1

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på Schiller Instituttets ungdomskonference:
At anvende Gandhis ikke-voldelige metode til at stoppe atomkrig,
på vej mod et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden.

Den 21. august 2022. HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Vi befinder os i et yderst interessant øjeblik i historien.  Normalt, når man lever, går man i skole, man studerer, man får et job; der sker ikke så meget, og så har folk almindeligvis den idé, at, ja, der er alligevel ikke noget, man kan gøre for at skabe store forandringer.  Normalt er dette ofte rigtigt, fordi vi har levet i et system, som var temmelig statisk og fastlåst. Men det er nu helt anderledes.  Jeg tror, det er vigtigt, at man udvikler en reel fornemmelse for øjeblikkets absolutte dramatik, for i min levetid var den eneste tilnærmelse til det der sker, og jeg siger “tilnærmelse”, da Berlinmuren faldt, og DDR [Østtyskland] ophørte, Tyskland blev genforenet, Sovjetunionen gik i opløsning.  Det var et historisk dramatisk øjeblik, og vi spillede en stor rolle i det, fordi Lyn i 1984 i sit Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ havde forudsagt, at hvis Sovjetunionen fortsatte med sin daværende politik, ville landet bryde sammen om fem år.  

Så vidt jeg ved, var der på daværende tidspunkt ingen, der havde sagt noget tilsvarende. Men da Lyn altid var fuldstændig præcis i sine prognoser, tog vi det meget alvorligt, så vi fortsatte med at holde øje med, hvad der foregik i Comecon [den socialistiske handelsblok], og da det blev klart, at Comecons økonomiske vanskeligheder voksede i 1988, tog vi til Berlin, hvor Lyn holdt sin berømte tale på Kempinski Bristol Hotel den 12. oktober, i hvilken han forudsagde den tyske genforening et år før den fandt sted.  Det forenede Tyskland skulle derefter hjælpe Polen med at udvikle sig med moderne, vestlige midler.

I første omgang, da mandagsdemonstrationerne blev større, var der i begyndelsen et par hundrede. Dernæst, omkring udstedelsen af visum, strømmede folk ind på ambassaderne i Warszawa, i Budapest og i Prag, og demonstrationerne voksede sig større.  Derefter fulgte DDR’s 40-års jubilæum med en kæmpe militærparade, og [Østtysklands partiformand] Erich Honecker erklærede kort sagt: “Socialismen vil være her i 1.000 år mere, og hverken okse eller æsel kan stoppe det.” [Det var et rim på tysk.] Den sætning var berømt, for det tog kun 12 dage, før Honecker var ude, fordi han blev betragtet som værende uønsket af den kommunistiske ledelse i DDR. 

Blot tre uger senere blev Berlinmuren åbnet, og vi oplevede et utroligt historisk øjeblik, hvor folk klatrede op på toppen af Berlinmuren, omfavnede hinanden og drak champagne på toppen af muren, hvor folk tidligere var omkommet i forsøget på at flygte til Vesttyskland. Dette var et øjeblik, hvor befolkningen i en meget kort periode var helt åbne over for det, som Shelley ville betegne “at modtage grundlæggende opfattelser om mennesket og naturen”. Jeg husker det ganske godt, for den jul i 1989 udsendte det tyske tv to opførelser af Beethovens {Niende symfoni}, og ingen klagede over, at det samme program blev fremført to gange, for det ene var med den berømte dirigent Kurt Masur fra Leipzig Gewandhaus, og det efterfølgende var en anden dirigent.  

Man ville gerne have klassisk musik, man ville høre {Ode til glæden}: Det var den følelse, folk nærede.  Nu ved vi naturligvis, at dette historiske øjeblik blev forpasset, på grund af geopolitiske intriger.  Den eneste grund til, at jeg berører det, og vi har nogle videooptagelser om det, som du bør se, fordi dette er den eneste svage erindring eller det ringe eksempel, jeg har i tankerne for det øjeblik, vi har nu.  Men jeg er helt, 100 % sikker på, at dette, det vi gennemgår og oplever lige nu, er et utal gange mere afgørende end selv Berlinmurens fald, Tysklands genforening og de daværende omstændigheder. 

Grunden til at jeg siger det er, at der ikke er nogen måde, hvorpå dette nuværende unipolære system kan opretholdes.  Den unipolære verden er færdig.  Der er {intet} i universet, som vil kunne genetablere det.  Francis Fukuyama, som efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud erklærede, at dette var “historiens ende”, var en tåbe, en arrogant, kolonialistisk, åndssvag akademiker.  For det var naturligvis hensigten, at demokratiet ville sprede sig over hele verden, at alle lande, herunder Rusland og Kina, ville indføre det neoliberale system, og ved at forsøge at opnå dette ved hjælp af regimeskift, via farverevolutioner og gennem interventionistiske krige, som vi har set i Mellemøsten, har dette ført til et gigantisk tilbageslag.  Fordi de lande, der har lidt i århundreder under kolonialismen, absolut ikke havde nogen interesse i at vende tilbage til den periode. 

Det er grunden til, at nu, hvor det finansielle system segner i sin endelige dødskamp, med det hyperinflatoriske udbrud, krigen som middel til at knuse Rusland, sanktionerne, hvis brutalitet er helt uden fortilfælde, og endelig krigen i Ukraine foranlediget af NATO’s ekspansion, et emne, som selv venstrefløjen i Europa ikke tør tale om, men Putin vurderede tydeligvis, at han ikke havde noget andet valg: Eftersom Ruslands eksistens stod på spil, så måtte han gennemføre det, han kaldte den “særlige militære operation” i Ukraine.  

Nu kan man måske beklage, at det kom så vidt, ligesom ingen ønsker krig, men sagen er, at dette er en del af opgøret mellem et døende system, det neoliberale system, og Putin, en begavet, geopolitisk kyndig person, der reagerer herpå med krig, hvilket er uheldigt, men sådan er situationen nu engang. 

Da dette indtraf, forsøgte Biden at samle alle for at deltage i “Demokrati Topmødet”, og allerede forinden rejste Blinken, Wendy Sherman og forskellige andre mennesker rundt i verden og fortalte udviklingslandene, at de skulle underkaste sig, at de skulle stille sig på demokratiernes side i forhold til autokratierne.  Der blev gjort en enorm indsats for at få alle lande i Afrika, Asien og Latinamerika med i Vestens lejr.  Dette sker ikke: De eneste lande, der nu er en del af “Vesten”, er Japan, Australien og New Zealand (ikke engang helt), og jeg tror, det er det.  Så vi har NATO, vi har et forsøg på at skabe et globalt NATO, men det vil blive et meget hullet globalt NATO.

Vi står altså i en situation lige nu, hvor der opstår et nyt system, for hvad skal Rusland gøre?  Deres midler er blevet stjålet, de er blevet smidt ud af SWIFT, så de begynder at opbygge et nyt system.  De omdirigerer deres eksport til Asien; hvis Europa ikke vil aftage deres olie og gas, sælges det til Indien, Kina og andre lande.  Mellem Rusland og Kina er der netop nu en enorm indsats for at opbygge et nyt kreditsystem, en ny international valuta, der foregår en af-dollarisering, hvilket er Vestens egen skyld.  Vi har en nedtælling for dette, for om fire uger, afholdes SCO-topmødet, og efterfølgende G20-topmødet.  I takt med at de finansielle problemer og hyperinflationen bliver værre, vil vi se en optrapning af denne kontrovers – og det er ikke “demokratier mod autokratier”.  Det er de lande, hvis ledelse omfatter et oligarki, som absolut ønsker at bevare det kolonialistiske system.  Fordi det kolonialistiske system eksisterer stadig.  Formelt set havde mange af disse lande opnået uafhængighed, og i går havde vi et meget vellykket arrangement i forbindelse med 75-årsdagen for Indiens uafhængighed. Men i virkeligheden er vi stadig i et kolonialistisk system, så længe de vestlige finansinstitutioner kontrollerer verden via IMF og Verdensbanken, fordi Afrika, Latinamerika og landene i Asien nægtes udvikling, bortset fra de lande, der har besluttet at indgå i Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet (BRI), Den Nye Silkevej: Dette er efterhånden mere end 130 lande, som helt og holdent insisterer på deres status som alliancefri lande. 

India, which has been the most important target by the West to be pulled into the camp of “democracies,” is defying that.  I mean, there is not everything good in India: I have been talking to many of my Indian friends in the recent period, and they have said, domestically, there is a lot of tension because of the Hindu state, that Modi wants to have a state which is essentially Hindu, at the expense of the 200 million Muslims and other religious minorities, but from the standpoint of foreign policy, there is a rapprochement between India and China, which is very important.  And you have practically India insisting that its long friendship with the Soviet Union and now with Russia, will not be touched and they will not move away from that. 

So, we have practically the countries of the BRICS, the SCO, most of the OIC [Organization for Islamic Cooperation], the African Union, and much of the Global South all going in the direction of working with China, and Russia: And that is clearly the majority of the world right now.

Now, if you talk to some of these people, Russians, Chinese, Indians, Africans, they would be quite happy to go, all of this, on their own. Because they say: We get infrastructure, we get real development, overcoming of poverty in the collaboration with China and Russia.  So let the U.S. do whatever they want, let the Europeans be arrogant assholes, we don’t care. But unfortunately, the problem is  that I’m absolutely certain that when the West collapses more, and they will collapse—under the present circumstances, there is no way how this present, neoliberal financial system of the United States and Europe is not going to blow out.  In Europe, it will blow out in coming weeks because of the gas price, and many other factors.  But the problem is, that I’m convinced that NATO will not dissolve as peacefully as the Soviet Union did in 1991. You have to note the fact that the Soviet Union dissolved practically without a shot.  Sure, there were some coup attempts in Moscow, but it did not come to an international conflict. No tanks were rolling, there was no ’58 like in Hungary, or ’68 in Prague, Czechoslovakia:  It went all peacefully and through negotiations! And I’m absolutely concerned and worried that if we don’t convince the Americans, in particular, and the Europeans  that they have to cooperate with this emerging new bloc of nations, that we will have World War III.  

Because, if there is an attempt to suppress the majority of the world, by having other provocations, assassinations like we saw with the daughter of  Alexander Dugin, yesterday, which is a worrying sign that that is what people have in mind, or other atrocities—then, it will come to World War III.  So the big challenge, and that is also the challenge for you, is, can we get the United States and Europe to give up their idea that there is a superiority of the white man, of the white oligarchy centered in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the City of London, in terms of their power; and can we get them to enter new paradigm for international relations?

I think this is the biggest challenge, and it will be decided in the next period.  And you should make a personal commitment, that you will play an active role in bringing that result about.  It is a personal decision, which you have to weigh in your consciousness, and you have to then make that decision, and decide what you want to do in this historical moment. 

Now, there are many lessons to be learned.  In reviewing again the history of India; and I must say, I really like China a lot, for many reasons, but I also absolutely love India, because India has a very fascinating culture. It is a cradle of human civilization, and as Lyn was very fascinated with that, and he always looked for the origins of scientific knowledge.  And you don’t get around India, because the Vedic writings and before that the transmission the Vedic hymns in a verbal form over many thousand years, probably, it’s one of the early origins where you can find out what mankind did to come out of the last Ice Age, to develop astronomical knowledge, for agriculture, for orientation—all of that, you find in the Vedic writings.  And these are some of the earliest transmissions of human knowledge, and therefore, it is very fascinating.  And as Lyn always emphasized the writings of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the Indian philosopher and scientist who wrote at the beginning of the 20th century, it is very clear from these Vedic writings that the Indian civilization started about 9,500 or 10,000 years ago, which is 5,000 years older than generally assumed Mesopotamia to be.  

And this is very interesting, because the question, how did we get to where we are? Recorded human history is very brief: It’s only 10,000 years! It’s nothing!  From the standpoint of the universe it’s just a moment. So it’s very interesting.  And obviously, there were many, many beautiful developments in the Indian renaissance, which took place from the middle of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, produced some of the most powerful poets, and thinkers and philosophers, who are completely underrated in the West from the standpoint of what they contributed to universal history.  

And naturally, the fight for Independence is extremely important, because Mahatma Gandhi, who was a young lawyer who had started to study in Great Britain, who at the beginning had actually had quite an excessive lifestyle; and then he recognized that that was completely off, and he went into the complete opposite, into a very ascetic life and very spiritual life.  And he came to the conclusion that the method of nonviolence is the only way how you can resolve conflict.  Because if you don’t get violent thinking out of your system—James Bevel, who was the assistant to Martin Luther King, who always say you have to get it out of your system, and it is, in a certain sense, really a correct idea.  You have to delete what is evil in your mind:  You have to become a person who absolutely cannot stand for one second that a bad thought, an aggressive thought, a thought which hurts other people, is entering your mind.  And Mahatma Gandhi developed that method and applied it in several big marches, and he was able to defeat the British Empire with that method! 

Now, that is quite remarkable, because the history of India and the Independence fight has a very important moment in the history of our own organization.  Because, Lyn, when he was a soldier in the Second World War, in the China-Burma-India theater, happened to be in Kolkata, when the big riots took place in 1946.  And he saw with what brutality the British soldiers were beating down, shooting the Indian protesters; and it was that image of being in the middle of the Brutish Empire, trying to suppress this upheaval, which really shaped the way he proceeded afterwards, and how he recognized the crucial fight between Churchill and Truman on the one side, and what Franklin D. Roosevelt had intended instead.  And that had a lasting impact on the way he would look at the world. 

Now, what Mahatma Gandhi developed was a method of nonviolence, which is not just important in the social behavior, in the person-to-person behavior, but it is also the only way how you can conduct foreign policy and international relations.  Because, especially with nuclear weapons, it should be clear to anybody, that once one nuclear weapon is used, the likelihood that all nuclear weapons will be used is 99.9%, almost 100%, for reasons which we can discuss and you can read about from Ted Postol and Hans Kristensen [Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists], the famous Danish-born military expert.  And when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, civilization stops, because of nuclear winter.

So the question is, is this method of nonviolence applicable today, when more and more people are warning of World War III—John Mearsheimer,  Kissinger, people who are actually part of the cause for the mess we are in, at least concerning Kissinger; but more and more people realize that an accident can lead to a catastrophe and we are in the most dangerous moment in the history of mankind.  Is the method of nonviolence applicable under these circumstances? Or, is this military machine of NATO so powerful that it will steamroll forward and crush everything in its way?  I think that is the most important question:  Because if we do not induce people to accept the method of nonviolence, like Martin Luther King did, who went to India to study for five weeks the writings of Gandhi and he came back, and the whole civil rights movement in the United States was based on that method. 

So I believe that that is the way we have to go, because we, in the time of potential extinction, have to get to a new paradigm.  And Nehru, when he was asked if nonviolence would help in respect to the nuclear bomb, replied, “what else should help?”  And I’m more and more convinced that that is true.

However, it’s not just to be anti-war: It is a method of thinking which we have to educate people into which is what Nicholas of Cusa, the great scientist from the 15th century, developed as the “coincidence of opposites.”  This is a very important idea: Because the way the oligarchy manipulates people is by playing differentiated groups against each other.  In the United States, it’s not the Republican and Democratic Parties on the top, because they’re joined at the hip to each other; they’re identical because they have the same Wall Street interest.  But in terms of the so-called Trump followers and the Democrats, the polarization is huge and it’s being played.  And similarly, the Israelis and Palestinians, and you can go through various other situations that are like that. 

So how do you define a level where such conflicts don’t exist?  Nicholas of Cusa developed the idea that the human mind is uniquely capable to identify a higher One, where the contradictions that exist on the lower level, do not exist.  And Einstein said the same thing.  He said: You can never find the solution to a problem on the same level where the problem arose.  And then he came to his method of General Relativity, which expresses exactly that thinking.  And Nicolas of Cusa’s idea, the method of the “coincidence of opposites” was then in practice applied in the Peace of Westphalia, where 150 years of religious war were ended, by recognizing that if the war would continue, nobody would be left to enjoy the result.  That is why they then developed the principles of the Peace of Westphalia, where the first principle was that, for the sake of peace, every foreign policy from now on has to be based on love and on taking care of the interest of the other.  

Now, that is absolutely true, because if you look for example at the relationship between China and Africa, I’m convinced that it’s based on love. Churchill said, countries don’t have love or even friends, they have interests.  I think this is not true:  I have talked to many Africans, who basically said that the attitude of the Chinese toward African nations is based on love.  Now, I know that if you say that in the United States or in Germany, you get lynched for that, because it’s not allowed to even think it.  But I’m absolutely certain that in practice, it is that.  Because if you act in the interest of the other, then that is practically love.  It’s not some romantic something, but it is to make something good for the other country or the other person.

We have to arrive at that, and thinking the higher One, obviously, right now, is the one humanity.  This is why going back to the Vedic writings is so important, because you recognize at least all Indo-European languages derive from Sanskrit, and once you get the idea that there is a universal history and whatever your accidental existence represents right now—you’re born in America, therefore you are an American—that’s an accident!  But in a larger sense, you belong to the one universal history, and you have to define that history from the standpoint of the future, which is, we must become the immortal species, by making sure that when the Sun becomes a problem for the Earth, which will be 2 billion or 5 billion years,  we have to think about it now, how we make sure that we will be the immortal species by not building only a village on the Moon, or a city on Mars,  but developing fusion power, developing interstellar travel, occupying maybe even other galaxies down the road;  you know, we have to think in terms of the real laws of the physical universe, and that we will only make it as the one humanity. 

So, how do you get there?  Obviously, the nonviolent method:  You can go about it the Gandhi way; you can go about it the Confucius way, that you have to become a {xunzi} [ph] in your life, a wise person, getting rid of all that prevents you from being that; or you can be a Christian, believing that you should do good; or you can use the aesthetical method of aesthetical education, and personally think that is the most effective method I know of, because it puts the beauty of the soul as the goal.  Now, I have always said, if people would pay as much attention to the beauty of their soul as they do when they go to the fitness studio trying to develop their biceps. I have once seen two men discussing when you make a motion like that [flexing her biceps], it comes out here, so do it here, and then it comes out there. [laughter]  And they went through enormous pain to explain the difference about how you develop the most beautiful biceps:  I think if people would develop the same attention to how to develop a beautiful soul, we would be in a much better position.  

And you know, the way to do it, Schiller has written enormous amounts of beautiful ideas about it, not only the {Aesthetic Letters}, but also many other theoretical writings.  And it is the question that that beauty, you get from great art.  Why?  Because, when you indulge in the creative process of a composer, a painter, a poet, for that moment, when you try to grasp that great piece of art, you become like the composer, like the painter, like the poet.  And if you shorten the intervals in between, then you improve: Because the more you are creative, and the more you learn to be creative, and the less are the periods when your nasty inner self comes forward, the better.  I have advised some people they should be singing all the time, and never do anything else, because when they sing, they’re beautiful people, and when they don’t sing they tend to let the inner sow out to run around.  But that’s just my observation.

So the question is, how do you become internally free.  And the reason why the Schiller Institute is called Schiller Institute, is because I have found there is no other person who has a more beautiful image of man than Friedrich Schiller, because he has the idea that every person can be a beautiful soul, a genius, because only geniuses are really beautiful souls, as he develops; but how do you arrive at that?  And he was extremely concerned about freedom, and that’s why he totally rejected Kant—I mean, there are some stupid academic who say that Schiller was educated by Kant.  Nothing could be more wrong, because he developed his entire method of aesthetic education as a rejection of Kant.  Because he said the “moral imperative” of Kant, you know, “never do what you don’t want others to do to you,” that that was so much a suppression of the inner freedom, that if people apply that; and he said, if one has to watch them and see the procedure how they suppress their evil inner impulses, just to be moral—this may be necessary sometimes, before you do something really bad—but it is an insult to all of us who love freedom, and who love the freedom of the individual in the most beautiful expression.  So he said, it has to come from this inner freedom:  Freedom and necessity must be one, you must do your duty with passion.  So when you know what is necessary, and you say, what is necessary for humanity and the development for humanity, you have to do it with joy, and then you are free!  And that is something one can learn.

So I think these things are what is necessary to convey to our contemporaries, because I think we all must have a solemn commitment to not miss this incredible chance, that mankind can reach a new paradigm, and that we can actually start concentrating on those challenges only human can solve, like getting rid of cancer, getting rid of other untreatable or difficult to treat diseases, getting rid of the danger of asteroids hitting Earth: We have overcome gravitation in the developing space travel—well, that is just the first baby step.  There is no limit to the self-perfection of man.  I believe that the idea that man is the only creature which is limitlessly self-perfectible, both in terms of the intellect and in terms of the moral beauty, is absolutely true.  But it needs to be done. 

That is what I wanted to say. [applause]




Sikring af retten til mad, brændstof, medicin – og udvikling

Den 21. juli (EIRNS) – Det er i tider som disse, hvor et imperialt system, som har hersket endog i århundreder, har drevet sig selv til dets uundgåelige opløsning, at menneskeheden ofte har fundet styrken til at hævde sig og skabe et nyt system, under hvilket befolkningerne og deres nationer kan blomstre. Alligevel nærer de fleste borgere i den vestlige verden i dag stadig alt for stor ærefrygt for den tilsyneladende “styrke” hos de magter, der er – eller var. Betragt nogle af dagens “nyheder”:

I dag måtte den italienske præsident Sergio Mattarella udskrive et valg i hast, da de globale finanskredse mislykkedes i deres sidste forsøg på at genindsætte deres håndlanger, Mario Draghi, som premierminister.

Samme dag bekendtgjorde Den Europæiske Centralbank en halv procents renteforhøjelse – og afsluttede otte års negative renter! Men af frygt for at denne beskedne åbning for ”pengevandhanen”, der har holdt euroen og de europæiske banker flydende, kunne medføre, at f.eks. Italiens gæld sprænges, meddelte ECB også et nyt program, der pompøst benævnes “instrumentet til beskyttelse af overførelser”, hvor ECB vil gå ind og købe statsobligationer, der kan være ved at krakke. Et problem (blandt mange): de lande, der skal “hjælpes” under dette såkaldte instrument, skal opfylde ECB’s knusende sparevilkår – de samme stramninger, som var en vigtig faktor i udløsningen af de sociale omvæltninger, der førte til Draghis fald i første omgang.

Ingen tror på, at dette kan bestå. De “magthavere, der var”, har ikke kontrol, og derfor er betingelserne for en eurokrise til stede.

På samme måde breder den manglende regeringsførelse sig fra land til land, som stadig er fastlåst i Vestens monetaristiske system – det system, som Vladimir Putin kalder “Den Gyldne Milliard”.

Tag tilfældet Panama. Dette lille land med 4,5 millioner indbyggere i Mellemamerika har været lukket ned i de sidste tre uger på grund af en national strejke blandt lærere, bygningsarbejdere, indfødte folk… alle. De strejkende kræver, at regeringen sænker priserne på tre ting – fødevarer, brændstof og medicin – og hæver lønningerne.

Lignende strejker blandt lastbilchauffører og landarbejdere er påbegyndt i Peru. Landbrugsoprøret i Europa, med de hollandske landmænd i spidsen, bliver ikke mindre.

Folk kan ikke leve under de betingelser, som finansmændene i London, Wall Street m.fl. har skabt, under den globale hyperinflation. De kræver deres ret til at leve – til mad, brændstof og medicin. Men regeringerne vil ikke være i stand til at sikre dem denne ret, medmindre de går sammen med andre nationer om at etablere et nyt internationalt system, hvor der udstedes kredit til udvikling af den fysiske økonomi og ikke til spekulanter: det nye Bretton Woods-system, som Schiller Instituttet nu mobiliserer for.

Regeringer, der nægter at gøre dette, kan ligesom Mario “uanset-hvad-der-skal-til” Draghi, falde på halen. “Fødevarer, brændstof og medicin!” er ved at blive et samlet opråb overalt.

Et højlydt råb, der kræver en tilbagevenden til fremskridt og udvikling, vil hurtigt slutte sig til kravet om “mad, brændstof og medicin”, efterhånden som folk i Vesten ser ud over deres relativt lille andel af planeten og opdager, at gigantiske nationer som Kina og Rusland har nægtet at lade sig knuse af “de magter, der var”. Kina og Rusland overlever ikke blot, men mobiliserer deres befolkninger til at deltage i den slags store projekter, som USA engang var det fremragende forbillede for: udvikling af banebrydende teknologier, opførelse af store vandprojekter i tilfælde af tørke, rumfart, udnyttelse af atomet til fusionsenergi. De hjælper ikke blot deres befolkninger til at leve bedre i denne proces, men hjælper også fattigere lande i Afrika, Asien og Sydamerika med at deltage i denne udvikling….

Udvalgt billede: Masood Aslami, Pexels

 

 




Panel 4: Klassisk kultur og dialogen mellem civilisationer

Den 19. juni 2022 (EIRNS) – Ordstyrer Dennis Speed åbnede panelet med bevægende og tankevækkende eksempler på de virkemidler, hvormed kulturen kan levere løsninger på nutidens dybe globale krise. En opførelse af Kyrie fra Wolfgang Mozarts Requiem, der blev opført den 19. januar 2014 i Boston af Schiller Instituttets kor, satte dagsordenen, hvorefter en video af en kort mundtlig præsentation og derefter den afdøde operatenor George Shirleys opførelse af den spirituelle Little Boy behandlede det, som Shirley kaldte den ærlighed og enkelhed, der er fælles for store klassiske sange som Schuberts og Negro Spirituals. “Det klassiske princip”, sagde Shirley, “er universelt overalt”, og klassisk kultur er en opdagelsesproces.

Herefter fulgte et kort videouddrag af Lyndon LaRouche, som svarede på et spørgsmål på den samme konference, hvor Shirley talte, og præsenterede Den amerikanske Frihedskrigs sande natur som manifesteret i 1876, hvor den amerikanske økonomiske udvikling og det historiske vendepunkt, hvor forsøget på at undergrave den, fik nye ben at gå på. Speed fremhævede aspekter af historien, som er chokerende for dagens publikum, nemlig at Storbritannien havde været fjenden og Rusland Amerikas første store allierede.

Jacques Cheminade forklarede sit valg af nysgerrighed og udholdenhed i titlen på sin præsentation: disse to egenskaber var blevet valgt af amerikanske børn i konkurrencer om navne til de to rumvogne fra NASA. Cheminade talte om et “skatkammer af optimisme” i USA, som dette afspejlede. For at bringe det døende, men stadig eksisterende finanssystem i konkurs kræver det en personlig forandring, der kræver både nysgerrighed og udholdenhed. Friedrich Schiller insisterede på, at man må se realiteten af truende farer i øjnene for at være fri på det tidspunkt, hvor man beslutter sig for at udforske det, der synes at være en situation, som det er umuligt at undslippe fra, og hvor løsninger til forbedring af menneskeheden synes umulige. Udfordringen består i at komme ud af det manipulerende net, som de altomfattende “sociale medier” og de såkaldte mainstream-nyhedsmedier repræsenterer, for at blive fri på denne måde. Humor er et vigtigt redskab til at åbne og frigøre sindet fra den tilsyneladende almagt, som de “fyrster og magter”, der dominerer livet, tilsyneladende har. Men tiden til at opnå det “umulige” er knap.

