Den. 25. april 2022 (EIRNS) – Storbritanniens militærminister, James Heappey, henvendte sig i dag til BBC for at tilbyde, at London ville finde det “acceptabelt”, at britisk leverede våben blev benyttet af Ukraine til at udføre angreb på russisk territorium. “Spørgsmålet er, om det er acceptabelt, at vores våbensystemer anvendes mod legitime russiske militære mål af ukrainerne. For det første er det ukrainerne, der træffer beslutningen om angrebsmålet, ikke folk der fremstiller eller eksporterer udstyret i første omgang. Og for det andet er det helt legitimt at gå efter militære angrebsmål i modstanderens dybde, for at nedbryde deres logistik og forsyningslinjer.”

Mens Heappeys logik formodentlig ville omfatte Ruslands ret til at bombe Ukraines forsyningslinjer i Polen, gik Rusland ikke så langt. Ikke desto mindre blev Heappeys kommentarer ikke overset. Ruslands forsvarsministerium udtalte: “Vi vil gerne understrege, at Londons direkte tilskyndelse af Kiev-regimet til sådanne handlinger, i tilfælde af at de bliver gennemført, vil føre til et øjeblikkeligt og proportionelt svar fra Rusland. Som vi har advaret om, er de russiske væbnede styrker i beredskab døgnet rundt til at iværksætte langtrækkende præcisionsstyrede gengældelsesangreb, mod de relevante beslutningstagende centre i Kiev”. De er endvidere klar over, at vestlige militærrådgivere vides at være til stede på disse steder, og deres tilstedeværelse “vil ikke nødvendigvis være et problem for Ruslands beslutningsgrundlag om gengældelsesaktioner.”

Billede: Flag UK armed forces. By Ministry of Defence – This vector image includes elements that have been taken or adapted from this file:, CC BY-SA 3.0, Kilde

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Artikel 1: Generelle betingelser for fred

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Den 3. marts 2022 (EIRNS) – LaRouche-Organisationen har i dag udgivet en 64-siders pamflet med titlen: “Stop ’Globalbritanniens’ grønne krigsfremstød”. Der er en ironi i titlen, som er væsentlig for alle borgere af alle nationer, at forstå, for at blive det som Friedrich Schiller kaldte en “patriot for sin nation og en verdensborger”.

Der er også en krig, der føres mod alle nationer. Beviserne er ikke skjulte – de bliver bogstaveligt talt proppet i ansigtet på dig hver dag, hver time, i form af økonomisk forfald og hyperinflation, drevet af kravet om at menneskeheden begår folkedrab mod sig selv, ved at lukke for fossile brændstoffer, lukke for atomkraftværker, nægte moderne teknologi til de allerede forarmede og sultende tidligere kolonilande – alt sammen for at “redde planeten” fra kulstof.

Uanset den let påviste videnskabelige kendsgerning, at kulstof stort set ikke har noget med klimaet at gøre, er den grønne New Deal den nye religion for de kongelige og milliardærernes bankfolk og spekulanter, der hvert år samles i Davos World Economic Forum, for at fejre deres djævelske magt til at påtvinge verdens befolkning malthusiansk folkedrab gennem kontrol med kreditgivningen. Mark Carney, den tidligere chef for både Bank of Canada og Bank of England, og en økonomisk lejemorder for prins Charles og de kongelige, beskrev stolt deres plan for folkedrab i en artikel i Guardian den 13. november 2021: “I april [2021] lancerede vi Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), som nu dækker hele finansverdenen: banker, forsikringsselskaber, pensionsfonde, eksportkreditagenturer og kapitalforvaltere.

Den omfatter mere end 450 førende finansielle institutioner fra 45 lande. Medlemmerne har forpligtet sig til at forvalte deres aktiver, som i alt udgør mere end 130 mia. dollars, i overensstemmelse med målet om at opnå 1,5 C (grader Celsius)…. Nye lån og investeringer fra GFANZ-medlemmer vil ikke kun finansiere grønne projekter som f.eks. vedvarende energi, men vil også søge derhen, hvor udledningerne er – i sektorer som bilindustrien, stålindustrien og cementindustrien – og støtte de virksomheder, der har planer om at nedbringe kulstofudledningerne, mens de trækker kapital tilbage fra de virksomheder, der ikke handler hurtigt nok.” [understregning tilføjet]

Denne plan om at ødelægge udviklingen internationalt blev afvist af bl.a. Rusland, Kina og Indien, der ved, at deres, såvel som alle udviklingslandenes økonomiske fremskridt, afhænger af fossile brændstoffer (og mere avancerede energiformer, såsom atomar fission og i sidste ende fusion). Dette var dråben, der fik Charles og herrerne i City of London til at slå til: “Af med deres hoveder!”

Det er tydeligvis det, som Lyndon H. LaRouche har advaret om i de sidste halvtreds år. Det finansielle oligarki styrer verdensøkonomien og regeringerne i den vestlige verden. Beslutningerne om krig og fred træffes af bankeliten, mens det militærindustrielle kompleks kun er en del af denne imperiale struktur.

Det er grunden til, at briterne og USA så hensynsløst drev NATO’s militære styrker op til Ruslands grænse, mens en lignende proces finder sted i Stillehavet mod Kina. De ville foretrække, at der ikke var nogen verdenskrig, som der ikke ville være nogen vinder af, og som meget sandsynligt kunne føre til menneskelig udslettelse (men hellere krig end bankerot!). Den økonomiske krigsførelse er ikke desto mindre krig, det som de besynderligt nok beskriver som “den finansielle nukleare løsningsmulighed” eller “alle sanktioners moder”. Helt åbenlyst har Det Hvide Hus og andre europæiske ledere erklæret deres hensigt om at ødelægge den russiske økonomi, mens de planlægger det samme for Kina….

 

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

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

 

Se de første prominente underskrivere nedenunder.

23. februar 2022 — I lyset af den eskalerende Ukraine-krise spørger folk rundt om i verden indtrængende sig selv og deres politiske ledere, hvor det hele skal ende. Er dette på vej mod en meget stor, måske endda termonuklear, global konfrontation? Står vi over for en omvendt, farligere Cuba-krise? Vil menneskeheden overhovedet overleve?

Bag denne meget reelle krigsfare og årsagen til denne, ligger sammenbruddet af hele det transatlantiske finanssystem. En spekulationsboble af derivater og gæld på næsten 2 billiarder dollars er allerede ved at gå op i røg. En proces med hyperinflation er blevet udløst globalt, med et ledsagende sammenbrud af de vestlige nationers fysiske økonomier. City of London og Wall Street, ejerne af dette bankerotte system, er desperate efter at ødelægge ethvert fungerende alternativ til deres system – såsom Ruslands og Kinas alliance omkring Bælte- og Vej-initiativet, som nu omfatter næsten 150 nationer – og det finansielle etablissement har åbent erkendt, at det er det, der er på spil.

Det samme har Vladimir Putin, som med rette har erklæret, at USA’s/Storbritanniens/NATO’s ubarmhjertige ekspansion mod øst, op til Ruslands grænser, er drevet af denne økonomiske politik, og at den truer Ruslands nationale sikkerhed på en måde, som Rusland ikke kan acceptere.

For at standse fremdriften mod krig, er det derfor nødvendigt at anvende en mere gennemgribende tilgang, nemlig at etablere et helt nyt paradigme, som vil sikre sikkerheden og den økonomiske udvikling for alle nationer på jorden. Den eneste nyere præcedens for dette i Vesten, er den Westfalske Fred fra 1648, som satte en stopper for 150 års religionskrige i Europa. Den blev først udformet på det tidspunkt, hvor alle parter indså, at hvis de fortsatte ad deres nuværende vej, ville der ikke være nogen vindere og meget få overlevende. De valgte at skabe et nyt paradigme, baseret på forsvaret af den andens interesser, og på den forudsætning at alles sikkerhed var den grundlæggende forudsætning for hver parts sikkerhed.

Det er den vigtigste læresætning af den Westfalske Fred for i dag. Verden står i dag ved en lignende skillevej. Hvis den nuværende geopolitiske politik fortsætter, udgør en atomkrig en meget reel mulighed – hvorefter der ikke vil være nogen vindere, og sandsynligvis heller ingen overlevende.

I stedet må der straks indkaldes til en international konference, i stil med det Westfalske Fredsinitiativ. Den grundlæggende opgave for alle parter er at sikre, at der tages hensyn til de centrale økonomiske og sikkerhedsmæssige interesser for hver enkelt part – med andre ord en orden baseret på den andens fordel, på det fælles bedste, eller den almene velfærd, og på en grundlæggende kærlighed til hele menneskeheden.

Det økonomiske system må også omformes drastisk for at give udtryk for dette livssyn. Den berømte amerikanske økonom Lyndon LaRouche specificerede meget detaljeret, hvordan et sådant system ville fungere, baseret på det han kaldte sine Fire Love:

Den øjeblikkelige genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven, som blev iværksat af den amerikanske præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt, uden ændringer, hvad angår handlingsprincippet. Det betyder, at hele den spekulative finansboble skal underkastes en konkursbehandling.

En tilbagevenden til et system med topstyret og nøje defineret nationalt banksystem, som angivet af USA’s første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton.

Formålet med brugen af et sådant føderalt kreditsystem er at skabe højproduktive udviklingsforløb med henblik på at forbedre beskæftigelsen, med den ledsagende hensigt at øge den fysisk-økonomiske produktivitet og levestandarden for personer og husholdninger.

Vedtag et “lynprogram” med fusionsdrevet teknologi for at fremme de grundlæggende videnskabelige gennembrud, som ubegrænset økonomisk vækst og udvikling kræver.

Schiller Instituttet og dets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, udsender denne opfordring for at igangsætte den presserende internationale diskussion, der er nødvendig for at indkalde til en sådan konference og stoppe det såkaldte “Dommedagsur”, før det slår midnat. Det er på høje tid, at institutioner og enkeltpersoner fra alle nationer træder frem og slutter sig til mobiliseringen for en international konference med henblik på at etablere en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer.

Skriv under på underskriftindsamlingen her på skrivunder.net:

Links til underskriftindsamlingen på andre sprog: 
Spanish, Italian, French, Swedish, Arabic, Danish, Portugese, German, and Chinese.

North America (U.S. and Canada)
Canada	Julian Fell	Biologist; Co-Director Area F, Regional Government of Nanaimo, British Columbia
Canada	Faisal Huda	CEO, BUNA Capital Inc.
Canada	Bill MacPherson	Past President, Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia
Canada	John Stone	MChE, Member, Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta
United States	Dr. Athar Abbasi	Major, U.S. Army (Ret)
United States	Jon Baker	Agricultural Bank Loan Officer
United States	James Benham	State President, Indiana Farmers Union; Board Member, National Farmers Union
United States	Fr. Lawrence Bernard	Order of Friars Minor (OFM)
United States	Mike Callicrate	Farm leader, Kansas/Colorado
United States	Marshall Carter-Tripp	Foreign Service Officer (ret), former political science professor
United States	Victor Chang	US-China Forum, Inc.
United States	Alan Covey	Political activist
United States	Joel Dejean	LaRouche Independent Candidate for U.S. Congress – 38th District (Texas)
United States	Dr. Joycelyn Elders	Former U.S. Surgeon-General
United States	Frank Endres	Farm Leader, California
United States	Christopher Fogarty	Chair, Chicago Friends of Irish Freedom; author of “Ireland 1845-1850; the Perfect Holocaust, and Who Kept it ‘Perfect’.”
United States	Graham Fuller	Former CIA Officer and Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council
United States	Matthew Griener	City Council, Keota, Iowa
United States	Dr. Bihong Guan	Chairman, World Association of Chinee Elites
United States	DeWayne Hopkins	Former two-term mayor; current at-large Councilman, Muscatine, Iowa
United States	James Jatras	Former U.S. Diplomat and Advisor to U.S. Senate Republican Leadership
United States	Dr. Ernest Johnson	President Emeritus, Louisiana NAACP; civil rights attorney
United States	Wilbur Kehrli	National Board of Directors, American Blue Cattle
United States	George Koo	Chairman, Burlingame Foundation; retired international business consultant
United States	Keaten Mansfield	Center for Political Innovation, Chief of U.S. Staff
United States	Caleb Maupin	Founder and Director, Center for Political Innovation
United States	David Meiswinkle	Attorney and former President of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
United States	John OLoughlin
United States	Jeff Philbin	Nuclear Engineer, Technical Consultant, Independent Contractor
United States	Sam Pitroda	Inventor and entrepreneur; Chairman, Indian Overseas Congress
United States	Earl Rasmussen	Executive Vice President, Eurasia Center
United States	Diane Sare	LaRouche Independent Candidate for U.S. Senate – New York
United States	Naser Shahalemi	Executive Director, End Afghan Starvation
United States	John Shanahan	Editor, website: allaboutenergy.net
United States	Barbara Suhrstedt	International concert pianist
United States	Everett Suttle	Opera singer
United States	Bruce Todd	Former Independent candidate for NJ Lt. Governor; Retired Millwright, Local 715
United States	Mohammad Ashraf Toor, MD	Chairman, Pakistani American Congress
United States	Bob Van Hee	Redwood County Commissioner, Minnesota
United States	Zaher Wahab	Professor Emeritus of Education, former Advisor to the Afghanistan Ministry of Higher Education
United States	Alan Waltar	Retired Professor and Head, Dept. of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University; Past President , American Nuclear Society
Europe
Belgium	Frans Vandenbosch	Author of “Statecraft and Society in China”
Denmark	Tom Gillesberg	Director, Schiller Institute, Denmark; former parliamentary candidate
Denmark	Jelena Nielsen	Director, Russian-Danish Dialogue
Denmark	Jens Jørgen Nielsen	Former Moscow correspondent, Danish daily Politiken; author of books about Russia and Ukraine; a leader of Russian-Danish Dialogue
Denmark	Thomas Vissing	Director of a China-Nordic trading company
Denmark	Dr. Li Xing	Professor of Development and International Relations, Department of Politics and Society, Aalborg University
Donetsk People’s Republic	Russell “Texas” Bentley	Journalist, Former Vice President of Donbass Humanitarian Aid
France	Jacques Cheminade	President, Solidarité et Progrès, former presidential candidate
France	Alain Corvez	Col. (Ret.), International strategy advisor; former advisor to the Commanding General of the United Nations Force in South Lebanon (UNIFIL)
France	Ali Ratsbeen	President, Academie Géopolitique de Paris
Germany	Dr. jur. Wolfgang Bittner	Author
Germany	Ole Doering	Professor, Hunan Normal University; Associate Professor, Dep’t. for Global Health, Peking University; Privatdozent, KIT
Germany	Rainer Sandau	Technical Director, Satellites and Space Applications, International Academy of Astronautics (IAA)
Germany	Helga Zepp-LaRouche	Founder and Chairwoman, Schiller Insitute
Greece	Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos	Ambassador ad Honorem; Secretary General, Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC), 2006-2012
Greece	George Tsobanoglou	Professor of Sociology, University of the Aegean
Italy	Mario Agostinelli	Chairman, Fondazione Energia Felice
Italy	Pino Arlacchi	Former Director, United Nations Drug Control Programme; Professor of Sociology, University of Sassari
Italy	Prof. Bruno Brandimarte	Professor of Electronic Measurement, Rome
Italy	Nino Galloni	Economist
Italy	Liliana Gorini	Chairwoman of Movisol (Movimento Internacionale per i Diritti Civili Solidarietà
Italy	Prof. Fabio Massimo Parenti	Associate Professor of International Studies, CFAU, Beijing
Italy	Vincenzo Romanello	Nuclear Engineer, Founder of Atomi per la Pace (Atoms for Peace), Lecce.Italy
Italy	Alessia Ruggeri	Spokeswoman of Comitato per la Repubblica, Rome, Italy
Monaco	Aleksandar Krainer	Author, “Grand Deception: The Truth about Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act and Anti-Russian Sanctions”; financial consultant
Netherlands	Guus Berkhout	Professor-Emeritus Geophysics, President of CLINTEL
Norway	Thore Vestby	Former mayor and MP; Cofounder, ICHI Foundation
Spain	Juan José Torres Núñez	Free-lance journalist, poet
Sweden	Hussein Askary	Southwest Asia Coordinator, Schiller Institute
Sweden	Kjell Lundqvist	Chairman, European Labor Party
Sweden	Ulf Sandmark	Chairman, Schiller Institute, Sweden
United Kingdom	Mike Robinson	Editor, The UK Column
Ibero-America/Caribbean
Argentina	Enrique Juan Box	Media personality
Argentina	Luis Bragagnolo	Peronist leader; Veterinarian
Argentina	Roberto Fritzsche	Professor, Department of Economic Science, University of Buenos Aires
Argentina	Ruben Darìo Guzzetti	Professor, Argentine Institute of Geopolitical Studies
Argentina	Juan Francisco Numa Soto	Constitutional Attorney
Argentina	Carlos Perez Galindo	Attorney at Law
Argentina	Alejandro Yaya	Vice President, Civilian Institute of Space Technology
Bolivia	Edwin De la Fuente Jeria	Former Commander in Chief of the Bolivian Armed Forces
Bolivia	Max Ibañez	Former Secretary of Grievance Resolution, National Federation of Electrical, Telephone and Water Workers of Bolivia
Bolivia	Sandra Marca Uscamayta	Integration Coordinator for the Peasant, Indigenous and Native Economic Organizations of Bolivia
Brazil	Jairo Dias Carvalho	Professor, Philosophy of Technology, Federal University of Uberlândia
Brazil	Igor Maquieira	Biologist; member of CLINTEL
Colombia	Mario Guillermo Acosta Alarcon	Scientist and author; General Director of CIFRA (Space Lab City)
Colombia	Ross Carvajal	Journalist
Colombia	Everardo Hernandez Pardo	Trade union leader
Colombia	Alba Luz Pinilla	Vice-President of DIGNIDAD Political Movement
Colombia	Pedro Rubio	President, Association of Officials of the General Accounting Office of the Republic
Dominican Republic	Ramon Emilio Concepcion	Attorney at Law; Presidential Pre-candidate for the PRM party (2020)
Dominican Republic	Ramon Gross	Post-graduate Professor, Catholic University of Santo Domingo
Dominican Republic	Dante Ortiz Nunez	Historian; Professor of History, Autonomous University of Santo Domingo
Dominican Republic	Domingo Reyes	Former professor of economics, Ph.D. in Higher Education
Dominican Republic	Rafael Reyes Jerez	TV producer, “Face to Face” and “Economics and Politics” on Chanel 69 Teleradioamérica
Haiti	Jhonny Estor	Founder, Renaissance-Haiti
Haiti	Dr. Garnel Michel	Physician and author; his book ‘Bak Lakay’ calls the diaspora to return and help rebuild Haiti
Mexico	Edith Cabrera	Founder and Director of “Coalition #24F Life and Liberty for Julian Assange”
Mexico	Oscar Ramon Castro Valdez	General Director, “Dossier Político” internet publication
Mexico	Daniel Estulin	Publicist
Mexico	Simon Levy	Founder, Cátedra México-China, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)
Mexico	Enrique Lopez Ochoa	Surgeon, Professor of Angiology, UNISON School of Medicine
Mexico	Daniel Marmolejo	Investigative journalist, winner of the 2019 National Journalism Award
Mexico	Marino Montoya Contreras	Journalist for El Centinela and LGM News
Mexico	Francisco Quezada	Mathematician; Professor Department of Sciences and Humanities, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)
Mexico	Antonio Valdez	Journalist
Mexico	Jaime Varela Salazar	Chemical Engineer; Former Director of the Department of Chemical Sciences, University of Sonora (UNISON)
Peru	José Antonio Benllochpiquer Castro	Vice President, Christian Democratic Party
Peru	Fernando Fauche	National Secretary, Christian Democratic Party
Peru	Adrian Flores Konja	Former Dean of Accounting Sciences, National University of San Marcos
Peru	Carlos Francisco Gallardo Neyra	President, Christian Democratic Party
Peru	Ruben Rojas	Nuclear Physicist
Peru	Milton Vela-Gutierrez	Professor, University of Lima
Venezuela	Emil Guevara Muñoz	Member of Parliament, Latin American Parliament (2006-2011)
Venezuela	Edgar Rodriguez Martinez	Alberto Adriani Foundation
Africa/Asia/Australia
Africa	Tse Anye Kevin	Deputy President, State55 Afrika
Australia	Trudy Campbell	Australian Citizens Party
Congo, Republic of	Diogène Senny	President of Ligue Panafricaine – UMOJA Congo; Coordination avec les Partis Panafricanistes
Guinea	Jacques Bacamurwanko	Former Ambassador of Burundi to the United States
Iraq	Mustafa Jabbar Sanad	Member, Council of Representatives (Parliament), Basrah
Lebanon	Basham El Hachem	Professor of Political Sociology, Doctoral School, l’Université du Liban
Malaysia	Dr. Isharaf Hossain	President & Principal Research Fellow, Muslim World Research Center (MWRC), Kuala Lumpur.
Mozambique	Samo Fernando Soares da Manhiça	Executive Director, International Alliance for Development – Mozambique
Pakistan	Shakeel Ahmad Ramay	Chief Executive Officer, Asian Institute of Eco-Civilization Research and Development (AIERD), Islamabad
Pakistan	Khalid Latif	Executive Director, Center of Pakistan and International Relations (COPAIR); Program Director (Middle East)
Yemen	Fouad Al-Ghaffari	President, ALBRICS Yemeni Youth Parliament

 

Panel 2:
 

Paris, 12. februar 2022 (EIRNS) – I et indlæg offentliggjort af det franske “souverainist” ugeblad Marianne, argumenterer Peter Dittus og Hervé Hannoun for et fransk exit fra NATO’s integrerede kommando. Den tyske økonom Peter Dittus er tidligere generalsekretær for Bank for International Settlements (BIS), mens franskmanden Hannoun er vicegeneraldirektør for BIS. 

Deres argumenter er essensen af deres nye bog med titlen “OTAN exit: Urgence Absolue”, der blev offentliggjort den 16. januar. 

“Siden november 2021”, hævder de, “har franskmændene, ligesom andre folk i Vesten, været udsat for en mental tilpasning uden fortilfælde, udført af USA og Nato omkring temaet om den “overhængende russiske invasion af Ukraine”, som kan gå over i historien som en episode af misinformation i stil med de fabrikerede efterretninger om Saddam Husseins masseødelæggelsesvåben i 2003.” 

Det er en løgn, siger de. “Den eneste krig, som NATO ser ud til at vinde, er informationskrigen. Vi viser i vores bog dette bemærkelsesværdige tyske propaganda-kort i ugebladet Bild fra den 4. december 2021, der giver en imaginær detaljeret plan over den “forestående russiske invasion”. Propagandaens rolle er skræmmende, på grund af den mængde af had, som løgnene på begge sider skaber. På NATO-siden minder generalsekretær Jens Stoltenbergs aggressive og krigeriske diskurs uimodståeligt meget om den berømte orwellske spejlvending: ‘fred er krig'”.  (…) “Frankrigs nuværende tilslutning til NATO gennem deltagelsen i den integrerede militære kommando under amerikansk ledelse er en strategisk blindgyde for et land med et universelt kald som Frankrig. I dag har dette land en historisk rolle at spille for at standse den march mod krig i Europa, som NATO’s søvngængere har indledt. Frankrigs udtræden af NATO, som vil markere afslutningen på Frankrigs udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitiske tilpasning til USA, vil få en umådelig stor betydning for verden.”

“Det vil signalere Europas uafhængighed af den amerikanske ”særstilling”, fornyelsen af multilateralisme, fremkomsten af en multipolær verden og den snarlige afvikling af den forældede NATO-ramme. Frankrig vil herefter genfinde sit universelle kald og bidrage til den globale balance for fred og takket være sin genfundne upartiskhed spille en rolle som bindeled inden for P5, dvs. samlingen af de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd (USA, Storbritannien, Kina, Rusland og Frankrig), et P5, hvis sammensætning skal fastholdes, og hvis betydning som regulerende instans for freden i verden skal styrkes.”

Den komplette tekst af Mariannes indlæg:

Titel: “Stillet over for krisen i Ukraine er Frankrigs NATO-EXIT en absolut nødsituation”

Tekst: Frankrig brød med den alliancefri politik, som de Gaulle, Giscard og Mitterrand havde praktiseret i 43 år, og blev i 2009 atter medlem af NATO’s integrerede militærkommando uden at det franske folk var blevet rådspurgt ved en folkeafstemning. Den nuværende ukrainske krise afslører de alvorlige farer, som Frankrig er udsat for ved at være tilknyttet en defensiv kollektiv sikkerhedsorganisation under USA’s kommando, som er blevet ekspansionistisk.

Siden november 2021 har franskmændene, ligesom andre befolkninger i Vesten, været udsat for en mental tilpasning uden fortilfælde, som USA og NATO har gennemført med temaet “den forestående russiske invasion af Ukraine”, der kan gå over i historien som en episode af misinformation på linje med de fabrikerede efterretninger om Saddam Husseins masseødelæggelsesvåben i 2003.

Hvad er virkeligheden? Millioner af russisktalende ukrainere i de to selvudnævnte folkerepublikker i Donbass lever under lejlighedsvis beskydning og granater fra den ukrainske hær mod separatiststyrker. Koncentrationen af russiske tropper ved Ukraines grænser har tydeligvis til formål at afskrække Kiev fra at forsøge at genvinde den direkte kontrol over enklaverne Donetsk og Lugansk med magt. NATO’s vellykkede misinformation om Ukraine har bestået i at fremstille Putins moralske forpligtelse til at forsvare disse russisktalende befolkninger – som Ukraine gradvist ønsker at fratage retten til at tale deres sprog – som en optakt til Ruslands totale annektering af Ukraine.

Myten om en “overhængende russisk invasion”

NATO formår at udlægge en koncentration af russiske tropper, der er klar til at komme de russisktalende ukrainere i Donbass til undsætning, som en “forestående russisk invasion” af hele Ukraine, herunder Odessa, Kharkiv og Kiev. En vanvittig invasion, som Rusland i virkeligheden helt udelukker … medmindre det bliver presset til det af et eventuelt forudgående ukrainsk angreb på Donbass.

Den eneste krig, som NATO ser ud til at vinde, er informationskrigen. Vi viser i vores bog* dette opsigtsvækkende tyske propaganda kort i ugebladet Bild fra den 4. december 2021, der beskriver en imaginær detaljeret plan over den “forestående russiske invasion”. Propagandaens rolle er skræmmende, på grund af den hadskhed, som løgnene på begge sider skaber. På NATO-siden minder generalsekretær Jens Stoltenbergs aggressive og krigeriske diskurs uimodståeligt meget om den berømte orwellske spejlvending: “krig er fred”.

Og hvis Frankrig havde løsningen?

Paris skal undgå den militære spiral, som USA og NATO ønsker at trække det ind i. I de kommende uger må Paris ikke lade sig inddrage i en krig i Østeuropa, som ikke er landets anliggende. Frankrig har allerede indvilliget i at indsætte hundredvis af personer i en NATO-kampgruppe i Estland. Den 1. januar overtog det ledelsen af NATO’s hurtige reaktionsstyrke, som omfatter mindst 7.700 franske soldater. Præsident Macron har netop annonceret den mulige udsendelse af et tusinde franske soldater til Rumænien under NATO-banneret på “den østlige flanke”, i Sortehavsregionen. Den militære optrapning er farlig. For det franske folks sikkerhed er det nødvendigt at forhindre, at den franske hær under NATO’s banner engageres i en krig i Ukraine eller Hviderusland.

På den anden side har Frankrig et diplomatisk våben til at løse den alvorlige krise mellem NATO og Rusland. Startskuddet til denne krise var Jens Stoltenbergs og amerikanernes stædighed i bestræbelserne på siden 2018 at forfølge en snigende proces for Ukraines optagelse i NATO, kaldet “den åbne dørs politik”, der af Rusland betragtes som en trussel mod landets sikkerhed. For at sætte en stopper for den nuværende konfrontation bør præsident Macron blot højtideligt erklære i Frankrigs navn, at hans land vil modsætte sig enhver anmodning fra Ukraine om at tilslutte sig NATO.

Da beslutninger om medlemskab af alliancen kræver enstemmighed, kan Frankrig nedlægge veto. Dermed ville præsidenten være i overensstemmelse med de løfter, han gav under sin præsidentkampagne i 2017 om ikke at støtte Natos udvidelse til Ukraine. Det ville være en elegant måde at komme ud af krisen på. Desværre overvejede den franske præsident under sit besøg i Moskva og derefter i Kiev den 7. og 8. februar 2022 ikke denne enkle løsning, fordi det franske diplomati i Nato-organerne ikke modsatte sig den vanvittige “politik med åbne døre” for Ukraines og Georgiens medlemskab af Nato i de to lande. På den anden side støtter Frankrig NATO og G7 i deres krav om tilbagelevering af Krim til Ukraine, vel vidende, at dette ikke kan ske uden en krig, muligvis atomkrig.

Amerikansk underordning

Ved folkeafstemningen om EU-traktaten (Maastricht) i 1992 kunne ingen forestille sig, at Mitterrands og Kohls store fredsprojekt fra 1998 og fremover ville blive tilsidesat af det amerikanske geopolitiske projekt, som går ud på at overtage den fælles europæiske forsvars- og sikkerhedspolitik. Dette skyldtes den samtidige udvidelse af EU og NATO til ti østeuropæiske lande mellem 1991 og 2007, og også præsident Sarkozys beslutning, med vidtrækkende konsekvenser, om i 2008 at opgive den gaullistiske strategiske holdning om at nægte at deltage i NATO’s integrerede militære kommando, hvilket fik vidtrækkende konsekvenser.

Fra det øjeblik, hvor 21 af de 27 EU-lande, herunder Frankrig, blev fuldgyldige medlemmer af NATO, blev den oprindelige ånd i Maastricht-traktaten forrådt, fordi “Europa for fred” uundgåeligt ville blive forpurret af USA’s indblanding i den fælles europæiske forsvars- og sikkerhedspolitik med landets egne geopolitiske mål. I virkeligheden kan der ikke være tale om et uafhængigt fransk eller europæisk forsvar, inden for de nuværende rammer for Frankrigs og 21 andre EU-landes deltagelse i NATO’s integrerede militære kommando. Begrebet “europæisk strategisk autonomi” inden for NATO er en illusion i betragtning af USA’s kontrol over denne alliance. EU forsøger at skjule denne grundlæggende fejl bag et vagt begreb: det “strategiske kompas”.

Den grundlæggende uforenelighed mellem det USA-kontrollerede NATO og et uafhængigt fransk eller europæisk forsvar, forhindrer ikke vores ledere i at forsvare tesen om komplementaritet mellem EU og NATO på forsvarsområdet, som den franske udenrigsminister opsummerede den 11. december 2021: “Vi ønsker, at EU og NATO skal supplere og styrke hinanden, for at bidrage til at styrke sikkerheden og forsvaret i Europa. Det er meningen med det strategiske kompas, man vil vedtage under det franske formandskab for EU-Rådet.”

Forsvar: det håbløse “på samme tid”

EU’s “strategiske kompas” er først og fremmest et forsøg på at skabe en begrebsmæssig ramme for den falske idé om, at “en europæisk strategisk autonomi” i forhold til USA er forenelig med NATO-medlemskab for langt de fleste EU-medlemsstater. Denne komplementaritet mellem NATO og EU, “på samme tid”, der anvendes på forsvaret, er en illusion. Den finurlige logik om national uafhængighed har givet plads til det vage og vildledende begreb, strategisk autonomi, og til en søgen efter gensidig afhængighed og samarbejdsvillighed med vores “allierede”.

Ud over den umiddelbare krise vedrørende Ukraine, skal præsidentvalget den 10. og 24. april give mulighed for at træffe en beslutning om NATO-spørgsmålet. Alle dem der nægter NATO’s march mod den krig, der er ved at bryde ud ved EU’s østlige grænser, har med præsidentvalget i 2022 en enestående mulighed for at sende et enkelt og klart budskab om fred, til lederne af vores land med ét ord: NATO-EXIT (Otanexit). Det er et spørgsmål om at sikre, at der vælges en fredskandidat til præsident, som er forpligtet til at sætte en stopper for Frankrigs tilhørsforhold til NATO.

Man kan tænke sig, at den afgående præsident vil undgå en debat i den præsidentielle valgkamp om diskussionen om vores militære alliancer i NATO: en alliance med de eventyrlystne angelsaksere, hvis arrogance blev afsløret af den australske ubådsaffære, en unaturlig alliance med det islamistiske Tyrkiet, en alliance med den polske nationalisme, og i morgen måske en alliance med et Tyskland, der kan bruge NATO som springbræt til sin remilitarisering, eller endog en alliance med Kosovo mod Serbien. Alene denne liste giver os mulighed for at måle risiciene ved et kollektivt sikkerhedssystem, der omfatter 30 forskelligartede nationer, og som domineres af en af dem.

En forfatningsstridig “forsvarsunion”

På en fælles pressekonference med præsident Macron i Paris den 7. januar, 2022, tillod formanden for Europa-Kommissionen sig en føderalistisk erklæring, der overskred hendes beføjelser: “Vi er enige om, at vi har brug for en ægte forsvarsunion”. I præsident Macrons nærvær talte hun om at tilføje en “forsvarsunion” til Den økonomiske og monetære Union i fremtiden, uden at tage hensyn til at denne udtalelse er i strid med den franske forfatning, som er baseret på national uafhængighed, national suverænitet og nationalt forsvar. Det er nødvendigt at modsætte sig den snigende europæiske føderalisme, der praktiseres i øjeblikket, og som ikke kan erstatte en føderalisme, der er demokratisk accepteret – eller forkastet – ved folkeafstemning, i overensstemmelse med den procedure, som François Mitterrand fulgte i 1992 i forbindelse med overdragelsen af den monetære suverænitet, der er fastsat i Maastricht-traktaten. Det franske folk må forkaste den forsvarsunion under NATO’s flag, som Ursula von der Leyen ønsker at påtvinge landet.

Frankrigs nuværende tilslutning til NATO gennem deltagelse i den integrerede militærkommando under amerikansk ledelse er en strategisk blindgyde for et land med et universelt kald som Frankrigs. I dag har dette land en historisk rolle at spille for at standse den eskalering mod krig i Europa, som NATO’s søvngængere har indledt. Frankrigs udtræden af NATO, som vil markere afslutningen på Frankrigs udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitiske tilpasning til USA, vil få en enorm betydning for verden.

Det vil være et signal om Europas uafhængighed af den amerikanske særstilling, om fornyelse af multilateralisme, om fremkomsten af en multipolær verden og om en snarlig afskaffelse af den forældede NATO-struktur. Frankrig vil så genfinde sit universelle kald og bidrage til den globale balance for fred, og takket være sin genfundne upartiskhed spille en rolle som samlingspunkt i P5, dvs. de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd (USA, Storbritannien, Kina, Rusland og Frankrig), et P5, hvis sammensætning skal bevares, og hvis rolle som regulerende faktor for verdensfreden skal styrkes.”

 

 

Den 10. februar 2022 — Goddag Harley; goddag Andrey.

Jeg har en lidt anderledes opfattelse: Jeg mener, at uanset hvem der er ansvarlig for gennemførelsen af sanktionerne rettet mod Afghanistan og for indefrysningen af afghanske aktiver i USA og i Europa efter Talebans magtovertagelse i august, også bærer ansvaret for følgende: Ifølge den tyske UNICEF-chef, Christian Schneider, er 1 million børn under fem år akut underernærede i Afghanistan, og deres tilstand er af en sådan beskaffenhed, at de i Tyskland ville skulle behandles på en intensivafdeling, hvilket betyder, at de under de nuværende omstændigheder sandsynligvis vil dø. Ifølge FN befinder 8,7 millioner mennesker sig i en fremskreden tilstand af sult; 24,4 millioner eller 55 % af befolkningen befinder sig i en nødsituation, hvilket betyder, at de mangler alle de basale livsfornødenheder, mens 98 % ikke har nok at spise. Flere og flere familier sælger nogle af deres børn i håb om, at de andre vil overleve, og folk sælger deres organer.

Også massemedierne i USA og Europa har efter en kortvarig medieomtale i august og begyndelsen af september, næsten intet rapporteret om denne værste humanitære krisesituation på kloden. Lederne af de NATO-lande, som trak sig så hastigt tilbage fra Afghanistan i august, vidste naturligvis, at 80 % af landets budget kom fra bistand fra donorlandene, og at kombinationen af annulleringen af disse midler, indefrysning af afghansk kapital og sanktionerne ville kvæle Afghanistans økonomi fra den ene dag til den anden.

Efter seks måneders tragedie og utallige forgæves appeller, bortset fra et par små indrømmelser for nylig, må man spørge sig selv, hvad hensigten med denne politik er? Argumentet om at Taleban først skal anerkende kvindernes rettigheder osv. synes at være absurd, når disse kvinder og deres børn er døde. Er det hensigten at sabotere Talebans evne til at opretholde en fungerende stat i et sådant omfang, at oppositionen, herunder ISIS, al-Qaeda, narkotikasmuglere, krigsherrer osv. får herredømmet?

Konsekvensen ville være en ny og blodig borgerkrig, et helvede, hvor civilbefolkningen – mellem sult, frostgrader, COVID, epidemier, osv. som polio, mæslinger, dengue-feber og diarré – vil blive knust, og millioner af flygtninge vil forsøge at søge sikkerhed i nabolandene og i Europa. Det ville være en fortsættelse af det britiske imperiums store spil af Bernard Lewis og Zbigniew Brzezinski, som har til formål at sikre den geopolitiske destabilisering af Rusland og Kina, og at forhindre den økonomiske integration af Eurasien gennem Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet ved hjælp af de gamle virkemidler som terrorisme, opiumskrige og etniske konflikter. Hvis denne politik “lykkes”, vil den blot være endnu et element i den store afsluttende akt i menneskehedens tragedie, som udspiller sig på verdenshistoriens scene, mellem Vestens modstandere og Rusland og Kina, og som nu har nået et punkt, der beskrives af {Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists} som 100 sekunder før midnat på dommedags-uret.

Der findes et modtræk til at redde Afghanistan, som jeg har kaldt “Operation Ibn Sina”. Ibn Sina, som levede for ca. 1.000 år siden, var en af de største læger i verdenshistorien, hvis {Canon of Medicine} forblev en delvis reference indtil det 18. århundrede. Ibn Sina blev født i det nuværende Usbekistan; hans far stammede fra Balkh i Afghanistan. I tider med corona-pandemien er det yderst vigtigt at huske, at det var ham, der bl.a. erkendte karantænens enorme betydning for bekæmpelsen af epidemier. Ud over at være et fremragende renæssancemenneske kan han udgøre en symbolsk figur for redningen af Afghanistan.

Operation Ibn Sina kan skabe en forandring til det bedre på to måder. For det første kan den blive et synonym for internationalt samarbejde om at opbygge et moderne sundhedsvæsen og tilvejebringelse af mad til det afghanske folk. Hvis alle nabolande, såvel som USA og de europæiske nationer, der kæmpede i Afghanistan i 20 år som en del af NATO, og som derfor har en himmelråbende moralsk forpligtelse, hjælper befolkningen ud af denne ufortjente akutte nød og samarbejder om et lynprogram for bistandshjælp, kan det værste stadig afværges.

Ud over det humanitære aspekt vil Operation Ibn Sina også have en militærstrategisk dimension. Hvis Rusland, Kina, USA og Indien, de fire nationer med den største militære og økonomiske betydning eller befolkningsstørrelse, kunne samarbejde, kunne det udvikle sig til en tillidsskabende foranstaltning til løsning af de store strategiske konflikter. Afghanistan er i modsætning til Ukraine eller Taiwan, der har strategisk betydning, ikke en af Ruslands og Kinas kerneinteresser. Det ligger mange tusinde kilometer væk fra USA, mens Indien på den anden side har en central interesse i stabiliteten i egne geografiske omgivelser. Samarbejdet mellem disse fire magter, foruden mobiliseringen af andre eksisterende formater, såsom “Troika-plus”, SCO og OIC [Organisationen for islamisk Samarbejde], med det formål at redde Afghanistan, kan være et skridt i retning af det nye paradigme i internationale relationer, uden hvilket det ikke vil være muligt at sikre menneskehedens fortsatte overlevelse.

Der er intet sted på denne jord – og det omfatter det strategisk eksplosive potentiale i de destabiliserende operationer omkring Ukraine og Taiwan – hvor menneskehedens moralske egnethed til at overleve, afprøves hårdere end i Afghanistan. Det er ikke vores sikkerhed, som vi skal forsvare i Hindu Kush, som den daværende tyske forsvarsminister Peter Struck havde hævdet den 11. marts 2004 for at motivere Tysklands deltagelse i krigen i Afghanistan, men det er vores medmenneskelighed.

Militære strateger, opfordres til at tage højde for et måske ukendt domæne for strategisk tænkning: Befolkningens moralske habitus – både deres egen befolkning og deres modstanders. Da den Franske Revolution mislykkedes på grund af den jakobinske terror, konstaterede Friedrich Schiller, at “et stort øjeblik havde fundet et lille folk”, at selv om den objektive mulighed var til stede, var den subjektive moralske kapacitet utilstrækkelig. Han skrev derefter {De æstetiske Breve} i den overbevisning, at fra nu af ville enhver forbedring på det politiske område, udelukkende være mulig gennem en forædling af den enkeltes karakter. Han mente, at “uddannelsen af evnen for ‘{Empfindungsvermögen}’, empati, er tidens mest presserende behov”, fordi det “vækker forbedringen af forståelsen”.

Ud fra dette perspektiv er overvindelsen af den “fordærvede ligegyldighed” hos dele af befolkningen, som gør dem lige så ufølsomme over for andre folks lidelser som for virkningerne af deres geopolitisk motiverede dæmonisering af den formodede fjende, en strategisk faktor af højeste betydning. “Operation Ibn Sina” bør derfor blive det flag, under hvilket alle kræfter, der ønsker at redde det afghanske folk, samles, af barmhjertighed, agapē, som ønsker at skabe et nyt paradigme i de strategiske relationer, som middel til endelig at overvinde truslen om krig, og som ønsker at forsvare vores arts menneskelighed.

 

Når Mette Frederiksen i sin rolle som statsminister inden for få dage har afholdt hele to pressekonferencer, hvor hun flankeret af udenrigsministeren og forsvarsministeren har talt i forherligende toner om kampen for frihed og suverænitet, så er det nok et tegn på, at det er netop de erklærede principper, som hun i en studehandel er blevet pålagt at ofre for fortsat opbakning til hendes fremadrettede personlige karriere. Da Anders Fogh Rasmussen brugte sin platform som dansk statsminister til at støtte Storbritanniens og USA’s ulovlige krig imod Irak, der blev legitimeret med løgnen om at Irak havde masseødelæggelsesvåben, endte det som bekendt med, at han blev belønnet med posten som generalsekretær for Nato og en international rolle som arrangør af konferencer til støtte for den britisk-amerikanske kampagne for at nedbryde suveræniteten hos de lande, der formaster sig til ikke blindt at følge de diktater, der kommer fra London og Washington.

Hvad har Mette Fredriksen gang i? At give USA ret til at udstationere militærpersonel og udstyr på dansk jord under amerikansk suverænitet afskaffer Danmarks nationale suverænitet og vil i stedet afsløre Danmark som en ren amerikansk vasalstat. Selv i de mørkeste stunder under den kolde krig, da Danmark var truet af sovjetiske planer om en besættelse af Danmark, var det noget, som danskere med respekt for både nationen og sig selv ikke ville tillade. Det ville have reduceret Danmark fra en nation til blot at være kanonføde i supermagternes stedfortræderkrig (Afghanistan er et skoleeksempel på, hvordan den slags typisk ender).

Forslaget til en ny forsvarsalliance mellem Danmark og USA har som sin grundantagelse, at vi skal forberede os på krig med Rusland, noget som bliver underbygget af mediernes svulstige krigspropaganda. Men siden den kolde krigs afslutning har Rusland på intet tidspunkt truet Danmark eller andre dele af Nato, men har tværtimod passivt set til, mens stadig flere dele af det tidligere Sovjetunionen og dets interessesfære blev indlemmet i Nato. Da turen så kom til Ukraine, sagde Rusland fra, og kræver nu aftaler, der kan garantere Ruslands fremtidige sikkerhed. Det burde være en kærkommen anledning til at diskutere en inkluderende sikkerhedsarkitektur for Europa, som det faktisk blev lovet Rusland, da de satte Østtyskland og de andre tidligere Warszawapagt-lande fri i lighed med de andre sovjetrepublikker. En sikkerhedsarkitektur, hvor både øst og vest kan føle sig hjemme. I stedet ser vi en mobilisering for sanktioner og krig, hvor Danmark nu skal spille en udvidet rolle, på bekostning af danske interesser.

Hvordan kan det forsvares, at Mette Frederiksen overhovedet overvejer at sige ja til et for Danmark så ufordelagtigt og potentielt ødelæggende forslag i dag? Blot fordi en ven kræver at få lov til at dele seng med din ægtefælle eller dit barn, så behøver man jo ikke takke ja. Det er tydeligt, at Mette Frederiksen har lavet en aftale med djævelen, som i dette tilfælde er den britisk-amerikanske finansielle magtelite, der kontrollerer den vestlige efterretnings- og sikkerhedspolitik. I betragtning af den berettigede foragt, som Mette Frederiksen med flere udviste for Helle Thorning-Schmidt og andre, der helt åbenlyst var villige til at ofre sine vælgeres og nationens interesser for at være en del af magten, så vil nemesis ramme dobbelt hårdt, hvis Mette Frederiksen fortsætter med dette skoleeksempel på hybris.

