Helga Zepp-LaRouche: ’Vælg i stedet holdbar menneskelig overlevelse’

21. februar (EIRNS) – For tiden, under så dramatiske, historiske begivenheder i gang som det andet år af en pandemi med en virus der muterer; og i Nordamerika, med omfattende skader fra energisystemer, som på forhånd var mangelfulde, fortæller fornuften os, at vi burde samarbejde som bare fanden, hjemme og i udlandet, for at rette tingene op. Se på hvad vi gør på Mars! De nødvendige tiltag er blevet formuleret i årtier i form af en udviklingspolitik af økonomen og statsmanden Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., der sammen med sin hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, også viste vejen vej for de diplomatiske initiativer, som kan gøre udviklingen til en realitet. Tiden er inde nu.

Modstanden mod dette udsyn fra de fallerede politisk-finansielle netværk centreret i City of London/Wall Street presser rasende på med mere og hurtigere afindustrialisering, der i første omgang har forårsaget flere kriser. Der slås nu på tromme for det internationale topmøde på 'Jordens Dag', den 22. april, til bekæmpelse af klimaforandringer, hvor Det Hvide Hus er vært. Både præsident Joe Biden og John Kerry, 'Særlig udsending for Klimaet' (National Security Council Special Presidential Envoy for Climate), gentog dette den 18. februar, på dagen hvor USA officielt genindtrådte i Paris-klimaaftalerne. De understreger, at Biden fra nu af og indtil topmødet den 22. april vil udstede de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at opnå større amerikansk reduktion af CO2 inden udgangen af ​​dette årti. En sådan politik vil faktisk indebære ni år med flere blackouts, madmangel, oversvømmelser, brande og et hurtigt fald i forventet levealder. Kerry understregede i fredags, hvor han talte med FN’s generaldirektør Antonio Guterres, at det haster med at handle på CO2-reduktion: "Det der betyder noget er, hvad folk vil gøre i de næste 10 år".

Naturligvis tilslutter de folkemorderiske milliardærer sig. Sir Michael-'anti-kul' Bloomberg var på et konferencekald med journalister den 18. februar for at understrege, at flere kulkraftværker må nedlægges – netop på et tidspunkt, hvor det er elproduktion fra kul- og kernekraftværker, der har afholdt de centrale stater fra at gå fuldstændig i sort. Bill Gates, manden hvis speciale det er at opretholde mangler inden for sundhed, uddannelse og landbrug vha. "filantropi", har ligeledes understreget denne 10-årige tidsramme. Han sagde i et interview i dagens Washington Post Magazine, at "vi skal have gennembrud i det næste årti", så vi kan bruge de følgende to årtier til 2050 "til at erstatte hele den industrielle økonomi". Hvad angår det videnskabelige spørgsmål, der er involveret i den tilsyneladende modsætning mellem kølige storme og global opvarmning, hævdede Gates standardbedrageriet i morges på Fox News, at "det sandsynligvis vil påvirke vejret at udlede yderligere kulstof i atmosfæren". Det er der "superhårde beviser for".

Den nye rapport, der er udkommet i denne måned, piller disse onde klaphatte fra hinanden – EIR’s specialrapport: “Det store spring bagud: LaRouche afslører the 'New Green Deal". Helga Zepp-LaRouche skriver i sin indledning: ”The New Deal for menneskeheden er ikke 'grøn', men menneskelig!", Et afsluttende afsnit har undertitlen: "Vælg i stedet holdbar menneskelig overlevelse". Hun opfordrer til handling og siger:" Selvom mange institutioner synes at have lagt sig fast på den kurs, der er skitseret her [grøn økonomisk katastrofe, geopolitik og krigsfare], er det ikke for sent at vælge alternativet. COVID-19-pandemien har vist, hvor ekstremt sårbare vi i virkeligheden er som menneskelig art, og at vi realistisk set kun har en chance for at sikre vores langsigtede overlevelse ved at finde sammen i et nyt paradigme for samarbejde mellem alle nationer i denne verden for at vie os til menneskehedens reelle fælles opgaver.

"Nøglen til at overvinde krisen ligger i et menneskesyn, der ikke ser menneskeheden som en parasit på naturen, hvis aktiviteter forurener og ødelægger stakkels Moder Jord, så det ville være godt at reducere antallet af mennesker så meget som muligt (bare ikke så meget som til at efterlade oligarkiet uden tilstrækkeligt tjenestefolk!). Mennesket er simpelthen ikke et manipulerbart væsen, der kan holdes under kontrol med den moderne form for 'brød og cirkus' og degradering fra underholdningsindustrien.

"Menneskeheden er den eneste art, hvis kreative fornuft er i overensstemmelse med universets love, og er endog en udviklet, integreret del deraf. Det er netop denne evne, der gør det muligt for menneskeheden igen og igen at opdage nye revolutionerende hypoteser om universets fysiske love, som derefter bruges i produktionsprocessen til at definere helt nye platforme for den menneskelige levestandard, forventet levetid, forståelse af de klimaforandringer, der har fundet sted i millioner af år, og yderligere perspektiv for at skabe forudsætningerne for fremtidig interstellar rumflyvning gennem koloniseringen af det nære rum".

For menneskehedens overlevelse, gør god brug af den nye rapport, og nyd de smukke billeder, der nu stråler til Jorden fra Mars takket være Percy. 




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

c

 

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

The LaRouche Organization Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: And join the Schiller Institute!




Atomkrig, the ’Green New Deal’ – to forbundne trusler imod menneskeheden

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

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

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

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

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




Af den grund skal vi plante skov på Mars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sådanne videnskabelige bestræbelser er menneskets karakteristiske natur:

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

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

 

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




‘Hope’, rumskibet ”Håb”, går i kredsløb omkring Mars; giver håb til jorden.

9. februar 2021 (EIRNS) – Efter planen gik De forenede arabiske Emiraters rumskib, "Hope", i morges succesfuldt i kredsløb omkring Mars. Fartøjet gik ned i fart fra 121.000 km/time til ca. 18.000 km/timen, så det blev indfanget i en bane omkring Mars og bevægede sig pænt på plads efter 27-minutters brænding af dets hjælperaketter. Fartøjet bringer sig nu i position til snart at overvåge vejrforholdene på den røde planet. Hope-missionen er fastlagt til at vare i et helt Mars-år (687 Jorddage).

I morgen forventes den kinesiske 'Tianwen-1' at ankomme planmæssigt til Mars, med et komplekst program planlagt for de kommende måneder. Dernæst ankommer NASA-rumskibet 'Perseverance' den 18. februar for at lande en 'marsbil' på overfladen. Denne februars trekløver bringer det samlede antal nationer, der til dato har lykkedes i deres Mars-missioner, op på fem. Hvis vi gør tingene rigtigt her på Jorden, er Mars sandelig kun begyndelsen på en ny tidsalder for fremskridt for menneskeheden.

Schiller Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i dag: "Når man ser på Mars-missionerne i sammenhæng, viser det vejen ud af katastroferne og de geopolitiske spil", der er så farlige lige nu. Hun gennemgik disse, begyndende med USA, hvor en rigsretssag, der ikke burde foregå, gennemføres som en ’maraton i vanvid’. I dag var der fire timers argumentation om det forfatningsmæssige grundlag for at anklage en mand, der allerede er ude af det offentlige embede, hvilket kulminerede med en afstemning på 56-44 til fordel for retssagen mod Donald Trump. I morgen er der planlagt 16 timers præsentationer. Dette skal fortsætte til søndag, før der forventes afsluttende argumenter. Det er et globalt skuespil over krisen i USA og en operation til at hjernevaske amerikanerne.

Anklagerne mod den tidligere præsident Donald Trump er fra start til slut en operation rettet imod USA. For hver dag kommer der mere frem, for eksempel om hvordan de personer, der førte an i at sikre at hændelsen den 6. januar ved den amerikanske kongresbygning, Capitol, blev voldelig, alle var kendt og forbundet til eller havde dækning af undergravende efterretningsnetværk. Der har allerede været forlydender om sagen om den nationale formand for 'Proud Boys', der har fungeret som FBI-meddeler i årevis. Nu er det kommet frem, at en leder af de paramilitære 'Oath Keepers', der deltog i angrebet på den amerikanske hovedstad den 6. januar, havde en FBI-sikkerhedsgodkendelse.

Et andet åbenlyst tilfælde af national undergravende virksomhed involverer sammensværgelser mod præsident Vladimir Putin og Rusland. Dette udføres af de samme netværk, der underminerer USA – de i London centrerede finansielle transnationale netværk, der promoverer deres eget diktatur. I går blev der afholdt en online-konference arrangeret af den polske mission ved EU i Bruxelles, med forskellige EU-nationer plus Storbritannien, USA, Canada og Ukraine for at konspirere mod Putin og i øvrigt at destabilisere Rusland. Den selvsamme russiske assistent til 'dissidenten' Alexej Navalny, Vladimir Ashurkov, der blev fanget på video i 2012, hvor han diskuterede store penge med en formodet britisk MI6-agent med det formål at organisere oppositionen mod Putin i Rusland, deltog i gårsdagens virtuelle konference i Bruxelles. I dag sprængte talsmand for det russiske udenrigsministerium, Maria Zakarova bomben om mødet, og beskrev det som en samling af NATO-lande, der benytter Navalny til at organisere undergravende aktiviteter imod Rusland.

Tempoet og åbenlysheden i disse træk over for nationer gør det klart, hvor vigtigt det er med den nye serie online strategiske rundbordssamtaler, der igangsættes lørdag d. 13. februar af LaRouche-organisationen. Deltagelse i og støtte til dette initiativ er den bedste måde at imødegå de vanvittige operationer af alle slags, der nu truer verden. Begivenheden, der begynder kl. 19.00 dansk tid, har titlen "Forum: Forværring af amerikansk-russiske relationer – vend udviklingen med et nyt paradigme eller imødese atomkrig." https://laroucheorganization.nationbuilder.com/forum_worsening_u_s_Russian_relations_reverse_them_with_new_paradigm_or_face_nuclear_war

For det andet, sørg for at få denne uges udgave af {EIR} (udgivelsesdato, 12. februar), der er en ny "Special Rapport: The Great Leap Backwards – LaRouche Exposes the Green New Deal." (Det store spring tilbage – LaRouche afslører 'the Green New Deal'. Nu er tiden inde til at abonnere. Spred ordet, spred håb.




Samarbejde imod COVID-pandemien og i rummet bevæger
menneskeheden mod et nyt anti-Davos-paradigme.
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med
Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 4. februar 2021

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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




Hvordan Lyndon LaRouche fungerede som skyggepræsident for USA

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

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

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

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

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

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




Indlæg af Xi Jinping og Putin på World Economic Forum i Davos

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

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

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

 

Merkel: Vi skal ikke vælge mellem USA og Kina

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

 

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

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

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

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




Bidens opfordring til “Enhed” er ikke nok: Udvikling er det nye navn for enhed!
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 21. januar 2021

Se Helgas Webcast på Schiller instituittets Youtube kanal her

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

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

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

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

Uddrag:

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

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

Engelsk afskrift:

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

Thursday, January 21, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.




Video: Lederskab i krisetider:
Lyndon LaRouche, 2004 – Martin Luther Kings udødelige talent

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

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

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

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

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




Vi sider på en krudttønde: Det drejer sig ikke bare om valgsvindel.
Schiller Instituttets internationale webcast med
Helga Zepp- LaRouche den 13. januar 2021

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

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

Engelsk Afskrift:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the policy of China, really, Helga?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.




Stormen på den amerikanske kongresbygning:
Farverevolution eller 11. september?
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Rens LaRouches navn! Benådninger af Assange og
Snowden kan afsløre Russiagate-bedrageriet 2016-2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hvordan ‘Project Democracys kampagne mod Lyndon LaRouche ødelagde amerikanske valg

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

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

Læs resten på engelsk:

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

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

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

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

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




Nikolas von Kues og menneseheden den udødelige art.
Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale ved Schiller Instituttets videokonference:
Verden efter det amerikanske valg – skabelsen af en verden baseret på fornuft

12. december (EIRNS) — Panel 2: At undslippe faren for 3. verdenskrig: En strategisk orden baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål

Den første taler i dette panel, der giver vores hovedpræsentation, er Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Instituttet.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hej, godaften eller god eftermiddag, afhængigt af hvor I befinder jer. Da vi [i sin tid] besluttede at afholde denne konference kort efter det amerikanske valg, forventede vi, at det ville være et meget farligt øjeblik i historien, og vi navngav konferencen: “Skabelsen af en verden baseret på fornuft”. Nu lyder det måske meget fjernt, men denne konference er ikke beregnet til akademisk diskussion af de rejste spørgsmål, men skal fungere som en appel til alle institutioner, regeringer, folkevalgte, mennesker af god vilje… til at hjælpe Schiller Instituttet med at organisere en international alliance af mennesker, der griber ind i den nuværende situation, fordi løsningerne er der. Det er absolut muligt at finde en vej ud af hver af kriserne. Men det kræver, at folk aktiveres og optræder som statsborgere.

Hvis man ser på verden nu, vil mange mennesker let begynde at fortvivle, for hvis man tænker på ordsproget: “Dem, som guderne ønsker at ødelægge, gør de først vanvittige,” finder man et ekko heraf i mange hjørner. Og det er også meget klart, at man kan spørge sig selv, hvorvidt menneskeheden har den moralske egnethed til at overleve? Fordi adfærden af mange institutioner og mennesker undertiden synes at sige det modsatte.

Kombinationen af kriser er virkelig hidtil uset. Lad mig blot berøre nogle af dem. Vi har en pandemi. Denne pandemi er blevet håndteret forholdsvis godt i Asien, i flere asiatiske lande, men den er fuldstændig ude af kontrol i USA, i Europa og også i mange udviklingslande. Alene den 10. december var antallet af nye infektioner i USA 217.729 nye tilfælde. På en uge, fra 3.-9. december, døde der 16.850 mennesker. I Tyskland, som gjorde det relativt godt i starten, men den 11. december, dvs. i går, havde man 27.217 nye tilfælde – det er helt ude af kontrol; 524 dødsfald på én dag. Og de forskellige guvernører og regeringen taler om muligheden for en komplet, total nedlukning, selv før jul og derefter ind i det nye år.

