titlen ‘Populorum Progressio’ – eller ‘om folks udvikling’ – og hvori han sagde, at “det nye navn for fred er udvikling”. Og på samme måde kan man sige, at det “nye navn for enighed er udvikling”. Den eneste måde man kan håbe på at have enighed inden for USA ville være at sætte et økonomisk program på dagsordenen, der giver produktive jobs til alle amerikanere, hvilket ville annullere de økonomiske uretfærdigheder, der trods alt er grunden til, at Trump blev valgt i 2016, og til at alle Trump-vælgerne stadig holder fast ved ham. Så hvis han ønsker at have forsoning, må han gøre udvikling til det nye navn for enighed, og så vil det gå i samme retning internationalt.
 
Nu ved jeg ikke – men hvis han mener det alvorligt, er han nødt til at slippe af med identitetspolitik. Fordi så længe man deler folk op efter deres etnicitet eller deres seksuelle eller anden overbevisning eller forskel, er dette polariserende. Dette er nøjagtigt det modsatte af, hvad Martin Luther King sagde, nemlig at alt skal være inkluderende. Lad os nu se, hvad Biden gør; virkeligheden vil vise sig meget hurtigt ved hans gerninger og ikke ved ordene.
 Meget mere kunne siges, men han er ny præsident, så lad os se hvad der sker. Hvis man ser på det hold han har valgt – tja, altså, mange kommer fra den gamle Obama-administration; mange har allerede udtrykt enighed med Pompeo, eksempelvis om holdningen til anti-Kina, anti-Rusland. Tony Blinken sagde, at han er enig med Pompeo mht. Kina, så det tegner ikke så godt… 
Så jeg tror, at mange ting skal ændres, og som jeg sagde, den eneste måde hvorpå Biden muligvis kunne forene USA ville være at bryde fuldstændigt med den politik, han har kæmpet for i valgkampen: ‘the Green New Deal’, fordi ‘Green New Deal’ betyder, at opgaven med at skaffe et produktivt job til enhver amerikaner er helt umulig. Så med mindre han ændrer politik, hvilket naturligvis ikke er sandsynligt, tror jeg ikke, at nogen af de ord han sagde, vil betyde meget.
 
Så lad os se. Mit råd til Biden ville være at støtte pavens rundskrivelse, ‘Populorum Progressio’, det “nye navn for enighed er udvikling”. 
 
SCHLANGER: To interessante aspekter ved præsident Trumps afgang: Den ene er, at vi endelig fik offentliggørelsen af noget af dokumentationen omkring Russiagate med frigivelsen af FBI-interviewet med Christopher Steele, hvor Steele indrømmer, at han fremlagde dossieret, fordi han var bekymret over det britiske forhold til USA, og forhåbentlig kommer der mere. Det er lidt sent. Men jeg var ret skuffet over Trumps beslutning om at give en benådning til den korrupte Steve Bannon og ikke gøre noget i forhold til Julian Assange. Har du nogen tanker om det, Helga?
 
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jo, ‘skuffende’ er et mildt ord – jeg synes, at undlade at benåde Assange kan virkelig ikke forsvares; der er ingen tvivl om, at Assange sidder i fængsel i Storbritannien for at have afdækket nogle virkelige forbrydelser. Han er en ‘whistleblower’, der skal have beskyttelse i ethvert samfund, der respekterer dets egne love. Så det er en trussel mod Assanges liv, og nu bliver det meget sværere at redde ham, så jeg mener, at dette absolut er uforsvarligt…
 

Engelsk afskrift:

Webcast With Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Call for ‘Unity’ Is Not Enough: Development Is the New Name of Unity!
January 21 (EIRNS)—Schiller Institute Weekly Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Thursday, January 21, 2021

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with our weekly update with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and President of the Schiller Institute. It’s Jan. 21st, 2021.

Well, we’re three weeks into the New Year, and already it’s been a year of surprises and tumult, chaos. We had yesterday the inauguration of Joe Biden, and I find it a bit ironic that Biden’s main theme was unity, when I guess he intends to enforce unity through censorship, through a new Patriot Act—what did you make of his speech, Helga?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I watched the inauguration and his speech, naturally. First of all, I’m not impressed by his artists tastes. I thought that Lady Gaga was quite horrible; if you compare the beautiful singing of Marian Anderson of the National Anthem at the inauguration of I think if was John F. Kennedy [and Dwight Eisenhower in 1957] and Lady Gaga, then you get a sense of what is wrong with the culture. [https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/marian-johnson-sings-the-national-anthem-as-john-f-news-footage/173704298]

Now, let’s say we would give Biden the credit that he means what he said, that he wants to have unity. And well, then I have very good advice for him—he’s a Catholic, and then he should read the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI that he wrote in 1967, which was called Populorum Progressio, or On the Development of Peoples, and in which he said that the “the new name for peace is development.” And in the same way, one can say that the “new name for unity is development.” The only way one can hope to have unity inside the United States would be to put on the agenda an economic program which would give productive jobs to every American, which would undo the economic injustices which are, after all, the reason why Trump was elected in 2016, and why all the Trump voters are still sticking to Trump. So, if he wants to have unity, he should make development the new name for unity, and internationally it would go in the same direction.

Now, I don’t know—if he means it seriously, he has to get rid of identity politics. Because, as long as you divide people by their ethnic or sexual or other conviction or distinction, this is polarizing. This is exactly the opposite of what Martin Luther King said, that everything has to be inclusive. Now, let’s see what Biden does, if the reality will show itself very quickly by its deeds and not by the words.

A lot more could be said, but he’s a new President, so let’s see what will happen. If you look at the team he has selected, well, many of those are from the old Obama Administration; many have come out already agreeing with Pompeo, for example, on the anti-China, anti-Russia stance. Tony Blinken said he agrees with Pompeo on China, so that does not forebode very good. And one cannot forget that the shadow which is hanging over the Biden Administration is exactly what was done in the five years of the Trump candidacy in 2016, the four years of Trump’s Presidency when we had Russiagate, we had the Mueller report, we had impeachment 1, impeachment 2; we had the collusion of the heads of intelligence with British intelligence against Trump for this entire period. So that is the heritage, and now, basically, if everybody who voted for Trump is potentially a domestic terrorist—well, if somebody is a white male and voted for Trump, if he is labeled a domestic terrorist, that makes about, at minimum, something like 40 million Americans domestic terrorists—I don’t think that that will work for unity.

So, I think a lot of things have to be changed and as I said, the only way how Biden could possibly unify the United States, would be to completely break with the policy he has campaigned on in the election campaign: the Green New Deal, because the Green New Deal means that the task to have a productive job for every American is absolutely impossible. So if he doesn’t change policy, which is not likely, obviously, I don’t think any of the words that he said will mean much.

So, let’s see. My advice to Biden would be to go with encyclical Populorum Progressio, the “new name for unity is development.” [http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html]

SCHLANGER: Two interesting aspects of the departure of President Trump: One is that finally we got the declassification of some of the documentation around the Russiagate, with the release of the FBI interview of Christopher Steele, in which Steele admitted that he produced the dossier because he was worried about the British relationship with the United States, and hopefully there’ll be more coming. It’s a little late. But, I was quite disappointed in Trump’s decision to issue a pardon to sleazy Steve Bannon and not to do something with Julian Assange. Do you have some thoughts on that, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, “disappointing” is a mild word, I think, not to pardon Assange is really not defensible, because there’s no question that Assange is sitting in jail in Great Britain for having uncovered some real crimes. He’s a whistleblower which should be protected in any society which respects the laws it has given itself. So it’s a threat to Assange’s life, and now it will be much more difficult to save him, so I think this is absolutely indefensible.

Concerning Bannon, this unfortunately is not a surprise, because it was clear for the better part of 2020, that Trump, who had distanced himself from Bannon, which was a good thing, had moved back into the influence domain of Bannon starting in April, when he started to say this line that the COVID virus was deliberately spread by China, which is scientifically ridiculous. Nobody in the world who has any knowledge about pandemics would argue like that, and it was also wrong. It is a matter of act that China has done an enormous job to contain the virus, and to then immediately help a lot of other countries, first with masks, then with medical supplies, now with the vaccine.