Om Mette Frederiksen har fået et tilbud hun ikke kunne afslå, eller hvad hun forventer at få som tak for denne ofring af danske interesser og suverænitet, ved jeg ikke. Givet er det, at det på ingen måde er i dansk interesse at indgå en sådan aftale. Det vil ikke forbedre den danske sikkerhed men kraftigt forværre den. Danmark vil flytte sig selv ind i kategorien af strategiske mål for atommagten Rusland. Danmark udstiller sig samtidigt som et land, der ikke længere frit kan handle og interagere med det voksende antal lande, der i lighed med den nylige Beijing-erklæring fra Rusland og Kina ikke længere vil acceptere en særlig vestlig ret til at bestemme de internationale spilleregler, men som mener, at vi skal have en multipolær inkluderende verdensorden, hvor alle nationer bliver respekteret og kan samarbejde uden først at skulle spørge om lov i London eller Washington.

At Mette Frederiksen foreslår dette samtidigt med at chefen for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, Lars Findsen, er varetægtsfængslet under anklage for højforræderi og uden mulighed for at kommunikere med offentligheden, bør få mere end et enkelt øjenbryn til at løfte sig og få flere end blot mig til at spørge, hvad pokker der egentlig foregår? Vi må råbe vagt i gevær og få Folketingets medlemmer til at gøre op med den slappe følgagtighed, de plejer at udvise over for magtens arrogance, specielt blandt ”de gamle” partier, og sammen med modige patrioter i de danske institutioner få stoppet denne ødelæggelse af dansk suverænitet og danske interesser inden det er for sent.

Den 8. februar (EIRNS) – Vi begynder med at give en kort beskrivelse, som ellers ikke er tilgængelig for amerikanerne, af, hvad der foregik under de seks timers diskussioner, der fandt sted for flere dage siden mellem præsident Vladimir Putin fra Rusland og Emmanuel Macron fra Frankrig. Det skal påpeges, at præsident Joe Biden samtidig med disse drøftelser mødtes med forbundskansler Olaf Scholz fra Tyskland. Før deres respektive møder med USA og Rusland havde Scholz og Macron talt i telefon, og de talte også i telefon umiddelbart efter afslutningen af disse møder. Macron tog derefter til Ukraine for at mødes med præsident Zelensky, og han skulle vende tilbage til Tyskland for at rådføre sig med forbundskansler Scholz efter dette møde.

Præsident Putin: “Jeg er præsidenten dybt taknemmelig for at drøfte disse spørgsmål i Moskva i dag. Jeg mener, at disse sikkerhedsspørgsmål ikke kun vedrører Rusland, men også Europa og verden som helhed.

“Se, vores forslag omfatter ikke kun NATO’s udvidelse, som vi er imod, men også et andet punkt: at der ikke skal opstilles offensive systemer nær vores grænser. Hvis alle ønsker fred, ro, velvære og tillid, hvad er så dårligt ved ikke at opstille offensive våben nær vores grænser? Er der nogen der kan fortælle mig, hvad der er forkert ved dette?

“Hvis NATO er en fredelig organisation, hvad er der så galt i at bringe dens infrastruktur tilbage til niveauet i 1997, da NATO-Rusland-aftalen blev underskrevet? Det ville skabe betingelser for at opbygge tillid og sikkerhed. Er det dårligt?

“Vi kan lade løftet om “åbne døre” være, selv om spørgsmålet fortsat er på dagsordenen. Det er en nøgleprioritet for os, og jeg har forklaret hvorfor. Vi talte om det i seks timer.

“I morgen flyver præsident Macron til Kiev. Vi er blevet enige om, at han i det mindste vil fremlægge sin handlingsplan vedrørende dette. Jeg er ham dybt taknemmelig for, at han giver dette så meget opmærksomhed, og at han forsøger at finde en løsning på dette spørgsmål af stor betydning for os alle sammen.”

Præsident Macron:… “Jeg mener, at det først og fremmest er Frankrigs ansvar at have det stærkest mulige forhold til Rusland. Vi er to store europæiske nationer og vigtige verdensmagter. Vi er to permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd.

“Bilaterale forbindelser er af stor betydning for os, først og fremmest for at få dem til at udvikle sig og for at træffe fælles beslutninger om akutte internationale spørgsmål. Vi forsøger at gøre det i forbindelse med det iranske spørgsmål og tilstræber at finde et kontaktpunkt i Libyen og lignende anliggender. Vi har uenigheder, men vi finder stadig kompromiser. Det er indlysende for mig.

“For det andet tror jeg, at præsident Putin og jeg er enige om, at Rusland er et europæisk land. De, der kan se Europa, bør kunne arbejde sammen med Rusland og finde måder at opbygge fremtiden i Europa og med europæere. Er det let? Nej, men Europa blev også skabt gennem vanskelige initiativer, der havde umiddelbare virkninger. Så ja, vi har vanskeligheder, men vi må ikke give op.

“Endelig er dette Frankrigs mission, det er Frankrigs rolle. I disse seks måneder har vi formandskabet i Den Europæiske Union. Vores rolle er at gøre EU’s stemme hørt og tage hensyn til en række komplekse omstændigheder i kommunikationen med naboer som Rusland, der spiller en afgørende rolle for vores sikkerhed, og også at lytte til alle europæere. Det har jeg gjort i de seneste dage. Når jeg er her, forsøger jeg at være den person, der kan bidrage til at finde den rette vej.

“Jeg har en simpel overbevisning. Kan vi øge vores kollektive evne til at skabe fred uden vores kontakter med Rusland? Nej, det kan vi ikke. Hvem overlader vi denne rolle til? Til andre.

“Vi har uoverensstemmelser. Det er vi klar over. Nogle gange lykkes det os ikke at komme videre, og det er resultatet af sådanne uoverensstemmelser. Men vi forsøger at finde kompromiser. Jeg anser det for at være mit ansvar. Vores opgave er at sørge for, at disse kompromiser beskytter vores partneres og allieredes interesser. Derfor skal vi i de kommende dage og uger påbegynde dette vanskelige arbejde, træffe nye beslutninger for at beskytte disse garantier, samtidig med at vi stadig beskytter vores grundlæggende principper og vores naboskabsforbindelser, for vores geografi vil ikke ændre sig. Det er derfor, vi fortsætter.”

Der har været seriøse forhandlinger og diplomati i gang med en daglig dialog mellem statsoverhovederne fra Tyskland, Frankrig, Rusland og USA samt Ukraine, ikke kun for at forhindre et potentielt udbrud af krig, tilsigtet eller utilsigtet, men også, med Macrons ord, for “i fællesskab at vise vilje til at arbejde på sikkerhedsgarantier og opbygge en ny sikkerheds- og stabilitetsorden i Europa.” Denne kendsgerning er blevet fortrængt fra de amerikanske og europæiske borgeres bevidsthed til fordel for mediernes sidespring, der af den russiske talsmand Maria Zhakarova rammende nok er blevet karakteriseret som “psykedeliske fobier”.

I den forbindelse blev “The Ned Price Experience” endnu en gang mandag kaldt frem af reporter Matt Lee, denne gang støttet af en kollega. Udenrigsministeriets talsmand, Ned Price, forsøgte at forfalske sin udveksling i sidste uge med reporter Lee, som blot havde spurgt Price om beviser, der kunne underbygge hans “af udenrigsministeriet godkendte” påstand om, at Rusland havde fremstillet en “false flag”-video, der skildrer et angreb fra Ukraine på Rusland, herunder ved hjælp af “kriseaktører” a la Alex Jones. I mandagens udveksling, hvor Price igen nægtede at fremlægge nogen som helst beviser, spurgte Lee igen: “Har du noget mere, som du kan sige for at underbygge din påstand – end du havde at sige i sidste uge? Det er det hele.”

Price: “Ud over det vi fortalte dig i sidste uge … i ganske detaljerede vendinger om de russiske planer … Vi har ikke yderligere at tilføje om det.” Anden reporter: “Så du siger, at beviset på at du har ret er, at der faktisk ikke vil ske noget? Er det det du siger? … fordi I ved at bringe dette ud vil have forhindret russerne i at gøre det, korrekt?”

Mens praksis omkring udenrigsministeriets snak (StateSpeak) tidligere har været genstand for satire, gennem årtier af forfattere som Joseph Heller og Kurt Vonnegut, er Ned Price og andre reaktioner på Ukraine nu mere som dialogen i “Venter på Godot” – selvsikker uigennemsigtighed, uimodtagelig for fornuft, men internt samstemmende og derfor “indlysende” for taleren alene. Uanset NATO’s indvendinger mod virkeligheden understreger sidste uges aftale mellem Rusland og Kina imidlertid en realitet, som Lyndon LaRouche for præcis 40 år siden udførligt diskuterede i sit “et 50-årigt udviklingsprogram for Stillehavsområdet”: Tyngdepunktet for den menneskelige civilisation har flyttet sig til Afrika, Asien og det indiske subkontinent, hvor mere end fem milliarder af de næsten otte milliarder mennesker på planeten bor.

NATO’s anstrengte diskussioner om “indflydelsessfærer” i forhold til Kina og Rusland svarer til at bruge Ptolemæus’ miskrediterede epicyklusser til at tegne mere og mere udførlige “revisioner” af en “gammel, gal, døende imperial verden”, som er ved at blive endegyldigt overgået gennem investeringer i avancerede energiformer, rumfart og produktionssystemer anvendt på minedrift, industri og landbrug, hvilket skaber en helt ny verdensplatform – og de mennesker, som vil producere og drage fordel af denne omstilling. De, der ikke har til hensigt at gå glip af Jordens næste halvtreds års fremskridt, “gør det klart med fødderne”, hvilken side af fremtiden de har til hensigt at være på.

Udenrigsministeriets uheldige gestikuleren, som bør latterliggøres, skal også tages alvorligt; den tjener til at skjule den faktiske udenrigspolitiske praksis af USA, dets “Jago-lignende” kontrollant Storbritannien og andre lige så skyldige deltagere i den igangværende sultedød og fordærvede ligegyldighed i Afghanistan og Yemen, som de mest iøjnefaldende, samt i brugen af sanktioner mod sårbare stater i hele verden. Opmærksomheden blev henledt på dette ved mandagens møde i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd under den åbne debat om “Generelle spørgsmål vedrørende sanktioner: forebyggelse af deres humanitære og utilsigtede konsekvenser”. I modsætning til Cambodja, 1975-79, kan verden ikke lade som om den ikke ved, hvad der foregår i landet.

USA kan ikke lade som om det ikke er ansvarligt. De enkelte borgere, der er bevæbnet med sociale medier og andre former for kommunikation, kan ikke påstå, at de er magtesløse eller stumme i forhold til at stoppe en af de grusomste former for mord, udsultning. Dantes grev Ugolino kunne i det mindste hævde, at han spiste sine børn som følge af ekstrem sult. I dag er vi som grev Ugolino med hensyn til vores forbrug af måske en million eller flere børns liv i Afghanistan, enten fordi vi forsvarer den folkemorderiske politik, der nu er i gang, eller fordi vi ikke formår at ændre den.

Det russiske råd for internationale Anliggender (RIAC) og Schiller Instituttet (SI) indkalder torsdag den 10. februar, 2022, kl. 14 dansk tid, til et seminar om emnet “Den humanitære krise i Afghanistan: På vej til en langsigtet løsning”. Vær med og hjælp med at gennemføre instituttets Operation Ibn Sina, ikke kun for at redde Afghanistan, men for på den måde at redde den transatlantiske civilisations sjæl.

 

KØBENHAVN, 31. januar (EIRNS)- I dag, to dage efter at den danske statsminister Mette Frederiksen sagde, at hun ville overveje at sende våben til Ukraine, blev der indkaldt til et pressemøde på Marienborg med statsministeren, udenrigsminister Jeppe Kofod og forsvarsminister Trine Bramsen for at lancere regeringens nye Udenrigs- og Forsvarspolitiske Strategi. EIR havde mulighed for at stille et spørgsmål. Første del af pressekonferencen blev transmitteret direkte på TV2 News, og anden del, der startede med EIR’s spørgsmål, blev transmitteret direkte på TV2 Play.

Danmark er midt i beslutningen om, hvorvidt man vil følge den britiske eskaleringspolitik eller afvise den, som flere og flere europæiske lande gør. For to dage siden udtalte statsminister Mette Frederiksen til Jyllands-Posten: »Jeg vil ikke udelukke (at sende militært isenkram til Ukraine, red.), og jeg har ingen principiel modstand mod, at vi gør det. Situationen omkring Ukraine udgør nu en alvorlig trussel mod Europa, og der er en reel risiko for en væbnet konflikt på europæisk jord. Skulle situationen i Ukraine eskalere yderligere, vil Rusland også blive mødt med sanktioner af »en hidtil ukendt dimension«.« Dette var også budskabet på pressekonferencen.

Inden EIR’s spørgsmål blev ministrene spurgt, om Danmark ville sende våben og endda tropper til Ukraine. Indtil videre har Ukraines forsvarsminister bedt om dansk støtte til at håndtere cyberangreb, sagde Forsvarsministeren.

Her er Statsministerens udveksling med EIR-journalist Michelle Rasmussen:

EIR: Det er Michelle Rasmussen, Executive Intelligence Review.

I forgårs sagde Ukraines forsvarsminister Reznikov, at situationen langs grænsen til Rusland er den samme, som for et år siden. At der er ingen aktioner eller fænomener af betydning. Præsident Zelensky sagde, at USA bør holde op med at sige, at krig er umiddelbart forstående – at man ikke skal skabe panik.

Hvis Danmark sender våben til Ukraine, en politik, som er ført an af Storbritannien lige nu, vil det bare optrappe krisen, så vel som, hvis man indførte endnu hårdere sanktioner, som også vil ramme Europa, eller USA’s krigsspil, som Global Lightning [øvelse afholdt af USA’s strategiske kommando -red.}, om hvordan man fortsætter en atomkrig efter et førsteslagsangreb?

Er det ikke bedre, at have alvorlige forhandlinger med Rusland angående et muligt NATO-medlemskab for Ukraine, offensive våben langs grænsen, og at forhandle om en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, som inkluderer Rusland, som vi burde have gjort i 1991? 

Mette Frederiksen: At vi skulle have givet Rusland indflydelse på den europæiske infrastruktur i 1991?

EIR: At efter Sovjetunionens opløsning var der lagt op til —

Mette Frederiksen: Det er helt klart, at det er kun Europa og europæere der bestemmer, hvordan vores infrastruktur skal se ud. Vi ønsker selvfølgelig at have en dialog med Rusland. Det har vi. Det har vi i NATO-sporet. Det har vi mellem Europa og Rusland. Og det ønsker vi at have fremadrettet. Vi har hele vejen igennem det her appelleret til Rusland om at vælge en diplomatisk løsning, og går dialogens vej.

Det vi samtidig siger er, hvis Rusland vælger at angribe Ukraine, så svarer vi selvfølgelig igen.

Men lad mig gentage. Hvordan Europæere vælger at indrette sig, det er et anlæggende for Europa, ikke for nogen som helst andre.

Jyllands-Posten.

EIR: Undskyld. Udenrigsministeren vil sige noget. 

Mette Frederiksen: Vi skal have flere spørgsmål. Jyllands-Posten, værsgo.

Den 29. januar (EIRNS) – Mens Biden-kabinettet fortsætter med at himle op over en indbildt russisk hensigt, om at invadere Ukraine, og mens Rusland, Kina og Iran fortsat bliver portrætteret af europæiske og amerikanske politiske eksperter og medieeksperter som onde skurke, der er ude på at ødelægge den vestlige verdens frihed og velstand, er der en voksende modreaktion imod dette vanvid, både fra ledende personer og almindelige borgere.

Begynd med hovedartiklerne i samtlige medier, hver dag og hver time, i de sidste to måneder: “Rusland har samlet over 100.000 tropper, kampvogne og tilhørende militært udstyr på grænsen til Ukraine, som forberedelse til en invasion der berøver det heroiske ukrainske folks frihed og demokrati”. Men lad os høre, hvad den ukrainske forsvarsminister har at sige om denne angiveligt eksistentielle fare:

Ukraines forsvarsminister Oleksij Reznikov: “Situationen på grænsen mellem Ukraine og Rusland, er på nuværende tidspunkt ikke anderledes end i foråret sidste år. I øjeblikket er der ingen væsentlige begivenheder eller fænomener”. Selv Ukraines præsident Volodymyr Zelensky sagde til USA, at de skulle holde op med at råbe at en krig er nært forestående, at det er en “vildfarelse”.

Men begå ikke den fejl at konkludere, at dette er ensbetydende med, at der ikke er nogen chance for en krig mellem to atommagter, hvorved selve civilisationen trues. Som EIR’s økonomiredaktør Paul Gallagher påviser i det aktuelle nummer af EIR, drives krigen frem af det vestlige finanssystems hastige sammenbrud (se: “The U.S.-NATO Hidden War Threat: The Green New Deal”), ikke af den indbildte “aggression” fra Rusland, Kina eller Iran.

Den tidligere østrigske udenrigsminister Karin Kneissl latterliggjorde på meget polemisk facon det krigshysteri, som er baseret på et spinkelt grundlag: Krigstruslen i Ukraine, sagde hun, “er en forestilling der opstår, men som ikke helt svarer til virkeligheden – det er en virkelighed, som medierne har fremstillet…. Især briterne kaster sig ind i kampen”, mens “flere og flere våben og endda tropper fra NATO-lande” sendes til Ukraine på trods af de omfattende ødelæggelser, som ville ramme hele Europa, hvis der udbrød krig.

Se nu på Iran, hvor Biden-regeringen har nægtet at omgøre den farlige og tåbelige forkastelse af JCPOA-atomaftalen (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) med Iran fra 2015, som Trump-regeringen ophævede i 2018. Generalløjtnant Gadi Eizenkot, stabschef for de israelske forsvarsstyrker fra 2015 til 2019, udtalte til Al-Monitor, at den daværende israelske præsident Benjamin Netanyahu havde konspireret med sin Mossad-chef for at presse Trump-administrationen til at skrotte Iran-aftalen, uden så meget som at rådføre sig med det israelske militær om konsekvenserne. Eizenkot hævdede ikke kun, at resultatet var Irans øgede berigelse af uran, hvilket bragte dem tættere på en atomar våbenkapacitet, men at Iran havde gjort det “med legitimitet”, da JCPOA tillod dem at gøre det, da USA brød deres aftale.

Det vanvittige i de britiske og amerikanske trusler og krigsforberedelser, påpegede Schiller Instituttets formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag, er “ikke anderledes i tankegangen end hos huleboerne, som dræbte deres naboer med sten – bortset fra at de nu har atomvåben”. Det anglo-amerikanske krigsparti har ikke til hensigt at “konkurrere” i den nye multipolære verden, hvor Kina og Rusland nu er “næsten ligeværdige” magter i forhold til de aftagende transatlantiske nationer. De forestiller sig snarere, at de kan stoppe Kinas og Ruslands fremgang ved hjælp af sabotage, finansiel krigsførelse og den afskyelige “sanktionspolitik”. En “højtstående embedsmand i administrationen”, som den 25. januar briefede pressen anonymt om de planlagte sanktioner mod Rusland, lagde ikke skjul på denne ulovlige og umoralske kendsgerning: Hensigten, sagde han, er at “ramme Putins strategiske ambitioner om at industrialisere landets økonomi ganske hårdt”. Dette er tilsyneladende også politikken over for Kina, hvor Biden-administrationen har afslået at ophæve de destruktive sanktioner, som Trump-administrationen har indført mod Huawei og mange andre kinesiske virksomheder (faktisk har Biden-teamet skærpet sådanne sanktioner), og har anvendt politiske virkemidler til at sabotere den økonomiske udvikling i Kina. Som Zepp-LaRouche bemærkede, er dette det stik modsatte af den Westfalske Fred, som er grundlaget for den moderne nationalstat, hvor suveræne nationer respekterer andres suverænitet.

Men modreaktionen er voksende. Amerikanerne, der er blevet draget ind i fabrikerede debatter om f.eks. vacciner, klima og partipolitik, mens økonomien eksploderer og verden “søvngængeragtigt går ind i en termonuklear tredje verdenskrig”, erkender i stigende grad, at verden er på vej mod kaos, og de søger efter løsninger. Disse løsninger har altid været der, i form af Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love, men de blev holdt skjult for befolkningen, ved den ulovlige retsforfølgelse af LaRouche og mørklægningen af hans ideer, af de samme korrupte institutioner og personer, som har ført os til denne sørgelige situation. Denne modreaktion viser, at dette øjeblik udgør et stort potentiale, med optimisme snarere end frygt og ængstelse, da søvngængerne er ved at blive opmærksomme på faren, og blot skal udstyres med de rette værktøjer til at bringe verden sammen, og opbygge det nye paradigme for menneskeheden.

Udvalgt billede: Max Vakhtbovych, Pexels

 

Den 26. jan. (EIRNS) — I dag afholdt udenrigsminister Antony Blinken en pressekonference i udenrigsministeriet, og møder for lukkede døre med medlemmer af Kongressen, hvor han meddelte, at USA har givet skriftlige svar på Ruslands tekster fra december, om foreslåede sikkerhedsaftaler. Han erklærede også: “Desuden har NATO udarbejdet, og vil aflevere sit eget dokument, med idéer og bekymringer om kollektiv sikkerhed i Europa til Moskva – og dette dokument styrker os fuldstændigt, og omvendt. Der er ikke nogen tvivl, hos USA og vores allierede og partnere, om disse spørgsmål.”

Mens Blinken i sine bemærkninger gentog sin sædvanlige, mørke opremsning af beskyldninger og trusler mod Rusland, er der i virkeligheden fra mange sider ved at komme klarhed over, hvor farlig og hvor “britisk” hele denne konfrontationspolitik er. Blinken kan sende røgskyer op om “enhed”, input fra “allierede” og lignende, men virkeligheden er en anden. Selv da en journalist spurgte Blinken: Taler du om “en forenet tilgang til Europa”. Hvad mener du om Tysklands holdning?” Hun spurgte: “Ville du sige, at du er glad eller tilfreds med, at Tyskland sender hjelme til Ukraine i stedet for våbenleverancer?” Blinken nøjedes med at puste og stønne om, at hvert land har “forskellige kapaciteter”.

Kort sagt, hvad Blinken sagde i sin pressebriefing var, at Rusland er aggressoren mod Ukraine, og advarede: “Vi har opstillet drastiske konsekvenser, hvis Rusland vælger yderligere aggression.” Blinken gentog sin sofistiske tilgang til Rusland med “to veje”: at vestlig militarisering i Østeuropa er vejen til afskrækkelse, men at USA og Vesten ellers er åbne for diplomati, “hvis Rusland vælger det”.

Om det såkaldte afskrækkelsesspor, gav Blinken en fyldig redegørelse. Han sagde: “Tre leverancer af amerikansk defensiv militærbistand ankom til Kiev i denne uge, indeholdende yderligere javelin-missiler og andre anti-våbensystemer, 283 tons ammunition og ikke-dødelig udrustning… Der forventes flere leverancer i de kommende dage. Vi har ydet mere defensiv sikkerhedsbistand til Ukraine i det seneste år end i noget tidligere år… I sidste uge bemyndigede jeg amerikanske allierede – herunder Estland, Letland og Litauen – til at levere militært udstyr af amerikansk oprindelse… I sidste uge meddelte vi også Kongressen vores hensigt om at levere Mi-17 helikoptere til Ukraine…” Og 8.500 amerikanske soldater er i “forhøjet beredskab til at blive indsat”, hvis det skulle blive nødvendigt for at “styrke de allieredes østlige flanke”.

Blandt den voksende modstand mod denne farlige styrkeprøve ses  adskillige politiske ledere og sammenslutninger i Europa.

I Kroatien udtalte præsident Zoran Milanovic i denne uge, at hans land på ingen måde vil blive involveret i Ukraine-krisen eller sende soldater. Han udtaler, at Ukraine ikke hører hjemme i NATO, og at det var EU (N.B., herunder Storbritannien), der udløste et kup i Kiev i 2014. Desuden sagde Milanovic, som rapporteret af Euractiv, at krisen ikke har noget at gøre med Ukraine eller Rusland, men er relateret til dynamikken i USA’s interne situation, og at de internationale sikkerhedsproblemer afspejler “inkonsekvenser og farlig adfærd” fra USA’s side.

I Spanien har partiet Unidos Podemos og otte mindre partier, alle ni venstreorienterede medlemmer af Socialistpartiets regeringskoalition, offentligt modsat sig premierminister Pedro Sanchez’ beslutning, om at sende militære styrker, for at deltage i NATO’s opbygning af styrker mod Rusland, og opfordrer til en antikrigs-mobilisering som i 2003, hvor Aznar-regeringen, der havde udsendt Spaniens militærstyrker til George Bushs krig mod Irak, blev fordrevet. Der sættes spørgsmålstegn ved selve NATO’s eksistens.

 Fredag den 28. januar vil den franske præsident Emmanuel Macron tale i telefon med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin. I dag mødtes embedsmænd fra Normandiet-gruppens fire nationer – Frankrig, Tyskland, Rusland og Ukraine – i Paris i otte timer og udsendte en erklæring. De planlægger at mødes igen i Berlin i næste måned.

I dag bragte Sputnik News en artikel med en gennemgang af modstanden i Frankrig og andre steder i Europa mod det amerikansk/britiske opgør med Rusland. Med overskriften: “Fransk politiker: Forundret over USA’s krigsmageri, Frankrig og Tyskland forsøger at undgå EU’s militarisering”, bringer artiklen et interview med Karel Vereycken, næstformand for Solidarité & Progrès i Frankrig, som udtalte, at “Frankrig og Tyskland er ikke interesseret i at danse efter USA’s, Storbritanniens og NATO’s melodi – og det er der en god grund til…”.

Schiller Instituttet leverer den kritiske platform internationalt, for at vække verden til bevidsthed om krigsfaren, og om hvad der må gøres udenrigspolitisk og økonomisk, herunder humanitære nødhjælpsaktioner, for at stoppe de forhold og de gerningsmænd, som har skabt denne frygtelige krisesituation. Hjemmesiden leverer løsningsforslag, og en yderligere international konference med henblik på at mobilisere indsatsen er under forberedelse i starten af februar.

Udvalgt billede: Somchai Kongkamsri

Den 20. december (EIRNS) – Farten på de voksende amerikansk-russiske spændinger over Ukraine tog til over den sidste uge, således at det som lignede et håb om stabilisering for to uger siden, da præsidenterne Biden og Putin afholdt en videokonference, nu til stadighed ligner en nedtælling til krig i Europa mellem de atomare stormagter.

En højtstående embedsmand fra Det hvide Hus – sandsynligvis den nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, Jake Sullivan – fortalte CNN søndag den 19. december, at der kun er et »tidsvindue på fire uger« til at forhindre Rusland i at invadere Ukraine. »Det som vi har foretaget os er meget kalkuleret«, sagde embedsmanden. »Men vi har blot cirka et tidsvindue på fire uger fra nu af«. Embedsmanden sagde, at USA’s planlagte sanktioner »ville være overvældende, øjeblikkelige og have betydelige omkostninger for den russiske økonomi og deres finanssystem«.

Den næste dag, den 20. december, fortalte den russiske viceudenrigsminister, Sergej Ryabkov, journalister, at Biden-administrationen ikke havde svaret på Rusland foreslåede traktater om sikkerhedsgarantier i løbet af forhandlingerne den 15. december i Moskva mellem Ryabkov og den amerikanske viceudenrigsminister for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender, Karen Donfried. Forslagene inkluderede forsikringen om, at Ukraine ikke ville blive et medlem af NATO, og at yderligere opstillinger af amerikanske og NATO-styrker, samt missilsystemer tættere på Ruslands grænser, ville ophøre…

Og både viceudenrigsminister Alexander Grushko og forhandler af våbenkontrol, Konstantin Gavrilov, henviste ildevarslende til »Ruslands militær-tekniske og militære midler« som det eneste alternativ til forhandlinger om Ruslands traktatforslag. Ukraines egen regering fortsatte, i form af udenrigsminister Dmytro Kuleba, med at tale med Washington Post den 19. december og kræve flere »militære midler« og tropper fra USA og Storbritannien og krævede, at USA offentligt gør det klart hvor »overvældende og øjeblikkelig« den skade er, som det amerikanske finansministerium forbereder sig på at påføre den russiske økonomi og finanssystem, og at gøre dette i samarbejde med London, hvad enten de kontinentale, europæiske allierede er enige med dette eller ej.

I oktober 1962 var det USA’s sydlige grænse, der var truet, på nært hold, af sovjetiske soldater og missiler i Cuba, som truede med et ødelæggende førsteslag. I dag er det NATO’s uophørlige fremmarch, tættere og tættere på Ruslands grænser. (Læs John F. Kennedys udtalelse på engelsk nedenfor.)

Ydermere krævede USA’s militærchefer en invasion af Cuba for at ødelægge missilerne og andre styrker, og præsident Kennedy holdte dem tilbage – med megen møge.

Hvis ikke Kennedy og Khrusjtjov havde fundet en forhandlet løsning på Cuba-krisen, hvad ville da sandsynligvis være sket? Hundrede millioner af mennesker verden over var rædselsslagne over en umiddelbar atomkrig.

Hvordan var præsident Kennedys krav anderledes end dem fra præsident Vladimir Putins foreslåede aftale den 7. december til præsident Joe Biden? …Kennedy og Khrusjtjov ønskede begge en løsning, og ikke én, hvor den anden præsident og hans nation blev ydmyget eller tilintetgjort gennem »overvældende, øjeblikkelig«, national beskadigelse!

Det er det, som nu må forhandles mellem præsident Biden og Putin, ved at tilsidesætte krigshøgene – nogle af dem der er så klinisk sindssyge, at de foreslår et atomart førsteslag mod Rusland, som senator Roger Wicker gjorde det den 7. december. Men en løsning må og kan opnås, hvis borgere nu rejser sig og kræver dette, og forbliver optimistiske om, at disse to nationer kan blokere den faretruende vej mod optrapning og stormagtskrig. Lad dem i stedet bruge deres energi på at forsyne Afghanistan med mad, sundhedspleje og genopbygning.

For 60 år siden fortalte præsident John F. Kennedy nationen følgende i en direkte, national TV-tale: “Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere.” The President concluded: “But this secret, swift, and extraordinary buildup … in an area well known to have a special and historical relationship to the United States and the nations of the Western Hemisphere … this sudden, clandestine decision to station strategic weapons for the first time outside of Soviet soil–is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country….”

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

 

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Se Schiller Instituttets internationale videokonference den 26.-27. juni 2021 eller bagefter: 

Invitation: For det almene vel af alle mennesker, ikke regler, som er til fordel for de få.
Schiller Instituttets online internationale konference den 26.-27. juni 2021 kl. 15 dansk tid

Lyd:

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Den 13. juli (EIRNS) – En kronik i dag af EIR’s Washington-korrespondent, William Jones, udgivet af Kinas Tv-station CGTN, trak den direkte linje fra britisk efterretningsvæsens fire år lange forsøg på at tvinge Præsident Donald Trump til at gå af – hvorunder Roger Stone kom under angreb – tilbage til de samme efterretningstjenesters fængsling og forsøg på at eliminere Lyndon LaRouche. Stone selv, som har sagt, at han lærte om Præsident Ronald Reagans interesse for LaRouches idéer, mens han ledte Reagans kampagne i New Hampshire i 1980, var selv ganske klar over forbindelsen. Han forstod, at Præsident Trump har været udsat for ”LaRouche-behandlingen” fra de britiske og amerikanske efterretningstjenester; det er nu vigtigt, at præsidentens patriotiske støtter forstår dette, og at indflydelsesrige personer i Kina også forstår det.

Lyndon LaRouches program for et ”stort udviklingsprojekt”, den Eurasiske Landbro i 1989, og Helga Zepp-LaRouches arbejde, som førte til infrastruktur-platformen den Nye Silkevej og Verdenslandbroen i dag, er alment kendt i Kina. Hvad der må forstås er, at LaRouche blev bagvasket og forfulgt – ”seks veje fra søndag” (reference til C. Schumers ”six ways from Sunday” – på et utal af måder -red.), iværksat af det britiske imperiums og USA’s efterretningstjenester, fordi han udarbejdede forslag med henblik på udvikling til topmøder med stormagterne, blandt USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien. I 1980’erne arbejdede han direkte – og også bag kulisserne – for en amerikansk-sovjetisk aftale for at gøre en ende på atomkrigsterroren under doktrinen for ”gensidig garanteret udslettelse” (”mutually assured destruction”, MAD), gennem en ny æra med udvikling af laser-lignende systemer, både indenfor anti-misilforvar og industriel udvikling i de underudviklede nationer.

Som Jones skrev på CGTN: ”Stone har ofte selv refereret til den klassiske sag om operationer mod den nu afdøde økonom og mange gange præsidentkandidat, Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche har spillet en central rolle i at få Præsident Reagan til at indføre hvad der blev kaldt det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI).

”LaRouche – og Præsident Reagan – anså et sådant forslag som en fredsplan, der ville hive verden væk fra den nærtforestående atomare aftrækker under doktrinen for ”gensidig garanteret udslettelse”… Præsident Reagans synspunkt var det samme som LaRouches.

Hvis et forsvar mod atomvåben kunne findes, ville en sådan teknologi kun blive udviklet i samarbejde med Sovjetunionen. Mens den officielle historie fremstiller SDI som et forsøg på at give USA en strategisk overhånd over russerne, indikerer et nyligt frigivet hemmeligstemplet Nationalt Sikkerhedsdirektiv, NSDD-172, underskrevet af Reagan selv i 1985, at præsidenten var klar til at forhandle med Sovjetunionen om at opbygge et fælles eller komplementært forsvarssystem for at beskytte begge nationer.” (Betoning i det originale.)

Det var på det tidspunkt at Robert Mueller blev ansat til at retsforfølge Lyndon LaRouche.

LaRouches metode var at finde den overbevisende fornuftsmæssige fælles interesse for topmødeforhandlinger mellem tilsyneladende fjendtlige stormagter, som også skulle gavne resten af verdens nationer. Dette var i det mindste Præsident Trumps stærke intention, da han tiltrådte embedet i 2016, hvad angår Rusland og Kina. Et britisk anstiftet krigsparti har kæmpet for at forhindre dette, gennem et kup imod ham. Nu må denne proces for et topmøde påbegyndes indenfor de næste 60 dage, for at håndtere de enorme problemer med pandemien, det økonomiske sammenbrud i adskillige nationer samt en tydelig voksende trussel for et atomart våbenkapløb og atomkrig.

Og den kursændring, som kunne komme fra en sådan ”overraskelse i september” i form af et topmøde, er også den eneste måde hvorpå Præsident Trump kunne genvælges. Han, og præsidenterne fra Rusland og Kina, bliver nødt til at forstå hvem deres fælles fjende er, og hvorfor denne, i mere end 40 år, forsøgte at ødelægge personen Lyndon LaRouche, hans navn og hans virke. Og, som Jones konkluderer, hvorfor Trump ”burde gøre det til en pointe at rense Lyndon LaRouches navn”.

Den 12. juli (EIRNS) — Dette er den redigerede oversættelse af den ledende artikel fra den 11. juli, skrevet af Helga Zepp-LaRouche og bragt i det tyske ugemagasin Neue Solidaritätden 16. juli 2020.

 Menneskeheden er for tiden konfronteret med en hidtil uset udfordring: Har vi den moralske habitus til at overleve? Dette altafgørende spørgsmål hænger sammen med, hvorvidt tilstrækkeligt mange hovedaktører på verdensscenen er i stand til at hæve deres tankegang til et højere niveau af fornuft i tide, eller om de vil klynge sig til deres respektive ideologier og handlingsmønstre. I sidstnævnte tilfælde truer den ekstreme spænding, der følger af kombinationen af optrapningen af coronavirus-pandemien, nedgangen i den fysiske økonomi, det systemiske kollaps af finanssystemet og den voksende geopolitiske konfrontation blandt stormagterne, med at føre til et sammenbrud, som kunne udvikle sig til socialt kaos og en ny verdenskrig.

 Hvad der er behov for nu, er ikke en mangfoldighed af små skridt og foranstaltninger til at tackle alle de forskellige kriser, men et veritabelt ‘Grand Design’, realiseringen af en vision for menneskehedens fremtid med en omfattende løsning, hvor der tages hensyn til hele menneskehedens interesser. Åbningen for denne mulighed er relativ kortvarig. I januar i år foreslog den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin et topmøde mellem statsoverhovederne for de fem permanente medlemmer (P5) af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. USA, Kina, Frankrig og Storbritannien er allerede enedes om at holde et sådant topmøde. Putin understregede, at formålet med dette topmøde, 75 år efter afslutningen af 2. verdenskrig, skal være at etablere en fredsorden – at sikre at en lignende katastrofe aldrig mere indtræffer.

 Den dramatiske krise i forbindelse med pandemien og den efterfølgende nedgang af realøkonomien, kombineret med faren for et verdensomspændende systemisk finansielt sammenbrud, udgør en enestående mulighed for at skabe grundlaget for en ny verdensøkonomisk orden baseret på et nyt Bretton Woods-system. Et Bretton Woods-system i overensstemmelse med Franklin D. Roosevelts oprindelige intention om at overvinde underudviklingen i udviklingslandene, og skabe grundlaget for fred ved at forbedre levestandarden for alle mennesker på denne planet.

 I et web-interview den 8. juli med ‘Center for National Interest’ understregede den russiske ambassadør i Washington, Anatoly Antonov, den vigtige rolle, som et sådant topmøde kan have som et alternativ til scenarier med uforudsigelige konsekvenser:

 ”Vi har videregivet vores forslag til dagsordenen til vore partnere. De inkluderer centrale spørgsmål, der påvirker global politik, sikkerhed og økonomi…

 ”Verden er nødt til at etablere et demokratisk system med relationer, der bygger på princippet om udelelig sikkerhed, lige muligheder for udvikling og søgen efter en afbalancering af interesser mellem deltagerne i international dialog”.

 Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov understregede i en tale den 10. juli til ‘Primakov Readings’-forummet, at et af punkterne på dagsordenen for P5-topmødet må være uantageligheden af atomkrig:

 ”Vi… er især bekymrede over amerikanernes afvisning af at bekræfte det grundlæggende princip om, at der ikke kan være nogen vindere i en atomkrig, som derfor aldrig må slippes løs. Selvfølgelig vil vi fremme dette emne – uantageligheden af en atomkrig, umuligheden af at vinde en sådan – i forbindelse med det kommende topmøde mellem de fem”.

 Ambassadør Antonov citerede også Putins tale ved paraden på ’Sejrsdagen’ den 24. juni:

 ”Vi forstår vigtigheden af at styrke venskab og tillid mellem nationer, og er åbne for dialog og samarbejde om de mest presserende spørgsmål på den internationale dagsorden. Blandt dem er oprettelsen af et fælles pålideligt sikkerhedssystem, noget som den komplekse og hurtigt skiftende moderne verden har brug for. Kun i fællesskab kan vi beskytte verden mod nye farlige trusler”.

 En verdensomspændende ’New Deal’

 Den uventede meddelelse fra den britiske premierminister Boris Johnson om hans hensigt om at gennemføre et investeringsprogram i traditionen fra præsident Franklin Roosevelt, det vil sige en ‘New Deal’ (selv om det nævnte beløb på 5 mia. pund kun er et lille første skridt i den rigtige retning), tilvejebringer et meget nyttigt fælles ‘fodslag’ med de fire andre statschefer, som alle tidligere har henvist til Roosevelt.

 Hvad der er brug for i dag, er netop Roosevelts program fuldt ud: Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, en industriel udviklingsplan – denne gang i global størrelsesorden – en ‘New Deal’ for hele verden – og et kreditsystem, en Ny Bretton Woods-aftale. Et af de første skridt bør være internationalt samarbejde om at udvikle et verdensomspændende sundhedssystem – dvs. et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert enkelt land – mindst til den standard som Kina demonstrerede i Wuhan under bekæmpelsen af udbruddet af pandemien.

 Dette topmøde, der skal finde sted senest i september, vil med stor sandsynlighed være den sidste chance for at skabe et tillidsfuldt grundlag for en strategisk nyorientering af internationale relationer mellem atombevæbnede magter, som kan sætte kursen for at overvinde den globale økonomiske krise. Hvis denne mulighed glipper, truer ikke alene den giftige tone, der er blevet anslået mellem især USA og Kina, med at eskalere til en uoprettelig konflikt, alt imens den truende fare for en anden bølge af pandemien efterfulgt af fornyede økonomiske nedlukninger kunne smadre den sociale fred fuldstændig i mange af de berørte lande.

 ‘Leibniz Instituttet for Økonomisk Forskning’ (IWH) i Halle har advaret om, at virkningerne af den første nedlukning af Tyskland vil føre til en bølge af konkurser, som igen vil skabe vanskeligheder for adskillige sparekasser og for banker med tilgodehavender i størrelsesordenen hundredvis af milliarder. En sådan ny bankkrise ville sidenhen blive efterfulgt af en endnu dybere recession, advarer instituttet. Og Tyskland er stadig i en relativt stærk position.

 Diskussionen indenfor den transatlantiske nyliberale elite er formet af antagelsen om, at der under disse omstændigheder vil komme et kraftigt fald i de internationale aktiemarkeder på mindst 20-30% og en stigning i dødeligheden fra en anden bølge af pandemien, som vil blive lagt præsident Donald Trump til last. Dette vil garantere etablissementets intention om at sikre hans nederlag ved valget i november. I betragtning af den ubarmhjertige kampagne, som kræfterne i det britiske imperium har gennemført i tre og et halvt år i deres kupforsøg – fra “Russiagate”-svindlen til proceduren med rigsretssag og det nuværende vanvid med ødelæggelse af statuer – vil City of London og Wall Street sandsynligvis ikke tøve med at lade et sådant kraftigt fald på aktiemarkederne finde sted.

 Selvom præsident Trump i de tidlige stadier af udbruddet af coronavirus-pandemien roste den kinesiske regerings energiske indgriben i byen Wuhan og Hubei-provinsen, og understregede sit venskab med præsident Xi Jinping, ændrede han holdning fra den 18. april og gik derefter – fra 30. april – over til at beskylde Kina for spredningen af virusset på verdensplan. Denne påstand blev først fremsat af de tidligere chefer for MI6, Sir John Sawers og Sir Richard Dearlove, og Henry Jackson-selskabet i London, som i en åbenlys provokation udfordrede Kina til at betale 9 billioner dollars i erstatning! Det er blevet afvist som ubegrundet selv af amerikanske medicinske eksperter. En WHO-delegation er i øjeblikket i Wuhan for at undersøge virussets oprindelse og pandemiens kronologi.

 Det britiske imperium er ude i tovene

 De samme britiske imperialistiske kræfter, som står bag kupforsøget mod præsident Trump, betragter hans hensigt om at etablere gode forbindelser med Rusland såvel som hans oprindeligt positive forhold til præsident Xi som en dødbringende trussel mod deres geopolitiske interesser – og har nu i årevis i stigende grad bestræbt sig på at begrænse Kinas fremgang. Det er motivet bag Pentagons ‘Nationale Forsvarsstrategi’-dokument fra 2018, der definerer Kina og Rusland som de største strategiske rivaler i ”stormagtskonkurrencen”. Forsvarsminister Mark Esper understregede denne politiske orientering i en ‘Meddelelse til Styrken” den 7. juli, hvor han sagde, at Kina skulle gøres til “den løbende trussel” i “alle vores skoler, programmer og uddannelser”.

 Det britiske imperiums politik – præget af det Britiske østindiske Kompagni og dets koloniale politik, opiums-krigene mod Kina, Prins Philips Verdensnaturfonden og nu om dage Mark Carneys ‘Green New Deal’ – har været baseret på malthusiansk befolkningsreduktion. Ud fra dette synspunkt gør Kinas ‘Nye Silkevejs’-politik – som for første gang giver udviklingslandene muligheden for at overvinde underudviklingen – dem til en “strategisk konkurrent”. Og selvfølgelig er der konkurrence mellem disse systemer.

Når man ser på verden ovenfra, er det klart at samarbejde mellem de to største økonomier i verden, USA og Kina, er uomgængeligt, hvis menneskeheden skal overvinde denne pandemi og andre forestående pandemier, såvel som sult, fattigdom og underudvikling i den såkaldte Tredje Verden. Set fra det britiske imperium – dvs. de oligarkiske finansielle interesser, der baserer sig på at maksimere fortjenesten for deres egen klasse, og befolkningskontrol for alle andre – har det siden det Britiske østindiske Kompagnis Thomas Malthus’ tid haft topprioritet at forgifte det amerikansk-kinesiske forhold.

 Den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov har netop advaret om, at USA’s tilbagetrækning fra nedrustningstraktaterne har øget risikoen for en global atomkonfrontation markant. Og han har sagt, at han håber at denne eskalering ikke når det punkt, hvor der ikke er nogen vej tilbage. Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi har for sit vedkommende udtrykt sin bekymring for, at forbindelserne mellem USA og Kina har nået det laveste punkt siden etableringen af forbindelser mellem de to nationer.

 Topmødet mellem de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som præsident Putin har foreslået, er sandsynligvis – af alle de her nævnte grunde – den sidste chance for at sætte et helt andet program på dagsordenen, for at forhindre at de stigende følger af pandemi, sult, økonomisk sammenbrud og et finansielt krak vil gå deres gang. Hvis ikke denne kurs forandres, kan krigsfaren, som følge af det deraf hurtigt efterfølgende kaos, blive ustoppelig.

 Alle mennesker med god vilje og alle lande over hele verden bør betragte det som værende i deres egen interesse at gøre sit yderste for at støtte dette topmøde.

 

Idet han handler imod Trump, udsendte udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo imidlertid i dag en erklæring til fuld støtte for Storbritannien. Han fremmanede: ”Dette sanktionsregime markerer begyndelsen på en ny æra for Storbritanniens sanktionspolitik og samarbejde mellem vores to demokratier. Storbritanniens globale sanktionsregime for menneskerettigheder vil give Storbritannien et kraftfuldt nyt økonomisk værktøj til at fremme ansvarlighed vedrørende overgreb på menneskerettigheder på verdensplan”.

“LaRouche-planen til genåbning af den amerikanske økonomi: Verden behøver 1.5 milliard nye, produktive job.”

Det er på tide, at alle bliver involveret i diskussionen og realiserer en ny tilgang.