Det havde ikke behøvet være sådan, for hvis folk ville have fulgt, hvad der har vist sig at være en effektiv metode, nemlig generel test – test, test, kontaktsporing, anvendelse af digitalisering og moderne teknologi; og derefter sætte folk i karantæne – så kunne det have været bragt under kontrol, og det gøres stadig ikke.

Oven i COVID-krisen, som faktisk forværres enormt heraf, er en hungersnød, der af Verdensfødevareprogrammet karakteriseres som værende af “bibelske dimensioner”, hvilket betyder, at hvis der ikke gøres noget dramatisk for at ændre det, kan der til næste år være 270 millioner mennesker døde. Og selvfølgelig kunne dette afhjælpes meget hurtigt, ved også at redde landbruget i USA og Europa og andre såkaldte avancerede lande, og fordoble fødevareproduktionen.

Dette er naturligvis bare toppen af den underliggende krise, hvilket er, at systemet kollapser: Det finansielle system er håbløst bankerot og alle de billioner af penge, der er blevet pumpet ud af Den europæiske Centralbank, som i alt udstedte 1,85 billioner Euro, hovedsageligt gennem et ‘Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program’; den amerikanske centralbank, Federal Reserve, et sted mellem 6 og 7 billioner dollars, som alle gik til at redde det bankerotte system og ikke så meget til i investeringer i realøkonomien. Og dernæst, ud over dette igangværende sammenbrud, som ikke er afsluttet, har man den virkelig vanvittige bestræbelse fra Den Europæiske Union for at gennemføre en ‘Green Deal’. De mødtes netop i går og besluttede at reducere udledningen af CO2 i 2030 fra de planlagte 40% til 55%; det samme forsøges med Green New Deal i USA, hvis Biden bliver den nye præsident. Det er det rene vanvid, fordi det vil betyde, at man svækker en allerede kollapsende økonomi ved at dirigere alle investeringer udelukkende i retning af grønne teknologier – og på den måde kan vi ikke opretholde moderne industrisamfund.

Den europæiske og amerikanske økonomi falder sammen, sidste år med ca. 10% i gennemsnit, mens Kina, f.eks. allerede i tredje kvartal, efter at de var kommet sig godt efter COVID-krisen, havde en vækstrate på 4,9% og i november måned steg den kinesiske eksport i gennemsnit med 25%.

Det er den egentlige årsag eller en af de medvirkende årsager til denne absolut hysteriske anti-Kina-kampagne. Fordi, det som vi grundlæggende ser på, er sammenbruddet af det gamle paradigme, det neoliberale system, det der har udgjort det såkaldte “vestlige finanssystem”, det transatlantiske system, og det er derfor at Pompeo har holdt den ene tale efter den anden og forårsaget et anti-kinesisk hysteri, der går langt ud over McCarthyismen: Han har netop talt i Georgien og sagde, at enhver kinesisk studerende i USA, enhver professor, er en kinesisk spion. Og [marskal] Billingslea, præsidentens særlige udsending for våbenkontrol, holdt netop den 17. november, meget faretruende, en tale for ‘National Institute of Public Policy’, hvor han stort set gik grassat mod Rusland og Kina og sagde, at man ikke kan stole på Rusland i spørgsmål om våbenkontrol; at Kina er ansvarlig for at slippe coronavirus-pandemien løs rundt om i verden, og grundlæggende, at Rusland vil fremme en nuklear doktrin, der fremmer tidlig anvendelse af atomvåben med strategien “optrap for at vinde”.

Altså, denne påstand er en fuldstændig løgn. Det er faktisk, hvad den nuværende NATO-doktrin siger, men de hævder, at Rusland har en plan om at angribe NATO og regner med NATO’s kapitulation. Billingslea sagde også i samme tale, at han rådede Trump-administrationen, eller præsident Trump personligt, til ikke at bekræfte Reagan-Gorbatjov-erklæringen om, at atomkrig ikke kan vindes af nogen. Dette er grunden til, at den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov i den seneste periode mange gange har advaret om, at der er en meget farlig illusion om, at en begrænset atomkrig kan vindes. Og som mange andre eksperter, herunder fra ‘Federation of American Scientists’, har advaret om, findes der ikke sådan en ting som en “begrænset” atomkrig, fordi det er selve kernen i atomvåben, at det øjeblik man benytter ét af dem, vil de alle blive benyttet.

Billingslea beskyldte også Kina for at opbygge sit atomvåbenarsenal bag en ”Stor mur af hemmeligholdelse”. Virkeligheden er imidlertid, at mens både USA og Rusland har, tror jeg, et sted mellem 6.000-7.000 nukleare missiler, har Kina en blot 290; og i betragtning af det faktum at der er denne kontinuerlige anti-Kina-kampagne, føler de sig naturligvis nødsaget til at opbygge deres atomarsenal. Og man har en dynamik, hvor der er en hærdning i Kina, aldeles tydeligt, og der er et tysk ordsprog, som siger: “Som man råber ind i skoven, får man svar tilbage”. Så man er i en optrapningsspiral, som er yderst farlig. Maria Zakharova, talskvinde for det russiske udenrigsministerium, sagde, at alt dette kun er et påskud for, at USA moderniserer sine mellem- og kortdistance-atommissiler.

Det er en ironi, at Trump-administrationen nægtede en anmodning fra ‘Federation of American Scientists’ om at offentliggøre størrelsen på deres lagre med atomsprænghoveder blot fem dage før denne rablende tale af Billingslea. Det plejede de at gøre indtil 2018, men ikke længere. Og Hans Kristensen sagde dybest set, at Billingsleas beskyldninger mod Kina ville være meget mere troværdige, hvis USA ville afsløre deres antal i så henseende.

Så man har en utrolig situation på alle disse områder. Og hvad vi diskuterede i det sidste panel, de utrolige begivenheder i USA, de fem års operationer mod Trump, først som kandidat, derefter i hele hans præsidentperiode; Russiagate, som ikke kunne bevises; rigsretssagen, som var baseret på løgne; og nu endelig den forsøgsvise, eller faktiske, svindel ved valget – og en helt utrolig censur fra de store tv-stationer, der erklærer hvem som vandt valget; af de sociale medier, der censurerer indhold! Så man har en situation, der virkelig er ude af kontrol. Og det er derfor, vi skal tænke tilbage og overveje, hvordan kan vi udvikle en anden tilgang til tænkning? For jeg synes, det er det vigtigste spørgsmål. Og titlen på denne konference er “Modsætningernes sammenfald”.

Jeg vil gerne tage et skridt tilbage til hvad min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, har understreget i hvert eneste land, han nogensinde har rejst til: Han bad folk, især unge mennesker, om, at de skulle begynde at reflektere over deres særlige ideologi. Fordi når man er i USA, er det meget let at se, at folk i Europa tænker anderledes i europæiske lande, hver enkelt af dem tænker stadig anderledes; mennesker i Latinamerika tænker anderledes. Men når man er i et land, tænker man ikke meget over det; man synes alt er indlysende. Og Lyndon LaRouche er meget berømt, og det kan man overbevise sig om ved at læse hans mange bøger – hvilket vil holde én beskæftiget i et stykke tid – fordi han var meget optaget af hvordan man giver folk en metode til at blive selvbevidst om sin egen metode til tænkning.

Vi har lige nu, som en del af denne civilisatoriske sammenbrudskrise, en reel krise i metoden for tænkning. Der er enorm forvirring omkring meninger, og det har nået et absolut krisepunkt efter pandemiens udbrud, hvor mennesker, der op til det tidspunkt var ret rationelle, gik ind i de vildeste fortolkninger og sammensværgelsesteorier og bestræbelser på at forklare noget, som tydeligvis er meget skræmmende. Nu sætter de fleste mennesker ikke spørgsmålstegn ved det aksiomatiske grundlag for deres synspunkter. De betragter dem som selvindlysende sandheder, som kendsgerninger, som den eneste sande sandhed. Men hvis man foretager en erkendelsesteoretisk undersøgelse af disse meninger, finder man ud af, at de mange gange er dannet på baggrund af nominalisme – at folk bare tager et ord og derefter springer derudaf, som om det skulle være forklaringen; eller empirisme, positivisme, og konklusioner drages som et resultat af en reduktionistisk metode, deduktionisme, eller der foretages en analyse på baggrund af at verden ses gennem konkave briller: Hvis man gør det, projicerer man et kort af sit eget sind og egen tro på hensigterne over på den formodede opfattelse af den anden person.

Vi kan se det lige nu: Dette er typisk tilfældet for folk, der eksempelvis definerer, lad os sige EU’s formodede geopolitiske interesse, over for Ruslands og Kinas. Eller hvad man for øjeblikket har i USA, de kredse, der beskylder Kina for imperialistiske tilbøjeligheder, fremmer selv nøjagtig sådanne tilbøjeligheder, hvor enhver, der ærligt undersøger sagen, må komme til den konklusion, at den kinesiske udviklingsmodel ikke kun har udryddet ekstrem fattigdom i Kina – det færdiggjorde de for bare to uger siden, og alt i alt har Kina løftet 850 millioner mennesker af sin egen befolkning ud af fattigdom til en voksende, stor middelklasse; men Kina tilbyder også sin udviklingsmodel til udviklingslandene, hvilket åbenlyst udfordrer påstanden om imperialistiske tilbøjeligheder.

Nu sagde jeg, at det overordnede emne for denne konference begrebet om ‘Coincidentia Oppositorum’ – sammenfaldet af modsætninger, et koncept, der blev udviklet af Nicolaus fra Cusa (Cusanus), der var den vigtigste tænker i det europæiske intellektuelle liv i det 15. århundrede. Og, hvad der faktisk er meget vigtigt, han var den første til at udvikle principper for den moderne suveræne nationalstat. Det gjorde han hovedsageligt i sin ‘Concordantia Catholica’, der for første gang præsenterede ideen om, at regeringen skal arbejde med samtykke fra de regerede, og at der må være et gensidigt forhold mellem regeringen, repræsentanterne og de regerede.

Han er også ophavsmand til moderne naturvidenskab: Han udviklede en metode til at tænke – at tænke noget helt nyt – og han sagde meget selvbevidst, at han foreslog noget, som intet menneske nogensinde havde tænkt før. Og den metode ligger også til grund for alle de filosofiske skrifter og den økonomisk-videnskabelige metode fra min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, og hans fysiske økonomi. Det er grundlæggende tanken, at menneskelig fornuft har evnen til at definere en løsning på et helt andet og højere niveau end dem, hvor alle konflikter og modsætninger opstod. Det omhandler kapaciteten til at tænke en Helhed, der er af en højere orden og kraft end de Mange, enkelte elementer. Og når man først har trænet ens sind til at tænke sådan, har man en ufejlbarlig nøgle til kreativitet, og man kan anvende denne tankemåde indenfor stort set alle domæner af tænkning.

For at nærme sige modsætningernes sammenfald er man nødt til at starte med en afvisning af den aristoteliske metode. Altså, Aristoteles siger: “hvis noget er A, kan det ikke samtidigt være B.” Men ‘sammenfaldet’ er heller ikke A plus B divideret med 2 eller en anden algebraisk eller aritmetisk beregning. Nicolaus udvikler sit koncept i flere af sine skrifter, men i vid udstrækning i ‘De Docta Ignorantia’, (Om den tillærte Uvidenhed), som straks blev angrebet af professoren og skolastikeren fra Heidelberg, Johannes Wenck, i et angreb på ‘De Docta Ignorantia’, kaldet ‘De Ignota Litteratura’ (Den uvidende lærde), en hentydning til Nicolaus. Nicolaus svarede flere år senere, fordi han ikke modtog denne skrivelse med det samme, i et lille skrift, som jeg anbefaler jer alle at læse, kaldet ‘Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae’, hvori han beklager, at den aristoteliske tradition i dag (hvilket vil sige i Cusas tid) var fremherskende, hvilket ville kategorisere ‘modsætningernes sammenfald’ som kætteri, da denne skole fuldstændigt afviser denne tilgang som helt modsat deres hensigter; nu var intentionerne i virkeligheden af en oligarkisk karakter, hvilket han ikke siger her, men det var hvad det var. Derfor siger Cusa, at det ville være et totalt mirakel og ville være en fuldstændig transformation af deres skole, hvis de ville opgive Aristoteles og nå frem til et højere perspektiv.

I modsætning til den aristoteliske metode, der bliver viklet ind i kampen mellem modsætningerne, betragter synspunktet med ‘modsætningernes sammenfald’ processen fra et højere niveau. Og dette blev nævnt i den lille video, som blev vist i begyndelsen [i Panel 1], hvor jeg taler om behovet for at udgive Lyndon LaRouches samlede værker: At opfattelsen om sammenfald er som at betragte begivenheder som fra et højt tårn: Hvor man ser jægeren, den jagede og processen med jagt. Og det giver én et helt andet perspektiv, end hvis man var jægeren eller den jagede, eller bare løb med næsen i sporet.

For at nå et [sådant] niveau af tænkning kræves imidlertid en enorm anstrengelse. Det kræver en spænding i sindet. Det er ikke noget, man kan tænde for, men det er en intellektuel kamp. Men når man først har gjort det, har man evnen til at bevæge sig ind i områder, der ellers er helt lukket. Nicolaus henviser til hvordan tænkere som Avicenna (også kaldet Ibn Sina) har brugt negativ teologi for at få sindet ud af vanen med at lægge sig fast på det trivielle, der udspringer af sanseopfattelserne. Men det smarteste, siger Cusa, var Platons argument i Parmenides-dialogen, hvilken for enhver der har kæmpet med Platons dialoger, sikkert er den mest udfordrende af alle disse dialoger. Parmenides var lederen af den metodologisk reduktionistiske, eleatiske skole, der udsagde, at tingenes essens kun kan erfares gennem tankeprocessen og ikke gennem noget der har med materien at gøre. Men at samme essens skulle være enkel i en streng forstand, uden al mangfoldighed og variation – og især uden nogen ændring og bevægelse. Al mangfoldighed tilvejebragt gennem sanserne og de deraf følgende forandringsprocesser, er dermed kun tilsyneladende, sagde Parmenides. De er illusoriske, hvorfor enhver mangfoldighed og forandring hverken hører til tingenes essens eller tager del i dem.