So, it is wrong, and to say something like that is also dangerous, because it is creating an enemy-image, which in line with what the military-industrial complex is saying and doing against China, is creating an enemy-image for a potential future military conflict, which is really inexcusable.

I think this is really bad. And Trump also stuck to his line that the U.S. economy is doing great because the stock markets are going up, or are up—I mean, all of these are the weak points, and I don’t think that that was a very good departure at all.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned the strategic continuity between people like Blinken, the new Secretary of State, or would be Secretary of State, with Pompeo. We saw something that was quite hideous with Hillary Clinton and Pelosi conspiring to criminalize all 75 million Trump voters, but also continuing the targetting of Russia. If this continues, this is extremely dangerous.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I mean, sometimes one wonders if either Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are the Democratic version of QAnon, or, maybe the two ladies have a severe attack of paranoia. Because the idea, what Clinton actually said, that she thinks it’s possible that Trump was on the telephone with Putin during the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6—it’s a world full of conspiracies, of insinuations; it’s just completely, I think, deranged.

SCHLANGER: [laughs] I like that. The twin “Q Sisters.”

Now, the other thing that’s happening is we’re seeing a kickoff in a couple of days of the Green New Deal with the World Economic Forum, the Davos group, pushing their Green policy based on the Great Reset. There’s resistance developing to that. This really is no solution, but what do you think is going to come of this meeting, in the next few days?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It will be interesting, because, it’s a virtual meeting; it will be addressed by many heads of state. Not all of them are on this Green Deal line. You have President Alberto Fernández from Argentina, President Xi from China, Prime Minister Modi from India, Merkel, Macron; so I think we will hear quite different accentuations from these different leaders. But it is very clear that the Davos crowd—this is the top 2,000-3,000 CEOs of the top financial institutions and multinational corporations, they are pushing for the Green New Deal, the Great Reset, the idea of implementing a “stakeholder capitalism,” as they say. There will be a tremendous push to brainwash the whole world into accepting the idea that everything has to be Green, all investment must go into only Green technology. But the reality is there are now the first voices realizing, or speaking out, that this will be a catastrophe. For example, of a place where you would not necessarily expect it from—namely, an economist from Deutsche Bank, Eric Heymann—he put out a quite interesting article saying that the policy of the EU, which naturally also for the Green Deal, is very dishonest, because they’re not telling people that this will only go through with a massive reduction in the living standards. And that, in turn, can only be implemented through massive eco-dictatorship, in other words, a complete bending of all legality and constitutionality by implementing dictatorial measures.

Now, that is slowly dawning on some people. For example, when the EU just recently tried to implement the infamous “taxonomy,” as they’re naming it, which means that all the firms have to give their CO₂ footprint, ten countries refused to do that, and the EU was forced to postpone this whole affair, because they couldn’t get the unity—it was mostly East European and South European countries, that obviously have already been on the losing end in terms of the EU austerity policy, so their enthusiasm for the EU policy is very limited to say the least in the first place.

So, I think that this whole Green Deal is absolutely crazy. For example, the head of Toyota in Japan, Akio Toyoda, he calculated and said that if you want to put Japan entirely on e-cars, electric cars, it would cost investments in infrastructure of over $1 trillion. Now, we took the figures given by the Toyota study and tried to calculate a similar cost for the EU: Germany alone is already scheduled to lose 400,000 jobs in the auto sector if there is a transition to e-cars, because they have much less components for the motors, so the supply industry becomes shrunk. But it’s much, much worse: First of all, you would need an investment in infrastructure for e-cars in Europe of over €1 trillion, probably €1.2 trillion, and then naturally you have no electricity because we already had several almost blackouts for the entire European energy grid, last week! Now, if you try to put all these cars on electric fuel, the electricity is by far not sufficient. So this whole thing is economically very stupid. It would destroy the industrial countries of Europe, the United States and Asia if they would go with it. So I can imagine that there will be a lot more resistance once people start to realize what the effect is: it will drive energy prices even higher, it will cause mass unemployment; it will drive prices in general much higher.

So I think that if there is an effort to implement that in earnest, what we have seen in terms of the Brexit vote, the Trump vote, riots in the streets, Yellow Vests, all of that will increase, because you cannot destroy the livelihood of millions and millions of people without their starting to go to the street in protest, when they realize that their livelihood is in danger.

So I can only say, people should abandon this idea. There is climate change—obviously—but what it is exactly is not so clear. There are big debates in the scientific community; there are many studies which attribute the climate change to very different phenomena, such as galactic cycles. We have introduced on the Schiller Institute website a page, which is called “Science—Stop Green Fascism” [https://schillerinstitute.com/stop-green-fascism/]. And there we will institute an international debate, where we already have many scientific papers, by many scientists. And I invite you to go to this page—we will have many more coming in the next days and weeks, so that is a place where you can inform yourself about what is really behind this Green Deal, and get a more scientific approach.

SCHLANGER: And while we’re talking about this question about the loss of energy production that’s planned with the Green New Deal, we have an attack from Pompeo in the United States against the Nord Stream 2 [pipeline] which is crucial for Germany. But we’re also seeing something interesting: The choice for the new chairman for the Christian Democrats in Germany is someone who’s considered to be anti-Green. How significant is this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, it is not so clear that the German industry and politicians will capitulate to the U.S. sanctions [against firms working with Gazprom to build the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia]. I mean obviously, the danger of being hit with such sanctions is a deterrent, so one of the industries involved, Bilfinger, already withdrew. Even Gazprom said it’s questionable if it can be brought into completion, but there is also massive resistance, because people know that what’s behind that is an effort, on the one side, to treat Germany and the other 12 European countries that participate in Nord Stream 2 as a colony, and people don’t like that so much any more. And secondly, everybody knows the U.S. wants to sell their liquefied natural gas and that is also pretty obvious; it’s more expensive, it’s more environmentally unfriendly (to say the least), so I think there is still resistance.

Concerning Mr. Armin Laschet [new Christian Democratic Union chairman], he has already been attacked that he is “soft” on Putin, that he did not agree with the Skripal interpretation; that he didn’t make enough fuss about the Navalny case—I think all of that speaks for Laschet, because all of these cases were efforts to manipulate an anti-Russian hysteria. That’s all I can say on that point for now.

SCHLANGER: Going to the more crazy side of U.S. politics, we have this movement called QAnon, which was predicting a military coup, that Biden would be arrested, Hillary Clinton arrested, Trump would be brought back in—this has many people wrapped up in it, and it’s turning out, from the research we’re starting to do, that this was a military psy-ops from the beginning, using the military side of artificial intelligence and so on. This is also emerging in Europe, as well. What do you make of this, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it is a psychological warfare operation against the population, to try to confuse them: As you say, we are looking into the connections to the military right now, but there is also another interesting observations which intrigued me. It’s written by a designer of games, Reed Berkowitz, and he basically says that looking at the way the QAnon operation works, he said it’s exactly like the games he is designing, that it leads to something which he called “apophenia,” which is a notion coming from psychology which means that people have a sort of free association, where they connect things and put them together in a pattern which looks logical but these things are not connected, or at least not in the way they’re being put together. For example, you have this really crazy interpretation of people who say that the entire COVID-19 is just a conspiracy to implement military or dictatorial means. This is a mental disorder, because the pandemic is quite real, which we should talk about a little bit later. But I think this idea of game theory, or designing games is actually quite accurate. [https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5]

And when I read the article by Berkowitz, I was immediately reminded of my research into the Romantic movement. Now, this is extremely important. Because how do people judge things, like reality? How do they know that their judgment is truthful or at least trying to be truthful? Well, you have to think like a scientist, or you have to think like a Classical artist, because these are the only two groups of people who think in terms of universal principles. A universal principle is something which you can verify everywhere, no matter if you are in Africa, or in the United States, or in Europe, because it’s a universal principle because it’s universal; therefore, you have a test of reality.