Professor Felipe Maruf Quintas fremlagde et syn på Brasilien som en modpol til kulturens dekadence i det “angelsaksiske nordatlantiske område”. Med henvisning til Brasilien som verdens femtestørste nation i areal (større end det amerikanske fastland) og 12. største økonomi samt en af de fem BRIKS-nationer, bemærkede han, at landets befolkning på grund af dets historie udgør en virkelig global smeltedigel. Der har aldrig eksisteret etnisk apartheid i Brasilien, sagde han. Denne kultur søger at bygge bro.

Brasilien har sine egne energikilder, herunder nogle af de største vandkraftværker i verden, med de mest omfattende transmissionsledninger i verden, samtidig med at landet har en stor biodiversitet. Landet er potentielt økonomisk selvforsynende og kan blive førende på verdensplan. Han nævnte landets adskillige atomkraftværker som en sejr for suverænitet over slaveriet, der fysisk er placeret der, hvor slaveriet engang dominerede, og hvor slaverne boede. Kinas bistand til opførelsen af en transkontinental jernbane vil åbne Brasiliens adgang til Asien, erklærede han, og Brasiliens udvikling er afgørende for BRIKS-landenes udvidelse af de afrikanske forbindelser og for “at bryde det Sydatlantiske Atlanterhav fra den angelsaksiske imperialisme” og den neokoloniale elite i Nordatlanten. BRIKS, sagde han, ligesom Brasilien, er i praksis en dialog mellem civilisationer, en union af forskellige folkeslags sameksistens.

Dr. Zaher Wahab indledte sin præsentation med at sige, at han er ” smertefuld over mit adoptivlands, USA’s, opførsel” og bekymret over situationen i sit fødeland, Afghanistan, som nu “stort set er ødelagt af USA”. Vesten fortsætter sin arrogante magtpolitik med dominans og magtmisbrug midt i alle de påtrængende problemer i verden. Det gamle paradigme er imidlertid blevet miskrediteret og er ved at gå i opløsning. Vi har “desperat brug for en ny dialog mellem civilisationerne” og et nyt sprog, et nyt paradigme. I modsætning til Samuel Huntingtons tese om “civilisationernes sammenstød” har vi brug for en orden af gensidig respekt og samarbejde, “en ny livsform”.

Den vestlige imperialisme må påtage sig ansvaret for sine forbrydelser, sagde han, og indgå i et samarbejde med hinanden på grundlag af lighed. Alle lande har brug for fred, udvikling, retfærdighed, demokrati og sikkerhed. USA skal holde op med at opføre sig som et imperium og tilslutte sig nationernes fællesskab. Det nye paradigme er allerede ved at opstå, bemærkede han.

Dr. George Koo indledte med at fastslå, at USA “åbent har proklameret sit ønske” om at forblive verdens overherre. I modsætning hertil har Kina erkendt sin position, men i stedet for at udfordre den har det tilbudt samarbejde om projekter til gensidig gavn for begge parter og global udvikling. Erklæringer fra Det Hvide Hus og en lang række andre relevante amerikanske regeringskontorer gentager, at USA ønsker at konkurrere med Kina, men nævner derefter Kina som den største trussel mod USA. I mellemtiden “er USA kun fokuseret på penge og personlige problemer”, sagde Koo. Hvad med de svære beslutninger, der skal træffes til gavn for landet?

Mange lande er klar over, at det at omgås USA er som at gå i seng med en tiger – man kan blive “undværlig” når som helst. Multipolaritet er ved at opstå med en anden hensigt.

Dr. Koo advarede om, at Washington opmuntrer Taipei til at gå mod de røde streger; mange taiwanesere tvivler i stigende grad på USA. Nogle siger, at Taiwan er ligesom den nuværende ukrainske stedfortræderkrig mod Rusland, som allerede forårsager store tilbageslag for Europa og USA, som er på vej mod en katastrofe.

Mike Robinson, medstifter og medredaktør af UKColumn, præsenterede, hvad han kaldte et mørkt kig på projekter og forskning, der er i gang med henblik på at anvende elektroniske teknologier til at afhumanisere samfundet. Han viste overskrifter fra artikler som: “Is Nanotech Making Humans Unnecessary?” og en, der citerede den nylige Google-ingeniør, som hævdede at have skabt et “system med egne følelser”, og han nævnte et spektrum af udviklinger på dette område, som omfatter bioniske implantater og eksperimenter med hjerne-computer-interaktion, som f.eks. hjerne-computer-systemet Neuralink, der falder ind under den nye undersøgelse af det, der kaldes “transhumanisme”. Robinson indkapslede kernen i faren og viste en overskrift om “Elevating the Human Condition” – ikke gennem klassisk kultur, understregede han, men ved at betragte mennesket som blot en samling af manipulerbare sanseopfattelser.

Facebooks omdøbning til Meta, der henviser til dette ” metavers”, er en del af dette domæne, der erstatter begrebet om et virkeligt menneske med en forestilling om ligestilling mellem ens avatar i et videospil og det virkelige faktiske væsen.

Under spørgerunden blev mange af disse områder taget op, og de fleste talere understregede, at det gamle paradigme har mistet sin troværdighed og allerede er ved at blive erstattet af et paradigme, der handler om gensidig udvikling og problemløsning mellem ligeværdige nationer.

 




En afkobling af de to systemer eller et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden?

Den 18. juni 2022 (EIRNS) – Dette var titlen på det første panel på den to-dages internationale konference i Schiller Instituttet: “Der kan ikke være nogen fred uden en konkursbehandling af det døende transatlantiske finanssystem”. Ledende talere fra Rusland, Kina Indien, USA og Tyskland præsenterede et overbevisende overblik over den globale krise, som menneskeheden står over for i dag – af Schiller Instituttets grundlægger Helga Zepp-LaRouche beskrevet som den værste krise i civilisationens historie – og det presserende behov for at et nyt paradigme forhandles og gennemføres gennem samarbejde mellem alle de førende nationer, herunder USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien.

Indledning: Dennis Speed var ordstyrer på det første panel, der begyndte med en opførelse af Schumanns Lied, baseret på Heinrich Heines digt Die Beiden Grenadiere, sunget af William Warfield, som skildrede militarismens lidelser. Han viste et klip fra en tale af Lyndon LaRouche fra 1996 om det britiske imperiums karakter, som kan besejres, når dets finansielle imperium går i opløsning – som det er tilfældet nu.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale: “Let’s Win Mission Impossible or Find Another Planet!” bragte et eksempel på et højhastighedstog, der nærmer sig en klippe i højeste fart med en lokomotivfører ved roret, som er blevet vanvittig og ikke vil gøre noget for at stoppe toget. Det er virkeligheden i det nuværende stormløb mod krig med Rusland, som utvivlsomt vil føre til en atomkrig, der vil sætte en stopper for den civilisation, som vi kender den, eller ligefrem udslette menneskeheden. Dette startede ikke med den russiske militære operation i Ukraine, men med Vestens politik fra tiden efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud i 1991, den tabte mulighed for at få et fredsregime for menneskeheden. I stedet, sagde hun, blev Rusland pålagt “chokterapi”, efterfulgt af NATO-udvidelse, atommissiler placeret ved landets grænse, hvilket førte til USA’s voldelige kup mod den ukrainske regering i 2014, som bragte nazistiske grupper ind, der havde været essensen af vestlige efterretningstjenester siden Anden Verdenskrig, og USA’s/Storbritanniens bevæbning af regimet til at føre krig mod sine egne borgere, der nægtede at støtte kuppet. Nu, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, viser de massive sanktioner mod Rusland og den igangværende “afkobling” fra Kina sig at være selvdestruktive, idet de falder sammen med det allerede kollapsende vestlige finanssystem og samtidig truer 1,7 milliarder mennesker med at sulte. Lyndon LaRouche advarede i 1971 om, at Nixons ødelæggelse af FDR’s Bretton Woods-system ville føre til netop denne sammenbrudskrise og truslen om en global krig.

 At overbevise USA og Europa om at gøre en ende på galskaben, tilføjede hun, og at forhandle med stormagterne for ikke blot at afslutte krigen, men også for at skabe et nyt Bretton Woods-system baseret på sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer, kan synes umuligt, men det er det ikke. Når eliten ikke formår at lede, må borgerne blive ledere, insisterede hun og erklærede, at i krisetider formes historien ikke kun af penge og magt, men også af idéer.

Andrey Kortunov, generaldirektør for Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), talte derefter om “Alle nationers uadskillelige sikkerhed”. De nuværende alvorlige økonomiske og militære aktioner mod Rusland er ikke en reaktion på krigen i Ukraine, sagde han, men har været under opbygning i årevis, idet han senest pegede på oprettelsen af AUKUS-militærblokken, Quad, Bidens “Summit of Democracies” og den konstante udvidelse af militærstyrkerne omkring Rusland. Han sagde, at mange europæiske nationer, fra og med den ulovlige krig mod Irak i 2003, indledte et brud med USA’s og Storbritanniens krigspolitik, og også med Obamas “Pivot to Asia”, som blev betragtet som provokerende og unødvendig, ligesom Trumps handelskrig og teknologiske krig med Kina. Men nu har USA og Storbritannien tvunget Europa til at følge ordrer mod Rusland, til Europas økonomiske ulempe. Det kan ikke vare ved, argumenterede han, da dollarens kollaps som verdensvaluta fører til Vestens opløsning. De historiske forskelle mellem øst og vest og mellem nord og syd, som er blevet fremmet af den imperiale geopolitik, mister deres relative betydning, da den nye koalition af kræfter bag Kina og Rusland forener nationer fra alle dele af verden.

Wang Wen, administrerende dekan for Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies og vicedekan for Silk Road School ved Renmin University of China, talte om “Hvorfor Kinas opstigning er til gavn for verden”. Han gennemgik Kinas mirakuløse vækst i løbet af de sidste 40 år, og påviste at den fandt sted uden krig eller alvorlige finanskriser, hvilket aldrig er sket andre steder i historien. Vesten ser det opstigende Kina som en trussel, sagde han, fordi de antager, at eftersom de vestlige nationer har gjort mange onde ting gennem deres historie som førende magter i verden, vil Kina gøre det samme. De overvejer ikke, at Kina tror på sit slogan om “win-win”, i modsætning til Vestens brug af sanktioner og en stor kølle. Men Kinas fremgang er faktisk en “opgradering” i stormagternes historie. Han erklærede, at Kina er ansvarlig for 60 % af investeringerne i Afrika, og at Kina leverede omkring halvdelen af respiratorerne og maskerne til verden under pandemien. Han insisterede på, at Kina ikke vil tillade at Taiwan, som er en integreret del af Kina, bliver adskilt fra nationen, sådan som USA i stigende grad fremmer, og at Kinas militære opbygning ikke bør overraske med de åbne trusler fra USA. Han konkluderede, at man bør have tillid til Kina.

Oberst Richard Black (pensioneret), tidligere kampveteran fra marinekorpset og leder af hærens strafferetlige krigsafdeling i Pentagon, talte om “The U.S. Is Leading the World to Nuclear War” (USA fører verden til atomkrig). Han erklærede, at “Ukraine har tabt krigen. Krigen er ikke slut, men Ukraine har tabt.” Han bemærkede det ukrainske militærs forfærdelige tabstal og beregnede, at det pr. indbygger er 60 gange større end de amerikanske soldaters tabstal i Vietnam-krigen, hvilket gør det uholdbart. USA’s sanktioner har ikke opfyldt deres erklærede hensigt om at ødelægge den russiske økonomi eller isolere landet, da Ruslands handel og samarbejde uden for Vesten er vokset dramatisk. Det vanvittige propagandaregime, der dæmoniserer Rusland, er nu ved at smuldre, påpegede han, mens de europæiske nationer har mistet enhver antydning af suverænitet, som det fremgår af den tvungne lukning af Nord Stream 2 og relaterede ordrer fra Washington og London, der forårsager økonomisk kollaps i hele Europa. Den åbne opbakning til brugen af atomvåben fra flere politiske ledere i Vesten er fuldstændig vanvittig, sagde han. Den nødvendige løsning består i, at Ukraine følger den østrigske model – neutralitet, alliancefrihed og ingen udenlandske tropper.

Sam Pitroda, en IT-innovatør og tidligere minister eller rådgiver for syv indiske premierministre, talte om “Indien og den nye verdensarkitektur, der er ved at opstå”. Han sagde, at han talte som en “global borger” om menneskehedens fremtid, idet han satte det store potentiale, som IT, biovidenskab og ny energi har for at forandre verden, løfte millioner af mennesker ud af fattigdom og udvikle alle nationer, op imod den omstændighed, at “profit og magt, ikke mennesker og planeten” regerer og fører til kaos. Han opfordrede til en ny økonomisk orden, mere decentraliseret, med lokale virksomheder og landbrug, med respekt for globaliseringen. Han blev født i 1942 under det britiske herredømme, og han henviste til “ghandiansk tænkning” og ikkevold og stillede de 2 billioner dollars i militærudgifter hvert år i modsætning til de få milliarder, der skulle til for at gøre en ende på sulten. Der er intet håb om at gøre en ende på den vold i hjemmet, der hærger i USA, så længe militærudgifterne og krigsførelsen udgør USA’s politik.

Dr. Wolfgang Bittner, som er doktor i jura og en produktiv tysk forfatter, talte om “Konflikten mellem Vest og Øst – en orkestrering”. Han hævdede, at Tyskland aldrig har fået tildelt ægte suverænitet efter Anden Verdenskrig, og at USA’s politik har været at forhindre et samarbejde mellem Tyskland og Rusland for enhver pris. Tyskland er stadig et besat land med 11 store amerikanske militærbaser på sit territorium. Putin holdt en lidenskabelig tale på tysk i Forbundsdagen i 2001, hvor han opfordrede til et forenet Europa for fred og udvikling, men dette blev forhindret af USA’s imperiale prætentioner, som har skabt uro i hele verden. Han spurgte, hvilke “vestlige værdier” der forsvares i Ukraine, hvor nazister åbenlyst er en del af militæret og regeringen, og hvor de fører en dødbringende krig mod deres eget folk. Han pegede på de amerikanske lederes hybris, og især på Obama, og hævdede, at USA har været imperialistisk indstillet siden Monroe-doktrinen fra 1823.

Denne påstand om USA’s imperiale karakter blev udfordret af et spørgsmål fra et medlem af LaRouche-organisationen, som sagde, at det lød mere som det Britiske Imperium, men at det var det modsatte af det oprindelige “Amerikanske System” af bl.a. Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln og Franklin Roosevelt. Det førte til en frugtbar diskussion i panelet om briternes rolle i tre krige for at ødelægge det Amerikanske System, mens Rusland kom til Amerikas forsvar i dets revolution, i borgerkrigen for at forhindre britisk støtte til Konføderationen, mens USA og Sovjetunionen samarbejdede i Anden Verdenskrig for at besejre nazismen. Helga Zepp-LaRouche argumenterede for, at USA har opgivet det Amerikanske System, og at Kina ironisk nok i dag praktiserer det Amerikanske System med øremærket kredit, mens USA er bukket under for det britiske system med “frihandel”.

Dr. Cliff Kiracofe, tidligere ledende medarbejder i det amerikanske senats udvalg for udenrigsanliggender og formand for Washington Institute for Peace and Development, talte om “Diplomacy and Cooperation in a Time of Crisis” (diplomati og samarbejde i krisetider). Han kritiserede, at USA fører Vesten tilbage til et “korstog” fra Den kolde Krig imod virkelighedens  verden, der er ved at overgå til multipolaritet med Kinas fremmarch. Det gjaldt Obama, Trump og nu Biden, hvis “topmøde for demokratier” og sanktionsregime fremtvinger en opsplitning af verden, mens diplomatiets sammenbrud skaber kaos og fare for global krig. Vesten “hælder milliarder i en nynazistisk kloak” i Ukraine, sagde han, mens man skaber “helikopterpenge” og kredit med negativ rente for at redde bankerne og finansiere militæret, alt imens realøkonomien kollapser. Sanktionerne tvinger Rusland og Kina til at skabe et alternativt finansielt system, men han insisterede på, at “to konkurrerende systemer er ikke en løsning”. Vi må nu planlægge et nyt internationalt system, der omfatter alle nationer og garanterer sikkerhed og udvikling, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde det med Bretton Woods-konferencen i 1944, inden krigen sluttede. Roosevelt erkendte, at enhver fred krævede internationalisme og stormagternes rolle, som i FN. Militarismen må erstattes af internationalisme, og diplomatiet må genoprettes øjeblikkeligt, hvis denne forestående katastrofe skal undgås.

Diskussion: Nogle få højdepunkter fra den omfattende diskussionsperiode: Fru LaRouche imødekom de ” kraftfulde taler” ved at opfordre alle deltagere i denne konference til at deltage i formuleringen af et nyt initiativ, der genopliver en tidligere mobilisering fra Schiller Instituttet, som samlede tusindvis af tilhængere for 15 år siden, og som opfordrer til en ny Bretton Woods-konference, der skal sponsoreres af FN.

Sam Pitroda var bekymret over, at de politiske ledere “ikke lytter”, at talrige grupper slår alarm, men at de ikke bliver hørt. Et medlem af LaRouche-organisationen blandt tilhørerne svarede, at i et sådant øjeblik med en eksistentiel krise vil en enkelt stemme, der fortæller sandheden, have større indflydelse på borgerne end løgnene fra de fejlslagne ledere.

Andrey Kortunov svarede på et spørgsmål om den farlige fødevarekrise ved at forklare, at fødevarekrisen begyndte længe før krigen i Ukraine. Han sagde, at der er behov for sanktionsfritagelser for at frigøre russiske og ukrainske fødevarer og gødning, men det vil ikke være nok, og han opfordrede til en “grøn revolution 2.0”, som den i 1960’erne, på globalt plan for at udvide fødevareproduktionen voldsomt.

Cliff Kiracofe bemærkede, at forbindelserne mellem USA og Tyskland var ekstremt tætte i det 19. århundrede, da Bismarck indførte det Amerikanske System fra Friedrich List, en tilhænger af Hamilton. Amerikanske elever studerede i stort antal på de fremragende tyske universiteter, især i Göttingen. Den senere fremkomst af den nietzscheanske nihilisme bragte militarismen ikke kun til Tyskland, men også til USA, som det ses i de neokonservatives militarisme i dag.

 




Se alle fire paneler her: Schiller Instituttets internationale konference den 18.-19. juni 2022 kl. 15 eller senere:
Der kan ikke være fred uden en konkursbehandling
af det døende transatlantiske finanssystem.

Ovenover: PANEL 1, En afkobling af de to systemer eller et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden?(lørdag den 18. juni, kl. 15 dansk tid)

Panel 2: ØKONOMI: Løbsk inflation eller Glass-Steagall bankopdeling? (lørdag den 18. juni, kl. 19):

PANEL 3, Videnskabelige principper for varigt økonomisk fremskridt (søndag den 19. juni, kl. 15)

PANEL 4, Klassisk kultur og en dialog mellem civilisationer  (søndag den 19. juni, kl. 19)

Dato: Lørdag-søndag den 18.-19. juni 2022 eller senere

Tid: kl. 15.00 dansk tid. Kan også ses senere.

Online via YouTube

Gratis adgang

Seminaret vil blive afholdt på engelsk.

Program. De seneste tilføjelse er på engelsk.

PANEL 1, En afkobling af de to systemer eller et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden?(lørdag den 18. juni, kl. 15 dansk tid)

  •  Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Tyskland); grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet: Hovedtaler.  “Let’s Win Mission Impossible or Find Another Planet!” 
  •  Andrej Kortunov (Rusland); generaldirektør for Rådet for internationale Forhold i Rusland, Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC): “Rusland og alle nationers uadskillelige sikkerhed”.
  • Oberst Richard Black (pensioneret) (USA); tidligere chef for den amerikanske hærs strafferetlige afdeling i Pentagon og tidligere senator i Virginia: “USA fører verden til atomkrig”.
  • Dr. Wolfgang Bittner (Tyskland); forfatter af over 80 bøger; doktor i jura.  “The West-East Conflict – An Orchestration” 
  • Sam Pitroda (USA/Indien); iværksætter og politisk rådgiver: “Indien og den fremvoksende nye verdensarkitektur”.
  • Jay Naidoo (Sydafrika); minister under præsident Nelson Mandela, Sydafrika: “Afrika, fremtidens kontinent”.
  • Dr. Clifford Kiracofe (USA); tidligere højtstående stabsmedlem af Senatets udvalg for udenrigsanliggender: “FDR og den amerikanske politik over for Rusland og Kina”.

Spørgsmål og svar

PANEL 2, ØKONOMI: Løbsk inflation eller Glass-Steagall bankopdeling? (lørdag den 18. juni, kl. 19)

  • Diane Sare (USA); uafhængig LaRouche-senatskandidat fra New York: “Vestens sammenbrud og det presserende behov for at tilslutte sig Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet”.
  • Daisuke Kotegawa (Japan); tidligere embedsmand i det japanske finansministerium og tidligere administrerende direktør i Den Internationale Valutafond i Japan: “Lad ikke denne verden blive ødelagt af beskidte spillere, der kalder sig bankfolk fra Wall St. og City of London “.
  • Dr. Uwe Behrens(Germany); Logistics Manager and Author, Berlin: “The Non-Rival Doctrine”
  • Nino Galloni (Italien); økonom; tidligere generaldirektør for det italienske arbejdsministerium: “Gør Afrika selvforsynende igen”.
  • Geoff Young (USA); demokratisk kandidat til Kentuckys Kongres i det 6. distrikt: “Hvorfor USA skal tilslutte sig Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet”.
  • Amb. Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos(Greece); former Ambassador to Poland, Canada and Armenia, former Secretary General of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC): “The Crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Belt and Road Initiative”

    Food Producers Roundtable (U.S.):  Robert Baker (Virginia; Agriculture Liaison, Schiller Institute); Mike Callicrate (Colorado/Kansas; Ranch Foods Direct); Jon Baker (Iowa, cattleman, rural community banker); Wilbur, Ken and Kyle Kehrli (Iowa; livestock, crops producers); Frank Endres (California), wheat, cattle;  James Moore (Alaska); salmon troller leader; James Benham (Indiana); President of the Indiana Farmers Union; Board of National Farmers Union: “Science and Culture to End Famine–Principles of Agriculture Productivity” 

Spørgsmål og svar

PANEL 3, Videnskabelige principper for varigt økonomisk fremskridt (søndag den 19. juni, kl. 15)

  • Jason Ross (USA); sekretær og kasserer, LaRouche-organisationen; tidligere videnskabelig rådgiver for den afdøde Lyndon LaRouche: “Vernadskistisk tid – tid for menneskeheden.”
  • Francesco (“Franco”) Battaglia (Italien); professor i fysisk kemi ved universitetet i Modena, Italien: “Klima/energiovergang-svindelen”.
  • Dr. Ed Calabrese(U.S.); Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Mass. Amherst; Co-Editor, Hormesis: A Revolution in Biology, Toxicology and Medicine: “Lies About Radiation Exposed; Start a Nuclear Renaissance, Now!” 

    Prof. Sergei Pulinets (Russia); Principal Scientific Researcher of the Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow: “International! Collaboration Required: Earthquakes Can Be Predicted; Rainfall Created – Lives Can Be Saved” 

    William C. Jones (U.S.); former EIR White House correspondent: “V. I. Vernadsky, Scientific Thought as a Geological Force” 

Spørgsmål og svar

PANEL 4, Klassisk kultur og en dialog mellem civilisationer  (søndag den 19. juni, kl. 19)

  • Jacques Cheminade (Frankrig); formand, Solidarité & Progrès: Hovedtaler. “A Culture of Curiosity and Perseverance to Explore the Impossible”
  • Felipe Maruf Quintas (Brasilien); professor i statskundskab, Fluminense Federal University, Rio de Janeiro; klummeskribent for “Monitor Mercantil”: “Brasiliens rolle i verdens fysiske økonomi”.
  • Zaher Wahab (Afghanistan); tidligere rådgiver, Afghanistans minister for videregående uddannelser: “Dialogue, Not Clash, of Civilizations” 
  • Dr. George Koo(U.S.); retired business consultant specializing in U.S.-China Trade; Chairman, Burlingame Foundation: “U.S.-China Cultural Relations Are Critical to Prevent War”

  Mike Robinson (U.K.), Editor, The UK Column: “The Dehumanizing Meta-Sphere” 

Spørgsmål og svar

I 2022, 100-årsdagen for Lyndon LaRouches fødsel, er det på høje tid omsider at anerkende nøjagtigheden af den advarsel, han gennem årtier fremsatte: At fortsættelsen af den finansielle spekulation og plyndringspolitik fra City of London og Wall Streets frihandels- og flydende valutakurssystem, som blev etableret efter august 1971, v ille uundgåeligt føre til krig – og meget sandsynligt til en atomkrig – kombineret med et drastisk sammenbrud af verdens fysiske økonomi og deraf følgende affolkning; millioner og endog milliarder af menneskers død på grund af hungersnød og pandemier.

Men det er også på tide at ty til de politiske løsninger, som foreskrevet af Lyndon LaRouche, med henblik på en vellykket konkursbehandling, en reorganisering af dette døende system, og erstatte det med en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, der bygger på den samme filosofiske hjørnesten i statskunst, som gav anledning til Den Westfalske Fred i 1648.

Med hensyn til faren for atomkrig, har talsmændene for det fallerede transatlantiske s ystem været utvetydige i deres hensigt om at drive Rusland helt ud til kanten, i håbet om at få Rusland til at give op og underkaste sig det unipolære imperium. Malcolm Chalmers, vicegeneraldirektør for Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), det britiske imperiums centrale tænketank for politisk planlægning siden dets grundlæggelse i 1831, erklærede åbent, at briterne var i færd med at »koge den russiske frø« og havde til hensigt at fremprovokere en missilkrise på Krim, for at tvinge Rusland til kapitulation.

Med hensyn til et fysisk økonomisk sammenbrud har den amerikanske centralbank, Federal Reserve, ført an i et verdensomspændende vanvid af kvantitative lempelser, som har udløst galoperende hyperinflation, der nu spreder sig fra de 1,9 billioner dollars i ubetalelige derivater og andre finansielle aktiver, til producent- og dagligvaresektoren.