I denne dialog lokker Platon Parmenides til at afsløre netop det iøjnefaldende paradoks i hans tænkning, nemlig at Parmenides udelukkede forandringsprincippet. I den tradition, som Platon etablerede, er “forandring” ikke den lineære udvidelse af et euklidisk rum, men den kontinuerlige rækkefølge af originale aksiomatisk revolutionære opdagelseshandlinger, der fører til et forbundet sæt opdagelser af universelle fysiske principper, som uddyber kendskabet til det fysiske univers og perfektionerer de kreative kræfter hos alle de mennesker, som disse fremskridt overføres til. Nicolaus siger på et tidspunkt, at gennem denne uddannelse genskaber ethvert menneske udviklingen i hele universet op til dette punkt i sit sind. Det er dette mikrokosmos i sindet, der svarer til makrokosmos som helhed, hvilket er universet, der gør det muligt for hvert menneske potentielt at have forhåndsviden, at vide nøjagtigt, hvad den nødvendige næste opdagelse må være for at fortsætte den lovmæssige proces med skabelse.

Dette er meget vigtigt, fordi det har alt at gøre med begrebet relativ potentiel befolkningstæthed, som blev udviklet af Lyndon LaRouche, fordi det også giver dig en målestok for den absolut nødvendige næste opdagelse.

For Platon er hver enkelt sådan opdagelse resultatet af en tilfredsstillende opdagelse, som det menneskelige sind kan skabe på en “intuitiv” måde, hvorfor Einstein understregede, at “fantasi er vigtigere end viden. For viden er begrænset, mens fantasien omfavner hele verden, stimulerer fremskridt og føder evolution”.

Platons svar på Parmenides er derfor hans ontologiske forestilling om at ‘blive til’, som det menneskelige sinds fortsatte evne til at frembringe sådanne hypoteser eller hypotesen om den højere hypotese, hvor den altomfattende ændring er ‘det ene’ [helheden], som inkluderer ‘de mange’ på et højere niveau.

Den samme metode til tænkning blev anvendt af Nicolaus, da han løste et problem, som havde efterladt mange tænkere og matematikere søvnløse siden oldtiden, nemlig problemet med cirklens kvadratur. Archimedes, en tidligere matematiker, havde forsøgt at løse problemet med udelukkelsesmetoden ved at indskrive og omskrive et stadigt stigende antal polygoner på cirklen. Den forkerte antagelse er, at omkredsen af de to polygoner i sidste ende vil falde sammen med cirklen. På denne måde fandt Archimedes en brugbar tilnærmelse af tallet pi, men i virkeligheden blev problemet ikke løst. Fordi Cusa siger, at jo flere vinkler polygonen har, jo længere væk kommer man fra cirklen.

Det krævede Cusas revolutionerende tankemåde for at løse problemet med cirklens kvadratur, ved at gøre det klart, at en cirkel ikke kan konstrueres med en geometri, der er baseret på den aksiomatiske antagelse om selvforklarende punkter og lige linjer, men at en aksiomatisk anderledes geometri må anvendes, hvorved cirkulær aktion erstatter den euklidiske selvindlysende antagelse om punktet og den lige linje. Det isoperimetriske princip, som det kaldes, om cirkelens forrang, gør det klart, at man fra cirklen kan nå frem til polygonen, men ikke omvendt. På denne måde tilvejebragte Nicolaus den afgørende demonstration af forskellen på det matematiske domæne, der er begrænset til de sammenlignelige ting, og så det helt særskilte domæne med de usammenlignelige ting.

Denne fremadskriden fra Archimedes’ forståelse af cirklens kvadratur til Cusas finere forståelse illustrerer også rollen af den menneskelige opdagelse af et allerede eksisterende universelt princip og ændringen af dets eksistens som et potentiale, men som et potentiale, der tidligere var skjult fra udgangspunktet af menneskets erkendelse, til “realiseringen” af dette princip gennem den menneskelige opdagelse. Det er denne kontinuerlige opdagelsesproces, som ontologisk, erkendelsesmæssigt set, er primær, dette er helheden der er vigtigst, relativ til indholdet af alle og enhver af ‘de mange’.

Bernhard Riemann, hvis videnskabelige metode bidrog til at navngive LaRouche-Riemanns økonomiske model, uddybede den samme idé i et skrift, der blev citeret af Lyndon LaRouche, “Zur Psychologie und Metaphysik” – “Om psykologi og Metafysik” – ved at beskrive den menneskelige sjæl som en kompakt, tætpakket og mangfoldigt forbundet masse af idéer, “Geistesmassen”, som denne forestilling blev udviklet af Herbart og derefter taget op af Riemann; eller som Lyn kaldte det, “tankeobjekter”. Hver ny sådan ”Geistesmasse” eller idé vækker genklang med alle de tidligere akkumulerede [idéer], og interagerer på en gensidig måde, så meget desto mere, som der er en indre affinitet imellem dem. Riemann siger også, at disse kompakte ‘Geistesmasser’ fortsætter med at eksistere, selvom den person, der har skabt dem, er død og bliver en del af det, han kalder Jordens sjæl. I det væsentlige udtrykkes den samme idé af Vernadsky, da han holdt et foredrag i Paris i 1925, hvor han beskrev den menneskelige art og det kollektive menneskelige sind som en ”geologisk kraft” i universet. Vernadsky insisterede på, at hele universets historie beviser, at Noössfæren – det der er påvirket af menneskelig intellektuel aktivitet og fornuft – vil få mere og mere herredømme over biosfæren. Og det er denne anti-entropiske karakter af det menneskelige sinds kreativitet, som er den mest avancerede del af det fysiske univers’ drivkraft, hvorfor der er grund til optimisme for menneskehedens fremtid.

Det antyder, at flere og flere mennesker i alle forskellige nationer og kulturer vil blive i stand til at hæve sig over det infantile niveau af sanselig vished og overvinde mislykkede ideologiske traditioner, såsom skolen for sofistisk retorik, som ikke bekymrer sig om sandheden, men om sejren for hvilken som helst påstand, som sofisten ønsker at fremsætte for at fremme sit eget ego.

Konceptet om modsætningernes sammenfald kan anvendes på den nuværende strategiske situation, og faktisk alle områder af menneskelig viden. Menneskehedens interesse, hvis man definerer den, ikke som den nuværende levende befolknings interesse, her og nu, men med hensyn til alle kommende generationers interesse, i det væsentlige den samme idé som indledningen af den amerikanske forfatning: At det ikke alene er nutiden, men alle fremtidige generationer, som det fælles gode skal tjene, og i denne tid hele verden, hele den menneskelige befolkning.
At opnå en forståelse af hvad dette betyder, vil sige, at hvis man tænker over hvordan man kan anvende det, som jeg lige sagde teoretisk på den nuværende verdenssituation, hvis man tager hver enkelt nation som et mikrokosmos, er fred i makrokosmos, ifølge Nicolaus fra Cusa, kun muligt, hvis hvert mikrokosmos har den bedst mulige udvikling, og tager det som værende i sin egen interesse, at alle de andre mikrokosmos udvikler sig. Det vil sige, at man ikke tager den såkaldte geopolitiske egeninteresse af nationen eller en gruppe af nationer, og positionerer sig imod den påståede interesse fra alle de andre, men at man har en anden opfattelse, og afviser at der skulle være en modsætning, som hævdet af den aristoteliske metode. Hvis man tager et primært ontologisk udgangspunkt i Platons forandringsbegreb, kan udviklingen af hvert mikrokosmos betragtes som en kontrapunktisk komposition, en fuga, hvor udviklingen af hver node og hver idé bidrager til den fremtidige udvikling af alle andre.

Der er allerede fungerende eksempler, hvor man kan se en tilnærmelse til, hvordan det kan fungere. F.eks. i det internationale samarbejde i den termonukleare fusionsreaktor i Cadarache, Frankrig, ITER, som er det fælles samarbejdsprojekt mellem 34 nationer, der alle drager fordel af opdagelserne. Der er naturligvis også det potentielle internationale samarbejde inden for rumforskning og -rejser: Vi har i øjeblikket tre meget fascinerende missioner til Mars, som alle i løbet af et par uger ankommer til Mars, og ville det ikke give mening at slutte sig til forskningen i fællesskab. Nu er det ikke spørgsmålet om, hvem der sætter det første flag på Mars, eller hvem der sætter den første kvinde eller mand på Mars, men det er spørgsmålet om, hvordan vi erobrer solsystemet til menneskelig beboelse?

Se, vores solsystem er utroligt stort. Jeg ved ikke, om man for nylig har kigget op til stjernerne, eksempelvis til Mælkevejen, men endnu længere væk; vores galakse er kun en ud af 2 billioner galakser, som hidtil er blevet opdaget af Hubble-teleskopet!

Tænk bare på menneskehedens langsigtede eksistens: Menneskeheden har eksisteret i et par millioner år, men i henseende til beviselig registreret historie kender vi i virkeligheden kun en smule til de sidste 5.000 år, gennem arkæologi ved vi lidt mere, men stadig kun virkelig en meget kort tidsperiode. Ønsker vi nu, at menneskeheden skal være en udødelig art, eller ønsker vi, at menneskeheden bare skal være som en af de mange andre arter, der kommer og går, og som forsvinder i forbindelse med de store masseudryddelser? Det betyder ikke noget, så skaber evolutionen sidenhen andre arter med et højere stofskifte, så det betyder ikke rigtig noget, om menneskeheden forsvinder i processen. Altså, det mener jeg ikke. Fordi jeg tror på, at menneskeheden, uanset hvad vi finder i universet generelt, hvis der skulle være andet intelligent liv et eller andet sted, er menneskeheden helt enestående. Vi er indtil videre den eneste kendte kreative art.

Om nogle få milliarder år vil Solen holde op med at fungere, og sætter os ude af stand til at leve på jorden, og derefter er det sidste udkald for at kolonisere rummet; at gøre andre planeter beboelige for den menneskelige art vil være et spørgsmål om vores arts overlevelse. Jeg tænker det udmærket er muligt, hvis vi bevæger os væk fra den nuværende tilstand af at opføre os som spædbørn, som små drenge, der sparker hinanden over skinnebenene, og at vi udvikler vores fulde potentiale, samarbejder med andre mennesker, samarbejder med andre kulturer og opfylder menneskehedens langsigtede skæbne, som den art der bevidst skaber forandring i universet, og på den måde opfylder vores sande mission som en menneskelig art. Se, jeg mener det er op til os at foretage denne forandring, og på denne måde skabe evnen til at komme ud af denne krise i live og med glæde.

Og det var, hvad jeg ønskede at sige.




En presserende meddelelse fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
Israelsk snigmord på Mohsen Fakhrizadeh – er dette en fælde for Trump?

Den 30. november (EIRNS) — Den følgende erklæring fra Schiller Instituttet er af formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche godkendt til massedistribution:

Den 30. november – Det brutale snigmord på Irans førende atomforsker, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, skal ses for, hvad det er – en terrorhandling. Denne forfærdelige udvikling, som de iranske ledere beskylder Israel for (Israel har myrdet andre iranske forskere), har potentialet til at fungere som en fælde for præsident Donald Trump, der lige nu kæmper for at bevise den omfattende valgsvindel, der blev begået i et forsøg på at stjæle hans genvalg til en anden valgperiode. Selvom planlægningen og godkendelsen af mordet stadig ikke står klart, antyder visse iranere og sådanne falske nyhedsmedier som New York Times i USA, at USA godkendte drabet, da det var USA, der gennemførte drone-mordet i januar på Qasem Soleimani, lederen af Irans Revolutionsgarde.

Præsident Trump har opfordret til at afslutte de onde ‘regimeskifte-krige’, der blev iværksat af præsidenterne Bush og Obama, og har for nylig fjernet de militære ledere, som nægtede at udføre hans ordre om at fjerne amerikanske styrker fra disse krige. Den største fare ved det nylige mord er, at USA bliver inddraget i en krig med Iran, som hurtigt kunne udvikle sig til en ny verdenskrig med Rusland og Kina. For at forhindre en sådan katastrofe for civilisationen opfordrer Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Schiller Instituttet præsident Trump til at acceptere opfordringen fra præsident Vladimir Putin, om straks at indkalde til et topmøde med lederne af de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd for at imødegå krigsfaren såvel som de universelle kriser fra pandemien, den voldsomme hungersnød i Afrika og den globale økonomiske og finansielle sammenbrudskrise. Uanset om præsident Trump lykkes med at bevise valgsvindlen eller ej, er han præsident indtil den 20. januar, og den fare, som menneskeheden står over for i dag, kan ikke vente

Baggrund på engelsk:
Rouhani: Iran Smarter Than To Fall in Trap
Nov. 30 (EIRNS)—The rational response by Iran, Russia, and the Gulf countries’ leadership to the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh Nov. 27, shows that the nature of this operation is to provoke Iran to retaliate militarily against Israel and the U.S. forces in the region to ignite a new conflict in the middle of a U.S. electoral dispute. While Iranian officials and media were quick to point the finger of accusation against Israel and the U.S.-British-backed Iranian terrorist group Mujahidin-e Khalq (MEK), Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Nov. 28 in a televised statement: “The Iranian nation is wiser and smarter than to fall into the trap of the Zionists [Israel]. They are after chaos and sedition. They should understand that we know their plans and they will not achieve their ominous goals.” However, the President warned, “All think tanks and all enemies of Iran should know well that the Iranian nation and the country’s authorities are more courageous and zealous than to let this criminal act go unanswered. The relevant authorities will respond to this crime at the proper time.”

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement saying: “We strongly condemn the assassination of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. We are seriously worried by the provocative nature of this terrorist attack, which was obviously designed to destabilize the region and exacerbate its conflict potential. Those who organized the assassination to further their political interests must be held accountable.” The statement was concluded by urging “all sides to refrain from moves that could escalate tensions.”

The Persian Gulf states of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain both issued official statements condemning the assassination of Fakhrizadeh. The two countries have recently signed peace agreements brokered by the Trump Administration and are fully normalizing economic and cultural relations with Israel. The U.A.E. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation issued a statement on Nov. 30 saying that the ministry “has stressed that the state of instability our region is currently going through, and the security challenges it faces, drive us all to work towards averting acts that could lead to escalation and eventually threaten the stability of the entire region.” The Ministry said that “emanating from its deep conviction on the need to pursue all means for stability in the region, it condemns the heinous assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, which could further fuel conflict in the region.” It concluded: “Given the current situation in the region, the U.A.E. calls upon all parties to exercise maximum degrees of self-restraint to avoid dragging the region into new levels of instability and threat to peace.”