Den 22. juni (EIRNS) – Vi er i en dyb, voksende krise, som truer moderne nationers eksistens, og burde derfor hæfte os ved den lange artikel: ”75-året for den Store Sejr: Fælles Ansvar for Historien og vores Fremtid”, udgivet d. 19. juni i magasinet The National Interest af den russiske præsident, Vladimir Putin. Den russiske præsident minder os om, gennem sin egen families erindringer, hvordan det måtte have været at se en styrke af millioner af fuldt udrustede, mekaniserede og veltrænede tyske soldater storme hen over hver eneste grænse i juni 1940, og hurtigt begynde at løbe Rusland over ende – og derefter, gennem år med ubegribelig frihedsberøvelse og død og beslutsomhed, at finde en vej ud af den nationale, eksistentielle krise, for til sidst at møde de amerikanske tropper ved Elben og afslutte krigen.

Putin skriver først og fremmest som en leder, hvis land er blevet ”behandlet ondskabsfuldt” af nylige, uhyrlige forsøg på, selv fra den Europæiske Unions side, at beskylde Sovjetunionen, i samme grad som Hitlers nazister og deres bagmænd i Europa, for at have forårsaget 2. Verdenskrig. Han sætter begivenhederne i det rette lys. Dækningen af Putins arbejde i amerikanske, europæiske og australske medier er begyndt at dukke op, med rapporter om hvad han fremviser fra de omfangsrige arkiver, som Rusland har om de diplomatiske begivenheder, der førte til krigen og kostede Sovjetunionen mere en 25 millioner døde.

I Forbes skrev den højtstående korrespondent, James Rodgers, den 21. juni: ”Hvorfor, 75 år efter afslutningen på den konflikt, og i en meget anderledes verden, er disse begivenheder så vigtige?”

Det første svar er størrelsesordenen af Ruslands offer. Antallet af sovjetiske militære og civile dødsofre bliver generelt antaget til at være over 20 millioner. I sin artikel skriver Putin ’næsten 27 millioner’, og tilføjer som sammenligning, at i 2. Verdenskrig ”mistede Sovjetunionen hver syvende af dens borgere, Storbritannien hver 127. og USA hver 320”. På hjemmesiden ”Moon of Alabama”, som hovedsageligt omhandler militære og efterretningsrelaterede emner, skrev en skribent: ”Som tysker og tidligere officer der har læst en hel del om krigen, er jeg enig med det russiske synspunkt. Det var den lidet anerkendte industrielle magt, Sovjetunionen, og den Røde Hærs soldaters bemærkelsesværdige pligttroskab, der besejrede den tyske Wehrmacht… Jeg har ikke fundet nogle større fejl med de historiske fakta i essayet, og anbefaler at læse det i fuld længde.”

Nyhedsbureauet Associated Press’ rapport om Putins artikel citerede hans hovedkonklusion: ”Han udtrykte håb om, at et russisk foreslået topmøde mellem lederne af landene med vetoret i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd snart ville finde sted, for at diskutere den globale sikkerhed, corona-pandemiens økonomiske konsekvenser m.m.’ Der kan ikke være nogen tvivl om, at topmødet mellem Rusland, Kina, Frankrig, USA og Storbritannien kan spille en vigtig rolle i at finde fælles svar på moderne udfordringer’.” Putins andet, underliggende tema: Rusland er en nation, som er utrolig svær at besejre, når den forsvarer sig selv; men ønsker ikke at føre en aggressiv krig, og endnu mindre en krig mod Europa eller en supermagt som USA.

Præsident Putins artikel tager direkte fat på denne krise, bestående af en finansiel krise og økonomisk forfald, en pandemi, hungersnød, socialt kaos og jacobinisme (efter den jacobinske terror under Den franske Revolution –red.), og den tydelige forøgede krigstrussel blandt atommagterne. Han foreslår, at lederne af disse supermagter nu mødes, med en dagsorden for global økonomisk genrejsning og en global tilrettelagt offensiv mod pandemi, i særdeleshed nu i udviklingslandene. Og, med en forståelse af hvad menneskehedens egentlige historie – ikke politiske partier – kræver af dem.

Vi tilføjer: Udelad Londons imperialister, hvis man ønsker at diskutere enten økonomisk udvikling af underudviklede nationer, at redde liv fra sygdom, eller at undgå krig – de er de værste i alle disse tilfælde. Endnu bedre ville være det firemagts-topmøde, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche opfordrer til – med ledere fra mindst USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – for at igangsætte et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem.

 

Den 19. juni (EIRNS) – Som Præsident Putin lovede sidste år, har Rusland offentliggjort alle Sovjetunionens dokumenter i forbindelse med 2. verdenskrig, og han har præsenteret sin egen analyse af årsagerne bag denne skrækindjagende katastrofe for menneskeheden, med sin egen opfordring til øjeblikkelige tiltag i dag for at forhindre den nuværende krise fra at ende i en lignende katastrofe – hvilket, i atomvåbnenes tidsalder, kunne gøre en ende på vores civilisation, som vi kender den. Hans essay, ”Den egentlige lære fra 75-årsdagen for 2. verdenskrig”, blev udgivet på engelsk i torsdags i det amerikanske tidsskrift The National Interest, lige inden paraden på Den røde Plads, som mindes 75-årsdagen for sejren i Europa den 24. juni.

Præsident Putin blev delvist drevet til at tage disse skridt af genoplivningen af utilslørede fascistiske organisationer i Europa – specielt de voldelige ”Maidan-revolutionærer”, som styrtede Ukraines valgte regering i 2014 (med skamløs støtte fra George Soros og USA’s Obama-administration), som åbent udstillede deres hagekors og bar portrætter af Hitlers kumpan, Stepan Bandera. Sammen med denne fascistiske genoplivning i Ukraine og andre østeuropæiske stater, fulgte et forsøg på at omskrive historien om krigen mod fascismen og nazisterne, af dem i Polen og andre steder, som hævdede, at krigen blev startet af både Tyskland og Sovjetunionen, gennem opdelingen af Polen i 1939. München-aftalen i 1938, da Storbritanniens Lord Chamberlain gav sin velsignelse til nazisternes overtagelse af Sudeterland, der viste, at ingen anti-nazistisk koalition ville blive skabt, ignoreres af sådanne revisionister, samtidig med at nogle folk i Vesten går så langt som at postulere, at USA og Storbritannien alene besejrede Hitler, og ignorerer de 27 millioner mennesker fra Sovjetunionen, der omkom på østfronten.

Putin skriver: ”Skylden for den tragedie, som Polen dengang led under, ligger helt og holdent ved det polske lederskab, der havde hindret en alliance mellem Storbritannien, Frankrig og Sovjetunionen, og sat sin lid til sine vestlige partnere, og smed dermed sin egen befolkning ind under Hitlers frembrusende ødelæggelsesmaskine. Sovjetunion gjorde alt i sin magt for at bruge enhver chance på at skabe en anti-Hitler-koalition. På trods af – lad mig sige det igen – dobbeltmoralen fra vores vestlige allierede.”

Putins bekymring er, at der er tegn på at verden kunne rode sig ind i krig endnu engang. ”Skabelsen af det moderne system for internationale relationer er et af de vigtige udfald af 2. verdenskrig. Selv de mest uoverkommelige uoverensstemmelser – geopolitiske, ideologiske, økonomiske – forhindrer os ikke i at finde former for fredelig sameksistens og interaktion, hvis ønsket og viljen er til stede.

I dag går verden igennem en temmelig turbulent tid. Alting forandrer sig, fra den globale magtbalance og indflydelse til samfunds, nationers og selv kontinenters sociale, økonomiske og teknologiske fundament. I de tidligere epoker har forandringer af denne størrelsesorden næsten aldrig fundet sted uden militære konflikter. Uden en magtkamp om at bygge et nyt globalt hierarki. Takket være de Allierede lederes visdom og fremsynethed var det muligt at skabe et system, som har afholdt sig fra ekstreme manifesteringer af sådan objektiv kappestrid, historisk iboende i verdens udvikling.

”Det er vores pligt – alle dem som tager politisk ansvar, og hovedsageligt repræsentanterne for de sejrende magter i 2. verdenskrig – at garantere, at dette system bliver opretholdt og forbedret. I dag, som i 1945, er det vigtigt at vise den politiske vilje og diskutere fremtiden sammen. Vore kolleger – hr. Xi Jinping, hr. Macron, hr. Trump og hr. Johnson – støttede det russiske initiativ til at afholde et møde mellem lederne af de fem atombevæbnede stater, de permanente medlemmer af Sikkerhedsrådet. Vi takker dem for dette og håber, at sådanne møder, ansigt-til-ansigt, kan finde sted snarligst muligt.

Hvad er vores vision for dagsordenen på dette kommende topmøde? Først og fremmest ville det, i vores mening, være gavnligt at diskutere tiltag for at udvikle kollektive principper i verdens affærer. At tale ærligt om spørgsmål angående bevarelsen af fred, styrkelsen af global og regional sikkerhed, strategisk våbenkontrol, såvel som anstrengelser for at imødegå terrorisme, ekstremisme og andre store udfordringer og trusler.

Et særligt punkt på mødets dagsorden er situationen omkring den globale økonomi. Og over alt andet står det at overvinde den økonomiske krise forårsaget af corona-pandemien. Vore lande træffer uhørte foranstaltninger for at beskytte folks helbred og liv, og for at støtte borgere der har befundet sig i svære livssituationer. Vores evne til at arbejde sammen i fællesskab, som ægte partnere, vil vise hvor dybe pandemiens spor vil blive, og hvor hurtigt den globale økonomi vil genrejses fra recessionen.”

Det er værd at bide mærke i, at et sådant møde mellem P5-lederne ingen konkret dato har endnu. Hvad end forskellene er, som findes mellem disse nationer, kan en sådan dialog meget vel bestemme vores civilisations skæbne. Schiller Instituttet, der i kølvandet på finanskrisen i 2008 har mobiliseret for Lyndon LaRouches appel for at verdens største magter skulle mødes, herunder især Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA, afholder en international konference den 27. juni, kl. 16:00, dansk tid, netop fokuseret på at indkalde til et sådant topmøde. Vi opfordrer alle, fra enhver nation, til at deltage.

 

Hér kan man registrere sig.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Den 27. april (EIRNS) – Efter det vestlige finanssystems sammenbrud i 2008, præsenterede Lyndon LaRouche de nødforanstaltninger, påkrævede for at gøre en ende på den britisk imperiale finanspolitik, som skabte boblen til at begynde med, men advarede om at kun en kombination af verdens fire største nationer – Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA – i et fælles samarbejde kunne skabe den nye finansielle arkitektur, der kunne erstatte det bankerotte, monetære system, centreret i City of London og Wall Street. Disse forslag blev afvist til fordel for massive redningsaktioner af ”too big to fail”-bankerne, som forårsagede skabelsen af en boble dobbelt så stor i dag – omtrent 2 billiarder $, for det meste af værdiløs derivat-spillegæld. Denne idioti blev forenet med indførelsen af ondskabsfulde nedskæringer i de transatlantiske nationer samt i udviklingssektoren i Afrika og Sydamerika.

I denne sidste weekend afholdt Schiller Instituttet en todages konference med titlen ”Menneskehedens Eksistens afhænger nu af Skabelsen af et Nyt Paradigme!” Over 2500 personer skønnes at have deltaget i konferencen over internettet gennem de to dage, fra over 55 lande fra Europa, Asien, Afrika, og Amerika. Mandag eftermiddag var det samlede antal seere af det første panel på YouTube allerede oppe på 5300. Blandt de mere end 40 talere, blev hovedtalerne givet af grundlæggeren af Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, den første permanente stedfortrædende repræsentant for den Russiske Føderation til FN og af Folkerepublikken Kinas generalkonsul i New York. Kombinationen af disse taler demonstrerede både muligheden, og den presserende nødvendighed, for at ”Østen” og ”Vesten” kan arbejde sammen for at gøre en ende på den imperiale opdeling af verden i stridende blokke, og for at takle de eksistentielle trusler som nu konfronterer menneskeheden, både i form af coronavirusset og i form af finanskatastrofen udløst af pandemien.

Over 200 spørgsmål blev indsendt i løbet af konferencen, fra flere afrikanske og sydamerikanske ambassadører, fra landmænd, fra politikere, og fra patrioter og borgere rundt om i verden. Talerne blev oversat til adskillige sprog.

Det fungerede, fordi konferencen demonstrerede en anderledes måde at tænke på, i modsætning til den geopolitiske nul-sums-tænknings atomiserede, usammenhængende strukturer, påduttet af imperiets medier og korrupte uddannelsesinstitutioner. I stedet blev de fire paneler – om strategi, videnskab, klassisk kultur og fysisk økonomi – præsenteret som en ”Enhed”, på den måde som var tilsigtet af de tænkere, hvis idéer skabte historiens største nationer – Platon, Konfutse, Nicolaus Cusanus og Gottfried Leibniz, som alle indså at ”Enheden” er større end summen af de enkelte dele.

Verden vil aldrig blive den samme efter COVID-19-pandemien. ”Årsagen” til pandemien kan ikke skjules bag ”Kina-Kina-Kina”-hysteriet (en genafspilning af den forfejlede ”Rusland-Rusland-Rusland”-kampagne, som forsøgte at fjerne Donald Trump fra embedet, og sabotere hans forsøg på at etablere venskabelige relationer med Rusland og Kina). Årsagen var ikke et land eller en person, men ødelæggelsen af det Amerikanske System efter mordet på John Kennedy, og de 50 års nedskæringer, som ødelagde både Vestens og udviklingssektorens infrastruktur og industrier – og specielt nedlæggelsen af de offentlige sundhedsvæsener, for at maksimere profitten for de Wall Street-firmaer, der kontrollerede de private sygehusselskaber.

Men verden blev også forandret for altid af denne historiske Schiller Institut-konference. En ”bestemt tone” har lydt, i dette Beethoven-år, og den tone genlyder internationalt, resonerer med den Nye Silkevej og med den nødvendige fremkomst af en Ny Bretton Woods-konference, ledt af Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi og Donald Trump, og andre velmenende ledere, for at erstatte imperiets og de geopolitiske kriges afdankede idéer én gang for alle, og etablere et nyt retfærdigt kreditsystem, dedikeret til at give hvert barn på denne Jord en mulighed for at udvikle hendes eller hans iboende kreative potentiale til fulde.

Vi opfordrer alle, som læser denne rapport, til at blive medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet, og til at købe det første bind (af dusinvis, hvis ikke hundredvis, af kommende bind) af Lyndon LaRouches Samlede Værker, udgivet denne uge af Stiftelsen for LaRouches Eftermæle.

 

Talere på panel 2: Jason Ross, ordstyrer, LaRouches videnskabelige Team; Megan Beets, LaRouches videnskabelige Team; Ben Denniston, LaRouches videnskabelige Team; Jean-Pierre Luminet, ph.d., astrofysiker, forsker emeritus ved National Center for Scientific Research; Michel Tognini, astronaut, Association of Space Explorers, stiftende medlem; Walt Cunningham, Apollo Astronaut; Marie Korsaga, ph.d., astrofysiker, Burkina Faso; senator Joe Pennacchio, New Jersey State, sponsor af Fusion Energy Resolutionen; Will Happer, ph.d., professor emeritus i fysik, Princeton University; Guangxi Li, M.D., ph.d., Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing

 

Videoarkiv af Panel 2, se https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQlZ-2CcXiY.

Panel 2 i Schiller Instituttets historiske konferences bar titlen: “For en bedre forståelse af hvordan vores univers fungerer”. Det var en vidtrækkende international drøftelse om anvendelse af menneskelig kreativitet, videnskab og teknologi til forbedring af menneskehedens vilkår gennem samarbejde mellem nationer. Ordstyrer Jason Ross åbnede med at sige, at spørgsmålet om at skabe et globalt sundhedssystem, som grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har opfordret til, burde overvejes mere bredt som en del af et strategisk forsvar for menneskeslægten. Ross optrådte sammen med sine kolleger fra LaRouche PAC’s Videnskabelige Team, Megan Beets og Benjamin Deniston, der uddybede Lyndon LaRouches perspektiv for, hvordan man udfører denne målsætning.

Deniston henviste til det russiske forslag fra 2011 om et ‘strategisk forsvar af jorden’ (SDJ), hvilket var en åbenlys reference til det forslag, som præsident Ronald Reagan fremsatte i 1983, kaldet Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Lyndon LaRouche er kendt for at være ophavsmanden til denne Reagan-politik og for at have foretaget ‘bagdørsforhandlinger’ med Sovjetunionen for at opnå en aftale. Men andre mennesker kæmpede også for deres egen version af SDI – ofte for at undergrave LaRouches forslag. Deniston definerede LaRouches SDI som et videnskabs-drivende program, ligesom John F. Kennedys Apollo-projekt, der skulle hjælpe med at udvikle begge nationers svigtende økonomier, og, i processen med samarbejdet at afslutte den geopolitiske kløft, der blev påtvunget af den britiske ‘del og hersk’-operation. Denne reference til betydningen af internationalt samarbejde og at skubbe grænserne for menneskelig viden blev et kritisk tema for panelet. Et videoklip præsenterede Lyndon LaRouches egen beskrivelse af konceptet.

Megan Beets udviklede, hvordan SDJ-konceptet ville involvere aspekter af rummets indflydelse på vejret og klima samt et forsvar imod store soludbrud og solpletter. Beets og Deniston tog også andre spørgsmål vedrørende asteroide- og kometforsvar op, langvarige cyklusser i solsystemet og galakserne og hvordan disse spiller ind på arters uddøen, samt hvordan det kan spille ind på livscyklussen af vira. Ross påpegede endvidere, at dette at tolerere at blive holdt som gidsel af et virus eller af en fejlslagen økonomisk politik virkelig er et spørgsmål om tragedie – at undlade at befri os for fejlslagne aksiomer.

Jean-Pierre Luminet, Ph.d., astrofysiker og forsker emeritus ved Frankrigs Nationale Center for Videnskabelig Forskning, tog spørgsmålet om videnskabelig tænkning op i sin præsentation: “Frie Opfindelsers Rolle i kreativ Opdagelse.” Luminet leverede sit syn på videnskabens udvikling fra oldtiden til Kepler, Einstein og moderne teorier, men understregede, at gennembrud mere var beslægtet med kunstneriske udtryk.

Luminet blev efterfulgt af to tidligere astronauter, Michel Tognini og Walt Cunningham. Tognini er brigadegeneral i det franske luftvåben, og tidligere astronaut hos både CNES og ESA, og kan tælle tilsammen 19 dage i rummet på den internationale rumstation, ombord på både Columbia og Soyuz. Tognini er et stiftende medlem af Association of Space Explorers (Selskabet af Rumforskere, red.), der har medlemmer fra 38 lande, og han redegjorde for nogle af sine oplevelser i sin præsentation: “Venskab mellem astronauter: en eksemplarisk præcedens for internationalt samarbejde.” Tognini blev fulgt af den tidligere NASA-astronaut Walt Cunningham, der fløj på Apollo 7-missionen. Cunningham beskrev, hvordan han på radioen lyttede til opsendelsen af Alan Shepard, og efter at have kørt ind til siden for at høre nedtællingen, udbrød “Lucky S.O.B.!” (‘lucky son of a bitch’, eller ‘heldige kartoffel’, red.) 18 måneder senere delte han kontor med Shepard.

Astrofysiker Dr. Marie Korsaga fra Burkina Faso behandlede spørgsmålet om ”Nødvendigheden af videnskabsuddannelse for afrikansk ungdom”. Hun beskrev det faktum, at 40 % af Afrikas befolkning er under 15 år, hvilket vil være eksplosivt i de kommende år – godt eller dårligt, afhængigt af om denne ’skat’ opdyrkes med uddannelse og økonomisk udvikling. Hun delte også sine refleksioner vedrørende kvinder inden for videnskab i Afrika, hvor hun desværre er en af få.

Senator fra New Jersey (2008 – nu), Joe Pennacchio, gentog Korsagas appel om en fremtid for ungdommen i sin præsentation: “Making Nuclear Fusion a Reality” (Gør fusionsenergi til virkelighed). Pennacchio er ophavsmand til et lovforslag i New Jersey, der kræver udvikling af fusionskraft. Han sagde, at han kæmper for fusionskraft for de kommende generationer.

Will Happer, professor emeritus i fysik ved Princeton University, som også har tjent i præsident Trumps nationale sikkerhedsråd, gav sine indsigter vedrørende kampen om klimaforandringer, og beskrev den som en “kultreligion”, eftersom dens tilhængere endog nægter at debattere det. Happer beskrev, hvordan mange videnskabelige opdagelser er sket gennem ”uheld”, idet forskere har fundet, at deres eksperimenter ikke gav de forventede resultater, hvilket tvang dem til at komme med et højere ordens begreb om universets love for at forklare det uventede resultat. Dette fremprovokerede en hel del diskussion under den livlige spørgerunde.

Dr. Kildare Clarke, en læge fra New York, delte sin indsigt i implikationerne af afviklingen af det offentlige sundhedssystem i USA gennem privatisering. Dr. Clarke har i årtier arbejdet med LaRouche-bevægelsen om dette spørgsmål, der går tilbage til den af LaRouche ledede kamp for at redde D.C. General Hospital fra lukning i 1990’erne.

Clarke blev efterfulgt af Guangxi Li, M.D., ph.d. fra det kinesiske akademi for medicinske videnskaber i Beijing og ved Mayo-Klinikken. Li præsenterede sin succes med at bruge traditionel kinesisk urtemedicin i behandlingen af COVID-19 i tidlige stadier, som han beskrev som anderledes end andre virale lungebetændelser.

Det historiske panel afsluttedes med en spørgerunde, der berørte spørgsmål op om vigtigheden af, at internationalt samarbejde skaber muligheder for unge til at deltage i videnskabelige gennembrud og gøre en ende på de mislykkede aksiomer, der har bragt os til kanten af denne faktiske mørke tidsalder.

 

Panel 2: For a Better Understanding of How Our Universe Functions Saturday, April 25, 2002 With Jason Ross, Megan Beets, and Ben Deniston

[incomplete transcript] JASON ROSS: Hello! Welcome back to this Schiller Institute International Conference. This is Panel 2 in the afternoon on Saturday. If you’re watching this on YouTube, you can find a link to the conference webpage in the video description. My name is Jason Ross, and I am a many-year collaborator with Lyndon LaRouche and the lead co-author on the Schiller Institute’s recent draft program on addressing the COVID-19 pandemic entitled, “LaRouche’s Apollo Mission to Defeat the Global Pandemic; Build a World Health System Now!” This panel will be a real treat. We are going to bringing together astronauts, astrophysicists, and other top scientists, as well as a physician, to gain a deeper insight into the role of science in the advancement of the human species and a deeper idea about the essence of what science itself actually is. After the presentations, and perhaps during them, there will be time for discussion. You can participate in that discussion. You can do so by sending your questions or brief thoughts to us at questions@schillerinstitute.org. We will definitely not be able to address every question that comes our way. We have received 50 or so, so far this morning. Apologies is we are not able to get to your question. We will be forwarding them to speakers afterwards so that they can respond if they’d like to. If your question is directed towards a particular one of the panelists, please indicate that in your question. We will begin with a discussion of the global health system that Helga Zepp-LaRouche had brought up in her keynote, considered from the broadest possible perspective — the strategic defense of the human species. The speakers for this first presentation will be Ben Deniston, Megan Beets, and myself. We’re also seeing Michele Tognini, who will be speaking after that. Ben, Megan, and I titled our talk “In Defense of the Human Species”. At present, the planet is being plagued by a tiny piece of RNA — just 30,000 base pairs long — that’s causing pandemonium, keeping us hostage in our homes. Just this tiny bit of RNA in a drop of oil with some protein sticking out. With all of the uncertainty that there has been around this disease — about how to treat it, how to prevent it, what measures are appropriate, what measures aren’t, controversy about masks. There’s a lot of ideas going around that aren’t correct, and we’ll discover that in due time. But, let’s talk about not just the missed opportunities to prevent this disease in particular, but what about the missed opportunities not to more quickly start producing masks, but what have we done over the past decades that has left us susceptible to a world in which we are held hostage by a virus? Over 50 years ago, human beings left the Earth and set foot on the Moon; forever expanding the horizon of the possible. Seventy-five years ago, the atom yielded to scientific thought, offering a bounty of energy many orders of magnitude greater than what could be provided by molecular or chemical means, such as coal, oil, gas. And definitely beyond what can be provided by physical means such as windmills or waterwheels. Over 100 years ago, human minds became aware of the existence of a new astonishing world of quantum phenomena, and began to forge ideas to comprehend and make use of this domain, as well as the realization that what we thought were space and time, energy and matter, were not distinct categories, but had a connection between them that was previously unknown. Over 400 years ago, Johannes Kepler created modern physical science through his faith in the power of human ideas to comprehend the causes of nature. Stepping beyond appearances, he hypothesized for the first time what made the planets move. So, how could such a species be held hostage by a virus? For that, we have to examine not the great successes of science, including those just mentioned, but the failures of science and of culture more generally that have allowed us to be prey to false and ugly axioms of thought that have plagued us for millennia. The most crucial concepts we have as human beings are those respecting our humanity; what we are as a human species. What we are capable of, and what our relationship to nature is. Consider two contrasting outlooks of the human species. On the one side, there is the view that the human mind is made in the image of God, and therefore coheres with creation in such a way that our ideas have the power of physical forces to unlock ever-improving knowledge of the world around us. Or, the idea that the human mind does not really exist. Free will is a delusion, as our brains — being biochemical in nature — are governed by the laws of physics; which we will one day be able to explain, at least in potential. We’ll be able to explain our thoughts and decisions. Human thought can be replicated by a mechanical system; true artificial intelligence is possible. One view says that human beings are a remarkable species. Unlike any other form of life, we can improve our living from generation to generation; increasing in number and in quality. We can improve nature beyond the state that it happens to have at the present. On the other view, some people say that humanity is a horrible species. That what sets us apart from all other life is that we destroy ecosystems, drive species to extinction, and destroy the planet with our excessive numbers. We must end growth and return to nature, according to these people. One view holds that we create resources by the power of our minds. Whereby uranium, which was just a rock, becomes a useful fuel by the fact that we have learned how to unlock its atomic, nuclear potential. On the other side is the view that we are consumers of resources. That we gorge ourselves in a relentless pursuit of material comfort. One view is that humanity is the most beautiful species. That the world needs more people. The other view is that humanity is the worst species, and that the world should have fewer people. Most of us have varieties of both types of these thoughts echoing in our minds to some degree. Lyndon LaRouche and the Schiller Institute maintain the first outlook of growing creativity and beauty, of growing humanity. That this is true in science, in culture, and in art. Recognizing the conflict between these two paradigms, Lyndon LaRouche saw the coronavirus coming. Not in its particulars, but as a potential. And he said what to do about it. The Schiller Institute saw this coming in potential, and we said what to do about it. Today, we have the coronavirus on our minds, but we are susceptible every day to a variety of horrors against which we and the Earth have no current defense. Other viruses, the dangerous drawdown of ground water, a comet striking our planet, the Sun throwing off a coronal mass ejection and destroying half of our planet’s power grid. Or even the seemingly simple task in some of the developed countries of having clean water and proper sanitation for the over 2 billion of our fellow human beings who lack reliable access to improved water and sanitation. Or insects; consider the plague of locusts currently spreading. In the immediate sense, we need a global health system; a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But we need much more. We must go beyond a group of medical experts with a few technicians that can be sent around the world. We need the resources, the commitment, and the intention to ensure that around the world, we have the global economic infrastructure required for a robust health infrastructure. Talking about handwashing where there is no running water is a cruel joke. Telling people to stay at home when they rely on their daily work to pay for their daily bread; this simply doesn’t function. How do we address the fact that the world is in this condition? We have put forward a preliminary proposal on how to do this. It is posted on the Schiller Institute site, and you can find it by searching for its title — LaRouche’s Apollo Mission to Defeat the Global Pandemic: Build a World Health System Now! But, let’s now seem to leave behind our worldly cares. Let’s reflect on our fundamental beliefs about the human species, and let’s do it from the standpoint of the heavens; full both of promise and of peril. Let’s look down on ourselves from that standpoint to get the broadest sense of what would be a strategic defense of the Earth, a strategic defense of the human species.

BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Jason. The term “Strategic Defense of Earth” specifically was first floated in the Russian press in 2011, for people who are not familiar with it. It was absolutely a direct reference to the Strategic Defense Initiative, the SDI, which was the Reagan-era proposal for a joint missile defense system between the US and the USSR to end the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction [MAD]. For many people around the world, Lyndon LaRouche is perhaps most famously known for his leading role in promoting his notion of the SDI. Also, his key position as a back channel between the US and Soviet governments at the time. However, while that is somewhat known, and Mr. LaRouche is somewhat famous for that, not everyone shared the same idea for how the SDI was supposed to be implemented. It is critical for us to emphasize Mr. LaRouche’s unique conception for his SDI program, and illustrate how this core principle is as valid today with the Strategic Defense of Earth, as it was in the 1980s. This policy is derived from a scientific principle, a scientific assessment expressing the current stage of the long-term development of the human species. Mr. LaRouche’s SDI program was not merely about defensive systems to prevent thermonuclear war. It was also about establishing the necessary political and economic policies to ensure lasting stable peace; to ensure durable survival generations into the future. There’s probably nothing better than to let Mr. LaRouche state this in his own words. We have a brief clip from an address Mr. LaRouche in September 2000 — 20 years ago now — to a Schiller Institute conference.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:

This is the policy which became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. Now, the important thing is to understand what the original SDI was. Contrary to the idiocy which you hear in the press today about missile defense–what you hear in the press is idiocy, by people who are worse than idiots; they don’t know anything about missile defense…. I said, what we have to do is something completely different. We do have the ability to devise systems, new kinds of physical systems, which could deal effectively with thermonuclear missiles — that is, render them effectively, technologically obsolete, down the line. But that was not the extent of my proposal. The proposal was that, instead of having the Soviet Union and the United States engage in this crazy chicken game, called SALT I and ABM, why don’t we find a way out of the conflict itself? How? Because the Soviet economy, like the U.S. economy, is collapsing. The present policies of the U.S. economy, the present policies of the Soviet economy, ensure a {collapse} of those economies, physical collapse. So, why don’t we change the policy? Why don’t we go back to the space program of Kennedy, and let’s do what we proved with Kennedy? Remember, according to the estimates that were made in the middle of the 1970s, the United States got more than a dime of additional GNP out of every penny the United States invested in the space program, the Kennedy space program. The point is, that since increases in productivity come directly, only, from improvements in technology derived from fundamental scientific discoveries, the higher the rate you convert fundamental physical discoveries into practice, the greater the rate of increase of productivity per capita of population, and per square kilometer of area. The problem of both the Soviet system and our own, although in different degrees, I said at the time, was that the United States was not generating a rate of net growth in physical productivity, sufficient to maintain the economy. Therefore, we needed a program for forced draft, science-driven technological progress, with some mission, like the Moon mission, but as a byproduct of that mission, such as the Moon mission, we would generate spillovers in terms of technological progress, by such a crash, to put the United States economy back on the plus side, in terms of net growth. The Soviet economy does not work for similar reasons, different, but similar reasons. Therefore, if the Soviet Union, with its vast military-scientific technological capability, were to put that capability, in cooperation with us, in global technological progress, and if we focussed upon developing countries — South America, Africa, Asia — to do what Roosevelt proposed be done for these countries, had he not died, then the benefit of such a program would put — two things: would put the two economies back on the plus side, together with Europe; and it would also be a way of creating a global agenda which would solve the conflict problem. Now, that was the SDI, in original form….[end video]

DENISTON: So, obviously today we no longer have a conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, but as we’ve been discussing in this conference, other geopolitical tensions have clearly emerged. LaRouche’s core policy, {his SDI policy} is just as valid and necessary today. As Jason discussed in his opening, mankind has seen tremendous growth over the past few hundred years, and that is a relatively miniscule amount of time compared the history of our planet, our Solar System, the biosphere, our galaxy, and so on; a very short period of time. And only in the past 100 years has mankind entered into a new historical phase, in which the same technological capabilities and scientific discoveries which have brought tremendous growth and tremendous progress, have also created a new historical situation, in which mankind now technologically has the capability to annihilate itself through war and conflict. Mankind can no longer allow, not just full-scale military conflicts among nations as we’ve seen before, but we can no longer tolerate the political and economic preconditions which lead to those conflicts, as Mr. LaRouche outlined. So, an historical change is needed, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has led the discussion in raising the need for a shift to a New Paradigm, as she has defined it. But, this relatively new historical period mankind finds himself in, defined by this new capability, comes with another more profound aspect. What do we really know about life on this planet, in our galaxy, and in this universe? We can know one thing for certain, the vast majority of all species of animal life that have existed on this planet, are no longer here. Estimates are that over 99% of all species of animal life that have emerged on this planet in our evolutionary record, have gone extinct — over 5 billion species, gone. Interestingly, we have evidence that this extinction process, this evolutionary process is not simply a planetary process, or even Solar System process, but somehow involves our Galaxy as well. 500 million years of records of species origination and extinction exhibit a cyclical pattern that matches our periodic changing relation to our Galaxy. There are very interesting studies pointing at this, indicating that the evolution of life on Earth is somehow also expressing some galactic influence, or is expressing some form of galactic process. This extinction principle is an undeniable fact of the evolutionary development of the biosphere. Under that principle alone, with no other intervening factors, you can guarantee that all existing species of animal life on the planet today are also going to go extinct at some point in the future, as the evolutionary process continues. There’s only one scientific exception that we know of, one distinction, one form of life that expresses anything distinct from and transcending this principle of the biosphere. That is the existence of mankind, uniquely expressing a distinct power of creativity, as Lyndon LaRouche has uniquely defined a scientific understanding of human creativity. This is not seen in any form of animal life. The same science and technologies which give us the ability to destroy ourselves in conflict — the potential to wipe out our entire species on this planet — also provides the ability for mankind to be the only species on this planet which transcends and moves beyond the limits of the biosphere; which defeats the extinction principle. As Mr. LaRouche used to often say, mankind is the only potentially immortal species, if he chooses to fulfill that destiny. So, in the spirit of LaRouche’s SDI, years later, decades later, we are discussing the evolution of that same core policy, now in the form of the Strategic Defensive Earth. A policy to erode the economic and political causes underlying conflict through joint science-driver and technology sharing programs focussed on addressing the common threats facing all mankind. So, just as the SDI was designed to unite the leading powers of the planet against the common threats of thermonuclear missiles, the Strategic Defense of the Earth is intended to unite mankind against the common threats which all inhabitants of this planet inherently face: from space weather, to asteroid strikes; from cosmic climate change, to comet impacts; from pandemics, to catastrophic earthquakes and volcanism, mankind is unavoidably united in dealing with the dangers inherent to living on this small planet, subject to the influences of our Solar System, and Galaxy beyond.

MEGAN BEETS: I’d like to pick up from here, and I’d like to begin by talking for a little bit about the weather. We tend to think of the weather — including dangerous extreme weather events — as a local phenomenon. If we’re a bit more astute, we realize it is actually a planetary phenomenon, with weather events on one part of the globe affecting those on another. In reality, there is nothing local or even merely planetary about the weather. Our Earth and the other planets in the solar system swim in an environment created by the Sun. One feature of that environment is the solar wind, which is a constant flux of charged particles streaming out from the Sun, which creates the interplanetary magnetic field, and modulates Earth’s magnetic field. Why is this important? Because the Sun is a dynamic body; it is changing! And we are mere babies in our understanding of it. For example: Approximately every eleven years, the Sun goes through a cycle of increasing and decreasing activity, during which time the polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field completely flips. We track the solar cycle by the number and polarity of sunspots, which if we pull up the first slide [Fig. 1], you can see as the dark areas on the Sun’s surface, which are sites of intense magnetic activity. Here [Fig. 2], you see a chart of the number of sunspots over time going back to the early 1600s when they were first observed, showing a clear 11-year cycle of maximum and minimum. However, not every solar cycle is the same, and there are longer-period cycles of very low lows, called Grand Minima, in which almost no sunspots appear for a prolonged period, and very high highs, periods of Grand Maxima. What I want to talk about here for a moment is, I want to talk about the periods of solar maximum, when the Sun is its most active. Two space weather phenomena that occur as part of this intense activity of the Sun are solar flares and coronal mass ejections. If we go to the next slide [Fig. 3], we see on the left here, an image of a solar flare from NASA’s SDO satellite; and on the right, you see a coronal mass ejection. Solar flares are intense flashes of energy occurring on the Sun’s surface which release bursts of electromagnetic radiation. Coronal mass ejections, or CMEs, are often associated with solar flares, and as opposed to the flares, they fling large clouds of plasma, charged particles, out into space; some of which are directed at the Earth. While the energy from flares can disrupt radio communications on and near the Earth, CMEs are something much more dangerous. When a CME strikes Earth, it can induce an oscillation in the Earth’s magnetic field, causing a geomagnetic storm. These storms can be mild, and they create the auroras, which are lovely. But, they can also be severe. And if they’re severe, they have the potential to induce currents in electrical infrastructure. They can blow out transformers, causing black-outs in the electrical grid of an entire hemisphere of the Earth which receives the CME strike. With our current capabilities, we would not have the ability to repair that for several months, or possibly {years}. In 1859, a large CME struck the Earth, called the Carrington Event, with there were reports of auroras visible near the equator. There were reports of telegraph systems catching on fire, blowing out, glowing with induced current even though they weren’t hooked up. If a CME of that magnitude struck the Earth today, we could expect sweeping and long-lasting black-outs for which we are not prepared. Another effect of CMEs is a phenomenon called Forbush decreases. This is when intense magnetic activity from the Sun temporarily blocks the normal influx of cosmic rays from the galaxy. If we look at the slide [Fig. 4] here, we see two sudden drops in cosmic ray flux, labelled there as the Forbush decreases, as the result of two geomagnetic storms which you see in the red there on the top. These occurred in March 2011. Initial studies that were done, indicate that the resulting change in ionization of the atmosphere and the change in associated latent heat release can, in turn, increase the temperature differential with the ground. This can affect convection currents and potentially increase and intensify cyclones. This is believed to have happened in the case with Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The phenomenon of the atmospheric ionization caused by increased galactic cosmic ray flux has been studied and demonstrated to create an increase in cloud cover on the Earth. The galaxy increasing and modulating cloud cover on the Earth. This is a major factor in cycles of global temperature. In fact, there is a very interesting correlation between the 140 million-year cycle of our solar system’s transit in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, which are regions of relatively high cosmic ray flux. There is a correlation between that cycle and the long-term cycles of warming and cooling of the planet, which you see in the slide [Fig. 5] here indicated as the icehouse Earth periods. Not only is the Sun acting to control our planet’s weather, but now we have to ask the question, what is, in turn, modulating the activity of our Sun? What is occurring in the galactic environment in which our Sun swims?

DENISTON: So, following on that thread of these unique threats that all inhabitants of this planet face, another existential threat, for which we currently have no protection, is the inevitability of future asteroid and comet impacts with the Earth. Much of the world was given a rather rude and surprising awakening to this reality in 2013. I think many of you have probably seen this footage and remember it, with the surprise explosion of a very small asteroid in the atmosphere above Chelyabinsk, Russia. No one knew this small asteroid was on a collision course with the Earth prior to its impact, because we’ve only been able to locate and track a relatively small percentage of the asteroids in the inner Solar System environment. Significant efforts have been made to track most of the larger asteroids, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of unidentified, untracked, medium- and smaller-sized asteroids that are out there by all current estimates. These are asteroids larger than the one that exploded over Russia which we just saw, which could devastate an area on the smaller end of the size of a city, or in the more medium range, up to the size of a nation or a continent. Furthermore, even if we found an asteroid which was on an impact trajectory with the Earth; say it was going to impact a few years from now, and we knew it was coming. We have no defense systems, we have no demonstrated capability to divert such a threatening object and ensure the defense of the Earth from that collision. A related threat also comes from long-period comets, which are distinct from asteroids because they spend the vast majority of their time not in the inner Solar System, but in the farthest outreaches of the outer Solar System, far beyond our detection capabilities. Although long-period comets are significantly less frequent, they’re generally much larger and far more difficult to detect, and extremely challenging to divert. We’ll just play an animation briefly of one example of this. This is data from an actual event that occurred in 1996. This comet was discovered less than two years before making a close pass by the Earth. If that had been on an impact trajectory, there is nothing we could have done. That could have been an extinction event right there. Just an example of how difficult these challenges can be from comets. While most of the potential threats posed from near-Earth asteroids are thought to be limited to local to continental scale effects, an impact with a long-period comet would likely be a global extinction event; threatening the entire existence of humanity on this planet. In line with this Strategic Defense Initiative perspective, efforts can be taken to build up mankind’s defensive capabilities against these threats, taking us directly back to LaRouche’s SDI principle. The same joint science-driver programs to expand mankind’s capabilities in space generally, for the defense of the Earth, are the same programs that can generate the economic and political growth on this planet needed to erode and address the underlying causes of conflict and warfare, as Mr. LaRouche discussed. As Mr. LaRouche stated in his 1984 LaRouche doctrine, which Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche had quoted from earlier in her keynote address today, the most important program, LaRouche says in that document, is a multi-generational Moon and Mars colonization project, driven by fusion technologies. While at the same time expanding technology sharing and capital goods export policies throughout the less developed regions of the planet. Again, ensuring the preconditions for durable peace and durable survival are met, and the causes underlying future conflicts are removed before those conflicts can arise. Again, this Strategic Defense of Earth perspective forces us to see our common place in our Solar System, within our Galaxy, and locate our actions on this relatively small planet from that perspective.

BEETS: To continue that line of thought, I’d like to read a quote from Vladimir Vernadsky, who was a Russian bio-geo-chemist. In the opening section of his 1927 writing, {The Biosphere}, he says, “The history of the biosphere is … sharply distinguished from that of the rest of the planet, and the role it plays in the planetary mechanism is quite exceptional. It is as much, or even more, the creation of the Sun as it is a manifestation of terrestrial processes.” One area of study I’d like to raise that could give us unique insight into the role of extraterrestrial factors in shaping the biosphere and the evolution of life on Earth is viruses. Viruses are a relatively new object of study for humanity, not discovered until the end of the 19th Century, and not imaged until the 1930s with the invention of the electron microscope. However, since that time, what has become undeniable is that viruses are inseparable from life. They are pervasive throughout the biosphere and are known to infect every type of organism. To give a quick sense of the ubiquity of viruses on the planet: there are millions of virus particles in a single teaspoon of seawater. Billions of viruses float in the air currents high above your head in the atmosphere. Even inside the human body, just has we have a microbiome of trillions of bacteria living inside us, we and other living things also have a virome with likely trillions of little viruses living inside us as a regular part of our organism; some of which are an essential part of our immune system. Viruses also play an important role in a phenomenon called horizontal gene transfer. We normally think of gene transfer as happening from parent to offspring. Horizontal gene transfer transfers genetic material from one organism to another unrelated organism, and it’s incorporated into the genome of that next organism. This has been known for some time to occur regularly in single-celled organisms — bacteria and so forth. But studies in the past decades have shown this to have occurred between many types of much more complicated organisms, including fungi, plants, and animals. While specific figures on this are still being debated, some suggest that upwards of 100 genes in the human genome were transferred there at some point long ago by viruses. Some of these genes are very important ones dealing with metabolism, reproduction, and immune system response. This idea completely disrupts the typical textbook view of the “tree of life” with its separate, parallel branches. And posits a notion of evolution which is much more interconnected and complex. So, now I’d like to take up that idea and look at it in the context of the solar system and the galaxy. First is some very interesting research that was begun and presented in the 1980s by Dr. Robert Hope-Simpson among others, on the seasonal pandemics of influenza A, which, like many other seasonal phenomena that we’re all familiar with, which are connected with Solar radiation, breaks out somewhat simultaneously in the winter in the Northern Hemisphere, migrates across the tropics to the Southern Hemisphere for their winter, and then returns the following winter to the Northern Hemisphere. One element that interested researchers was the rhythm of outbreak of new strains of influenza, which, if we look back over the 20th Century, shows an interesting, even if not perfect, correlation with the eleven-year Solar cycle, as we see on the slide here [Fig. 6]. Here you see pandemics from the 1940s to the 1970s, mapped on top of the cycles of solar activity. If we look back over a longer period of time, 300 years, we see the possible fingerprint of a larger process [Fig. 7], perhaps a galactic driver. Not only do pandemics tend to occur more frequently during periods of solar maximum, but as you see here, indicated by the peaks of the blue curve, they tend to cluster around periods when solar maxima are more intense. We also have the anomalous years of pandemic during solar minimum. Studies were done which showed a very interesting fact, which is that these years were also years during which the Earth received a higher influx of cosmic radiation from galactic sources, due to — among other causes — bright supernovae. But a question mark left by these researchers was, what is the mechanism? This is unanswered. It is known that viruses can be activated and deactivated by certain frequencies of light. It’s also been observed in many astronauts on the International Space Station, that virus infections that were latent would suddenly become active again. While all of this research is still quite preliminary, and requires further investigation, it is undeniable that the anomalies that I’ve hinted at here point to a higher causality. A modulator of the development of life on Earth which is beyond earthbound chemical reactions. I think that it’s safe to say, having spent only 20 of the past couple millions of years that human beings have been on the planet, just 20 of those years being able to study life outside of the Earth environment, as we have on the ISS, we are mere infants in our understanding of the science of life. In the 1980s, Lyndon LaRouche called for massive investment into research in the field of optical biophysics: electromagnetic radiation as part of the physics of living processes — moving beyond a mere chemical approach to life. This is not an option. As we move civilization more and more off of the planet, off into the Solar System, we are going to be forced to deal with life in the cosmic environment, interacting with galactic processes in a relatively unmediated way. This demands a new and collaborative approach to the science of life.