The last time there was a culture which was based on such universal principles, was the German Classical period, which produced such giants as Bach and Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, Schumann, Mozart; but in poetry, Schiller; Shakespeare would another, from another period, proponent of such universal thinking; and this was extremely important, because it established a high standard of morality, a high standard of intelligence, of creativity, and it would have liberated the population to be truly free if that would have been the dominant culture. And it was on a good way in Germany, because one of the closest collaborators and friends of Schiller for example, Wilhelm von Humboldt, had designed the Humboldt education system, and when he was Education Minister he started to implement it. And it would have meant that the entire population would have been rational creative, the potential of everybody would have been brought out, so it was on a very good way.

But then, a counter-movement developed, which started maybe innocently as a Romantic, just slightly confused form of thinking in the person of Novalis. But then, soon there were some others, like August Wilhelm and Friedrich Schlegel, Tieck, and these people were quickly taken over by Metternich, by the Restoration, and they became the political Romantics. Now, what is the difference between Classical thinking and Romantic thinking? In Classical thinking it’s what I said before: you have an absolute ability to find the truth by the method of exhaustion, by establishing principles which can be found, and established and proven again and again, because they are principles which are pertaining to the real universe.

What the Romantics started to do, they started to consciously take the poetical stringent form of the Classical culture apart, by saying there should be no beginning, there should be no end, day and night, and waking and dream should all be interwoven; you should have free association follow diffused emotions, and this became a real Schwärmerei and it turned the absolute optimism of the German Classical period into the pessimism which now, in the end—and I’m leaving out many steps in between—it ended with the horrible 12 years of the National Socialism in Germany, which was sort of the end form, or in the modern deconstruction of all modern art.

So, when you see something like that, and you see a method being applied which consciously confuses people, as it is clearly the case in the QAnon movement (or whatever), it is psychological warfare of people, because it goes against science, it makes people deliberately believe things which they are no longer able to think through, and I think it’s a real dangerous thing, and we will do some more work on it, to discover what it really is.

SCHLANGER: Good, that was very important, what you just went through. We’re down to just a couple minutes, so I’m going to jump ahead to the one question that you referred to earlier, which is the importance of addressing the new variants of coronavirus. This is now out of control in Germany, in the United Kingdom; the situation seems to be getting worse, the vaccines are not ready. Where is this headed?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, just today there was an EU meeting, and Merkel, who is not my favorite politician, but she said something which is extremely truthful, unfortunately, and she seems to have a little bit better grasp on COVID than most politicians have shown; and she is warning of something which many medical experts have express extreme concern about in the recent days: Namely that these new variants, which emerged in Great Britain, in South Africa, and Brazil—each of them being different—are rapid variations, and there is a danger that soon these variants will be vaccine resistant. Now, if that would happen, then we would look into a completely different kind of catastrophe, because up to now, for example, in the United States, most of the bets, at least in the previous administration were put on quickly developing a vaccine, and if that goes out of the window, then you are really in trouble.

I think the only possible answer to that, is, we have to have a world health system: This is what we have been saying since the beginning of this pandemic, that unless you have a modern health system in every single country—in Haiti, in Mali, in Ecuador, in India—just simply every single country, you are not going to protect your country. The idea that American, or Germany, or any one of these so-called advanced countries can be protected when the pandemic is raging in the developing countries, is simply an illusion. And since the medical experts already have been warning that new viruses are already waiting to spread new variants of MERS and SARS, that this question of really changing the attitude towards the developing sector is becoming a question of the moral fitness to survive for the entire human species. That means, we have to build modern health systems in every country, and that is only possible if you have infrastructure! If you don’t have clean water, electricity, means of transport and communications, you can’t do it.

So we are at the crossroads where we in earnest have to go to the policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, what he intended with the Bretton Woods system, which was never realized because he died too early; but he wanted to increase the living standard of the entire population of the world, and that, he said, is the precondition for peace. I think we are at that point, where we either correct that failure of the entire post-war period, or we will go into an endless series of catastrophes.

That is the program which we have been putting forward, 1.5 billion productive jobs have to be created anew, and the whole drive has to start with this idea of a world health system. And I would appeal to all of you who are listening to this, that if you agree with that, then you should join our efforts. We have a Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, which is trying to get an approach to all the aspects of this problem, meaning to double food production worldwide to deal with the famine of “biblical dimensions,” and at the same time train young people to be helpers for medical personnel, partnerships of the developing countries—all of this is still in the works.

But I think we really have to start with a change in the attitude: You cannot this pandemic in one country, and you cannot, for sure, solve it with the Green Deal. If you go for the Green Deal, there is no way how the necessary science and technology can be available, or the industrial capacities to implement such a world health system. So, we are at a crossroads, and you should join the Schiller Institute and work with us to give this whole thing a different direction.

SCHLANGER: For updates on this story of the coronavirus, as well as everything we were discussing today, you can get them at The LaRouche Organization website [www.laroucheorganization.com] as well as the Schiller Institute [https://schillerinstitute.com]

So Helga, thank you for joining us today, and we’ll see you again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

Se videoen via YouTube her, hvis den ikke vises her på siden.

I kølvandet på begivenhederne den 6. januar 2021 er Lyndon LaRouches virkelig inspirerede og overraskende 2004-præsentation den 19. januar 2004 endnu vigtigere.

Vil vi reagere med frygt eller vrede, eller endnu værre, ligegyldighed, eller vil vi lade os inspirere af den fælles vision af ledere, der er så spredt ud i tid og rum som Frankrigs Jeanne d'Arc og Amerikas Martin Luther King? Vil vi høre vores fælles Guds stemme, i hvis billede vi er blevet skabt, som Martin og Jeanne gjorde?

Lyndon LaRouche udfordrer os til "at udnytte denne magt", så kan man agere med "en fornemmelse af, hvad dit liv betyder. Man har en følelse af forpligtelse, en mission i livet til at opløfte nationen ved at opløfte” sit lands folk.

Lyndon LaRouche introduceres af Amelia Boynton Robinson, som selv er en heltinde og en tidligere næstformand for Schiller Instituttet.

Den 14. januar (EIRNS) – Pave Paul VI havde ret, da han i sin rundskrivelse ‘Populorum Progressio’ fra 1967 skrev: ”Udvikling er det nye navn for fred”.

Den systemiske sammenbrudskrise i hele det transatlantiske økonomiske system, som Lyndon LaRouche advarede om helt tilbage i 1971, er nu i fuld gang og bringer USA og verden til randen af fascistiske politikker, både økonomisk og politisk, nøjagtig som LaRouche forudså ville ske, hvis hans politik for global økonomisk udvikling ikke blev vedtaget.

I Europa er den vanvittige politik, styret fra London, for afvikling af atomkraft og kuldioxid nået til det punkt, hvor den truer eksistensen af hele kontinentets elnet. Hvis Tyskland får lov til at fortsætte, vil det i år nedlægge tre af sine sidste seks atomkraftværker og reducere landets elforsyning med chokerende 6-7%, uden anden grund end forsætlig afindustrialisering og malthusiansk affolkning.

I Kina er USA’s afgående udenrigsminister, Mike Pompeo, kommet inden for en millimeter til at anerkende Taiwan som en suveræn nation, hvilket forsætligt ville overskride Kinas røde linje og sandsynligvis udløse en åben militær reaktion.

I Rusland tikker uret ned til 5. februar 2021, hvor den nye START-traktat mellem USA og Rusland udløber, hvilket ville efterlade verden med, siger og skriver, nul våbenkontrolaftaler mellem de to supermagter, på et tidspunkt med skarpe og voksende spændinger.

Og i USA har angrebet på ‘Capitol’ den 6. januar – en moderne orkestreret provokation i stil med ‘Rigsdagsbranden’ – åbnet sluseportene for at rive præsidentskabet som institutionen og forfatningen i stykker, i særdeleshed ytringsfriheden, og tilskyndelse til jakobinsk vold (både venstre- og højreorienteret), hvilken er beregnet på at nedbryde nationen – det britiske imperiums mangeårige feberagtige drøm. Rapporterne om planlagt vold på indsættelsesdagen den 20. januar, både i Washington, D.C. og i mange delstats-hovedstæder over hele landet, truer med at optrappe krisen til et helt nyt niveau.

Præsident Trumps gentagne fordømmelse af angrebet på Capitol, hvor han distancerer sig selv og hans bevægelse fra ”den pøbelagtige vold” og siger, at “jeg opfordrer til at der ikke må være nogen vold”, er prisværdigt – men det er på ingen måde tilstrækkeligt til at besejre den globale strategi fra det britiske imperium, City of London og Wall Street.