Som en følge heraf er der en drastisk og voksende mangel på fødevarer, energi og andre fornødenheder, som er afgørende for menneskers overlevelse. Op til 2 milliarder ud af de næsten 8 milliarder mennesker på denne planet risikerer i år at blive udsat for fødevareusikkerhed, hvilket, hvis det ikke omgående ændres, medfører sult og derefter hungersnød for op til en fjerdedel af hele menneskeheden. Mens sanktionerne mod Rusland og virkningerne af krigen i Ukraine har forværret krisen, især med hensyn til fødevare- og energiforsyning, ignorerer den opfattelse, at den økonomiske sammenbrudskrise er forårsaget af krigen, simpelthen virkeligheden. En afslutning af krigen vil ikke afhjælpe det systemiske sammenbrud af hele det vestlige finanssystem.

Der er næppe tvivl om, at der er et verdensomspændende oprør under opsejling mod disse økonomiske forhold og den dermed forbundne krigsfare. De fleste nationer i Afrika, Latinamerika og Asien har nægtet at gå med i den selvmorderiske sanktionspolitik mod Rusland, og selv EU er ved at blive splittet, ude af stand til at nå til enighed om et fælles synspunkt i denne sag.

En anden stærk indikation af de voksende dybe bekymringer over de farer, som m enneskeheden står over for, er reaktionen på Schiller Instituttets interview den 26. april 2022 med oberst Richard Black, der advarer om nuværende krigsfare, og som den 31. maj var blevet set over 630.000 gange.

En løsning af Ukrainekrisen er nødvendig, men ikke nok til at skabe den fornødne globale nye renæssance. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche udtalte i diskussionen ved et arrangement i Schiller Instituttet den 26. maj:

»Selv hvis man får en forhandlingsløsning for Ukraine, hvilket jeg mener er absolut nødvendigt, vil vi ikke være ude af problemerne. Vi er stadig i en hyperinflationær kuldsejling af det finansielle system, som er det virkelige drivkraft bag krigsfaren, for det er det, der motiverer disse mennesker.

I stedet for at reformere og anerkende, at det neoliberale system er færdigt, foretrækker de at gå i krig.«

»Så længe man ikke tager fat på den underliggende årsag, som er finanssystemets kollaps, så vil en løsning ikke være mulig. Hvad jeg tidligere har udtalt med hensyn til den internationale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, er den eneste vej. Det rejser naturligvis det store spørgsmål: Er der noget håb om at få USA til at ændre kurs?« Kom med til den internationale konference hos Schiller Instituttet den 18.-19. juni for at sikre, at det spørgsmål finder en positiv besvarelse, og at der opbygges en voksende international bevægelse for Lyndon LaRouches politiske løsninger på den globale krise.

—————–

Conference Agenda—Updated

Panel 1: A Decoupling of the Two Systems or a New Paradigm for Humanity?
(Saturday, kl. 15 dansk tid) 

Moderator: Dennis Speed, The Schiller Institute 

1) Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany); Founder, Schiller Institute: Keynote Address: “Let’s Win Mission Impossible or Find Another Planet!” (30 min.)

2) Andrey Kortunov (Russia); Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC): “Russia and the Indivisible Security of All Nations” 

3) Col. Richard Black (ret.) (U.S.); former head of the U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon; former Virginia State Senator: “The U.S. Is Leading the World to Nuclear War” 

4) Dr. Wolfgang Bittner (Germany); Author of over 80 books; Doctor in Law: “The West-East Conflict – An Orchestration” 

5) Sam Pitroda (U.S./India); Innovator, Entrepreneur and Policy-Maker: “India and The Emerging New World Architecture” 

6) Jay Naidoo (South Africa); Cabinet Minister under President Nelson Mandela, South Africa: “Africa, the Continent of the Future” 

7) Dr. Clifford Kiracofe (U.S.); Former Senior Staff Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; President, Washington Institute for Peace and Development: “Diplomacy and Cooperation in a Time of Crisis” 

Question and Answer Session

Panel 2: Runaway Inflation or Glass-Steagall?
(Saturday, kl. 19 dansk tid)

Moderator: Harley Schlanger, The Schiller Institute 

1) Diane Sare (U.S.); LaRouche independent candidate for U.S. Senator from New York: “The Collapse of the West and the Urgent Need to Join the Belt and Road Initiative” 

2) Daisuke Kotegawa (Japan); Former Japanese Finance Ministry official, and Executive Director for Japan at the International Monetary Fund: “Don’t Let This World Be Destroyed by Filthy Gamblers Who Call Themselves Wall St. and City of London Bankers” 

3) Dr. Uwe Behrens (Germany); Logistics Manager and Author, Berlin: “The Non-Rival Doctrine”

4) Nino Galloni (Italy); Economist, Former Director General of the Italian Labor Ministry: “Make Africa Self-Sufficient Again

5) Geoff Young (U.S.); Democratic Party nominee for U.S. Congress from Kentucky, CD 6: “What Must Change in Washington Before the U.S. Can Join the Belt and Road Initiative”

6) AmbLeonidas Chrysanthopoulos (Greece); former Ambassador to Poland, Canada and Armenia, former Secretary General of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC): “The Crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Belt and Road Initiative”

7) Food Producers Roundtable (U.S.):  Robert Baker (Virginia; Agriculture Liaison, Schiller Institute); Mike Callicrate (Colorado/Kansas; Ranch Foods Direct); Jon Baker (Iowa, cattleman, rural community banker); Wilbur, Ken and Kyle Kehrli (Iowa; livestock, crops producers); Frank Endres (California), wheat, cattle;  James Moore (Alaska); salmon troller leader; James Benham (Indiana); President of the Indiana Farmers Union; Board of National Farmers Union: “Science and Culture to End Famine–Principles of Agriculture Productivity” 

 Question and Answer Session

Panel 3: Principles of Science for Durable Economic Progress
(Sunday, kl. 15 dansk tid)

Moderator: Stephan Ossenkopp 

1) Jason Ross (U.S.); Secretary-Treasurer, The LaRouche Organization; Science Adviser to Lyndon LaRouche: “Vernadskian Time — Time for Humanity”

2) Francesco Battaglia (Italy); Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Modena, Italy: “The Fraud of Climate/Energy Transition” 

3) Dr. Ed Calabrese (U.S.); Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Mass. Amherst; Co-Editor, Hormesis: A Revolution in Biology, Toxicology and Medicine: “Real Science Disproves the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) Radiation Myth” 

4) Prof. Sergei Pulinets (Russia); Principal Scientific Researcher of the Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow: “A Vernadskian Approach to Earthquake Forecasting”

5) William C. Jones (U.S.); former EIR White House correspondent: “V. I. Vernadsky, Scientific Thought as a Geological Force” 

 Question and Answer Session

Panel 4: Classical Culture and the Dialogue of Civilizations 
(Sunday, kl. 19 dansk tid)

1) Jacques Cheminade (France); President Solidarité & Progrès: Keynote Address: “A Culture of Curiosity and Perseverance to Explore the Impossible”

2) Felipe Maruf Quintas (Brazil); Professor of Political Science, Fluminense Federal University, Rio de Janeiro; columnist for “Monitor Mercantil”: “The Role of Brazil in the Dialogue of Civilizations and in the World’s Physical Economy” 

3) Dr. Zaher Wahab (Afghanistan); Dr. Zaher Wahab, Emeritus Professor of Education, Former advisor to Afghan Ministry of Higher Education, Taught at American University of Afghanistan (AUAF), 2013-2020: “Dialogue, Not Clash, of Civilizations” 

4) Dr. George Koo (U.S.); retired business consultant specializing in U.S.-China Trade; Chairman, Burlingame Foundation: “U.S.-China Cultural Relations Are Critical to Prevent War”

5) Mike Robinson (U.K.), Editor, The UK Column: “The Dehumanizing Meta-Sphere” 

 Question and Answer Session

 




Ungdommens rolle i skabelsen af en ny international økonomisk arkitektur,
International Ungdomskonference med Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Den 7. maj 2022 (EIRNS) – Helga Zepp-LaRouche var i dag vært for en konference for unge fra mindst 23 nationer med temaet: “Ungdommens rolle i skabelsen af en ny international økonomisk arkitektur”. Zepp-LaRouche præsenterede et barsk billede af den nuværende krise med omfattende hungersnød, økonomisk sammenbrud og den tiltagende fare for atomkrig, og hun fremførte, at dette måske er det øjeblik med den største fare for menneskeheden i hele historien, og at verdens ungdom må stå sammen for at skabe den fremtid de ønsker, ellers er der måske slet ingen fremtid.

Hun påpegede, at den falske opdeling af verden i “demokratier vs. autokratier” dækker over, at den virkelige opdeling er mellem de tidligere kolonimagter over for deres tidligere kolonier, der pålægger udviklingslandene krige med regimeskift, nedskæringer og sult, samtidig med at de åbent og pralende erklærer deres hensigt om at ødelægge Rusland og Kina for at forhindre “Bælte & Vej”-tilgangen til at befri det globale syd fra fattigdom gennem udvikling af infrastruktur og moderne landbrugsindustrielle stater.

De over 100 unge fra alle kontinenter diskuterede med begejstring det nødvendige samarbejde og den optimisme, der er nødvendig for at imødegå denne eksistentielle udfordring. Spørgsmål om polariseringen af befolkningerne rundt om i verden på grund af religion, etnicitet, politiske ideologier m.m. blev besvaret af Zepp-LaRouche med det universelle princip om “Modsætningernes Sammenfald” af Nikolaus af Cusa, der søger at finde de højere principper, som vedrører menneskehedens fælles mål.

Der var 23 lande repræsenteret: Yemen, Sydafrika, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, Haiti, Venezuela, Mexico, Brasilien, Peru, Colombia, Spanien, Tyskland, Italien, Danmark, Frankrig, Storbritannien, Pakistan, Canada, USA og Australien. Konferencen vakte stor begejstring hos alle deltagerne over, at denne mobilisering var både afgørende og potentielt effektiv til at ændre historiens gang på et tidspunkt, hvor historien er under omvæltning.

Zepp-LaRouche annoncerede en ny international konference i Schiller Instituttet, der skal finde sted inden for få uger i samarbejde med andre institutioner i Asien med mere.

Hovedtalen til ungdomsmøde, lørdag den 7. maj 2022

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Velkommen. Jeg vil gerne byde jer velkommen, hvor end I måtte være. Det er en sand glæde at have unge mennesker samlet, for situationen i verden er helt forfærdelig, og mange mennesker er bekymrede, for hvad det hele skal føre til? Er der en vej ud? Er der håb for fremtiden?

Jeg vil gerne påpege, at vi faktisk befinder os i et utroligt farligt øjeblik. Men der er også håb. Men det bliver ikke den historiske materialisme eller den dialektiske materialisme eller nogle objektive historielove, der vil være afgørende. Jeg tror, at 90 % eller deromkring af hvad der vil ske, vil afhænge af, om der er nok modige mennesker, som yder deres individuelle indsats for at gøre en forskel.

Så formålet med denne opfordring er at iværksætte et internationalt netværk, et partnerskab, især blandt unge mennesker, for at kæmpe for fred, for at kæmpe imod krigen, men det kan kun lade sig gøre, hvis vi skaber en bedre verden og en fredsorden, som gør det muligt for hver enkelt nation på denne planet ikke blot at overleve, men også at blomstre. Det er kun muligt, hvis vi overvinder idéen om geopolitik.

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

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

Flere og flere analytikere og eksperter er enige om, at faren for Tredje Verdenskrig er akut, at situationen er farligere end på højdepunktet af Den kolde Krig, og for dem af jer, der har studeret historien en smule, var det Cuba-krisen, hvor Sovjetunionen havde placeret atommissiler på Cuba. Det var virkelig et spørgsmål om minutter og timer, hvordan dette ville blive afgjort, og vi var meget tæt på den tredje verdenskrig. Men denne gang er det meget farligere end det: Det er der adskillige personers ekspertudtalelser om.

Så vi er et hårsbred fra den menneskelige civilisations udslettelse. I modsætning til andre perioder, hvor vi var i en sådan fare, som i begyndelsen af 1980’erne, da der var den såkaldte mellemdistance-missilkrise i Europa, mellem SS-20 og Pershing 20, var der hundredtusinder af mennesker på gaden, der advarede om Tredje Verdenskrig, mens den såkaldte fredsbevægelse i dag, hvis den findes, er meget lille, og for det meste vildledt, da de alle siger, at det er Putins onde gerninger, der er ansvarlige for situationen, og det vil jeg komme ind på om lidt.

Jeg går ud fra, at de fleste af jer i denne samtale er unge; det betyder, at I sandsynligvis er et sted mellem 20 og 35 år gamle, og under normale forhold ville I have omkring 50-75 år foran jer. Under alle omstændigheder, med eller uden krigsfaren, er det meget vigtigt, at I udvikler et perspektiv for, hvilken slags verden I ønsker at leve i: Det bør I tænke over, for ellers vil andre bestemme det for jer. Eller mere præcist, i dette tilfælde skal I være sikker på, at der findes en verden, hvor I vil kunne leve. Hvis den nuværende politik fortsættes, kan denne verden nemlig ende meget pludseligt om få minutter, om få dage, uger eller måneder, og krigen i Ukraine er naturligvis et brændpunkt.

Men hele denne krise handler ikke om Ukraine. Den handler om, hvilken slags verdensorden der skal eksistere: Skal det være en unipolær verden, domineret af en eller to nationer? Skal det være en “regelbaseret orden”, hvor en lille klub af nationer udstikker reglerne? Eller skal den være multipolær, og skal den være baseret på folkeretten, som den er udtrykt i FN-pagten?

Der er folk, som Tysklands nuværende udenrigsminister Annalena Baerbock, der siger, at vi skal sende flere tunge våben til Ukraine, selv om der er risiko for atomkrig. Vi kan ikke udelukke noget som helst.

Lad os nu se på, hvad risikoen egentlig indebærer. I januar i år var der en militærøvelse, som blev kaldt “Global Lightning”, som var forestillingen om, at man har en langvarig hybridkrig mellem konventionelle styrker og atomstyrker. Det er jo latterligt. Tanken om at have dage og måske endda uger med krig, hvor man kaster et par atombomber, så går man over til rumkrig, cyberkrig og så kommer man tilbage til konventionel krig – det er fuldstændig vanvittigt, og det vil ikke finde sted.

Der er nu tiltagende diskussion, hvor folk lystigt udtaler, “Nytten af små atomvåben er meget god, for hvis den ene eller den anden side taber i en konventionel krig, vil de svare igen med taktiske atomvåben”. Men der er nogle få virkelige eksperter i atomvåben, som Ted Postol, en tidligere MIT-professor, der har det synspunkt, som nu også udtrykkes i en interessant video, for et par dage siden, af oberst Powells tidligere kabinetschef, oberst Lawrence Wilkerson (pensioneret), og alle disse mennesker tilkendegiver, at sådan noget som en “begrænset atomkrig” ikke eksisterer, men at når man først bruger et enkelt atomvåben, så er det slut med det hele: Hele verdens arsenal vil blive affyret. I bør vide, og ved sikkert også, at det er et meget stort antal. USA har 5.428 atommissiler; Rusland har 5.977; Kina har mindre, 350; Frankrig, 290; Storbritannien, 225; Pakistan, 165; Indien, 160; Israel, 90; Nordkorea, 20.

Hvis man affyrer alt dette, vil der ske følgende. Ifølge Ted Postol vil der blive skabt en brandmur omkring hvert eneste af disse missiler, hvis temperatur vil svare til Solens centrum, hvilket vil forvandle alt til mindre end aske. Der vil være fem gange så varmt som Solens centrum: 100 millioner grader Kelvin. Effekten af detonationen i en eksplosion i byerne, siger han, overgår fantasiens kraft, alt hvad selv han kan forestille sig. Han vælger de ord til at beskrive det, til at advare om konsekvenserne: Et enkelt atomvåben af denne type ville sætte en automatisk reaktion i gang. Hvis et enkelt atomvåben f.eks. rammer en by, vil det ødelægge et område med en radius på 5-8 km, hvilket svarer til ca. 200 km2. Lad os antage, at hvis kun 20 % af de amerikanske ICBM’er bruges til at ødelægge de russiske landbaserede ICBM’er, så har man stadig 80 % til andre mål i Rusland, Kina, Europa – og omvendt naturligvis russiske ICBM’er mod amerikanske og øvrige mål.

Folk i Afrika og Latinamerika skal ikke tro, at det ikke vil påvirke dem, fordi de umiddelbare mål ikke er i deres områder, for der vil være nukleart nedfald. Ifølge Postol vil følgende ske: Fordi det russiske luftforsvarssystem er mindre sofistikeret end USA’s og NATO’s, har Ruslands militære ledelse indført en automatiseret reaktionsmekanisme, så hvis den russiske ledelse bliver dræbt i et overraskende førsteangreb med atomvåben fra Vestens side, har de indført noget, der kaldes en “dommedagsmaskine”, som er en automatisk affyring af praktisk talt hele det arsenal, de har. Det har gjort situationen endnu mere farlig.

Selv en fejlvurdering af situationen eller et uheld kan udløse en atomkrig, og der er mange mennesker, som f.eks. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (Internationale Læger til Forebyggelse af Atomkrig), der har advaret imod dette. Hvis denne hændelse skulle ske, ville man få en atomvinter, og chancen for, at alt liv på jorden ville dø, er meget sandsynlig.

Vi sidder altså på en krudttønde. For et år siden, den 20. februar 2021, gav chefen for USA’s strategiske kommando (Stratcom) Adm. Charles Richard, Pentagon besked om, at ændre sandsynligheden for atomkrig fra “ikke sandsynlig” til “meget sandsynlig”. Daniel Ellsberg, som er den berømte whistleblower, der offentliggjorde Pentagon Papers, udtaler, at det ikke kun er Ukraine, men at dette også kunne udløses, hvis det kommer til en konventionel krig om Taiwan, i tilfælde af at Taiwan bliver presset til at tro, at de kan erklære uafhængighed, og det ville komme til en krig mellem USA og Kina, som USA ville tabe (af en række årsager), så ville det komme til brug af atomvåben. Ellsberg bad whistleblowers træde frem og fortælle, hvad der faktisk er den interne debat i militæret om brugen af atomvåben.

Tro mig, jeg ønsker ikke at skræmme jer. Nogle vil måske hævde, at yngre mennesker ikke er interesserede i strategiske spørgsmål; det er ikke ligefrem sådan, man får folk mobiliseret, hvis man ønsker at give unge mennesker et perspektiv. Men jeg ville ikke være ærlig, for det skræmmende er ikke kun, at vi sandsynligvis befinder os på det farligste punkt, der nogensinde har eksisteret i menneskehedens historie, men det, der skræmmer mig endnu mere, er, at langt størstedelen af verdens befolkning enten ikke ved det, eller også er de ligeglade. Jeg tror, at hvis de virkelig vidste det, ville de bekymre sig, men medierne fortæller dem ikke sandheden.

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

Den vestlige fortælling lige nu, er, at Putin er aggressoren. De bruger ord, som er utrolige. De siger: “Putin er en krigsforbryder” osv. Fortællingen – i krigstider siger folk, at sandheden er det første offer, men fortællingen er sådan, at hvis man bare nævner, i det mindste i Tyskland eller USA, at krigen ikke startede den 24. februar (som er den dag, hvor Rusland rykkede ind i Ukraine), så bliver man allerede kaldt “Putin-agent”, “et instrument for russisk propaganda” osv. Men der er naturligvis en forhistorie, og jeg vil ikke komme ind på den i detaljer, men jeg vil gerne henvise til den for dem af jer, der faktisk ønsker at forstå, hvad der skete.

Bare for at nævne den meget kort: Det hele startede i forbindelse med den tyske genforening, da Berlinmuren faldt, og den amerikanske udenrigsminister James Baker III lovede Gorbatjov, at NATO ikke ville flytte sig en tomme mod øst. Nu benægtes det, at han sagde dette, og i dag siger de, at det aldrig blev lovet. Men der findes historiske dokumenter, faktiske dokumenter og øjenvidner, som absolut bekræfter, at situationen var sådan, at det blev gjort klart, at NATO ikke ville bevæge sig mod øst. Da Warszawapagten blev opløst og Sovjetunionen gik i opløsning, mistede NATO i virkeligheden sin eksistensberettigelse, fordi Rusland ikke udgjorde nogen trussel. Allerede i Gorbatjovs tid, i de sidste år, var der ingen, der troede, at Sovjetunionen ville udgøre en trussel. Men på det tidspunkt besluttede visse kræfter, de neokonservative og briterne, at bruge Sovjetunionens sammenbrud til at skabe en unipolær verden, og hele 1990’erne var præget af idéen om, at reducere Rusland til et råstofproducerende tredjeverdensland. Til dette formål anvendte de den neoliberale politik med “chokterapi”-økonomi, som reducerede den russiske økonomi med 30 % i perioden 1991-1994. Den russiske økonom Sergei Glazjev har skrevet en bog om det, som man kan læse, hvis man ønsker at studere det. Den hedder “Folkedrab”: Rusland og den nye verdensorden.

Bill Clinton forsvarede for nylig, at han tog initiativ til, eller at han gik med til, NATO’s udvidelse mod øst i 1990’erne. Det, der fulgte, var en hel række regimeskift, en farverevolution; Tony Blair, den tidligere premierminister i Storbritannien, erklærede i 1999 afslutningen på den westfalske orden fra Den Westfalske Fred i 1648, ideen om, at suverænitet er en hovedværdi, og den blev erstattet af den såkaldte “ansvar for at beskytte” og humanitære krige. Det førte til krigen i Afghanistan i 2001 efter den 11. september 2001, krig baseret på løgne som i 2003 i Irak, hvor Saddam Hussein angiveligt havde masseødelæggelsesvåben, hvilket var en åbenlys løgn fra Tony Blairs side, mordet på Qaddafi i 2011 og forsøget på at vælte Assad i Syrien. Efter farverevolutionen i 2004 i Ukraine kom Maidan-kuppet i Ukraine i 2014, som uden tvivl blev udført med hjælp fra nazistiske netværk, men det blev styret af Vesten. Victoria Nuland pralede med, at Udenrigsministeriet brugte 5 milliarder dollars på denne indsats!

Derefter havde man otte års kampe fra den ukrainske hærs side mod den russiske befolkning i Donbass, som aldrig blev omtalt i Vestens medier. Under alle omstændigheder er slutresultatet af dette, at “ikke en tomme mod øst” for NATO i virkeligheden var 1.000 km mod øst, og Rusland følte sig mere og mere omringet. I modsætning til, hvad der bliver sagt nu, var der mange krænkelser, hvor NATO-fly fløj inden for 24 km fra den russiske grænse og endda øvede atomkrig.

I december 2021, så sent som sidste år, bad Putin den 15. december om sikkerhedsgarantier fra NATO og USA om, at Ukraine ikke ville blive medlem af NATO, for hvis Ukraine bliver en del af NATO, så er varslingstiden fra den ukrainsk-russiske grænse til Moskva kun 3-5 minutter, hvilket gør det praktisk talt uforsvarligt. NATO og USA gav aldrig Putin et svar, og den schweiziske militæranalytiker Jacques Baud påpegede blandt mange andre, at krigen ikke startede den 24. februar, men den 17. februar, fordi der var en optrapning af angrebene fra den ukrainske hær, som var opstillet ved grænsen til Donbass, og var tegn på en 30 gange øget militærindsats fra ukrainerne mod Donbass-regionen. Så det var der, Putin besluttede at indlede krigen, den såkaldte “begrænsede militære operation”.

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

En pensioneret tysk general ved navn Harald Kujat, som havde været formand for NATO’s militærkomité i 2002-2005, har netop givet et interview til et tysk tidsskrift, hvori han sagde, at hovedvægten ikke længere ligger på at beskytte og bistå Ukraine i dets forsvarskamp mod et russisk angreb, hvilket er i strid med folkeretten, men på at svække Rusland som strategisk rival på lang sigt. Han tilføjede, at den amerikanske forsvarsminister, general Austin, netop har været i Kiev, hvor han udtrykkeligt fastslog, at USA ønsker at se Rusland svækket i en sådan grad, at det ikke længere kan gøre det, som det gjorde mod Ukraine. Kujat siger: “Denne strategiske nytænkning, hvis den overhovedet er en sådan, gør en forhandlingsløsning endnu mere presserende.” Jeg finder det yderst interessant, at han siger, “hvis det overhovedet er sådan”, nemlig en ændring af strategien.

Men det var det ikke. For i 2019 sponsorerede den amerikanske hær et studie hos Rand Corp. på 345 sider, som var hemmeligstemplet al den tid, men et resumé blev offentliggjort i april, som beskrev projektet, hvordan man besejrer Rusland ved at skabe større udfordringer end landet kan magte, og det er det nøjagtige manuskript for det, der skete i de seneste år og særligt de sidste tre år. Hvordan man får Rusland til at blive overbebyrdet militært og økonomisk, hvilket får regimet til at miste international prestige, og lægge så meget pres på det økonomiske system gennem sanktioner og skrotning af olie- og gasrørledninger, for at ødelægge Nord Stream 2, den berømte kamp omkring den rørledning, der går under Østersøen fra Rusland til Tyskland; at begrænse de olie- og gasindtægter, der kommer ind i Rusland, ved nu at presse europæerne til at erklære en embargo mod Rusland og samtidig sige, at det ukrainske militær allerede er ved at forbløde Rusland i Donbass-regionen, og at vi derfor må skaffe mere amerikansk udstyr; vi må afbryde alle Ruslands forbindelser med Europa. Den berømte amerikanske strateg George Freeman havde i en berømt tale i 2015 i Chicago sagt, at USA’s vigtigste strategiske mål er at bryde forholdet mellem Rusland og Tyskland, fordi russiske råstoffer og arbejdskraft og tysk kapital og videnskabelig viden tilsammen er det eneste, der kan true USA. Så det er det strategiske mål at bryde dette forhold. Det er det, der er sket lige nu.

Ideen er at sende mere dødbringende hjælp til Ukraine, øge sanktionerne, øge den russiske hjerneflugt, ifølge Rand-undersøgelsen, stadig have et regimeskifte i Hviderusland, en farverevolution – I husker, at dette skete efter valget i august 2020 – udnytte spændingerne i Sydkaukasus og Centralasien – I husker urolighederne i januar i Kasakhstan, som blev nedkæmpet på grund af Ruslands resolutte indsats; øge NATO-øvelserne i Europa, alle disse enorme manøvrer, som fandt sted i de foregående mange år; trække sig ud af INF-traktaten, hvilket skete i 2019. Husk ligeledes, hvor mange politikere der i den seneste tid har sagt, at målet er at nedbryde den russiske økonomi, knuse Putin, knuse det russiske system – dette blev sagt af den franske finansminister Le Maire og af embedsmænd fra Det Hvide Hus. Alt dette fremgik af Rand Corp-undersøgelsen, og det var det, der udspillede sig i virkeligheden.