ROSS: So, to bring a conclusion to these thoughts that we’ve been elaborating, we’re going to return our thinking to the immediate situation, and reflect on just how much work is needed to bring our institutions and our ideas and outlooks into coherence with the perspective that we just heard. For example, how effective is the current idea of the Department of Defense? Can current missiles defend us against asteroids? No. Can bombs save the life of your mother, if she is unable to receive adequate treatment and is dying of COVID-19-induced hypoxia? No. We will develop one or more vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 virus, but what will be the form of a vaccine against asteroids? How can we inoculate ourselves against anti-human, ugly patterns of thought that are both widespread and tragic? How can tragedy be overcome in a durable and ongoing way? Well, Lyndon LaRouche insisted, and Helga very strongly stated in the first panel, that an essential step towards creating a healthy culture on this planet is to achieve of the leaders of the United States, China, Russia, and India, to shape a truly new paradigm of international relations. We do have to work out a global approach to COVID-19, and we have to work out an international system that will go beyond just making sure we have enough ventilators and PPE. But to achieve the economic and cultural development required to completely eliminate poverty — 100% worldwide — and provide for the hygiene, the sanitation, the health and the optimism, and the science of the next chapter of the human experience, the world urgently needs a new paradigm for international collaboration on science, defined by the defense and growth of society, and without the poison of ugly and old ideas. Life sciences research cannot rely on the largesse of a few billionaires who happen to enjoy investing money in it. Consider the billions made off of the misery inflicted by opioids, and the relative paucity of money invested into studying diseases of plants and animals, many of which could potentially start threatening us next week. We could have another outbreak. Government funding has to be dramatically increased, so that the benefits can be public. Basic research is needed. Our progress in learning more about and improving our mastery over the universe; that is the truest sense of defense in the broadest scale. We must ensure that, as we move ahead, this is a shared mission of mankind. The three of us will be available during the Q&A period, if you have questions about any of the content we just discussed. And we’re going to move on now, to our next speaker, after, again, just briefly mentioning, the first volume of the {Lyndon LaRouche Collected Works}, which is available at the LaRouche Legacy Foundation website, https://www.larouchelegacyfoundation.org/ Megan Beets is one of the co-directors of the LaRouche Legacy Foundation and helped make this possible. Our next speaker is Dr. Jean-Pierre Luminet. He is a French astrophysicist, writer and poet. He’s well-known internationally as a specialist on black holes and cosmology, in particular. He worked as Research Director, and is now an Emeritus Researcher, at the prestigious CNRS in France, the National Center for Scientific Research. Dr. Luminet will be addressing some of the questions raised in this last presentation about errors in science in scientific method itself. The title of Dr. Luminet’s talk is “The Role of ‘Free Invention’ in Creative Discovery.” Here’s Dr. Jean-Pierre Luminet.

JEAN-PIERRE LUMINET: Hello. At the beginning of the 20th century, the poet and philosopher Paul Valéry wrote in his Notebooks, “Events are the foam of things, but it’s the sea that interests me.” The aphorism is dizzying. He says everything about what the physicist is looking for, underlying the dry body of equations. The poet seeks likewise under the velvet cloak of his words. Symbolizing depth, the sea enfolds what is essential. But what are the essentials? For the ordinary scientist, this is the “reality” of the world — if the expression makes sense. But for the theoretical physicist, as for the artist and the creator in general, is not the true reality of the world the life of the spirit, which maintains its distance from the fleeting effects of external events? In Valéry’s mind, the depth of the sea’s vitality is rich enough to accommodate the most tenuous and ephemeral manifestations of the experience. “A little foam, a candid event upon the dark of the sea,” he still notes. The contrast between the sea and the foam expresses the striking discrepancy between the unity associated with the permanence and the happenstance associated with evanescence. In other contexts, such as the one I’m currently working on — namely, modern theoretical physics, which seeks to unify the laws of gravitation and quantum mechanics — it rather reflects a complementarity by which the constituent parts are no longer off-kilter, but coherent. I take as an example a brilliant hypothesis put forward by the great physicist John Wheeler in the 1950s. The most creative minds often function by analogy. Wheeler imagines that at the microscopic level, the very geometry of space-time is not fixed but in perpetual change, agitated by the fluctuations of quantum origin. It can be compared to the surface of a rough sea. Viewed from far above, the sea looks smooth. From a closer distance, we begin to perceive motions agitating the surface, which still remains continuous. But, closely examined, the sea is tumultuous, fragmented, discontinuous. Waves rise and break, throwing off drops of water that then fall. Following this analogy, space-time would appear smooth on our scale, but when scrutinized at an ultra-microscopic level, its “foam” would be come perceptible in the form of ephemeral and transient events: elementary particles, micro-worm holes, even entire universes. Just as hydrodynamic turbulence creates bubbles by cavitation, space-time turbulence could constantly bring forth, from the quantum vacuum, what we consider to be the reality of the world. All of this is superbly poetic; however, this does not imply that it’s physically correct. Fifty years after its formulation, Wheeler’s concept of the “quantum foam” is still debated; other approaches to “quantum gravity” have been developed, offering different visions of space-time at its deepest level — the sea — and of its manifestations at all scales of size and energy — the foam. Although none of these approaches, like the string theory, loop quantum gravity or non-commutative geometry, have yet come up with a coherent description, these various theories have at least the merit of showing how the scientific investigation of nature is a tremendous adventure of the mind. Deciphering the fragments of reality under the foam of the stars is to detach oneself from the limits of the visible, to free ourselves from customary deceptive representations, without ever forgetting that the fertility of the scientific approach is watered from underground by other disciplines of the human spirit such as art, poetry, music, and philosophy. This brings us back to Paul Valéry. The prescience of his words does not surprise us when we acquaint ourselves with his background. Curious about everything, Valéry was particularly interested in how great scientists worked mentally. He himself was full of ideas, and in order not to let any of them escape, he was always filling the pages of his notebooks. Several times during the 1920s, he met Albert Einstein, whom he admired, and who admired him. The mischievous father of the theory of relativity later recalled public debate at the Collège de France in Paris in the presence of Paul Valéry and the philosopher Henri Bergson: “During the discussion,” he recounts, “[Valéry] asked me if I got up at night to write down an idea. I replied, ‘But as far as ideas go, you only have one or two in your life.'” When it was Einstein’s turn to question another poet, Saint-John Perse, about how he worked, the explanation he received did not fail to satisfy him: “But it is the same as for the scholar. The mechanism of discovery is neither logical nor intellectual…. It begins with a leap of the imagination.” In his acceptance speech for the 1960 Nobel Prize in Literature, Saint-John Perse called it the “common mystery.” Einstein later spoke out about the essential role of imagination in scientific creativity. At this stage, it is fascinating to consider the bet made on the free invention of fundamental concepts to interpret the world. Einstein already believed that the principles of a global theory could not be adduced from experience alone or from the scientific method alone, in the strict sense of the term. Einstein said: “We now know that science cannot arise from the immediate experience alone and that it is impossible for us to build the edifice of science without availing ourselves of free invention, whose usefulness we can only verify in hindsight, in light of our own experience. My conviction is that we are able, through a purely mathematical construction, to find concepts, as well as laws that connect them, capable of unlocking the doors to the understanding of natural phenomena.” To take on the question of Valéry’s poetic statement, in its potential, but also within its limits, in the face of the field of equations that escape our common language — this must be the aim of a true scientific culture, which is in total opposition to the fashion of the day, consisting rather in accumulating tables of figures, formulas, code, protocols, and misleading statistics, and cramming them into skulls of young people eager to learn and to understand. A true scientific culture must boldly choose not to shrink from acknowledging the dizzying mystery of the world that surrounds and forms us. By accepting its strangeness, the public — especially the young — will benefit by gathering up some form rocks, at least for the time of a movement of the universe. As the great Johannes Kepler wrote to a fellow astronomer in 1605, “This is how we progress, by feeling our way, in a dream, much as wise but immature children.” Along with some other great innovators in the history of science and ideas, Kepler, too, offers an instructive model on how to conceive of the world in a way that opposed received opinion. In 1975, the philosopher Paul Feyerabend published {Against Method}, a book whose central thesis, supported by many historical examples, is that not only is the classical scientific method not the only valid way to acquire knowledge, but that applying it too strictly blocks creativity and innovation. Science is essentially an anarchist undertaking, in the sense that the origin of our scientific ideas can come from everywhere: from art, literature, poetry, philosophy, and even from myth. Anarchism, in theory, would thus be more humanist and more likely to encourage progress than doctrines based on law and order. I will not, however, go so far as to approve of the extreme attitude of Feyerabend’s disciples, who say that “everything is good,” “everything is equally valid”; which leads to absolute cultural relativism, which would, for example, put on the same level of value a Schubert melody and a Madonna song. As in all things, wisdom is about taking the right path between the two. But among the proponents of the strict scientific method, to the exclusion of any other form of thought, why ignore or pretend to ignore that the creative imagination of scientists undeniably appeals to mythical images? For example, the generating principles present in all cultures — Desire, the Tree, the Egg, Water, the Void, Chaos — clearly appear as archetypes of cosmogonic thought; namely, primitive and universal symbols belonging to the collective unconscious, to use [Carl] Jung’s terminology. The term “archetype” was first used by Kepler himself: “The traces of geometry are printed in the world, as if geometry were a kind of archetype of the world,” he wrote in 1606 in his treatise “On the New Star” — {De Stella Nova}. Certainly, the work of the great creators in the field of fundamental physics rarely reveals the philosophical background that underlies it. At first reading, we are often tempted to see extreme rationalism and a fundamentally skeptical position. In fact, behind the critical mind of the inventive physicist often hides a deep interest in everything related to the obscure regions of reality, and those of the human imagination, which are apparently opposed to the concept of reason. The work of epistemological reflection of Wolfgang Pauli, who is also one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, exerts skepticism towards skepticism itself, in order to track down the way knowledge is constructed, before we come to a rational understanding of things. The influence of archetypal representations on the formation of scientific theories is undeniable. As seen with Albert Einstein’s statement, the theoretical physicist cannot be satisfied with a purely empirical view according to which natural laws could only be established on the basis of experimental material, subject to a strict protocol. Rather, one has to consider the role played by the decisions we make during the process of observation and the role of intuition. The bridge that connects the initially disordered experimental material is located in original images that pre-exist in the collective unconscious. These archetypes are not linked to rationally formulated ideas. Rather, they are forms or images with strong emotional content, which are not captured immediately by thought. The “Kepler case,” to which Pauli devoted a book, is exemplary in this respect. Pauli takes the example of Kepler’s adoption of the Copernican system. According to him, the persuasive power of the Copernican system holds sway above all for Kepler because of the correspondence he finds there with the Trinitarian symbol, the archetype of Christian thought. This conception of knowledge of nature, according to which the unitary order of the cosmos is not initially formulable rationally, refers us, in its essentials, to Plato and to the neo-Platonism of Plotinus and Proclus, but with an essential difference. In Plato, the original images are immutable and exist independently of human consciousness (Plato uses the term “soul”). Immanuel Kant’s use of the concept of the {a priori} form of sensibility, applied to the geometric framework, is equally objectionable. It led him to argue that Euclid’s postulates were inherent in human thought. However, the archetypes of psychology are not fixed; they can evolve in relation to a given situation of knowledge. The cosmologist seeks to describe this indefinite expanse of space using a geometric model. Several models are possible; the description obtained depends in particular on the degree of sharpness with which physical space is analyzed. In fact, for a long time, Euclidean space was the only space known to mathematicians. (It was still the case at the time of Kant, before we discovered the non-Euclidean geometries.) In addition, human beings have an instinctive tendency to interpret their sensory perceptions by means of Euclidean geometry. It has been shown that the semi-circular channels of our inner ear, which detect acceleration of the head in three perpendicular planes, construct a mental space whose local structure is Euclidean. So, it took a singular intellectual work to understand that Euclid’s postulates were not the only possible ones. To say whether space has three or eleven dimensions, whether it is finite or infinite, flat or curved, simply connected or multiply connected, etc., is far from obvious. Indeed, it’s usually counter-intuitive! In this case, the idea must necessarily pre-exist the sensory experience. Therefore, we must indeed place what Einstein called the free invention of theories at the heart of the process of discovery. After all, as the poet Novalis wrote: “Theories are like fishing; it is only by casting into unknown waters that you may catch something.” For several decades, the Schiller Institute has adopted, among other goals, the mission of promoting this fruitful way of thinking about the world, and I am glad to have been able to share it with you. Thank you very much for your attention.

ROSS: For our next speaker, we’re going to be hearing from a French astronaut, and given the time in France, we’re very glad he’s able to be on with us this late. And I’d also like to make sure that everybody knows that if you have a question for our next speaker, please email it in right away, so we’ll be able to have a short dialogue with him before it gets too late. Michel Tognini is a French test pilot, engineer, and former astronaut at the Centre National d’Études Spatiales (CNES) the French Space Agency. He’s also the former head of the European Astronaut Center of the European Space Agency, and one of the founding members of the Association of Space Explorers. He has logged a total of 19 days in space aboard the Soyuz, the MIR station, the Space Shuttle Columbia and the International Space Station. What an impressive international space presence! His presentation is entitled, “Friendship Between Astronauts: An Exemplary Precedent for International Cooperation.”

MICHEL TOGNINI: Hello everybody and thank you for inviting me to speak about cooperation between astronauts and cosmonauts. I will ask you to give the next slide, please. We are going to talk about a brief history of space, and the cooperation between us and what we did in space. So, next slide; and next as well. So, if we look at what we did in the beginning, we had the first flight of Sputnik, in 1957. It was a big surprise all over the world, because the nobody was expecting this Sputnik to flight in space, except the Soviets at the time. And as you see very well, the Sputnik as it is designed, it is metallic and it was making a big because it was a tool to be seen and to be heard all over the world, which was propaganda tool in space. Next, in 1961 was the first human flight of Yuri Gagarin. It was the first time that a human left the Earth to go to space. He made one orbit around the Earth, which only is one hour and 40 minutes. And he landed safely. That was the beginning of human space exploration. Then, humans have been to space regularly, have been to the Moon, and they go to the International Space Station. If we consider all the flights made from Gagarin up to today, we have spent roughly 150 years in space. Next slide: Other important dates as well are: 1962: John Glenn, the first American went to space. As you can see, in the beginning was Russian, and then American. 1963: The first female in space was Valentina Tereshkova. She was Russian. 1965: The first space walk, Alexei Leonov went up in a spacecraft, in space, and then he went outside of the spacecraft with a spacesuit, to spend a little bit, like 15 minutes, in a space walk. 1969: You all know, the first humans on the Moon, with Armstrong and Aldrin. 1981: The first Space Shuttle flight. The Space Shuttle flew roughly 30 years. 2001: The first tourist in space, Denis Tito, who was American. His dream was to fly in space, and he had to pay for his mission. So that was a way to demonstrate that the human space missions are safe enough to be flown by tourists. 2003: Yang Liwei, the first Chinese in space. We call them taikonauts. 2012: The first SpaceX mission, that was the mission made by Elon Musk, a private company going into space with a dream and with a goal to send humans to space. And I can tell you, 2012, when he started, nobody believed he that he would send a human into space, but this year, in May 2020, he will send the first human mission to the Space Station. 2017: China announces its planes to return to the Moon, to exploit the soil of the Moon. Next slide: You can see on this slide, the fact that Russians and Americans are the different paths for space flight. The Russians had the classical rocket, called Soyuz and the classical capsule. They made the progressive evolution of the rocket and capsule, in order to fly, almost the same rocket and the same capsule, but much more modern, and they had seven space stations called Salyut, from 1 to 7; they had the Mir space station that was used also to do the first flight between the Space Shuttle and the first docking of the Space Shuttle to a space station. And they tried to land a human on the Moon, but they could not have a [inaudible 1:12.34]. On the other side, the Americans had the Mercury for 1 person, Gemini for 2 persons, Apollo for 3 persons to go to the Moon, and to go to the space station called Skylab. They went to the Moon six times safely, and successfully. They had the Space Shuttle. So, it was more, for the Americans a zig-zag path. And we can say that at the time, when you see the two red and white columns, it was a kind of a confrontation between American and Russian. But, there was a flight called ASTP, Apollo-Soyuz Space Mission in 1975, where Soyuz went to space; an Apollo spacecraft went to space. They docked in space. When they docked, they opened the door, they shook hands, they gave each other gifts, and they started a very strong friendship. Next Slide: This shows you the crew of this Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975. In green you have the Russian, in light brown you have the Americans. And in this five [inaudible 1:13.51], two persons, one American, one Russian became very good friends. This first mission was made because of the good friendship between two persons. And usually when I make a speeches, I ask people in the room to tell me who the two persons. I will tell you today, because you cannot speak to me: The two persons are Tom Stafford, an American fighter pilot, test pilot and astronaut; and on the right side is Alexei Leonov, who was also the first man who made a space walk. He was also a very courageous space, fighter pilot. And these two persons became friends, on this mission, before the mission, when they met in 1972, during the mission that was very successful, and also after the mission. And the pictures right after show you the two men, as they could be today. Next slide: You can see, on the left, Tom Stafford; on the right, Alexei Leonov, after 45 years of true friendship. I can tell you that every year, Tom Stafford went to visit Alexei Leonov in Russia to spend a few days with him on vacation. And every year, Alexei Leonov went to America to spend a few days with his friend Tom Stafford. And even sometimes, when the relationship between the two countries were slightly heavy, the two governments asked them to try to solve the problem. Unfortunately Alexei Leonov passed away a few months ago, so this friendship is no more. But the next slide will show you that we continue this friendship, as you can see, in space. We have today the space station, and these are young people on the space station: on the left side, you have the Russian cosmonaut, on the right side is an American astronaut. They fly in space: They have been flying long duration flights in space for 20 years now, and they have a very strong relationship and they have a good trust, because they can each cut the other’s hair, and this has led to what we called the ASE, which “Association of Space Explorers,” which was created 35 years ago. This Association of Space Explorers includes {38} different countries and this was created in 1985 in France. Since then we meet every year in a different country in the world. Next slide: To show you that we went from confrontation to cooperation, slightly. The confrontation gave very good speed to the space program. You remember when John Kennedy asked the country to go to the Moon. NASA went to the Moon in eight years, which is very, very fast. But, there was less emphasis on scientific content. Today we cooperation, which is slower evolution, but more focused on science, and we do have cooperation, among five partners, which are NASA, the Russian, European, Japan, and Canada. And also, we try slowly to have China and India with us, to have seven partners in space. Next slide: In this case, you could have a pattern to fly in space with seven different space agencies, and the seven space agencies would have seven tasks, to go to the Moon or go to Mars. On this slide, you could see that one space agency could be in charge of the launch site, the second space agency could be responsible for the access to low-Earth orbit, what we call LEO; the third space agency would be in charge of MTFF, which is a low-Earth orbit small space station; the fourth space agency would be in charge of the transfer, with a tug, from low-Earth orbit to the Moon orbit; number five would be the MTFF on the Moon; number six would be the descent to the Moon; and number seven would be in charge of the lunar base. You can see on this diagram that we can share all the activities between the whole world to have a common goal of going into space together. Next slide: I show what we did achieve with the space station. The first mission was in 1988. What we did in this mission is a real Apollo-Soyuz mission, with a left module which you called LTB, launch from Baikonur, on a Proto rocket. The right module was node number 1, launched on the space shuttle from Kennedy Space Center, and the two were docked together with the robotic arm from Canada. That was the beginning of the building of the space station Next slide: This shows that we put a third module called Salis [ph] module. Inside you have oxygen, you have life, therefore there was Soyuz on the back, in order to bring people into space. That was the beginning of the Space Station, with three persons on board. And the next slide shows you the complete Space Station with the Space Shuttle on the top, the U.S. part on the top part of the picture; the tray with the solar panel on the side; and on the backside you have the Russian side and you have the European ETV that was able to fly five times in space, in order to be paid for the launch of Columbus, that you can see on the left front side of the station. The next slide shows you one of the current positions of the space station. You can see that you have two Soyuz’s, two Progress’s and we can congratulate the Russians, as today they launched a Progress which is like Soyuz but automatic; and they had the re-cut of the docking time, because they were going from the ground to the space station in less than 3.5 hours. So that’s the shortest time to go to space. And you can see on the left side the Dragon insignis; these are made by private companies. And the Beam is an inflatable structure, in order to have less weight and less volume from Earth to space. Next slide: So the first mission was 1 hour and 40 minutes, which was the one with Gagarin. We slowly made an evolution on the direction of the space flights, to go for 1 hour, to 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, and then 6 months. All the flights today are six month duration. Some flights have been 1 year. The record was 14 months with Valery Polyakov. So we knew that we could cope with the fight that we lost muscles, we lost [inaudible 1:21.07] in space. We can do exercise every day, two hours of exercise to compensate for this loss. In parallel, we understood that the difficulty was the psychological behavior, so we did some studies on the ground with Mars 500, 18 months on the ground with 6 international people, in order to simulate a flight to Mars, and also a flight on Hawaii with one French person, one year on that mission completed. It was also to test the psychological behavior in this long period of confinement. And the good is to have the best knowledge of human behavior in space, in order to make a trip the Moon, to Mars, or to an asteroid. Next slide: The goal is to make a long duration flight and to stay in space longer and longer, and also to be able to make operations in space, like repairing a satellite, or doing a space walk, or building some structure, like we did with the space station. But, because we’re in space, we use the fact that we’re in zero G to do science, like the control of muscles during long flight, or study on the risk of kidney stones during long flight. Next slide: And this also is an application of what we could do in space, we’re starting to do it, in the growth of protein crystals. You see on the top left picture, what is protein crystal growth on Earth, and the one on the right side is the one in space. Because you are in zero G, the spatial protein is bigger so you can have better presentation of the disease, and you can make some special medicines, much more precisely because of that. Next slide: shows you also the impact of space missions, which is education. When Kennedy initiated the Apollo program, we had the top record of students going for PhDs, physical science, and engineering diplomas. We had the same in France. When we have the French astronauts playing in space, still don’t want to study more science to better understand what’s going on in space, and better understand what space science. And the space station we have today, which is a real success, we can say that all the building of the space station was successful, all the flights were successful; there is permanently on the space station at least one American and one Russian and they do work very well together. This cooperation program is between Russia, United States, European Canada and Japan. In Europe, 10 countries participate in this program, so altogether, 15 countries work together. It was a program made for joint science together with the participation of Russia in a great way. And the next slide, will be my last: which is slogan of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky “Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever.” This is why we go to space, and this is also why we want to increase our knowledge there, today. Thank you very much.

ROSS: Thank you very much, Michel Tognini. If you have time, there are a few questions that came in for you. I can combine it into one question so you answer them together. One of the questions was, someone was saying that it seems like you had a very unique background, for being involved in the U.S. and the Russian space agencies. They wonder what the biggest lesson you learned for advising the future would be, based on that. Another question asks about how countries should work together to do the Moon-Mars program — this is an American and she says: This seems like it’s too big for America to do alone! Should we work with other countries? And a Serbian, a member of the executive board for the Serbian Office for Space Sciences asks about international cooperation for space. This person writes: “I am a strong advocate that outer space should be considered as a common heritage of mankind, as the UN conferences also say. In this light, and being a space developing country, we are facing problems as well as many other countries to join the Space Club. I would like to hear your opinion on how we can rethink the global approach to outer space activities, policies and research.”

TOGNINI: I will try to reply to the question, what did I learn from this cooperation with Russia and with NASA? I learned humility. And I think humility is really important for an astronaut, from people on Earth, and also for the consideration that life is very fragile. As someone said before, we could be hit by a comet or an asteroid any time, and we need to have a plan to fight against an asteroid or a comet. And the only way to fight this danger is to work together. In the Association of Space Explorers, where we have several different countries joined together and different astronauts from these countries, we have a plan to study every year, the way to deflect an asteroid from Earth. Today, it’s an automatic program, but in the future, we will try to make it maybe a human program. And the second question is how to go to the Moon and Mars. I strongly believe that slowly, we need to cooperate together, even with China and India, because they have very good potential for a program in space. And the example of the International Space Station is an example that could be applied to the whole world. If we could succeed in the International Space Station, we are obliged to succeed if we include China and India together. So I believe in it. And, for the case of Serbia, you know Serbia could participate in a space program, whether it is with Russia or it with ESA, the European Space Agency. It’s a pretty good organization, it’s a pretty good will. But if a country wants to participate in space, at {any} level, even at 1% of the budget, it’s possible to do it.

ROSS: OK. Thank you very much, thank you for joining us. We know it’s late there, and we’re very happy to have had your participation. Thank you, Michel Tognini.

TOGNINI: Thank you very much, and good evening to all of you.

ROSS: We had sent in, not as a question, but actually as an interesting comment, a statement that was made today by Presidents Trump of the United States and President Putin of the Russian Federation, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Meeting on the Elbe, which Dennis mentioned in his introduction to this conference. I’d like to read their joint statement:

“Joint Statement by President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia Commemorating the 75th Anniversary of the Meeting on the Elbe “April 25, 2020, marks the 75th Anniversary of the historic meeting between American and Soviet troops, who shook hands on the damaged bridge over the Elbe River. This event heralded the decisive defeat of the Nazi regime. “The meeting on the Elbe represented a culmination of tremendous efforts by the many countries and peoples that joined forces under the framework of the United Nations Declaration of 1942. This common struggle required enormous sacrifice by millions of soldiers, sailors, and citizens in multiple theaters of war. “We also recognize the contributions from millions of men and women on the home front, who forged vast quantities of war materials for use around the world. Workers and manufacturers played a crucial role in supplying the Allied forces with the tools necessary for victory. “The ‘Spirit of the Elbe’ is an example of how our countries can put aside differences, build trust, and cooperate in pursuit of a greater cause. As we work today to confront the most important challenges of the 21st century, we pay tribute to the valor and courage of all those who fought together to defeat fascism. Their heroic feat will never be forgotten.”

ROSS: That is the joint statement by Presidents Putin and Trump. For our next speaker we’re going to be hearing from an American astronaut: Walt Cunningham is a retired American astronaut, who served as Lunar Module Pilot on the 11-day Apollo 7 mission, the first Apollo that brought human beings into space. During the flight, the three-member crew did exercises in docking and lunar orbit rendezvous, completed eight successful tests and maneuvering ignitions of the service module propulsion engine, measured the accuracy of performance of all spacecraft systems, and provided the first effective television transmission of onboard crew activities. Among his many decorations and honors, Walt Cunningham is a recipient of the NASA Distinguished Service Medal; an associate fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; and a fellow of the American Astronautical Society. In preparation for this conference today, we asked him about his historic flight and the contributions that flight made to fulfilling the vision laid out by President Kennedy, and to making the Apollo Moon landing missions that came after a success. Let’s hear Walt Cunningham’s presentation: “Apollo 7: An Astronaut’s Reflections.”

Q: What did you have to do to qualify to become an astronaut?

CUNNINGHAM: My personal assessment is, you really shouldn’t be there unless you’re willing to stick your necks out a little. It took me years after that to fully put into the right perspective on this with fighter pilots. I have to tell you, in my book I have a section in there on the day that I decided I was going to apply to be an astronaut. That morning, actually I was getting my college degree in my mid-20s. I had not been to college. I joined the Navy out of high school, managed to pass the two-year test, became a fighter pilot. Smart enough to go in the Marine Corps instead of the Navy, which I never regret. [laughs] But I was going to college trying to get a degree that year, and I was driving in the morning, because I was working at the RAND Corporation, and I was driving that morning, and they were going through the countdown for Alan Shepard. It was 1961. And he was on the East Coast, and I’m driving along in my car, and we didn’t have all those freeways out in L.A. at that time, I was going to UCLA. It got down to the last four or five minutes, and I had to pull over to the side of the road and park, so I could hear what was going on. I couldn’t even keep driving. It got down, I remember the count — 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, lift-off — and I caught myself screaming out, “You lucky SOB!” [laughter] And that was the time — I felt like I was alone; I looked around to make sure, there was no one parking that was looking at me–and that was when I decided that that was what I was going to do, I had good background for it. And 18 months later, I was sharing an office with Alan. It was like joining a very unusual, unique kind of life at the time. That’s evolved the way a lot of these kinds of things do. When we first had human beings sail around the world, that’s the difference from how they evolved into consistent kinds of systems out there in the oceans.

Q: What did you think about President Kennedy’s challenge to land on the Moon? What went through your mind?

CUNNINGHAM: It’s interesting now as time goes on. I can only speak for myself, but I’m sure a lot of the other people feel the same way, too. As you get older and you get more mature, you can put in perspective some of these things that at the time you never even thought about; you just took it for granted. When he was making his speech, I remember that was before I had been selected by NASA. I got selected the first time I applied. But I can remember when he was saying that, I just thought, “it was a good speech.” Now, it’s something that goes down in history, and I think it’s because at the time, our minds were not working quite the same way. You’ve got to let your mind mature in order to get the perspective on what’s going on historically. It was a unique period in our history, for the people here with that kind of an activity to move to. If you go back 500 years, and you look at the first time they set out to sail around the world? I have to tell you, I think they started off with about 240 people, and there were 4 ships. When they finally made it, a year and a half or two years later, there were 18 of those original people still alive. And they had made it around the world. They were willing to pay the price. They moved our society forward. We felt a lot of pluses going out in society after that. That was 500 years ago. The society in the world benefits from being willing to stick your neck out, but not doing it wildly. You’ve got to be committed to what you’re trying to accomplish. I’m sure I feel I can speak a lot more about that now than I ever did at the time, because you’ve got to get wise.

Q: What was it like to be one of the first in space?

CUNNINGHAM: I think that they’ve said that 25% or 35% of people had a reaction to zero Gs, throwing up the first day and stuff like that. But they were all committed; they would all go on, anyway. The amount of weight that was lost by those folks — ours was the longest Apollo mission I think; there might have been one more mission slightly longer. I think the most anybody lost weight on our mission was 10 pounds, something like that. The attitude of the people in those days was different than the attitudes today because we were all military fighter pilots. Whether the world likes it or not, it takes a certain attitude on that to justify having those kinds of activities from one country to another. But I have to tell you this: One of the reasons that our mission was such a success — first off, it’s gotten a lot of criticism because Wally Schirra at the time had a cold. But I have to tell you this, everything that Wally needed to do operationally, he did it anyway. It was a problem with the verbiage back and forth, because he was recovering from a cold. As a matter of fact, he let the ground think that we all had a cold. We didn’t have colds. I didn’t cough once. Donn Eisele I think once or twice may have coughed, but we were juniors; he was a very serious guy. And whether we like it now at this stage, I think he did a very good job. He was a {good pilot} in my opinion. At the time, that flight, I think it surprised him, because it was an 11-day mission, and they added four different objectives to that mission. The ground, I’m sure, had lots and lots of reservations as to whether we would make 11 days; they did it. I can remember the last couple of days, we had some time on our hands, because we didn’t have a lot of film left. Now they take pictures all over the place. Our total film for the whole 11 days for 3 of us using the camera, was 500 pictures! Now, they might do that with one pass around the Earth. The world doesn’t realize that 53% of the Earth’s surface is covered by clouds. Whether we like it or not, most of the Earth is ocean, out there. Back in those days — and even today — they’re almost totally dependent on air-to-ground communication. Now they’ve got essentially pretty much 100% air-to-ground communication. But what we had for air-to-ground communication was 4% of our time. And you had to be directly able to contact it. They say, “Oh, gee, that was horrible!” No, we thought that was good, because we had so many things to d, that we felt it was good when we weren’t getting pushed to do other things. But we did need a certain amount of information. It was 4% or 4.5% of the time we had communication. You’re looking and talking to me at my age — I’m 88 years old. I’ll tell you this, I thought we had a great mission, I really do.

Q: What advice would you give to young people today who want to go into space?

CUNNINGHAM: I would not consider myself of giving the real overall best answer. I’m still stuck in that world of how important it is to be the world’s greatest fighter pilot — mentally, at least. But the other things, it’s a different way of living, and the public today has been educated now for 50 years, most of them. Well, I can’t even say most of them, but many of them want that opportunity to do that. Of course, now they’re selling tickets to people to ride a spacecraft up there. And I’m sorry, I can’t look positively at all that stuff. I know it’s got its positive side, but I live in a different world. And I think that they’re fortunate, if they become one of today’s astronauts. But to do that, you better perfect yourself in the skills it takes. There’s a lot of different skills that it takes today. There’s a pretty good number of doctors, for example, who have been up there. That’s good. They’ve had a number of ladies — there have been a couple of lady pilots, incidentally, that I thought were pretty doggone outstanding. They did a real good job.

Q: How do you think about taking risks and doing what sometimes seems almost impossible?

CUNNINGHAM: You have to have the attitude that comes automatically if you’re a major league fighter pilot. One of the best fighter pilots, or at least, and I’m specific about this, at least believing you are. The best kind of attitude when you go in to attack somebody else, rightly or wrongly, you have to have the kind of confidence that says you’re going to come out ahead, and you’re willing to pay whatever price it takes {to get that done.}

ROSS: That was Walt Cunningham, an astronaut on Apollo 7, the first Apollo to take human beings into space. Let me give you a sense of who’s coming up: I’ll introduce our next speaker in a moment. Follow our next speaker will be a State Senator who is a big supporter of nuclear fusion; a physics professor who has received two Presidential appointments to national scientific positions; a Chinese physician, speaking about their experience with COVID-19; and a New York City physician, who’s going to speak about what it’s like in the current hotspot here. Our next speaker, Dr. Marie Korsaga is from Burkina Faso and she holds a doctorate in astrophysics and specializes in the study of dark matter. She is West Africa’s first female astrophysicist and seeks to share her love of science, and its importance, more broadly, through expanding science education in Africa. Dr. Korsaga has entitled her presentation, “The Necessity of Science Education for African Youth.” Please go ahead, it’s fine: We’re having some audio difficulty, so I’m going to dub your video into English myself, rather than the interpreter. Please, Dr. Korsaga, go ahead.

Dr. MARIE KORSAGA: [as translated] My name is Marie Korsaga, I am an astrophysicist and originally from Burkina Faso. My research focuses on the distribution of dark matter, and visible matter in galaxies. In simple terms, it must be said that visible matter, that is to say, ordinary matter made up of protons, neutrons, electrons, everything that is observable with our devices, represents only about 5% of the universe — the rest is invisible matter, distribute as follows: 26% dark matter and 68% dark energy. Dark matter, with its gravitational force is used to explain the fact that galaxies remain close to each other, while dark energy causes the universe to expand faster over time. So we cannot speak of understanding the universe if we only know about 5% of its constituents. So, to understand our universe, that is to say, to be able to account for its formation and evolution, it is essential to understand what dark matter and dark energy are. Dark matter, as its name suggests, is something that you cannot see with even the most sophisticated telescopes. So far, no dark matter particles have ever been detected, nevertheless, we feel its presence thanks to its impact on gravity. The purpose of my research is to study how dark matter is distributed inside galaxies in order to better understand the formation and evolution of our universe, and therefore, the origin of life on Earth. Beyond my research, I am interested in the development side of astronomy in Africa. For this, I work at the Office of Astronomy for Development on a project which consists in using astronomy as a factor of development almost everywhere in the world, but especially in the developing countries, by supporting projects related to education, educational tourism and so on. Speaking of education, it is important to remember that according to the African Union, Africa has the youngest population in the world, with more than 40% of its young people under the age of 15, which will produce a demographic explosion in the next 10 years. This population growth has disadvantages, but also advantages. The downside is that if measures are not taken, such as access to quality education for boys and girls, especially in science, these young people, instead of becoming a source of development for the continent, risk, rather to be a source of socio-economic political instability and conflict, which will further plunge the continent into misery. However, the advantage of this population growth is that through a well-developed education system, this demographic growth, if accompanied by strong measures both on the side of public policies and the private sector, will be a great source of sustainable development, at the economic and political level of the continent. For this, it is very important to make significant investments in the field of education, with a focus on innovation, science and technology. It should be noted that today, African graduates mainly graduate from the literary and human sciences fields. STEM students — science, technology, engineering and mathematics — represent only 25% of the workforce on average, according to the World Bank. In addition, women are underrepresented in these areas. Take my case: I am the first woman to obtain a doctorate in astrophysics in Burkina, and even in West Africa. It may sound flattering, but it reveals a rather disturbing diagnosis, despite being a light of hope. Indeed, even if the region has a dozen doctorates in the field, there are almost no women among them. Unfortunately, this shows that we are still a long way from achieving gender parity in science, and there is still much to do. This requires a change in mentalities and the accessibility of science to women, especially among the underprivileged. It is not unknown that a career in astrophysics requires a course in physics, which is not obvious for women in our societies where the majority of people think that the scientific fields are dedicated to men, and that women must go to the literary streams. This has the effect of discouraging women from opting for long studies, especially in the scientific fields, and even if they opt for them, they tend to give up at the first obstacles, due to the lack of encouragement. Today, I can say that I have broken this barrier, at my level, and I would like to take advantage of the privilege to inspire and encourage as many young girls as I can, to opt for it. It is true that today there are efforts being made by several governments to break these stereotypes with, for example, the NEF, the Next Einstein Forum in Rwanda, which is a platform for popularizing science, and which offers opportunities for students through scholarships of the network of women in science, called OWSD, the Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World, which gives opportunities to girls and women in STEM fields. However, there is still a lot to do, because the representation of women in science is far from being reached. Beyond research, I intend to contribute to the training of young people in science in Burkina Faso, and in Africa in general, by giving courses at universities, and also supervising masters and PhD students. I also plan to take action to popularize science education in general, and astrophysics in particular in countries where access to science is limited. This will serve to motivate young girls and boys, especially young girls, to take up scientific studies. There are also other future actions that I plan to undertake, in collaboration with other researchers, namely the establishment of scientific schools in Africa, particularly dedicated to women; the organization of workshops to enable female scientists to speak about their inspiring work, and cultivate self-confidence. The creation of an astronomy club for children, etc. In addition to being fascinating as a science, astronomy can also be used as a development tool through, for example, education and tourism. The International Astronomical Union understands this and is making a lot of effort to address this development component in developing countries, and working to achieve a Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations. The typical example, in Sub-Saharan Africa is the case of South Africa, where the installation of telescopes in localities has not only facilitated the popularization of science and the creation of jobs for young people, but also has boosted the economy, and the development of infrastructure in these localities. The current context in which we, notably the COVID-19 pandemic, reminds us of how important science must occupy our lives and our education system. This importance must convince the African authorities that it is more than necessary to devote a large part of national budgets to the support and the promotion of studies and of scientific research, because investment in human capital remains a secure means for the growth of a country. Above all, we must understand that to get our continent out of underdevelopment, we will have to review our way of executing these programs, focusing on education, training in science, technology, and innovation, especially space science, could not only increase our human potential, which is a source of sustainable development, but also enable the management of our natural resources and thus impact the economy in the continent. Africa has an immense amount of natural resources, essential to the development of industry. It is necessary to arrive at a point where these resources are exploited, first for its development, by women and men trained on the continent and with compatible techniques. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to share my thoughts on the necessity of education in science in Africa. Thank you.

ROSS: Thank you, Dr. Korsaga. Sorry we had a little bit of trouble. We will be taking questions for Dr. Korsaga — send your questions in now. We will be taking them in a short moment. Our next speaker is Sen. Joe Pennachio. He has served in the New Jersey State Senate since 2008, and previously served in the state’s General Assembly from 20012008. Senator Pennachio has a far-reaching vision and has been an outspoken advocate for the development of nuclear fusion energy. Senator Pennacchio sponsored a hearing in the New Jersey State Legislature last May entitled: “What Are the Prospects and Requirements for the Early Development of Fusion Energy, and What Are the Implications for the U.S., New Jersey, and the World?” This hearing pulled together leading scientists — from the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, as well as from several New Jersey technical corporations that are working on fusion, including in collaboration with ITER [International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor] project in France. A link to the video of that hearing that Senator Pennachio held will be included on the conference webpage. Following the hearing, Senator Pennacchio introduced an important group of six interrelated bills to support and attract businesses on fusion, to call on the federal government to offer greater support for this necessary new technology, and one, which passed the Senate this February, finances research positions for fusion energy and plasma physics, as part of this effort. In his introduction to his hearing he said that even with the estimate that we could have a sustainable fusion reaction by 2025 and commercial applications by 2050, he said “in my humble opinion, that is not soon enough.” He then concluded: “The problems that we have … for instance, in space travel–we have to get a new propulsion system that can overcome those challenges–one of the ways to allow intergalactic and interplanetary travel in the future. Imagine the benefits that men and women can reap from its development…. Myself, and the other legislators in this building–we need to know how we can help that; how can we nurture and help this game changer come into being.” Let’s now hear from New Jersey State Sen. Joe Pennacchio, serving New Jersey’s 26th District.

SEN. JOSEPH PENACCHIO: I’m New Jersey State Senator Joseph Penacchio.

Q: At the close of your hearing, there was a group of high school students there who had attended, as well as people from universities, and you said that the development of fusion — you said that the hearing was for them as much as for anybody, and that the development of fusion would fundamentally change their lives. What is your vision for the next 50 years for those young people, the next two generations, if we achieve fusion? If we get a commitment to actually achieve fusion today?

SENATOR PENACCHIO: Well, I don’t know if the word is “if.” From what I’ve been reading it’s not “if” but “when.” They’ve actually set up parameters and dates within the five years, 2025, they will actually have a sustainable fusion reaction, and then 25 years after that they think they can have the first commercial application of fusion. I think that more or less parallels what happened with nuclear fission, and the application and development of that. I would hope that, if you put a concerted effort into it, if we share our knowledge with knowledge that’s going on around the world, especially with the tokamak reactor and all the countries that have signed onto that [ITER] consortium, I would hope that it would be sooner than that. And it’s as much for their future as it is for mine. I’m 65 years old: My future is not measured in too many decades, if God is willing. But their future is measured in an awful lot more decades than I am. So again, imagine a clean, safe, renewable energy source, where we don’t have to go to war with each other to get it, and we don’t have to worry about breathing in some of the gases which may be harmful in the production of those energies.

Q: The idea that you have put forward, also, that you said in the hearing that politicians always think they’re responsible for the good things, but your position is that actually, it’s scientists who have changed history. I’d like to ask you to talk about that; and also, the influence of the ideas of the American Revolution which was very committed to science, from Ben Franklin on, — Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and then, of course, someone whose picture is all over your office, Abraham Lincoln. So, I’d like you to comment on that, on the question of the American System, the commitment to science and the relationship between political leadership and scientific advance: What is the responsibility of politicians to advance that, and what is the role of the citizens to make sure that that is done?

SENATOR PENACCHIO: Well, the evolution of our lives, the fact that they’ve gotten better has been through science. It wasn’t politicians that got rid of cholera and typhoid and smallpox and polio: It was science. It wasn’t politicians that got us to the Moon, it was science. But it was politicians that challenged us, and that redirected some of those resources that way, we {can} go to the Moon, we {can} fight off these infectious diseases. We can improve and lift the spirits of {all} Americans and all humankind! So my job as a politician is to form public policy and to act as catalyst for some of those good things that science can do. And part of that process is economic, of course, and we think that by generating that enthusiasm for fusion, we could also cultivate a resource in the state that we haven’t seen, since Princeton first got themselves involved with fusion. So, it’s a win-win-win for all those around us. For some reason we abrogated that responsibility to Paris and their tokamak reactor. And being the selfish New Jersey politician that I am, I’d like to see us get it back. The good news is that, as with the tokamak reactor and the ITER, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, that a consortium put together, I would hope all of this material, all this science is shared, in real time: That way we can push this forward and make it a reality for those children that were attending that meeting that day, Susan. [end video]

ROSS: Wonderful. Thank you, to Senator Pennachio. Now, what I’d like to do, is pose to Marie Korsaga, two questions that are related to your presentation. The first comes from Ahmed Moustafa, who is the director of the Asia Center for Studies and Translation in Dakar, Senegal. He asks: “How should we reconsider the current educational pedagogic systems worldwide, according to this pandemic? What lessons must be realized?” One other question comes from Benoit Douteau [ph] from France, who asks: “How can we in Africa use the coronavirus pandemic to develop nuclear energy, infrastructure and industry in the next decade?” So the questions are about changes in the educational system, in pedagogical technique, as well as how to use the current problem as an opportunity to create growth in Africa. And I’d like to ask Dr. Korsaga, because we might be having some troubles with our translation facilities, if she could respond slowly to the question.

KORSAGA: [translated] To respond to the first question, I would say that to improve the quality of education, we must improve the Africa laboratories, scientific laboratories. Theoretical studies are more common due to a lack of material supplies and this must be rectified. We must also encourage students and provide them opportunities to be able to really extend their education and fulfill it to a higher level. We must also include facilities and tools to help women pursue their studies and feel more comfortable in the educational environment. On the second question, about the coronavirus pandemic, we don’t yet have full scientific abilities to deal with the coronavirus, and in their absence, we’re relying on governmental techniques, such as staying at home, washing your hands, or disinfecting them. Scientists are performing studies, they’re simulating the reaction of the virus with different drugs they’re considering, they’re studying the propagation of the virus with methods of modeling.

ROSS: OK, and then she’ll be available for more questions later. Thank you, Dr. Korsaga. Our next speaker is Prof. Will Happer: He has a long and distinguished scientific career. He is a Princeton University Professor of Physics Emeritus. Will Happer received his physics PhD at Princeton and began his career at Columbia University (where he became the director of the Columbia Radiation Laboratory), before joining the physics faculty at Princeton in 1980. In 1991 he was appointed by the President to serve as Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy, where he oversaw a research budget of some $3 billion annually, which included much of the federal funding for high energy and nuclear physics, materials science, magnetic confinement fusion, environmental and climate science, the human genome project, and other areas. He then returned to Princeton as a physics professor until his retirement in 2014. From September 2018 to September 2019, Dr. Happer again served in an appointment by the President. He was the Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director of Emerging Technologies on the National Security Council. He has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers. And he is happy to speak with us next.