While the Saudi Arabian government did not issue a similar statement, its ambassador to the UN Abdullah Al-Muallimi stated in an interview with Russia Today-Arabi that Saudi Arabia is opposed to the policy of assassinations and that “the loss of a Muslim scientist anywhere is loss of all Muslim nations.” He emphasized that Saudi Arabia calls for “avoiding of escalation and spontaneous violent reactions.”

The method of using terrorist and military actions, like the assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, to generate a counter reaction from Iran, and thus start a new string of military operations, is becoming too obvious for many parties. It has to be replaced by the same diplomacy that led to the signing of the “nuclear deal” (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA) between Iran and the G5+1 (UNSC 5 permanent states plus Germany) in 2015 that guaranteed that Iran would not be developing nuclear-grade uranium. Iran claims that it never had the intention of developing nuclear weapons. However, the JCPOA was the right insurance policy for the international community. At the same time, Iran’s right to utilize nuclear technology for civilian purposes was protected. The decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the JCPOA and impose harsh sanctions on Iran, which should be considered a big mistake, reversed that positive trend and risked tearing down the “insurance policy.” Other actors, like the Israeli hardliners and their British and American backers in the military-industrial complex, are thus enabled to trigger a major disaster by provocative acts like this assassination. The rational response by the Iranian leadership is key to preventing such an outcome. [hus]




Trump versus Biden: Politiske forskelle

Den 26. november 2020 (EIR Strategic Alert, Wiesbaden) – I ugerne siden præsidentvalget, har Donald Trump, der forbliver præsident i det mindste indtil 20. januar 2021, taget et par beslutninger, der er direkte i modstrid med den politik, som Joe Biden har lovet at gennemføre. De vedrører spørgsmål af stor international betydning, herunder af økonomisk, militær og strategisk karakter.

Centralbankpolitik:
Den 19. november meddelte finansminister Mnuchin, at statskassen vil tilbagetage en stor del af de 454 milliarder dollars i skatteyderbetalte midler, der blev stillet til rådighed for centralbanken, Federal Reserve, i begyndelsen af marts som en håndsrækning til de finansielle markeder og megabankerne. Og han bad om, at centralbanken afslutter en række af redningsprogrammerne. Talskvinde for Joe Biden, Kate Bedingfield, kaldte dette skridt “dybt uansvarligt”, og hævder at det vil fratage små virksomheder den økonomiske hjælp de har brug for. Men den udtalelse er åbenlyst vildledende, idet Wall Street bankerne, der modtog midlerne ikke har lånt det ud til virksomheder og husstande (jf. SAS 43/20), i modsætning til hvad der var stipuleret. Bemærk at præsident Trump er den eneste store verdensleder, der har udfordret magten og “uafhængigheden” af en centralbank, på et tidspunkt hvor de andre store centralbanker rykker for at overtage investerings- og finanspolitik fra regeringer under den såkaldte “Great Reset” og globale ‘grønne’ aftale (jf. første nyhedsindslag ovenfor).

Klima-forandringer:
En af Trumps første handlinger som præsident var at trække USA ud af Paris-klimaaftalen, med dens ødelæggende virkninger den ville have haft på industriproduktionen. Joe Biden har netop udnævnt John Kerry som sin præsidentielle udsending for klimaet, og han vil sidde med i det Nationale Sikkerhedsråd. Som udenrigsminister for Obama/Biden-præsidentskabet hjalp Kerry med til at forhandle ’Paris-aftalen’, og han lover, at Biden vil anvende den på “alle sektorer i den amerikanske økonomi”. Han støtter fuldt ud både Green New Deal og World Economic Forums “Great Reset”-svindel.

Afslutning af permanente krige:
Den 17. november bekendtgjorde den nyudnævnte forsvarsminister, Christopher Miller, tilbagetrækning af amerikanske tropper fra både Irak og Afghanistan (jf SAS 47/20), et skridt som hans forgænger, Mark Esper, som Trump fyrede, havde modsat sig. Den mand, som Joe Biden har til hensigt at udnævne til udenrigsminister, Anthony Blinken, foretrækker at sende tropperne tilbage til Afghanistan, og har udtalt at præsident Obamas værste fejl var hans “undladelse af at angribe Syrien fuldstændigt”.

Covid19:
Det Hvide Hus meddelte i sidste uge, at 40 millioner vaccinedoser mod Covid-19 skal være tilgængelige senest ved udgangen af året. Distributionsplaner er indsendt af alle relevante myndigheder med henblik på at muliggøre hurtig levering og brug. Men Biden-teamet forbeholder sig nu ret til at ændre disse planer, tilsyneladende for at forhindre Trump i at få kredit for succesen. Desuden meddelte Trump den 20. november adskillige skridt til at sænke priserne på receptpligtig medicin, især for ’Medicare’-modtagere, på trods af protester fra medicinalvirksomhederne.

Rumpolitik:
I 2019 gav præsident Trump NASA målsætningen om at vende tilbage til Månen inden 2024. Joe Biden har antydet, at han går ind for straks at udsætte denne mission indtil mindst 2028. Med andre ord vil han sandsynligvis følge i Obamas fodspor og grundlæggende suspendere Månen-Mars-missioner.

Billede: Trump & Biden. Credits: Patrick Semansky, AP. License: CC BY-NC 4.0




Opfordring til en verdensomspændende modstand mod global fascisme: Stop centralbankernes magtovertagelse

Schiller Instituttet, den 19. november — Femoghalvfjerds år efter afslutningen af 2. Verdenskrig trues verden af et nyt fascistisk diktatur. Denne gang kommer det i form af de førende centralbanker, City of London og Wall Streets forsøg på at konsolidere total kontrol over alle finansielle investeringer til fordel for de superrige på bekostning af middelklassen og de fattige over hele verden. ‘Overgangen til økologi’, som de presser på med, indebærer en destruktiv økonomisk overtagelse af økonomierne, hvor den “grønne” farve blot er et ‘banner’ for deres egentlige hensigt om at plyndre.

De kalder det for den ‘store nulstilling’ (“Great Reset”). Under påskud af genopbygning af verdensøkonomien efter COVID-19-pandemien, har toppen af de private bankfolk og milliardærer til hensigt at gennemføre et ”regimeskifte”, hvorved monetære og finanspolitiske beslutninger ikke længere skal træffes af valgte regeringer, men direkte af de private centralbanker og førende finansielle aktører. I denne sidste fase af den årtier lange neomalthusianske politik til fordel for spekulanter ville de få den endelige kontrol over alle investeringer og helt og aldeles kanalisere dem til “grønne teknologier” og dermed afskære alle investeringer i de produktive sektorer af højteknologisk energi, industri, landbrug og infrastruktur.

Hvis denne plan, der fremmes af World Economic Forum med en række “Great Reset”-konferencer, går igennem, vil det betyde afslutningen på de industrialiserede nationer i den såkaldte avancerede sektor, og døden for bogstaveligt talt millioner og derefter milliarder af mennesker i udviklingslandene, fordi der er en direkte sammenhæng mellem produktiviteten af en økonomi, den ‘energigennemstrømningstæthed’ der anvendes i den produktive proces, og antallet af mennesker, hvis eksistens kan opretholdes. Hvis hele verdensøkonomien bliver “kulstoffri” – i det Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) og hans medarbejdere allerede for mange år siden kaldte for “den store transformation af verdensøkonomien”, inklusive afskaffelse af atomenergi og -forskning – vil antallet af mennesker, der kan opretholde eksistensen, næppe være højere end en milliard. Hvad med de andre syv milliarder? Hvis ikke denne tilgang til tingene vendes, kan det kun føre til kaos og en ny verdenskrig.

En integreret del af “Great Reset” er planen om at indføre kryptopenge og digitalisering af betalingsmidler. Dette vil muliggøre den samlede overvågning af alle personoplysninger inden for ethvert felt af økonomisk aktivitet, og fuldføre det der allerede er i gang med den fysiske overvågning fra NSA og den britiske efterretningstjenestes GCHQ. Hvis retningen i samfundets udvikling forbliver til fordel for en privilegeret finanselite, vil dette blive brugt til at devaluere den akkumulerede ubetalte gæld gennem nedskrivninger og inflation, som det skete i Tyskland i 1923, og både folket og den produktive økonomi vil blive udplyndret. Digitaliseringen af betalingsmidler kan kun finde nyttige anvendelser, hvis samfundet er orienteret til gavn for det fælles bedste.

Den nuværende indsats for at etablere total kontrol over penge- og finanspolitikken ved at give kontrollen til centralbankerne inden for rammerne af den “store nulstilling” og indførelsen en ‘Green New Deal’, er baseret på de samme fascistiske principper som Hitlers præsident for ‘der Reichsbank’, Hjalmar Schachts politik, og må absolut afvises.

Vi forlanger:

  • En global Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, afslutningen på al støtte til den spekulative sektor indenfor investeringsbankerne og nedlukning af skyggeøkonomien;
  • Genoprettelse af suverænitet over de nationale valutaer;
  • Oprettelse af en nationalbank i hvert land og tilbagevenden til kreditudstedelse af de suveræne regeringer;
  • Oprettelsen af et nyt kreditsystem i tradition med Franklin Delano Roosevelts oprindelige hensigt med Bretton Woods-systemet og De alliancefrie landes Bevægelse på Colombo-konferencen i 1976. Det primære mål er at øge levestandarden for hvert enkelt menneske på planeten, som en forudsætning for fred, og for at overvinde alle aktuelle udfordringer, såsom pandemi, global sult og fattigdom.
  • En massiv stigning i produktiviteten ved at flytte til nye økonomiske platforme baseret på kommerciel brug af termonuklear fusionskraft og internationalt samarbejde inden for rumforskning og -rejser.

Den grundlæggende modsætning, der bestemmer vores og de kommende generationers fremtid, er valget mellem et masseovervågningssamfund under kontrol af grøn fascistisk finansiering på den ene side, og på den anden en verden af ‘detente’, ‘entente’, afspænding, venskabelig forståelse og samarbejde mellem alle folk og nationer på den måde, som alle humanister tidligere har foreslået, og foreslår den dag i dag. Det har vi forpligtet os til at kæmpe for.

Denne tekst cirkuleres internationalt, og folk opfordres til at underskrive den. I 1945 sagde alle de der netop havde gennemlevet fascisme og verdenskrig klart: ”Aldrig mere!” Vi er nu ved afgørelsens time, hvor vi skal beslutte:

Har vi lært af historien, eller er vores moral ringere end vores forfædre?

For at skrive under, kontakt Schiller Instituttet: 53 57 00 51; si@schillerinstitut.dk




Videoerne fra Schiller Instituttets internationale konference
lørdag og søndag den 12.-13. december
Verden efter det amerikanske valg:
Skabelsen af en verden baseret på fornuft

Panel 1, lørdag den 12. december kl. 15 dansk tid:

”Hold sammen eller hver for sig”: Frie og suveræne republikker, eller digitalt diktatur. (Se beskrivelsen nedenunder.)

Panel 2: lørdag den 12. december kl. 19 dansk tid:

Undgå faren for 3. verdenskrig: En strategisk orden baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål. (Se beskrivelsen nedenunder.) 

Panel 3: søndag den 13. december kl. 15 dansk tid:

Overvind den globale sundhedskrise og den pandemiske hungersnød: Tænkning på niveauet af modsætningernes sammenfald. (Se beskrivelsen nedenunder.)

Panel 4: søndag den 13. december kl. 19 dansk tid:

En menneskelig fremtid for ungdommen: En renæssance drevet af Beethovens klassiske kultur. (Se beskrivelsen nedenunder.)

1 minute lang video invitation:

Lørdag-søndag den 12.-13. december kl. 15 dansk tid begge dage afholder Schiller Instituttet en international konference via internettet for at behandle det presserende spørgsmål, som hele menneskeheden står over for: “Verden efter det amerikanske valg: Skabelsen af en verden baseret på fornuft.” Grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, meddelte, at en fuld invitation og foreløbig liste over talere snart vil være tilgængelig, og at konferencens indhold vil fokusere på følgende:

Uanset udfaldet af den uhørte kamp omkring det nylige amerikanske valg, står det allerede klart, at det ikke kun er en intern amerikansk affære, men også en begivenhed af højeste internationale strategiske betydning. Efter fire år med en fuldstændig synkroniseret international dæmoniserings-kampagne imod præsident Donald Trump, men samtidig også mod præsident Vladimir Putin i Rusland og præsident Xi Jinping i Kina, Russiagate, en fejlslagen rigsretssag, åbent oprør og nu skamløs valgsvindel – er det vigtigt, at verden hurtigt forstår: Udfaldet af denne kamp er valget mellem 3. verdenskrig eller fred.

Trump har tiltrukket sig den ubændige vrede fra det som præsident Eisenhower identificerede som det militærindustrielle kompleks – det permanente bureaukrati, den såkaldte ‘Deep State’ og de økonomiske interesser, der kontrollerer dem, såsom City of London og Wall Street – fordi han vovede at bekendtgøre, at han ønskede at ‘afslutte de endeløse krige’, og at han mente, at et godt forhold til Rusland og Kina ‘er en god ting, ikke en dårlig ting!’.

Hvis en mentalt svækket Joe Biden blev indsat som symbolsk præsident i et par uger, for sidenhen at blive erstattet af Kamala Harris og Obama-Bush’s intervenerende krigsapparat, kunne verden på kort sigt blive trukket ind i en krig mod Rusland og Kina, hvilket ville omfatte en udvidelse af den politiske konfrontation til verdensrummet.

De to dages dialog og drøftelser med simultantolkning på forskellige sprog, herunder spansk, fransk og tysk, vil omfatte følgende paneldiskussioner:

PANEL I. ”Hold sammen eller hver for sig”: Frie og suveræne republikker, eller digitalt diktatur (lørdag d. 12. december, kl. 15 dansk tid): Dette panel vil diskutere konsekvenserne af det nuværende drama, der udspiller sig i USA, den globale kamp for at erstatte det nuværende bankerotte finanssystem med et nyt paradigme, skitseret over fem årtier af Lyndon LaRouche. Konferencen afholdes på tærsklen til Valgkollegiets møde den 14. december, hvor det besluttes hvem der bliver den næste præsident for USA. På det tidspunkt vil beviserne for klagerne om valgsvindel – påstanden fra præsident Trumps advokater om, at de har dokumenteret bevis for, at han vandt valget; metoderne til valgsvindel som rapporteret af ”whistleblowere”, og afsløringen af andre kapaciteter og handlinger, som er en del af det statskup der truer USA – stå klart, før valgmændene skal træffe deres valg. Konferencepanelet vil samle fremtrædende eksperter indenfor områderne af den amerikanske forfatning, lovgivning og efterretningsvirksomhed, og vil understrege den dramatiske relevans i dag af Benjamin Franklins svar på spørgsmålet om, hvilken slags regering USA havde modtaget fra ham: “En republik – hvis vi kan beholde den.”