”Det er meget tydeligt, at USA befinder sig i en dyb, dyb polarisering”, sagde Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, i sin ugentlige webcast den 13. januar. ”Nogle mennesker taler endda om faren for en borgerkrig. Jeg vil ikke forudsige det ene eller det andet, men det står meget klart, at hvis ikke man finder en måde at overvinde denne nuværende ekstreme polarisering, kan man ikke gå ind til det og sige: ‘Vi vil bekæmpe dette til døden.’ Dette kan kun føre til en fuldstændig tragedie eller føre til en situation som i Weimar-Tyskland, hvor nationalsocialisterne og bolsjevikkerne kæmpede frem og tilbage i slutfasen; og vi ved hvordan dette sluttede”.

Zepp-LaRouche fortsatte: ”Hvad jeg mener der må gøres, er en helt anden tilgang. Det er idéen om ‘modsætningernes sammenfald’, der blev udviklet af Nicholas Cusanus; forestillingen om at det menneskelige sind kan definere et niveau for løsninger, der ligger på et højere plan end der, hvor konflikten opstod. Hvad det konkret betyder i en situation som denne er, at folk fra alle sektorer af det politiske spektrum skulle arbejde sammen for at løse de virkelige problemer, som hungersnød, som pandemi, og derved give unge mennesker et perspektiv”.

Zepp-LaRouche henviste derefter til den tænkning og organiserende tilgang fra ledere som Mahatma Gandhi og Martin Luther King, som personligt blev stærkt inspireret af Gandhi:
”Jeg tror, at en sådan fornuftens stemme, som eksempelvis Martin Luther King, hvis fødselsdag vi fejrer om få dage, bør introduceres i den stærkt polariserede amerikanske situation. Jeg tror, at vi er nødt til at introducere et sådan element af samarbejde om at løse problemer og genopbygge USA. Vi er virkelig nødt til at give et perspektiv til de ganske almindelige mennesker, der har mistet håbet om den amerikanske drøm, hvis de nogensinde har haft det. Og jeg tror, at det kun kan gøres ved at bevæge relationer mellem nationer til et helt andet paradigme… Verden har desperat behov for et nyt paradigme, et ‘New Bretton Woods-system, som min afdøde mand havde udarbejdet i mange årtier. Og jeg tror, det er denne tænkning af Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, og Lyndon LaRouche, som nu er nødvendig”.

Hun konkluderede: ”Jeg synes, at dette er et meget alvorligt øjeblik i amerikansk historie, det er et alvorligt øjeblik for hele verden. Men jeg tror, at der er nok af kræfter med god vilje rundt om i verden til, at vi forhåbentlig kan sætte en alliance og et partnerskab sammen for at redde civilisationen, for det er hvad der i virkeligheden står på spil”.

I sin ugentlige dialog kiggede Helga Zepp-LaRouche på begivenhederne den 6. januar (angrebet på kongresbygningen in USA) ovenfra og ned og gav seerne et strategisk overblik, der aldrig vil komme frem i de almindelige medier eller fra de såkaldte eksperter. Hun kritiserede skånselsløst påstanden om, at begivenhederne den dag var resultatet af, at Trump slap en “fascistisk pøbel” løs, og sagde i stedet at det var en “Rigsdagsbrand”, et påskud for et fascistisk kup for at påtvinge den “store nulstilling” (centralbankernes Great Reset). Udover at tjene som en begrundelse for sociale mediers/internet-giganternes censur af præsidenten og hans tilhængere, blev Kongressens efterforskning om valgsvindel lukket ned, og der er et pres for at kriminalisere enhver, der taler imod den kommende Biden-administrations hensigter.

I mellemtiden har de optrapninger, der blev bekendtgjort af udenrigsminister Pompeo, til formål at øge faren for krig, som involverer fire brandpunkter, Yemen, Cuba, Iran og Taiwan, der låser Vesten i geopolitiske konfrontationer. Verden sidder på en krudttønde og står over for et accelererende finansielt sammenbrud, som kun kan vendes ved kreativ tænkning, der anskuer det fra et højere niveau, hvorfra de nuværende kriser er blevet skabt. Dette er metoden bag oprettelsen af Komitéen for modsætningernes Sammenfald, som hun startede med en forpligtelse til at skabe et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden.

Engelsk Afskrift:

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger. Welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is January 13, 2021. We’re coming off a stream of extremely eventful and tense and turbulent weeks. Today, a bill of impeachment will be introduced in the House of Representatives against Donald Trump, when they failed to get Pence to go with the 25th Amendment. This is really unprecedented, what they’re doing at the end of a presidential term, isn’t it Helga?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. It is something quite unbelievable what is happening, and I think we should look at both the events as they were unfolding and then try to get a view from above, so to speak. Because, what happened on Jan. 6 is in my view not what meets the eye. The way this has been portrayed around the world is that this was a fascist mob which stormed the Capitol, and this was all instigated by Trump who refused to admit that he lost the election, and that he keeps saying there was vote fraud.

Now, this is not what happened. What happened was, and we investigated that in detail with a whole bunch of international legal experts, with lawmakers from different countries, and there is no question that there was massive irregularity [in the vote]. That was not allowed to be investigated; the media always said that Trump would not have produced a single shred of evidence. But there are so many witnesses, hundreds, if not thousands of eyewitnesses, who reported that they saw unbelievable things happening in these six swing states, and Jan. 6 was the day when all of this was supposed to be presented before the joint session of Congress, and that would have probably have been the only chance to shed some light on what happened.

Now, Trump had organized his supporters, and he did say something wild will happen, Jan. 6 is the big day; but he did not they should commit violence, and when he made the speech before the White House, I listened to it, and I did not think that it really had a vision. I thought he sounded bitter, he just repeated the many incidents where he is convinced that it was vote fraud. And then he said, why don’t we walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, which is the route to the Capitol. He did say all of this. But then, what happened with the event on—before people started to gather before the Capitol, and then there was the breach, I think there is now many, many questions which have to be answered: Why was there no adequate security? There were ample indications that it would be a big demonstration, that it could have violent elements in it. Normally, when you have such events, all or most of the major government buildings in Washington are closed, museums are closed—nothing of this happened.

And it is now very clear that there were, from eyewitness reports, from video, handi/smart phone videos and others, that there were some provocateurs, some instigators, who then caused this breach and unbelievable event in the Capitol, which was absolutely horrible. And the whole world correctly said this is something happening in the United States, what normally only happened in banana republics or countries which were the target of color revolution, by a certain apparatus which we have identified many times in the past.

So I think the most likely thing which has happened is that this was another September 11th, another Reichstagsbrand [Reichstag Fire]. In other words, when something happens, where this is just the pretext to implement something else. And what is the something else? Namely, it became very clear immediately afterwards, that the giant tech firm from Silicon Valley started to continue the censorship of Trump and all his Trump supporters, or many of them, what had already started after the election: when Trump would give a press conference, the executives of the big TV stations would blend in, sort of overrule the press conference, and say “this is fake news, don’t believe what he is saying.” It was already incredible. But then, this was a step beyond. They started to kick him out of Twitter, Facebook, and even now there were incidents where the sound was turned off when he gave a press conference.

Now, many people were confused, and reacted—because they have some dislike of Trump, so there were many people who said “oh, this is very good, this person should finally be shut off.” But there were a few people—not enough, but some few important people who recognized what this is. Most outstanding the President of Mexico López Obrador, who immediately in a press conference said, this is an absolute, unprecedented effort to implement mind-control censorship; he talked about the “Holy Inquisition,” he said this is very dangerous, we must think about an alternative. Also extremely important, Edward Snowden, who after all was the first whistleblower to really show what this apparatus is all about, the global surveillance which they have produced, he also warned and said, this is a very dangerous precedent. And then even some Europeans woke up, like Chancellor Merkel said this is absolutely not acceptable, and even better, the French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said, this is a “digital oligarchy,” and this must be absolutely condemned.