WILL HAPPER: I’m Will Happer, and I’m a retired professor of physics at Princeton University, where I worked for many years. I still have an office there, thanks to the trustees of Princeton University. Before that, I spent many years New York City at Columbia University in my youth, and my children were born there. I’m trained in nuclear physics and atomic physics. I’ve done a lot of work on laser physics. I’m probably best known for inventing the sodium guidestar, which most modern telescopes use to compensate for atmospheric turbulence so you can get better resolution of galaxies and other astronomic objects. My career has been a mixture of theory and experiment. I’ve done a lot of experiments. I’ve spent a good fraction of my time in working on spin-polarized gases, spin-polarized nuclei, and one result of that was that we learned to polarize helium-3 and xenon-129 in such large quantities that there was enough that you could breed them, and then you could look at people’s lungs with magnetic resonance imaging machines, that was impossible before. And so that’s developed into an interesting diagnostic technique in medicine, still going on today. We actually did a little start-up company based on that, which was successful, and helped to launch the careers of some of our former students and post-docs. So, I guess, I would say, I’m a classical physics nerd: I like physics, I like quantitative things, I like things that you can model. I want them to be models that can be believed!

Q: You were requested by the Trump Administration to organize a panel to evaluate the claims of climate change, but that committee never functioned. What happened?

HAPPER: Well, it’s not a very complicated idea. Almost any other important science or technology, or effort of our country has been carefully reviewed. Especially in defense, for example, before we buy something, we have what’s called a “Red team review,” where people intentionally try to poke holes in say, this weapons system, or this theory, or that. And then the proponents have to defend it. And you know, often they get through with A-plus certification. I defended what I’m trying to do, you got these people at their best, they couldn’t poke any holes in it, so I’m stronger than when I started. And so, if climate is really so good, why are they afraid to stand up and defend what they’re doing, to be questioned, answer questions — everyone else has to do that, why are they different? So, they were absolutely outraged to think that anyone would like to audit what they were doing. Everybody else gets audited, but they’re free from audits. And so, it was a political issue. They called in all of their friends in the Senate, you know, and all across America — “how dare this evil Trump Administration us. We’re the greatest scientists who ever lived on the planet, and we’re saving the planet. And here are these guys are trying to ask us about how we calibrate this thermometer, you know? How dare they do that!” That was the situation. And then I think the President understood, but there were many, many other issues at the time, and it just didn’t seem like this was the right one to pick up. He was probably right.

Q: [2:16:24 no text]

HAPPER: What it tells you is that scientists always have to be very self-critical, you should always be questioning yourself, you should be questioning your colleagues. Have you thought about this? Could it have been caused by this, rather than what you claim it’s caused by? And that’s what does not happen in climate. Climate is completely impervious to criticism. You cannot criticize it. It’s like denying some religious belief. In fact, it’s interesting: The language that they use is all religious. “You’re {denying} climate..”. Well, what does “denying” mean? Why are you using that word in connection with a scientific field? So, it has all the trappings of a religious cult, and that’s what it has become for many people. There are exceptions; there are honest climate scientists, but they’re deluded by many cultists.

Q: What is your view of the nature of scientific research? How do you think fundamental discoveries in science are made?

HAPPER: A lot of people don’t realize how important accidents have been in the development of technology and science. You know, politicians think that we will set up a big program, we’ll spend a lot of money and we’ll have a war on cancer, and we’ll cure cancer. I remember when that happened — that was back in the ’70s, and we spent a lot of money and cancer’s still here! We’ve made a little progress, thank goodness. But that’s not the way that you solve a really hard problem. It’s usually solved because of some accidental discovery: Take nuclear energy, for example, fission energy. It was obvious there was a lot of energy involved in nuclear transformations, from the first discovery of the nucleus by Ernest Rutherford. And when Rutherford was asked, “Are you ever going to get power?” He says, “Anyone who says they’re going to get a power out of nuclear physics, they’re talking moonshine.” I think that was the word he used, “moonshine.” And he was right, because, at the time, no one knew there was there was such a thing as a neutron. But, a few years after he had made this statement, the neutron was discovered — accidentally — they thought, at first, it was some odd gamma-ray, penetrating gamma-ray, so it took a long time to realize that this was a new elementary particle that was not charged, and so, could easily interact with nuclei — there’s no Coulomb force to keep it out. So that was the first accident. And then Enrico Fermi was very quick to use the neutron for studies of nuclear physics, and he and his team in Rome did lots of exciting work in those first few years. He got the Nobel Prize for making what he thought were transuranic elements. He deserved the Nobel Prize, he was such a good guy, but it was a mistake! You know, what he was really doing was causing fission of uranium, and it wasn’t until Lise Meitner and her team in Berlin started doing chemistry on this irradiated nuclear uranium, they realized it’s not transuranics at all. It’s barium, and intermediate weight nuclei, that have been formed when the uranium nucleus splits. Again, an accident. And so, those two accidents, the accidental discovery of the neutron and the accidental discovery of fission made nuclear power possible, not only weapons, but civilian power, too. That has not happened for fusion. I think it may happen: Somebody will make an accidental discovery, which will make what seems like a very, very difficult engineering problem right now, suddenly feasible. And so, I’m all for supporting work on fusion. But you have to be realistic that it won’t help to increase the budget by a factor of ten, if you don’t have a good, new idea!

Q: What areas of scientific research most excite you today?

HAPPER: Well, of course, satellites have been very important for climate science, because we have the best data available now, from satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures, satellite measurements of cloudiness, satellite measurements of the radiation budget of the Earth; all of that’s good stuff, and I’m 100% for that. That’s a part of climate science that we can be proud of, and I think it doesn’t get enough support. Of course, that’s focused on the Earth, not on other planets, but, the way other planets’ climate systems work is interesting, too. You know, Venus is quite different from Earth, most of that is because it’s quite a bit closer to the Sun, so it gets twice as much insolation as Earth does. But there are interesting systems on the other planets: Jupiter has an amazing climate system, you know, clouds, the great red spot. So, there are a very rich set of targets out there for bright young people to work on, for NASA’s exploration satellites to help with. So, all of that’s very good stuff. I think if you ask, what is the fundamental question out there, it’s really dark matter. You know, there’s this huge part of the matter in the universe that nobody knows what it is. And it’s obviously there, from not very subtle experimental observations: You know, how fast galaxies rotate about their center — they rotate much too fast, because of some of this missing mass, the dark matter. And then there’s the dark energy. So, I think those are the fundamental frontiers. And there, too, I think this is probably a puzzle that will be solved by a lucky accident. You know, we should do our best to design experiments, but keep our eyes open for accidents. I think that’s how it will be cracked. If you don’t talk about space, I think the other huge area, if I were a young person, I would look very carefully at, biology, biophysics, biochemistry. We see, just in the case of COVID, if we were nimble, we could have had a vaccine or an antidote. And I would guess the time will come when we will be able to respond to new viruses very, very quickly, and nip them in the bud. We can’t do that today, but that’s certainly something that I believe could be done in the future. But it won’t happen automatically: People need to work on it, there have to be accidents happening. There, too, there have been accidents. I think many of your listeners may know about the CRISPR revolution, that was, again, an accident in biology that discovered this CRISPR mechanism for gene editing. But it was because some smart people looked at data and realized, there’s something funny about this, it doesn’t fit the usual paradigm, and they worked it out. So, I think there’s plenty of room for smart young people who are willing to work hard, to make a big difference to the human condition — and to have a good time doing it, you know, solving problems. [end video]

ROSS: That was Prof. Will Happer, Professor of Physics Emeritus from Princeton University. If, like me, you found several of the things he said surprising, or you’d like to ask him about them, please send in your questions, to questions@schillerinstitute.org. Professor Happer will be available for the Q&A shortly, as are Ben Deniston, Megan Beets, and Marie Korsaga. Our next presentations, before we get into that Q&A are about the treatments of COVID-19, and we’re going to be hearing from two physicians who are involved in this. First we’ll hear from Dr. Kildare Clarke who is a physician practicing in New York City, about what the situation is like at what is currently Ground Zero for the coronavirus.

DR. KILDARE CLARKE: I’m Kildare Clarke. I’ve been a doctor for many, many years, too many to even remember! However, I got very involved with the Lyndon LaRouche movement, which was a very important thing for me to do that point in time, due the fact that they were looking at the injustice which goes on in healthcare delivery, on the closing of various hospitals, turning over those spaces to private entities at the expense of the patients which we were taking care of. We warned them, back then! and with many protests, many demonstrations, even down to the Washington, D.C. General Hospital, where Dennis [Speed], myself, Lyndon LaRouche, and many of others went to protest the closing of that hospital. Despite our loss — because they did close the hospital — we have never given up that mission. Because healthcare is the {number one national product} of the world. Just to give you an example: If every person in this world is sick, nothing moves! So therefore, our national product is the healthcare of everyone, and that’s where our focus must always go first, because we can think about politics. Anyhow, the powers to be think it is best for them to look at healthcare as a numbers game, like widget, which you play on Wall Street. But people’s lives are not widgets; they’re human beings. Without them, there is no world. And it is incumbent upon us, as healthcare providers to make that message go through loud and clear! We might have to give up a lot! We might be fired from our jobs, we might be thrown in prison! But it’s a cause which is so indelible in my mind, that we must do it, and do it for the good of society. It’s not a personal thing, it’s for the good of society. [end video]

ROSS: I think Dr. Clarke put the moral terms of the necessity for a world health system very clearly in what he just said. Our next and final speaker for this panel is Dr. Guangxi Li. And the Schiller Institute would like to thank the CGTN Think Tank in helping to make Dr. Li available. Dr. Li is an MD-PhD at the China Academy of Medical Sciences in Beijing and he is with the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. His most recent paper, published on April 11 in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, is “Association between Hypoxemia and Mortality in Patients with COVID-19.” He will speak with us today about an aspect of the Chinese response to COVID-19. His title is “Preventing Acute Lung Injury — Essentials of COVID-19 Treatment.” Following Dr. Li’s remarks, we will be able to have more Q&A with all of the panelists I mentioned before.

DR. GUANGXI LI: Hello everyone. I’m Guangxi Li. I’m from the Academy of Chinese Medical Science. Today, my topic will focus on the Chinese medicine treatment of COVID-19. So, we all know the COVID-19 outbreak since January of this year has now spread all over the world, and it’s certainly a pandemic for humanity. We are fighting COVID-19 with different approaches. But in China we do have traditional Chinese medicine theory and a history of Chinese medicine, we are fighting different kinds of viruses and pandemic using only herbs. It’s really, really effective, and we have quite a lot of experience with that. So today, I would like to share some of our successful cases. We also have some data, and we are going to publish these data soon. Let me share this [slide show] screen first: [“Preventing Acute Lung Injury — Essentials of COVID-19 Treatment” Guangxi Li MD] My topic today is “Preventing Acute Lung Injury — Essentials of COVID-19 Treatment.” [Slide: “Clinical Presentation”] As we all know most patients who suffer from COVID-19 will have very mild symptoms, or even they may not have any symptoms. They are asymptomatic patients. In terms of our experience there are several stages: The first stage is the incubation period, that’s about 1-14 days. The second week of the disease is the most important window for us to prevent acute lung injury. That’s the fever period. That’s Day 1 to Day 7. Basically the first week of the disease onset. The patient will usually have mild fever to severe fever, so 37.5°Celsius to over 39.1°C. So, one patient may only have a very mild fever, then they stop at that line, and then other patients may develop a quite severe fever. The third stage is acute lung injury period. So if we cannot treat a fever, when the patients may develop acute injury, even in [alveoli? 3:10]. Now we need some kind of [inaudible 3:18] approach, especially when we need to intubate patients. And later on, if the patient can overcome this difficult stage and they will come to the current period, so that’s after two weeks. [Slide: “Whole Map of Treatment”] Basically, this is a whole map of the treatment using Chinese methods. What we need to do, is we need to start treatment early. There are several indications for the severe cases. Here, the high temperature increase, and dry cough increase, and the patient develops dyspnea, and that means the patient may go down the road of acute lung injury. So that’s a very dangerous indicator. So that’s what we need to do. We need to treat the patient early, it’s not too late. Once we start when a patient has already developed acute lung injury, then we treat them for what’s really a very long treatment period, and the mortality is high. So the best, if we want to get some good outcome, we need to intervene at the early stage. [Slide: “Very Early Stage: Control Transmission”] So, the very early stage is what we need to do. Also we need to control transmission. So, test, test, test. Then we can find out who has the virus, and then we isolate the patients. That’s what we have done. [Slide: “Fever Window”] So, the fever window is very, very important, as I said before. Right now, we don’t have any confirmed antiviral drug that really works on these patients. So, if they have persistent fever, the patients may develop very severe, and they’re falling off the cliff. So, the best way, what we’ve seen is the Chinese medicine. [Slide: “ALI Prevention”] Regarding Chinese medicine, we actually don’t want to kill the virus, from the Chinese philosophy. We want to regulate our immune response to the virus, to attack the virus. Basically the virus actually can be killed by ourselves. The major reason why the patients die, because the virus causes very strong cytokine storm. And then the cytokine storm will kill us. So this is what we use. Here is a formula what we use for our patients [on slide]. Basically, the first important medication is the ginseng. Using the current Western medicine we tested, isn’t really helpful to decrease cytokine storm, by regulating ourselves to attack the new virus. [Slide: “ALI Prevention”] And then we monitor patients’ fever progression. We monitor their oxygen saturation. We monitor their cough and shortness of breath. So, we can prevent the acute lung injury. [Slide: “Rescue Therapy”] So, if we could not cure the patient at an early stage, and the patient may develop ARDS, then we use some kind of ventilator, even ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation]. [Slide: “Early Stage (Day 1-7) Fever Reduce”] [Slide: “Early Stage Case — Fever & Fatigue”] There are some kind of cases I would like to discuss. Here is a patient, 76 years old, he had a fever for 2 days, and you can see [CT video], here is the CT scan, and you can see the moderate bilateral lung infiltrate. We used medicine to treat him. And then you see four 4 days later, we had another CT scan and the patient with not much better symptoms. Here is another CT scan for him. We noticed that this disease is quite different from other pneumonias. The infiltrate could disappear in a very short period of time, if we treat patients in time. So the patient, even though he had quite a lot of co-morbidities, and other complications, but he still recovered in about 1 week. He did not get any Western medicine treatment, no antiviral drug, no antibiotics. There are some other cases, but I will not discuss too much. [Slide: “Fever Persistent (after 3-7 days) Early ALI”] [Slide: “Persistent Fever — Early ALI”] And here, the patients if the fever is persistent, maybe after a week, the patient could start to develop acute lung injury. Here is another case, I would like to discuss. The patient who is marathon runner, and after he got acute lung injury and you can see the bilateral infiltrate. And when we used the Chinese medicine, it stopped the fever, the patient could recover after the Chinese medicine; but it doesn’t work with the Western medicine. [Slide: “Coughing & Dyspnea (Second Week) Early ARDS”] [Slide: “Early ARDS — Coughing & Dyspnea”] In this case, the patient really had acute lung injury, even he had already developed lung injury, how it [s/l shake up 9:27]. This is another case. Once the patient had the acute lung injury, his O2 was about 65 and his saturation only 81. Obviously, it’s very severe acute lung injury. And what we did is, we used Chinese medicine, and nothing else, some kind of trapping and fashion, all this stuff to stop the coughing. And the patient recovered after 1 week of Chinese medicine treatment. And you can see the CT scan is very severe: Almost 90% of his lung was infiltrated, it was damaged. [Slide: “Treatment Summary”] So, the basic stuff I want to summarize, the mechanism of this COVID-19 is the development of acute lung injury. If the patient doesn’t acute lung injury, that’s [inaudible 10:26]. The only patients we need to treat are those who develop acute lung injury. You can see this last figure from the {New England Journal of Medicine}, talking about the acute lung injury. The right side is abnormal alveolus after an attack of COVID-19. Recently, you could see those patients, where the alveoli were broken, and we have quite a lot of infusions, and there was [s/l flattening?], it’s worse here. So then we need to treat patients at the early stage, so that’s why we use the Chinese medicine to stop the fever and stop the inflammation, and stop the cough. After that, with some patients maybe, we still need oxygen support on a respirator support. We should not use any antiviral drugs or antibiotics. [Slide: “Questions & Discussion”] So that’s what my talk is. Thank you. I would like to take any questions. [end video]

Panel 2 CONCLUSION: For a Better Understanding of How Our Universe Functions

Saturday, April 25, 2002 With Jason Ross, Megan Beets, and Ben Deniston

Question & Answer Session

ROSS: Thank you Dr. Li. We’re now at our discussion period and we’ve got a fair amount of time available — I don’t know if that’s true for all speakers, but currently available for questions are myself, Ben Deniston, Megan Beets, Marie Korsaga, and Professor Happer is being connected, as well.

While he’s being connected, I’ll just make an announcement that Lyndon LaRouche Collected Works, Vol. 1 is available at larouchelegacyfoundation.org

I see Professor Happer is now with us, thank you so much for joining us. Several questions came in for you based on the speech you gave, and so I’d like to combine a couple of them, and maybe just chat for a minute.

One of the things that you brought up in your talk was about the role of accidents in making discoveries, even if you weren’t really intending to — that they sort of come up. You had said at the end of your talk that it might be possible one day, to be able to rapidly react to a virus that arises, be able to create antibodies or antidotes quickly; but that making that breakthrough might require a fortunate accident.

I was wondering if you could say more about the role of accidents in scientific discovery. And also the apparent contrast between the ability to have a science-driver program, like when Kennedy said “We going to the Moon,” — how do you see the relationship between having a crash program to really try and make a scientific discovery, versus the serendipitous nature that some of them take?

HAPPER: Well, frankly, you can have focused research programs and they can do some good. But the really big breakthroughs historically have usually been some accident or another. For example, the discovery of X-rays was a complete accident: Roentgen was perceptive enough to recognize something strange was happening in his laboratory, and he worked hard and he turned it into modern X-ray technology. It was an accident that fission was discovered. Nobody predicted fission: It was thanks to Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn that when they tried to repeat Enrico Fermi’s experiments, transuranics, and did some chemistry on it, they did not find what they thought should be there. They thought there should be neptunium and plutonium transuranics; that’s what Fermi got the Nobel Prize for. But in fact, that wasn’t what he was doing. He was splitting the nucleus, and Meitner and Hahn were smart enough to demonstrate that. The radioactivity really associated with barium not with plutonium.

So there are many cases like that, where the initial breakthrough is just completely unexpected. The other extreme of that is you take something like the semiconductor industry, you know, Moore’s Law, that has been systematic investment in better and better equipment, higher resolution, photolithography, better photoresists, better control of the equipment — that also works. But it’s a different type of scientific progress than the type that I think will be necessary for example to solve the controlled fusion problem: I think that will be solved by an accident.

Another example of that is not practical, but I think you know that the low-hanging fruit in physics and cosmology today is what is the nature of dark matter? What is it that makes galaxies rotate a lot faster than they really should be rotating? And people are desperately trying to figure out what it could be, trying to build detectors that would detect weakly interacting particles, hereto-unimagined — this, again, I think will be a problem that will be solved by a lucky accident and some perceptive person who can tell the difference between an important accident and just the usual mistakes that are made in experiments. I hope that’s enough.

ROSS: Another one of the panelists from this discussion would also like to ask a question. Ben, are you there? Ben Deniston, go ahead.

DENISTON: Glad to be here with all the guests we’ve had, and glad to speak to you Mr. Happer: One thing I wanted to ask, you’ve discussed and other people have discussed the benefits of higher levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere, and I’ve found that to be some fascinating areas of science to look at, just how our biosphere responds to some of these things. And when I’ve discussed that with other people, what I find is that there seems to be more of a gut reaction, even from scientists, about that that doesn’t seem to fit a certain narrative; and oftentimes, in the most fundamental sense there tends to be a narrative that human activity is inherently problematic for the planet and human activity inherently causes problems and catastrophes and any idea that it could be good just doesn’t fit this perspective. And people tend to think about science as “objective,” “fact based,” kind of like a cold just-follow-the-facts process, when in reality it seems like we have these narratives and dogmas that do play a substantial role in affecting where science goes and doesn’t go, and what areas of science which could be incredibly beneficial and interesting, including various factors of natural causes of climate change are actually affected by this. So, I’d definitely appreciate any thoughts you have on that reality of this social aspect and these narratives in science, and the affect that has; and where we can go to get past some of that.

HAPPER: I think science has always been much more subjective than scientists would like you think, and people have been disputing science since Galileo and long before, over the nature of this aspect of science or that. And the idea that scientists are somehow different from other human beings who have prejudices and who have infatuations or are mistaken frequently, that’s just not true. Scientists have all those faults, and it’s been demonstrated generation after generation. An example is continent drift: You remember that this was originally proposed by a very good, very bright German, but he was not trained in geology, so his ideas — it was Alfred Wegener — he was an excellent scientist and he was just dismissed out of hand, especially by American geologists. And I remember, even when I was a graduate student in the early ’60s, he was still being dismissed. But he was completely right. And now, nobody would even think to question continental drift, it’s a real fact. But it wasn’t easy for the first proposers and first disciples who made headway: You didn’t get tenure, for example, if you believed in continental drift in the 1950s.

Coming back to your question, people don’t like to admit that CO₂ is a benefit to the world. It actually clearly is: The geological history is completely clear, and I think the most compelling thing is that if you go to greenhouse operators, they routinely double, triple, quadruple the amount of CO₂ in their greenhouses, and not because they’re involved in the debate over climate, but because they want to make money! And if you grow cucumbers or if you grow decorative flowers in a greenhouse with more CO₂, you get a better product, and you get a better price. You have to pay for the CO₂ — it’s not cheap — but it’s a good investment.

And so, here we’re getting this free CO₂ that’s enriching the entire planet, and we should be very grateful for that. But of course, it doesn’t fit the narrative, and what can I say? It’s the human condition.

ROSS: Dr. Happer, in your short talk here, you mentioned dark matter. Another speaker we have on the panel who’s not appearing on the screen right now, but we have with us, Marie Korsaga: She recently received her doctorate in astrophysics looking at dark matter. And I’d like to pose a question to her, and then return to ask you a question, Professor Happer.

Dr. Korsaga will answer this one in English, I believe. The question is from [inaudible 2:53:16] who asks that since gender divisions in enrollments are more pronounced in STEM than they are in other areas of education, what can be done by Africa states to encourage girls to study space sciences. And congratulations for setting the ground for future girls to study astrophysics.

That’s a question for Marie Korsaga, and then we have another question for you, Will Happer.

KORSAGA: To answer this question, I’m really not an expert to the method, but my opinion is that girls need to be inspired from a young age, and for that they need role models. That’s why it’s important to encourage girls and women to pursue scientific studies, by allowing them to have more access to science, for example, during meetings in organizations, or meetings and workshops.

And also what I would like to say, we need more scientific schools for girls, to have access, and give them opportunities like scholarships to pursue in STEM studies. And what I would also like to say, is may be if the government would give more opportunities, and to give more opportunities for girls in science, like having interactions between girls and women who already have science backgrounds, so they can see them as role models, and then they will be inspired to continue and pursue scientific studies.

ROSS: Thank you Dr. Korsaga. I’d like to pose a question to Will Happer now. Professor Happer, one of the earlier speakers on this panel who is not able to join us for the Q&A — he’s in France — Dr. Jean-Pierre Luminet, who’s an astrophysicist, he in his presentation had contrasted the necessity for free invention, and he used quotations from Einstein about this; he spoke about the method of Johannes Kepler; and he contrasted the role of free invention in being able to actually create concepts to improve our understanding of physics — he contrasted that with the too-strict implementation of what’s called the “scientific method,” which he believes is too formal, really, to bear the greatest kinds of fruit.

Do you have a response to this distinction that Jean-Pierre Luminet had laid out in his talk?

HAPPER: OK, well, unfortunately, I didn’t hear the talk because I had some trouble signing in. But I agree with what you describe, that the scientific method is often a straitjacket that hinders progress. It certainly hinders these accidental discoveries if you take it too literally. It is important eventually to make sure this brilliant idea you think you’ve had, it really is a brilliant idea, and most people I know have lots of brilliant ideas of which maybe one in ten really is brilliant, you know. And so it takes a little while to sort out which ones really are important. But they don’t come from following some textbook. They come from God knows where, but they come to prepared minds, to people who are prepared to recognize some important new idea.

ROSS: Good, thank you. I’d like to ask one more to Dr. Korsaga. Here is the question that came in from someone in New York. He says, “The great historian and physicist, Cheikh Anta Diop, wrote in his 1978 short book on Africa that advanced technologies such as thermonuclear fusion must be pursued in African nations and astronomical observatories and elements of space exploration are needed to be put online as rapidly as possible, to allow African states to enter the 21st century on the same footing as other parts of the world.

This did not occur. In what way do you think we must act to encourage, in particular young people, the people that Professor Happer and others expect to make the new breakthroughs, how do we encourage them despite the many hardships that may exist?

KORSAGA: Thank you for this question. It’s an interesting one. What I can say is, to encourage them is before we need to create more opportunities, and also we need to let them know the importance of these sciences, these scientific programs for Africa, for the development of Africa, and the impact of these in Africa.

And what I also want to add, is when you take space science, astronomy and others, even if it’s not the other impact related to different kinds of studies like taking, for example, a program for astronomy, you need to develop competence in engineering, mathematics and physics, and all those skills are useful for the development for the country in many sectors. So I think we need to give all this information to young people in Africa, to let them know the importance and the positive impact of these scientific studies.

ROSS: Thank you Dr. Korsaga.

The next question goes to Will Happer, and this is a question that another one of our panelists wanted to ask you. Megan Beets, go ahead.

BEETS: Hi Dr. Happer. Earlier in the presentation that Jason, Ben and I gave, we discussed some of the common threats to the planet including space weather events like CMEs, asteroid strikes and so forth, and something that I raised as part of my presentation was the fact that our planet is in a galactic system. And what I specifically wanted to ask you about is the weather system. You’ve had people live Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, and others demonstrate that cycles of our Solar System’s motion through the galaxy and the influence of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere play a big role in modulating weather on Earth. So I was wondering if you could say a little bit more about that, and also if you have any thoughts on why that outlook is so rejected and resisted today?

HAPPER: I’m a big admirer of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. They’ve done absolutely very beautiful work, very interesting work. They’re still working hard on actual experiments to see how cloud nuclei form in the atmosphere in response to cosmic rays, so they don’t just make theories, they actually do measurements. As they pointed out, the Earth and the Solar System drift in and out of the spiral arms of our galaxy and so this modulates cosmic ray backgrounds on a long-term basis over maybe tens of millions of years. And there’s some evidence that that has played a role in the climate of the Earth, if you take these very long periods into account.

So, if you don’t know about their work, I do recommend it to you. Nir Shaviv in particular has written some very accessible summaries of the ideas. It’s good physics, good astronomy — and, they may be right! I don’t know whether they’re right or not, but it looks better than many of the establishment theories of what is controlling climate which are clearly — those theories are clearly not working very well.

ROSS: Dr. Happer, we’ve got some more questions that have come in for you — well, we have many questions on many topics: There are about 20 questions about COVID, ranging from implanting microchips when you get a vaccine, to digital identity cards, to vitamin C, to masks being bad for you. We’re going to leave those aside for now, and stick with some of the topics of the speaks that we have actually available for the Q&A. We will forward those to two physicians that we heard from earlier to see if they have any responses.

The next question that came for you is sort of a combined topic about national science objectives: This is sort of three questions put together. One is that Trump has called for international collaboration in space exploration as the U.S. plans to return to the Moon by 2024. U.S.-Soviet cooperation in space science has had a long and productive history. Recently, Putin has outlined a bold plan for multi-nation work to finally realize thermonuclear fusion as an inexhaustible energy source, says the questioner, and they’d like to know what the pathway is to realize those potentials?

I’d like to combine that with another question that came in, about the social role of science and of scientists.

Another question was about Trump’s approach towards science and how it may be related to the work of, I believe his great-uncle, who is Prof. John Trump, who I believe was at MIT doing work during World War II. If you have any thoughts — those are sort of two different questions there — but about the cultural aspect of a commitment to science and how we could learn from working with others internationally?

HAPPER: I think international collaboration, to the extent that it provides career paths for young people is very good. For example, the Russians did us a big favor by launching Sputnik, in the United States, because science was languishing until that point, and it woke many people in the U.S. up to realize that there are a lot of smart people all over the world, not just in the United States, not just in Europe. There were smart people in Russia and China, even Africa. So, it was time for us to pull up our bootstraps and start moving again.

I think programs like this that inspire young people are important, programs that give them a career path forward, something they can do that gives them some self-respect. And I’m convinced that we will solve a number of problems because of the young people of the future having smart ideas, good ideas, and these accidents that I mentioned before, they don’t have to come to young people, but they often do. So having some kind of a goal, even if you don’t reach the goal often it doesn’t matter, because you’ve discovered something else that you didn’t expect to discover. And perhaps the type of joint efforts on controlled fusion or on space exploration with other countries will help us to do that. I’m all in favor of that.

ROSS: I’d like to switch to one more question to Dr. Korsaga. We’d like to ask you to give some of your thoughts about how you believe the question of dark matter may be resolved? I know this was the topic of your PhD dissertation: Where do you think the future will lead us in exploring this phenomenon?

KORSAGA: My thought is first to state that dark matter for the moment it’s a hypothetical matter. We cannot observe this matter. But we can feel it through gravity. So, knowing more about this matter will help us to understand form and evolve with time. But if you take a galaxy, you can notice that the rotation that the velocity as a function of the radius, the way it rotates, it’s faster compared to the visible matter inside. When I’m talking about visible matter, I’m talking about the stellar components inside the galaxy, and also the gas components.

So, if we take these components, we can notice that the rotation, the way the galaxy is rotated is faster, compared to the rotation that we can only get when using the visible matter inside. So to understand how the galaxies rotate, we need to include the dark matter inside, to describe the rotational core of the galaxies.

So knowing this dark matter will help us to understand both the distribution and how the quantity of dark matter inside galaxies, and then to understand how the galaxy rotates, ends to better inform the formation in evolution and to better understand the universe.

One interesting thing to also notice, is that when we observe a galaxy at a certain distance, which are galaxies far from us, the luminosity that we collate is disturbed by the dark matter. And so, we call this the gravitational lens, and this gravitational lens can help us have a knowledge on how the dark matter is distributed, and the real quantity of the dark matter inside the universe. So knowing our universe, it’s very, very important to understand the behavior of dark matter.

And when I’m talking about visible matter inside the universe, it only represents 5%, and the dark matter is five times the abundance of the visible matter. So we cannot say that we can understand how our universe is forming in time and evolving, if we only know 5% of the constituent. So knowing the dark matter will be an opportunity for us to understand the formation and evolution the galaxies and also the universe, and then, to go back, to understand the formation our planets and the appearance of life on Earth.

ROSS: Hmm! Thank you.

There are several more questions that came in, one in particular to Professor Happer about his work on developing the guidestar approach for adaptive optics. I first wanted to ask Professor Happer if you would like to add anything on the topic that Dr. Korsaga just addressed, of dark matter, before we move on?

HAPPER: I think she did a very nice job explaining that. It’s obvious there’s dark matter there, because galaxies are rotating too fast, if you don’t assume dark matter. So it’s clearly there, but the question is, what is it? Is it little particles; at one time people thought maybe it was dwarf stars that were too small to be seen. There is not much support for that any more. But it’s a wonderful mystery, and it’s a big effect. I would love to be the one to discover it — I don’t expect to be, but I encourage young people to take that as one of their goals.

And I do agree with Dr. Korsaga about the importance of role models for young women. It’s very hard for women in physics and astronomy to get started, at least in the United States, you don’t get much support from your peers. If you’re a young woman in middle school or high school and you show an interest in math or science, people make fun of you. And unless you have tremendous strength of character and you have family support, you often just give up before you’ve even had a chance to try something. One of my good friends was Sally Ride, the first female astronaut in the United States — I’m sorry Sally died far too young — but she was a tremendous inspiration to many young women, and I hope that she still is. And I hope that Dr. Korsaga will be an inspiration one of these days to a new generation of young women: So, good luck to you!

KORSAGA: Thank you very much!

ROSS: And I want to thank Dr. Korsaga: She’s joining us from Burkina Faso and it’s getting a little late there.

KORSAGA: I’m studying in South Africa.

ROSS: Oh, you’re in South Africa, OK! Well, it’s still pretty late, though. Well, I want to thank you for joining us. And if you can stay on, that’s great, and if not, we wish you a good night, and thank you being with us.

Dr. Happer, Ben had a question for you about your development of the guidestar approach.

DENISTON: I definitely appreciate your taking the time: I was just curious if you had any favorite discoveries or areas of investigation that had been dependent on and built upon this ability to see through the atmosphere more clearly for astronomy, which you’re guidestar system contributed to.

HAPPER: Yeah. Well, it certainly played a major role in defining the properties of the black hole in the center of our galaxy, because it allowed people like Claire Max and Professor Malkin [ph] as UCSC to measure stars that a very, very close to the galactic center with infrared telescopes, and the additional resolution you could get from the USIP GuideStar was a key part of this, so I’m pleased that it had that application.

Of course, it has applications also in laser propagation. If you try to project a lot of laser power through the atmosphere, if you don’t correct for the atmospheric turbulence, you just can’t get much power onto target. And there it’s routinely used also.

So there have been uses. It was heavily classified for 10 years, so we couldn’t talk about it, but again, thanks to Claire Max it has been declassified since the early ’90s, and has proved its worth in astronomy.

ROSS: I’d like to ask one final question, and Professor Happer if you want to stay on for it — I’ll pose the question and let you decide. I’d like to ask all of our panelists to respond to it. This came in: “What do you believe is the one axiom that is most holding back scientific progress? What do you think is the post pernicious false belief that’s holding us back in our creativity?”

HAPPER: I wasn’t aware that we were being held back, actually. It seems to me we’ve made good progress! [laughter]

ROSS: Wow! OK. Well, thank you very much then. If you have anything that you’d like to say in summary, Professor Happer, and then, our other panelists and we’ll wrap up the panel. Is there anything else you’d like to say to our viewing audience?

HAPPER: I think the main thing I want to say, is that especially young people should keep their courage up. People often give up too soon, and so if you’re a young scientist, or you want to be a scientist, don’t be easily discouraged if people say you can’t do it, you usually are being misled. You can do it, if you keep trying. There’s this great quote from Faust [quotes in German] “Whoever keeps trying, we can save.” That’s good advice: It was good advice then, it’s still good advice today.

ROSS: Thank you very much, and thank you for joining us on this panel, Dr. Happer.

There are still dozens and dozens of questions that came in, and if you asked a question and we haven’t answered it, there are literally dozens that we didn’t get to that were sent in just for this panel.

So, Megan or Ben would either of you like to share any concluding thoughts with our audience today?

BEETS: Yes, I can say a few things: first, on your question about the axioms holding back science, there are probably many things to name. One thing I think is extremely important, and which was addressed in part by Dr. Luminet earlier, is the false belief that what we know about the universe from our own creative mental processes, cannot be applied when we look at the physical world outside of our skins. And I think this is an idea which really came to prominence in the 20th century, and I think that it should be eliminated: Because things we learn, for example, from our experience in Classical musical composition, especially the compositions of Beethoven, these can help us investigate the paradoxes having to do with time, that absolutely apply to our investigation of the physical universe. So that’s one thing I would put out, is something which is extremely important, and I’ll reference people to the work of Johannes Kepler as somebody who is exemplary as not having this problem, and his discoveries certainly speak for themselves.

But, just in a final summary word, in terms of what we presented today, I think the main message I’d like people to take is that coming out of this crisis we must have a new paradigm, not only in economic policy and many other things we spoke of this morning, and will continue to speak of; but scientific collaboration must be defined by this optimistic outlook for cooperation around these common aims: Humanity must be allowed to pull together and apply the best talents from among us from all over the world, to solve these real threats to human civilization. The only solution to these problems is progress: Scientific leaps forward, and that intention really does have to guide our scientific collaboration coming out of this period of crisis.

ROSS: Ben, do you have anything you’d like to say in conclusion.

DENISTON: I endorse everything Megan said. [laughter] She sums it up very well. When we were discussing with Helga Zepp-LaRouche about the formation of this panel and some of the content, she made the point that we want to be very clear that we’re having this COVID pandemic; if it wasn’t COVID, it could have been a surprise asteroid, surprise comet, this is just — in a certain sense the best thing that can come out of this crisis is taking that as a warning to get this shift we’re talking about, to get nations united against these common, larger threats, and not go through just the tragic fate of failing to get beyond this geopolitical perspective and end up going extinct, like many other, as we discussed, over 5 billion other species have gone before. It’s on us to decide not to go.

So the best thing that can come out of this crisis is using this as a motivation to ensure that we do make the changes needed and go with LaRouche’s program, as we’ve discussed, addressing not just the technical ways to avoid war, but addressing the underlying causes that lead to conflict, and finding the solutions in mutual, shared progress, that is uniquely human. Without that, as Mr. LaRouche spent his life defining, there’s no durable survival. So shared progress is the guarantee of durable survival.

ROSS: I’ll say something in conclusion and then we’ll have some closing announcements.

As Ben just said, building on Megan, this conference takes place at a time where we have this COVID pandemic taking place, and it could have been any number of other disasters to which we’re susceptible. That susceptibility is what we must take on.

And I’d just like to say one thing about the search for enemies, that unfortunately people are being pushed into right now: People are being told that China has lied about the coronavirus, that China created the coronavirus, etc., these kinds of things. There is no evidence that any virologist takes seriously that this was a manmade virus, that it was deliberately created in China, etc. There are also people who find fault with the performance of various governments. Michele Geraci had mentioned how Italy could have learned more from China’s experience in dealing with the coronavirus. I believe that’s clearly the case in the United States.

When people make the mistake, however, of looking for somebody to blame, they ignore the overall environment in which these decisions get made, and I’d like to read a quote from LaRouche to end things off here. It’s from a paper that he wrote, so I can’t play a video, but it’s about his view of what is the real essence of tragedy. Take, for example, a Shakespearean tragedy such as Hamlet: Many people learn from their literature teachers that the tragedy is in Hamlet himself, that he failed to do what he should have done.

LaRouche takes a different view about where the tragedy is located. So, I’ll read this paragraph from his 2000 essay, entitled, “Politics as Art.” https://larouchepub.com/lar/2000/2745_politics_as_art.html

In it, Lyndon LaRouche wrote: “The principle underlying all competent composition and performance of what is known as Classical tragedy, is based upon the historical evidence it reflects. That principle is, that, in real life off stage, entire cultures, excepting those destroyed by natural causes beyond man’s present ability to control, have been usually destroyed by the fatal defects inhering within that prevailing popular culture itself, as the U.S., as a nation, is being destroyed, like the ancient pagan Rome of the popular arena games, by no single factor as weighty as the effect of what is called ‘popular entertainment’ today.”

So he says that most cultures have been destroyed by the “fatal defects inhering within that … popular culture.” What we need to do, and which this entire conference has been addressing on the highest level, is, what is a new paradigm? What is a new cultural outlook that we can adopt internationally, in discussion with each other, to replace the tragic one, in which we are susceptible to what we are currently experiencing, and overcoming that, with a real victorious, and enduringly growing future?

I’d like now to wrap things up. I’d like to thank our speakers today: Dr. Jean-Pierre Luminet, Michel Tognini, Walt Cunningham, Dr. Marie Korsaga, Sen. Joe Pennachio, Prof. Will Happer, Dr. Guangxi Li, Dr. Kildare Clarke.

Before the panel that begins tomorrow morning at 11 a.m., which is going to be a panel on culture, we do have a playlist of some cultural experiences for you, to enjoy and learn from before that panel begins. [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoHwt4KyUk5BLyjo-lYI1akY_m95R12QD] You’ll find that on the conference website.

I’ll just make one final reminder about the Collected Works of Lyndon LaRouche which are available and you can purchase online at https://www.larouchelegacyfoundation.org

 

 

 

Talere på panel 1: Dennis Speed, ordstyrer, Schiller Instituttet; Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (videoklip); Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Institute; Dmitry Polyanskij, 1. vice-permanent repræsentant, Den Russiske Føderations faste mission ved FN; Hans excellence Ambassadør Huang Ping, generalkonsul for Folkerepublikken Kina i New York; Jacques Cheminade, formand, Solidarité et Progrès, tidligere fransk præsidentkandidat; Michele Geraci, økonom fra Italien, tidligere sekretær for udviklingsministeriet i Rom; Bassam el-Hachem, professor i sociologi, det libanesiske universitet i Beirut, Libanon; Antonio Butch Valdes, grundlægger af det filippinske LaRouche Society, Filippinernes demokratiske parti.

 Videoarkiv af panel 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OCAxLIpAMY

 Ordstyrer denne morgen, Dennis Speed, åbnede med to videoklip fra Lyndon LaRouche, et fra 1997 og et fra 2007, som præsenterede det fremsyn, der definerede LaRouches karriere. Kombination af disse videoklip understregede betydningen af samarbejdet mellem USA og Kina i forbindelse med større infrastruktur-platforme, samt den kritiske strategiske rolle, som nationerne USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien spiller i forbindelse med at gøre en ende på det britiske imperium, også kendt som det britiske Commonwealth.

 Helga Zepp-LaRouche introducerede publikum til den bredere historiske baggrund og præsenterede det fremvoksende sammenfald af multiple kriser, dvs. pandemien, græshoppeplagen fra Afrika til Indien, den truende globale fødevarekrise, stigende arbejdsløshed osv., som uforlignelig med selv den mørke tidsalder i det 14. århundrede. Hun opfordrede verden til at opdage nye principper og identificere de langsigtede årsager til den aktuelle krise, eliminere dem, og åbne et nyt kapitel i universalhistorien, så vi kan afslutte geopolitikkens æra og etablere et nyt system baseret på menneskehedens identitet som en kreativ art.

 Hun behandlede den igangværende optrapning i retning af atomkrig, som ses af den voksende propaganda, der drives af de samme elementer, som står bag kuppet mod præsident Trump, MI6 og Henry Jackson-Selskabet, men denne gang rettet imod Kina. Og dog udstiller denne operation også vores fjende, det britiske imperium, som et døende imperium fuldstændig afkoblet fra virkeligheden. Og hvis nogen skulle “betale” – som briterne nu insisterer på, at Kina skal betale for de økonomiske omkostninger ved virusset – skal briterne betale for deres forbrydelser mod menneskeheden og unødvendige tab af liv i de sidste to århundreder.

 Fru LaRouche præsenterede et bredt intellektuelt overblik over den afstumpede liberale/nyliberale verdensorden, fra pastor Malthus ‘folkemordsøkonomi, der var baseret på den italienske Giammaria Ortes syn på befolkningskontrol, til den venetianske agent Paolo Sarpi og hans besætning af karakterer såsom Galileo, Newton eller Adam Smiths filosofi og de moderne udtryk i form af spilteori og computerstyret økonomisk spekulation baseret på korruption af videnskab af Bertrand Russell. Russells opfordring til lejlighedsvis at have en ‘sort død’ til at feje hen over verden for at “løse” overbefolkningsproblemet blev omtalt som karakteristisk for imperiets ondskab. Hun insisterede på, at løsningen er et helt nyt verdenssyn, der bygger på den videnskabelige udvikling af menneskeheden, såsom rumforskning, fusionsenergi og udvikling af det menneskelige geni.

 

Den næste taler var første vicerepræsentant i FN fra Rusland, H.E. Dmitry Polyanskij, som behandlede den igangværende COVID-19-pandemi, de bredere sociale virkninger og nødvendigheden af øget globalt samarbejde, især at undgå at beskylde hinanden eller bruge krisen til at øge konkurrencen. Han understregede også G20’s rolle i at tackle problemerne, især for udviklingslandenes vedkommende.

 Han blev efterfulgt af Generalkonsul for Folkerepublikken Kina i New York, Huang Ping. Ambassadør Huang, der foretog sin præsentation via videooptagelse, idet han var forpligtet til at hjælpe med levering af nødvendige medicinske forsyninger, der ankom fra Kina til Boston samme eftermiddag, gav et overblik over den kinesiske tilgang og filosofi i forhold til den aktuelle pandemi og opfordrede til en udvidelse af samarbejdet mellem USA og Kina.

Der fulgte en kort række spørgsmål, hvor den videnskabelige rådgiver ved det kinesiske generalkonsulat i New York, Zhou Guolin, tog imod spørgsmål på vegne af ambassadør Huang. Det første spørgsmål omhandlede vigtigheden af et visionært topmøde mellem de 5 permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, hvilket Rusland for nylig har foreslået. Et yderligere spørgsmål kom fra vicerepræsentant for Sydafrika i FN om atomkraftens rolle i udviklingen af Afrika. Også Hr. Polyanskij havde tid til at svare på spørgsmål, inden han måtte forlade konferencen for et andet virtuelt møde.

 Jacques Cheminade, to gange præsidentkandidat for Frankrig, startede anden del af det første panel, med et oplæg, der implicit havde titlen: “Et Europa man ikke behøver at skamme sig over.” Hr. Cheminade præsenterede sit syn på den tabte sag i Europa under det nuværende system for kultur og politik, eller som han sagde, “Hvor løgnen er blevet en pervers kunst,” og behandlede derefter den form for ændringer der kræves for at genoplive de ægte suveræne nationer i Europa med henblik på at deltage i et nyt udviklingsparadigme. Han omtalte den 30-årige periode under den europæiske genopbygning efter 2. verdenskrig som et eksempel på det sande Europa.

 Efter Mr. Cheminade fulgte Mr. Michele Geraci, økonom og tidligere undersekretær for Italiens ministerium for økonomisk udvikling. Hr. Geraci har omfattende erfaring i Kina som økonom. og spillede en central rolle i at introducere Kinas globale udviklingsprogram for Bæltet & Vejen for det italienske folk under hans periode i regeringen. Han behandlede sine erfaringer fra både Kina over en tiårsperiode såvel som sin erfaring i den italienske regering i de seneste år, med fokus på behovet for større ekspertise, kompetence og repræsentation af det italienske folk.