Tror I, at russerne ikke kendte til Rand-undersøgelsen? At de ikke har fulgt alle disse tiltag, der er rettet mod dem?

Såvel Rusland som Kina har for længe siden offentligt tilkendegivet, at de betragter sanktioner som en form for krigsførelse, eller farverevolution som en form for krig. Det er årsagen til, at Kina og mange lande i det globale syd ikke tilslutter sig Vestens fordømmelse af Rusland. Kina ved præcis, at hovedårsagen til angrebet på Rusland er at fjerne en flanke, før man går efter Kina.

Den russiske økonom Glazjev har lavet en analyse, som er meget konkret. Jeg citerer: “At nedslide de russiske væbnede styrker i en krig med militante soldater fra Ukraines væbnede styrker, der er veluddannede og kontrolleres direkte af Pentagon, som er sammensat efter det nazistiske udsyn; officerer udpeget af den amerikanske og britiske efterretningstjeneste; at gøre Ukraines befolkning til zombier, der er inficeret af russofobi; parallelt hermed at vende verdenssamfundet mod Rusland og rejse anklager om krigsforbrydelser og folkedrab mod dets ledelse; på dette grundlag at konfiskere Ruslands udenlandske valuta som aktiver og indføre totale sanktioner mod landet, hvilket forårsager den størst mulige skade. Denne fase er faktisk afsluttet.” Sådan bliver han ved, og jeg ønsker ikke at citere. Vi kan give jer de nøjagtige artikler, hvor han beskriver alt dette.

Glazjev er også meget afklaret med, at det ikke vil fungere, fordi forskellen mellem de to systemer er, at det russisk-kinesiske system har til formål at forbedre det fælles bedste, mens det vestlige system i øjeblikket i virkeligheden har til formål at beskytte en lille elites privilegier.

Som I ved, blev Ruslands aktiver på 300 mia. dollars for nylig konfiskeret, og EU har nu iværksat den sjette sanktionsrunde. Alle disse anti-russiske sanktioner styrkede ikke, men underminerede tværtimod, USA’s og EU’s globale dominans, fordi resten af verden begyndte at behandle disse to med mistillid og ængstelse. De fremskyndede faktisk overgangen til en ny økonomisk verdensorden og forskydningen af verdensøkonomiens centrum til Sydøstasien.

I et nyligt offentliggjort strategisk dokument fra USA, kaldet National Defense Strategy 2022, nævner de Kina som den største modstander og trussel mod USA. Hvad er situationen? De fleste mennesker ved, at Kina i de sidste 40 år har skabt det mest omfattende økonomiske mirakel: De har løftet 850 millioner af deres egen befolkning ud af fattigdom, og de har været i stand til inden udgangen af 2021 at gøre en ende på den ekstreme fattigdom i Kina. I de sidste ni år har de udviklet den Nye Silkevej, Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, som er påbegyndt at omdanne mange udviklingslande fra underudvikling og fattigdom. Derfor har vi i den nuværende situation netop nu en strategisk omlægning uden fortilfælde: Vi har et strategisk partnerskab mellem Rusland og Kina, som nu også deles af Indien, som nægter at blive trukket ind i en anti-Rusland-alliance og en anti-Kina-alliance med Quad-landene, Sydafrika, som klart har nægtet at fordømme Rusland, og Nigeria ligeledes. Indonesien nægter at undlade at invitere Putin til det kommende G20-topmøde i november på Bali. Brasilien, selv med sin nuværende regering under præsident Jair Bolsonaro, angriber ikke Rusland, og hvis Lula da Silva vinder det næste valg, hvilket er meget sandsynligt, vil BRICS igen komme til at fungere. ASEAN-landene er ikke enige i fordømmelsen mod Rusland. Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO) naturligvis ikke. Den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU), Regional sammenslutning af økonomisk partnerskab (RECEP), som omfatter 2,2 milliarder mennesker, de nægter alle at blive trukket ind i en geopolitisk konfrontation mellem USA og NATO på den ene side og Rusland og Kina på den anden side.

Samtlige af disse lande holder fast ved idéen om alliancefrihed, og det tror jeg er nøglen til fred lige nu. Fordi principperne for den alliancefri bevægelse, som var principperne i FN-pagten, Bandung-konferencen, de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, som er suverænitet, ikke-indblanding i det andet lands indre anliggender, accept af det andet samfundssystem. Disse principper, som blev udviklet af Mahatma Gandhi, den indiske premierminister Jawaharlal Nehru og Josip Broz Tito, den daværende præsident for Jugoslavien, blev udfærdiget af Tito og Nehru i en fælles erklæring den 22. december 1954, og de sagde: “Politikken om ikke at alliere sig med blokke … repræsenterer ikke ‘neutralitet’ eller ‘neutralisme’; den repræsenterer heller ikke passivitet, som det sommetider hævdes. Den repræsenterer den positive, aktive og konstruktive politik, der som sit mål har kollektiv fred som grundlag for kollektiv sikkerhed.”

I dag er kløften ikke mellem demokratier og autokratier, som de vestlige medier fremfører, men den er meget klart mellem de tidligere og nuværende kolonimagter og de tidligere koloniserede lande, det globale syd, som repræsenterer mere end 80 % af verdens befolkning, og disse mere end 80 % er blevet fuldstændig udelukket fra de politiske beslutninger. Gabriel Valdes, der var Chiles udenrigsminister i 1960’erne, har fortalt, at Kissinger sagde til ham i juni 1969: “Der kan ikke komme noget vigtigt fra Syd”. Der er aldrig blevet skabt historie i syd. Historiens akse starter i Moskva, går til Bonn” – som var Tysklands hovedstad på det tidspunkt – “går over til Washington og derefter til Tokyo”. Hvad der sker i Syd er uden betydning.”

Jeg ved, at det er og har været holdningen hos det absolutte flertal af det etablerede samfund i USA og Europa. Jeg ved det fra min egen erfaring fra 50 års politisk arbejde.

Som en konsekvens af alt det, jeg lige har berørt, er der en absolut massiv reaktion på sanktionerne mod Rusland, sanktioner, som tidligere blev indført mod Venezuela, Iran, Irak, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Yemen og Syrien, og resultatet er, at alle disse lande går sammen om at skabe et nyt finanssystem med Rusland, Kina og Indien som kerne.

Min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, skrev allerede i juli 2000 et yderst vigtigt dokument, som jeg kun kan anbefale enhver af jer at læse og studere, og hvis titel er: “Om en kurv bestående af råstoffer: Handel uden valuta”. (https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2000/eirv27n30-20000804/eirv27n30-20000804_004-on_a_basket_of_hard_commodities-lar.pdf) Hvis I studerer dette dokument, vil I opdage, at der er mange konceptuelle ligheder med det, der sker i dag mellem Rusland og Kina, især fordi jeg mener, at hans idéer er blevet formidlet af os i to årtier, og jeg mener, at det, der sker lige nu, viser alle kendetegn ved hans idéer.

Han advarede i 2000 om, at vi allerede dengang var på randen af en demografisk katastrofe, og den demografiske katastrofe har vi nu! FN har udsendt advarsler om, at 1,7 milliarder mennesker på grund af sanktionerne og pandemien er i fare for hungersnød og sult. Derfor er det mest nødvendige lige nu, at der dannes et globalt partnerskab mellem landene i det globale syd, Rusland og Kina, og at der straks indføres en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, som i udviklingslandene tager form af kapitalkontrol, og at den spekulative del af det finansielle system afskaffes. Der skal indføres et nyt system, hvor hvert land har en nationalbank i Alexander Hamiltons tradition, som tilfældigvis var den første amerikanske finansminister i den unge amerikanske republik, hvilket er præcis, hvad Kina er ved at gøre – Kina er meget tættere på Det amerikanske System for økonomi, end folk er klar over. Som min mand sagde, sker det enten på en ordentlig og frivillig måde, eller også vil chokbølger af finansielt kaos fremtvinge en sådan reorganisering.

Hans advarsler i 2000 blev tydeligvis ignoreret, så det skete ikke på en velordnet måde, men nu er sanktionerne mod Rusland katalysator for ændringer i denne retning.

Nu henviser LaRouche i sine dokumenter til det, der er nødvendigt, nemlig en kreditpolitik, som blev brugt i de perioder, hvor økonomien i Europa og USA gik godt, egentlige vækstperioder. Det var i perioden mellem 1945 og 1965; det var dengang John F. Kennedy besluttede den økonomiske politik, Charles de Gaulle i Frankrig, eller Konrad Adenauer i Tyskland; det er i bund og grund det, som en berømt tysk økonom, Dr. Wilhelm Lautenbach, foreslog List-forbundet i 1931. Det var et forslag, som var helt i tråd med det, som Franklin D. Roosevelt gennemførte med New Deal i USA, nemlig at ethvert land har ret til at udstede kreditter med henblik på at sætte gang i økonomien, så længe disse kreditter udstedes efter meget klare kriterier for fysisk økonomi. De skal have til formål at øge arbejdsproduktiviteten og den industrielle kapacitet, og hvis dette sker, er kreditudstedelser ikke inflationsfremmende, fordi de skaber reel velstand. Man er absolut nødt til at indføre faste valutakurser og derefter udstede langsigtede kreditter med en rente på højst 1-2 %, og målet for at afgøre, om investeringerne er rigtige eller forkerte, er spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en sådan investering vil føre til en stigning i den potentielle relative befolkningstæthed. For at bruge et andet udtryk, vil det føre til en stigning i antallet af mennesker, der kan forsørges af denne økonomi, eller fører det til en reduktion af befolkningstætheden?

Vi befinder os lige nu i en epokegørende forandring, måske større end nogensinde før i historien. Præsident Xi Jinping siger, at der er tale om ændringer, som kun sker én gang hvert hundrede år. Derfor er vi nødt til at have en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som omfatter alle verdens landes interesser. Ikke kun den eurasiske arkitektur, for hvis man lader USA stå udenfor, er faren for, at det vil udløse en krig, stadig meget stor. Jeg ved, at der er mange mennesker, der gerne vil sige: “Lad os bare gøre vores egne ting og slippe af med USA, og så klarer vi os alle sammen fint. Jeg tvivler dog på, at det vil fungere. Jeg mener, at vi i traditionen fra Den Westfalske Fred, som afsluttede 150 års krig i Europa, har brug for en sikkerhedsarkitektur, som først og fremmest tager hensyn til udviklingslandenes interesser; der skal ske en forøgelse af levestandarden for hvert enkelt individ, både i Europa, USA, Rusland og Kina. Jeg mener, at det er afgørende for, om menneskeheden kan overleve. Det betyder, at vi har brug for et nyt paradigme i vores tænkning, nemlig idéen om, at hver nation har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale. Hvert barn, alle børn, der fødes, uanset i hvilken nation i verden, har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale, hvilket betyder, at det skal have en universel uddannelse.

Det er det, som denne opfordring handler om. Vi har brug for, at unge i verden tager initiativ til at starte en diskussion om dette, for vi har aldrig været på et vigtigere tidspunkt i historien, og farerne har aldrig været så store, men potentialet for at skabe en helt ny verden har aldrig været så tæt på: At gøre en ende på kolonialismen, at skabe en økonomi baseret på termonuklear fusion, hvilket ville betyde, at vi har energi og råstof sikkerhed for alle nationer, at vi kan få et internationalt samarbejde om udnyttelse af rummet, at menneskeheden bliver voksen, og at geopolitiske krige bliver et spørgsmål fra fortiden.

Vi befinder os i en sådan overgang, og det er det, vi bør diskutere.

 

 




Kina offentliggør “Faktapapir om National Endowment for Democracy, NED’’

Den 7. maj 2022 (EIRNS) – I et tiltag, der har til hensigt at slå “mange fluer med ét smæk”, har den kinesiske regering udgivet et ”Faktapapir om National Endowment for Democracy’’. “Faktapapiret” beskriver, hvordan CIA’s operationer for at underminere udenlandske regeringer under Den kolde Krig blev omdannet til denne offentlige-private mekanisme, der betegnes som en “NGO”, med henblik på at blande sig i andre landes interne anliggender og forme disse landes politik, for at bringe dem på linje med USA’s geopolitiske mål.

Derefter gennemgås land efter land for at dokumentere NED’s operationer, med henblik på at opildne til farverevolutioner og vælte folkevalgte regeringer, der ikke var i samklang med USA. Der er bl.a. en gennemgang af NED’s operationer i Polen (Solidarnosc), Georgien, Rusland, Ukraine, Hviderusland, Kirgisistan, Serbien og Mongoliet samt lande i Latinamerika, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela og Afrika, Libyen, Uganda og Sudan, samt Thailand i Sydøstasien.

Faktapapiret gennemgår også de omfattende operationer, som NED har gennemført mod Kina, herunder deres kampagner for Hongkongs uafhængighed, Tibets uafhængighed og “folkemord” og “menneskerettighedskrav” i Xinjiang. Det beskriver også NED’s operationer sammen med Taiwan. I stedet for at behandle disse spørgsmål enkeltvis, baggrunden for situationen i Ukraine eller arten af operationerne i Xinjiang og Hongkong, fokuserer “Faktapapiret” snarere på den modus operandi (fremgangsmåde), der er karakteristisk for USA’s politik for at forsøge at vælte regeringer, der udgør en trussel mod USA’s herredømme.

Offentliggørelsen af faktapapiret kan også være et forebyggende angreb på den ”Kina-politiske Evaluering”, “China Policy Review”, som skulle have været bekendtgjort i denne uge af udenrigsminister Blinken, men som er blevet forsinket, efter at han er blevet smittet med COVID. 

Link til rapporten

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202205/t20220507_10683090.html 

 




“Dan et partnerskab mellem unge fra hele verden for at kæmpe for en bedre fremtid

Den 4. maj 2022 (EIRNS) – I løbet af et omfattende interview med forfatter og publicist Daniel Estulin
https://vimeo.com/704208930/0bb85d2c8d svarede Schiller Instituttets grundlægger Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag på et spørgsmål om emnet for Schiller Instituttets kommende internationale internet-dialog lørdag den 7. maj kl. 17 dansk tid om “Ungdommens rolle i skabelsen af en ny international økonomisk arkitektur”.

https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/05/02/invitation-the-role-of-youth-in-creating-a-new-international-economic-architecture/

“I det væsentlige vil det være en fortsættelse af den sidste videokonference [den 9. april, “For en konference til etablering af en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer”], fordi det vi har iværksat er idéen om, at man er nødt til at have en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter alle nationers interesser. Derfor havde vi på den sidste konference talere fra Rusland, USA, Europa, Indien, Sydafrika og Latinamerika. Det er tanken om, at hvis vi som menneskehed ikke kan mødes og beslutte os for principper, der sikrer vores alles overlevelse, så er vi ikke bedre end nogle vilde dyr – selv om vilde dyr ikke er så onde, som den måde nogle mennesker nogle gange opfører sig på. Så det var en meget produktiv konference.

“Jeg har den idé, at man er nødt til at forme den internationale sikkerhedsarkitektur på grundlaget af fælles økonomisk udvikling, så det bliver en international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur. For når man først har en aftale om udvikling for alle nationer – Afrika, Latinamerika, Asien, de fattigere dele af Europa og USA – så kan denne fælles interesse danne grundlag for en fælles sikkerhedsarkitektur.

“Så den næste videokonference henvender sig primært til unge mennesker. For hvis man sætter sig i et ungt menneskes sted, lad os sige i Tyskland, Frankrig, Italien, USA osv., ser fremtiden ikke særlig lys ud. Man har udsigt til 3. Verdenskrig, man har udsigt til en kollapsende økonomi, et kollapsende finanssystem, sult i verden, en pandemi, som endnu ikke er under kontrol.

“Denne konference har til hensigt at danne et partnerskab mellem unge fra hele verden for at kæmpe for en bedre fremtid, thi fremtiden tilhører de unge. De bliver ikke spurgt lige nu: Er det virkelig i deres interesse, at verden skal gå op i en atomar svampesky efterfulgt af en atomvinter? De unge skal have indflydelse på, hvordan deres fremtid skal se ud.

“Der er så spændende udviklinger i gang! Vi er f.eks. på tærsklen til at få fusionsenergi. Det er utroligt, for når vi først har kommerciel fusionsenergi, har vi energisikkerhed og råstofsikkerhed på planeten. Desuden vil rumrejser blive meget forbedret, fordi vi har en ny brændstofkilde til rumrejser. Og så er der hele idéen om samarbejde i rummet: opbygning af månelandsbyer og senere opbygning af en by på Mars.

“Alt dette er ting, som begejstrer unge mennesker. Det er der, hvor menneskeheden kan bevæge sig hen, forudsat at vi kommer ud af den nuværende krise. Så det er hvad denne konference vil tage fat på, og jeg tror, at vi vil have mange unge mennesker fra alle fem kontinenter til stede.”




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

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

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

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

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

INTERVIEW

Professor Li Xing

Cooperate with China – It Is Not the Enemy

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: Thank you too.

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

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

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

Advice to President Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But still, I would also say to the President:

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

Attitude of the U.S. Toward China

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Belt and Road Concept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Debt Trap’ Diplomacy

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

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure Means Development

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

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

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

Europe-China Relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A ‘Differentiated’ Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: No, no.

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: Yes, totally.

Reordering the World Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Monroe Doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: Exactly.

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

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: Yes.

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Exactly, exactly.

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

Operation Ibn Sina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xinjiang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SWIFT System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Schiller Institute

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: I think 8%.

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Li Xing.




Sammendrag af panelerne fra konferencen (video)

1. Hvorfor et topmøde mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien er så presserende netop nu

Helga Zepp-LaRouche leder en international dialog angående den øjeblikkelige nødvendighed af at bringe lederne af de ”fire stormagter” (USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien) sammen til et topmøde, for at håndtere pandemien, den finansielle nedsmeltning og økonomisk underudvikling. Udklippene er taget fra Schiller Instituttets internationale konference, d. 27. juni, 2020, med titlen: ”Vil menneskeheden blomstre eller gå til grunde? Fremtiden kræver et firemagts-topmøde nu”.

https://youtu.be/thQuRg-rzwE

 

2. Lad os gøre en ende på krig, hungersnød, fattigdom og sygdom

Ledere indenfor landbrug, økonomi og videnskab fører en diskussion angående den skrækindjagende fare, som konfronterer verden, i form af hungersnød, krig og sygdom, pga. ødelæggelsen af produktivt arbejde, over de seneste 50 år. Dette efterfølges af en diskussion om perspektivet for at implementere LaRouche-planen; en økonomisk strategi for at skabe 1,5 milliarder produktive arbejdspladser verden over. Talerne deltog i det andet panel af Schiller Instituttets online konference, d. 27. juni.

https://youtu.be/J_jKCa6GkW0

 

3. LaRouches internationale ungdomsbevægelse opfordrer til frikendelsen af Lyndon LaRouche

Skriv under på begæringen for at frikende Lyndon LaRouche: Frikend Lyndon LaRouche. Et kor af stemmer svarede på forslagene fra Theo Mitchell, tidligere statssenator fra South Carolina, angående hvad der kan gøres for at frikende Lyndon LaRouche og rette op på den uretfærdighed som er ude af kontrol i mange dele af verden. Lederne fra LaRouches internationale ungdomsbevægelse adresserede Schiller Instituttets konference, d. 27. juni, angående det presserende behov for at rekruttere den næste generation af ledere, der kan tænke på samme niveau som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche.

https://youtu.be/AUnaUpA2ylg




Vent ikke på katastrofen: Skab betingelserne for sejr uden forsinkelse

Den 12. juni (EIRNS) – Løsningen på verdens mest presserende problemer må lokaliseres i menneskets enestående evne til at opdage sandheder om det reelle, fysiske univers, og til at anvende denne viden til at forbedre levestandarden, kulturen, samt i antallet af tilegnelser af nye opdagelser. Lyndon LaRouche, den amerikanske økonom og præsidentkandidat i flere ombæringer, udviklede en retning indenfor økonomi baseret på fundamentale opdagelsers ikke-kvantitative, transcendentale kvalitet, og byggede en bevægelse viet til at skabe et økonomisk system i overensstemmelse med alle menneskers kreativitet og værdighed.

”LaRouche-planen til at genåbne den amerikanske økonomi: Verden behøver 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive job” er den bedste vejledning til at skabe en økonomisk fremtid, og dennes indhold fortjener nærmere granskning og refleksion. En bestræbelsesværdig, opnåelig vision for fremtiden – med et internationalt samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien – er en desperat fornødenhed. Og der er ingen tid at spilde!

Enorme økonomiske forskydninger rammer, eller truer med at ramme, den transatlantiske sektor. I USA står de midlertidige foranstaltninger til at øge arbejdsløshedsunderstøttelsen, forbyde tvangsudsættelser, udsætte betalinger af studielån og fryse betalinger på boliglån, til at blive afsluttet i perioden mellem juli og slutningen af oktober. Ordrer på maskinværktøj er en tredjedel lavere end for et år siden – et fald som begyndte før coronavirusset skabte storstilede dyk i økonomisk aktivitet.

Kaos bliver bevidst sluppet løs i USA, gennem voldelige protester over de seneste uger, i kølvandet af drabet på George Floyd og etableringen i Seattle af den såkaldte Capital Hill Autonome Zone, der er blevet oprettet som en provokation mod Præsident Trump, for at teste om han tør bruge militæret, om nødvendigt, for at garantere evnen til ”at håndhæve USA’s love.”

Over hele verden fortsætter corona-pandemien med at udbrede sig. I Australien, Kina, Kroatien, Island, Irland, Schweiz og Thailand (for at nævne nogle eksempler) har man virusset under kontrol. Men i Argentina, Bangladesh, Brasilien, Chile, Ægypten, Etiopien, Indien, Indonesien, Mexico, Saudi-Arabien, Ukraine og Venezuela fortsætter antallet af nye, bekræftede smittetilfælde med at sætte rekorder, næsten dagligt. I USA, i de områder som først blev ramt hårdest, såsom New Jersey og New York, har man set antallet af nye smittede styrtdykke, som et resultat af opmærksomheden på farerne fra virusset, samt en god overholdelse af sundhedsforanstaltningerne. Men antallet fortsætter med at stige i stater som Texas, Arizona, og, efter ”Memorial Day”, i Florida. I de fire uger, efter Arizona den 15. maj ophævede dens ordre om at blive hjemme, er antallet af COVID-19-patienter, som er afhængige af respiratorer, steget med 400%.

De strategiske spændinger fortsætter ligeså: I fredags godkendte Senatets Komité for de Væbnede Styrker i USA 6 milliarder dollars til Forsvarsinitiativet i Stillehavet, der sigter på militært at omringe og isolere Kina; i onsdags fløj russiske bombefly indenfor 8 sømil af USA’s territoriale luftrum; og USA’s fortsatte insisteren på at inkludere Kina i forhandlingerne om at forlænge den Nye START-traktat for at begrænse atomvåben-arsenaler, muliggør at den kunne udløbe til februar, 2021.

Disse spændinger kan ikke overvindes blot ved at protestere, om det så handler om politivold, om afmonteringen af patriarkalske, kapitalistiske systemers heteronormative systemiske racisme og undertrykkelse, eller om regler for ansigtsmasker er et angreb på enhvers himmelsendte ret til at indtage ilt.

Glem slagordene! Tag tiden til ærligt at reflektere over den fundamentale forskel mellem den menneskelige race og alle andre kendte livsformer, og over den kreative tankes naturlige proces, som alene finder sted i det individuelle menneskes sind. Arbejd på at gøre disse karaktertræk til den centrale kilde for din identitet og for det økonomiske system, som må lede os ind i fremtiden.

 




Sorte liv betyder noget – så stop Holocaust i Afrika, skab 1,5 milliard job.

Den 7. juni (EIRNS) — Mens hele verden nu oversvømmes med slagordene ‘sorte liv betyder noget’ (black lives matter), må man spørge: Hvad er det ønskede resultat? At skabe et anstændigt liv for de fattige i Amerika, hvoraf mange er sorte og latinoer? De fleste mennesker anerkender, at de massive demonstrationer i USA og i store dele af verden i dag er drevet af mere end racistisk politibrutalitet – de er resultatet af det katastrofale sammenbrud i økonomien midt i en dødbringende pandemi – begge omstændigheder der påvirker den sorte befolkning mere intenst, men som er universelle katastrofer.

 Hvorom alting er, bortset fra EIR-programmet, der blev udgivet i sidste uge, og som kræver en hurtig skabelse af 1,5 milliarder job og et lige så presserende topmøde med lederne af USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien for at iværksætte det nødvendige hasteprogram, ser der ud til at være ringe opmærksomhed omkring de faktiske forbrydelser, der bliver begået imod de fattige i USA og langt de fleste lande i Afrika og Sydamerika, fra de mere end tredive års finansielle og økonomiske politik. Under slagordene om “globalisering”, “fri handel” og “miljøbeskyttelse” er de virkelige industrielle økonomier blevet ødelagt, infrastruktur har fået lov til at rådne, og udviklingslandene nægtet enhver industriel udvikling, bortset fra Kinas soloindsats for at tilvejebringe fysisk udvikling gennem Den nye Silkevej/ Bælte- og Vejinitiativet.

 FN’s direktør for verdens fødevareprogram, David Beasley, har råbt op så højt han kan om, at Afrika i løbet af kun få uger eller højst måneder vil have en mulig sultedødelighed på 300.000 pr. dag i forbindelse med coronavirusset, med fødevareforsyningskæder der også knækkes af den økonomiske krise, kombineret med et af de værste græshoppeangreb i moderne historie. Betyder disse sorte liv noget?

 At male “Black Lives Matter” med ti meter høje bogstaver i gul maling på Washingtons 16th Street vil ikke gøre noget for at løse disse reelle problemer. Faktisk skal det bemærkes, at den officielle ‘Black Lives Matter’-bevægelse blev finansieret med 60 millioner dollars fra George Soros, og i alt over 400 millioner $ fra andre Wall Street-fonde, mens terroristorganisationen Antifa og andre åbenlyst voldelige bander – mange af dem primært hvide – har opereret under dække af demonstrationerne.

 Det drivende fokus for “bevægelsen” er fjernelsen af Donald Trump fra embedet, mens indsatsen i vid udstrækning styres af de samme kræfter, som orkestrerede fase et og fase to i kupforsøget – Obamas korrupte efterretningsteam, hvoraf mange nu selv står overfor fængsling for deres forbrydelser; af deres kontrollører i det britiske imperium, MI6 og GCHQ, og af de prostituerede i pressekorpset, der svor på, at Trump samarbejdede fordækt med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, og at Putin stjal valget.