Panel I speakers:
Moderator’s Welcoming Remarks
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute President: Introduction
Marino Elsevyf (Dominican Republic), Attorney-at-Law, Member of the 1995 Martin Luther King International Tribunal: Report from the International Investigative Commission on Truth in Elections
David Meiswinkle (US), Attorney-at-Law; Report from the International Investigative Commission on Truth in Elections
Viktor Dedaj (France), citizen-journalist, “The Crucifixion of Julian Assange: A Journalist Committed to Truth and Peace.”
Harley Schlanger (US), Board of Directors, Schiller Institute, Inc., “What Are the Principles and Facts Concerning the Recent US Election”
David Christie (US): ”The British Empire’s Digital Dictatorship: Censorship and Mass Social Control”
Q & A Session

PANEL II. Undgå faren for 3. verdenskrig: En strategisk orden baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål (lørdag d. 12. december, kl. 19 dansk tid): Hvad der må gøres for at sætte en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur på den internationale dagsorden; en, som sikrer overlevelsen af den menneskelige art. Paneldeltagerne vil lokalisere krigsfaren i sammenhæng med det verserende nedbrud af det transatlantiske finansielle system og diskutere de potentielle konsekvenser af planerne, som dette systems centralbanker har for digitaliseringen af betalingsmidler. Indførslen af de fire love, der er foreslået af Lyndon LaRouche, er fortsat påtrængende nødvendigt, herunder kravet om at etablere et internationalt kreditsystem i form af et Nyt Bretton Woods-system, samt behovet for internationalt samarbejde inden for rumforskning og en fusionsbaseret økonomi. Det er derfor yderst påtrængende, at P5-topmødet, foreslået af præsident Putin, med de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, straks indkaldes, for på dette fremskredne tidspunkt i krisen er det en pligt for de mest magtfulde nationer i verden at handle i fællesskab for at undgå en geopolitisk katastrofe. Dette topmøde, eller bedre, række af topmøder, må definere løsninger på de eksistentielle udfordringer menneskeheden står over for, samt definere områderne for menneskehedens fælles mål, såsom at opnå nye økonomiske platforme for verdensøkonomien ved kommerciel anvendelse af termonuklear fusionsenergi, og internationalt samarbejde inden for rumforskning.

Panel II Speakers
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute President
Yan Wang, PhD, “The Chinese Economic Model”
Marcelo Muñoz (Spain), Founder and President Emeritus, Cátedra China, “China and the US: Rivalry, Confrontation, or Cooperation”
Ole Doering, PhD (Germany), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology: “A Salutogenic Symphony with Ancient Chinese Philosophy: Harmony as Polyphonic Accord and Peace as Expressive Equilibrium. Can We Make It Work?”
Prof. Emmanuel Dupuy (France), Founder and President, Institute of European Prospective and Security (IPSE): “What is at Stake in the on-going Renovation of Nuclear Doctrines and Ballistic Treaties: What Agenda for the European Countries in the Context of a Strategic Autonomy of Europe.”
Col. Richard H. Black (USA Ret.), former head of the Army’s Criminal Law Division of The Pentagon, former State Senator (Va.): “NATO Must Be Dissolved”
Q & A Session
Paul Gallagher, (US), Executive Intelligence Review, Editorial Board, “LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods and the Central Banks —
There’s Not Enough Room in this World for Both of Them”
Marc-Gabriel Draghi (France), Economist: “Orderly Debt Cancellation: Historical Precedents and Present Relevance.”
Q & A Session

PANEL III. Overvind den globale sundhedskrise og den pandemiske hungersnød: Tænkning på niveauet af modsætningernes sammenfald (søndag d. 13. december, kl. 15 dansk tid): At overvinde de ødelæggende konsekvenser over hele verden af 50 års neoliberal økonomiske politik, hvoraf COVID-19-pandemien blot er det mest oplagte eksempel. Hvis COVID-19 og faren for fremtidige pandemier skal overvindes, må verdenssamfundet enes om at etablere et globalt sundhedssystem, hvilket betyder et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert eneste land på planeten. Der må også være et nyt niveau af internationalt samarbejde inden for biovidenskab for at finde kure mod hidtil uhelbredelige sygdomme samt bedre forståelse af livet i universet som sådan. Som chefen for Verdensfødevareprogrammet, David Beasley, har bekendtgjort, er 7 millioner mennesker allerede døde af sult i år, hvilket let kunne have været forhindret. I lyset af den umiddelbare fare for at 30 millioner mere dør af sult i løbet af de næste par måneder, og 260 millioner forventes at lide den samme skæbne i det kommende år, må der være en fuldstændig ændring i landbrugspolitikken. Målet skal være at opnå fødevaresikkerhed i enhver nation og en fordobling af fødevareproduktionen på verdensplan. For at finde svar på disse eksistentielle trusler mod menneskeheden kræves en tankegang i et nyt paradigme. I stedet for profitmaksimering til et privilegeret finansoligarki, må menneskehedens fælles interesser sættes først: menneskehedens fælles mål. Til dette formål er der dannet en “en komité af modsætningernes sammenfald”, et begreb udviklet af den store renæssancetænker Nicholas af Cusa, hvis mål det er, at have mennesker af god vilje i mange nationer til at arbejde sammen for at løse disse kriser.

Moderator: Dennis Speed
1. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, “The Role of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites”
2. Dr. Joycelyn Elders (US), Former Surgeon General of the United States [8 min.]
3. Many members of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, mostly doctors from the U.S. and one retired military officer.
4. Q & A Session
6. Hon. Joseph Maxwell (US), former Lt. Governor of Missouri, Hog Farmer: “To Feed All
Humanity: Break-up the International Food Cartels”
7. Jason Ross (US), Science Advisor, Schiller Institute: “Cusa’s Method: The Coincidence of
Opposites”
8. Q & A Session

PANEL IV. En menneskelig fremtid for ungdommen: En renæssance drevet af Beethovens klassiske kultur (søndag d. 13. december, kl. 19 dansk tid): Det fjerde panel vil være tilegnet behovet for en renæssance af klassisk kultur og ungdommens særlige rolle i gennemførelsen heraf. I dette øjeblik af historien, hvor hele samfundets fundament er rystet i sin grundvold, er der en enorm appetit på skønheden ved stor kunst, efter menneskehedens høje idealer, som de udtrykkes i de store kompositioner af klassisk musik og poesi. I alle større civilisationer er der digtere, komponister og filosoffer, som har hyldet menneskeheden som en kreative art, og det vil være dialogen mellem disse kulturer, der kan og vil skabe en ny æra for menneskeheden. I denne ånd vil hele konferencen blive viet til Beethovens år, komponisten, hvis kompositioner giver folk et håb, fordi de udtrykker hvad mennesket er i stand til.

Moderator: Diane Sare, Founder, Schiller Institute NYC Chorus
1. Jacques Cheminade (France), President, Solidarite et Progres, “The Necessity and Pathway
of a New Classical Renaissance”
2. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President, Schiller Institute: “Bring Schiller and Beethoven to
Today’s Youth”

3. David Shavin, Schiller Institute, about his article about Beethoven’s opera Fidelio being based on the real story of the imprisonment of the Marquis de Lafayette.
4. John Sigerson (US), Schiller Institute National Music Director, “What Does It Take to
Really Understand Beethoven?”
5. Jose Vega (US), “Romeo and Juliet in Your Society”
6. Anastasia Battle (US), “A Tale of Two Revolutions”
7. Carolina Dominguez (Mexico), “Schiller in a Time of Pandemic”
8. Q & A Session




Atomkrig – det uundgåelige emne på alles dagsorden

Den 8. august (EIRNS) – I forbindelse med 75-års jubilæet for den atomare tilintetgørelse af Hiroshima og Nagasaki af den britiske marionet Harry Truman – en udslettelse der alene havde til formål at terrorisere verden til at acceptere en ‘verdensregering’ (One World Government) udtænkt af det britiske imperium – er der nu dagligt overvejelser i magtens korridorer hos enhver større statsmagt på Jorden om den ekstreme fare for, at en atomkrig vil finde sted igen i dag. De fleste af verdens nyhedsbureauer citerer den tidligere australske premierminister Kevin Rudds ord i Foreign Affairs: ”Spørgsmålet der stilles nu i hovedstæder verden over, stilfærdigt men nervøst, er, hvor vil dette ende? Det engang utænkelige udfald – egentlig væbnet konflikt mellem USA og Kina – ser nu ud til at være muligt for første gang siden afslutningen af Korea-krigen. Med andre ord står vi over for udsigten til ikke kun en ny kold krig, men også en varm krig”. De næste tre måneder, fra nu af og indtil det amerikanske valg, er de mest kritiske for at en hændelse skal føre til krig, advarer han. Da den nuværende australske premierminister, Scott Morrison, blev spurgt om Rudds advarsel, erklærede han sig enig.

Det russiske forsvarsministeriums avis, Krasnaya Zvezda, har offentliggjort en detaljeret beskrivelse af den russiske politik for første gangs brug af atomvåben, som det blev bebudet af Vladimir Putin 2. juni. Der er to situationer, der kan retfærdiggøre en sådan første anvendelse, skriver de: først, ved “pålidelig information om opsendelse af ballistiske missiler, der angriber Ruslands territorium og (eller) dets allierede”, da Rusland ikke kan vide, om missilet medfører atomvåben eller ej; og for det andet, ethvert forsøg på at ødelægge Rusland “som en stat”, hvad enten det er med atomvåben eller andre midler. Artiklen noterer sig USA’s tilbagetrækning fra flere internationale våbenaftaler og tilføjer: ”Efter afslutningen af [Ny] START-aftalen vil der ikke være nogen eksisterende international aftale, der begrænser det strategiske våbenkapløb, og de amerikanske krigshøge vil have helt frie hænder”.

Sanktionerne fra USA, der i går blev pålagt Hongkongs administrerende chef, Carrie Lam, og ti andre ledere, blev mødt af fordømmelse og latterliggørelse i Kina, hvor de kaldte dem “klovnenumre”, “skamløst og foragteligt”, en “åbenlys og barbarisk” indblanding i Kinas interne anliggender. Sanktionerne beslaglægger alle ejendomme i USA, der ejes af de sanktionerede personer, og indefryser bankkonti. Luo Huining, Pekings officielle repræsentant i Hongkong, foreslog, at han ville sende 100 $ til præsident Donald Trump, så han havde noget at indefryse.

Men faren for krig er håndgribelig. Storbritanniens førende rolle i denne galskab er slet skjult. I dag offentliggjorde Wall Street Journal en artikel med titlen “Det er tid til at genoplive Anglosfæren”. Forfatteren, Andrew Roberts, er en britisk historiker og medunderskriver af principerklæringen fra det britiske efterretningsorgan Henry Jackson Society, der arbejdede tæt sammen med dronning Elizabeth II og hendes families arkiver for at skrive en biografi om Winston Churchill i 2018, kaldet Churchill: Walking With Destiny (Churchill: gang med skæbnen). Roberts foreslår, at Canada, Australien og New Zealand og Storbritannien (kaldet Canzuk – fire ud af de ‘fem øjne’) deltager i en økonomisk og militær union, der “straks skulle gøre sin entré på den globale scene som en supermagt, der er i stand til at stå skulder ved skulder med USA i den store, afgørende kamp i det 21. århundrede mod et stadig mere revanchistisk Kina”. Canzuk kunne hjælpe USA med dets tildelte rolle (selvfølgelig tildelt af det britiske imperium) som ”verdens politimand” – netop hvad præsident Trump har fordømt. “Omkostningerne ved at begrænse og inddæmme Kinas globale ambitioner ville blive den historiske rolle for ikke én, men to supermagter, da det er klart, at EU ikke har nogen interesse i at forsøge at stoppe det kinesiske herredømme i Asien”.

Rablende vanvid? Selvfølgelig. Men dette er de rablende galninge, der kastede atombomber på Japan, der trak den “umælende kæmpe” USA ind i koloni-krigene i Indokina (efter at have myrdet præsident John Kennedy) samt de kolonialistiske krige i Mellemøsten under de anglofile George Bush og Barack Obama.

Forebyggelse af en ny krig vil ikke komme fra en ny “anti-krigsbevægelse”. Verden er nu i en tilstand af global opløsning, med en pandemi, massesult, økonomisk forfald, en bristefærdig finansiel boble og faren for termonuklear krig. Som titlen på forummet, der afholdes i dag af LaRouches politiske aktionskomité, antyder, er det nu et spørgsmål om “LaRouches fire Love eller Johannes Åbenbaringens Fire Ryttere”. For at gøre det til førstnævnte snarere end sidstnævnte, er det foreslåede topmøde med statscheferne for de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd – et topmøde, som alle fem ledere er enige om, men uden en fastsat dato – absolut presserende.

Den franske præsident Emmanuel Macron har indkaldt til en international konference søndag for at tage fat på krisen i Libanon, som præsident Trump har meddelt, at han vil deltage i. Det er ikke klart, om Rusland og/eller Kina vil deltage, selvom begge er dybt involveret i at sende bistand til Libanon efter eksplosionen og allerede var engageret i økonomisk bistand. Måske kan katastrofen i Beirut skabe en ramme for at bringe verden sammen for at håndtere den globale krise som helhed.

 




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




P5-topmødet foreslået af Putin kunne være sidste chance  – af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 En verdensomspændende ’New Deal’

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Det britiske imperium er ude i tovene

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

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

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

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

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

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

 




Alternativet til en mørk tidsalder og tredje verdenskrig

Introduktion til Helgas tale:

DENNIS SPEED: Mit navn er Dennis Speed, og jeg vil byde jer velkommen til dagens internationale konference og webcast.

Vi vil begynde dagen med et videoudklip med den afdøde økonom og statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche, fra 2011. Han var hovedtaler på et panel ved en konference i Schiller Instituttet – det var i Tyskland – og navnet på panelet ved denne lejlighed var: ”At redde vores civilisation fra afgrunden: Klassisk kulturs rolle. En nødvendighed for menneskeheden.”