 Udtalelser blev også fremsat af Bassam Al-Hachem fra Universitetet i Libanon om krisen i hans land; den delvise erklæring fra Butch Valdes – lederen af LaRouche-bevægelsen i Filippinerne, der talte om præsident Dutertes fremkomst og hans afvisning af den neokonservative/neoliberale dagsorden, som begyndte med hans åbenlyse afvisning af præsident Obamas neokolonialistiske politik (hans fulde erklæring forventes at komme søndag); og Daniel Burke, uafhængig kandidat til det amerikanske senat i New Jersey, opfordrede ungdommen over hele verden til at tage del i den globale udvikling gennem Lyndon LaRouches ideer. Der kom spørgsmål fra blandt andet ambassadøren for Costa Rica i Canada, Mali-ambassadøren i Canada og Nigerias ambassadør i Canada.

 Der blev præsenteret en video med fru Zepp-LaRouche om den dybe betydning af hendes mands ideer og vores indsats for at fremstille hans “samlede værker” i mange bind, hvoraf det første bind nu produceres og kan købes på https: // larouchelegacyfoundation.org. Hun sagde, at hans ideer er “lige så vigtige i dag som Platons var mht. at igangsætte den italienske renæssance,” og hun afsluttede det første panel med en opfordring til ‘at være kampberedte’, eller bedre endnu, ”fyre op under sæderne” for at få folk til at rykke!

Transcript:

Panel 1: The Urgent Need To Replace Geopolitics with a New Paradigm in International Relations

DENNIS SPEED: Hello! My name is Dennis Speed, and on behalf of the Schiller Institute, I want to welcome everyone today to today’s conference. It is being broadcast all over the world; the conference is being translated into many languages — Spanish, Chinese, German, French, Italian. We welcome our international audience and thank the translators very much. Today’s conference is called “Mankind’s Existence Now Depends Upon the Establishment of a New Paradigm.” I’d like to welcome and announce our speakers for this morning’s panel, which is called “The Urgent Need to Replace Geopolitics with a New Paradigm in International Relations.” Our first and keynote speaker will be Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and chairman of the Schiller Institute. His Excellency Mr. Dmitry Polyanskiy, First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations; Ambassador Huang Ping, Consul General of the People’s Republic of China in New York; as well, Counsellor Zhou Guolin, head of the Science and Technology section of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in New York; Jacques Cheminade, chairman of Solidarité et Progrès, and former French Presidential candidate; and Professor Michele Geraci, an economist from Italy.

Seventy-five years ago today, April 25, 1945, Russian and American troops met at the Elbe River in Germany. This signalled the end of the Second World War in Europe. The postwar world, as envisioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was a world that would be free of British and other colonial rule; but that was not to be. Roosevelt’s death on April 12, 1945, allowed the British and other political powers to downshift history. From 1945, Lyndon LaRouche, a veteran of the Second World War, vowed that — in the words of the poet Friedrich Schiller — “a purpose which higher reason hath conceived, which men’s afflictions urge, ten thousand times defeated may never be abandoned.” Lyndon LaRouche’s postwar experience in witnessing the Indian independence movement gripped him. He decided to commit his life to achieving that FDR dream of a world free of colonialism.

But Lyndon LaRouche also realized that to end imperial rule, what Winston Churchill had once called “the empire of the mind” must be defeated. LaRouche regarded Lord Bertrand Russell’s idea of scientific method to be as evil as were his ideas about society and humanity. Russell espoused ideas like this: “If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.” LaRouche, opposing such a Malthusian view, wrote hundreds of documents over five decades that proved that were no limits to growth. Limits were only in the human mind. Alexander Hamilton’s design of the United States Treasury’s power to issue public credit for investment in the nation’s physical improvement expressed the same outlook. In 1985, Lyndon LaRouche produced a report entitled “Economic Breakdown and the Threat of Global Pandemics.” This forecast that the Malthusian financial policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund would lower the resistance of populations worldwide, leading to pandemics and the deaths of millions.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, a LaRouche dialogue with many nations to avoid and avert that disaster, and most notably China, resulted in the issuance of this report, “The Eurasian Land-Bridge; The New Silk Road.” Helga Zepp-LaRouche visited several nations on behalf of this proposal, and it was a diplomacy of development, not geopolitics. In a public talk in 1997, LaRouche made these remarks regarding why China and the United States are natural allies in the pursuit of world economic development.

LYNDON LAROUCHE (video)

The Congress does not represent the United States; they’re not quite sure who they do represent, these days, since they haven’t visited their voters recently. The President is, institutionally, the embodiment of the United States, in international relations. The State Department can’t do that, the Justice Department can’t do it, no other department can do it: only the President of the United States, under our Constitution, can represent the United States as an entity. Its entire personality. Its true interest. Its whole people.

Now, there’s only one other power on this planet, which can be so insolent as that, toward other powers, and that’s the [People’s] Republic of China. China is engaged, presently, in a great infrastructure-building project, in which my wife and others have had an ongoing engagement over some years. There’s a great reform in China, which is a troubled reform. They’re trying to solve a problem; that doesn’t mean there is no problem. But they’re trying to solve it.

Therefore, if the United States, or the President of the United States, and China, participate in fostering that project — sometimes called the “Silk-Road” Project, sometimes the “Land-Bridge” Project — if that project of developing development corridors, across Eurasia, into Africa, into North America, is extended, that project is enough work, to put this whole planet, into an economic revival….

So that, what we have here, is a set of projects, which are not just transportation projects, like the transcontinental railroads in the United States, which was the precedent for this idea, back in the late 1860s and 1870s. But you have development corridors, where you develop an area, of 50 to 70 kilometers, on either side of your rail link, your pipeline, so forth — you develop this area with industry, with mining, with all these kinds of things, which is the way you pay for a transportation link. Because of all the rich economic activity: every few kilometers of distance along this link, there’s something going on, some economic activity. People working; people building things; people doing things, to transform this planet, in great projects of infrastructure-building, which will give you the great industries, the new industries, the new agriculture, and other things we desperately need.

There is no need for anybody on this planet, who is able to work, to be out of work! It’s that simple. And that project is the means.

If the nations, which agree with China—which now include Russia, Iran, India, other nations—if they engage in a commitment to that project, which they’re building every day; if the United States, that is, the President of the United States, Clinton, continues to support that effort, as he’s been doing, at least politically, then what do you have? You have the United States and China, and a bunch of other countries, ganged up together, against the greatest power on the planet, which is the British Empire, called the British Commonwealth. That’s the enemy.

And if, on one bright day, say, a Sunday morning, after a weekend meeting, the President of the United States, the President of China, and a few other people, say, “We have determined this weekend, based on our advisers and the facts, that the international financial and monetary system is hopelessly bankrupt. And we, in our responsibility as heads of state, must put these bankrupt institutions into bankruptcy reorganization, in the public interest. And it is in our interest, to cooperate as nations in doing this, to avoid creating chaos on this planet.”

The result then, is that such an announcement, on a bright Sunday morning, will certainly spin the talking heads on Washington TV.

SPEED: LaRouche’s view of China from 23 years ago has much to teach us today. Here is another excerpt from a speech ten years after what you’ve just seen, which was done in 2007, describing the LaRouche proposal for a new international monetary system.

LAROUCHE: We have to create a new monetary system. And what I’ve proposed is this: If the United States, and this is not impossible, if the United States should extend à proposal to Russia, to China, and to India to co-sponsor the formation of a new international monetary financial order, that could be done. The problem is that most nations, such as those of Western and Central Europe and other parts of the world, are not able to independently act in this way to initiate. However, if you get the United States and Russia, which are two of the largest nations of the developed world, formerly developed world, and you combine that with China and India, which are the two Asian nations which represent the largest ration of population of the world’s population. Then you have a combination which can provide a protective cover for joint action together with the nations of South America, for example, and Europe and elsewhere.

We have now an incalculable crisis worldwide in progress. This is not a financial crisis; this is not a financial scandal as such. This is not a scandal in any ordinary sense. This is a crisis to see who is going to run the world. Is it going to be a group of nations, or is it going to be the emerging new British Empire — or the re-emergent British Empire, which never really went away — which takes over from the United States, and establishes its world rule through globalization?

Therefore, what we have to do is this: The present world international monetary financial system is bankrupt. There is now way in which it can be reformed on its own terms and survive. Any attempt to maintain this system would mean a complete disintegration into a New Dark Age comparable to what Europe experienced during the 14th century, with the collapse of some of the Lombard banks in Italy at that time. That would happen. Therefore, the solution is to establish a new international monetary financial system. That could be done on the basis of the U.S. Constitution’s special provisions. Remember, the U.S. system is not a monetarist system. The U.S. system constitutionally is based on a credit system based on the Constitutional authority of the United States government over the utterance and control of its own money. In other parts of the world, countries’ financial systems have been controlled largely under the Anglo-Dutch liberal system in which this system, through its network of private banks — so-called central banks — actually dictates and controls governments. So, we’ve had an imperial world monetary financial system which has been traditionally centered on the British Empire essentially ever since February 1763. Against that, the only system which is surviving of any great significance today, is the alternative; the Constitutional provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which establish the U.S. dollar as a credit mechanism of the U.S. government. That is, under our system, when it’s operating — and it has not always operated that way obviously — under our system, we generate credit through a vote in the Congress; essentially House of Representatives. The President of the United States then acts upon that authority of this Federal law, to utter currency as credit against the United States itself.

Now the chief function of this credit is not just to print money. The function of this credit is to supply capital funds for long-term capital investments; especially in the public sector, but spilling over into the private sector. In the public sector, largely large-scale infrastructure projects for the states as well as the Federal government. This credit generally extends for a life period of 25-50 years in terms of modern economy. Therefore, we have a present world monetary financial system which does not function. However, if the United States affirms its Constitution, and enters into agreement with three other sponsoring countries, and other countries, then we can create a new international monetary financial system immediately; putting the entire existing system into bankruptcy reorganization to maintain the continuity of essential functions, and to start a program of actual net economic growth and development.

The hardcore of this over the long term would be long-term investment in basic economic infrastructure and development of the economies of various parts of the world. A cooperative set of treaty agreements of 25-50 years’ duration to create capital formation to bring the world up in the way that Roosevelt had intended, had he lived at the end of the war. Therefore, the United States must be reformed in the way consistent with its own Constitution, by offering cooperation with other countries — especially leading countries — to establish a new world system; a new version of the old Bretton Woods system which would provide for recovery programs of over 25-50 years of long-term investment throughout the world as a whole.

SPEED: Now, 13 years later, Lyndon LaRouche’s vision for the United States and the world must become a reality. We all over the world stand simultaneously on the precipice both of disaster and of the greatest potential in human history. We’re one human race, tied together in this whether we like it or not. Now more than ever, Lyndon LaRouche’s wise words and his passion for solving great problems is needed. There is an idea, a principle in drama, which Friedrich Schiller used called the punctum saliens. It is an idea which the keynote speaker for today’s panel is very familiar. The whole of civilization is now at a crossroads, and only from the higher realm of art, which is the same region from which statecraft comes, can the promise of a durable future proceed. That has been the life’s pre-occupation of our keynote speaker, and it’s always an honor for me to introduce the founder and chairman of the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

The Crimes and Downfall of British Liberalism and The New Paradigm of the Future of Humanity

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I’m greeting all of you who are watching this internet conference from all over the world, and I think you are all aware that the human species right now is confronted with an unprecedented crisis, which not only threatens the cost of many millions of people through illness and hunger, to sweep away many of the institutions which people thought to have been granted until now, and to plunge large parts of the world into a new dark age, including culturally, but it can also lead to a thermonuclear war that would potentially wipe out all of humanity.

This crisis is more far-reaching than that of the 14th century, when the Black Plague wiped out one-third of the population from India to Iceland. It is more serious than the Great Depression of the 1930s, because it can potentially destroy more economic substance. And if war does break out, it will be definitely more consequential than the world wars of the 20th century, because it would probably involve the deployment of thermonuclear weapons.

Due to globalization and the internationalization of many systems, including the internet, nuclear weapons, we are all sitting in the same boat. And unlike previous epochs, when one part of the planet was prospering and another was collapsing, this time there will be no partial solutions. More than ever before in our history, we as a community, as one mankind, are challenged to agree on new principles that can guarantee the long-term fitness of mankind to survive. That is the point of this conference: How can we identify the causes of this crisis, eliminate them, and open a new chapter in universal history that leads our existence out of geopolitical confrontation, into a level of reason that befits the identity of mankind as a creative species?

Some people may wonder why, in the middle of a pandemic and financial crisis, I’m also bringing up the question and the danger of nuclear war? Because the outrageous and malicious accusations against China made by the British secret services MI6 and MI5, and their propaganda outfit, the Henry Jackson Society of London, the Atlantic Council and various “cluster agents” on both sides of the Atlantic, blaming China for the COVID-19 pandemic because it supposedly either delayed the information about it, or even used biological warfare against the West. This comes down to an outward building of an enemy image for war. The insolence with which the Henry Jackson Society, the hard core of the liberal neocons and British war party on both sides of the Atlantic, is demanding billions of dollars in compensation, can only be seen as a provocation designed to prepare the ground for a strategic showdown.

That is the hysterical but ultimately desperate reaction of an Empire that realizes that it’s all over, and that the world will never again return to the already unravelling strategic orientations of a unipolar world, the so-called “Washington Consensus” and the “rules-based order,” that it was able to maintain at least as a facade until the outbreak of COVID-19. The calculations of the war party were wrong; it over-hastily declared the “end of history” following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was also linked to the illusion that China had only to be given membership in the WTO in order to automatically develop into a British-style liberal democracy; and that all other countries would also be transformed into western democracies via a regime change policy either through color revolutions or interventionist wars.

China’s unique world-historical cultural achievement — that of not only lifting 850 million of its own people out of poverty, but also for the first time, giving developing countries, with the New Silk Road, the prospective of overcoming the colonial policy that is still implemented to this day by the IMF, as well as poverty that caused — was met with disbelieving horror by the various mouthpieces of the British Empire. After the western media had ignored the largest infrastructure program in history for about four years, attacks on so-called “autocratic regimes” like China, Russia, and others, were suddenly escalated by the same media, which have profiled themselves since 2015 in the “witch hunt” against President Trump, in collusion with the coup attempt of the British secret services.

But once the figures were released in March and April that showed that China had not only been able to crush the pandemic more effectively, but also to overcome the economic consequences of the crisis much more easily than the Western countries, which the privatization of the health sector had left totally unprepared for the pandemic, the tone towards China became shrill. The “rules-based order” of Western democracies, the only “democratic legitimacy,” has been shaky for a long time, and it now threatens to collapse, while Beijing is pursuing a “strategy of unrestricted warfare” it was claimed. The fact of the matter is that the liberal system of the British Empire has failed with a bang. But that does not mean that the forces allied to the Empire cannot still inflict enormous damage in their agony, for example by instigating a world war.

It is high time to rectify the names, as Confucius would say. If the idea is to draw up a list of guilty parties and compensation due for the current crisis, then it has to be the list of the effects of British liberalism, whose protagonist Winston Churchill carries the main responsibility for the lack of the most important aspect of the postwar Bretton Woods system that Franklin D. Roosevelt had intended; namely a credit mechanism for overcoming colonialism and industrializing the developing sector. Because of this lack, the British Empire’s control over the so-called Third World was perpetuated in the postwar period. This situation was then exacerbated after President Nixon terminated the Bretton Woods system in August 1971, which led to successive deregulations of the financial markets, the infamous out-sourcing to cheap-labor countries and IMF conditionalities. The one and only purpose of this whole policy was to maintain colonial looting and prevent any serious development in those countries.

How could anyone in the so-called “advanced countries” — and we now see with the coronavirus pandemic just how advanced they are — assume for even one minute that the brutal poverty in Africa, Latin America, and some Asian countries is self-evident or self-inflicted? If the West had done for the last 70 years what China has been doing in Africa since the 1960s, but especially in the last 10 years now, namely building railways, dams, power plants, and industrial parks, then all of Africa would enjoy the level of development you see in South Korea or Singapore or better today! Africa, as a result of these policies, has virtually no health system, no infrastructure; half of the population does not have access to clean water, sanitation, or electricity, because the British Empire deliberately suppressed them, working through the IMF and the World Bank, through the World Wildlife Fund, which considers the protection of an insect species in cases of doubt as more important than the lives of millions of people! If you take into account the overall effect of this policy, you will come up with a figure of millions of people whose lives have been shortened by hunger and untreated diseases! Contrary to the myth that the British Empire ceased to exist once and for all with the independence of the colonies and the handover ceremony of Hong Kong on June 30, 1997, it still exists in the form of neoliberal monetarist control of the world financial system; a control that has always been the quintessence of empires.

Another example of pure propaganda from the Empire is to say that Third World countries simply don’t want to develop. The reality is that even the concept of the UN Development Decades was de facto eliminated with the end of Bretton Woods, and its replacement by the idea of population reduction, the Club of Rome’s crude ideas about the supposed limits to growth, and the misanthropic notions of John D. Rockefeller III, as he presented them at the UN Population Conference in Bucharest in 1974, or Henry Kissinger’s scandalous NSSM 200 from the same year; which were just vapid molds of the assertions of the evil Pastor Malthus, the scribbler of the British East India Company, who in turn plagiarized the ideas of the Venetian “economist” Giammaria Ortes.

Lyndon LaRouche reacted to this paradigm change when he began, in a series of studies in 1973 on the effects of the IMF policy, to warn that the growing under-nourishment, weakening of the immune system, lack of hygiene, etc. would lead to the emergence of global pandemics. After the thousands of speeches and writings by LaRouche, which have circulated in the intervening five decades over all five continents, no one can say that the current pandemic was not foreseeable! Especially since LaRouche’s entire life’s work was dedicated, among other things, to working out development programs that would have exactly prevented it!

The fundamental reason why the liberal paradigm and the underlying the current transatlantic “rules-based order” have failed, and why the Establishment has proven to be so completely unable to reflect on the reasons for this failure, is linked to the axiomatic basis and the generally accepted assumptions of this paradigm’s image of man, as well as its concept of state and science.

After the initial emergence, during the Italian Renaissance, of ideas and forms of a State that consciously fostered the creative capacities of a growing proportion of the population and the role of scientific progress as a source of social wealth, the feudal oligarchy of the then-leading empire, Venice, launched a deliberate counter-offensive, in which Paolo Sarpi, as the leading thinker of that Venetian oligarchy, put forward his teachings, out of which the Enlightenment and liberalism ultimately developed. The idea was to control the scientific debate, but to deny the ability to know and to discover real universal principles, to suppress the Promethean potential — by force if need be, to reduce people to the level of sensual experience, and to turn the backwardness of “human nature” into a dogma.

From this tradition came the mechanistic scientific tradition of Galilei Galileo and Isaac Newton, the game and information theory of John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener, and more recently the algorithms that underlie the derivatives trading of today’s casino economy. The empirical and materialistic dogma and decadent image of man peddled by Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Malthus, Jeremy Bentham, John Locke and John Stuart Mill remain to this day the basis of British liberalism and the virus that has contributed more to the current state of the world than anything else.

The oligarchical mindset of the British Empire, which denies all men, but especially all colored men, the divine spark of creativity is expressed in full clarity in numerous writings and statements, if people only care to look for them, from Prince Phillip’s notorious wish to be reincarnated as a deadly virus, in order to help reduce the overpopulation of the human race, to the despicable outlook expressed by Adam Smith in his 1759 Theory of the Moral Sentiments:

“The administration of the great system of the universe … the care of the universal happiness of rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension, they are of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country…. Nature has directed us to the greater part of these by original and immediate instincts. Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sakes, and without any considerations of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them.”

Since these attributes all apply equally to animals, then it is obviously also okay to cull the herd periodically, just as the Spartans killed the Helots, when they thought they would become too numerous. This misanthropic image of man is amplified through pure racism, as Bertrand Russell expressed it so unashamedly in The Prospects of Industrial Civilization:

“The white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without the help of war and pestilence…. Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.”

It is precisely this racist ideology which was the justification for colonialism, the slave trade, the opium wars, and, to be honest, it is ultimately also the reason for the monumental indifference shown by large parts of the population in the West when they hear the news about the locust plague in Africa and in some Asian countries, which could have been eliminated two months ago for a cost of only $75 million.

And nothing has changed in the fundamental support for eugenics among representatives of the Empire. That was emphasized once again by a columnist of the Daily Telegraph in an article in early March by Jeremy Warner:

“Not to put too fine a point on it, from an entirely disinterested economic perspective, the COVID-19 might even prove mildly beneficial in the long term by disproportionately culling elderly dependents.”

It is these barbaric premises of the liberal dogma, although it is hardly fashionable to admit their existence in the so-called developed countries, that led Lyndon LaRouche many years ago to stipulate that the combination of the four economically and militarily most important countries in the world — the U.S.A., China, Russia, and India — was required to carry out the urgently needed reorganization of the world order. This reorganization, however, must begin with the explicit and definitive rejection of the image of man of this liberal dogma and its political implications. The British Empire in all its forms, but above all in its control over the financial system, must be ended.

These four nations — the United States, China, Russia, and India — urgently need to convene an emergency conference and adopt a new Bretton Woods system that realizes FDR’s full intention, by creating a credit system that guarantees once and for all the industrialization of the developing sector. It should begin with the implementation of a world health system that builds up a health system in every single nation on this planet. First of all with a crash program to fight the coronavirus pandemic, but then reaching very quickly the same standards that were set out in the Hill-Burton Act in the U.S.A. or as it was the health standard in Germany and France before the privatization in the 1970s. As Roosevelt put it in his speech on the State of the Union in 1941, in the famous declaration of the “Four Freedoms,” where he stated: “The third [freedom] is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.” First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt made it her personal mission to ensure that these Four Freedoms were incorporated into the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In Lyndon LaRouche’s 1984 “Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.” that defined the principles and the basis of the Strategic Defense Initiative which he proposed, and which was declared the official policy of the United States by President Reagan on March 23, 1983, and which was repeatedly offered to the Soviet Union to cooperate on a comprehensive nuclear disarmament program. LaRouche defined the conviction that represents an absolutely crucial aspect of his life’s work and the mission of this organization. The first article of this paper, the principles of which also apply to the cooperation among the four nations and all others who choose to join this new partnership, states:

“The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b) Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all. The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as ‘developing nations.’ Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modem colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace on this planet. Insofar as the United States and Soviet Union acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of durable peace between those two powers.”

In view of the escalating anti-China campaign, launched by British intelligence, which has people in President Trump’s entourage attempting to outdo each other almost hourly in their accusations against China, including Secretary of State Pompeo, [Director of Trade and Industrial Policy] Peter Navarro, [Senator] Lindsey Graham, and [Fox TV host] Tucker Carlson, while various demonstrations of a show of force by the U.S. and NATO forces appear to be limited only by the number of COVID-19 infections among some of their crews, the existential question is posed of how the world can get out of this dangerous escalation. Are we doomed to relive how the overtaking of the ruling power by the second most powerful leads to war, as has already happened twelve times in history?

The combination of the coronavirus pandemic, the world hunger crisis, the impending financial hyperinflationary blow-out, and the depression of the global real economy is so overwhelming that it should be clear to every thinking human being that mankind can only get out of this crisis if the economic potential of the United States and China — supported by the other industrialized countries — is jointly deployed and increased in order to create the capacities needed to ensure medical care, infrastructure, and industrial and food production. It is in the existential interest of every individual and every nation on this planet to work towards this goal. We have to create a worldwide chorus among all other nations and many millions of people to demand just that!

The conflict between the United States and China only exists if those forces in both parties in the U.S. prevail, that are in the tradition of H.G. Wells “Open Conspiracy,” with the idea that the U.S. accepts the model of the British Empire as the basis of an Anglo-American controlled unipolar order, they can run the world. This vision of HG Wells’ was carried on by William Yandell Elliott, the mentor of Kissinger, Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, up to the neocons of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). If, on the other hand, the United States harks back to its true tradition of the Declaration of Independence against the British Empire and of the American System of economics of Alexander Hamilton, then there will be a great affinity with China’s economic model which contains many of the principles of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, and Henry C Carey. In the same way, the father of modern China, Sun Yat-sen, was very much influenced by the American System.

At the urgent emergency summit of the U.S., China, Russia, and India, and at the then immediately necessary founding conference of the New Bretton Woods System, the heads of state can take up on the spirit of the original Bretton Woods conference, at which the head of the Chinese delegation, H.H. Kung, submitted Sun Yat-sen’s proposal for an “International Development Organization.” Kung, one of Sun Yat-sen’s brothers-in-law, said in his speech in Bretton Woods:

“China is looking forward to a period of great economic development and expansion after the war. This includes a program of large-scale industrialization, besides the development and modernization of agriculture. It is my firm conviction that an economically strong China is an indispensable condition to the maintenance of peace and the improvement to the well-being of the world. After the first World War, Dr. Sun Yat-sen proposed a plan for what he termed ‘the international development of China’. He emphasized the principle of cooperation with friendly nations and utilization of foreign capital for the development of China’s resources. Dr. Sun’s teaching constituted the basis of China’s national policy. America and others of the United Nations, I hope, will take an active part in aiding the postwar development of China.”

As I said, Roosevelt supported the internationalization of this development policy during the negotiations, and he considered the increase of a high standard of living worldwide as the key to global stability. And he saw the way to do so in the internationalization of the New Deal policy.

The four main nations of the world — the United States, China, Russia, and India — must now establish a New Bretton Woods system and together with all nations that wish to join, a new paradigm in international cooperation among nations that is guided by the common aims of mankind. The fourth of Lyndon LaRouche’s four laws defines the qualitatively higher economic platform, the higher level of reason, of the Coincidentia Oppositorum of Nicholas of Cusa, on which the contradictions of geopolitical confrontation will be overcome.

International cooperation among scientists who rely exclusively on verifiable universal physical principles must replace the primacy of politics based on ideology and interests. Research into the “life sciences,” a better understanding of what causes the characteristics of life and its origin in the universe, is the prerequisite for the fight against the coronavirus and all other potential virological, bacterial, and other disease processes. As part of the world health system, we need to build up collaborative medical research centers internationally, where the young scientists of all developing countries will also be trained. The profound experience of the coronavirus pandemic is that the provision of health care must be a common good, and not serve to maximize profits for private interests. The results of this research must therefore be immediately provided to all universities, hospitals, and medical personnel in all nations.

Another area in which international cooperation toward the common goals of mankind is indispensable, is the achievement of energy and raw material security, which will be possible with the mastery of thermonuclear nuclear fusion and the associated fusion torch process. The international ITER project at the Cadarache facility in the south of France, a tokamak nuclear fusion reactor and international research project already involving the cooperation of 34 countries, is a good start, but the funding of ITER and other models of nuclear fusion must be massively increased. One of LaRouche’s central discoveries is the interconnection between the energy flux density used in the production process and relative potential population density. The mastery of nuclear fusion is imperative, not only for the living population, but especially for manned space flight.

Space research itself is the one area that would be unthinkable without international cooperation and which, more than any other branch of science, demonstrates in a positive way what the pandemic demonstrates in a negatively: That we are actually the one species that is determined by its future, and whose long-term survivability will depend on our learning to better understand and master the laws of the universe — including the at least 2 trillion galaxies that the Hubble telescope has been able to verify. Defense against asteroids, meteors, and comets is only one among many important elements of this. For developing countries, unlimited participation in research projects is the best way — through scientific and technological “leapfrogging” — to create the preconditions for economies that are able to provide all citizens with a good and safe life.

Nicholas of Cusa already wrote back in the 15th century that all discoveries in science should immediately be made available to representatives of all countries, so as not to unnecessarily hold back the development of any one of them. He also found that concordance in the macrocosm is only possible when all microcosms develop in the best possible way. The New Paradigm that we need to shape for cooperation among nations, must start from the common interest of all mankind, towards the realization of which all nations and cultures, in counterpoint as it were, as in a fugue, are intertwined and rise dynamically to higher stages of anti-entropic development.

Are we, as human civilization, able at this late stage of events to avert the tsunami of pandemics, famine, financial crisis, depression, and the danger of a new world war? Then the world needs this summit of the four nations now! If such a summit were to announce all these changes — a New Bretton Woods system, the four great powers joining hands in building up a global development program in the form of a “New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” a world health system, an international crash program in fusion and related research, a massive upgrade in international space cooperation, and last but not least, a dialogue of the Classical traditions of all nations with the aim of sparking a new Renaissance of Classical cultures in a similar, but even more beautiful way than the great Italian Renaissance overcame the horrors of the Dark Age of the 14th century — then a new era of humanity can be born!

Is there a reasonable hope that we can overcome the current profound crisis of mankind? I would say, absolutely! We are the only creative species known so far in the universe, which has the ability to discover new principles of our universe again and again, which implies that there is an affinity between our creative mental processes to these physical laws.

One thought that elucidates this optimistic perspective concerns one aspect of space research; namely, the seemingly accelerated process of aging in conditions of weightlessness, and the change of this process in hyper-gravity. A better understanding of this “space gerontology” is obviously crucial for the future of manned space travel to Mars and in interstellar space, and it is expected that it will significantly increase the ability of humans to have a longer healthy life.

If you consider that Schubert only lived to be 31 years old, Mozart 35, Dante 36, Schiller 45, Shakespeare 52, and Beethoven only 56, then you have an idea of how much the geniuses of the future, with a life expectancy of 120 or 150 years, will be able to contribute to mankind’s development!

Therefore, join us in putting an end to the British Empire! And let’s create a truly human future for all of mankind! Thank you.

*************************************

SPEED: Thank you, Helga! Our next speaker is His Excellency, Mr. Dmitry Polyanskiy, the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations.

HIS EXCELLENCY DMITRY POLYANSKIY: Thank you very much, distinguished colleagues. Thank you, Mrs. LaRouche for your very interesting presentation; there are a lot of things to process, and I’m sure we will do it. I am a diplomat as you know, and being a diplomat implies a little bit different way of speaking, so I can add to your presentation a couple of observations from a political and diplomatic perspective.

It’s absolutely sure that COVID-19 has created very serious problems for the whole of mankind. The most important of which is saving lives, ensuring our common security, bio-medical safety, and the preservation of human environments which should be comfortable and pose no threats to life and health. It has become absolutely clear that no state, no matter how powerful and wealthy it is, has all the tools to fight the pandemic. Everyone had to introduce drastic measures that can be potentially harmful to the national economy to contain the epidemic. We don’t know yet the scope of these consequences that most of the countries of the world will face; it is still to be calculated. So far, after almost half a year since we first heard about the coronavirus, no one has the vaccine, and no one has the efficient treatment proposals so far. We absolutely can win, but this is not the time of blaming and stigmatization. It’s the time of cooperation and supporting each other. It’s also not the time of contests — who did what, and who was more successful than others. It’s not a beauty contest. It is really time to help, to share experiences, and to listen to each other, and to find ways to work together to face this unprecedented challenge in modern times for the whole of mankind.

Russia is ready to face this challenge together with our partners. That is why, while taking all the necessary measures to combat the coronavirus at a national level, we also believe that is our duty to provide assistance to the others, to our partners. So, when we’re still at the very early stage of the spread of coronavirus, at the beginning of February, we donated items of personal protective equipment and medical supplies to China, which was very badly affected at this time. Teams of Russian doctors and virology experts were also sent to Italy and Serbia, who were in a more advanced stage of pandemic at that time.

Now my country is also struggling with very big forces combatting the pandemic. That’s why we now also welcome any assistance that can be rendered to my country, and we cooperate in this regard with many countries — with China, with European states, with the United States. As you know, early in April we delivered a plane load of humanitarian aid to New York, and we said this was done with open hearts, and we would accept any assistance we deem necessary at a later stage, which we already understood at this time we would inevitably face. That’s how cooperation is organized. Again, it’s not a beauty contest; it’s not a situation when somebody says we succeeded and somebody failed the exam. It’s not the time for this. It is the time to display readiness to render assistance and to give a helping hand. That is how all the responsible global actors should behave.

Now, when the situation in China started to stabilize, China is actually helping the whole of the world, including Russia, and we welcome very much this help. We think it’s normal. Recently, a number of African states addressed to Russia, asking for help in combatting the pandemic. We are considering these demands in Moscow, and I am absolutely sure that we will come to rescue it at a later stage when we will make a major breakthrough in our fight with the pandemic. That’s what we are doing right now. It’s also very important to point out that we are convinced that the response to this global threat should also be global. It would be a mistake to fragment and lump matters within our national borders.

We are absolutely convinced that the United Nations must play a pivotal role here. It is important that we all support the WHO [World Health Organization] as the main specialized UN agency and help it to coordinate global measures, and listen to its recommendations. These past months, the WHO has become the center of all information on the pandemic. I believe that anyone who studies the chronology of its actions, statements, and specific decisions, will be convinced that the WHO was efficient. Moreover, the fact that the WHO has played and continues to play a major role in countering the pandemic, is reflected in a recently adopted consensus resolution of the UN General Assembly, and the final declaration of the G20 extraordinary summit. It is also important not to forget about the declaration adopted by the G77 and China, that stresses the coordinating role of the World Health Organization in global efforts. We need to insure universal medical service coverage through this organization. Again, it’s time to be united and not to blame somebody, and not to stigmatize any country because of what it did or didn’t do. We should really support the WHO, we should make it a pillar of our efforts to combat the coronavirus now, and maybe at some later stage, because there are a lot of predictions that there might be repercussions of this pandemic earlier.

It is quite clear that the spread of the coronavirus has very badly impacted the economy. Again, I will repeat that it’s still very difficult to assess the damage and the consequences for economic development of the world and especially certain countries after the pandemic. Of course, the pandemic also very badly affected business, trade, investments, as well as currency exchange rates. We are still in the middle of it, so we can’t really start rectifying all this damage and finding workable solutions for this. You also can see that what is happening has increased demand for various products which have become in bigger demand than some countries could make them available. So, it’s also time for coordination. We believe that the G20 countries should play this role, and they should be in the driving seat of working out an economic agenda to help all of us establish a common framework for mutual economic responses to reload the world economy after these deep and profound shocks that were caused by the pandemic.

It is also, I will repeat it once again, it is also time for deep and frank solidarity, regardless of political agendas and preferences. We especially need to pay attention to developing countries, which face enormous challenges and should be assisted first and foremost.

I want to mention one more topic in this regard. It is also important that the media and social networks behave in a responsible way, because we are mostly speaking about the impact of the coronavirus on the health care system and economics. But it’s very difficult to assess the damage that is being done to the minds, to the perception of the users; those who are now in self-quarantine. They really are very hungry for any information that is available for them. That is why in this time it is especially important that mass media exercises restraint and a responsible approach, and does not spread fake news and information that has not been verified. The consequences of this can be really very profound. We attach a very big importance to this, and we try in Russia at the national level to combat all this fake news that is being circulated. We try counter them with information that is really proven to be good and to be reliable for the public.

It is also very important to assess, and this is maybe a question for philosophers. What will be the impact on human behavior? Will we be shaking hands again? Will we be giving each other hugs after the coronavirus is over? Or, will psychologically people try to avoid closer contact? Will they still keep social distancing even after the virus is over? Because this might change the way mankind behaves, and this might also very deep and serious implications for concrete individuals who are more vulnerable maybe and very eager to be embraced by the society, and for socialization. We need to think about this, and not to go into extremes in this regard; not to change the civilized behavior of mankind.

Another thing is also, we should avoid the situation where the world would totally go online, because now of course these online services have proved to be very useful, and they really are in big demand. This is normal; this is very good because it economizes a lot of resources. But it shouldn’t substitute human to human contact. I can tell you that in diplomacy, there are a lot of things that can be conducted only through personal contacts. There are a lot of confidential discussions that can’t proceed online. There are a lot of limits even now to sincere communication and discussion of topics, because we can’t so far meet personally, and we have to rely on this electronic means of communication. Again, we shouldn’t go to this extreme, because it’s very alluring to turn a lot of our activity online, and to organize a lot of meetings without physically looking at each other and feeling the emotions of each other. It’s very practical, but it’s very wrong. I think we also need to be aware of this trap which can await the world after the pandemic.

I will not speak any longer. I will be ready to take any questions for the time I am here. I would also at the end would like to say that the Chinese language — China was mentioned here already several times, and will be mentioned I’m sure many times more. The words “crisis” contains one character which is also “opportunity”; so it’s very wise that every crisis is also an opportunity, not only a challenge. So, we must come out even stronger out of this crisis, and we must work together and forget about certain things that seemed important to us because of some emotion or wrongly interpreted information. We need to see the end; we need to see the light at the end of the tunnel. We need to understand that only cooperation, coordination, and global response are what mankind needs right now. It’s not the time for falling out and quarreling, and for finger-pointing and blaming anybody. It’s time for helping; it’s time to be compassionate; it’s time to be generous. It’s time really to listen to each other, and to propose common, workable solutions to the world, which is in big need of these solutions. Thank you very much, and I wish a big success to your conference. Thank you.

*********************************

SPEED: Thank you very much, Mr. Polyanskiy. Our next presentation will be given by the Counsel General of the People’s Republic of China New York, Ambassador Huang Ping. But I have to say something about this. This is prerecorded because he is now in Boston for the purpose of meeting a plane arriving from China, which is delivering much-needed medical supplies for the people of Massachusetts. As some people know, that has now become a hotspot of coronavirus. It was requested that he and others be there to receive that plane. Elected officials from the United States will also be there. As I understand, young students from China who have been stranded in the United States will also be returning. So, we’re going to play that statement, and then we’re going to be going to questions. At that point Counsellor Zhou Guolin, head of the Science and Technology section of the consulate, will be standing in for the Ambassador. We’ll also be asking questions to Helga and to Mr. Polyanskiy.

AMBASSADOR HUANG PING: Mrs. LaRouche, President of the Schiller Institute, Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is my great pleasure to join this video conference hosted by Schiller Institute. We meet at a challenging time when the COVID-19 pandemic is ravaging the globe. Many families have suffered from this disease and lost their loved ones. Countless health care workers are fighting against the virus on the front line. At the outset, I want to express my deep condolences to all the families plagued by misfortune, and pay high tribute to those who are still holding posts at this extremely difficult time.

China was among the first countries hit hard by COVID-19. Under sudden attack of this unknown enemy, the Chinese government and the Chinese people have been undaunted and made a robust response. We have put the people’s well-being front and center since the outbreak began. We have acted upon the overall principle of shoring up confidence, strengthening unity, ensuring science-based control and treatment, and imposing targetted measures. We have mobilized the whole nation, set up collective control and treatment mechanisms, and acted with openness and transparency. What we fought was a people’s war against the virus. With hard efforts and great sacrifice, China emerged as one of the first countries to stem the outbreak. Domestic transmission has been largely stopped. Confirmed cases have declined to around one thousand, with dozens of daily increases that are mainly imported cases. Meanwhile, China has managed to restore its economy and society step by step to a normal order. Across the country, 98.6% of big industrial plants have resumed production, and 89.9% of employees on average are already back to work, a significant force to pull the world economy back on track.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, China actively joined global efforts in combatting the disease in an open, transparent, and responsible manner. China timely updated the WHO, publicized the genome sequence of the virus, and shared our prevention and treatment experience without reservation. We have been offering assistance to the best of our ability, which has been widely recognized by the WHO and the international community. President Xi Jinping had phone calls with 29 leaders of countries and international organizations, and attended the Extraordinary G20 Leaders’ Summit on COVID-19. Premier Li Keqiang also talked on the phone with multiple foreign leaders, and attended the Special ASEAN+3 Summit on COVID-19. Between March 1 and April 10, China exported around 7.12 billion masks, 55.57 million pieces of protective suits, 3.59 million infrared thermometers, 20,100 ventilators, and 13.69 million goggles. As of April 12, we have dispatched 14 medical expert groups to 12 countries, and the Chinese medical experts had 83 video conferences with their counterparts from 153 countries to assist relevant countries in responding to the epidemic.

At the same time, we always care about the safety and health of overseas Chinese citizens. The whole diplomatic front has been mobilized and moved promptly to collect basic information of Chinese nationals abroad and their difficulties. We rallied them in a united campaign against the virus through mutual assistance. We helped them have access to local health providers and through remote diagnostics to those in China. We sent joint task forces to offer services and support. We put in place special consular protection mechanisms, and charted flights to bring home Chinese citizens who had been stranded abroad due to the outbreak. We find ways to solve problems for overseas students, and delivered health kits to every student in need. Recently, an important task of my consulate general was to assist under-aged Chinese students in our consular district to take ad hoc flights back to China. Although New York city is the epicenter, and there is a high risk of infection at the airport helping students get on board, many of my colleagues signed up the task without any hesitation.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the pandemic is still ravaging the globe, with more than 200 countries and regions affected, over 2.6 million people infected, and 190,000 died. It is likely to further spread in Africa, South Asia, Latin America, and other underdeveloped regions, causing more casualties. Countries that have been through the apex of the first outbreak must be vigilant about the second wave of outbreak. Even if we come out of the pandemic, we may face a domino effect: economic recession, social unrest, food crisis, refugee waves, and even international conflicts. Some people say that this is the biggest crisis facing human society since World War II. People around the world are in anxiety, and expect the international community to work out solutions together. As the two largest economies in the world, China and the United States are becoming the focus of global attention on whether they can lead countries to tide over this crisis.

As you know, the China-U.S. relationship is in an unprecedentedly difficult period. The United States sees China as a major strategic competitor, and is implementing a China policy of comprehensive containment and suppression through the “whole government strategy.” As a result, this relationship is increasingly facing the risk of derailment. Much needs to be overcome for the two countries to abandon differences and focus on cooperation. As the impact of this crisis on the world is rapidly fermenting, it is necessary to rethink our approach to growing China-U.S. relations, for the interests of not only the two countries, but the whole world at large. I would like to make three points for your consideration.

First, the epidemic highlights the interdependence between China and the United States. Neither side can survive the challenges without support of the other. In the 21st century, it is an unstoppable trend that different countries will be increasingly interconnected, thus having more common interests and challenges. The human society has indeed become a community with a shared future. In the face of global challenges such as infectious diseases, climate change, and terrorism, even great powers like China and the United States cannot manage by fighting alone. In his recent phone call with President Trump, President Xi stressed that the two countries should join efforts, strengthen cooperation in areas such as outbreak preparedness and response, and contribute to building a relationship based on non-conflict or confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation. This points out the direction for the future development of our bilateral relations. Looking ahead, the two sides need to strengthen global governance cooperation in public health, economics, and finance, and establish joint prevention and control networks. We should collaborate in developing vaccines and drugs, better coordinate macro policies so as to counter the downward pressure on the world economy and maintain world stability and prosperity.

Second, the epidemic underscores the profound friendship between Chinese and American people, which serves as the mainstream of our relationship. As the virus takes toll in China and the U.S., our two peoples have chosen to mutually support each other instead of being indifferent across the Pacific. When China was in deep distress, people across various sectors of U.S. society lent a hand to us, for which we are always truly grateful. Now the U.S. has become the epicenter of the world, with more than 900,000 people diagnosed and more than 50,000 deaths. The Chinese people relate to the difficulties American people are going through, and we are willing to offer assistance to the best of our ability in return. According to incomplete statistics, China has provided the U.S. with over 2.46 billion masks, meaning 7 masks for each person in the U.S., plus nearly 5000 ventilators, 258 million gloves, 29.2 million surgical protective suits, and 3.13 million goggles. In the past few weeks, we have received numerous genuine [expressions of] appreciation from American people. I believe our two people’s friendship will become even stronger through the test of this battle. Our two governments must pay heed to the mainstream of our two peoples while growing this relationship. We cannot be caught by some extremists who keep sowing seeds of discord and decoupling between our two nations.

Third, the epidemic reveals the China-U.S. relationship is still facing complicated problems. In solving the problems and differences, we must stop appealing to the dark side of humanity and look to the bright side. Since the outbreak of this epidemic, especially after the situation in the U.S. got severe, we have noticed many negative voices about China in the United States. Some people accused China of concealing the outbreak, some even made up the story that the virus came from a Chinese lab and vowed to hold China accountable. Some people stigmatized China and discriminated against ethnic Chinese. I want to point out that there are some different views on the source of the virus in the international community. Virus tracing is a serious scientific issue and should be carefully assessed by professionals with scientific evidence. COVID-19 is a completely new virus, and its outbreak is unexpected. All nations need some time to understand the situation and respond to it. It is impossible for China to issue a warning to the world in the very early stage because of a small number of unknown cases. Some countries also initially mistook the COVID-19 for a common cold or pneumonia. Infectious diseases may break out in any country or any ethnic group. We must do our best to prevent discrimination against any country and group in this pandemic. American citizens may also encounter increasing discrimination abroad as the situation here gets worse. To blame and scapegoat other countries, to incite racial discrimination and xenophobia, will do no good in enabling the world to cope with the epidemic and its impact, nor will it help unite us in addressing other global challenges in the future. They will only bring chaos to the global governance, and cause more harm to peoples around the globe.

Ladies and Gentlemen, former U.S. president John F. Kennedy has realized very long ago that “When written in Chinese, the word CRISIS is composed of two characters — one represents danger, and the other represents opportunity.” The COVID-19 crisis has indeed brought unprecedented challenges to the world, but it also offered unprecedented opportunities for countries to break new ground. I believe if we take a long-term perspective, remain courageous, cooperative, and innovative, we will be able to overwhelm the challenges, turn the crisis into opportunities, and unlock a better future for China and the United States, and for the human society. Thank you.

******************************************

SPEED: We’re now going to go to questions for approximately half an hour for all of our speakers up to this point. And I want to just say that if you have questions, you can send them to questions@schillerinstitute.org. I’m going to read the first question, which comes from New York City, it’s from a member of the Schiller Institute to the Russian representative, Mr. Polyanskiy. The question is: “Recently, Kremlin spokesman Peskov publicly discussed President Putin’s call for an urgent heads of state summit of the Permanent 5 members of the UN Security Council. He described President Putin’s call for what Peskov called ‘a truly visionary summit’. Given the great issues today of war and peace, the COVID-19 pandemic, and others, what format can be used in the very near term to hold such an urgent summit? Thank you.”