So what is at stake here? What is at stake is that they want to suppress not only that vote fraud can be investigated, and there is no question that there were incredible irregularities and all the media—normally if you would say there is a charge, a violation of the election in Hungary or in Italy or some other country, there would be immediately an outcry and say, “OK, we have to have investigative journalists, they have to go and find out.” I have not seen one incident of a so-called mainstream journalist from the trans-Atlantic world who would have reacted that way. There was nobody who said, “I’m going to interview the senators from Georgia, the state representatives from Pennsylvania”—I have seen nothing of that! There was a unisono, lockstep reaction by the mainstream media that this is completely outrageous; and now, the social media are all basically banning anybody who uses the term “vote fraud” or “stop the steal,” or any of the other words which they want to suppress.

Now, this is really incredible! And I think that the underlying reasons must be investigated and people have to wake up, because this is the effort to not only silence Trump with the impeachment proceedings, to prevent him from running again as a presidential candidate in 2024, to outlaw his entire movement, which after all was 75 million Americans who voted for him, and I think all of this is increasing the danger of violence, it makes people more angry.

And if you then look at the enormous amount of disinformation and craziness which is being fueled, you know, people who still say to the present day, that Trump has everything under control, that he will deploy the National Guard and arrest Pelosi and Biden, this all is steered to make people completely crazy. Nothing of this sort will happen. Trump repeatedly said after the storm on the Capitol, that he is condemning the violence, that he is calling for healing, for peace. So there is an enormous about of orchestration in this whole affair. But people should really wake up and understand that this is not what people think, or what people are supposed to think, but something quite different and extraordinary is going on here.

SCHLANGER: Well, you mentioned the similarity to what we’ve seen over and over, to U.S.-inspired and British-inspired regime change in other countries. Clearly you can’t separate what happened on Jan. 6 from the four-year campaign of vilification and slander against Trump, the fabrication of the Russiagate story. But I think also, as you just mentioned, it’s a pretext to criminalize anyone who would oppose the agenda of the trans-Atlantic establishment, and I think that’s really what this is all about. And you mentioned earlier the Great Reset, that’s what they’re trying to do, is to silence anyone, aren’t they?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, also now, the big banks and big corporations are cutting off the Republicans who voted to have this debate in the Congress—I think these were 130 or 170 congressmen—cutting them off from all funding. And there is a motion, also by they Democrats that they should be prevented from politics based on the 14th Amendment. Now, the 14th Amendment was introduced in the context of the Civil War against leaders of the Confederacy, that they would not be allowed to become Congressmen. Obviously, this is incredible. The Congressmen who dared to demand an investigation of the vote fraud, are being put on the same level as the insurrectionists of the Confederacy! This is unbelievable! And it just shows you how absolutely wrong this whole question is.

Now, you mentioned the Great Reset: I think that the same banks and the same big corporations, especially including Silicon Valley, Wall Street, but also the City of London, what these people are aware of is that their system is completely bankrupt, and they’re now preparing for what they call the “Great Reset”: This is supposed to be featured big time with a virtual seminar starting on Jan. 25-29, and it’s supposed reorganize the entire financing so that only Green projects will be allowed to be financed, and that’s already started to happen with the major banks.

What people don’t know, they think, this has to do with CO₂ emission or climate—it’s nothing of this sort. If you put the entire financing on the basis of Green technology, of decarbonization of the economy, this is the old scheme of the neo-Malthusian oligarchy, the combination of the finance sector and the Green ideologues. This is something we have been identifying and warning against since the beginning of the 1970s, at least, because this was when the Club of Rome came out with their fraudulent thesis for the first time, that there are limits to growth, that there are only limited resources, and that the world has developed up to that point, the beginning of the ’70s, and now these resources are being exhausted, and therefore you have to asymptotically somehow stop industrial investment, because we are in a closed system.

So this has been the origin of the Green movement. The Green movement was the result of this propaganda of the Club of Rome. It started to panic generations after generations of especially young people. This propaganda was spread with an enormous amount of money by British Petroleum which distributed free games int the schools so that students would learn to think this way. And the whole, entire Green movement was really groomed and it was changed—at one time, it was the acid rain, then it was the ozone hole, so they changed their focus and now it’s naturally the climate change; climate change does happen, but the science of climate change has been discussed by many scientists from many countries. Thousands of scientists have made the argument that climate change is the result of galactic changes, and it’s been going on for millions of years, with changes from warm periods, ice ages, and that the anthropogenic component of climate change is negligible.

So obviously, if there’s climate change, you have to make adjustments, where you do have some real problems, you do have to make changes, sometimes evacuate the people if the sea level is increasing; but these are things which have nothing to do with the kind of fascist scheme which is being implemented right now. People have to think this through: Because what we are really looking at is a new fascism. A new fascism, where all financing and all economic activity would be controlled in the interest of big finance, big tech, Silicon Valley: And the result would be a massive depopulation, because you cannot maintain the presently existing number of people living on the planet, with the kind low energy flux-density that the Green policies prescribe.

So this is the danger of fascism. And if they go for that kind of censorship, this is a prescription for disaster, because it will go against the interests of survival of so many people, that I only can say we need a completely different policy, and it may still be time to change it.

SCHLANGER: One other aspect of the drive for fascism and a dictatorship is the proliferation of new wars. And unfortunately, we see that even though President Trump is still trying to get troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and he campaigned to do that, his Secretary of State Pompeo is travelling around the world pushing new wars, targetting Yemen, Cuban, Iran, Taiwan, even North Korea. This is really one of the dangers people are not facing right now.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, I think Pompeo is really trying to almost create a scorched earth behind him. He just accused Iran of protecting al-Qaeda, which is Iran has completely denied, and we know what General Flynn said about who is backing al-Qaeda—that was his whole argument against Obama in 2012, namely the United States, itself. Well, then, what Pompeo did by putting the Houthis in Yemen on a terrorist list is an absolute crime! This means that the aid to a country which is already starving in the biggest famine, will be decreased, and it will cause the deaths of many millions of people: I think this is a human rights violation of the most unbelievable dimensions, and it should call all the other governments to action, to increase food aid to Yemen on a short-term emergency basis.

Then to put Cuba on the terrorist list, when Cuba is one of the countries that have been going out of their way to help other countries in the COVID crisis, by sending medical teams to Africa and other places, Latin America. And naturally, the biggest danger, maybe even his decision to basically declare Taiwan to be an ordinary country, and in that way violating the One China policy of China, to which the China has reacted extremely harshly. They said they, under no circumstances, will tolerate this, that we may be looking at the ten most dangerous days in the history of U.S.-China relations; they said this two days ago, so we are talking about eight days now. They also said that they will absolutely react with all means necessary, including the possibility of military reaction, if there would be such a provocation.

So we are sitting in the last days of the Trump Administration on a complete powder keg. And that is not the doing of Trump, that is the doing of the apparatus which is really behind Russiagate, and which is the establishment which goes above parties and it’s not limited to either the Republicans or the Democrats. But it is the British Empire, with its dependencies in Silicon Valley, in Wall Street, naturally the City of London itself. So people better wake up that this is something absolutely unprecedented, or going beyond the precedence of the Reichstag’s Fire and even beyond September 11th, in its potential strategic implications.

SCHLANGER: While Pompeo is pushing for confrontation with China, the idea of containment or encirclement, new sanctions against China, the Chinese are continuing to move in a very interesting direction in Africa, working with African countries; and also you had Xi Jinping with a very significant perspective on China’s domestic economy, none of which is really being reported in the United States. Instead, we’re getting an anti-China landslide coming from the same people behind Russiagate.

What is the policy of China, really, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, we don’t know yet what Biden’s policy on China will be, but if you read an article he wrote in Foreign Affairs in March/April, it does not forebode too good. Because he said, now it’s time to “get tough with China.” I mean, what we have seen in the last years was a total deterioration in the relationship between the United States and China, and if he thinks that that is not “tough” enough, that does not sound good. And he repeats in this article, the same untrue assertion that China is trying to take over the world, and the typical lines we know already—this is not what is happening. [“Why America Must Lead Again: Rescuing U.S. Foreign Policy after Trump” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-01-23/why-america-must-lead-again]

Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, was just on a five country trip in Africa, and basically in many speeches, but also through their actions, said that China is committed to help Africa to leapfrog to modern technologies and modern industrial development.