LYNDON LAROUCHE (uddrag): Hvad er det ved mennesker som gør, at de ikke bare er endnu en dyreart, klar til at blive slagtet (at uddø) når deres tid er kommet?

Svaret er et lidet kendt spørgsmål. De fleste mennesker har ikke den fjerneste idé om hvad svaret er! Rent faktisk er vores samfund styret af folk, der ikke har nogen som helst idé om hvad menneskeheden er! Det eneste de kan finde på, er en eller anden beskrivelse af et slags dyr, med dyriske karaktertræk af nydelse og smerte og lignende, som måske kontrollerer dette dyrs adfærd…

Navnet for den specifikke kvalitet, som vi kender fra mennesket, og som ikke eksisterer i nogen anden kendt levende art: Det er en egenskab af kreativitet, der er absolut enestående i menneskeheden. Og hvis man ikke er kreativ, og hvis ikke man forstår kreativitet, så har man endnu ingen billet til overlevelse! Fordi kreativitet vil ikke redde dig, medmindre du bruger den.

DENNIS SPEED: Lad mig sige noget om Schiller Instituttet, og hvad vi har gjort med denne række af tre konferencer, som begyndte i april dette år. Disse konferencer var viet til idéen om at skabe et firemagts-topmøde – Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA. Der er forskellige processer, der allerede har været i stand til at bevæge sig i denne retning. Faktisk er der, blandt de mange ting som vi vil snakke om i dag, et nyt forslag, som blev fremsat af Præsident Vladimir Putin fra Rusland, i denne retning [for et topmøde med de 5 permanente medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd: USA, Rusland, Kina, Storbritannien og Frankrig –red.]… Idéen om et firemagts-topmøde er ikke eksklusiv. Det betyder ikke at andre ikke kan involvere sig…

Lad mig også sige, for især folk i USA, at krisen, der har påkaldt sig folks opmærksomhed, som udstillet i den sociale og politiske krise i Amerikas gader, er blot ét udtryk for en bredere, international proces. Og det er grunden til, at vi i dag begynder med det første panel for at give dette bredere overblik, og tillade dig og andre at blive en del af en international operation for at forandre denne situation…

Helga Zepp-LaRouche er grundlæggeren af Schiller Instituttet – det var tilbage i 1984. Hun er selvfølgelig også hustru til den afdøde økonom og statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche, som døde i februar 2019. Hun spillede en vigtig, afgørende rolle i en række samtaler og dialoger med den kinesiske regering i perioden fra 1993 til 1996; som påbegyndte den proces, der blev til det vi nu kalder den Nye Silkevej. Og vi er glade for og stolte over at præsentere hende til jer nu, for at tage denne dialog op igen. Panelet som helhed har titlen: ”I stedet for geopolitik, en ny form for statsmandskunst”. Så, det er altid en ære at præsentere Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Efter denne svære start er jeg så meget desto gladere for endelig at have forbindelse til jer. Og jeg vil tale om alternativet til en mørk tidsalder eller faren for en ny verdenskrig. Og selvom det for de fleste på dette tidspunkt er utænkeligt, så…[manglende lyd] ….medmindre vi på relativt kort sigt lykkes med at erstatte det håbløst bankerotte finanssystem med et New Bretton Woods-system, nøjagtigt som oprindeligt tilsigtet af Franklin D. Roosevelt, det vil sige skabe et kraftigt instrument til at overvinde underudviklingen i den såkaldte udviklingssektor.

 Jeg ved ikke, om I hørte, hvad jeg sagde før, fordi der var nogle tekniske problemer, men jeg sagde, at selvom de fleste ikke kan forestille sig at det kan forekomme, så truer verdens nuværende orientering mod stadig flere konflikter, både internt i mange stater i verden, men også på et strategisk niveau, med at eskalere til en stor ny verdenskrig, en tredje verdenskrig, som på grund af eksistensen af termonukleare våben ville betyde udryddelse af den menneskelige art; det ”store drab”, omend det er ment på en lidt anden måde end vi netop hørte Lyn på dette videoklip.

 Selvom det er helt forbløffende, hvor mange vildledte mennesker der stadig mener, at COVID-19-pandemien enten ikke er værre end influenza, eller blot er en konspirationsteori af Bill Gates, er det langt mere sandsynlige perspektiv desværre, hvad epidemiolog Dr. Michael Osterholm har sagt: at vi stadig har en utrolig lang vej foran os. Indtil nu er 10 millioner mennesker blevet inficeret, en halv million er døde af COVID-19, og vi har stadig ikke nået toppen af den første bølge. De så godt som ikke-eksisterende sundhedssystemer i mange udviklingslande er allerede håbløst overbelastede. Pandemien har hensynsløst afsløret det faktum, at det neoliberale økonomiske system ikke kun afhænger af billig produktion i den såkaldte Tredje Verden, men har skabt slavelignende arbejdsbetingelser selv i USA og Europa, som det kan ses af udbruddet af virusset på de mange slagterier i Europa og USA.

 Den økonomiske nedlukning har sat fokus på skrøbeligheden i det der kaldes ”globalisering”. I USA forsvandt ca. 40 millioner job på tre måneder; på utrolig vis pumpede centralbankerne over 20 billioner dollars ind i det finansielle system, og forskellige regeringsstøtteprogrammer kunne dårligt nok dække de tidsindstillede bomber, der stadig tikker indtil udløbet af de kortvarige arbejdsprogrammer. IMF forventer i øjeblikket, at den globale produktion vil falde med 4,9% i år, og kun Kina forventes at have en stigning i produktionen på 2%, hvilket naturligvis er meget mindre end det plejer at være, men ikke desto mindre er voksende. Sektorer som flytrafik, forplejning, turisme, bilindustrien, har lidt store fald, nogle af dem på lang sigt, men også et stort antal mellemstore virksomheder frygter, at de ikke vil overleve en anden bølge og en anden økonomisk nedlukning. Resultatet ville være en enorm stigning i arbejdsløshed, fattigdom og prisdeflation, mens centralbankernes likviditetspumpe samtidig skaber hyperinflationsbobler. Redninger af store systemiske virksomheder og banker såvel som politisk eksplosive redningspakker vil være yderligere desperate muligheder for regeringer at gennemføre, men vil ikke kunne forhindre et sammenbrud af det globale finanssystem. Et styrt ned i kaos og anarki ville følge.

 I mellemtiden ville en fortsættelse af den nuværende politik ikke alene føre til øgede dødsfald som følge af pandemien, men vil absolut ikke gøre noget for at imødegå sultkatastrofen, som David Beasley fra Verdens Fødevareprogram advarer om snart vil tage livet af 300.000 mennesker om dagen.

 Dem der muligvis mente, at en mørk tidsalder kunne udelukkes i vores moderne tid, befinder sig i et realitetschok. Og sidst, men ikke mindst, den hedonisme, der udøves af demonstranter, der forveksler frihedsprivilegier med frihed, minder om flagellanterne og beskrivelserne fra det 14. århundrede, som de er fremstillet i Boccaccios skrifter og Brueghels malerier.

 På denne baggrund kan det forventes, at forsøgene – der oprindeligt blev anstiftet af de britiske hemmelige tjenester – på at fjerne præsident Donald Trump fra embedet ved et kup, rigsretssag eller mord – sådan var overskriften på den britiske publikation The Spectator, den 21. januar 2017 – eller ved et ”Maidan”-kup, som præsident Putin advarede om i 2016 – disse vil blive intensiveret. Iscenesættelsen af forargelsen som følge af mordet på George Floyd, foretaget af voldelige grupper finansieret af George Soros, er en del af denne kampagne. Årsagen til den ubarmhjertige fjendtlighed fra det neoliberale etablissement og de etablerede medier på begge sider af Atlanterhavet mod Trumps efter hans, for dem, uventede valgsejr, var, og er stadig, den intention han udtrykte i begyndelsen af sin valgperiode om at etablere gode forbindelser med Rusland og et godt forhold til Kina. Og selvfølgelig Trumps løfter om at afslutte sin forgængeres ”uendelige krige” og at bringe amerikanske tropper hjem.

 Hvad der derefter fulgte, var en tre og et halvt års heksejagt mod Trump. Krigsråbet “Rusland, Rusland, Rusland”, baseret på årsager, for hvilke der ikke eksisterer skyggen af bevis, blev efterfulgt af et forsøg på en rigsretssag, atter efterfulgt af det ikke mindre ondsindede krigsråb “Kina, Kina, Kina”, skønt der er lige så lidt hold i anklagerne mod Kina, som der var i Russiagate.

 I løbet af alt dette var repræsentanterne for det neoliberale system ikke så meget som et øjeblik parate til at overveje, at det var de brutale konsekvenser af deres egen politik for størstedelen af befolkningen på verdensplan, der udløste den globale bølge af social protest, der inkluderer Brexit og Trumps sejr, såvel som masseprotester over hele verden fra Chile til de ‘gule veste’ i Frankrig. Men denne elite er aldrig interesseret i at opdage sandheden, kun i at kontrollere den officielle politiske fortælling i overensstemmelse med Pompeos princip, som han forklarede i sin tale i Texas: ”Jeg var CIA-direktør. Vi løj, snød, stjal … vi havde hele uddannelsesforløb i det”.

 NATO’s officielle fortælling om Ruslands angiveligt stigende aggressivitet, beskyldningerne om “med magt at drage grænser i Europa igen”, nævner naturligvis ikke de brudte løfter, der blev givet til Gorbatjov, om at NATO aldrig ville udvide sine grænser helt til Ruslands grænser, og den forudgående farve-revolution, der kan beskrives som en krigshandling, og til sidst kuppet i Kiev med den åbne støtte fra Victoria Nuland, der udløste folkeafstemningen på Krim som reaktion.

 Kinas ”forbrydelse” er ikke kun, at man har løftet 850 millioner af sine egne borgere ud af fattigdom, og ved hjælp af en økonomisk politik, der er baseret på videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt og en befolkning på 1,4 milliarder mennesker, er blevet den næst mægtigste økonomiske nation, og på visse teknologiske områder, såsom højhastigheds-jernbanesystemer, nuklear fusion, aspekter af rumforskning og 5G-telekommunikation, allerede den førende. Derudover er Kinas tilbud om samarbejde omkring Den nye Silkevej og Bælte- og Vejinitiativet den første reelle mulighed for udviklingslandene siden kolonialismens tid for at overvinde fattigdom og underudvikling ved at bygge infrastruktur.

 NATO’s reaktion på, at Kina genvinder sin rolle som en førende nation i verden, en rolle den spillede i mange århundreder af sin 5.000-årige historie, har været global ekspansion til Indo-Stillehavsregionen. Dette er det stof, som verdenskrige er gjort af. Og alligevel er det nøjagtigt den retning, som NATO’s generalsekretær, Jens Stoltenberg, har angivet i sin oversigt for “NATO 2030”, som han netop præsenterede på en videokonference med Atlanterhavsrådet og den tyske Marshall-fond. Den tyske forsvarsminister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, deltog i et andet webinar sidste onsdag sammen med Anna Wieslander, direktør for Atlanterhavsrådet for Nordeuropa; Wieslander citerede under åbningen af begivenheden Lord Ismay, NATO’s første generalsekretær, der sagde, at formålet med NATO er “at holde russerne ude, amerikanerne inde og tyskerne nede”. Men AKK (som hun kaldes) forstod tilsyneladende ikke engang fornærmelsen i disse bemærkninger. Det geopolitiske scenarie for et globaliseret NATO, der åbent er designet til at orkestrere NATO til det britiske imperiums formål, baseret på Det britiske Statssamfund, Commonwealth, og som også ville indfange EU til at spille denne rolle, og endelig ville spille Indien ud mod Kina, må afvises totalt af alle, der har interesse i at opretholde verdensfreden.

 Præsident Putin har netop i anledning af 75-årsdagen for afslutningen af 2. Verdenskrig skrevet en slående artikel om forhistorien til Anden Verdenskrig samt forløbet af denne krig, og opfordret alle nationer til at offentliggøre alle de indtil nu hemmeligholdte historiske dokumenter fra den tid, således at menneskeheden, ved at studere årsagerne til den hidtil største katastrofe i menneskehedens historie, kan lære lektien for at undgå en endnu større katastrofe i dag. Putin skriver i en meget personlig tone; han taler om lidelsen i sin egen familie, om den enorme betydning som den 22. juni har for den russiske befolkning, dagen hvor ”livet næsten går i stå”, og hvorfor den 9. maj, årsdagen for sejren i Den store patriotiske Krig, hvor 27 millioner russere mistede deres liv, er Ruslands vigtigste mærkedag. Men den indirekte besked er også, at lige som Sovjetunionen besejrede Hitlers Tyskland med en gigantisk indsats, vil det russiske folk aldrig overgive sig til fornyede trusler. Ligesom Napoleon gennem en lang forsvarslinje blev ført ind i den ugæstfri russiske vinter, og hans hær til sidst blev så godt som udslettet, muliggjorde evakueringen i 1941 af befolkningen og industrikapaciteten mod øst, at Sovjetunionen kunne overgå nazisternes militære produktion på kun halvandet år.

 Men også Versailles-diktatets kortsynethed, støtten til Hitler fra medlemmer af aristokratiet og etablissementet på begge sider af Atlanterhavet, og frem for alt München-aftalen, der i Rusland simpelthen kaldes ”München-forræderiet” eller ”München-sammensværgelsen”, betragtes som den egentlige udløser af Anden Verdenskrig. Fordi det var ved den lejlighed, at ikke alene eftergivenhedspolitikken for Hitler, men hvor også den fælles opdeling af byttet fandt sted, såvel som den iskolde geopolitiske beregning, at fokuseringen af Hitlers Tyskland mod øst uundgåeligt ville føre til at Tyskland og Sovjetunionen ville sønderrive hinanden.

 Hvad er ifølge Putin det vigtigste budskab til nutiden ved studiet af Anden Verdenskrig? At det vigtigste var undladelsen af at påtage sig opgaven med at skabe et kollektivt sikkerhedssystem, der kunne have forhindret denne krig! Putins artikel slutter med en presserende påmindelse om topmødet for statsoverhovederne for de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som han har foreslået siden januar, og som netop skulle tage fat på disse principper for, hvordan man opretholder verdensfred og overvinder den verdensomspændende økonomiske krise.