POLYANSKIY: Thank you very much for this question. This is a very important issue, and we are in the process of discussing it right now. The summit is on the agenda. As you know, there was a Russian proposal to hold a summit of the five member states. It was done before the pandemic, and of course, we have in mind its happening physically, not online. This is of course, a bit of a middle-term perspective. For the time being, there are a lot of ideas to organize a video summit of the five members states. We think that this will be a successful endeavor, but of course, we don’t need a summit for the sake of the summit. We need to breach our positions a little bit in order to make this summit possible to produce a certain impulse toward cooperation. That is why the agenda is now being very suddenly worked on. We are preparing documents, possible outcome documents of this summit. I’m sure that it will take place at a bit later stage, but we shouldn’t wait too late for it.

As I told you, diplomacy is mostly an art of communication, and of course communication should be perceived as physical communication first and foremost. You can’t do everything online; there are certain limitations to this. There are also certain challenges to online communication. This is not very favorable for sincere, open communication between the five members right now. But we are trying to do our best to substitute them with online means of communication. I am sure that in a very short period of time, you will hear some concrete ideas in this regard. Thank you.

SPEED: OK. Our next question, which will be directed in general to the panel, was from Ambassador Xolisa Mabhongo. He is the Deputy Permanent Representative of the South African UN Mission. He writes this question: “There is interest in several Africa countries either to introduce or expand nuclear energy. At the moment, South Africa possesses the only nuclear power plant on the continent, located in Koeberg, near Cape Town. Koeberg nuclear power plant has been operated safely for nearly three decades, and produces the cheapest electricity in South Africa. Although there has been a rapid development of renewable energy in recent years, coal remains by far the largest source of energy for the country. For South Africa and other African countries, nuclear power would supply a clean source of energy, enabling us to meet our domestic and international commitments to address climate change. It would also be an important source of base load electricity. For a country like South Africa, nuclear is the main alternative base load source of electricity to coal until realistic storage technologies for storing renewable energy are developed. The speakers on the panel may therefore wish to address the issue of a regulatory framework for nuclear power from their own experiences. Regulation, safety, and security would be the building blocks in the African continent as most countries would be getting into nuclear energy for the first time.” What I’ll ask if the Chinese representative has anything to say about this question, and then we’ll go to Helga, and then we’ll go to Mr. Poyanskiy.

ZHOU GUOLIN: This is a very big question by the ambassador of South Africa to the United Nations, but I think at this moment, new energy one of the most important sources for future energy to be developed. Notice in China we have already had a lot of development and efforts to make new energy available, like windmills and hydropower, like even tidal wave energy and a lot of others, also from plantations, as well.

At the same time nuclear energy is very important, also in China. After a few decades of development in China, nuclear energy development is very rapidly in China, also. South Africa is the same situation. I’ll just mention, there’s only one nuclear power plant in Africa, that is the only one in South Africa. To my opinion, that is to say, for nuclear energy the most important matter is the safety. Of course, we know it is a clean energy. I still remember that a short time ago, that Mme. Zepp-LaRouche just mentioned the ITER, the thermonuclear fusion reactor which is in Cadarache, France, which is also one of the very new ways to make fusion nuclear energy to be available in the future, maybe in a few decades of time.

We are just making as much energy as possible through different ways to make this new type of energy available in the future, because it is better than the traditional nuclear energy.

Anyway, in this regard, as the Science Counsellor in the General Consulate in New York, one of my opinions is that we need to strengthen cooperation between Africa and China, between the U.S. and China, between Russia and China, among all countries, we are kind of stakeholders: We need to get together to enhance, as our two distinguished guests just mentioned, only with cooperation internationally are we going to be successful in the future. So in terms of this, we think nuclear energy is probably one of the hopes for making more and efficient, and sufficient energy available in the future. Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Just briefly, I fully agree with Mr. Zhou, that international cooperation will be crucial: Africa will have the largest population in the world fairly soon, hopefully if this pandemic can be contained, and then, nuclear energy will be absolutely crucial. And I can only say, do not follow example of Germany! I think the exit from nuclear energy by the Chancellor Merkel was probably the biggest mistake of her government, and she made a couple of other ones. And I think even Europeans, who have been very anti-nuclear will come out of this crisis — this is my modest prediction — with the realization that you cannot have an industrial nation without nuclear energy. And in the meantime, until the Europeans get back to their senses, I think what you said Mr. Zhou is absolutely true: There must be an international cooperation among the pro-nuclear countries in the world, all helping Africa to access nuclear energy.

So, I think that hopefully, we can eventually overcome this absolute, irrational fear and demonization of nuclear energy, which is not grounded in science. Nuclear energy is an absolutely manageable technology, mankind can control nuclear energy, and all the cases which are always cited as the proof of the opposite, can really be refuted. So I think the way to go for the time being is to go for an international cooperation, as you said, Mr. Zhou.

SPEED: Mr. Polyanskiy?

POLYANSKIY: Thank you very much, Dennis, for this question. It’s really a big issue right now, what would be the future of energy in the world, and I don’t think there is a contradiction, or argument, between those who argue for development of nuclear energy, and for those who are speaking about increasing the share of solar and wind energy, the cleanest energies available.

The fact is the share of renewable energy, the real clean, renewable energy, I’m not speaking about biofuel in the world, is still very modest, and there are certain limitations to this, on the one hand. On the other hand, there is the demand of mankind for energy is growing and we, in Russia, think that nuclear energy is one of the best responses to this challenge. That’s why I absolutely agree with Helga LaRouche when she said that one should stop demonizing nuclear energy and citing the examples from the past.

As far as Russia is concerned, we have gone a long way since the emergence of the new Russia, and we have now very advanced technologies. We’re eager to help out many countries in the world to build their nuclear power plants, and we are absolutely convinced that these power plants are safe. And that’s why we think it would be a very good solution for the whole world to combine different sources of energy, not only nuclear, but also natural gas, which is quite a clean source of energy.

You know everything is relevant: Even some people say that the future is for electric cars, and they claim that this is cleanest energy technology available. They are, of course, right. But on the other hand if you want to charge a battery for an electric car, then of course, you will need a certain amount of conventional energy. And it can be produced by not very clean sources. Also, it’s a question of disposal of electric batteries, which can be very damaging for our planet.

So everything is very philosophical, and there are always two ends to every issue, to every question. And we think that international cooperation in the field nuclear energy should be developed, it shouldn’t be stigmatized, it shouldn’t be linked to any political calculations: It should be first and foremost based on the demands of humankind, and the possibility to provide clean and safe technology, to ensure the existence of nuclear energy. And as I told you, once again, Russia disposes such technology, and Russia is ready to help the whole of the world, including Africa, which is of course in big demand of energy, and this demand will be growing.

But, I would like to use this opportunity, also, to say goodbye to everybody and to thank everybody for the attention. I have another videoconference in a couple of minutes. That’s why I wish you very fruitful work and I wish you all the success, Helga, and to you, personally, I’m always very glad to communicate with you. Thank you, very much.

SPEED: Thank you.

The next question is from Earl Rasmussen, who is the Executive Vice President the Eurasia Center, and he is asking about the collaboration during the pandemic. He says: “Today we are faced with a global pandemic, which is challenging every country in the world. It seems to me that this is time to bring all together, set political divides aside, and work collaboratively to solve this present need. Yet, I see some countries with just the opposite occurring, where countries are hoarding needed supplies for themselves, trying to leverage conditions to continue foreign policy objectives, and create even more divisiveness. These actions only compound the situation and create an environment filled with mistrust, where what is called for is trust and a cooperative engagement. What steps can we take to improve international cooperation, to break down political barriers in order to not only solve today’s pressing needs, but those of the future as well?”

I’m going to ask that Helga you might take that, and then Mr. Zhou.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think addressed that in a way in my initial remarks, because I think we have to reach a point where the idea that each opinion is as good as the other has to go, because we would not be in this crisis if all these opinions would have been so great. And I want to refer to the great thinker Nikolaus of Cusa, who, in the 15th century said that in his view, the only reason why people from different nations and different cultures can even communicate with each other, is because they all have scientists, they all have musicians, they all have poets, and it is those poets, who, because they speak a common language, even if they speak, formally, a different language, they speak the language of science, of art, of great cultural ideas, that they can communicate with each other.

And I think in practice we have seen that in the international space cooperation, international scientific conferences, where scientists don’t have these kinds of problems which are artificially imposed by the politicians because they’re more interested in the subject, in the advance of science, in the beauty of collaborating in cultural projects — if you look at an orchestra, you normally find anywhere — be it in Asia, in the United States, or Europe, you find instrumentalists from all over the world.

So it is really that which unites people which is the common search for truth, the common truth-seeking in these areas. And therefore, I made in my initial presentation the proposal that one of the lessons to come out of this pandemic and the breakdown of the whole system, which we will see a hyperinflationary blowout, you know, just in parenthesis, if you look at the assets of the Federal Reserve which have almost tripled since the beginning of the year, and they’re supposed to double again in the next weeks! — we are in a hyperinflationary blowout — that’s just in parenthesis.

But, if we are to come out of this crisis, we have to take all the elements of the crisis together, and address all of them, because I don’t think a partial solution will solve any aspect of it. And how do you arrive at a scientific solution? You get the best scientific minds together, and let them define the policy: The artists, the scientists, the people who can communicate on profound ideas.

And I think politicians — you know, I think the image of the politician should also change. It should be more people who are either scientists or are really skilled people who know these principles, and the leaders of governments should be more like Plato’s philosopher king, and they should really try to be truth-seeking people, and then I think all the problems can be solved.

ZHOU: I think I’ve got three steps to deal with this pandemic. This pandemic, you know, this pandemic is from epidemic, so it’s become more and more serious; it’s all human beings in the world, in particular in New York as the epicenter, as the new epicenter in the world.

And to first establish, to make more awareness of the fact of this disease, for all the human beings across the whole world, make everybody understand the damages caused by this coronavirus, which is very terrible. It’s really takes lives, of all people, possibly. So this is the first thing, is to make people understand, you need to probably, for example, in public places, you need to wear masks, you probably need to wear gloves, you need to protect yourself; you need to protect others. So this is the first one, which is to make awareness of this coronavirus.

The second one is to share experiences. Because there are now more than 200 countries have been infected by this coronavirus, and a lot of countries have undergone a lot of experiences, like in China, because China was first hit by this very terrible coronavirus, in late January; in March it was very severe. So, we have already had a lot of experience in this case, we could share with other countries. Also in European countries, Italy, Spain, there were a lot of experience. And now in the United States, also. So we need to share the different experiences of all of these experiences for how to cope with this enemy, the human beings’ common enemy.

And the third one is we need to cooperate on research. You see, at this moment, because we don’t have a vaccine, yet; we don’t have very efficient drugs or medicines, yet. This is the most difficult period. If we have a vaccine, or a very good drug, then we will contain the coronavirus from spreading.

In this case, we need to clean our hands, and in all of the institutions involved, for example, the CDC in the U.S., the China CDC in China, and also other centers, other hospitals also, public housing institutions, we need to altogether to join hands: Only in this case will we make a concerted effort so we can cope with this harmful enemy.

These are the three steps: Awareness, sharing experiences, and joining hands for research work. Thank you.

SPEED: We’re going to be returning to questions in a little bit, and again, we want to thank everybody because there are a lot of questions coming, we want to encourage those. And you can bring those to questions@schillerinstitute.org .

We’re now going to return to a couple of people that we have yet to hear from and the first is Jacques Cheminade. Jacques is a longtime representatives of the LaRouche philosophical outlook in France. He is the president of Solidarité et Progrès. He’s a former French Presidential candidate, and he is a friend of the real America, not the fake America. So, Jacques are you with us?

A Europe Not To Be Ashamed Of

JACQUES CHEMINADE: I’m happy and honored to share with all of you, our challenge, “A Europe Not To Be Ashamed Of.”

I had a discussion, a few days ago, with Swiss author Jean Ziegler, about the emergency initiatives to be taken to build a new paradigm in international relations. He fully supports our objectives, being a historical advocate of justice, and sharing of food for all. In that context, we immediately agreed that Europe, as it is, is a desperate case, a lost cause, to be ashamed of. The hotspots in Turkey or in Libya, speak for themselves against us. Our mission is therefore, given the fact that European nations must play their part in this universal symphony — a harmonious tianxia, as the Chinese would say — our mission is to create instruments to be able to play the part of a Europe, a Europe not to be ashamed of.

I am going to start, briefly because it does not deserve much time, talking about what the European Union is presently doing or mostly not doing. It behaves like a leaderless group, a leaderless group of oligarchical waste, to be frank. The recent European Councils prove, despite the absence of the United Kingdom, that the same spirit of divide and rule, and the same spirit of submission to the dictatorship of money, prevail. To get out of this despicable and self-destructive mess, we need to evoke within ourselves the best of our cultural and economic traditions, for the advantage of every European nation and for all the other nations of the whole world. Is that utopian idealism? No, just the reverse. Because it is the selfish ideology shared, until now in the recent years, by all, the realistic and pragmatic ideology, that destroyed our common immune system, our public health, and our financial immune system. The result is that, confronted by the pandemic, we had none or not enough masks, tests, respirators, and we were unable to forecast something that our leaders claimed was unpredictable.

All those leaders failed, like Hamlets, not individually as such, but because their adaptation to the individualistic, selfish monetary greed of our society led their impotence to become criminal by negligence. To govern is to predict, and not to predict leads to one’s loss. Leonardo Da Vinci adds ironically that “not to predict is already to moan.” So let’s briefly see what the European Union and the European states have done or not done. To say it with one example, they have imposed “just in time” — flux tendu as they say it in French — just-in-time short- term financial rules to our hospitals, ruining their capacity to react properly. In reality, it is states that should rather function as good public hospitals, devoted to collective responsibility, truthfulness, and care for all, providing not figures and statistics as such, evaluated in monetary units, but ideas and initiatives to be simply more human.

So the first thing that Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank (ECB), the true armed branch of the European Union, what Christine Largarde had to say was: “Debt cancellation is inconceivable, maybe it will take dozens of years to pay, but it must be paid back.” Then, as the United States and the United Kingdom are doing, the European Union and the European states are throwing around billions and billions of euros, in part to save producers and assist consumers through more debt during this pandemic, but most of it is to infuse more addictive money into the financial circuits of the oligarchy. To make it simple: they are distributing electronic impulses called money, mostly to avoid a bankruptcy of their whole system. This is no more a so-called market economy, but a market economy without a market, where all the gamblers continue to gamble with tokens and marbles distributed by the central banks, which is the ECB in Europe.

Let’s be precise: The ECB used to be compelled by its own rules to repurchase securities from the banks, but only of a certain rating. It meant state bonds or triple A or A first-quality bonds. Now it decided, on its own, to repurchase high-yield debts, junk bonds of lost causes. So with fake electronic money, the ECB saves everybody, in a similar way as the American Federal Reserve! Beyond that, on April 9, the European Union finance ministers decided to create a facility package of EU540 billion — EU240 billions from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), EU200 billions from the European Investment Bank and EU100 billions from the European Commission. But most of it is borrowed, so-called leveraged money, borrowed on the markets! That money mostly goes back into the financial circuit, lending the borrowed money, the ECB is then a sort of go-between lender of last resort for the benefit of the scammers! The European states, on their side, organized massive, national aid packages: EU410 billion for France, EU1,100 billion for Germany, EU475 billion for the United Kingdom, comparable to $2,200 billion of the United States. Most of it is based on what? On new loans and deferral of charges, accumulating more debt without creating the means to reimburse it!

To make it understandable beyond the obtuse technicalities: The pandemic has only been a revealer of a financial hoax, based on an insane system of indebtedness, and a trigger for the crash but not the real cause! It is because of the financial situation preceding the pandemic that nothing was done to prevent it! “Logically, it did not pay” in the short term, to do something. Then when the pandemic occurred, there were no masks, no ventilators, no tests, and the only possible solution to deal with it was the confinement, the lockdown of the population. It had to be done, and it was done, but in an improper way, without any real cooperation among European nations, which as a consequence blocked the economy. And the solution has been to issue more fake electronic money, to counterbalance the halt of the economy, and prevent any bankruptcy, mainly, again, for the benefit of the scammers! More debt to save an over-indebted system, and most of it to save the initiated sharks! Then, suddenly, a Wall Street recovery occurred, through management of the bubble of all bubbles, without any chance, however, to have a real physical economic recovery within such a fake system.

Still, in Europe, the worst is to come: Because there is not enough money to keep the system going, the European Commission plans to either borrow EU1,000 billion on the markets or to take the European Community budget as a guarantee to print EU1,500 billions of so-called “perpetual debt,” based only on the payment of interests financed by an ecological tax, the capital being never reimbursed. Truly, we are aboard, what was called in the Middle Ages, the “ship of fools,” with arrogant captains pretending to give orders among icebergs, and bankers repeating frantically, as the Governor of the Banque de France François Villeroy de Galhau, repeating “You will have to repay this money! You will have to repay this money!” Of course, not the gamblers of British vintage and their associates, but all of us, producers and consumers together.

So, let’s get out of this mess! This European Union and the heads of its member states are an oligarchical waste. Let’s rebuild with the spirit that prevailed during the 30 Glorious Years of the European reconstruction after World War II, to do better — to do better, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, as it is needed to meet the challenge.

The starting point is that the best antidote against any pandemic is international cooperation. All the speakers have said it. This means human solidarity to build a win-win system, as the Chinese President has defined it in many, many of his speeches. The European Union, and more generally, the states of the west side of our hemisphere, unfortunately, follow in an opposite direction. Proof of it, is the disgusting fight among states to buy the masks that each of them lacked because of their selfish policies. And also, the individual incapacity to understand, when one of such masks is available, why it is necessary to put it on, not for one’s own individual protection, but to protect the others from our exhalations. These two occurrences show that the concept of the advantage of the other, which was the foundation for peace among nations in the Treaties of Westphalia, which correspond to the Confucian principle that what you do for others is what brings you on the way towards the Ren, this founding concept of civilization, both in the East and the West, has been somehow lost in our Europe of the 21st century. Our mission is, therefore, not only to do for the other all the good that we wish he could do for us, but to create the best conditions for her or him to create the good for all. It is notable, in that context, that China, Russia, and Cuba were the nations which came to help Italy, while in France and Germany, and all the more in the United States, many selfish voices denounced that as a propaganda operation, even though their own countries had done very, very little.

Second, comes the implacable commitment to tell the truth, which is symbiotic with the advantage of the other. Our official Europeans have become liars, it should be said. In France or in the United States, because we had not been able to produce or buy enough masks, they first claimed that they were not necessary. The spokeswoman of the French government even claimed that they were too difficult for us laymen to wear, “too difficult to put on, even for me,” she said. This type of lie is not to be blamed as a typical characteristic of this pushy woman, but is a result of a financial world where lying is thought to be a clever move to win, at the expense of all the other; lying has become, in that sense, a perverse art.

Third, if you look at the world, and at others right in the eye, inspired by a commitment to truth and to common good, you can anticipate what would happen, as opposed to what all our Western leaders are saying about the coronavirus. In fact, it’s even worse: they claim that it was impossible to anticipate something unexpected, while they accuse the Chinese government not to have anticipated the importance of what they themselves have missed! Even worse, there is a campaign, as was said before, to scapegoat China and blame her, and even sue her, to pay heavy damages!

To anticipate, is to measure the consequences of what you do or fail to do, and that is what is truly called to govern. If you measure those consequences, and therefore your own responsibility, you can forecast a phase change. Not by deducing, inducing or extrapolating from what exists, but by measuring effects of acts on the future. This is what the Pastorian epidemiologists — the various doctors who worked with Pasteur — and virologists called “sentinel medicine,” a medicine related to the space-time of the sick, which looks with the eyes of the future, to the relation between their physical environment and their sickness, always expecting change, and surprises, and taking them into consideration in order to progress. If instead, you drop human priorities in favor of linear statistics of financial profit, you are doomed to commit political crimes.

Commitment to the advantage to the other, truthfulness and anticipation is what is required: Then what they call “black swans” today, can be expected consequences of disastrous decisions for humanity. This is why Lyndon LaRouche, fully committed to the destiny of humanity, was able to predict the disastrous consequences of the August 15, 1975 decoupling of the dollar and gold, ushering in an era of financial and moral deregulation — financial and moral deregulation, together — which would lead, if nothing was done to change the directionality of the society, which would lead such societies to global pandemics. He wrote various warnings on this issue, that other speakers will talk about, but such warnings were not taken into consideration, out of financial greed, out of the failure of our societies.

Then came the Washington Consensus, an agreement of the Western powers to compel the not-yet-developed states to reimburse their debts at the expense of all their infrastructure projects in public heath, education and transportation, a debt much higher than the lent money because of the piling up of compound interest. It is through such a process that these not-yet-developed countries became “underdeveloped,” as they were called. This criminal behavior has led to the present situation and demands an immediate intervention from us in the West, together with China and Russia, to launch a top-down program of a global anti-pandemic mobilization. This is what Mauro Ferrari, president of the European Research Council of the European Union, tried to do, to enforce a scientific program to fight the virus, but he had to resign on April 8, in the middle of the pandemic, because his program was not even examined by the European authorities. We have ourselves, from the Schiller Institute, proposed our LaRouche’s “Apollo mission” to defeat the global pandemic because heads of state pretend to be mobilized, as if in a war, but are unable or unwilling to lay out strategies, propose mobilizations or think differently. The truth, is that they are prisoners of at least four viruses which inspire their anti-human policies or paralyze their possible intentions to fight, they are either paralyzed or anti-human.

The four viruses, which altogether represent the viruses of empires founded upon slavery or serfdom through debt, are the financial virus, the Malthusian virus, the geopolitical virus, and the bureaucratic virus. Any form of international cooperation for the common good demands the eradication of such viruses, which in our European history have spoken different languages and accents, but who are today definitely British, the British Empire, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche explained before.

The financial virus should be obvious for most of us. There are no dark forces dooming us in some dark places; we are being robbed as the British Empire always did and does, throughout a world where the Sun never sets. It is based on the management of an odious and illegitimate debt, never based on useful programs to create platforms of development, but on the endless possession of financial assets. Such a system is unable to promote the discovery of new physical principles generating, when developed as technologies, an increase in the potential relative population density. The relation between that potential relative population-density, and energy flux-density was the fundamental discovery of Lyndon LaRouche. Today’s Europe is unable to provide the means to sustain at the present level even its own population: The needs to sustain its present density are above the potential necessary to improve its future density. so therefore, this is how LaRouche established scientifically that the West is, within its present way of functioning, doomed: The ECB or the American Federal Reserve may produce trillions of fake money, but never masks, ventilators, steel, bridges, airplanes, machine tools in general — they are unable to issue credit for a better future, because their eyes are fixed on what I would call the sterile nostrils of the past, not on the minds of those who in the past created the conditions for our future.

The second virus is Malthusianism, the social expression of the financial virus. It stands on the so-called “fact” that the world is composed of limited resources, and that production growing in an arithmetical proportion while the population increases in an exponential, geometric way, and this can only lead to total depletion of resources. Like what? Right, like a virus or as a cancerous metastasis, which is exactly what the Club of Rome had to say about us human beings. I confronted Aurelio Peccei, the president of the Club of Rome, on this issue. And Helga confronted other members of this Malthusian crowd. Therefore, humans have to reduce their consumption and their reproduction, also, to adapt themselves to limited resources. Could this be true? Yes, if the world was defined as a relatively fixed whole, producing limited resources — well, yes, this is the world of the financial oligarchy! It means an entropic universe, ruled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is true in a closed environment; socially, again, its environment defined by the rule of the financial oligarchy!

But the real universe as a whole is different: It is in continuous expansion and does not obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, only valid in a locked-down system. The human being is in agreement with that law of development of the universe, being human because of his creative capacity: He elevates to the level of new resources what was waste at a relatively inferior stage of development. The very founding of science is this capacity beyond induction, deduction, and the Aristotelian principle of non-contradiction. This capacity to find solutions to existing problems, as Einstein said, with a mode of thinking of a higher form than that which has generated those existing problems. True, genuine science is anti-entropic. Europe, in that sense, has become a problem in itself: The European Union is an entropic box full of bureaucrats. It is laughable, yes, but its consequences are not: All Malthusianisms, whatever form they take — and the British Empire is a clear proof of that — lead to racism, crime and self-destruction.

The third virus is the geopolitical virus, the one-world expression of the financial and Malthusian viruses. It is the policy of the City of London and Wall Street, the British Empire, as it w as said, heir of Venice and Amsterdam. For those present-day neo-conservatives, on both sides of the Atlantic, the political universe is a battlefield where enemies are doomed to fight, the winner grabbing all the power and all the money at the expense of the losers, whatever the cost of the battle, in terms of destruction or deaths of human beings. So-called Global Britain, in terms of the Henry Jackson Society: financial globalization, Malthusianism and geopolitics, with always the same ideology and criminal way of behaving, even if it has today Five Eyes, instead of just one and a monocle. Such a world, unable to generate more human power, inescapably leads to war to grab more of the limited resources.

The last form it takes is the bureaucratic virus. It is the typical virus of the European Union, the virus of the servants, the virus of a voluntary bondage. It is an order based on a finished world, like the world of the present viruses, always submitted to an outside power and opposed by its very nature, to the inclusion and development of any creative idea. Fearful, and through its fear, the servant of the other three viruses, fearful, like all administrative systems. All administrative systems are like that, if it is not directed by a strong political will, they become addicted to that evil proclivity to bend. It is the very nature of the European Union, subjected to an outside federator, as de Gaulle once said, the rule of the Anglo-American form of the British Empire, with a euro junior partner of an international dollar, not the currency of the American nation, but that of the world markets, of the men who rob the world, as accurately described by one Nicholas Shaxson.

Against that destructive universe, Professor Didier Raoult, of now hydroxychloroquine fame, has something very interesting to say. In an interview with Le Monde, given at the end of March, he said the following: “I think that it is about time that doctors return to their position, together with the philosophers and the persons that share a human and religious inspiration, at the level of moral reflection, even if some prefer to call it ethics, and that we need to get rid of mathematicians, which are but meteorologists in this domain.” This is as valid for choices of public health measures as for the definition of international cooperation among nations. Statistics and mathematics maybe define a useful realm of already-created entities, but could never generate something new, breaking with the rules of the game for humanity, either new physical principles, discoveries of principle, or forms of better social solidarity. To pick up mathematics and administrative rules as ways to make the main decisions in times like ours is therefore a crime against creativity. The European Union and the way our states are organized, as entities obeying neither human solidarity nor creative powers, make of us the victims of the viruses that I mentioned before, the deadly viruses.

That is why I am speaking to you today: To call for a Renaissance of Europe in a true concert of nations. Think about it one moment: Let’s evoke among us now Cervantes and Goya, Erasmus and Comenius, Rembrandt and Leonardo, Rabelais and Dante, Schiller and Leibniz, and so many others, first of all Beethoven on his year, this year. We need them to inspire a true Europe, looking as far as China and America, a true Europe to be a bridge and not a dead-end on the way to the graveyard. We need a new, young, more dedicated and more human leadership, who in turn needs our knowledge. Let’s think above us and act together to save from the coming hunger, death and locusts, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Chad, Zimbabwe: Let’s be again patriots and world citizens, with a renewed passion for our nations to bring the better of them to the advantage of the others, for a win-win project of civilization, a World Land-Bridge, as it has been our policy defined by Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, a World Land-Bridge from the Atlantic to the Sea of China, eastward and to the Americas westward.

I hear from my balcony people joining hands and clapping to express their solidarity with our caregivers. The caregiving of our nations are the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche. Many of us are going to tell later about those laws to promote and nurture human creativity against all abuses. Not as a code or a formula to repeat, but as a power coming to challenge us from the realm of human thinking, from the noösphere.

We owe to our people in the hospitals, to our farmers, to our industrial workers, to our aged and often abandoned fellows, to the potential of the handicapped and the working poor, to our neighbors of all continents, also to our Yellow Vests, to make of these Four Laws the principled ways leading to our future, shaping a Europe no more to be ashamed of. Let’s find together the vaccines against our four viruses, to accomplish great things, let’s be truly unlocked and unblocked very soon.

************************

SPEED: I want to thank Jacques Cheminade for his remarks, and particularly his reminding us that this is the 250th anniversary of the birth of Ludwig van Beethoven.

The next speaker is Mr. Michele Geraci. He’s an economist from Italy, he was also the former undersecretary to the Development Ministry in Rome, played a critical role in the East-West dialogue with China, a tradition that goes back in Italy to at least the 13th century. We’re very happy to have him with us from Italy.

MICHELE GERACI: Thank you very much. I’m very happy to be here. I will give a quick thought on some of the hot topics for the next 15 minutes more or less. I would like to draw from some of my experience that you just mentioned as part of the Italian cabinet until recently, and also in my capacity as one of the main enthusiasts about Italy joining the Belt and Road Initiative with China, that followed my ten years spent in China.

What I’ve seen in my year at the Italian government is that we have been facing a deep crisis. We have a big dilemma that has halted progress in our society, and the dilemma is between competent and representative nests in the members of the cabinet. The assumption has been, up to today, that politicians who obviously had consensus of the people take the role of politicians and then make decisions based on the analysis, the input from the people who work within the ministries, the directors and so on. And, this model does not require a politician to be particularly knowledgeable about a specific subject.

Now, in the past, we used to have more stability in government, so the politician actually would continue to be in ministries for a number of years, during which they could, little by little, acquire some expertise in their own field. However, we have seen in the last five years, the government changing every year, every year and a half. Take my example, 15 months in the government. Now, that period of time is obviously not enough to allow a politician to gain relative competences and skills, because of the high frequency change. So they need to rely on the directors, the employees, the civil servants. However, they face another problem, the opposite: They’ve been there for many years, 10 years, 15 years, no incentives, no promotion, no bonus, no rewards; they cannot go higher too much, they cannot go down, they cannot be fired. So they themselves have very little incentive to efficiency and productivity. And, again, this worked well in the past, because changes, external variables were not as frequent and as intense as they are now.

So, if I look at how government were run 10, 15, 20 years ago, well, a politician would stay there a long time; the civil servant with not too much impulse, at least if they knew what was enough, they would pass it on to the politicians, they would have time to learn, and the system pretty much would work.

Now, the speed of changes of external variables don’t allow people to learn in time, within the timeframe of their mundanes. And this creates a very serious lack of competence among both the politicians and the civil servants layers. And obviously, the political decision-making process of policymakers, they have nothing to hang on, they have no data, no analysis on which they can make decisions, and therefore, we have entered what I would call a world of randomization of the political decision-making progress.

So the question that we have asked is, should the politicians be experts? And how do we move the line between what [inaudible 53:30] they should represent the people no matter what their background is, they can be well-educated or not educated at all, but as long as they have votes, they should be ministers? How do we come up with a solution to this dilemma, with the fact that we need experts, and we don’t have them in needed political or civil servants’ layer — and I’m talking in general. Of course, there are very good people, at both levels, but in general, this is the problem that we are witnessing.

Now, when we don’t have enough knowledge, you base your decision on feelings, on old stories, on what you were told, but you read and have time to process and think through about. And so, you tend to make not just decisions, but also statements that have a disconnect with reality.

And now, I bring the example of growing anti-China sentiment that we have seen, even in the Italian public debate in European and in the Western public debate. There are many reasons for that, and I don’t want to elaborate, because they’re very well known. The one that I want to bring to your attention, was this mismatch of knowledge and time to learn that does not allow people to learn. And this was in a way, also one of the main goals why I pushed so much on Italy joining the MOU [movement of understanding] on the Belt and Road: Because regardless of the economic benefit to join this infrastructure project, at least we succeeded in having the Italian general public discuss about China, like it had never done before. For the last 12 months, the media, the politicians, have brought China back at the center of their discussions.

Now, 90% of what I hear is completely wrong, but we do step by step. At least we are discussing China, we’re discussing the Belt and Road, we are discussing the effect of these global changes, artificial intelligence, technological development, climate change that people — trust me, they were, yes, formerly disgusted, even at the government level, but really not well-addressed for their intrinsic nature. So this anti-China sentiment that I see, on the one hand, I am worried, because I see it increasing, and everyone writes on the previous statements by other people, without thinking too much. On the other hand, I’m going to be optimistic, and because it’s based on a lack of knowledge, I do hope the way the knowledge increases, and people have the time to learn, study and maybe take part in events, such as this one today, they will reverse back in their criticism and at least form an opinion based on fact and analysis. And this is really what we have been trying to bring to the Western-, Italian-, European Union-level discussion table. Analysis, fact, data, not just concept based on old stories they naturally get wrong.

Now, I want to bring the example of the virus: I heard about “black swan.” I compare it more to a “gray rhino,” an animal that is there, visible, but people ignore it. They either pretend not to see it, or they cannot see it, but it’s an event that was there, and this was what really happened in Italy. When we first knew about the Wuhan situation in mid-January, toward the end of the month, we in Italy had all the time to plan, both the lockdown, the economic measures, the financial measures, how to discuss with the European Union, with the Central Bank, with the European Commission — we are now, at the end of April, three months later, still discussing what to do, what measures to take, whether to use app for contact tracing or not — three months later! And while this was a “black swan” in November, in December, maybe for China, which may not have expected such an outcome, for us in Europe, it was a “gray rhino”: We had the luck to look into the future, just by looking at what was happening in China, in Korea!

But we didn’t. The “gray rhino” is sitting there, people turning their heads away, not wanting to see it. Why? Because of this idea that I see ingrained in many of my colleagues, that is, basically this: Whatever China does is wrong. There is possibly nothing that we can learn from China, when we do benchmarking exercises, we probably should not even look at China, we should not even ask, let alone, the questions.

And this is really one of the most serious problems that we are facing in our society. Because that is mixed with the psychological problem to say, that the problem that we have in our own countries is mostly because of our own mistakes. But, as in story-telling, we need to find external reasons, we need to create a monster, which is not us, but someone else, so we can fight it, we can blame it, we can fight it, and then we can be the hero to solve the problem.

Of course, this is all imaginary. And this does not solve the situation. It may create some popular support, because people will believe the story; a large majority of the people would be inclined to believe the monster/hero story, and this increases consensus for politicians, increases misunderstanding in the population, and completely gives our countries like the final stripe in making it able to actually respond to the core root of the problem. So, it’s almost as if we live in a disillusion novel.

This is what we have seen in these few months. The thing that really makes us different, and I again compare our Western values with the Chinese values, and the thing that really makes us difficult to accept, maybe sometimes objectively, is that we live in a society where the individual, of course, comes first, where the dream is an individual dream, the American Dream is an individual dream, it’s the dream of a person. In China, it’s a collective dream, it’s the dream of the society as a whole of the country. And yes, there is of course, an element of the individual, and people of course take advantage of it, but the general trend, that the big difference that I have noticed is this collected versus individual dream.

So, we do not only find it difficult to accept learning from this model which is very different from ours, a model that we fear could invade as in Europe. But, really, we have seen very little evidence of China really wanting to export their social, economic and political model to Europe. Of course, they know it would never work.

But this puts us in a crisis, because now, we are asking ourselves, does free trade work, or not work? Does printing money work, or not work? Does the European Union work or not work? So far, I’ve seen, for example, the European Union being good at solving problems created by the very existence of the European Union itself: So it’s a meta-solution to a problem. There is no marginal value that is immediately visible, including solving maybe the action of Mario Draghi, during the eurozone crisis. Yes, he has stopped the crisis, but the crisis was there, because we had a common currency; other countries with individual currencies did not need a European Union solution: they solved it according to their own means, and pretty much everyone did relatively well.

So, the thing that really, may I say, “bugs” us most in Europe is this philosophical conflict about the “model,” the “democracy” or not, the collective versus individual, is that we are maybe starting to realize that the average Chinese person does not care very much what we want to sell them in terms of a model. I have seen, with some exceptions of course, generally very happy. They put value in other values. They attach value to other things, not the things that we do. And this is something that we really — and this is my personal effort, when I was in the government, and now, while I’m back in academe, to try to tell our people that not everyone shares entirely the value — and certain values may be universal, yes, but they get cascaded down to the individual in different extents, in different layers.

I conclude by repeating what Helga said before: We probably need a Renaissance. We need to look back 400, 500, 600 years and it is from here that really, our Europe society can reemerge. This is something that I’ve argued for, now for a number of years and I’m very happy to hear it again, today. This is both a cultural challenge, but it’s also a cultural asset that we have, and we must use. And it is also one of the potential responses to the challenges of artificial intelligence, that may wipe out many of the jobs of many of the tasks; but perhaps it would find it hard to attack these soft-skills, the arts, and creativity.

The Belt and Road, I hope it is something that could help bring two worlds closer to each other, increasing reciprocal knowledge and understanding, and when the knowledge increases, the perceptional risk decreases; and just like in financial investment people, are more willing to take steps, to get closer, and maybe to do more business together, more exchanges, and they would look more at the opportunity and not at the threat.

I’ll stop here, and leave it for Q&A. Thank you, very much.

*****************************

SPEED: Thank you very much, Mr. Geraci. We’re going to go right to the questions & answers now. And I think what I want to do, just for a moment, given the format and the multiplicity of the participants, I want to ask Helga if there’s anything that you would like to say at this point, before I begin with the questions. We do have many, but I just wanted to know if you had any reactions that you wanted to convey at this point?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, but I would like to ask Mr. Geraci a question myself.

Given the fact that you have been living in China for 10 years, I think it would be very useful for our international audience if you would just give us some of your personal experience. Because, you know, my experience with the Chinese people is that they’re really very benevolent. I find them almost naïve in their outlook, in their openness. And I think the Western people have a completely different mindset, and therefore they expect many times things which I find they’re projecting on Chinese, or what they claim Chinese intentions are. But, maybe you can give us your view on this matter. Because I think, if we want to get out of this crisis as a civilization, I think to develop trust, and to develop a new way of getting rid of prejudices and getting rid of wrong ideas which are based on ignorance, is one of the most important ingredients. So, if you could just tell us what your findings are about your 10 years in China?

GERACI: Thank you. Thank you, a very interesting question.

I’ve seen widespread people very nice, very welcoming. I have had luck, almost like anyone who has ever lived in China for a decade, to see a transformation that for us, a columnist to analyst, is like a dream to see it under our own eyes, what a country can do; and by doing this analysis, we also had the luck to meet the people! So I was lucky enough to talk to, of course, the Premier and the President, but also any farmer. I took the initiative to make a documentary myself in the rural area. So I really tried to learn about China, both on a geographic and on a society layer, trying to cut to the cross, and I’ve seen a widespread sense of welcoming, curiosity, and I have been very much welcomed in all my jobs, I traveled around, I’ve been helped when I was in difficulties. And this I think is the essence of China, and to some extent, of many Asian countries.

Now, the question would be, why is like you said, that some people may have a different perception? And I think this is due to what I would call, a bias sample. People, for example in Italy, have a perception of China from what they have seen since 1982, when the first people from Wenzhou moved to Italy, and of course, there was a competition in the textile industry, which has, in the eyes of some Italians, destroyed our own industries, or our competition. We continued to have the rhetoric that China, and the value of the renminbi, they do subsidies to the companies and so we suffer from unfair competition by China. And so this animated a people to people feeling.

So people transcend this concept, which is macro-label between government to people-to-people, and that, unfortunately brings some antagonism towards individuals, to the point that during — this was at the end of January in Italy: We started to have a little bit of maybe racist or anti-Chinese sentiment, and I myself, I took the initiative to go around in Milan, in Rome, in the areas where most of the Chinese people were living, and being seen in the restaurants, shaking hands with them, to exactly give the idea that the virus does not have a passport.

Anger, if I may, I even predicted that we should be most worried not about the Chinese who travel from Wuhan to Milan, which obviously was a concern, but mostly my worry was from people from Northeast, not to Italy, from Milan — Italians, who would travel to China, and come back to Italy. Because I had seen the Chinese attach a lot of importance to this virus and I’ve seen the reaction to their behavior, and in a way, almost the safest members of the commune, because they knew how to do it; the Italians underestimated the risk, not because of their own fault, because of the reason I said before. And so, it was probably due to some of them that the virus arrived “en masse” as we have seen in Milan and Veneto — also because those are two regions that trade a lot with China. So, where goods travel, also people travel.

Now, I think the niceness of Chinese people may also be related to the level of income. So this is a process that maybe we’ve seen throughout societies. Poor people maybe things would be nicer, people in the middle who have a higher perception of themselves that the reality tend to be a bit nastier; and then you need to go really higher, higher, people who are extremely successful who don’t need to impose their own personality. So, at the moment, because the Chinese population is still made largely by very, very low-income people, I would say, that yes, the large majority of Chinese people are very nice, and the invitation to people who listen to us, is do not extrapolate what you see in this environment, because you also have not nice guys in Italy, in France, in Germany, in China — everywhere. If you do business, you are representative of a subsegment. The population is a different thing.

My invitation is go, travel, and get lost in the countryside of China, to see and meet what the real China is.

SPEED: Yeah, OK! That’s a favored method of travel for many of us, particularly in your country, Mr. Geraci.

GERACI: Please do, in a couple of weeks when things get better. We will welcome you.

SPEED: We’re going to go to our first question, which is from His Excellency Ambassador Cheikh Niang. He is the Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Senegal to the United Nations. Here’s his question: “Within the new international relations paradigm that you are advocating, how do you think we can effectively reform the current global governance framework, in a way that will allow the fullest participation of the Global South, both in addressing political challenges, more common in that part of the world, and in correcting the yawning economic imbalances between the developed countries and the developing ones? And how do you envision to get around the unavoidable hurdles to arrive at such a reform?”

I’ll go to you first, Helga, and then to Jacques, if he has a response, and then back to Mr. Geraci.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the combination of the crises which is becoming — in the beginning, you know, people played it down, “it’s just a common flu,” or very few people knew what a pandemic is, that a pandemic is something which is a global phenomenon, and it has specific characteristics, in terms of how you contain it. And given the fact that the coronavirus is really a new virus about which we don’t know yet a lot, or at least not enough. There was an underestimation about what would be the dynamic unfolding. I think this is slowly changing. I think some people are getting quite worried about the incredible dimension of this.

Then, you have the undeniable fact that the present trans-Atlantic financial system, for sure, but in one sense, also the global system, is blowing out. The money pumping by the central banks is reaching a dimension where we are getting very close to, as it was maybe in the summer-fall 1923, in Germany, shortly before the hyperinflationary blowout of the system occurred. This can happen very, very quickly. If the central banks keep doing what they’re doing now, and there’s no indication that they intend to change it, we are shortly before such a point of no return.

Then you have the hunger crisis: This is becoming now a big subject, that the destruction of the food, the consequences of the coronavirus on the food production, the fact that the farmers cannot sell their product to the market because the restaurants are closed; because the restaurants are closed there are no deliveries to the food banks [for the poor], so I can only tip on the multifaceted interconnection of this crisis, which will, in my modest opinion, create such a dimension of the crisis that the solution which I was talking about in the beginning — that you need the top governments of the world to say, we take responsibility for the fate of all of humanity. And while I understand that President Putin thinks the permanent members of the UN Security Council should be gremium, Mr. Polyanskiy was talking about the G20, I don’t think that combination of governments right now is willing to do it, simply because there are some countries involved that would rather defend the interests of the City of London and Wall Street rather than recognizing that you cannot continue on the past course.

So, I think that the best thing which can be done, is what I said also in my remarks: That we develop an international chorus of countries, of nations, and many individuals and institutions, that simply speak out and say, “Yes, we endorse this idea that there must be a New Bretton Woods system. You must have a credit system which will allow for the first time, the intention of Roosevelt to be realized, namely, to have the industrialization of the Global South, of the developing countries, and that must occur now.”

And I cannot see any other pathway. I cannot see any kind of evolution. You need an emergency summit! And then, you cannot solve all these problems in one summit alone; there will be more summits. But I think we have to move to the idea that the common aims of mankind must be taken care of by the most important, most powerful countries, as representatives of the others. And the reason why my husband suggested, many years ago, this combination of these four countries, is not that it would be exclusive of all the others, but first of all, if you do it in the United Nations, it does not work. Two hundred countries or so is just too many, and democracy has some real flaws in terms of getting to decisions, especially under emergency conditions. But these four countries are pretty representative of the West, the United States is a sort of primus inter pares of the West; at least it used to have that understanding; then, naturally, Russia, China and India can be trusted to represent the interests of what used to be the Non-Aligned Movement; now it’s a combination of the Global South, the African Union, the different Latin American organizations, the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Organization of Islamic Countries — all of these organizations sort of, in my view, can be trusted by the combination of these four countries, if they work together.

So, the best which can be done, under this incredible, emergency — which will, I fear, get much worse in the next weeks and months — that the more countries and the more leaders speak out and say, “We demand such a solution,” the better. Because I think we can shape — and that’s also the purpose of this conference of the Schiller Institute — I think we can shape the public demand that such a solution be put on the agenda.

That’s my answer.

CHEMINADE: I would only add that, with his limited means, Senegal had been doing quite well. They have a very good Pasteur Institute, not with French people, it’s Senegalese — and they are planning to produce masks for a few cents, and tests for say, about $1. So there is this sense of the interest of the nation, of the country.

This is extremely valuable in the context that Helga said before, which means that all these nations of Africa, they would bring something into an association, to develop Africa, of the United States, China, India, and other countries, including France and including Turkey, for example, Africa can bring a sense of its own interests in its scientific development, and a sense, also, of social harmony. And this sense of social harmony in Africa, combined with a sense of social harmony of China, and what we can bring from the Western countries, including, of course, the United States, and France in Western Africa, and other countries in Eastern Africa, these can bring a combination which Africa would be a sort of catalyst for this change in the world. And this would demand an input of all of us, to create that, and Africa would be not a country that only needs to be helped, as such, but a country that would make a jump into the future exactly like China did.

GERACI: I think let a lot of what I would say has been said already.

*****************************************

SPEED: Very good. Now, I understand that we are about to hear from Bassam el-Hachem. He’s a professor at the Social Sciences Institute at the Lebanese University in Beirut. But I remember him from about 30 years ago or maybe more, with some activities we were doing both in France and also here, in America. I haven’t heard from him for a long time.