 To medieartikler i denne weekend demonstrerer den faktiske hensigt med denne såkaldte bevægelse. Tysklands Der Spiegel, det mest udbredte magasin i Europa, har en forsidehistorie med Trump der holder en tændstik, med en brændende by bag sig, under titlen: “Pyromanen – en præsident sætter sit land i brand. Den ledende artikel lægger hele skylden for krisen på Trump, alt imens den antyder, at Trump planlægger en “Rigsdagsbrand” for at gøre sig selv til diktator efter samme model som Hitler, og muligvis vil nægte at anerkende valgresultatet, hvis han taber. Man antyder et militærkup for at stoppe den formodede fare.

 Her i USA indrømmer magasinet The Atlantic åbent, at “bevægelsen” faktisk er en “farverevolution” efter samme model som Maidan-kupet i Ukraine i 2014. Læsere af EIR ved, at det var nøjagtigt den samme anglo-amerikanske bande – Soros, Obama og hans vicepræsident Biden og hans efterretningsteam, sammen med pressen, der åbent iscenesatte det voldelige nynazistiske kup mod den demokratisk valgte regering i Ukraine, som det er dokumenteret i EIR‘s ”Hvordan Obama og Soros bragte nazisterne til magten i Ukraine.”




Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Der er brug for et nyt stærkt håndtryk mellem Øst og Vest

Den 5. maj (EIRNS) – Den overvældende virkelighed er det faktum, at vi er på vej mod en utrolig krise, understregede Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, i en briefing i dag, idet hun talte om den pandemiske og økonomiske “katastrofe, der udfolder sig i ufattelige størrelsesordener”. Hun henviste til advarsler fra medicinske eksperter som Dr. Christian Drosten fra Charité Hospital’s Institute of Virology i Berlin, om virkningerne af pandemien, der nu rammer i fattige områder overalt i verden, og kan ses som massedød i Manaus, Brasilien, fødevare-optøjer i Nigeria og andre rædsler.

Rå statistikker fra Den Internationale Arbejdsorganisation understreger pointen: Ud af den samlede verdensbefolkning på 7,8 mia. udgør arbejdsstyrken 3,3 mia., hvoraf 2 mia. er beskæftiget i den “uformelle” økonomi – hvilket betyder, at de og deres kære fra dag til dag lever fra hånden til munden. Hvis der er nogen afbrydelser betyder det katastrofe. Selv hvis virusset ikke rammer, vil manglen på mad og vand medføre sygdom og død.

Men hvor forfærdeligt det end er, er situationen ikke dømt på forhånd. Det er en opfordring til handling. Menneskeheden kan samle sig og konferere om udfordringerne, hvilket betyder at udtænke og gennemføre de nødvendige fysisk/økonomiske foranstaltninger, og at afsløre og stoppe det geopolitiske anti-Kina, anti-Rusland-vanvid, igangsat for at forhindre at der reddes liv og indføres et nyt system. Det nuværende geopolitiske mål er at kanøfle præsident Donald Trump til at underkaste sig de anti-kinesiske krigshøge i hans administration, for at forhindre hvad verden har brug for: samarbejde mellem stormagterne – præsident Trump, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin og premierminister Narendra Modi, og andre villige. Drejebogen for konfrontationen kommer direkte fra London, centrum for det døende monetaristiske system.

Et eksempel på de daglige geopolitiske angreb blev vist i går aftes på det amerikanske Fox TV, med anklager mod Kina fra “Five Eyes”, britisk efterretningsvirksomhed, om at Kina bevidst spredte SARS-CoV-2-virusset. En tidslinje for Kinas påståede forbrydelser blev præsenteret af reporter Sharri Markson fra Australiens Daily Telegraph, der havde offentliggjort redegørelsen fra Five Eyes over en stor seks-siders artikel den 2. maj. Fox-værten Tucker Carlson advarede: ”Imens pandemien udspiller sig, planlægger Kina at herske over verden … ”

Visse amerikanske kongresmedlemmer overgår sig selv i så henseende. I denne uge vil senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) indføre et lovforslag om at “indføre strenge sanktioner mod kinesiske regeringsembedsmænd, der dækkede over pandemien”, sagde han. Cruz fortalte Fox News 2. maj: “Kina er efter min mening den største geopolitiske trussel, som USA står over for i det kommende århundrede.”

Føj til dette krigshysteri blandingen af desperation og frygt, som millioner af mennesker, der er udsat for anti-videnskabelig propaganda, allerede føler, og det ønskede resultat opnås af manipulatorerne: impotent og farlig hedonisme.

Det haster med at gå videre med den optimisme og de løsninger, der blev diskuteret af netværk fra hele verden blandt deltagere på Schiller Instituttets konference den 25.-26. april om “Menneskehedens eksistens afhænger nu af oprettelsen af et nyt paradigme.”

I går afholdt ’Bevægelsen af Alliancefri Lande’ (Non-Aligned Movement) et topmøde mellem 40 nationer med titlen: “Forenet imod COVID-19”, med mange af landene repræsenteret ved deres stats- eller regeringschefer, herunder Indiens premierminister Modi, Ægyptens præsident Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, Irans Præsident Hassan Rouhani. De forpligtede sig til at oprette en specialenhed til at kortlægge medlemslandenes behov. Deres endelige kommuniké erklærede, at ”i lyset af denne type globale nødsituation må solidariteten være i centrum for vores bestræbelser, og der kræves et højt niveau af etisk og humanistisk engagement, hvor solidaritet og uselvisk samarbejde er fremherskende for at kunne give de nødlidende medicin, medicinsk udstyr og forsyninger, mad, udveksling af ekspertise og god praksis.”

Dette er ånden i en alliance for menneskehedens almene vel. Tag del i denne ånd ved Schiller Instituttets konference, lørdag den 9. maj – “75 årsdagen for V-E-dagen: Fejr sejren over fascismen med et nyt Bretton Woods-system.”

Ved en mindehøjtidelighed den 24. april for mødet mellem amerikanske og sovjetiske styrker ved Elben, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche i sine forberedte bemærkninger:

”Der kræves et nyt, stærkt håndtryk mellem Øst og Vest for at tackle denne livstruende krise i dag og få en løsning bragt på banen. Schiller Instituttet har udarbejdet en handlingsplan, der er baseret på den afdøde økonom Lyndon LaRouches forslag til et firemagts-møde for at omorganisere det fejlslagne system. Dette er Rusland, USA, Kina og Indien … de nuværende omstændigheder ser måske ikke særlig gunstige ud for at opnå et sådant ‘nyt håndtryk’ mellem Øst og Vest. Da krisen imidlertid vil forstærkes inden for den nærmeste fremtid, vil der forekomme forandringer og muligheder.

”Sejren over fascismen for 75 år siden, der blev betalt med så mange modige menneskers liv, kan inspirere os til at påtage os denne nye, skræmmende opgave. Tak og Guds velsignelse”.

 




Det Britiske Imperium optrapper offensiv for militærkonfrontation mellem USA og Kina

Den 4. maj (EIRNS) – Det britisk imperiale maskineri har i stigende grad droppet ethvert forsøg på at se ”neutral” ud i forhold til Kina, og i klassisk imperial stil kræver de i meddelelser til USA, at ”I og dem” bliver nødt til at gå i krig. Henry Jackson-Selskabet – den britiske ”neokonservative” partner med Washingtons Atlantiske Råd (Atlantic Council) – krævede et ”konsortium” af vestlige nationer for at stoppe enhver kinesisk investering i Europa, fra Huaweis 5G-netværk til kinesiske indkøb af europæisk produktionskapacitet til nuværende nedtrykte priser, uagtet disse firmaers desperate behov for investeringer. Niall Ferguson, Storbritanniens førende fortaler for en tilbagevenden til det Britiske Imperiums æra, hvor deres politik gennemtvinges rundt om i verden, lancerede en Goebbels-agtig ”stor løgn”: at Kina skulle have sendt passagerfly ud af Wuhan-regionen til resten af verden, mens de samtidig forhindrede folk fra Wuhan i at flyve til andre steder internt i Kina. Dette er nu blevet bevist, af en af Fergusons medarbejdere, for ikke blot at være usandt, men gjort med fuldt overlæg, og alligevel er Præsident Donald Trump blevet pumpet fuld af denne løgn, til en sådan grad at han gentog det søndag aften i et virtuelt ”borgermøde”, sponsoreret af Fox News. I mellemtiden rapporterede Reuters om et lækket kinesisk dokument, som, påstår de, opfordrer Kina til at ”forberede sig på væbnet konfrontation mellem de to globale magter,” som om dette var en aggressiv kinesisk politik, snarere end en reaktion på den massive optrapning af anti-kinesiske trusler og eventyrfortællinger. Kina, påstår Reuters, gør sig klar til at ”vinde en moderne krig.” Kina-Kina-Kina-hysteriet har overgået selv den af MI6 ledede Rusland-Rusland-Rusland-kampagne, der havde til hensigt at fjerne Trump fra magten, baseret på den store løgn om russisk fordækt spil.

Selvom ”Russiagate”-kupforsøget blev afværget, har hensigten med den britiske operation – at tvinge Trump væk fra sit venskab og samarbejde med Præsident Vladimir Putin – haft en varig virkning. Denne kommende lørdag er det 75 årsdagen for mødet mellem amerikanske og sovjetiske tropper ved Elben, der gik forud for den endelige sejr over den europæiske, fascistiske bevægelse gennem deres samlede kræfter. Pandemien har udsat den planlagte fejring i Moskva, hvor Præsident Xi Jinping havde planlagt at være til stede, og som Præsident Trump var blevet inviteret til. Et sådant møde mellem disse tre ledere blev stærkt tilskyndet af Helga Zepp-LaRouche og EIR, som værende den nødvendige kombination for at stoppe retningen mod krig og påbegynde et samarbejde, nødvendigt for at takle pandemien og den finansielle disintegration, der truer det vestlige banksystem.

Og dog, på denne historiske dag er der nærmest ingen seriøse arrangementer eller fejringer planlagt i USA, udover Schiller Instituttets arrangement lørdag eftermiddag (kl. 20:00 dansk tid), hvortil I alle er inviteret:

”9. Maj-Konference — 75 årsdagen for VE-dagen:
Fejr Sejren over Fascismen med et Nyt Bretton Woods-System.”

Hvor er respekten for amerikanske veteraner? De veteraner der stadig lever, som kæmpede i 2. Verdenskrig, der nu er blandt dem som dør på plejehjem og i langtidspleje. Har vi glemt deres bidrag til sejren over fascismen? Trues vi ikke af fascismen igen i dag, atter affødt af det Britiske Imperium?

Deltag denne lørdag, og, hvis du ikke allerede har gjort det, tag tiden, imens vi stadig er fanget i vores hjem, til at se den historiske Schiller Institut-konference fra d. 25.-26. april, der viser at ledere fra USA, Rusland, Kina, Afrika og Sydamerika kan mødes og arbejde sammen for at drøfte løsninger på den eksistentielle krise, som konfronterer os alle i dag.

 




Den britiske liberalismes forbrydelser og undergang og ’Det Nye Paradigme’ for menneskehedens fremtid.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche hovedtale ved Schiller Instituttets internationale internetkonference den 25. april 2020.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg hilser alle jer, der ser denne internetkonference fra hele verden, og jeg tror, at I alle er klar over, at menneskeslægten lige nu er konfronteret med en hidtil uset krise. Den truer ikke alene med at koste mange millioner menneskeliv på grund af sygdom og sult, med at feje mange af de institutioner, som folk har taget for givet indtil nu, af banen, og med at kaste store dele af verden ind i en ny mørk tidsalder, herunder kulturelt, men den kunne også føre til termonuklear krig, der potentielt ville udslette hele menneskeheden.

Denne krise er mere vidtgående end i det 14. århundrede, da den Sorte Pest udslettede en tredjedel af befolkningen fra Indien til Island. Det er mere alvorligt end Den store Depression i 1930’erne, fordi den potentielt kan ødelægge mere økonomisk substans. Og hvis der udbryder krig, vil det bestemt have værre følger end verdenskrigene i det 20. århundrede, fordi det sandsynligvis vil involvere brugen af termonukleare våben.

På grund af globaliseringen og internationaliseringen af mange systemer, herunder internettet, atomvåben, er vi alle i den samme båd. Og i modsætning til tidligere epoker, da en del af planeten blomstrede mens en anden kollapsede, vil der denne gang ikke være nogen delvise løsninger. Mere end nogensinde før i vores historie udfordres vi som samfund, som én menneskehed, til at nå til enighed om nye principper, der kan garantere menneskehedens langsigtede evne til at overleve. Det er pointen med denne konference: Hvordan kan vi identificere årsagerne til denne krise, eliminere dem og åbne et nyt kapitel i universalhistorien, der fører vores eksistens ud af geopolitisk konfrontation, ind på et niveau af fornuft, der sømmer sig for menneskehedens identitet som en kreativ art?

Nogle mennesker spekulerer på, hvorfor jeg midt i en pandemisk og finansiel krise også rejser spørgsmålet om faren for atomkrig? Fordi de skandaløse og ondsindede beskyldninger mod Kina fremsat af de britiske hemmelige tjenester MI6 og MI5 og deres propagandaapparat – Henry Jackson-Selskabet i London, Atlanterhavsrådet og forskellige “klyngeagenter” på begge sider af Atlanterhavet – beskylder Kina for COVID-19-pandemien, fordi man angiveligt enten forsinkede informationen om den, eller endog brugte biologisk krigsførelse mod Vesten. Dette drejer sig om opbygningen af et fjendebillede med henblik på krig. Den uforskammethed med hvilken Henry Jackson-Selskabet – den hårde kerne blandt de liberale neokonservative og den britiske krigsfaktion på begge sider af Atlanterhavet – kræver milliarder af dollars i erstatning, kan kun ses som en provokation, beregnet på at gøde jorden for et strategisk slutopgør.

 Det er den hysteriske, men i sidste ende desperate reaktion fra et imperium, der er klar over, at det hele er ovre, og at verden aldrig mere vil vende tilbage til den allerede udrullede strategiske orientering for en unipolær verden, den såkaldte “Washington Consensus” og “regelbaserede orden”, som man var i stand til at opretholde, i det mindste som en facade, indtil udbruddet af COVID-19. Krigspartiets beregninger var forkerte; den erklærede forhastet ”historiens afslutning” efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, hvilket også var knyttet til illusionen om, at Kina ville udvikle sig til et liberalt demokrati i britisk stil, hvis blot det fik medlemskab af WTO; og at alle andre lande også ville blive omdannet til vestlige demokratier via en politik for regimeskifte, enten gennem farverevolutioner eller interventionskrige.

Kinas enestående verdenshistoriske kulturelle bedrifter – ikke alene at løfte 850 millioner af sine egne mennesker ud af fattigdom, men også, med den Nye Silkevej, at give udviklingslande muligheden for første gang at overvinde såvel den kolonialistiske politik, der stadig i dag gennemføres af IMF, såvel som den deraf forårsagede fattigdom – blev mødt med vantro og rædsel af de forskellige talerør for det britiske imperium. Efter at de vestlige medier i omkring fire år havde ignoreret det største infrastrukturprogram i historien, blev angreb på såkaldte “autokratiske regimer”, som Kina, Rusland og andre, pludselig optrappet af de samme medier, som siden 2015 har profileret sig i ”Heksejagten” mod præsident Trump, i aftalt spil med kupforsøget fra de britiske hemmelige tjenester.

 Men da først tallene for marts og april blev frigivet, der viste, at Kina ikke blot har været i stand til at knuse pandemien mere effektivt, men også at overvinde de økonomiske konsekvenser af krisen meget lettere end de vestlige lande, som på grund af privatisering af sundhedssektoren var helt uforberedt på pandemien, blev tonen imod Kina skingrende. De vestlige demokratiers “regelrette orden”, den eneste “demokratiske legitimitet”, har været på gyngende grund i lang tid, og truer nu med at kollapse, mens det hævdes, at Beijing forfølger en “strategi for ubegrænset krigsførelse”. Kendsgerningen er, at det liberale system knyttet til det britiske imperium har slået fejl. Men det betyder ikke, at de styrker der er allieret med imperiet ikke stadigvæk, i deres kvaler, kan påføre enorme skader, for eksempel ved at indlede en verdenskrig.

 Det er på høje tid at rette på navnene, som Konfutse ville sige. Hvis ideen er at udarbejde en liste over skyldige parter og erstatningskrav på grund af den aktuelle krise, så må det være listen over virkningerne af den britiske liberalisme, hvis ledende skikkelse, Winston Churchill, bærer hovedansvaret for udeladelsen af det vigtigste aspekt i det Bretton Woods-system, som Franklin D. Roosevelt havde til hensigt for efterkrigstiden: nemlig en kreditmekanisme til at overvinde kolonialismen og industrialisere udviklingssektoren. På grund af denne mangel blev det britiske imperiums kontrol over den såkaldt Tredje Verden foreviget i efterkrigstiden. Denne situation blev derefter forværret, efter at præsident Nixon afsluttede Bretton Woods-systemet i august 1971, hvilket førte til en række af dereguleringer af de finansielle markeder, den berygtede ‘outsourcing’ til lande med billig arbejdskraft og IMF’s betingelser (‘conditionalities’, red.). Det eneste formål med hele denne politik var at opretholde en kolonialistisk udplyndring og forhindre enhver seriøs udvikling i disse lande.

 Hvordan kunne nogen i de såkaldt “avancerede lande” – og vi ser nu med coronavirus-pandemien, præcis hvor avancerede de er – antage i så meget som et minut, at den brutale fattigdom i Afrika, Latinamerika og nogle asiatiske lande er selvindlysende eller selvforskyldt? Hvis Vesten i de sidste 70 år havde gjort, hvad Kina har udrettet i Afrika siden 1960’erne, men især i de sidste 10 år nu, nemlig at bygge jernbaner, dæmninger, kraftværker og industriparker, ville hele Afrika nyde godt af et udviklingsniveau, som man ser i Sydkorea eller Singapore i dag – eller bedre! Afrika har som følge af denne politik stort set intet sundhedssystem, ingen infrastruktur; halvdelen af befolkningen har ikke adgang til rent vand, sanitet eller elektricitet, fordi det britiske imperium bevidst undertrykte dem ved at arbejde gennem IMF og Verdensbanken… gennem Verdensnaturfonden, der i tvivlstilfælde betragter beskyttelsen af en insektart som vigtigere end millioner af menneskers liv! Hvis man tager højde for den samlede virkning af denne politik, vil der fremkomme et tal på millioner af mennesker, hvis liv er blevet forkortet af sult og ubehandlede sygdomme! I modsætning til myten om at det britiske imperium ophørte med at eksistere en gang for alle med koloniernes uafhængighed og overleveringsceremonien i Hongkong den 30. juni 1997, eksisterer det stadig i form af neoliberal monetaristisk kontrol over verdens finansielle system; en kontrol, der altid har været indbegrebet af imperialisme.

 Et andet eksempel på ren propaganda fra imperiet er at sige, at lande i den Tredje Verden simpelthen ikke ønsker at udvikle sig. Virkeligheden er, at selv ideen om FN’s udviklings-årtier de facto blev elimineret med afslutningen på Bretton Woods, og dets erstatning med ideen om befolkningsreduktion, Romklubbens grove ideer om de formodede grænser for vækst og John D. Rockefeller III’s misantropiske forestillinger, som han præsenterede dem på FN’s befolkningskonference i Bukarest i 1974, eller Henry Kissingers skandaløse NSSM 200 fra samme år; der blot var gammel skimmelsvamp fra påstandene af den onde pastor Malthus’, det Britiske østindiske Selskabs bladsmører, som for sin del plagierede ideerne fra den venetianske “økonom” Giammaria Ortes.

 Lyndon LaRouche reagerede på dette paradigmeskifte, da han i 1973 i forbindelse med en række undersøgelser om virkningerne af IMF-politikken, begyndte at advare om, at den voksende underernæring, svækkelse af immunsystemet, manglende hygiejne osv. ville føre til fremkomsten af globale pandemier. Efter tusindvis af taler og skrifter fra LaRouche, der har cirkuleret i de mellemliggende fem årtier over alle fem kontinenter, er der ingen der kan sige, at den aktuelle pandemi ikke var forudseelig! Især da LaRouches hele livsværk var dediceret til, blandt andet, at udarbejde udviklingsprogrammer, der netop ville have forhindret det!

 Den grundlæggende årsag til at det liberale paradigme og den nuværende underliggende, transatlantiske “regelrette orden” har fejlet, og hvorfor etablissementet har vist sig at være så fuldstændig ude af stand til at reflektere over årsagerne til denne fiasko, er knyttet til det aksiomatiske grundlag og generelt accepterede antagelser om dette paradigmes menneskesyn, såvel som dets begreb om stat og videnskab.

 Efter den første opkomst, under den italienske renæssance, af ideer og former for en statsdannelse, der bevidst fremmer de kreative åndsevner hos en voksende andel af befolkningen, og rollen af videnskabelige fremskridt som kilde til social rigdom, lancerede det daværende feudale oligarki knyttet til det daværende førende imperium, Venedig, en bevidst modoffensiv, hvor Paolo Sarpi, som den førende tænker i det venetianske oligarki, fremførte sin lære, hvorfra Oplysningstiden og liberalisme i sidste ende udviklede sig. Ideen var at kontrollere den videnskabelige debat, men at fornægte evnen til at erkende og opdage reelle universelle principper, at undertrykke potentialet for ‘Prometheus’ (der ifølge sagnet gav mennesket ilden, red.) – om nødvendigt med magt – at reducere mennesker til niveauet for sansemæssig oplevelse, og dogmatisere det tilbagestående i ”den menneskelig natur”.

 Fra denne tradition udsprang den mekanistiske videnskabelige tradition forbundet med Galilei Galileo og Isaac Newton, John von Neumanns og Norbert Wieners spil- og informationsteori, og for nyligt de algoritmer, der ligger til grund for derivathandlen i dagens kasinoøkonomi. Det empiriske og materialistiske dogme og dekadente menneskebillede, der blev bragt til torvs af Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Malthus, Jeremy Bentham, John Locke og John Stuart Mill, er stadig den dag i dag grundlaget for den britiske liberalisme, og den virus, der mere end noget andet, har bidraget til den nuværende tilstand i verden.

 Det britiske imperiums oligarkiske tankegang, der benægter alle mennesker, men især alle farvede mennesker, den guddommelige gnist af kreativitet bliver udtrykt i fuld klarhed i adskillige skrifter og udsagn, hvis blot folk bryder sig om at se efter det, fra prins Phillips berygtede ønske om blive reinkarneret som et dødbringende virus for at hjælpe med at reducere overbefolkningen af den menneskelige race, til det foragtelige syn der blev udtrykt af Adam Smith i hans ”Theory of the Moral Sentiment” fra 1759:

 ”Administrationen af universets store system… omsorgen for rationelle og fornuftige væseners universelle lykke er Guds – og ikke menneskets – afdeling. Mennesket er tildelt en langt mere ydmyg rolle, hvilken meget bedre svarer til svagheden af hans evner, og hans begrænsede forståelse; menneskets rolle vedrører hans egen lykke, og den af hans familie, hans venner, hans land … Naturen leder os til størstedelen af dette med oprindelige og øjeblikkelige instinkter. Sult, tørst, den lidenskab der forener kønnene, kærligheden til glæde og frygt for smerte, får os til at opfylde disse mål for deres egen skyld og uden nogen overvejelser vedrørende deres tilbøjelighed til at gavne de større mål, som ‘naturens store dirigent’ havde til hensigt at opnå med dem.”

 Eftersom alle disse egenskaber gælder lige såvel for dyr, er det åbenlyst også i orden at ‘udrense flokken’ med jævne mellemrum, ligesom spartanerne dræbte heloterne, da de troede, de ville blive for mange. Dette misantropiske billede af mennesket forstærkes gennem ren racisme, som Bertrand Russell udtrykte det så skamløst i The Prospects of Industrial Civilization:

 ”Den hvide befolkning i verden vil snart ophøre med at vokse. De asiatiske racer vil blive flere, og negrene endnu flere, før deres fødselsrate falder tilstrækkeligt til at gøre deres antal stabilt uden hjælp af krig og pest… Indtil det sker, kan fordelene, som socialismen sigter mod, kun delvist realiseres, og de mindre frugtbare racer bliver nødt til at forsvare sig mod de mere frodige ved metoder, der er modbydelige, omend de er nødvendige.”

 Det er netop denne racistiske ideologi, der var retfærdiggørelsen af kolonialisme, slavehandelen, opiumskrigene, og for at være ærlig, er det i sidste ende også årsagen til den monumentale ligegyldighed, som store dele af befolkningen i Vesten viser, når de hører nyheden om græshoppesværme i Afrika og i nogle asiatiske lande, som kunne have været elimineret for to måneder siden til en omkostning af kun 75 millioner dollars.

 Og intet har ændret sig i den grundlæggende støtte til eugenik (racehygiejne –red.) blandt repræsentanter for imperiet. Dette blev endnu en gang understreget af en skribent i Daily Telegraph, i en artikel af Jeremy Warner i begyndelsen af marts:

”Ikke for at gå i detaljer, men fra et ganske uengageret økonomisk perspektiv, kunne COVID-19 sågar vise sig at være en smule gavnlig i det længere løb, ved uforholdsmæssigt at rense ud blandt ældre pensionister).”

Det er disse barbariske præmisser for det liberale dogme, selv hvis det næppe er moderigtigt at indrømme deres eksistens i de såkaldte udviklede lande, som for mange år siden førte Lyndon LaRouche til at insistere på, at en kombination af de fire økonomisk og militært vigtigste lande i verden – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – var nødvendig for at gennemføre den bydende nødvendige reorganisering af verdensordenen. Denne reorganisering må dog begynde med den utvetydige og bestemte afvisning af dette liberale dogmes menneskesyn samt dets politiske implikationer. Det britiske imperium i alle dets fremtoninger, men mest af alt dets kontrol over finanssystemet må tilendebringes.

Disse fire nationer – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – må øjeblikkeligt sammenkalde en hastekonference og indføre et nyt Bretton Woods-system, der realiserer Franklin Roosevelts fulde intention ved at skabe et kreditsystem, som garanterer, en gang for alle, industrialiseringen af udviklingssektoren. Det må begynde med virkeliggørelsen af et verdenssundhedssystem, der opbygger et sundhedsvæsen i hvert eneste land på denne klode. Først og fremmest med et lynprogram for at bekæmpe coronavirusset, men derefter at opnå den samme standard, som fandtes under Hill-Burton-loven i USA, eller som den var i Tyskland og Frankrig, før privatiseringen i 1970’erne. Som Roosevelt formulerede det i sin Tale til Nationen i 1941, i sin berømte erklæring om de ”Fire Friheder”, hvor han sagde: ”Den tredje [frihed] er friheden for mangel – hvilket oversat i globale vendinger betyder en økonomisk forståelse, der garanterer enhver nations indbyggere et sundt og fredeligt liv – over alt i verden”. Førstedamen, Eleanor Roosevelt, gjorde det til sin personlige mission at sikre, at disse Fire Friheder blev indlemmet i FN’s Verdenserklæring om Menneskerettighederne.