Now, I do not know of anybody in the West saying that—nobody in Europe, not in the United States, but China is doing things, and all the Africans I have every talked with are extremely grateful and happy, and say, we do not want Sunday sermons about human rights and democracy. We want to have real industrial help to get out of our problems. So I think this is quite different from what people think. The Chinese also published a on Jan. 10 a new White Paper on their relationship to the developing sector, where they reiterate the commitment to help these countries to overcome their underdevelopment. And I think this is extremely important; it has nothing to do with taking over the world. It has everything to do with the fact that these countries are in a horrible crisis, faced with a pandemic, with famine of “biblical dimensions,” and it’s the only way how you can overcome that. And people should cooperate with China on that, rather than having this horrible view. [“China’s International Development Cooperation in the New Era,” http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/202101/10/content_WS5ffa6bbbc6d0f72576943922.html]

And the speech Xi Jinping gave before the Party school, was also very interesting, because he said that has obviously everything to do with the anti-China campaign: He said that China will concentrate on building up the domestic economy, the increase of consumption, the increase in living standards of the Chinese people, to increase the focus of innovation on science and technology as the motor to improve the productivity of the economy. So if you look at these different aspects of Chinese policy, it would be in the fundamental interest of the United States to say, let’s stop this anti-China campaign and cooperate!

I mean, the problems of the world are so many, that if the largest countries of this planet are not cooperating to solve them, I mean, that is the test of our morality, it is the test of our human identity as a creative species, and we are not somehow pigs that fight for the best place at the trough; but we are a species of creative reason, and if we sponsor and encourage the creativity of the other, the other human being, the other nation, it comes back a zillion times to us and it makes our own life and perspective better. So we have to change the thinking about these questions in a fundamental way.

SCHLANGER: One of the ironies about this is the people who are accusing China of preparing to take over the world, are the same people who are setting up this global bankers’ dictatorship, called the Great Reset. And the ones who are accusing China of loading up Africa on debt, are precisely the ones who have been doing that for the last 50, 60 years.

Helga, when you talk about a “new method,” you’ve created a committee, in cooperation with a number of other people, the Committee of the Coincidence of Opposites, that actually is oriented around this method you were just discussing. How is this organizing process going?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is going very well. We are now in the process of applying that method to both try to get young people involved in being productive in the health sector in the United States; there are many medical associations that are very interested in this approach. We are trying to get actual food shipments into Africa, medical shipments, talking to countries in Africa who are extremely in need for such an approach.

But I want to say something about it more from the standpoint of method: It’s very clear that the United States is in a deep, deep polarization. Some people even talk about the danger of a civil war. I’m not going to predict one thing or the other, but it’s very clear that if you don’t find a way to overcome this present extreme polarization, you cannot go into this and say, “we are going to fight this to the death,”—this can only lead to an absolute tragedy or lead to a situation like Weimar Germany, where in the end-phase between the National Socialists and the Bolsheviks you had the fight going back and forth, and we know how that ended.

What I think needs to be done is a completely different approach. It is the approach of the “coincidence of opposites,” an idea which was developed by Nicolaus of Cusa, the idea that the human mind can define a level of solution which is on a higher plateau than that where the conflict arose. What that means concretely, in a situation like that, that people from a sectors of the political spectrum should work together to address the real problems, like the famine, like the pandemic, like giving a perspective to the young people, and that is, in a certain sense a method which was emphatically used by Mahatma Gandhi. And those people say “Oh, Mahatma Gandhi…”—well, he defeated the British Empire and nobody can deny that; and it’s also an established fact that the work and life’s work of Mahatma Gandhi inspired Martin Luther King. He even travelled for five weeks to India, and met with the family of Gandhi, and the whole civil rights movement in the United States was based exactly on this approach.

And I think such a voice of reason right now, that which Martin Luther King whose birthday we celebrate in two days, and then the holiday is on Monday [Jan. 18], that is something to reflect upon. When we worked very closely with many civil rights leaders in the past, Amelia Boynton Robinson, with Rev. James Bevel, who was the assistant of King, and many, many others. And I think we need to introduce that kind of an element of working together on solving the problems, rebuilding the United States. I mean, we have to really give a perspective to the ordinary people who have fallen out of the American Dream, if they were ever in it, and I think that that can only be done by moving the relations among nations to completely different paradigm.

I mean, you have to make up your mind: Do you want to have war with Russia and China, and blow up the whole world in a nuclear war, leading to a complete annihilation of the human species? Or do you want to have an approach of a new paradigm, solving problems together? And I think that that difference, either you go for an all-out war, all-out confrontation is the same methodologically if you apply it in the United States or if you apply in the realm of the strategic situation.

So I think we need to have a different approach, and say, the world needs urgently a new paradigm, a New Bretton Woods system as my late husband had developed for many decades; and I think it is that thinking of Mahatma Gandhi, of Martin Luther King, of Lyndon LaRouche, which is now needed, and not some hoola-hoola, let’s go to war.

I think this is a very serious moment in American history, it’s a grave moment for the whole world. But I think there are enough forces of good will around the world that we can hopefully put an alliance and a partnership together to save civilization, because that’s what’s really at stake.

SCHLANGER: Well, we have some events coming up this weekend: The Schiller Institute and The LaRouche Organization. You can check out the website of the Schiller Institute and The LaRouche Organization for details. And Helga, I want to thank you for joining us today. These are momentous times, and we really do need to elevate our thinking and not just fall into the traps that are being set. So, see you next week!

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LaRouche-organisationen har en halvsides annonce i Washington Times den 6. januar, på dagen hvor den amerikanske kongres vil tælle valgmandsstemmer i forbindelse med præsidentvalget den 3. november 2020.

Tiden er inde til, at præsident Donald Trump vender bunden i vejret på det strategiske skakbræt. På dette fremskredne tidspunkt vil intet mindre end at vælte hele det britiske finansoligarkis slagplan kunne vinde krigen. Dette er den eneste effektive måde at stoppe hele det monumentale bedrag i forbindelse med det amerikanske præsidentvalg i 2020 og ødelæggelsen af selve præsidentembedet. At tage sagen til Højesteret, og at den amerikanske befolkning foretager fredelige masseprotester er berettiget og nyttigt, men vil ikke være tilstrækkeligt. For at vinde krigen må hele det britiske finansoligarkis slagplan fejes af banen. Denne strategi har, fra det øjeblik han tiltrådte for fire år siden, inkluderet fjernelsen af præsident Trump fra Det Hvide Hus, med det formål at indføre en grøn global nulstilling af økonomien, hvilket betyder udslettelsen de tidligere industrielle økonomier i verden (inklusive USA) og en folkemorderisk affolkning af den underudviklede sektor gennem krig, hungersnød og pandemier – alt sammen med det formål at opretholde Wall Streets og City of Londons bankerotte finanssystem, med dets spekulative boble på 2 billarder $. Biden er deres mand til dette job. Hvilke øjeblikkelige handlinger kan præsident Trump foretage for at vælte det strategiske skakbræt?

1) Præsident Trump kan trodse den onde, løgnagtige anti-Rusland og anti-Kina kampagne og ringe den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin op og sige: ”Se, vi har en pandemi; vi har hungersnød; vi har en ekstrem farlig strategisk konfrontation; og vi har en uløst finanskrise. Lad os holde det topmøde blandt FN’s Sikkerhedsråds permanente medlemmer (P5), som du foreslog i januar 2020, og gøre det med det samme”. Som Lyndon LaRouche gentagne gange argumenterede for, er en sådan kombination af den amerikanske præsident Trump, den russiske præsident Putin og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping stærk nok til at tilintetgøre det fallerede London/Wall Street-finanssystem, og til at handle hurtigt for at løse disse kriser. Hele verden, der med ængstelse betragter begivenhederne udfolde sig i USA, ville forene sig bag en sådan bestræbelse.

2) Præsident Trump kan også umiddelbart agere for at give oprejsning til den amerikanske statsmand Lyndon LaRouche og benåde Julian Assange og Edward Snowden. Hvorfor LaRouche? Fordi Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) i fem årtier var den mest kontroversielle person i amerikansk politik, frygtet af det britiske imperium som ingen andre. LaRouche blev en trussel i verdensklasse mod det britiske imperiums magt gennem sine amerikanske præsidentkampagner.