While we’re working on getting Mr. el-Hachem online, I should just say, in a few moments after a few more questions, we have a particular presentation around what is called the LaRouche Legacy Foundation. This involves our reprinting the works of Lyndon LaRouche, who passed away Feb. 12th of last year. I want to make sure that people know that, and there will be a link to encourage people get their own copy of the first volume of Mr. LaRouche’s collected works that we’ve printed.

Are you able to hear us? There you are, haven’t seen you in at least 30 years.

BASSAM EL-HACHEM: Yes. How are you?

SPEED: Not bad. Glad you’re still around!

El-HACHEM: Thank you. I’m going to speak in French. I think we’re prepared to do something about that. [as interpreted]

Mme. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, my friends from the Schiller Institute, dear listeners, I cordially greet you from Byblos in Lebanon, and it is precisely on Lebanon that I will focus my remarks. My country is going through a terrible economic and social crisis. This is known, since we know Cheminade and Christine Bierre in Paris over the years. But we are suffering in miniature, the global problematic issues which the conference is dealing with, among them, the crisis of an unprecedented popular uprising, which started on Oct. 17, and which to this day invincibly continues its course, despite even the present lockdown.

I only have 5 or 7 minutes, so I will go to the essence of the matter. I will make small points on the list.

Concerning the crisis and breakdown crisis in Lebanon, there are three main aspects. First, there’s a financial and economic collapse taking shape with a public debt which is close to the astronomical figure of $90 billion, which corresponds to 170% of the GDP, coupled with a very heavy debt service, the equivalent of 10-11% of the GDP; and a budget deficit amounting in 2019 up to 16% of GDP, but also coupled with a serious deficit in the balance of payments.

Secondly, the real living conditions in Panirsus [ph] are in continuous decline, until things come a deterioration of the purchasing power of incomes following an endemic stagnation of wages, going hand in hand with increasing taxes on imported products, which is close to 80% of products consumed in Lebanon. And as of summer 2019, the beginning of an amputation of the pay of public service and armed forces retirees. And also unemployment rates in the order of 30-33% of the workforce living in Lebanon, especially among the youth, which is pushing young Lebanese into exile.

And thirdly, there’s the scandalous dilapidation of infrastructure and the services which they provide. Electricity which is now being cut, and lockouts.

As far as the forces which are behind this crisis, I see the following, there are three parts. First, fundamentally, there’s the problem of the corruption in power, the main coordinates which have not changed since the beginning of the ’90s, except for some minor adjustments since 2005. Besides small changes, corruption actually never ended.

Secondly, there’s a fundamentally rentier economic and financial policy in force since then, favoring indebtedness and attracting capital to be placed in treasury bills at annual interest rates reaching at one point, the very worrying threshold of 40-45% on the treasury bonds. This resulted in an increase of the debt of the state, accumulation of private fortunes resulting from just embezzlement, to the detriment of the public interest, and the subsequent ruin of agriculture and industry, from which potential investors diverted to the advantage of purely financial banking investments.

Thirdly, of course, the war in Syria and its harmful effects on the Lebanese economy with the influx — and I’m not speaking about the last 60 years from the Palestinians and the tragedy of all these refugees who flee from the war in Syria and its harmful incidents on the Lebanese economy, from a huge mass of Syrians who are fleeing the war, exerting about 1 million persons who were added to the 4 million population of Lebanon. This created an overwhelming picture of the Lebanese workforce, and the market for local products, and on the other hand an unprecedented closing of the land route, irreplaceable for the transport for Lebanese production both in industry and agriculture, to Jordan and all the Arab Gulf countries, in particular, especially the Iraqi market.

As for the obstacles to the way out of the crisis, the following can be said: 1) a systemic policy of the United States, which are the oppositions to a solution, it’s a systematic policy of the United States with economic and financial sanctions coming to relay the gunboats of long ago, in the privileged service of Israel, which strangles the country of the cedar, which is pressuring the banks.

2. pressures similarly exerted by the same superpower to force this country to modify the course of the land and sea borders with Israel and occupied Palestine, which has an impact on delaying Lebanon’s progress on its oil and gas exploration in the Mediterranean, as much as possible.
3. the United States of America also prohibits us by proxies any resumption of dialogue with the Syrian government, which held out with the help of its friends and allies, in particular Russia, Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah, which hinders any solutions to our economic progress. Those are linked to the transit of our goods through the Syrian territory, as to the desire to return as soon as possible, after 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon because of the war at home since 2011.
4. glimmers of hope are a way out, however are on the horizon, but without outside help, there is a big U.S. pressure also on the IMF of not giving the required credits to Lebanon to confront its crisis.

What are glimmers of hope to get us out of crisis, and I want to conclude with that, but without foreign help we cannot succeed in putting them into application.

1. a possible recovery of public money robbed by criminals that we no longer ignore in deposits in foreign accounts, whose amount would be something like $160-$200 billion, which is tax money outside Lebanon.
2. The neutralization of regional factors. I just said of the Palestinian cause and the Syrian question, an essential condition for excluding regional interference from the Lebanese scene, whether it be Iran or Israel, Saudi Arabia, and so on.

And 3) a restructuring of our economy has to favor, to the detriment of the profit system, the productive sectors of the physical economy, namely agriculture, industry and technology.

All of this, and I want to close with that, however, nothing is likely to be possible, except in the context of a refoundation of relations among nations on the basis defended by the Schiller Institute, and Lyndon LaRouche on the basis of a win-win situation, and new, more balanced financial and economic order, bringing an end to the dangerous hegemonism of the U.S. practice to the extreme and giving in its place, to all nations, large and small, a voice in the management of world affairs. So, it is not to reflect on such an alternative that we are here, today, united. Thank you for listening.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Mr. Hachem. I’m sorry I didn’t realize you were in Lebanon as opposed to France. I misspoke. And I hope you’ll be able to continue to participate with us in the conference.

*****************************************

We’re going to go now to our next question from Mauricio Ortiz Ortiz, the Chief Ambassador from Costa Rica to Canada. Here’s his question: “In the 1940s Costa Rica decided to create a health system with universal coverage, to abolish the army, and invest in education and healthcare. Later, in the 1970s, we created 1,041 rural primary healthcare posts. We also protect, approximately 30% of our biodiversity, and two years ago launched a program to decarbonize our economy. Up to now, we have 675 cases of COVID-19, and 6 deaths, one of the lowest mortality rates in Latin America. Our desire is to exchange experiences with other countries. Will the Schiller Institute encourage the United Nations, the multilateral banks and other organizations to support the governments of undeveloped countries to invest in preventive rural health and health systems for universal coverage? How can this be accomplished with a world system which currently focuses more on trade and profit than on social issues? And Helga, I’m going to ask that you take that up.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, we have a call since about six weeks or four weeks ago, for a world health system. The reason why we did that, it’s pretty obvious, this is one of the most fundamental human rights you can imagine, and the pandemic underlines exactly the absolute shortage — I mean, Costa Rica may be in a relatively better situation, but I think almost all developing countries are very, very far from what is needed.

Given the fact that the pandemic unfortunately, it was clear that it would become worse and worse, so I asked for a world health system, with the idea that as the pandemic is getting worse, the demand that such a world health system which would put up functioning health systems in every country on the Hill-Burton standard, of the United States Hill-Burton Act in the postwar period; or the French or German systems which used to be quite good, until the privatizations started: That every country has the right to that kind of a standard.

And the pandemic makes it clear, because even if in the beginning some countries may have thought, well, they only have to take care of themselves, the fact that it’s a pandemic, which means that it’s global, that it’s expanding to the South, that it will come back in a second wave, and possibly even in a third wave — if you look at the Spanish flu from 1918-19, it came back in a second and a third wave which were even much worse than the first wave.

So, with that idea in mind, the understanding that we cannot continue as we have done in the past will become a growing, self-evident truth, and the idea that everybody has the right for a functioning health system is a protection for everybody! It’s not just for the affected country, but we’re sitting in one boat, because if we don’t provide that to the developing countries, then it will come back and kill more and destroy more of our economy, and it will just get worse and worse.

So, the idea of now putting a world health system with an idea of a decent health system in every country on the table, in a certain sense, sooner or later requires, how should this be financed? And then you come to the question of the casino economy will never do it, because the reason why we are in this mess, is because they have been going for profit maximization for the last decades. That brings the question then, of the urgent need to have a credit system, a New Bretton Woods system:

I would actually ask everybody who is watching, to simply take up this demand, that the idea that every single country must be provided, first with a crash program to fight the virus, but then you need infrastructure, because even if you can take the Corps of Engineers and set up hospitals in the middle of the desert, well, you may be able to maintain that for a few days or whatever, but then the question comes, how can you build up the infrastructure?

So, in a certain sense, the answer to your question is, that we have to have global development totally. This is why the program which the Schiller Institute published after Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road in 2013, we were very happy, because we said, this is what we have been fighting for since ’70s, so we actualized all the programs we were working on, the total development plan for Africa, for Latin America, for Asia, the 50-year development plan for the Pacific Basin, the Oasis Plan for the Middle East, the Eurasian Land-Bridge, which we already called the New Silk Road in the ’90s — and we actualized all of these programs in new study, called “The New Silk Road becomes the World Land-Bridge.” Now, this book was greeted very much in China, it was translated into Chinese; the Chongyang Financial Institute sent copies to all the major universities and think tanks. It was translated into Arabic. It exists now in German and in French. A second volume was produced, an extension of it, “The Extension of the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa.”

So, if you take all of these studies together, they are an absolute blueprint for a global development plan. And I think we have reached the point where, either we get the so-called Western countries, that is, the United States and the European nations, to cooperate with the New Silk Road in the development of Southwest Asia, Africa, Latin American, Central and South America, and that has to be a cooperative effort. And we have to overcome geopolitics: I know that for many people that sounds like a utopian conception, but I’m absolutely certain that the dimension of the crisis will become so absolutely clear — between the financial blowout, the destruction of the physical economy, the pandemic, as it was mentioned earlier by one of the other speakers, potential social unrest, the refugee crisis — that the idea that you need to put on the table a solution which addresses all of these problems, in cooperation will become a more and more convincing idea. And it’s the only winning idea.

So rather than focusing only a side aspect, I think we have to really move with the idea that the only solution is this concept of a World Land-Bridge to overcome underdevelopment forever. And development does not mean more quantities. Some of the greenies of the West, they always think when you say “development,” that you mean more of the same. But we’re not talking about more of the same.

For example, I mentioned earlier that the representatives of the developing countries should all be immediately integrated in the training of this research in the life sciences, any breakthrough must be distributed to everybody; developing countries should do the leapfrogging by immediately training some of their young people to be on the top of the vanguard sciences so that the overcoming of underdevelopment will occur in leaps and big steps, and not just repeating all the steps made by the industrialized nations.

I think we are at a point where we either reach a completely new era of mankind, and I have said in the past, this change must be as big as that between the Middle Ages and modern times, separated by the Italian Renaissance. The change to the future has to be even bigger. We need to put mankind first. It’s OK to be a patriot of your country, it’s absolutely wonderful and a good thing. But the interest of a nation should never again be ahead of the interest of all of humanity, and I think if this crisis teaches us anything, then it is exactly that approach, that we have to be united by the common aims of mankind, first, and then we can settle all the regional, all the national questions after that.

So, I think we have to really fight for this big transformation into a new era of civilization, the World Land-Bridge being the absolute way to go; the New Bretton Woods being the absolute precondition, and starting with the world health system, I think we can cause an avalanche of demand in this direction until it is accomplished.

SPEED: Do either of the other have any response? Mr. Geraci, you have your hand up.

GERACI: No, I just comment on what Helga said: I think the emphasis is, yes, on humanity is important. The question then remains for countries like Italy and even mine which was a so-called “nationalist” government, the belief is that you can help others only if you are first stable on your own feet, a little bit like planes, where you first put you own mask on, you stabilize yourself, and then you’re able to help others. I think we all agree that the goal should be humanity; I think the question would be then, what’s the path? What are the first building blocks to reach that goal that we all agree on.

CHEMINADE: Yes, we have absolutely to change our thinking. If you look at the preceding world thinking of these last 40 or 50 years, since August 15, 1971, but already before, it said, “how much money do we have?” And there is never enough money to do things useful for mankind. We don’t have the money. So, that was always the answer.

How vicious it is right now! Because when the world’s this collapse of the financial markets, then they issue money, but not for mankind. They issue money to save their own interest and their own financial markets. So we have to absolutely shift our world thinking and thinking in terms of what’s necessary for mankind. Then, it’s because of that that we produced this “LaRouche’s ‘Apollo Mission’ To Defeat the Global Pandemic.” We started from what is needed globally. And then we established how we would lead credit and the financial means to accomplish this. So it reverses completely the world thinking, to add to what Helga said.

************************************

SPEED: Thank you. We have a special presentation. I just received a copy of this — I don’t know if everybody can see it online, but Lyndon LaRouche Collected Works, and this is put out by the LaRouche Legacy Foundation. And Helga you may have something to say about this, and we have we can also show.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, let me quickly say: First of all, we have created the LaRouche Legacy Foundation which has the aim to preserve the work of my husband, and make it available to the whole world. We want to put out his Collected Works, and that’s a big job! Anybody who has known Lyn, he has written, on a good day, 80-100 pages — print ready! — with all the footnotes, with all things which normally the editorial does, and I have not counted it yet, but if this Collected Works series becomes into the 50, 60, even 100 books, I would not be surprised.

Then we have all the videos. We have the letters, the memorandums, the internal communications to important people around the world, in governments and so forth. So this is a gigantic job, which I think, in terms of the historical significance of Lyndon LaRouche, is absolutely crucial. I think it is almost — I don’t want to call it a tragedy, but I want to call it an unbelievable coincidence, that one year, approximately one year after he died, on Feb. 12th last year, you have the absolute fulfillment of all the things he said, many, many times, in speeches, in conference addresses. And if you now look, the breakdown of the whole system — he had said in many times, in many ways with many predicates. And I know that many people will say, “Yeah, that’s LaRouche, he exaggerates, it will never come to that” — now we are here! If you read what Lyn said in the ’70s, in the ’80s, in the ’90s, in the 2000s, you will be surprised.

This first volume is just some of the most important economic works: So, You Wish To Know All About Economics? The Science of Christian Economy; Earth’s Next Fifty Years, and some other writings. I would really urge you to get a copy of this book, and make it your joy, to acquire every single book as it comes out, which the Legacy Foundation wants to do, at least two per year, maybe quicker. I want you to contribute, so that we can speed up this work — make it your own question to preserve the legacy of Lyndon LaRouche.

I made a video last year to somehow give you some of the reflections of why I think this is important. Maybe we can see the video now, and then I’ll make some concluding remarks

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hello to all of you. Many of you have participated in the outstanding memorial for my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, or you have viewed the video in the meantime, and then, you got a taste of what a beautiful mind my husband really had, and how important the ideas are for the world today. As a matter of fact, I would put him on the same level of thinkers, those thinkers who maybe you have only one per century, and would change, through their intellectual contribution, the entire body of knowledge of their time, and lay the foundation for future generations to come. So I put him on the same level as Plato, Nikolaus of Cusa, Kepler, Leibniz, Einstein, because he contributed to all of the works of these great thinkers something unique: the LaRouche method of thinking. And I’m absolutely convinced, that if we would publish right now his collected works, which is a gigantic task, because he was one of the most prolific writers of this time, it would have the same effect as the introduction of Plato to the Italian Renaissance.

Now, let me explain to you what I mean by that: The Italian Renaissance was prepared by many factors, by the work of Dante, Petrarca, many sculptors and great painters, but what really caused the spark to really make the Renaissance what it became was the introduction of Plato and the thinking of Nikolaus of Cusa. Nikolaus of Cusa belonged to a circle of humanist thinkers who believed that you had to go back to the original documents of all times, of all events, and handwritings.

So in this capacity, he was sent by the Pope to find out if the Filioque question was in the early documents of the early councils of the Church. Now, the Filioque was the question which had separated the Orthodox and the Catholic Church: It was the question, does the Logos emanate only from the Father, which was the belief in the Orthodox Church, or does it also emanate from the Son, Filioque. Now, Nikolaus went to Byzantium, and he did find all the handwritings of the early councils of the Church, which did contain the Filioque.

This was a complete breakthrough because that meant that he could convince the fathers of the Orthodox Church to come to the Councils of Ferrara and Florence. So, in 1437-38, he came with a whole delegation of about 700 people, the Emperor of Byzantium, the Patriarch, and many scholars; he traveled from Greece to these councils. And already on the way, because he talked to people like Georgius Gemistos Plethon, who was the 83-year-old adviser of the Emperor and he was the top scholar of Plato in Greece. He actually wanted to introduce Plato, to have a Renaissance in Greece, and hew as refuting Aristotle. He thought that Aristotle had absolutely misrepresented Plato’s ideas, or he was not capable of understanding them. He said, Aristotle is completely incompatible with Christianity.

So, the dialogue between Nikolaus and all of these scholars, meant that Nikolaus had a breakthrough, already on that trip. He came to develop a method of thinking which he was very self-conscious about, and he said: I’m now saying something which no human being has ever thought before, and that was, the principle of the concidentia oppositorum. This is the idea that the One has a higher value and higher magnitude than the Many, and that the human mind can always overcome contradictions by developing a level of reason on a higher plane which gives you a way to solve problems which were not solved on the lower plane. And that idea, indeed, was the completely breakthrough in thinking, because Aristotle had said, you cannot have something being true and being the opposite of something, not being true; and all these thinkers, including Nikolaus said, this is a completely low level of thinking, because you remain on the plane of contradictions, while Nikolaus in the Apologia Docta Ignorantia, which was his rebuttal of a scholastic professor from Heidelberg, Johannes Wenck, he said Aristotle is really a very low level of thinking, like the ratio of an animal, but no better. While the method Plato developed, and which I now develop further, is like the creative thinking being self-conscious about itself. It’s like standing on a high tower, and from that viewpoint, you can see the searcher, that which is being sought, and the process of searching, and that gives you a completely different approach.

Now, this delegation arrived in Ferrara, and there were many lectures hosted by Cesarini, who Cusa had devoted his De Docta Ignorantia to, and all these scholars then listened to Plethon, and Bessarion, who was the Archbishop of Nicaea, and they were introduced for the first time to the entire works of Plato, which in the rest of Europe, other than Greece, had been completely lost after the fall of ancient Greece, after the Peloponnesian War. There were a few copies in some monasteries, but nobody could read Greek, and when Petrarca tried to learn Greek, he couldn’t find anybody who would teach him, so he never was able to access that. But he knew that this guy, Plato, had to be extremely important, because Augustinus, in his writings referred to them.

So, these lectures sparked an incredible intellectual ferment, and fortunately, among the listeners was somebody from a very wealthy family, namely, Cosimo dei Medici, and he financed a crash program for the translation of the works of Plato.

The combination of Cusa’ writings and the emergence of the entire works of Plato laid the foundation for the paradigm shift which separated the Middle Ages from the modern times — the Middle Ages being characterized by scholasticism, Aristotelianism, belief in witchcraft, superstition; and then, the new ideas, the new paradigm, a new image of man emerged, and a completely new conception that there was the possibility of infinite perfectibility of each human being, that science and technology could study the laws of the universe, and that this would be the basis for the improvement of the living standards, an increase in population: So it was a complete revolution and it laid the foundation for everything good coming out of the European history for the following 600 years to come.

I’m absolutely convinced that the publication of the collected works of Lyndon LaRouche would have a similar, if maybe even more powerful effect today. Because, what do you have today: You have, in the West, a complete cultural crisis. You have a collapse of moral values, you have the sciences dominated by utilitarianism and the idea of profit. Many scientists are just bread-scholars: They work for their salary, but they are not trying to find truth. I mean, this is a known phenomenon among all the faculties around the world, that if you get enough money, you publish whatever you are told to publish.

Now, the cultural collapse of the West is obvious to everybody — the drug epidemics, the terrible youth culture, the ugliness in the so-called arts, and many more such phenomena. So, I’m absolutely convinced that if we would publish, now, as quickly as possible the collected works of Lyn, it would spark an incredible excitement, because the ferment already exists: Because while the West is in a Dark Age, that is not the case for all of the world, because the New Silk Road, sponsored and originated by China, that spirit, the Spirit of the New Silk Road, has already caught on in about 126 countries which have joined the Belt and Road Initiative, and who have the idea that there will be a completely new time when poverty and underdevelopment can be overcome.

I participated just three weeks ago in the Asian Dialogue of Civilizations, which was an extraordinary event in Beijing. Forty-seven nations participated, and they were all very proud of the Asian ancient civilizations, going back many thousands of years, — 5,000 and more — and they were conscious of the fact that many of these civilizations were cradles of all of humanity.

Now, they think that the Asian Century is coming, or has actually started, and that the West is in a condition of decay. I think what the Asians are doing is great; it’s a great inspiration, but I also think we cannot leave Europe, the United States, to collapse, but that we need to have an approach where all countries and all continents prosper at the same time. And I’m absolutely convinced that this can only be done, that all countries are joining the New Paradigm, that we develop Africa together, with the Africans; that we will overcome underdevelopment in Latin America, in Asia, and all the pockets of underdevelopment in the United States and in Europe; but that we need a Dialogue of Cultures bringing back the best traditions of all Classical cultures; but that especially, the most advanced thinking ever thought, which was the thinking of Lyndon LaRouche, will really spark a similar fundamental Renaissance in the sciences and the arts, and the whole discussion of the image of man, what happened in the Italian Renaissance, happening for the future of humanity.

If you think that is a worthwhile idea, then I would ask you: Be generous and help us to make that work. You can help in many ways, and contact us and we will find a task for you to be a part of this exciting project. But also think that we need your financial support to do that, but do it in the spirit that it is upon us, now, to shape the new epoch of civilization, which hopefully will be the age where human beings will relate to each other as human beings, and that the future of mankind will be like the relations between Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Schiller, or Albert Einstein and Max Planck, and that nations will relate to each other in a completely new spirit, something which Nikolaus of Cusa called the spiritorum universorum, the New Silk Road Spirit, and that the works of my beloved husband are the crucial spark which will make that possible.

[end video]

SPEED: Helga do you have some final remarks?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We would like to send out copies of that book to many libraries internationally, so obviously, we do need support to do that, but I think if we would have these books available for students, for curricula, I’m absolutely certain that the specific method which my husband developed, — we will hear more about it in the next hours, and tomorrow. But I think that the specific LaRouche method of thinking is the most advanced thinking which mankind has produced so far.

Now, you may say, “She says this because she loved her husband.” But it’s more than that. It’s that also, but I’m absolutely certain that the contribution which Lyndon LaRouche has made is of absolute importance to the solution of the world problems like now. And that’s why I just want you to buy the book, to think how you can help, and think about spreading the ideas of my husband. Because I think that that is — first of all, you will be completely shocked, to see what he said, how early. As you heard with the two videos, which Dennis played at the beginning, many of what he said is as actual as if he would have said it this minute. And that unique power to anticipate and to make a correct prognosis, and then, come up a solution, that is something which must be studied by many, many people around the world. That’s is what I want you to know.

SPEED: The link to LaRouche Legacy Foundation is on the Schiller Institute conference page, https://www.larouchelegacyfoundation.org/collected-works/volume1

I’ll make a comment of my own: We were known as Ramsey Clark said — Ramsey Clark, being the attorney for Lyndon LaRouche at the point that LaRouche was unjustly incarcerated. He talked about the idea that the “LaRouche people were the book people,” referring to the story Farenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, which talks about all the time when human knowledge was being persecuted. And what happened was that a group of people who refused to allow civilization to die, became “books.” They were the living embodiment of various works. That’s what we are. And that’s what Lyn was: He was a living embodiment of over 2,500 years of Western civilization, and much more besides.

We again say, if you go to the Schiller Institute conference page, the link for https://www.larouchelegacyfoundation.org/collected-works/volume1 is there and if you go there and purchase it, we’ll not just appreciate, but you’ll appreciate it.

*****************************************

I understand that we have someone here in New Jersey, Daniel Burke who is an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, among other things and he’s been doing some work of a very specific nature with respect to today’s proceedings. Daniel if you’re there, go ahead.

DANIEL BURKE: Good! Thank you very much, Dennis. My name is Daniel Burke, I’m a LaRouche independent candidate for U.S. Senate in New Jersey. I’m 33 years old, my wife and I, we have a 2 year old daughter; I’ve been a member of the LaRouche movement for about eight years.

And my message is for the students and youth participating in this conference, and people who are thinking about them.

Four weeks ago, Helga joined a videoconference with 70 people from 12 different countries on 5 continents: these were primarily students and youth. She appealed to them to build an international youth movement, and since then, we’ve held a series of classes, readings and videoconferences among youth, in different languages, drawing them into this event.

Join us in building that youth movement, to inspire the tens and hundreds of thousands of students and youth we need to get the governments of the world to adopt our approach. The LaRouche movement is not here merely to loosen the grip of popular beliefs. The nations need a new organizing principle, they need a new scientific hypothesis of what mankind is, and will be. And it has to be agapic, loving in the divine sense.

Is it true that we’re insignificant specs of dust, in a cold, amoral universe? Or, a cancer on Mother Nature and deserving of all the punishment we received? If you reject those ideas, as you should, then what are we, in fact? The power that lies at the essence that is intrinsic to all human individuals is willful creativity, an ability shared by no animal species, to increase our power in and other the universe, by uncovering its laws — laws which are imperceptible to the mere senses.

It’s very difficult, one thinks, to consider your personal positions within such a profound scheme. It’s not easy to take seriously the dreams that all people share at some point in their early lives, of ending poverty, war, famine, and disease. It seems as though everyone has abandoned those dreams. “Who am I to say I know better?”

However, consider which is healthier for your soul. Should you accept, instead, the condescending voice of cynicism that says, “No one person can make a difference; let the Infinite scroll soothe your rumpled ego?” Or, should you accept those who say, “I can fix all the problems of humanity. Just eliminate human beings!”

Now, I’m asking you to join the LaRouche movement. Take the Devil by the nose, attack the corrupt and stupid axioms that allow the City of London and Wall Street fascists to gain control; and prove to yourself the true nature of mankind.

We’re asking you to join us in ensuring that there’s a growing force of students, workers, scientists, teachers, farmers, doctors, nurses, poets, artists demanding a new paradigm, and the actions needed to make it happen, beginning with Mr. LaRouche’s four economic laws.

Then, in fifty years—when I would be 83 and my daughter 52—we will have seen the greatest growth in human culture, science and economy ever known in history. And we can consider that our own contributions may have been absolutely necessary for it to happen.

In two weeks, on May 9, we will hold the second International Youth Video Conference. Help us to organize it. Work with us to mobilize the greatest number of people into meaningful action for this new paradigm. You can sign up for the youth video conference at the link on the screen, http://bit.lp/si-youth, which I encourage you to do immediately.

If you, yourself, are not a youth, please share this with a youth that you know. Help us to reach out to them and introduce this solution-concept for humanity, and nix the crisis.

Thank you!

****************************************

SPEED: Thank you, Daniel. Let me just say that we’re coming up a bit on time; we have about 18 minutes or so left. I’m going to be combing a few questions, here, which I’ll direct to the panelists, asking one and then see if the others want to respond.

I want to take the first question from Her Excellency, Mrs. Fatima Braoulé Meité, Ambassador of the Republic of Mali in Canada. She asks:

“COVID-19 has an effect, in particular, on the most vulnerable in society, be it those in Africa, in Europe, in America, or anywhere else in the world. Most of these people have a poor education. They have little access to health care, and are often jobless. The result is a higher rate of mortality. So, in fact, COVID-19 exposes all that should have been done—but was not—for all these people. Every state should now re-examine how to better intervene in all the social fields, even it means to nationalize some services, which had gone to the private sector.

“Unfortunately, Africa is little discussed, when considering the actions that should be taken in the post-COVID-19 world. The only Western voice with the courage to propose a structural solution for the African countries was that of [French] President Emmanuel Macron, when he proposed the cancellation of the African countries’ debt, in order to allow these countries to fight the COVID-19 while tackling, in-depth, the structural problems. Unfortunately, his call has not been heeded. This opportunity for political dialogue on the post-COVID-19 era, and the change of paradigm which the Schiller Institute offers on what should be our new way of acting, must take care of this question, and support President Macron’s proposal and open the ways and the means necessary for that.”

She then asks for a comment. Let me take the liberty to combine that with something that also came from an African diplomatic mission in Ottawa—a very short question that I think can be done as a corollary to this:

“We have noted the recommendation for a summit between the huge powers, that is, the United States, China, Russia, and India. In your view, which of these countries do you think will better push for the interests of African countries, especially on economic matters?”

I think what I’m going to do, is slightly revise what I said, and ask Jacques [Cheminade] to answer first, and then, I’m sure, the other two of you will have something to say; and then we’ll go from there.

CHEMINADE: Macron sometimes says words that may be useful. He called for this cancellation of all of the African debt, not only the debt of the poorest countries. He also issued a declaration with Tunisia, supporting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ [call for a] world ceasefire.

This is good, but they are things in themselves. What you need is a higher standpoint. This higher standpoint would mean the programs of development needed by Africa, and with whom. And how France could work with other nations to create this combination, this international cooperation that is needed for the development of Africa. This is not done.

Look at what was not done in France for the elder people in the retirement or nursing homes. What was not done by the Yellow Vests, what was not done inside the nation, this cannot be something separate with what’s done for African countries. You need an overall poise, supported from inside France for an absolute commitment for mankind.

This is not yet there. We’re doing our best to create the spirit for that, but it’s a very difficult situation, because there are all types of influences, including our own Macron, like Trump [in the U.S.]. There are not good people around both of them, going in a very different direction.

Also, there are provocateurs in the whole country, as you see in the United States. We have the same in France. People are calling for May 4 as a day against the lockdown: “Go [back] into the streets, be free, be happy!” So, you have all that, also happening in the United States. It’s used to disrupt our countries.

The only way that our countries could escape this offensive of disruption, is to have a real commitment to everything that was told of today.

So, at this point, for example, the French media never covered LaRouche, except once or twice, to slander him; and seldom covered me. They only covered me during the Presidential elections, but after it was finished, full silence against our ideas. That, for me, would be the Rosetta Stone of what is done or not done, and we should judge from that standpoint.

SPEED: Helga, do you want to say anything about that, or should be continue?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think that there are a lot of good proposals, by Guterres and others. For example, I think the end of sanctions is absolutely a requirement. And, naturally, the case-fires are also very important; the debt moratorium, the Jubilee—all of these things are absolutely crucial.

But I think what is lacking, as Jacques was just indicating, is how to remedy—even if you eliminate all the debt. Where do you get the new money? For that, you need a credit system. In the aftermath of this conference, we will publish a selection of articles by my husband on the New Bretton Woods system. A credit system would be beneficial for everybody. Okay, maybe the Fortune 500 would not be the winners of this, but everybody else—the middle-level industry of the advanced sectors, the countries of Africa.

We published the first comprehensive book about African development in 1976. It started with an integrated infrastructure program for the whole continent. It has ports, highways, fast train systems, industrial parks, industrialization of agriculture. In the book are described large projects, like the Transaqua project to bring water back to Lake Chad.

There was an absolute clarity on what needed to be done to immediately start to industrialize the African countries, naturally with their participation and their say-so as to what should be done and what should not be done.

But, I think it’s not a question of a lack of clarity of where to start. Many countries in Africa are now committed to having a middle class, to becoming a middle-level-income country in the near future. And that is absolutely achievable.

I think that is what needs to be put on the table, but it can only be done with a New Bretton Woods system.

SPEED: Since Mr. Geraci is an economist, I’d like to ask him what he has to say.

GERACI: On this discussion of debt cancellation, I think there was à proposal by Macron, or maybe by [French Minister of the Economy and Finance] Bruno Le Maire, who probably asked only for a debt delay repayment, not cancellation.

And so, I think, like Jacques said before, sometimes these are announcements that have very little relationship with reality.

I would like to answer Her Excellency from Mali. This is a problem we also have in Italy. We worry a lot about where to get the money from, how to finance it, who should give it to us—but very little attention is paid to what to do with the money.

I think we need to have the other side of the question very well developed, because this has been the problem in the past, including Italy—that we have 155% debt-to-GDP, going to 160% very soon—because we really don’t have an industrial plan; we don’t really have a plan to support the economy during this [coronavirus] crisis.

If I may advise all our listeners and ambassadors and policymakers who are listening: Draft, in details [unclear word: 12:15.6] industrial plan. Because, when the plan stands on its feet [is stood up?], the money comes. Finance tends to be a little bit more forgiving, and it reaches to where the good ideas are. I want to balance the focus of my takeaway from today. Let’s not just focus on where to get the money from, but really each country, county, city, region should have a very well-developed and integrated plan of what to do with it.

I’m talking here as a former investment banker, myself. As much as we may not like finance, individual investors’ money flows to where there are good investment opportunities. Of course, some of these projects are not there to make money; they are social projects. But, nevertheless, the plan needs to be equally detailed, even if there is no financial return, just to maximize the money.

************************************

SPEED: Okay, thank you. We have a lot of other questions that we’re not going to be able to get to. There is one presentation in particular that I want to get to. We’re going to show a couple minutes of it. It was recorded for this conference by Antonio “Butch” Valdes, head of the Philippines LaRouche Society. We are going to have this available online. And we’ll try to show the full presentation in our final panel tomorrow. I’m going to show just a few moments of it here, because I want to make sure that people know about it and know what he had to say. And then we’ll return to a final question, which will be to Helga, and then conclude.

Butch Valdes: Presentation to the April 25-26 Schiller Conference

(note- the first part of this was in the Sunday briefing. Here is the full presentation.)

Greetings from the Philippine LaRouche Society. Thank you for allowing us to share our insights, as to how we find ourselves playing a significant role in the global peace effort. For most of us observant with both international and local affairs, the past decade has been most foreboding, causing heightened apprehension due to increased tensions among the superpowers.

The overthrow of the 2014 Ukraine leadership by, admittedly, the CIA, and the subsequent encirclement of Russia and China by Obama’s Asian pivot were major steps being taken by the Western allies, asserting military dominance over those who dared to defy them.

At about the same period, the destruction of Syria, care of the manufactured ISIS and mercenary terrorists used in the overthrow of Libya’s Qaddafi was in full operation, intending to take out President Assad, to replace him with a puppet government. But they did not expect President Putin of Russia, and President Xi Jinping of China to collaborate in deterring effectively the British and Obama move to fast-track the world into a war.

And just to move quickly forward, neither did they expect a leader of a client state — or a better description is a “compliant state” — to be thrust into the Presidency of our Republic, by an overwhelming majority. Duterte made no promises, except to fight terrorism and do battle with the drug syndicates. Even if his vocabulary needed some refining, he said, “my admirers readily tolerated the expletives.” Because he epitomized the anger long suppressed by the alliance of falsely elected government officials and the oligarchic corporations causing desperate conditions of life.

Yet nothing has so unified the country, more than the incident where, shortly after his election, even before his inauguration, Obama gives him a call, to remind him of the obligations that the previous corrupt government had made with him, regarding the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Act, virtually establishing the Philippines as the most proximate U.S. military base facing China, and consequently its nearest target in case of a nuclear confrontation between the two powers.

What seemed to get Duterte more incensed, aside from the condescending tone of Obama, was the threat that unless our President submit to these dictates, he will withdraw a $700 million assistance earmarked by the U.S.A. for the Philippines. Duterte retorted by saying, “he can keep his money and go to hell! We are no longer your colony.”

I believe many Filipinos got enamored to the newly elected leader, after this. Until this day, four years into a six-year term, he still enjoys an 87% popularity and approval rating. For once, over so many decades, including the administration of Marcos, and those before him, the Filipino people felt like a truly sovereign nation.

Inevitably, this strained relationship brought us closer to Russia and China. Yet, subsequent improved relations with the U.S., upon the election of another phenomenal leader, President Donald Trump. It’s worth noting that whether President Duterte knew the implications of what he did, when he asserted our independence, we in the Philippine LaRouche Society could not resist with the voice out to constituents and friends in government our approval of these events. Immediately, we knew that the Philippines was going to play a key role in establishing peace in the Southeast Asian region.

But so, too, did the soldiers of the CIA, George Soros, and deep state, or whatever the names they are called. They went into a relentless campaign to disparage the President, using the mercenary opposition and mainstream media in accusing Duterte as a China puppet, who had placed the country into the “debt trap,” conveniently ignoring that we have been in one for the past four decades, courtesy of the IMF and world’s money-lenders.

The demonization of China has been well-orchestrated, ironically including the so-called “leftist” elements, whose former battle cry was to put down American imperialism, are now massively demonstrating against the expansion plans of China and her intentions to attack and occupy the Philippines — now calling on their American imperialists to protect poor Filipino fishermen.

Despite all these geopolitics being played by characters associated with the financial oligarchy, manipulators of Wall Street, politicians and a host of other British agents, we observe that Trump is standing his ground, not to be lured into intrigues concocted by people in his cabinet, or mainstream media on China’s and Russia’s intentions toward the United States. It is obvious by his confident demeanor that his relationship with Putin and Xi Jinping is far from being antagonistic — which bodes well for the whole world.

But we all know, that matters have taken a very sharp turn, for the worse, recently. The pandemic will not spare the Philippines, and many third world countries similarly situated. The resulting economic conditions will turn from bad to worse, for all countries. It is not good for the world’s population, but definitely a boost for the intentions of those who want it destroyed.

If not for China’s Belt and Road Initiative, started in 2013, the global infrastructure program, historically the greatest project ever conceived by man for mankind, linking all seven continents by land, by high-tech transport systems, now with 150 registered nations willing to join, there will be no alternative project of this magnitude that can match the staggering effort being undertaken by those, who, like the mythical god Zeus, will destroy the mortals. These mortals, who in a short 30 years, have risen from decrepit conditions to becoming the second largest economy in the world; a people, the most extensive railway system doubling that of the world’s combined; a country, which has started to help develop the African continent, the most exploited people in the planet, constructing a railway from South Africa to Egypt, covering 9,000 miles, roughly three times the length from New York to California; a country which has brought its whole population of 1.4 billion above the poverty level: They did not do it by occupying other countries, nor did they intimidate others to buy their goods, or control their currencies, and establish 600 military bases all over the world to enforce their will over others.

They did the way other great thinkers and leaders would have done: Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon LaRouche. There is a saying, that the tree that bears much fruit will attract those who will throw stones at it. The U.S. and other countries have two options: One is to join those whose vision of the world is based on geopolitics, in which they stupidly take sides and ally themselves with whomever they consider to possess greater military might, in anticipation of a world nuclear conflict. Or, collaborate with China, Russia, India, and over 100 other countries, the Philippines included, in a global collective effort to stem the devastating effects of an ongoing collapse of the world financial system, in confluence with a pandemic which threatens human population with millions of deaths. In a real sense, the world’s faith and 8 billion lives lies in the hands of one Donald Trump: His decision time is running short, because the enemies of mankind are on a massive effort to stop him from doing what is right.

We in the Philippines will do what we can to influence our decision-makers, not to fall into the China demonization trap. We are confident that the local opposition and the leftist elements have not been able to convince our people that China has taken control of the Philippines. On the contrary, it’s the U.S. naval assets which are sailing and docking in our ports, needing no permission to do so.

Just as Trump is the principal obstacle to World War III, Duterte’s presence is a deterrent to the deep state, to use us as a launching pad for a preemptive strike against China. It is certain that both these leaders are among the top in their demonic list.

We join Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the whole LaRouche movement, friends and the rest of the world, in making this clarion call for all to hear: That where there is great crisis, there is great opportunity to make the necessary changes for our civilization to succeed. It is our duty as human beings to be worthy of the creative powers given to us by our Creator. We in the Philippines commit to do our part, in a true agapic spirit to save humankind of self-destruction, in the name of Truth, Justice, Peace, and Development, so help us God. Thank you.

SPEED: So, if you want to hear more of that exciting presentation, you can get it from our website. As I said, we’ll try to get the entirety of it played tomorrow on our concluding panel.

*********************************

This is the final question for this panel. It is from Ambassador Samson Itegboje, the Chargé d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nigeria to the United Nations. Here’s the question:

“Her Excellency, Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, talks about the need to establish a new world health system, and for the United States, China, Russia and India to be the front-liners in that regard. This is an ideal.

“But the ideal must be put on the same wavelength with reality to determine the practicality of this ideal. The reality today, is what she refers to as ‘casino economy,’ or, ‘neo-liberal system of the West.’ In her view, the neo-liberal system of the West has inherent flaws, hence its unpreparedness to cope with COVID-19.

“My question is: In the face of the upsurge in nationalism, how can the world achieve the new world health system that you are clamoring for?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I thank you for that question, because I want you to remember what was in the video played by Dennis in the beginning—Mr. LaRouche talking about the U.S. Presidency; that it’s the President, not the Congress, not the Cabinet, but the President of the United States who represents the entire country.

Obviously, we also have designed this Schiller Institute conference with an eye on that particular perspective, because I think the problems of this world can only be solved on the level of the leaders. I think President Trump, given all the trouble he has had, starting with Russiagate, the efforts to impeach him—all of this—comes from the same circles that are now behind the anti-China campaign: MI5, MI6.

Why do they hate him? And why does the House of Lords say they will do everything to prevent a second term of President Trump? Because he has responded to some of the aspirations of the American people. They have voted for him; he has started to have a good relationship with President Xi Jinping; he wants to have a good relationship with Russia; he has relatively no problems with Prime Minister Modi.

Given the fact that you have such an incredible crisis, the casino economy and the Wall Street and City of London forces are not all-powerful. They can be overruled. If you ask yourself, “Where should it come from, if not from the top leaders from the most important governments?”

If you at what President Trump said in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, one-and-a-half years ago, he said that every nation has the right to take its own nation first. America first, but also Philippines first, Mali first, Germany first, France first. That must not be a contradiction, because the very design of the New Silk Road is based on the principle that there should be an absolute respect for the sovereignty of the other country; there should be the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs; respect for the different social systems.

If you take what I said earlier, that you put mankind first, there is absolutely room for an alliance of perfectly sovereign nations. And it happens to be that that is already in the American foreign policy tradition, because that was the approach John Quincy Adams took, who had exactly that idea. Also, that it was not the purpose of the United States to go outside and chase foreign monsters, but that the idea was to build such an alliance of republics.

I think that is what we have to do. The EU is useless. It does not represent the interests of its members, and it keeps doing things which further the dissolution and disarray. So, is that a problem for Europe? I don’t think so. We should go back to the idea of Charles de Gaulle, of a “Europe of the fatherlands.” De Gaulle also said that French people are not cows who eat grass, but the French people should have a mission.

Everybody should have a mission! And, if that mission of every country is in the direction of the one humanity, you can solve this problem and you can overcome these contradictions. In a certain sense, it does require the method of thinking of Lyndon LaRouche, but also of Nikolaus of Cusa’s “the coincidence of opposites.”

There can absolutely be the interest of every nation presented by patriots, without that they become chauvinists. You can have the interest of the patriots of the different nations relating to each other and furthering their interest in a win-win cooperation, where everybody works for themselves, but at the same time, the interest of the other.

That was the principle of the Peace of Westphalia. The Peace of Westphalia, the beginning of international law, resided in the fact that after 150 years of religious war of which the 30-Year War was only the final concluding part, there was almost nobody left to enjoy the victory. So, for four years, people sat down and worked out principles which started with “the interest of the other.’ That is really the principle we have to have.

We have to have worldwide development—a world land-bridge, the New Silk Road extending to all continents, including the rebuilding of the United States. Anybody who has recently been in the United States has seen that the infrastructure is in a terrible condition. You need to build new cities; you need a modern transport system. You need a transport system in Latin America; in Africa.

What we’re really talking about is a global system of infrastructure building, starting with the health system, but extending into all other areas of infrastructure. And then, once you have established such a common economic interest, which will be in the interest of every country, because even the United States would gain a lot more by participating in all of these project, than with the present policies of the military-industrial complex. They think they have to preserve raw materials, and so forth.
But that’s not the source of wealth! Read LaRouche, and you will find out why this is the case.

Once you have established the common economic interest, you can build a common security architecture. NATO is obsolete. NATO should have been dissolved at the end of the Soviet Union. Now we need an economic basis for a new security infrastructure which serves the security interests of every single nation on this planet. It can be done!

That is the kind of change we have to think about. The strategic defense of the Earth, the idea that we are unprotected against the danger of comets, of meteors, of asteroids, should be a common aim. Early warning against volcano eruptions, against tsunamis, a common defense against viruses and other diseases.

All of these things are so pressing, that if we put our efforts all together, I think we can change the agenda. In a certain sense, it’s not an option. It is the absolute necessity to get out of this crisis.

So, that is why I’m optimistic. Because sometimes, when there is not enough reason you can appeal to, then the policy of the burning shirt may help to get people’s asses out of their chairs.

SPEED: All right. So, I want to thank everybody for participating today. I think that was a heartfelt sentiment that was expressed there a moment ago, with which we all agree. I want to thank His Excellency Mr. Dmitry Polyanskiy, First Deputy Representative of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations; His Excellency Ambassador Huang Ping, Consul General of the People’s Republic of China in New York; Counsellor Zhou Guolin, head of the Science and Technology Section of the Consulate.

I want to thank, of course, Jacques Cheminade, Chairman of Solidarité et Progrès; Professor Michele Geraci, from Italy, who was very important in bringing about the Memorandum of Understanding between China and Italy, and very important in our understanding today of how Americans should think about the people of China, as opposed to simply seeing them as “the Chinese,” as a kind of abstraction.

And, of course, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

I want to thank all of you for being with us. We are going to be continuing our conference. This is just the first panel. Panel 2 starts in just under an hour. It’s called “For a Better Understanding of How Our Universe Functions.”

I also want to say that this [holds up newly released printed book] is the first volume of Lyndon LaRouche’s Collected Works.

You can purchase this volume online.

I want to welcome all of you to your first experience with Lyndon LaRouche, if it is your first, but I also want to encourage everyone to get everyone else that you know is thinking about how our civilization has to be rebuilt, to tune in to the rest of this conference. You can, of course, do that, as I said, beginning just about an hour from now. Thank you, and we’ll see you in a little while.