 Det vigtigste aspekt i denne forbindelse er, at dette format vil sætte USA, Rusland og Kina omkring samme bord for at forhandle de principper, der skal danne grundlaget for international politik, hvis menneskeheden skal undgå at udslette sig selv! Og i går sagde Emmanuel Macron efter en lang telefonsamtale mellem Putin og den franske præsident, at han går ind for et Europa fra Lissabon til Vladivostok, hvilket ikke alene åbner perspektivet for en integration af Den europæiske Union, Den eurasiske økonomiske Union, Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, men også etablering af en fælles sikkerhedsarkitektur baseret på fælles økonomiske interesser.

 Hvis vi imidlertid skal imødegå de enorme udfordringer fra pandemien, den globale økonomiske krise og de dybe sociale chok, der i mange af verdens lande har ødelagt store dele af befolkningernes tillid til deres institutioner, er yderligere skridt nødvendige. Det er klart, at samarbejde mellem USA og Kina, som de to største økonomier, er uundværligt. Selv hvis dette i øjeblikket ser ud til at være en uovervindelig hindring, må det ekstremt anspændte forhold mellem USA og Kina erstattes af et samarbejde om menneskehedens fælles mål.

 Hvem, om ikke regeringerne i de stærkeste økonomier, de lande med den største befolkning og det største militære potentiale, skulle løse problemerne? Denne verdens ‘Boltons’ må fjernes fra disse regeringer og erstattes af ansvarlige mennesker, der er i stand til, i de kulturelle faser i deres respektive kulturer, at finde udgangspunkterne for samarbejde på et højere niveau. Benjamin Franklins beundring for den konfutsianske filosofi og Sun Yat-sens orientering imod den amerikanske republiks idealer er bedre rettesnore end Gene Sharps “Hvordan man starter en Revolution” eller Samuel Huntingtons forskellige skriblerier.

 Man skal definere et plan, hvorpå løsningerne på disse ganske forskellige problemer bliver synlige. Der er en filosof, født i det 15. århundrede, kendt i Rusland som Nikolai Kusansky, Nicolaus Cusanus, der udviklede netop denne tænkemåde: modsætningernes sammenfald, ‘coincidentia oppositorum’. Dette begreb udtrykker den grundlæggende kvalitet af menneskelig kreativitet, der gang på gang, og på stadig mere udviklede niveauer, er i stand til at finde løsninger på et højere plan, hvorved de konflikter, der er opstået på de lavere niveauer, opløses.

 Dette kan kun være den umiddelbare iværksættelse af et kreditsystem, der tilvejebringer den globale økonomi kredit til industrialisering, og dermed reel udvikling af alle nationer på denne planet. Hele min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouches, livsværk, blev primært viet til at nå dette mål; han udarbejdede sin første plan for industrialiseringen af Afrika i 1976, Oase-planen for industrialiseringen af Mellemøsten i 1975; derefter fulgte den 40-årige plan for Indien i samarbejde med Indira Gandhi, Operation Juárez, med den daværende mexicanske præsident, José López Portillo, for Latinamerika; en 50-årig udviklingsplan for Stillehavsområdet og derefter til sidst, efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, den ‘Eurasiske Landbro’, som en fredsplan for det 21. århundrede. Mange af disse projekter gennemføres i dag takket være Kinas nye Silkevej, og alle nationer i verden opfordres til at bidrage til denne ‘Verdens Landbro’! Dette er planen for oprettelsen af de 1,5 milliarder job, der er nødvendige i dag for at overvinde krisen! Det bør begynde med oprettelsen af et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert enkelt land for at bekæmpe de nuværende og fremtidige pandemier, hvilket ikke kun vil gavne fattige lande, men også de såkaldte udviklede lande, der kun kan undgå nye bølger af infektioner på den måde. De fleste lande har et stort antal arbejdsløse eller dårligt beskæftigede unge, der kan uddannes som medicinsk personale og indsættes til at opbygge sådanne sundhedscentre.

 Når millioner af mennesker er truet af sult, som Verdensfødevareprogrammet advarer om, hvorfor kan landmændene så ikke fordoble deres fødevareproduktion og få en ‘paritetspris’ (produktionspris –red.), der garanterer deres eksistens, tillige med hensyn til den forventede stigning i verdens befolkning til over 9 milliarder i 2050? Kan vi ikke betragte os selv som en enkelt menneskelig art og hjælpe med at opbygge menneskehedens fælles byggepladser med den samme solidaritet, som hele den kinesiske befolkning hjalp folket i Wuhan og provinsen Hubei? Er det ikke på tide, at vi stopper med at spilde billioner på militær oprustning, hvilket præsident Trump sagde, at han snart ville drøfte sammen med Putin og Xi Jinping, når vi kunne bruge disse ressourcer til at overvinde sult, sygdom og fattigdom og til at udvikle det kreative potentiale hos de nuværende og kommende generationer?

 Jeg tror det er på tide, at vi som en menneskehed, der står over for en hidtil uset katastrofe, tager det kvalitative skridt til at gøre det 21. århundrede til det første virkeligt menneskelige århundrede!

 Mange tak.

 




Schiller Institute International Conference, June 27, 2020
-Will Humanity Prosper, or Perish? –
The Future Demands a ‘Four-Power’ Summit Now
Panel 2: “Why a 1.5 Billion Productive Jobs Program Can End War, Famine, Poverty, and Disease”

Panel 2: “Why a 1.5 Billion Productive Jobs Program Can End War, Famine, Poverty, and Disease”

DENNIS SPEED: Good afternoon. Welcome to the second panel of the Schiller Institute’s June 27th conference “Will Humanity Prosper or Perish? The Future Demands a ‘Four Power’ Summit Now!” This is the second panel of our conference and it is entitled “The World Needs 1.5 Billion New Productive Jobs To End War, Famine, Poverty and Disease.”

Our first panelist is Jacques Cheminade, President of Solidarité et Progrès in France. He’s speaking on “How Food Production Can Unite the World.”

JACQUES CHEMINADE: Good day. I’m very honored to be with you today, because of all you have done until now, and mainly because of what we all are going to do after this Schiller conference.

Food production unites the world: We are all conscious of the fact that the two first human rights to be upheld, are to be fed and to be kept in a good healthy condition, in order to contribute to the common good and the future of our societies. If we look at the world as it is we cannot but recognize that these two human rights are continuously and constantly violated and that the present policies of the main states and institutions, with a few remarkable exceptions, are leading us towards a world which is going to be much worse, if we allow it. We are set to become inhuman.

The question is therefore not to comment any more about what is happening or to complain, but to do something about it. That’s why we are here, to mobilize the best of our cultures and our nations to generate a world where the true creative powers of humanity will prosper, against all odds. It starts by food production which unites all people beyond and above cultural and language barriers. It seems commonplace to say such things, but the fact that we are morally and economically compelled to do so is precisely the sign of the inhuman condition in which we have been plunged, with the immediate threat that 100 million of our fellow human beings could die from hunger — 300,000 a day — while the farmers are trapped into a Malthusian world where they literally can’t breathe.

If we start from what humanity needs, taking into account the requirements for an adequate quantity and quality diet, sufficiency for everyone and the indispensable need to create food reserves, we must first double our food production. To produce 5 billion tons of grain, for example, means to more than double the present world harvest.

We hear in the Unites States “We American farmers can feed the world” and it’s true. We hear in Europe, “We European farmers can feed the world,” and it’s true. And we hear in the rest of the world, “We also can secure our food security and sovereignty,” and it’s true.

So what is happening? What’s happening, which makes this potential to not be actualized.

First, the whole world is ruled by the financial dictatorship of Wall Street and the City of London, which cannot care less for people and, in fact, openly promote world depopulation. Unable, in their own terms, to keep their power and to feed the world at the same time, they prefer to keep their power and envisage a world populated with less than 2 billion human beings. Their policy is to kill, either by murderous action, or by voluntary neglect. They let their ideologues openly front for it, under black or green colors.

Second, the outgrowths of this financial dictatorship, i.e., the food and farming cartels, dominate or control all the chains of transportation, distribution and sales in foodstuffs, including the property of vast domains of land.

Third, an anti-productivist ideology is promoted among the urban sectors of the service economy, dominant in numbers among Western countries, betting on both their ignorance of what a productive life is (they don’t even know what a productive life is!), and on their cultural pessimism, induced by the media and the entertainment sectors. There were no stocks of masks or tests in our Western states to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, just as there are almost no grain reserves today to deal with food shortages: the World Trade Organization and the cartels left it up to the marketplace. As a result, China has one-year grain stocks for its needs, Russia six months, the United States much less, and the European Union at best 45 days! Under its Green Deal, the European Commission has decided to cut by 50% the use of pesticides, by 20% the use of fertilizers and by 50% the use of anti-microbials for livestock and aquaculture. It expects to transform 25% of the land into organic bioproduction against 7.5% today. The point here is that, under the guise of caring for us, they obey their real financial masters and cut the means of production without providing any alternative to feed us and feed the world.

It’s criminal not to maintain food reserves. It is criminal to have brought farming prices below the cost of production. It is criminal to have pitted the producers of the world against each other, to lower the prices paid to them for the benefit of the worldwide cartels in grains, meat, seeds, seafood…. It is criminal, that in the poorest countries of the world, 70% of the production is allowed to be lost because there are no cold chains and too many rodents. It is criminal to compel those countries to pay more for the debt service to financial agencies than for building and maintaining hospitals or schools . It is, as Lyndon LaRouche repeatedly said, the model of the private British East India Company spread all over the world, controlling the chains of production, transportation and trade.

So this crisis should be the opportunity to recognize the absolute right to produce food and to get rid of the cartel monopoly system. This, of course, cannot be done as a thing in itself. It demands the shutdown of their source of money supply: the Wall Street and City of London rule, the British Empire. The criminal policies in the area of food and health, are, in that sense, for the people of the world the visible side of the oligarchy’s iceberg and our main weapon to fight the oligarchy. To show the peoples of the world that to fight for a new Glass-Steagall Act, a public credit policy, a National Bank, is not a technical question but a very concrete matter of life or death. The present financial system cannot be maintained through the rule of an unjust law and order, which has mutated into a system of chaos and disorder, based on an “everything bubble” which kills all the more as it inflates.

Therefore we have to come back and rethink about how we can inspire a strategy based on the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, because they represent the architectural, unifying body for a change. To put it more concretely, the only possible exit door from the present fire.

As I am in Western Europe, I feel obliged to tell you how something which had a good start, failed because its environment was not shaped by a coherent principle corresponding to the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche: I am talking about the European Common Agricultural Policy, launched on July 30, 1962. It was based on four goals: increasing productivity; securing a fair living standard for food producers; establishing a sort of parity price including reinvestment; securing the food supplies and a reasonable price for consumers. It worked for about 30 years, based on a self-sufficient single market, with a productive priority connected to industrial progress (modern tractors, fertilizers, pesticides…), plus financial solidarity and a European preference. The financial aid and support were given in the form of a minimum price guaranteed to the producer, called “indirect aid.” As a result, the Common Market members, as it was called in those days, became self-sufficient and Western Europe grew to be the second world exporter of foodstuffs. The farms grew moderately in size, and the whole agricultural sector underwent a period of relative prosperity, despite its in depth and fast transformation.

Today, we have all the European farmers desperately protesting, hostages to the banks and living on subsidies, having become indebted, working hard and gaining very little, with their sons and daughters abandoning their farms to go to the cities. What happened?

First, under the pressure of the global financial deregulation, the Common Agricultural Policy was changed in the 1990s, the same period characterized by de-industrialization, banking rule and deregulation, mainly in France, but also in all Western Europe. The indirect aid based on price guarantees disappeared and were replaced by so-called direct aid, proportional to the surface of the farms. This was done under the pressure of the World Trade Organization with the pretext of avoiding “price distortions.” As a result, within a context of falling purchasing power of foodstuffs, the aid, decoupled from production, went mainly to the big landowners such as the Queen of England, the Prince of Monaco and the Duke of Kent. The small and medium-sized farmers were strangled through price decreases and the fall of aid. Their only option was either to leave or to be further strangled by the banks, including the farmers’ bank, the Crédit Agricole, which became a bank like all the others and even worse to its old clients! The European Union budget for agriculture was reduced in purchasing power and has decreased in percentage of the total EU budget. Add to that the vulnerability of all producers to the system of floating exchange rates, the middle-sized or small ones sinking and the big ones becoming more like “experts” of the Chicago market than real farmers!

Today, the main talk is to replace the “direct” aid based on farm surfaces, by “environment and climate aid,” of which only the very big ones can benefit. This is a policy of desertification and agricultural depopulation within a context of a green world depopulation. Within this system, there are a few Scotch tape measures proposed, which are maybe relatively helpful but not of a nature to change the situation. For example, it is proposed that the distribution of aid be based not on the surface of farms, but on the number of persons active in them. Others call for stocks of food security against the instability of the markets, fair prices and measures to fight against world hunger. Good intentions, but nothing tackling the depth of the challenge.

Our commitment is precisely to do that, to go to the roots of the problem. The Common Agricultural Policy failed because it did not deal with its global environment. Same thing for parity prices in the United States. You cannot do it within a system which creates all the conditions to go in the opposite direction. Besides, even in its best years, the Common Agricultural Policy was mainly defensive, in French terms, a kind of a Maginot Line doomed to fail under flanking attacks or attacks from above. And whereas it temporarily solved the food crisis within Western Europe, it did nothing to organize markets and food stocks at the needed level of an alliance of world nations of world population.

Clearly, we have now with the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, not as mantra, but as a roadmap for the fight, the means to break with the existing rules of the game, which was not done under the Common Agricultural Policy. But for that we need to inspire and put pressure on the peoples of the world so that they pressure their governments, as was said in the preceding panel. That is for each of us an issue of life or death. And it can only win with a winner mind, with a tenacious commitment renewed every morning.

For that reason, let me tell you about two things, as a conclusion.

First on the way through which we can inspire. There are LaRouche’s Four Laws as a reference to explore, facing their numerous challenges for real, in the existing world. There is their application in our recent two programs: Build a global health system now! LaRouche’s “Apollo mission” to defeat the global pandemic crisis, and I would add “and beyond” the global pandemic crisis, and LaRouche’s Plan to reopen the U.S. economy: the world needs 1.5 billion new, productive jobs. It is only through this anti-parochial organizing, based on a dynamic development, that we can inspire people who are today so submerged by information and permanently thrown into situations leading them to emotional cop-outs as we see on both sides of the Atlantic. It is through our personal example, based on a tenacious directionality every single day of our lives, that we can lead them to become free organizers.