“LaRouche-sagen involverer en bredere vifte af bevidst og systematisk magtmisbrug og ulovligheder over en længere periode i et forsøg på at ødelægge en politisk bevægelse og leder end nogen anden føderal retssag i min tid eller efter mit kendskab” – tidligere amerikansk justitsminister, Ramsey Clark.

LaRouche førte an i kampen mod de angloamerikanske finansinstitutioners folkemorderiske udplyndringspolitik og var ansvarlig for en vellykket organisering af Reagan-æraens Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ i 1982-1983. Man fabrikerede anklager mod ham i slutningen af 1980’erne og sendte ham i føderalt fængsel i fem år – for forbrydelser han aldrig begik. Trump blev ramt af det samme apparat, som bragte den uskyldige LaRouche i fængsel. Faktisk var Robert Mueller selv en af de førende personer i retsforfølgelsen og lynjustitsmordet på LaRouche for over 30 år siden, i lighed med bankmanden fra Boston, William Weld. Den 1. september 1995 udtalte LaRouche i sine historiske bemærkninger til Martin Luther King Tribunalet en skarp advarsel, som har givet genlyd op igennem årtierne: ”Indtil vi fjerner det rådne, permanente bureaukrati fra vores regeringssystem, der optræder som ‘lejemordere’ ved at benytte retssystemets autoritet til at begå justitsmord, er dette land ikke frit, og heller ingen der lever i det”.

29. december 2020 (EIRNS) — Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i en diskussion den 28. december med medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet fra USA, Canada, Gambia, Irland, Danmark, Italien og Tyskland, om USA’s udenrigsminister Pompeos sindssyge politik midt i faren for ekstreme internationale spændinger under pandemien, og truslen om en hungersnød af bibelske proportioner, at det var af presserende betydning for præsident Donald Trump at ringe til Rusland og Kina for straks at indkalde til et topmøde blandt de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som Ruslands præsident Putin opfordrede til i januar i år.

Hun sagde:

»Jeg tror, at præsident Trump, uanset hvad der sker den 6. januar, uanset om han vil være i Det Hvide Hus den 20. januar, kan gøre én ting. Han kunne straks indkalde Rusland og Kina og sige, at på grund af krisen forårsaget af pandemien, på grund af hungersnøden, og på grund af faren for verdensfreden, ønsker han at reagere på Putins tilbud om at afholde topmødet mellem de fem permanente medlemmer i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som præsident Putin har opfordret til siden januar. Trump burde sige, at han vil have topmødet med det samme. Og det ville være det allerbedste, han kunne gøre for at imødegå al denne propaganda.

“Jo mere folk ringer til Det Hvide Hus for at foreslå dette, og som udtrykker behovet for topmødet på andre måder, jo bedre. Jeg aner ikke, hvorfor Trump ikke har smidt Pompeo ud. Han er lige som John Bolton på mange af disse spørgsmål. Præsident Trump havde modet til at smide Bolton ud. Det var en af de bedste ting, han nogensinde gjorde.

“Men jeg tror at det, for at omgå disse farer, i denne utroligt komplekse situation, er nødvendigt for præsident Trump til nu at følge op på Putins tilbud om dette topmøde, og mødes med Putin, og Xi Jinping. Dette møde kan ske. Frankrigs præsident Macron har allerede sagt, at han støtter et sådant topmøde, og Boris Johnson har udtalt, at han støtter det. Men de virkelig vigtige mennesker er præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi Jinping, som vil gøre forskellen på et sådant møde. Johnson og Macron kunne ikke ødelægge en sådan kombination. Det er den ene ting, som Trump må opfordres til at gøre. Jeg er 100% sikker på, at Rusland og Kina absolut ville støtte det med det samme.”

18. december 2020 (Schiller Instituttet) — Muligheden for at præsident Donald Trump vil benåde Wikileaks’ grundlægger, Julian Assange, der nu langsomt dræbes i et fængsel i London, især i kølvandet på den nylige tilbagetræden af justitsminister William Barr, har rejst et spændende spørgsmål. Vil det russiske “computerhack, som aldrig fandt sted”, der er så centralt for den nuværende fængsling og tortur af Assange, endelig blive bragt frem i lyset, hvis han løslades fra fængslet? Vil den kriminelle sammensværgelse mod det amerikanske præsidentskab, der involverede “Five Eyes” efterretningstjenesterne, samt de finansielle interesser bag City of London/Wall Street, blive eksponeret gennem frigivelse af alle dokumenter, der er vigtige for at afsløre Russiagate-fupnummeret? Vil disse dokumenter omfatte relevante dele af de titusindvis af sider, som Ty Clevenger har erfaret, at FBI netop har erkendt eksisterer i deres sagsakter, der er relevante for hans anmodning i en FOIA-retssag vedrørende informationer om Seth Rich? Vil vi måske endelig se frigivelsen af disse og andre dokumenter gennem fyringer og/eller fratræden af CIA-direktør Gina Haspel og FBI-direktør Christopher Wray efter William Barr?

Resolut, uventet og uortodoks handling fra præsidentens side kunne nu være den eneste mulighed for at afsløre den sande natur af præsidentvalget i 2020, og vende det nuværende resultat. Ved at tillade retfærdigheden at ske fyldest gennem sådanne handlinger, kunne der skabes en platform for Snowden, en skrantende Assange, William Binney, whistleblower fra det Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur (NSA) samt andre, til at afsløre hvordan overvågningsstaten har såret den amerikanske valgproces så godt som dødeligt, ligesom den har manipuleret og fikset valg over hele planeten i årtier – uanset hvad der måtte komme frem – Donald Trump kunne endnu nå at blive indsat som præsident i januar 2021. Hvis sandheden om kampagnerne i 2016 og 2020 endelig blev fortalt til det amerikanske folk, vil den der gør det, have fortjent deres evige støtte. Og den sandfærdige forklaring vil øjeblikkeligt afsløre den blodige karakter af Obama-Bush-administrationerne, der blev forenet som siamesiske tvillinger gennem deres fremme af krig som det primære redskab til diplomati.

Britisk efterretningsvirksomhed, ikke Rusland eller Kina, er den “udenlandske spiller”

Har du bemærket, at hvis man nævner Kina eller Rusland, er mange hurtige til simpelthen at acceptere ideen om udenlandsk indblanding i det amerikanske valg, men hver gang man bringer den veldokumenterede involvering af britisk efterretningstjeneste i det amerikanske valg og præsidentskab gennem de seneste 5 år op, benyttes udtrykket “konspirationsteori” til at afvise denne analyse? Navnene Christopher Steele, Robert Hannigan, Sir Richard Dearlove, amerikaneren Stefan Halper og Sir Kim Darroch – alle direkte tilknyttet til GCHQ, MI6 eller den britiske udenrigstjeneste – er blot de hidtil kendte operatører, der er kendt for direkte at have skabt enten historien om “Rusland, Rusland, Rusland” eller historien om “Kina, Kina, Kina”. Der er sikkert mange flere.