I Lyndon LaRouches ”Udkast til Samarbejdsaftale mellem USA og Sovjetunionen” fra 1984, der definerede principperne og grundlaget for det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI), som han foreslog, og som blev erklæret for USA’s officielle politik af Præsident Reagan d. 23. marts, 1983, og som gentagne gange blev tilbudt Sovjetunionen for at samarbejde om et omfattende nedrustningsprogram, definerede LaRouche den overbevisning, der repræsenterede et absolut afgørende aspekt af hans livs arbejde og denne organisations mission. Den første del af dette skrift, hvis principper også gælder for samarbejdet mellem de fire nationer og alle andre, som beslutter sig for at deltage i dette nye partnerskab, lyder:

”Det politiske grundlag for varig fred må være: a) den uforbeholdne suverænitet for hver eneste og alle nationalstater, og b) samarbejde blandt suveræne nationalstater for at fremme ubegrænsede muligheder for at deltage i fordelene af teknologisk fremskridt, til fælles gavn for alle og enhver. Den mest afgørende del af en sådan permanent fredspolitiks gennemførelse nu, er en dybtgående forandring i de monetære, økonomiske og politiske relationer mellem de dominerende nationer, og de relativt underordnede nationer, ofte klassificeret som ’udviklingslande.’ Medmindre de vedblivende uligheder i kølvandet på den moderne kolonialisme i stigende grad løses, vil ingen vedvarende fred på denne planet være mulig. Såfremt USA og Sovjetunionen anerkender, at fremskridt for de produktive arbejdskræfter på hele planeten er i hver og begge parters vitale interesse, er de to stormagter forbundet i denne grad og på denne måde af en fælles interesse. Dette er kernen af den praktiserede politiske og økonomiske politik, uundværlig for at fostre en vedvarende fred mellem disse to stormagter.”

I betragtning af den eskalerende anti-Kina-kampagne, igangsat af britisk efterretningsvæsen, som har folk i Præsident Trumps følge, der forsøger at overgå hinanden, nærmest time efter time, i deres anklager mod Kina, inklusive udenrigsminister Pompeo, [direktør for Handels- og Industripolitik] Peter Navarro, [senator] Lindsey Graham, og [FoxTV-værten] Tucker Carlson, mens diverse magtdemonstrationer af USA og NATO blot synes at være begrænsede af antallet af COVID-19-smittede blandt nogle af deres mandskaber, er det eksistentielle spørgsmål, hvordan verden kan komme fri af denne farlige optrapning. Er vi dømt til at genopleve hvordan den næststærkestes magtovertagelse af herredømmet fører til krig, som allerede er hændt tolv gange i historien?

Kombinationen af corona-pandemien, verdens hungersnødskrise, den kommende finansielle, hyperinflationære eksplosion og depressionen af den globale, reelle økonomi er så overvældende, at det burde være klart for ethvert tænkende menneske, at menneskeheden kun kan overvinde denne krise, hvis USA’s og Kinas økonomiske potentiale – understøttet af andre industrielle lande – forenes i fælles indsats og forøges, således at de fornødne kapaciteter kan skabes for at sikre sundhedspleje, infrastruktur og industri- og fødevareproduktion. Det er den eksistentielle interesse af hvert individ og af hver nation på denne planet at arbejde hen imod dette mål. Vi bliver nødt til at skabe et globalt kor blandt alle andre nationer og mange millioner af mennesker for at kræve præcist dette!

Konflikten mellem USA og Kina eksisterer kun, hvis de kræfter i begge partier i USA sejrer, som er i traditionen fra H.G. Wells’ ”Åbne Konspiration”, med den idé at USA accepterer det britiske imperiums model som grundlag for en anglo-amerikansk kontrolleret unipolær orden til at kontrollere verden. Denne vision af H.G. Wells blev videreført af William Yandell Elliot, mentor til Kissinger, Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, og til og med de neokonservative fra Projektet for et Nyt Amerikansk Århundrede (PNAC). Hvis, på den anden side, USA vender tilbage til sin sande tradition fra Uafhængighedserklæringen imod det Britiske Imperium, og Alexander Hamiltons Amerikanske økonomiske System, da vil der være et stort åndsslægtskab med Kinas økonomiske model, som indeholder mange af Alexander Hamiltons, Friedrich Lists og Henry C. Careys principper. På samme måde var Sun Yat-sen, grundlæggeren af det moderne Kina, præget meget af det Amerikanske System.

På det presserende hastetopmøde med USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien, og på den dernæst umiddelbart nødvendige stiftende konference af et Nyt Bretton Woods-system, kan statslederne genoplive ånden fra den oprindelige Bretton Woods-konference, hvor lederen af den kinesiske delegation, H.H. Kung, indsendte Sun Yat-sens forslag for en ”International Udviklingsorganisation.” Kung, en af Sun Yat-sens svogre, sagde i sin tale i Bretton Woods:

”Kina ser frem til en periode med stor økonomisk udvikling og ekspansion efter krigen. Dette inkluderer et program for omfattende industrialisering, udover udviklingen og moderniseringen af landbruget. Det er min faste overbevisning, at et økonomisk stærkt Kina er en uundværlig betingelse for fredens bevarelse og en forbedring af verdens trivsel. Efter den 1. Verdenskrig foreslog Dr. Sun Yat-sen en plan for det han kaldte ’den internationale udvikling af Kina.’ Han understregede princippet for samarbejde med venligsindede nationer og brugen af udenlandsk kapital til udviklingen af Kinas ressourcer. Dr. Suns lære udgjorde grundlaget for Kinas nationale politik. Amerika og andre i de Forenede Nationer, håber jeg, vil tage aktiv del i at medvirke til udviklingen af Kina i efterkrigstiden.”

Som sagt støttede Roosevelt internationaliseringen af denne udviklingspolitik under forhandlingerne, og han betragtede forhøjelsen af levestandarden over hele verden som nøglen til global stabilitet. Og han så internationaliseringen af New Deal-politikken som vejen til at gøre det.

 De fire vigtigste nationer i verden – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – må nu etablere et nyt Bretton Woods-system, og sammen med alle nationer, der ønsker at tilslutte sig, et nyt paradigme for internationalt samarbejde mellem nationer, der styres af menneskehedens fælles mål. Den fjerde af Lyndon LaRouches fire love definerer den kvalitativt højere økonomiske platform, det højere niveau af fornuft, af ‘Coincidentia Oppositorum’ (modsætningernes sammenfald) som udviklet af Nicholas Cusanus (1401–1464, tysk filosof, teolog, jurist og astronom; nøglefigur i den europæiske renæssance –red.), hvorpå modsætningerne forbundet med geopolitisk konfrontation kan overvindes.

 Internationalt samarbejde mellem videnskabsfolk, der udelukkende baserer sig på verificerbare universelle fysiske principper, må erstatte forrang for politik baseret på ideologi og interesser. Forskning i “livsvidenskaber”, en bedre forståelse af hvad der forårsager livets egenskaber og dets oprindelse i universet, er forudsætningen for at bekæmpe coronavirus og alle andre potentielle virologiske, bakterielle og andre sygdomsprocesser. Som en del af verdenssundhedssystemet er vi nødt til at opbygge samarbejdende medicinske forskningscentre internationalt, hvor også unge forskere fra alle udviklingslande kan blive uddannet. Den dybtgående lære af coronavirus-pandemien er, at levering af sundhedspleje skal være et fælles gode og ikke tjene til at maksimere overskuddet for private interesser. Resultaterne af denne forskning skal derfor straks leveres til alle universiteter, hospitaler og medicinsk personale i alle nationer.

 Et andet område, hvor internationalt samarbejde i retning af de fælles mål for menneskeheden er uundværlig, er opnåelsen af energi- og råmaterialesikkerhed, hvilket vil være muligt med beherskelsen af termonuklear fusion og den tilhørende udvindingsproces for grundstoffer (‘fusion torch’). Det internationale ITER-projekt på Cadarache-anlægget i det sydlige Frankrig, en tokamak-kernefusionsreaktor og internationalt forskningsprojekt, der allerede involverer samarbejde fra 34 lande, er en god start, men finansieringen af ITER og andre modeller for nuklear fusion må forøges massivt. En af LaRouches centrale opdagelser er sammenhængen mellem energi-gennemstrømningstætheden, som anvendt i produktionsprocessen, og den relative potentielle befolkningstæthed. Beherskelse af nuklear fusion er bydende nødvendigt, ikke kun for den levende befolkning, men især for bemandet rumfart.

 Rumforskning i sig selv er et område, der er utænkeligt uden internationalt samarbejde, og som mere end nogen anden videnskabsgren på en positiv måde påviser, hvad pandemien demonstrerer negativt: At vi faktisk er den ene art, der er bestemt af dens fremtid, og hvis langsigtede overlevelsesevne afhænger af vores evne til at lære at forstå og beherske universets love – inklusive de mindst 2 billioner galakser, som Hubble-teleskopet har været i stand til at verificere. Forsvar mod asteroider, meteorer og kometer er kun et blandt mange vigtige elementer i dette. For udviklingslandene er ubegrænset deltagelse i forskningsprojekter den bedste måde – gennem videnskabelig og teknologisk ‘kvantespring’ – at skabe forudsætningerne for økonomier, der er i stand til at give alle borgere et godt og sikkert liv.

 Nicholas fra Cusa skrev allerede tilbage i det 15. århundrede, at alle opdagelser inden for videnskab straks skulle stilles til rådighed for repræsentanter for alle lande, for ikke unødvendigt at holde udviklingen af nogen af dem tilbage. Han fandt også, at konkordans, harmoni, i makrokosmos kun er mulig, når alle mikrokosmos udvikler sig bedst muligt. Det nye paradigme, som vi er nødt til at forme for samarbejdet mellem nationer, må tage udgangspunkt i hele menneskehedens fælles interesse, således at alle nationer og kulturer – som i kontrapunkt, som i en fuga – er sammenflettet og stiger dynamisk til højere stadier af anti-entropisk udvikling.

 Er vi, som menneskelig civilisation, på dette sene stadium af begivenhederne i stand til at afværge tsunamien af pandemier, hungersnød, finanskrise, depression og faren for en ny verdenskrig? I så fald har verden brug for dette topmøde mellem de fire nationer nu! Hvis et sådant topmøde ville bekendtgøre alle disse ændringer – et nyt Bretton Woods-system, at de fire stormagter står skulder ved skulder i opbygningen af et globalt udviklingsprogram i form af en ”Ny Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen”, et verdenssundhedssystem, et internationalt lynprogram for fusion og beslægtet forskning, en massiv opgradering af internationalt rumforskningssamarbejde, og sidst men ikke mindst, en dialog mellem alle nationers klassiske traditioner, med det formål at udløse en ny renæssance af klassiske kulturer på lignende, men endnu smukkere, vis, som den store italienske renæssance overvandt rædslerne fra den mørke tidsalder i det 14. århundrede – så kan en ny æra af menneskeheden fødes!

 Er der et rimeligt håb om, at vi kan overvinde menneskehedens nuværende dybe krise?  Absolut! vil jeg sige. Vi er den hidtil eneste kendte kreative art i universet, som har evnen til at opdage nye principper for vores univers igen og igen; hvilket indebærer, at der er et åndsslægtskab mellem vores kreative mentale processer og disse fysiske love.

 En tanke, der belyser dette optimistiske perspektiv, vedrører et aspekt af rumforskningen; nemlig den tilsyneladende accelererede aldringsproces under betingelse af vægtløshed og ændringen af denne proces i hyper-tyngdekraft. En bedre forståelse af denne ”rum-gerontologi” (alderdomsforskning –red.) er åbenlyst afgørende for fremtidig bemandet rumfart til Mars og i interstellart rum, og det forventes, at det væsentligt vil øge menneskets evne til at have et længere, sundt liv.

 Hvis man tager i betragtning, at Schubert kun blev 31 år gammel, Mozart 35, Dante 36, Schiller 45, Shakespeare 52 og Beethoven bare 56, har man en idé om, hvor meget fremtidens genier med en forventet levealder på 120 eller 150 år vil være i stand til at bidrage til menneskehedens udvikling!

 Derfor, slut jer til os for at bringe det britiske imperium til ophør! Og lad os skabe en ægte menneskelig fremtid for hele menneskeheden! Tak.

 




Schiller-Konference – En ny måde at tænke på bringer verden sammen for et Nyt Paradigme

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.

 




Panel 2: “For en bedre forståelse af hvordan vores univers fungerer”
Schiller Instituttets internationale videokonference den 25. april 2020

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

 

 

 





Panel 1: “Det presserende behov for at erstatte geopolitikken
med et nyt paradigme i internationale relationer”.
Schiller Instituttets internationale videokonference den 25. april 2020

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.




Den vigtigste dag i dit liv

Den 24. april (EIRNS) – Af gode grunde har Schiller Instituttets internationale konference, der begynder i dag, overskriften ”Menneskehedens Eksistens afhænger af Skabelsen af et Nyt Paradigme!” Og ligeså, af gode grunde, advarer konferencens indbydelse fra begyndelsen:

”Konferencen finder sted i en tid, der udfordrer vores moralske evne til at overleve. Selv før dobbeltudbruddet af corona-pandemien og den igangværende finansielle eksplosion, var det tydeligt, at den gamle verdensorden var i færd med at falde fra hinanden.”

Coronavirusset er nu på ubarmhjertig fremmarch: Der har kun været substantiel tilbagegang for dens rasen, i Kina, Sydkorea, og spredte områder i enkelte lande. Den mindre udviklede sektor, eller ”Den tredje Verden”, begynder nu at mærke hele dens raseri. I Manaus, Brasilien – en havneby ved Amazonfloden med 2 millioner indbygger, dybt inde i Sydamerikas indre, har COVID-19 oversvømmet regionens skrøbelige sundhedssystem, og ført Manaus’ borgmester, Virgilio Neto, til at anråbe: ”Det er scener fra en gyserfilm. Vi befinder os ikke længere i en nødstilstand, men nærmere i en absolut katastrofe.”

Forsøg ikke at finde en hurtigt løsning på corona-krisen; der findes ingen. Kun en komplet omvæltning af det sidste halve århundredes britiske, imperiale udplyndringspolitik vil kunne tage fat på pandemiens bagvedliggende årsag.

På den finansielle side har USA’s centralbank lige bekendtgjort dens aktiver i sin ugentlige opdatering, som reflekterer de ”kvantitative lempelser” og lignende redningsaktioner. Det beløber sig nu til 6,7 billioner $, sammenlignet med 4,2 billioner $ den 4. marts – en stigning på mere end 50% indenfor blot syv uger. Og Morgan Stanley forudser, at dette vil stige til 9 billioner $ i juni måned. Dette er ikke en politik; det er en formel for en hyperinflationær eksplosion af katastrofale proportioner, som Lyndon LaRouche længe har advaret om.

Så, det er tid til en forandring; det er tid til at etablere et nyt paradigme, der, som konferenceindbydelsen konkluderer, vil ”iværksætte en presserende reorganisering af det bankerotte finanssystem gennem et Nyt Bretton Woods-system, og etablere et nyt niveau for internationalt samarbejde angående strategiske spørgsmål, fælles videnskabelige bestræbelser, fysisk økonomi og en kulturel renæssance.”




Når vrangforestillingerne rives væk, huskes Lyndon LaRouches vise ord

Den 10. april (EIRNS)—Mario Delgado, et førende medlem af regeringspartiet i Mexico,
forlangte i dag et gældsmoratorium for hele Sydamerika. Tidligere på ugen havde Mexicos
præsident López Obrador sagt, at det kolossale sammenbrud af det offentlige
sundhedsvæsen og af økonomien, under COVID-19-krisens vægt, demonstrerer
”dimensionen af den neoliberale politiks fiasko. Dette er et af de mest fordærvede udslag
af den politik, som blev pålagt os for 36 år siden”.

Det var præsidentens forgænger, José López Portillo, der bød Lyndon LaRouche
velkommen til Nationalpaladset i 1982, hvor LaRouche opfordrede præsidenten til at
skabe et ’skyldneres kartel’ sammen med andre sydamerikanske ledere, erklære et
gældsmoratorium, og iværksætte en industriel omdannelse af hele den vestlige halvkugle,
som beskrevet i LaRouches forslag, Operation Juárez. Efterfølgende, i 1998, mens han
var vært for Helga Zepp-LaRouches besøg, fremsatte López Portillo sin, nu berømte,
erklæring: ”Tiden er kommet til, at verden må lytte til Lyndon LaRouches vise ord.”
Som de økonomiske, finansielle og sociale livsbetingelser i stigende grad falder fra
hinanden, husker verden både advarslerne givet af hr. LaRouche om de katastrofale,
globale konsekvenser af en fortsat billigelse af neoliberal politik i britisk stil, og løsningerne
som LaRouche foreslog, der var ligeså nødvendige dengang, som de er det i dag.

Den 25.-26. april vil Helga Zepp-LaRouche være vært for Schiller Instituttets internationale
konference, online over internettet, med temaet: ”Menneskehedens Eksistens afhænger
nu af Skabelsen af et Nyt Paradigme!” Førende talsmænd og -kvinder fra hele verden vil
diskutere den påtrængende nødvendighed for en international mobilisering af de
produktive kræfter, for at forsyne de fattigste lande med den desperat nødvendige
sundhedsinfrastruktur, specielt de i Afrika, for at forhindre et holocaust af virkelig historiske
proportioner. På konferencen vil man også diskutere den påkrævede omdannelse af de
vestlige nationer, som må bortkaste det fejlagtige neoliberale system, og iværksætte et nyt
paradigme: et nationalt fællesskab, grundlagt på menneskehedens fælles mål. Væsentligt
for denne indsats er samarbejdet mellem Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA.

Præsident Trump har påtaget sig kampen mod det neoliberale paradigme for frihandel,
liberalisering og afindustrialisering, ved at bruge præsidentskabets magt, som bemyndiget
af forfatningen, til at genetablere industriel produktion, imens kredit udstedes for at
imødegå den alvorlige, sociale krise, som pandemien har skabt. Han baserer hverken sin
styrke på det ene eller andet parti, men direkte på befolkningen, gennem sin Twitter-konto,
stormøder, og nu den daglige pressebriefing om kampen mod COVID-19, hvor han stiller
op over for en løgnagtig, fjendtlig presse, men står til ansvar, ikke for dem, men for
befolkningen. Gang på gang understreger han vigtigheden af gode relationer med
Rusland, og specielt med Kina.

Og dog er han omringet af folk som åbent modsiger ham om dette. Selv Justitsminister Bill
Barr, som har ledt indsatsen for at identificere og anklage de korrupte efterretningsagenter
fra Obama-tiden, der deltog i det britisk anførte kupforsøg mod Trump, rettede heftige
udfald mod Kina, skvaldrende op om at ”Kina er en meget seriøs trussel mod USA,
geopolitisk, økonomisk, militært, og en trussel mod vore institutioners integritet pga. af
deres evne til at påvirke ting”. Indser Justitsminister Barr, at sådanne vrøvlerier, hvis de
lykkes med at undergrave det tætte samarbejde mellem USA og Kina om at stoppe
COVID-19-pandemien, vil forårsage titusindvis, eller millioner af dødsfald? Vil han ikke
erkende, at Kina allerede forsyner den amerikanske befolkning med en afgørende margen
af støtte, med fragtfly fyldt med medicinsk udstyr, organiseret af hans chef, Præsident
Trump, med Præsident Xi Jinping, mens de sender læger, medicinske produkter, og
testudstyr til over 150 lande, som en del af deres program for Sundhedssilkevejen?

Mobiliser alle dem du kan til at registrere sig til konferencen den 25.-26. april på:
https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/20200425_national_conference




Systemer er menneskskabte – Du kan ændre dem når en bryder sammen
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast m. Helga Zepp-LaRouche d. 1. april 2020

Den 1. april. Da Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav et overblik over den fatale krise som menneskeheden står overfor, påmindede hun seerne om at “Systemer er menneskeskabte”, og kan forandres når de bryder sammen.

Hendes mand advarede, så tidligt som i 1973, om at det globale neoliberale system, der kom til da Nixon afsluttede Bretton Woods systemet, med dets politiske holdninger til billig arbejdskraft, billige råmaterialer og den spekulative kasino-økonomi, ville lede til nye globale pandemier. Hvis du sænker levestandarder, vil lavere livsformer tage over, sagde han.

Vores nutidige dobbelte virusangreb, fra coronavirus pandemien til kollapset af finanssystemet bekræfter præcisionen afa LaRouche’s advarsler. Det som gør situationen værre, er Vestens moralske arrogance. De som promoverer Grønne “løsninger” i dag, ville dømme menneskeheden til et folkemord meget værre end Hitlers.

Der er dog en reel modstand mod disse politikker. Hun beskrev den passion, som udvistes af nogle unge mennesker på et ungdomskonferencekald med hende i tirsdags, hvor mere end 70 personer engagerede sig i diskussioner om hvordan man skal gå fra det kollapsede system, til et Nyt Paradigme ved at mobilisere med agape og de magtfulde ideer som vores bevægelse har.

Samtalerne mellem præsident Trump og hans modparter i Kina og Rusland repræsenterer et træk i den rigtige retning – bidrag med os i at organisere vores internationale konference for at sikre at disse ideer bærer frugt. Ben (Schiller Instituttet) http://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/

 

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, April 1, 2020 With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

– Systems Are Manmade — – – You Can Change Systems When One Breaks Down –

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s April 1, 2020. We’re clearly in the midst of one of the most profound crises in modern history with the combined effects of a financial system that’s blowing out, and as well with the expanding pandemic of coronavirus. It’s clear that the old way of thinking no longer works. So, Helga, what’s your assessment, especially with the situation in the United States seeming to be heading out of control?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is an unprecedented crisis, and I think none of us has experienced anything like that in our lifetime. Maybe it was like that in the world wars, but it quickly is developing such a seriousness of the situation. I think that reality dawns on some people belatedly, but it is unavoidable, because the elements are that not only the coronavirus is hitting the United States and Europe, but it will really be extremely bad for the developing sector. We will come to that in a second. But I think first to start with the United States, yesterday’s White House coronavirus taskforce meeting, which was given by President Trump and his health advisors [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and [Dr. Deborah] Birx was really completely sober and sobering. What they basically said is that if everything is being done right now, maybe the number of deaths can be reduced to 100,000 or 240,000 people. But if things go wrong, it may be 1-2 million. Right now, it does not look like this is going to be an easy job. If you look, for example, to situations like New York and New Jersey where you have the hotspots, with the highest infection rates exponentially growing right now, it is quite desperate. Despite Governor Cuomo trying to get sufficient ventilators for the expected outbreak, he said he was only able to get 2500 ventilators in two weeks from now from China, but that he is lacking 15,000. Obviously all the other states in the United States were in a bidding war to get ventilators until FEMA took it over, and is now organizing it centrally. Ventilators are in the critical phase of the coronavirus infection, that which is lifesaving. If there are no ventilators, then these people will just die. It is a very serious situation. For an industrialized country, it has unbelievable social consequences. For example, they let out the prisoners in Rikers Island, a famous prison, and they are now, because they have no other place to go, hanging out in Penn Station where they get food deliveries from the guardian angels. Then, you have 114,000 homeless children in New York alone, who used to get meals in the schools. So, you have all kinds of social consequences which really show the underlying problem of the lack of infrastructure investment, the privatization and dismantling of the health system over the last decades; all of that is now really coming to a point of complete crisis. There are incredible efforts being made to retool some of the industries, there is an air bridge which has been established with many planes from China and other Asian countries — 50 planes all together. There were yesterday, the first Russian airplane coming to the United States delivering medical support. So, there is an incredible mobilization going on, but it is also very clear that this is a pandemic, and you will have mass unemployment. Some people are saying that the unemployment in the United States may go up to 30%; so this is really an unbelievable crisis.

SCHLANGER: Helga, you talk about the crisis affecting the United States, and how desperate it is. What are we seeing now in countries like Africa? India has got a total lockdown; Indonesia is now in the midst of a developing crisis. This is obviously much more dangerous in the developing sector.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: If you think that the United States is a very well industrialized country — or, at least it used to be. If you go to Africa or the other developing areas of the world, supposedly developing, not so developing countries, it will be really very bad. You have some countries like South Africa, Kenya, Lagos is completely overwhelmed already, where you don’t have that kind of a health system. And you have already infectious diseases; you have HIV, tuberculosis, famine, malnutrition. This is really a powder keg. The head of the World Health Organization [WHO], Dr. Tedros, said that both in the United States and in Africa, the next two weeks will tell how bad the crisis will be. But so far, there is a certain delay factor, because of the poor transport connections of the African continent to the rest of the world, it arrived relatively late. But now it’s there, and there is the absolute danger that this will spread. You have half of the world de facto locked down; that’s incredible! You have India, a country of 1.3 billion people, in a lockdown. But that obviously is relative, because many day workers — people who just work for a day’s pay in big cities like Delhi — are now all fleeing these big cities, because they don’t earn any money, and they have absolutely no reserves. So you see these pictures where these poor people get on crowded buses, where they are absolutely not in a position to keep social distance, and then they are trying to rush home to their rural areas. But there is no health system. Despite the fact that Prime Minister Modi had quite some success with the “Clean India” campaign, and the “Modi Care” where he tried to improve the health care system, naturally this is all not enough. You have places like Jakarta in Indonesia — 10 million people in one city. Half of the people don’t have access to clean water. A similar situation is in many developing countries, including Mexico, including Peru. So, we are really looking at an unprecedented world crisis. The danger is that this will overwhelm the health systems; there is not enough production possible. The winter, which is now developing in the Southern Hemisphere, will favor the spread of the virus. You really will probably see many millions of people dying. I think this makes very clear that we need urgently a completely different system. Nothing will be like it was before. I think we have to go into a mass mobilization internationally; which the Schiller Institute is already engaged in, to establish a new world economic order. We have called for that for a very long time, but immediately in this situation it requires a summit of the most important powerful countries: China, Russia, India, the United States. They have to establish a new system. What we need is a completely new system. All the rules of the liberal economy, of the neo-liberal model, the cheap labor markets, the out-sourcing, all of that has to be replaced; and it has to start with the immediate building of a world health system where a decent health system is being built up in every single country. That must be the beginning of an industrial revolution for the whole world. Nothing short of that will do. That means we need a New Bretton Woods system, and a new credit system to finance that. If you agree with that, then help us in this mobilization, because what is at stake are the lives of many millions of people, and maybe yourself.