Alligevel bruges “det er virkelig svært for mig at se, hvordan Storbritannien er involveret”, stadig som en undskyldning af de fleste for ikke at se, hvad der faktisk er foregået. At ignorere sandheden bliver dog umuligt, når man ser på sagen om Julian Assange. Assange bliver dræbt for øjnene af os i et britisk fængsel for at bevare den russiske fiktion. Hvordan gøres dette? Tidligere i år, den 20. februar, trykte avisen Guardian overskriften: “Donald Trump ’tilbød Julian Assange en benådning, hvis han benægtede russisk forbindelse til hack.'” De fleste medier ville øjeblikkeligt blive miskrediteret som svindlere og kun modvilligt, om nogensinde, blive troet igen, hvis først Assange sammen med andre kyndige fik lov til at udtale sig offentligt om Russiagate. ‘Cui bono’ – de som drager fordel af Assanges tavshed, er de sammensvorne, der fostrede, gennemførte og hemmeligholdt komplottet mod det amerikanske præsidentskab – briter, amerikanere og andre. Som journalist Viktor Dedaj udtalte på Schiller Instituttets panel den 12. december: “Hæng sammen eller hæng hver for sig: Frie suveræne republikker, eller digitalt diktatur (“Hang Together or Hang Separately: Free and Sovereign Republics, or Digital Dictatorship”):

”Da Julian Assange endelig blev fjernet fra ambassaden i strid med folkeretten, og oven i købet den ecuadorianske forfatning, tog det kun et kvarter for den britiske dommer, først at fornærme ham og derefter dømme ham til 50 ugers fængsel for overtrædelse af hvad? Hans betingelser for ‘prøveløsladelse’ … men han blev ikke alene … idømt 50 uger, men 50 uger i et højsikkerheds-fængsel. Vi vil se, at dette – så vidt vides – er det eneste tilfælde i Storbritannien, at en journalist, der ikke er anklaget for noget men holdes i varetægt, er låst inde i et fængsel med høj sikkerhed … Vi så en retssag, der fandt sted bag næsten lukkede døre, idet omkring 50 NGO’er, hvoraf 90 journalister, der [på forhånd] var blevet akkrediteret, blev afvist med navns nævnelse … ”

Det bør huskes, at Edward Snowden i 2013 blev hjulpet af Julian Assange i sin vellykkede flugt fra Hongkong. Snowden strandede derefter i Moskva, da hans pas blev tilbagekaldt, hvilket gjorde det umuligt for ham at rejse videre. Kirk Wiebe, whistleblower fra det Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur, har observeret, at Snowden, langt fra at være en forræder, som mange har hævdet, måske er blevet tvunget til at handle på en ulovlig måde for at honorere sin svorne ed til USA’s forfatning. Hans handlinger fandt sted adskillige år efter at Wiebe, sammen med William Binney og Ed Loomis og senere sammen med Diane Roark, medarbejder i House Intelligence Committee, havde brugt “de godkendte kanaler og procedurer” til at rapportere forseelser efter deres fratræden fra NSA i 2001 – for sidenhen at blive anholdt under våbenmagt af FBI og næsten justitsmyrdet og sendt i fængsel af Justitsministeriet i 2007. Præsident Trumps nylige indikation af, at han måske vil se på en benådning af Snowden, efter at Trump for flere år siden erklærede, at Snowden fortjente døden, har givet anledning til dyb bekymring i efterretningskredse, hos republikanere og demokrater. Disse “repræsentanter for den dybe stat” ønsker frem for alt at trække opmærksomheden væk fra den grimme sandhed. Den systematiske omstyrtning af regeringer, herunder gennem manipulation og valgfusk, foretaget af medlemmer af “Five Eyes” hemmelige regeringsarrangement, er en ‘standard operational procedure’ for det der i den amerikanske efterretningsverden kaldes for “Project Democracy”, som først blev afsløret for den brede amerikanske offentlighed af Lyndon LaRouche og Executive Intelligence Review i rapporten fra 1987: “Project Democracy: The Parallel Government Behind the Iran-Contra Affair.”

Hvordan ‘Project Democracys kampagne mod Lyndon LaRouche ødelagde amerikanske valg

Først kom de efter socialisterne, og jeg talte ikke imod – fordi jeg ikke var socialist.
Så kom de efter fagforeningsfolk, og jeg talte ikke imod – fordi jeg ikke var fagforeningsmand.
Så kom de efter jøderne, og jeg talte ikke imod – for jeg var ikke jøde.
Så kom de efter mig – og der var ingen tilbage til at tale på mine vegne.
—Martin Niemöller

Fortiden er prologen. For at forstå hvordan det gik til, at amerikanske efterretningskontorer, der agerede i hemmeligt samarbejde med en britisk udenlandsk magt, som ingen bryder sig om at nævne, begik valgsvindel ved både valget i 2020 og 2016, er det nødvendigt at forstå brugen af bekendtgørelse 12333 og andre præsident-direktiver fra 1980’erne om at omorganisere og centralisere mange efterretningsfunktioner under vicepræsidentens myndighed. (For at forstå konsekvenserne af hvad dette betyder, så tænk “Dick Cheney.”) E.O. 12333 (Executive Order 12333 -red) og forskellige andre ordrer fremskyndede privatiseringen af militær- og efterretningsfunktioner. Virksomheder, der undertiden benævnes kvasi, ikke-statslige organisationer (“quangos”), forpestede amerikansk dagligliv – og derefter kom Internettet, oprindeligt udviklet til militært brug og derefter ulovligt anvendt til universel overvågning gennem kriminelle applikationer af programmer, der oprindeligt var designet til at forsvare USA, såsom Bill Binneys ThinThread-program.

Læs resten på engelsk:

Studying the case of Lyndon LaRouche, and his 1984–1989 legal lynching, is the single most efficient means by which today’s American electorate can begin to understand the true nature of the grand crime against the Presidency presently being committed, a crime that will require, for its correction, LaRouche’s exoneration, as well as justice for Assange and Snowden.

In fact, whether Julian Assange is successfully kept alive and released from prison in the next weeks, or whether Edward Snowden is soon allowed to return home and assist in the process of cleaning out the “secret government” that has run the United States, is intimately tied to whether Lyndon LaRouche, economist, statesman, and Presidential candidate, is finally exonerated. Though LaRouche died on February 12 2019, his exoneration now plays an even greater role in rectifying the destruction of the American Presidential system that has gone on for over a half-century. The October 6, 1986 attempted assassination of LaRouche, and his subsequent prosecution, conviction and imprisonment, was not an attack on a “maverick political extremist,” as it was portrayed by literally thousands of printed and electronic media stories at the time. It was, because of LaRouche’s use of his Presidential campaigns to change the direction of the policies of the Reagan and other presidencies, that destroying him meant, in reality, a violent, near lethal assault on the American Presidential system. It was the same Presidential system that came under violent attack with the November 22, 1963 murder of JFK, the April-June 1968 double assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, and the March 1981 near-assassination of Ronald Reagan.

Lyndon LaRouche(1922–2019), economist and statesman, was for five decades the most controversial figure in American politics. He became a world-class threat through his United States Presidential campaigns. His 1970s denunciation of the genocidal looting policies and predatory lending practices of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Anglo-American financial establishment in general, and his successful organizing of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative in 1982-83, earned him the undying enmity of the “baby doomers” that have now huddled around the trillions-dollar financial scam known as the “Green New Deal.” LaRouche had to be taken out, or at least, down. That attack was coordinated through the privatized intelligence route , including the April 1983 establishment of a “Get LaRouche Task Force” headed up by financier John Train of New York, and involving multiple intelligence agencies. Individuals such as London’s favorite Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, also played a central role in initiating fraudulent legal actions that aimed to stop him. LaRouche’s enemies, including Robert Mueller, played a role in the attempt to shut down LaRouche’s Presidential campaigns in both 1984 and 1988.

It is virtually impossible for Americans to understand what is now unfolding around the Presidential election without knowing why LaRouche posed such a threat, and what was done to silence him. LaRouche’s enemies are the Malthusians—those who want to see the planet’s population reduced by at least half in the next 30 years—the bankers’ environmental movement. Poor people are very bad for the environment, they say. And the most prominent of environmentalists are now, often, also the world’s biggest bankers. Take, for example, the newly-formed Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism, founded by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, whose leaders claim to represent more than $10.5 trillion in assets under management. Is this a “grassroots environmental movement?” Is this even an “astroturf movement? “ Their plan is to de-carbonize the planet by lessening the number of people presently on it by four, five, or six billion. Famine, pestilence, disease, and war—the “Four Horsemen”—are their preferred way of doing it. And those are the policies that are the immediate future under the new, friendly, enlightened cyber-dictatorship.

Only a vigorous campaign on behalf of justice in all forms—electoral justice, economic justice, defense of the right to know—can save the United States, the trans-Atlantic world, or the world as a whole. These next days before us give us a chance to not merely demand, but secure that justice. Action in these three cases—pardons in the cases of Assange and Snowden, and exoneration for Lyndon LaRouche—are the direct path to securing justice for all citizens throughout the world, and in every country. They are the path to justice for the President of the United States as well. Fiat Justitia ruat caelum —“let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” Now, in these next days, justice given, is justice gained.