SCHLANGER: Over the last few days, President Trump had discussions with President Xi Jinping of China and President Putin of Russia. Do you see this as a positive step towards the idea of a summit? These are bilateral discussions, but so far we haven’t seen a response to your call on the level needed.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s a step in the right direction. The fact that Trump and Xi Jinping re-established contact, that there were discussions between the health ministers, that the United States started to accept this air bridge, that Trump started to discuss with Putin. All of these things are very positive, but they fall short. Also, the proposal by UNCTAD [UN Conference on Trade and Development], which proposed to have $2.5 trillion for building up the health sector in the developing sector, is a step in the right direction. $1 trillion is for debt write-off, $1 trillion is for Special Drawing Rights from the IMF, $500 billion is for a world health Marshall Plan. That is very positive, but when you count that, it’s still proverbial peanuts; because to build up a world health system needs much more than $500 billion. That’s for all the developing countries, not just for one country. It’s for the entire 180 or so developing countries; if you divide it, it’s just not enough.

SCHLANGER: There’s a lot of talk about the time lag in doing the emergency mobilization, getting the equipment, and other things. To me, the real time lag is the almost 45 years since your husband first sounded the warning in 1974 that a shift in the financial system to a neo-liberal new kind of colonial system would lead to this kind of pandemic. People obviously weren’t listening. The idea that there was no warning is completely false, isn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The first memorandum that the economic financial policies of the IMF and World Bank would lead to pandemics, he issued in 1973. Then in 1974, he initiated a Biological Holocaust Taskforce, which presented their findings of a study at the end of 1974. I was just rereading a report which he also initiated in 1985, which is one of several large studies which absolutely predicted why this would happen. There is a connection between the biological sphere — the biosphere — and the economy. If you lower the living standard and the energy of the system of the economic society, then lower forms of life of the biosphere just take over. He compared it at that time, and I think this is a very fitting image for today, he said that the cheap labor orientation towards the developing sector and keeping development down in the so-called Third World, has to be compared to Schachtian economics in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. He said a lot of deaths in the concentration camps came from forcing the people sitting in these camps to do hard labor. They would have to do work for 2-3000 calories, but they would only get food for about 1000 calories. Then it was just a question of time before they would die of over-exhaustion. That is a fitting image, because if you lower the living standard of the developing countries unnecessarily by denying them infrastructure, like the World Wildlife Fund did in all their campaigns to ruin the prospects for dams, for industrial development, just blocking development with phony arguments of ecologism. What you do then is you reduce the ability of people to withstand diseases. You lower their immune system, you make them susceptible to pandemics, and this is exactly what we see today. That was clear; we discussed it in no uncertain terms. He said, these policies would have more consequences than the genocide of Adolf Hitler. I absolutely want to repeat that. When you see people today who are indifferent, who say “I don’t care. What do I care about Africa? What do I car about Latin America?”; these are people who are morally the equivalent of Nuremburg criminals. If you remember at the Nuremburg trials, the judges said, you either knew or should have known, about what was going on in the Third Reich. And concerning the condition of the developing sector, the exact same thing can be said. The people who are pushing no development, who are more concerned about the little snail in some corner than millions of people, these are people who are criminal. And that criminality absolutely has to stop. We have to start rebuilding the world. And every life in Africa, in Latin America, and in Asia is as precious as any child in Germany, or in the United States or any other place. I am consciously using this rather stark language, because this complacency and this arrogance of the Euro-centrists, or the American-centrists has to stop. We are at a point of moral and economic breakdown crisis of the whole world. We need a new system, and that has to be mobilized, and it has to be gotten through. If we don’t do that, we are risking our humanity either physically — because it is not yet clear if it doesn’t lead to war as a consequence of conditions of a breakdown crisis — or it leads to our moral demise. I really think that we have to absolutely change this. We have to allow industrial development in every single country in the world, and we have to have a decent living standard. It is very easy, because China has shown the way, that you can bring infrastructure development as the precondition for development to every country. It is up to us in the so-called Western countries in Europe and the United States to absolutely change our ways.

SCHLANGER: I think it’s also important going back to Lyn’s warnings in the early 1970s that he identified individuals who were committed to population reduction, knowing this would happen. We’re seeing some of these same kinds of comments. You had mentioned before, people talking about “Oh, isn’t it wonderful! There are now blue skies!” There are people who are cheering on the demise of the elderly and the so-called “useless eaters”, aren’t there?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: There is the flagship magazine of the British Empire, which is just coming out with that line today — {The Economist}. They say, isn’t it wonderful that the economy is coming to a grinding halt? No CO2 emissions. We just have to make sure that after this crisis, we are not going back to normal. There are some other criminal people who call themselves economists, who also say that if this crisis stops and is over, we have to rebuild the economy and it has to be all based on climate protection. We have discussed the reasons why the Green ecology is exactly what caused this crisis; and if we would go back to the same policies which have caused this crisis, then we clearly do not have the moral fitness to survive.

SCHLANGER: Helga, you’ve been talking about the rebuilding of the whole world health system. You had a conference call yesterday morning with young people, where you called on them to take responsibility for the organizing process to do this. What is your sense of the ability to mobilize youth today to take on this task?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this was very encouraging, because this was the first such international youth call, and it had about 70-75 young people from all over the world; from the United States, Mexico, Peru, Pakistan, Africa, Europe, China. I think the discussion really reflected that these young people are morally absolutely committed to make sure that they have a future. The idea that every country has the right to have a decent health system is obvious. They are committed to bring this message to a lot of other young people, to the universities. They are committed to spread it other organizations, especially in the developing sector. All of them are really tuned in to the approach that you need the world leaders of the most important countries to change the system. I think this is important, because people have not really thought about it. You cannot sit out this crisis; you cannot just wait until it’s over. This is a pandemic, and it may come back in waves. It is intersected with the breakdown of the financial system, the collapse of the physical economy. The only to get out of that is to have a completely new system. Most people have not spent much thought on whether that is necessary or possible, or they say you can’t do that. Yes, you can do it. Systems are man-made; they are not built in the physical universe. They are man-made, and you can change the system. If the old system is not suitable for the common good of the people, then it has to be replaced. We have specified many times what that must look like: You need a global Glass-Steagall banking separation, you have to end the casino economy; you have to protect the commercial banks; you have to create a national bank in every country; you have to connect these national banks in a New Bretton Woods system which provides cheap long-term credit for clearly defined development projects. Then you have to have international cooperation. I think among the young people in particular, the idea that cooperation has to replace confrontation is a very easily understood idea. There were several especially young women — which made me especially happy, because I’m all for woman-power — and they especially emphasized that the passion which needs to be mobilized for that is agape. The change which has to occur must be based on a love for humanity. In this discussion, you could get an inkling of what the kind of new system will be like; namely, that the geopoliticians will be out. The people that think you can start endless wars just to make profit, this is an obsolete idea of troglodytes. The future must belong to young people who organize the world in different ways, in the interests of each country and vice versa. That was actually a very hopeful call, and I would urge people to get in contact with us to see how they can join it.

SCHLANGER: When you talk about troglodytes, look at what’s going on in Europe with the European Union; the battles that are going on around the continuation of the neo-liberal policies. This is in complete contrast to what you’re discussing with the young people, the complete absence of agape. Catch us up a little bit on what’s going on in the EU.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s almost a question of the past to talk about the EU. It’s really right now a question mark as to how long this construct will remain in place. There is no solidarity; there is a big feud right now between Germany and Italy, France, and the other southern European countries. It’s a little bit on the wrong issue; namely, this issue of Eurobonds, which I think is not a good idea. It’s still in the realm of banking bail-out. Just to mention in parentheses, the Federal Reserve just yesterday opened their repo credit facility to all other central banks. That means basically that they intend to help each other to bail each other out. The Federal Reserve earlier had allocated $4 trillion for the bail-out of the U.S. banking sector which was characterized by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie as the biggest transfer of wealth from the ordinary people to the very rich and the bankers. This is part of the Eurobonds, so I’m not in favor of the Eurobonds. The conflict which has arisen between Germany and Holland and Austria on the one side, and these other countries on the other side, pertains to a real issue. That is that obviously the countries of the south — especially Italy and Spain, and increasingly also France — are really suffering an incredible exponential growth rate of this virus, and they have demanded some finance mechanism organized by the EU, which was blocked by Germany in particular and Holland and Austria. So, what these countries are saying is, this is the ugly face of Europe. The tone becomes quite nasty. For example, the Italian media and I think also Prime Minister Conte were saying that if that would have been the attitude of the other European countries at the 1953 debt conference in London, where half of the German debt was forgiven, which obviously was an extremely important factor in the reconstruction of Germany after the Second World War, if that had not been done, then Germany would still live on the garbage piles. So, the tone is becoming nasty, and everybody — Italy, Spain, Serbia — all say that they got more help from China, from Russia, from Cuba, even the small country of Albania was sending 30 health personnel to Italy to help. You can really see who is your friend, and who is completely only motivated by other reasons. This will remain, and I think this anti-China campaign which is coming from Pompeo, from {Foreign Affairs} magazine, from the Council on Foreign Relations, who are all still in this absolutely vicious campaign against China, I think that will vanish. Because people in this crisis see who is helping, and who is not. I think the situation in Europe maybe in a week or two weeks when we talk next time, the EU may not exist. That’s not a bad thing, because it was a bad construction from the very beginning. It could not work. It never existed. There is no European people. There are many nations and many cultures, but the European bureaucracy is an evil structure which is not in correspondence to the interests of their own members. The sooner it is replaced by something else — either a Eurasian alliance of sovereign states from the Chinese Sea to Vladivostok to Lisbon — or some other kind of new alliance of sovereign republics working together for a new world economic order. That does not mean that European countries cannot work together, but they should not be under the tutelage of some supranational structure. I think we will see big changes in this coming period. It requires the active intervention of as many state citizens as possible. So, please get in contact with us and help us to try to change the agenda on a large scale.

SCHLANGER: Toward accomplishing that goal, the Schiller Institute is going to have an international conference April 25-26. Just give us a little bit of a sense of what you hope to come out of that conference with.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We had to shift that conference which was planned for sometime, to be an internet conference, because you can’t have physical conferences at this point. But in that lies also an advantage; namely, that you can reach much larger audiences. Therefore, people should start to register for that conference, because then you will be also supplied with additional information and materials you can read ahead of time to be prepared to participate as a more active person in this conference. What we will try to do is, we will try to discuss the issues at that conference which we think should be taken up these large governments. So, we will try to inform the population on the needed changes in the strategic alliance, the needed cultural changes, the need to go to a Classical renaissance of art and music. We will discuss the frontiers of science; what is necessary to defeat not only the coronavirus, but to really get a completely different sense of space medicine, of breakthroughs in optical biophysics in redefining what life is. What do we need to know to be able to combat such problems much better? And naturally, what must be the principles of physical economy when we rebuild the world economy. So, you should definitely get in touch with us, register for the conference, and be part of it.

SCHLANGER: I would encourage everyone to join this mobilization with a very simple thing. Share this webcast! Pass it around! Get your friends to watch it. Then, go to the Schiller Institute website, the LaRouche PAC website, and study these ideas. It’s these ideas which were generated from Lyndon LaRouche back in the 1960s and 1970s that are not only valid, but represent universal principles. It’s through a return to those kinds of principles that we can restore mankind. Helga, thank you very much for your comments and for joining us today. As you always say, hopefully we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, let’s do something to move mankind in a better direction.




Ingen sejr over COVID-19 uden at opnå et nyt økonomisk system og samarbejde, der viser vejen.  

Den 30. marts (EIRNS) – Et udtryk for status for spredningen af COVID-19, samt modsvaret herpå, er, at det anslås, at minimum en fjerdedel af verdens befolkning nu er underlagt restriktioner af bevægelsesfriheden siden Indiens ordre den 24. marts. Samtidig er graden af logistisk mobilisering fra sted til sted på en krigstids-skala. Denne pointe blev dramatiseret i USA i weekenden, ved eksempelvis at præsident Donald Trump personligt stod ved afgangskajen i Norfolk – det amerikanske NATO-center – da hospitalsskibet USNS Comfort afgik med ankomst til New York City i morgen. På samme måde holdt i New York guvernør, Andrew Cuomo, fredag den 27. marts sin daglige presse-briefing i Javits Centret i hjertet af Manhattan; centret er på fire dage omdannet til et hospital med 2.900 senge og åbner i morgen. Cuomo takkede hjemmeværnet (the National Guard) og Hærens Ingeniørkorps mange gange for deres arbejde.

Men tag ikke fejl. Årtierne med afvikling af medicinsk infrastruktur og folkesundhedssystemer i det transatlantiske område, og forhindring af en opbygning i Afrika, i store dele af den vestlige halvkugle, Sydasien og andre steder, betyder, at der stadig er store huller i kapaciteten til beskyttelse af liv.

Imens vi kæmper som ind i helvede for at redde liv må vi fremme kampen for at opnå etableringen af et nyt økonomisk system i menneskehedens tjeneste. Dette blev drøftet under gårsdagens LaRouchePAC-webcast,;En Apollo-mission for at redde menneskeheden: Opbygning af;Sundheds-silkevejen hvor Schiller Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav hovedtalen. Hun gentog sin opfordring til at suspendere aktiemarkederne, der er ude af kontrol, og træffe nødforanstaltninger for økonomisk reorganisering. Gør dette i forbindelse med drøftelser mellem stormagtledere, præsidenterne Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping og premierminister Narendra Modi ved et topmøde hurtigst muligt.

I opposition til ethvert sådant træk for et nyt system understregede finansminister Steven Mnuchin i dag gentagne gange, at finansministeriet og den amerikanske centralbank, Federal Reserve Bank (Fed), vil pumpe likviditet ind i Wall Streets/City of Londons døde system, ligesom at hælde benzin på et bål. Mnuchin sagde: ”Jeg taler med Jerome Powell, Fed-direktøren, hver dag. Han fortæller hvad han har brug for. Jeg har aldrig afvist ham.” Mnuchin fortsatte, ;Vi har $ 4 billioner i likviditet … der rulles ud i disse Fed-programmer;. Med andre ord, mens Mnuchin;holder sit foredrag om at hjælpe “mainstreet America” – og den føderale bistand er virkelig på sin plads i forhold til arbejdstagere, landmænd, hjælp til hospitaler, lokale og statslige regeringer og så videre i den nye CARES-lov, som Trump underskrev fredag — er Mnuchin i virkeligheden ved at gå ad helvede til.

Drivkraften til et nyt verdensøkonomisk system kommer fra opfordringer til gældssanering og omorganisering i Afrika og Sydamerika. I denne weekend sagde for eksempel Alicia Bárcena, direktør for FN’s Økonomiske Kommission for Latinamerika og Caribien (ECLAC): Vi er nødt til at gentænke hvilken type udviklingsmodel, der skal komme ud af denne krise. Det er nødvendigt at gentænke globaliseringen. Det latinamerikanske strategiske center for geopolitik (CELAG) opfordrede til eftergivelse af latinamerikanske nationers suveræne gæld til multilaterale långivere, såsom IMF, Verdensbanken osv., samt også til private kreditorer.

Fra Afrika udsendte Præsidiet for Den Afrikanske Unions stats- og regeringschefer en meddelelse den 26. marts, inden G20-topmødet, med opfordring til at træffe de nødvendige økonomiske foranstaltninger til at tackle COVID-19 og alle sygdomme. Det er kun siden januar 2017, at Afrika overhovedet har haft et center for sygdomskontrol og -forebyggelse og fem regionale underenheder.

Disse opråb kan besvares. Det eksisterende neo-britiske imperiale, monetaristiske system, der skabte sårbarheden over for sygdomme og lidelser, kan lukkes ned for altid. Og ved sejren over virusset kom et symbol på håb i dag, i form af det personlige besøg som Xi Jinping foretog til to store havne i Zhejiang-provinsen syd for Shanghai og andre lokaliteter, hvor den økonomiske aktivitet efter COVID-19 nu genoptages. Der er stadig behov for varsomhed imod en genopblussen af sygdommen, men det kan gøres.

Internationalt spiller Kina en ledende rolle ved at yde bistand til snesevis af lande i deres kamp mod COVID-19, og der er andre afgørende eksempler, f.eks. russisk bistand til Italien.

Denne samarbejdsånd er til stede mellem Xi og Trump, som det fremgik ved deres telefonkonference sidste torsdag. I dag påpegede Trump på et møde i Det hvide Hus med erhvervsledere om forsyningsmæssige spørgsmål, at medicinske forsyninger nu flyves ind til USA fra Kina og bidrager til Project Airbridge, der leverer forsyninger overalt i USA. En flylast fra Shanghai landede her til morgen i New York City, den første af 20 sådanne leverancer i april.

Overalt i USA er der en voksende ånd af samarbejde, hvilket guvernørerne og præsident Trump og Det hvide Hus på mange måder viste i løbet af weekenden i viruszonernes forskellige brændpunkter. Guvernør for Maryland, Larry Hogan, formand for den Nationale Sammenslutning af Guvernører, sagde på Fox News, at der kan være store flaskehalse i mangel på testudstyr, masker og ventilatorer, og der er frustration derude, men, vi er sammen om alt dette.”




Den hårde virkelighed: Enten solidarisk handling, eller stå overfor helvede på jord.
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 25. marts 2020

Helga Zepp LaRouche fremlagde i sin ugentlige webcast det hårde valg, som menneskeheden står overfor: Enten står vi sammen i solidaritet og samarbejde, eller fremtiden vil blive med kaos, krig og mere destruktive pandemiske sygdomme. Det er forkert at sige, at der ikke var noget forvarsel om at vi ville stå overfor en sådan eksistentiel krise. Lyndon LaRouche var forudvidende i sine forudsigelser tilbage i 1971, da han advarede om, at hvis beslutningen om at nedlægge Bretton Woods-systemet ikke blev omgjort, ville det sende menneskeheden ned i en mørk tidsalder.

Vi ser på nuværende tidspunkt denne advarsel blive til virkelighed, i de skrækscenarier med hospitaler der er overfyldte og med manglende udstyr i Italien, Spanien og New York City. Men vi ser også håbet om, at sygdommen kan bremses, og endda stoppes, som set I Kina.

Kineserne tilbyder nu nødvendig medicinsk udstyr til 82 lande, såvel som deres ekspertise i at bekæmpe coronavirusset. Kun ”sindssyge mennesker”, eller kriminelle, fortsætter med at fremføre de løgne, som bakker op om den antikinesiske retorik.
Zepp LaRouche belyste også sin opfordring til en ”pause” i de finansielle handler, for at tillade iværksættelsen af Glass-Steagall og et skridt hen imod et hamiltonisk nationalt kreditsystem, i stedet for en hyperinflationær løskøbelse af de værdiløse papirer der handles i kasinoøkonomien. Eksplosionen af de to kriser – pandemien og sammenbruddet af finanssystemet – giver os muligheden for at komme ud af krisen med et nyt menneskesyn, imens vi bygger det Nye Paradigme i samarbejde med suveræne nationer.

Læs det engelske afskrift nedenunder.

Our Stark Reality: Either Act in Solidarity, or Face Hell on Earth

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is March 25, 2020.

And there’s no question that we are now in the middle of a hammering effect of two crises, which are changing life on the planet dramatically: The coronavirus pandemic and the global financial disintegration. And this is where we have to start, to take a look at where we are in terms of the spread of this pandemic, so Helga, why don’t you begin with that?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is clearly very quickly spinning out of control, and I think it’s useful to look at the condition of several countries, to really quiet those idiots who still say that this is just a “flu,” and no worse than an influenza, and people who say this is all a conspiracy. This is a real pandemic, and it does require the absolute unified cooperation of all countries in one effort to overcome it — because, this is a pandemic. And a pandemic means it is raging across the globe.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India, shut down the whole country for 20 days, and that is 1.3 billion people. Now, if you have an idea of what the condition of life are in many parts of India, where you have real poverty, and not even infrastructure, no roads in some parts of the country, it will be, in all likelihood — despite the excellent healthcare system which India has — it probably will be much worse than in China.

It is spreading very rapidly to Latin America, to Peru, to Brazil, other countries; to Africa.

And if you look at the situation in Europe, the north of Italy is out of control. In Lombardy, the army had to come to transport the corpses from Bergamo and other places, because there were too many to be handled by the medical staff. Yesterday, the trade unions called for an eight-hour general strike, because they insist that the government should impose stricter measures, because of confusing messages people were still running around, trying to drive to Sicily by cars, and so forth; so this situation is one of really, absolute disaster.

If you look at Spain, where now the rate of infection is even greater than in Italy, you think you are in the 14th century, as you see from the paintings of Breugel and Bosch and Holbein, where, for example, in Madrid, there were so many dead that the army had to come to transport them temporarily to a big ice skating rink, because the hospital morgues were overwhelmed. Then, there are 400,000 people in nursing homes, where there is no protective gear, not enough personnel; the same situation is in Germany. I mean, Germany, the supposedly rich industrial power, because of a lack of precautions, and the budget cuts for 20 years, the health officials, like the chief of emergency of the Wolfsburg Clinic, Dr. Bernadett Erdmann, she said there is absolutely no protective gear for the medical personnel; others say they have only a few days, and if it strikes the medical personnel, that that is the end.

Then, in Great Britain, finally Boris Johnson, after pursuing for quite some time, this completely irresponsible policy of the “herd immunity,” which is the idea that 60% or 70% of the population must get infected first — which naturally means many people will die — he reversed course and imposed a lockdown, pretty much in the same way as Germany — only 2 people can meet, and only important missions can be done out of the home.

In the United States, the situation is getting to be the worst epicenter, according to the World Health Organization. New York and other places, but especially New York and Seattle, the West Coast, they’re red alert areas. Gov. Andrew Cuomo is doing a lot to do whatever is possible to increase the intensive care units in the hospitals, build more hospital beds, but it is an absolutely dramatic situation. Because if you think that you have all these homeless people, generally you have a complete lack of medical staff, you have a lack of medical equipment, and now the effects of the neo-liberal cutbacks of the last decades are really coming home to roost and we have a dramatic situation, which is why we absolutely need to reflect on the changes.

Obviously, we first have to do everything possible to stop it, and there, I can only say the experience from China, from Wuhan and Hubei province, is, you have to have testing, testing, testing, as much as possible; you have to gear up the production as much as you can, because what functioned in Wuhan was that they just tested everybody several times. They isolated the infected people, they put them in quarantine, and that did work. So, as a positive result, today, the quarantine in Wuhan can be lifted. But these kinds of measures which were applied in China are not being applied everywhere in the West and that lesson has to be learned very quickly.

SCHLANGER: Helga, you’ve mentioned in terms of the health emergency, the importance of cooperation and solidarity between nations. And we see an enormous effort coming out of China and also Russia, as well, to provide personal protective equipment and so on, and yet, we still hear the voices attacking China, blaming China — what’s wrong with these people?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: As you say, China is making an unbelievable effort: They’re now sending medical equipment to 82 countries around the world. They’re sending their medical teams, helping the African nations; they’re sending teams to Italy, to Spain, to France, to Iran, to Iraq, to Venezuela, and actually also to every country which asks for help, they’re responding to; even in Germany, where the district administrator from Heinsburg [North Rhine-Westphalia] was calling on President Xi Jinping for help. The general consul from Düsseldorf responded instantly on behalf of the Chinese ambassador in Berlin, and just asked how much equipment was needed and they would immediately cooperate. This district administrator was on a German TV program and the moderator asked, quite indignantly, why did you do that? And this administrator just said: Look, you have no idea. Heinsburg was the hotspot which was put under quarantine — it’s a small city but the entire population was under quarantine, because of a high infection rate; he said, you have no idea what it means to have days and days to treat so many people, and then have no equipment, so it was a complete act of desperation.

And I have said that any nursing situation, or any hospital, where you have a lack of equipment, people should ask China, because China has done certain things right, and the West has not. So, let me just say this: In an emergency like this, if you then have attacks on China and Russia, — and Cuba for that matter — I think these people are either insane, that they just don’t have the moral fitness to survive, or they’re criminal. And there are right now many think tanks and mainstream media that are still on this rampage. The think tank CSIS, the American Enterprise Institute, both had such statements, blaming even the Belt and Road Initiative and connectivity for [spreading the virus]. This is just completely insane, and shows a very evil intention. A certain moderator on the 2nd Channel on German TV yesterday, went into a raving attack, commenting on the fact that Wuhan is now ending the quarantine, and that they can also reactivate the economy; going into a really rabid, this moderator should be test for rabies, because something is wrong with the way he thinks.

If you look at what China did, and that cannot be stressed enough, China alleviated 850 million people from poverty in the last decades. Because of that, it became the second strongest economy in the world, and if China would not have done that, it would not have been in the position to react to the outbreak of the pandemic the way it did: Namely by immediately taking strict measures in Wuhan and Hubei province, by sending 42,000 medical staffers from around the country, and the whole country went into solidarity supporting this most-affected region. And that was successful, so now, they can lift the quarantine. And naturally, they have geared up their whole production to produce testing kits, masks, protective clothing, respiratory ventilators, and they have now decided to keep this up despite the fact that the crisis has somehow slowed down and signs of hope that it will be lessened inside China, so that they can supply the rest of the world.

To attack that, is, as I said, shows either an insane mind or a criminal intention.

I think what China is doing, and Russia for that matter, who have sent large amounts of support to Italy, and Cuba which has sent many medical teams around the world, these countries should be praised and this ideological indoctrination which some people cannot get rid, really has to be marked as a sign of senility or worse.

SCHLANGER: One of the other signs of insanity are people who are saying “No one could have predicted this, that’s why we’re not prepared.” But it’s clear, there’s a lack of personal protection equipment, a lack of ventilators, lack of hospital beds, and the idea that no one could have known about this, is completely false, as proven by what your late husband Lyndon LaRouche, has been warning about, going back to the 1971 break with the Bretton Woods system. And given the economic crisis that’s a part of this emergency, I think it’s really important for people to hear from you, precisely what Lyn had said and tried to do to get us to prepare for this.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. As you said, he warned that when Nixon took down the Bretton Woods system in ’71, he warned that this would lead to the danger of a new Depression, the danger of a new fascism, and pandemics. And then, in 1974, he instituted a Biological Holocaust Task Force, to study the effect of both the austerity policy following out of these Nixon measures, but also the result of the IMF and World Bank policies on the developing sector. Because, if people remember, the IMF introduced the “conditionality” policy, which meant that developing countries first had to pay their debt before they could invest in the health sector or infrastructure, and this Task Force warned that this would lead to new pandemics.

Now, we published in the meantime, six comprehensive studies, showing exactly what this economic Malthusian policy towards the developing sector would do, warning of pandemics, throughout the ’80s, the ’90s, the 2000s, and nobody can say that we did not put out the warning that this would happen.

Then, in 2002-2003, when the SARS epidemic broke out, there were many studies and scenarios saying, this can come back. And at that time, the latest, the governments should have gone into preparations for the outbreak of such pandemics, but the opposite was done: They increased the austerity, the cutback in the health sector. Many hospitals were taken down, the privatization health the sector to just go for profit, instead of the protection of the health of the population. In 2012, in the German parliament there was a study warning of exactly of such a pandemic of a coronavirus to come — and still, absolutely nothing was done. And we already talked last week about the scenario done by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum in October last year exactly studying the outbreak of a coronavirus pandemic — and still, nothing was done.

And even when the pandemic broke out in China, end of last year, into January, and the Chinese government reacted with the known measures, all they could do was to attack the “authoritarian style” of China, but they did not do anything! The fact is, the German Health Minister Jens Spahn, in this period, said he did not expect the virus to come to Germany. He kept saying in January into February that the German health system was well prepared, and this is all either utter incompetence, or worse.

So I think that it should be really noted that my late husband, and the organization associated with him, we are on this since 50 years. And a lot of the attacks on us, came because of that, because we attacked Wall Street and the City of London and the casino economy as being responsible for this, and naturally, the powers that be really felt that to be their Achilles’ heel. So they started an unprecedented attack of slanders and vilification against us. They put my husband innocently in jail, Bush Sr., in particular. And I think the fact that our warnings were not listened to, really is now the reason why many people are paying with their lives. And if there’s any conclusion, then people must look at the analysis of my late husband, and also the solutions he had proposed, and which are still the only solutions to remedy the situation in the future.

SCHLANGER: Helga, I want to get to that in a moment when we take up the financial crisis, but I just want to bring it back to one other aspect of the solidarity of cooperation versus geopolitics: We have a call from the UN Secretary General for a world ceasefire. You’ve issued a call for an end to sanctions to countries like Iran and Venezuela, that are suffering from lack of equipment, lack of support. Just say something about that, because I think this is something that this geopolitics is actually war crimes.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Sanctions are a war crime, because if you deprive entire countries from acquiring the medical supplies to protect their population, this is a war crime. And I think there must be an absolutely ruthless change in the thinking: I full heartedly endorse what UN Secretary General Guterres is calling for, a ceasefire worldwide, all the drone attacks and skirmishes, and whatnot has to stop. Because only if mankind is putting all our forces together to solve this, do we have a chance to overcome this crisis. And I think that the idea of President Xi Jinping, who already in 2017, at the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, in Beijing, which I attended, where he called for a “Health Silk Road,” this is also something which absolutely must be put on the agenda, instead. Because we have to work together to build a decent health system in every single country around the world, what Xi Jinping calls the Health Silk Road, because if you don’t do that, you cannot protect a country. You cannot stop a virus from coming through the border.

The only protection is to go in the direction of building the economy in the Southern Hemisphere, our proposal to develop the Silk Road to a World Land-Bridge connecting all the continents through infrastructure and creating the economic conditions for countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia, and parts of Europe and the United States, to survive. That is the only remedy. And people have to really straighten up and become reasonable.

And as the crisis will escalate, I think that will become clearer, and those who are still warmongers should be shut down and put in asylum, because they’re really a danger and a menace to the whole human race.

So I think this initiative of Guterres should really be discussed everywhere, and that should be the mindset to solve the problem.

SCHLANGER: The other area where your husband has been proven right, over and over and over, and you have absolute authority on, is the economy: We have to distinguish, I think, in the financial package between the emergency health aid that’s needed, and protection of people, versus the use of the so-called “big bazooka” to carry out multi-trillions of dollars of bailouts of hedge funds, shadow banking institutions and others. You issued a call for a shutdown in financial trading — why don’t you tell us what you had in mind with that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: As you say, it is absolutely legitimate if the governments are now providing liquidity to keep the firms going, to keep people having access to wages, to payments to just maintain economic activity of the real economy. That is legitimate.

But that is not the whole reason why the Federal Reserve, and the ECB are going into the direction of helicopter money, and in the case of the Federal Reserve they already have announced $4 trillion in liquidity creation, and they said there is no limit to that. Lagarde, the President of the ECB has also said, whatever it takes. Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the EU Commission, said every country can now “pump,” — and she used the word “pump” — pump as much money into their economy as they wish. The black zero is all of a sudden no longer the sacred cow it was.

And if that would be only for the real economy it would be fine. But a large part of that is to maintain the casino economy part of the whole problem. I think the former economist of the Landesbank Bremen, Folker Hellmeyer, he put out in his newsletter the correct point, that the over-dimension of that is to protect the dynamic of the algorithms in the financial markets, which is a sort of — one way of describing that, the derivatives trade is occurring in nanoseconds around the globe, and to protect that speculative bubble, this is why they are opening the sluicegates of the financial system. And that will lead in the very short term to hyperinflation as happened in Germany in 1923. And if people remember that lesson, that was the expropriation of the entire population of their life earnings and life’s savings, and that is now being threatened not in one country, but really in all the countries which are part of that system. And only those which are not entirely integrated into that have a chance to escape that, under present conditions.

So this is why I said that this is now the moment to close the markets, to stop these insane vacillations in the stock market, and use that pause of a short period of time, whatever it takes, and then implement a Glass-Steagall reorganization. And we have talked about this many times: The reintroduction of Glass-Steagall, the banking separation introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, would mean that the state is protecting the commercial banks, keep them running, and make a firewall so that the investment banks are separated and have no longer access to the savings in the commercial banks, or bailouts from taxpayer money, but that they have to bring their books into order on their own, and if they can’t, they have to declare insolvency and disappear.

Now, the reason why you need a certain pause, is because it’s complicated, because many of the things belonging to the real economy and are legitimate, like the pension funds, are now heavily involved in the casino economy because that has been the system as it developed. And you have to somehow protect those things which belong to the life’s earnings of people or their physical existence, and the real economy, and that takes some sorting out. So some things you have to freeze and it takes a while to figure it out. And then naturally, there is a lack of liquidity, and that’s why you have to have the immediate installation or reactivation of National Banks: These National Banks must give out credit lines directed to the real economy, and investment in productive projects. And that has to be done in every country.

Now in most countries you have the possibility, like in Germany you can reactivate or just strengthen the role of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau — the credit institute for reconstruction which was used in the postwar period to finance the economic miracle in Germany, which was based on Roosevelt’s Reconstruction Finance Corp. And similar approaches can be taken in every country.

Now, then, we need to have cooperation among all these national banks. You have to reintroduce a fixed-exchange-rate system, and then that becomes the New Bretton Woods system, a new credit system. And then, naturally, you have to introduce different criteria for what is a legitimate investment and what is not. And they are those things which mean an increase in the productivity of the economy, such as crash programs for thermonuclear fusion, for optical biophysics, for life sciences in general, to combat the origins, or to find out what are the origins of these pandemics, and how to overcome them; but also space medicine, space technology in general, international cooperation in space research and travel, these are the areas which absolutely need to be serviced by these credit lines, in order to develop new economic platforms: Because the devastation of this pandemic against the real economy is going to be very big. And you have to really think of, when you combat it, which hopefully will happen sometimes, with new vaccines and so forth, but you will have a devastation after that and you have to recreate the world economy on a higher level.

So these are the principles which my husband called the Four Laws [https://larouchepub.com/lar/2014/4124four_laws.html], and we are calling right now to implement all of this. And I ask all of you, our viewers and listeners to help in a mobilization, because it is very clear that the governments who were caught by surprise by this pandemic which they should not have been, because there was ample warning, they are also not yet in a position to discuss the principles, how to reorganize the economy: So, I’m really calling on you to sign our petition to have this shutting down of the markets, to go for the Four Laws, and to have a summit of the most important countries, especially China, Russia, India, and the United States, and hopefully with the cooperation with some other countries, to implement such a top-down, new world economic order, because nothing less will solve the problem.

SCHLANGER: Helga, I think people will appreciate what you just went through in terms of an actual solution, without panic, how to address what is an existential crisis. But you’ve also made the point, repeatedly, that this offers us an opportunity to think about the way we think about ourselves and our fellow human beings. You’ve talked about the “new paradigm.” I think, in the minutes we have remaining, it would be useful to give a sense of not just why that’s necessary, but also why it’s possible.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the idea that geopolitics would be there forever is really a troglodyte idea, which only people like Ursula von der Leyen and such people seem to cling to. Geopolitics, the idea that one nation or a group of nations has the right to defend their interest against another group of nations, with all means, if necessary even military means — this is something, which in the age of thermonuclear weapons, pandemics, and just the fact that the whole world is hanging together so closely, is really an outdated idea. And it absolutely must be replaced by a new paradigm of cooperation, of defining the interest of the one humanity first.

What we have to adopt as a philosophy, is that there are common aims of mankind, such as the Strategic Defense of the Earth: This is a program of my late husband, which he put forward some years ago, where he said, our planet is not only threatened by asteroids, comets, and if one of these heavenly bodies would crash with Earth, it could be a complete catastrophe for our species, as a result. That’s something which no one nation can defend itself against, but we should cooperation. But in the same SDE approach, he also said, that we have to defend against the outbreak of pandemics. And obviously, that is an urgent lesson to be learned, because a pandemic also cannot be solved by one country, but you need to eliminate the conditions which make pandemics possible, which requires both a study of what is life; life is not yet well understood, because otherwise we could have solved sicknesses like cancer, or virus. A virus is not something which is not part of life — there are many viruses which are part of the biosphere, but we don’t understand exactly how they function and what is the process of life in general as part of the universe. It’s a principle of the universe, which we have to absolutely work together, all the scientists of the world should exchange their knowledge, they should cooperate on it.

So, I think the new paradigm, must be completely different relations among nations. Nations will probably be important, probably for a very long time to come, because they are the expression of a joint history, a joint culture, a joint language, poetry — you will not have an Esperanto and write poems — so nations will be important, but I think also they will become less important as compared to the idea of the one humanity, if we are supposed to survive as a human species. And that is an idea which also was articulated by my late husband, actually, late in his life, but he made it a big point: In the same way, he called for the abolition of the party system, in the tradition of George Washington, who said watch out for the party system because this is what causes the separation of people who then follow their lobby interests. And we should not have these parties. And in the same way, nations should cooperate and not be pitched against each other.

So I think the future of humanity must be defined from the standpoint of what kind of a future do we want to have in 50, in 100 years from now. Xi Jinping has called it “the community of a shared future” and this pandemic makes very clear, we have a shared future! We either survive all together, or maybe only a few of us, or none.

If we look at the present from the standpoint of where do we want the world to be in 100 years from now, we will have joint space exploration, we will have villages on the Moon, we may have a city on Mars already — we will have a completely different idea of collaboration and rationality, working together, referring to the creativity of the other, being happy when the other one is developing, instead of seeing it as a competition. And I’m quite confident that the human species is the only creative species, at least known in the universe so far, and that if we get through this crisis and really change our life, and change the view we have about this whole question, then we can actually come out strengthened out of this crisis and start a new era of cooperation of all of humanity.

But it does require a change in the thinking, and I’m inviting you to join us in this effort. And we need a lot of support: So, contact us, sign our petition for the Four Power summit, and work with us, because we need right now a mass mobilization, to do the kinds of things which the politicians, obviously, have not been able to do, or very poorly. So: Join us!

SCHLANGER: OK, Helga, thank you very much, and we’ll see you next week; and we’ll evaluate how things have moved in the course of the next days ahead. So, thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Stay healthy!




Verden i nedlukning – vil der blive lukket ned for Wall Street?

Den 24. marts (EIRNS) – Både Storbritannien og Indien bekendtgjorde indenfor det sidste døgn total nedlukning. De næsten 1,4 mia. indbyggere i Indien blev af premierminister Nerendra Modi informeret om, at der vil være et “totalt forbud mod at forlade hjemmet”, selvom supermarkeder var inkluderet på listen over vigtige funktioner, der ville forblive åbne. For Boris Johnsons vedkommende havde premierministeren tidligere en telefonsamtale med præsident Xi Jinping mandag forud for sit nationale webcast, hvor han meddelte nedlukningen. Johnson fortalte Xi, at COVID-19-situationen i Storbritannien er “alvorlig”, og at “Storbritannien har studeret og lært af Kinas nyttige erfaring og truffet videnskabelige og effektive forebyggelses- og kontrolforanstaltninger.”

Faktum er, at hverken NATO eller NATO-landene har tilbudt hjælp af nogen betydning til de mange lande i verden, der lider under denne historiske pandemi. Selv om mange af de europæiske lande har henvendt sig til Kina og Rusland for at få hjælp. Kina hjælper nu mindst 82 nationer i verden med forsendelser af medicinske forsyninger og hold af læger og medicinske fagfolk. Kinesiske læger afholdt den 18. marts en videokonference med deres kolleger i 24 afrikanske nationer, og endnu en konference i dag med eksperter og embedsmænd fra Latinamerika og Caribien (lande med diplomatiske forbindelser med Kina plus Nicaragua); begge konferencer varede over tre timer. Rusland har fløjet 14 fragtfly med medicinsk udstyr og et team af læger til undsætning for de hårdt ramte italienere, mens Kina har ydet lignende støtte.

Den nederdrægtige bagvaskelse af Kina i den amerikanske presse og fra visse medlemmer af Kongressen fortsætter med uformindsket styrke, men bestræbelserne på at vende præsident Trump mod Kina er faldet til jorden. I et par dage i sidste uge udtrykte han nogle af beskyldningerne om Kinas påståede “ansvar” for den globale katastrofe, idet han brugte betegnelsen “Kina-virus”, men det har han holdt op med, og han har fornyet sin ros af præsident Xi og Kina, og tilføjet at Kina lever op til deres løfte om – som en del af handelsaftalen – i meget høj grad at forøge købet af amerikanske landbrugsprodukter.

Den kendsgerning, at internationalt samarbejde er absolut nødvendigt for at besejre denne “usynlige fjende”, står i stigende grad klart for befolkningen i alle nationer. Det burde stå lige så klart, at “sanktions-vanviddet” må afsluttes af alle parter, sådan som præsident Putins talsmand, Dmitry Peskov, bemærkede i dag, alt imens FN’s generalsekretær António Guterres, også i dag, opfordrede til at lette alle sanktioner, herunder dem mod Iran og Nordkorea, for at hjælpe med at bekæmpe virusset. Guterres opfordrede også til en universel våbenhvile i de forskellige krige, der stadig raser rundt om i verden, så alle mennesker kan bekæmpe den fælles fjende.

Men det underliggende spørgsmål – årsagen til, at verdens offentlige sundhedsfaciliteter ikke er forberedt på at forhindre pandemien – må drøftes samtidigt; ellers vil virusset og nye vira og andre farer, som menneskeheden står overfor, ikke blive overvundet. Da Lyndon LaRouche forudså udbruddet af nye pandemier i 1971, efter Bretton Woods-systemets sammenbrud den 15. august samme år, identificerede han årsagen tydeligt: opbrydningen af Franklin D Roosevelts kreditorienterede Bretton Woods-system ville tillade det britiske system med uhæmmet spekulation at skabe nye niveauer af fattigdom, faldende investeringer i grundlæggende infrastruktur og oppustning af spekulative værdipapirer, uden forbindelse til den reelle produktion.

Dette gjorde LaRouche til den svorne fjende af de anglo-amerikanske finans- og efterretningsapparater, hvilket førte til en politisk heksejagt og hans fængsling. Men den manglende iagttagelse af hans advarsler og gennemførelse af hans politik har ført til netop den eksistentielle krise, som menneskeheden står overfor i dag. LaRouches enke, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har i de sidste problematiske uger insisteret på, at denne krise markerer afslutningen på en historisk epoke. Systemet, der er brudt sammen, kommer aldrig tilbage. Forvarslet om en ny mørk tidsalder, som nu konfronterer samvittigheden hos alle folk i denne verden, kan vendes, men ikke ved delvise modforholdsregler. Krisen i sig selv skaber de betingelser, hvorunder de krævede revolutionære ændringer kan og må foretages.

Præsident Trump ved, at Glass Steagall må genindføres, og er klar over at det amerikanske system med Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln og Franklin Roosevelt kræver en ende på “Casino Mondial” (‘kasinoøkonomien’), centreret i City of London og Wall Street. Der er brug for opvakte og aktive borgere for at give præsidenten magten til at besejre de imperialistiske monetarister, for at bringe USA, Rusland, Kina, Indien – og alle nationer – sammen i den globale udvikling med ‘Den nye Silkevej, et nyt Bretton Woods-finanssystem, og for at iværksætte den videnskabelige og kulturelle renæssance, der behøves for at afslutte imperiet en gang for alle gennem et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden.




Coronavirus-pandemien fremtvinger genovervejelse: Internationalt samarbejde er absolut nødvendigt!

Den 14. marts (EIRNS) — Helga Zepp-LaRouche skrev følgende leder til den tyske ugeavis Neue Solidarität den 14. marts.

Vi oplever nu den værste internationale sundhedskrise i de sidste hundrede år. Denne krise er så ekstremt farlig, fordi coronavirus-pandemien nu er kombineret med en global finanskrise, der allerede var tæt på at eksplodere før den medicinske krise brød ud; pandemien har simpelthen fungeret som en udløser for det. Der findes en løsning – men kun hvis de vestlige samfund er parate til at kassere alle aksiomerne for den nyliberale, monetaristiske økonomiske model, hvis værdiorientering drejer sig om spekulanternes fortjeneste. Den må erstattes med en økonomisk politik, som styres af den absolutte værdi af menneskeliv, videnskabelige principper og solidaritet med hele menneskeheden.

Selv Frankrigs præsident Emmanuel Macron har jo for nylig talt om det der ikke længere kan ignoreres: Det liberale demokratiske politiske system er ikke egnet til at reagere tilstrækkeligt på eksistentielle trusler. Jo før Europa og USA fatter det faktum, at vi må tage nøjagtigt de samme folkesundhedsforanstaltninger, som Kina traf i januar i byen Wuhan og Hubei-provinsen, jo flere menneskeliv vil blive reddet. I stedet for at udnytte den tid, som verden har fået ved den kinesiske regerings beslutsomme handlinger – korrekt karakteriseret af Verdenssundhedsorganisationen (WHO) som absolut en ny standard – har de vestlige regeringer spildt uvurderlige uger. Som et resultat heraf, er Europa nu blevet epicenter for pandemien, og USA’s situation er ganske uklar på grund af manglen på at teste indtil dette tidspunkt.

Men den nødvendige omorganisering kan ikke begrænses til sundhedsområdet. Vi har brug for et helt nyt paradigme for politik og økonomi, hvis vi ønsker at forhindre et sammenbrud af civilisationen som i det 14. århundrede. Mange forskere fra en række nationer antager, at omkring 70 % af befolkningen vil blive inficeret inden for de næste et til to år, i det mindste indtil en vaccine kan udvikles og produceres. Professor Christian Dorsten fra Berlin Charité Hospital citerer en ny undersøgelse, der siger, at vi ikke længere kan regne med en langsommere spredning af virusset i foråret og sommeren. Samtidig må det antages, at pandemien vil brede sig længere på den sydlige halvkugle i løbet af vinteren og derefter vende tilbage til den nordlige halvkugle i efteråret, styrket, og muligvis i en muteret form.

Dette betyder, at vi ikke alene er nødt til at afhjælpe konsekvenserne af at have fjernet vores nationale folkesundhedssystemer igennem de seneste årtier, og på kortest mulige tid udstyre det til at behandle det forventede antal patienter. Vi skal også skabe betingelserne for et globalt sundhedssystem på kort sigt.

Den aktuelle krise er på ingen måde uventet. Allerede i 1974 tog Lyndon LaRouche skridt til det, som han kaldte en ”Biologisk Holocaust Taskforce”, hvis opgave var at undersøge virkningen – frem for alt for udviklingslandene – af nedskæringspolitikken og betingelserne fra Den internationale Valutafond og Verdensbanken. LaRouche og hans kolleger præsenterede resultaterne af disse undersøgelser i en række rapporter, der advarede om, at faldet i levestandard på flere kontinenter, som var forårsaget af disse institutioner over en lang tidsperiode, ville føre til genopblussen af gammelkendte epidemier og forekomsten af nye sygdomme og pandemier.

Når man betragter forholdene i mange nationer i Afrika, Asien, Latinamerika og endda fattige regioner i Europa og USA i dag, står det meget klart, at kun en global politisk ændring kan afhjælpe dette. Cirka 2 milliarder mennesker har for indeværende ikke rent drikkevand; man kan ikke engang tale om et egentlig moderne sundhedssystem alle steder i de tilsyneladende mest udviklede lande. Der findes i øjeblikket hungersnød i flere sydafrikanske lande. En græshoppeplage, som det internationale samfund ikke skrider ind over for i tide, truer med at lægge snesevis af nationer i Afrika, Asien og Latinamerika øde. Som en følge af de såkaldte “krige for humanitær intervention” og den allerede nævnte underudvikling, er millioner af flygtninge flygtet mod Europa og Amerika for at undslippe farer for liv og lemmer.

Hvis vi derfor ønsker at forhindre coronavirus-pandemien i at sprede sig i bølger og vandre fra den nordlige til den sydlige halvkugle og tilbage igen, og dermed potentielt skabe yngleområder for yderligere lignende og værre vira, må vi påbegynde en radikal ændring af systemet.

Der skal bygges hospitaler med isolationsafdelinger over hele verden ifølge eksemplet fra Wuhan og Hubei-provinsen, som i alt opførte 14 midlertidige hospitaler inklusive de nødvendige senge til intensiv pleje. Og i forbindelse hermed må Verdenssundhedsorganisations standarder overholdes. Kina byggede for eksempel faciliteter med 16.000 nye hospitalssenge på kun en måned.

Der skal oprettes internationale videnskabelige forskningscentre til forskning af COVID-19-virussen og andre virale og bakterielle patogener. Vacciner må udvikles og testes. Forskningsresultater inden for biofysik, nuklear-biologi og rummedicin skal straks stilles til rådighed for alle nationer. Referencepunktet herfor er idéen om et “strategisk forsvar af jorden” (SDE); et koncept udviklet af Lyndon LaRouche, og hvor beskyttelsen af menneskeliv mod pandemier er et fokuspunkt.

Disse verdensomspændende foranstaltninger kræver investeringer, som ikke kan foretages under betingelserne fra det nuværende, kollapsende finansielle system. De igangværende handlinger fra centralbankernes side med at indsprøjte likviditet i det finanssystem ved hjælp af billioner af dollars og oven i købet trykning af “finanspolitiske penge” til brug for regeringers finansbudgetter kan ikke opretholdes uden at skabe hyperinflation.

Hvis vi ønsker at lykkes med at bekæmpe coronavirus-pandemien, bygge og udstyre de nødvendige hospitaler, har vi brug for den samlede handlingspakke, der blev foreslået af Lyndon LaRouche i juni 2014:

1. Et system med bankseparation må straks indføres på verdensplan, nøjagtig baseret på modellen af Glass/Steagall-loven, underskrevet af præsident Franklin Roosevelt den 16. juni 1933. Kommercielle banker skal under dette system være under statslig beskyttelse og med en ‘firewall’ være fuldstændigt adskilt fra spekulative investeringsbanker og enheder, som ikke længere kan have adgang til de kommercielle bankers aktiver, og heller ikke være privilegeret ved at blive reddet af skatteydernes penge. Disse bankers giftige papirværdier, inklusive deres udestående finansielle derivater, skal nedskrives. Begrundede tilgodehavender, der er forbundet med realøkonomien eller med pensioner og andre aktiver for arbejdende mennesker, bør også klassificeres som gyldige i det nye system. Visse former for betalingskrav må midlertidigt fastfryses og deres gyldighed vurderes af føderale myndigheder.

2. Der skal oprettes en nationalbank i hvert land, i Alexander Hamiltons tradition eller efter forbillede af den tyske ‘Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau’ (Kreditinstitutition for Genopbygning) efter 2. verdenskrig. Deres formål er at give føderale kreditter som det nødvendige middel til produktive investeringer i den fysiske økonomi. Tildelingen af denne kredit skal være orienteret efter principperne om teknologiens høje energi-gennemstrømningstæthed, forøgelse af produktiviteten for arbejdsstyrken og produktionsanlæggene og skabelse af videnskabelig og teknologisk fremskridt.

3. Blandt de deltagende lande skal der etableres et system med faste pariteter (priser og valutakurser, red.) og der skal indføres samarbejdsaftaler mellem suveræne stater med henblik på veldefinerede infrastruktur- og udviklingsprojekter. Disse traktater repræsenterer tilsammen et nyt Bretton Woods-system, som det var tiltænkt af Roosevelt, med den udtrykkelige hensigt at udstede kreditter til den industrielle udvikling i udviklings-sektoren.

4. Den tiltrængte forøgelse i verdensøkonomiens produktivitet for at imødekomme en global befolkning på i øjeblikket næsten 8 milliarder mennesker må tilvejebringes gennem et internationalt hasteprogram til realisering af termonuklear fusionskraft og andre avancerede teknologier, såsom optisk biofysik og biovidenskab, med henblik på at finde løsninger til udfordringer såsom coronavirus; såvel som internationalt samarbejde inden for rumteknologi og -rejser, som kan etablere den nødvendige næste højere økonomiske platform for verdensøkonomien, som udviklet af økonomen Lyndon LaRouche.

De eneste institutioner, som kan gennemføre et sådant verdensomspændende program, er regeringerne for de førende nationer på planeten, som i deres sammensætning må være repræsentative for hele verdens befolkning. Derfor er det på ingen måde tilstrækkeligt, at G7-regeringerne er enige med hinanden; løsningerne kan kun gennemføres med inddragelse af Rusland, Kina og Indien.

Det betyder også, at geopolitik endelig må overvindes og erstattes af ideen om menneskehedens fælles fremtid og mål. Hvis ikke vi ønsker at forfalde til en ny mørk tidsalder, er vi nødt til at erstatte neo-malthusianske ideer, den anti-videnskabelige “Green New Deal”, monetarisme samt eurocentrisme med ideerne om fysisk økonomi, udelukkende styret af de videnskabeligt beviselige principper for universets love.

Og endelig, den måske vigtigste ændring som vi må foretage i vores tankegang: Vi har brug for en ny humanistisk renæssance, en renæssance af klassisk kultur. For det er ikke mindst den ubegrænsede hedonisme, der har bragt verden til dette punkt; den hedonisme der ledsager det liberale og nyliberale demokrati. Øjeblikket er kommet til, at ideologien for ”alt er tilladt” må tilsidesættes. Vi vil kun kunne overvinde denne krise, hvis vi finder en ny indre orientering eller indre beslutsomhed, der er i overensstemmelse med kærligheden til menneskeheden. Men det er sådan, at vi endelig bliver til menneskelige væsner!