Second, I would like to give you an example of that, directly linked to our subject matter: It is that of the Maisons Familiales Rurales (Rural Family Houses), a project created by Abbot Granereau, a French countryside priest who introduced a new way of learning in the rural areas of France and beyond. There are now 432 of these MFR rural houses in Europe, 112 in Latin America, 118 in Africa (Mauritania, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea…) and in the Indian Ocean and a few in Asia. In France this education is run in association with the state and the local governments, but with absolute emphasis put on the involvement of the families.

Abbot Granereau was the son of a peasant family, who at a very early age questioned both the Napoleonic, pyramidal organizing of the French education system and the fact that the public education system led the best sons of the farmers to quit farming, leave the countryside and often break with their traditionally-oriented families. He decided to solve the problem by launching a new system of his own, that the families could afford and that he called on “Our Lady of the Social Revolution” for inspiration. His idea was to have the high-school age students reside one week every month at an educational home for professional training, which he provided; he went around, buying places to have the students spend a week there, which he provided, not far from their homes and run jointly with the families and later with the teachers. The program ran from November to April, so that the parents could have their children the rest of the time to work at the farm. The education was to be paid by the parents and the status of the students was one of apprenticeship. During the three other weeks of the month, the students were provided with two hours of homework every day. The key to its success was the associative responsibility of the families family integration, and also the students educating their families; this concept of family integration which would be very useful today; the respect of the individual personality of every student, not as units but as persons; and the promotion of actions of social development: visits to farms, producing modern tools, tractors or fertilizers.

Granereau started in 1935 with three farmers, committed to support his project and four apprentices. And he managed in about 30 years to change the fate of the rural world and avoid, at the time, its debasement.

The secret behind his method was to be very rigorous and at the same time to make the students responsible. For every activity one of them was appointed to be responsible for all the others. His commitment was to give to all a good level of education, giving back their dignity to his brother farmers, a knowledge of the new methods of production within an education for their souls. For him, a good farmer had to be what he called “a scientist of the land.” When enough pupils and students came, he separated the functions of teaching, under a good and committed teacher from the Purpan high-level school of agriculture in Toulouse, from those of guidance, which was his full-time responsibility. Granereau wanted to create “peasant leaders” to enter the coming new world with Christian principles. He invented “in his way,” an active method based on exploration, cooperation, participation and mutual trust. He himself did change during all his life: he created a section for young women and girls, then organized a mixed-gender school, carefully promoting a mutual respect of the two sexes; and finally opened up his schools to all families, understanding that the notion of family and mutual respect was key and above religious affiliations. A lot of people were shocked, but he was delighted.

I am convinced that such an approach, based on the respect of every individual mind and the service to the other, should be thoughtfully considered as an inspiration to our methods of teaching today, those against which Lyndon LaRouche has so often polemicized. Not to copy it as such, of course, but to follow its spirit of exploration and creativity. In the countries with a longstanding family farming culture, like in Africa, it would be a model to ensure the transition of agricultural labor, as it has been in France.

The case of Granereau is also a good reference for how to change things. We should ourselves think much more about what Lyndon LaRouche did at the beginning: gathering a few persons in a pilot project addressing not academic questions but, from top down, the key challenges of our times, and sending memos and launching debates all the time. Then you have the best kind of excitement of actually discussing and enriching a program, all the time, and even the higher excitement to make it exist. Let’s do it.

Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you, Jacques.

We’re now going to hear from Diogène Senny, the founder of the Pan-African League — UMOJA. He is a Professor of International Intercultural Management, specialist in economic intelligence and international economic relations, Founder of the African School of Management (EAM) in Congo.

He’s speaking on the topic, “Prosper or Perish: An Introduction to the Geopolitics of Hunger and Poverty”

DIOGÈNE SENNY: Dear Speakers, Dear Participants, Dear Guests, First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Schiller Institute for having associated me with this discussion at this very special time.

I. Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen, far from the one-off event, the circumstances in which this conference takes place make of it an Historical Moment, because the enormous health, economic and social consequences connected to COVID-19, are like “Challenges” and “Confrontations” launched against societies and men in the sense of the British historian, Arnold Toynbee.

For once, we are going to connect the issues of Hunger, Poverty and Health with History; not only in a memorial function, but also and above all to view history as the most powerful manifestation of social energy and the will of man to survive.

STORICISMO, in other words Historicism, as the Italians would say, is the act by which one creates one’s own action, one’s own thought, one’s own poetry by moving from the present consciousness of the past. We know that at least 13 billion people, twice the world’s population today, could be fed by the world’s agriculture. Therefore, the destruction of tens of millions of women, men and children by hunger is unworthy of such a rich century! Can we seriously consider alternatives to Hunger, Poverty and Health while maintaining a historical amnesia on matters of the economic and social rights of peoples?

II. Fight against Amnesia

Ladies and Gentlemen, who remembers that a third of the civilian and military deaths of the Second World War were due to malnutrition, tuberculosis and anemia? Who remembers the heaps of coffins have piled up in the churches of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague because of hunger? And especially in Poland and Norway, the fact that some families survived by eating rats and bark of trees? 1947, two years after this appalling reality, who recalls still this attack by the ambassador of Great Britain, while working with the Commission responsible for drawing up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I quote: “We want free men, not well-fed slaves!” End of quote. Who recalls the direct response of his Ukrainian counterpart, I quote: “Even free men can starve to death,” end of quote? This exchange illustrates the beginning of a new geopolitical order, that is to say, the Cold War, and the defeat of the recognition of economic and social rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948.

However, how to believe that the civil and political rights can be effective, without the economic and social rights? It took 45 years, almost half a century, in June 1993 for the UN to adopt a new Declaration in Vienna, making all rights (civic, political, economic, social and cultural) indivisible and interdependent. Alas, what wasted time !

III. The Disappointments of the End of the Cold War

Ladies and Gentlemen, The hope raised by the end of the cold war in terms of economic and social rights was very quickly lost because of the fact that the planetary power of transcontinental agro-industrial companies and Hedge Funds, these funds that speculate on food prices, arable land, seeds, fertilizers, credits, etc., is significantly higher than that of states. Hunger is not inevitable, it comes from organized crime. 90% of peasants in the south, in the 21st century, only have the following working tools: hoe, machete and scythe. FAO reports in the 2010s indicate that 500 million farmers in the South have no access to selected seeds, mineral fertilizers, or manure, and do not own animals. The overwhelming majority of farmers in India, Peru, Burkina Faso, Niger, Ecuador, etc. have no irrigation system. How can you be surprised then that 1 hectare of cereals gives about 700 kilograms to Africans, against 10,000 kilograms for the same space for their colleagues from the Gironde in France. As we have already said, Hunger is not inevitable. It is the result of the will of a few. And it is by the determination of men that she will be defeated.

Some examples to illustrate predation situations by multinationals of the agro-industry in Africa:

In Cameroon: In 2006, we remember the admirable struggle lead by the Development Committee of the N’do region, which brought together farmers’ unions and civil society in the fight against the grabbing of 11,000 arable lands by SOSUCAM (Société Sucrière du Cameroun) , authorized by the Cameroonian government. It should be noted that SOSUCAM is the property of Alexandre Vilgrain, a French industrialist and that this company had already acquired 10,000 hectares in Cameroon in 1965. Here, the colonial continuum is still in full swing in the economic field.

In Senegal: Here it was the Great Senegalese estates (GDS), belonging to French, Spanish, Moroccan, etc. financial groups which acquired tens of thousands of arable land in Saint-Louis, depriving the peasants of necessary spaces for basic crops. As in Cameroon, the farmers of Walo reduced to modest harvests on only 1 hectare of rice, organize themselves to resist with much dignity. In Nigeria, Benin and Mali: International hedge funds also rely on local oligarchs to organize land grabs.

This is how the wealthy merchants of Sokoto and Kano got hold of tens of thousands of hectares of food land.

In Benin, it is the political and economic barons who accumulate hectares, voluntarily left fallow, while waiting to resell them for a higher price instead of investing in the region of Zou, the former breadbasket of Benin’s Wheat.

Finally, we note the same trading mechanism in Mali where wealthy businessmen from Bamako are used to acquire arable land at low prices for resale at gold prices to Saudi princes or Hedge New York Funds.

In Conclusion

Ladies and Gentlemen, The ruin of the economy and the disasters that are looming following the coronavirus pandemic are part of what is known as Cyclical Hunger. Its peculiarity lies in the suddenness and unpredictability of the highly visible damage generated. Its spectacular nature should not blind us to these real causes. However, what has been described throughout this intervention is structural hunger. Structural hunger has root causes. It is permanent and unspectacular, psychically and physically destroying millions of human beings. Structural Hunger exposes millions of malnourished mothers to give birth to deficient children.

Ladies and Gentlemen, We will precede the alternative presented by this conference “Prosper or Perish,” by the word Unity. Because, for us pan-Africanists, the question of Hunger is less about Food Security than Food Sovereignty. Only Political Unity will give us the weapons necessary to protect the immense resource of arable land all over the African continent. It is at this price that Food Sovereignty will be guaranteed to all Africans!

Umoja Ni Nguvu, Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, particularly for that idea about food sovereignty. So people just know, we were listening to a translation from French.

We’re going next to Walter Formento, Director, Center for Political and Economic Research, Argentina. His topic is, “South America on the New Multipolar Road.”

WALTER FORMENTO: Good Afternoon: My name is Walter Formento. I’m the director of the Center for Political and Economic Research (CIEPE), and also a member of the Latin American Social Sciences Network, which is involved in all five continents.

It means a lot to us to be part of this conference, and we hope we can contribute to the dialogue that is beginning here.

In terms of the development and contributions of the New Silk Road and the World Land-Bridge which connects us all, we believe that South America—extending from Mexico to Argentina-Brazil, going through Colombia-Venezuela, Peru-Bolivia and Paraguay—has in its Hispano-American and South American history, a real and concrete accumulation of capabilities for building sovereignty, strategic industries, science and technology—both to contribute and to receive. This stems from each one of these nations individually and then, from an organized pluri-national, South American community, based on their common Hispano-American origins, but even more specifically, on the 2001-2015 period based on UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations), and CELAC (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).

Looking first from Argentina: This South American nation launched the development of its strategic industries from the very moment of its battle against the British invasions of 1805-1807. At the beginning of the 20th century, the process continued with the development of its oil-related energy industries and hydroelectric projects, always interacting with the international context and receiving feedback from that framework.

From the Great Depression which was caused by the systemic crisis of 1929-1944, Argentina, together with Chile and Brazil—the ABC Alliance—deepened the process of sovereign development, strengthening their rail, maritime and river transportation as well as automobile and aircraft industries, which then became the basis for the development of their aerospace and submarine industries. While these industries maintained international ties, they always collaborated with each other, which allowed for their own joint scientific and technological development, This was once again a function of an international context favorable to South America, and particularly to Argentina, Brazil and Chile.

In the Argentine case, beginning in 1946, this positive process led to the creation, between 1963 and 1991, of a state-run, public-private industrial, technological and scientific matrix, in which 80% of the goods and services and parts required for national development were produced in our internal market. This also consolidated a social reality in which 90% of the labor forcé was formally employed, with a strong university-educated, technical-professional component, and in which the unemployed labor force was also formally recognized as well. So, from the standpoint of values, this was an integrated and committed social reality.

That is why South America (or Hispano-America), based on its own experience, recognizes the importance of developing a national strategic-industrial-technological complex, but also a South American community of nations as well.

The war and defeat which the London and New York-based Anglo-Dutch oligarchy imposed on Argentina and on South America, and did so with a vengeance, beginning with the 1976 coup d’état in Argentina, followed by the 1982-1991 Malvinas War period, put an end to this virtuous cycle and launched a cycle of decadence enforced by global financial neoliberalism.

Thus today, when we reflect on the New Silk Road and new multipolar financial system, and in that context the World Land-Bridge and its empowering the productive abilities of humanity and nature, including the Dialogue of Civilizations, we see this as auspicious and hopeful. We are called on to commit ourselves, to contribute to and transmit those initiatives promoting aerospace, transportation and new energy technologies.

In some ways, we’re already part of this. There’s the [bioceanic] rail transportation corridor from Brazil, traversing Bolivia and ending in Peru. We’re also involved in the modernization of a rail line, which extends from Buenos Aires (with its factories and workshops for maintenance of machinery and railroad cars), from the province of Santa Fe to Córdoba, Chaco, Salta and Jujuy in the north, then connecting to the main trunk line. In a joint effort, with Russia supplying components and new technologies together with Argentina, we are building a modern new railroad system capable of developing this area even further. We are also developing nuclear reactors, using Chinese and Argentine technology, as well as new hydroelectric projects in the southern Patagonia, close to Antarctica and the islands of the South Atlantic, with their natural interoceanic route that connects the three great oceans: the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic.

After 2008-2010, into 2014, the financial crisis of 2008-2009 again paralyzed the world, which revolved around speculative financial earnings.

But today there is another world, the multipolar world seen in the World Land-Bridge, the world of the New Silk Road, committed to interacting with all continents, and with all nations for a peaceful, harmonious development integrated into a new reality for all humanity—and for nature. We are a committed part of this process; we see ourselves as committed—in thought, in practice and in action—committed through our entire history.

This is our first contribution to these conferences you have been holding, and connecting us to the five continents and with the actors who are the great historical power— in this new commitment to humanity and nature in terms of social and integral inclusion.

I send you a warm abrazo and hope to be able to contribute further to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Formento.

We have gone from Europe, to Africa, to South America, and now we go to the Caribbean. Dr. Kirk Meighoo, political economist, broadcaster, and former Senator, Trinidad and Tobago: “The Caribbean’s True Importance in the Making and Re-Making of the Modern Global Economy”

KIRK MEIGHOO: Hi. My name is Dr. Kirk Meighoo, I’m a political economist, broadcaster, and former Senator from Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean. It’s a real pleasure to be here, to be part of this conference, with the Schiller Institute and I thank the organizers for inviting me.

I’ve been friendly with the LaRouche movement and the Schiller Institute for a number of years now. There are so many things that we share in common, and there’s a lot of projects that I want us to collaborate on, and this certainly is one them.

Now, I’m also a member of the official opposition party. We do have an election coming up this year, and we hope to take government. The platform, the manifesto of our party — and this is from before the COVID crisis — was to create 50,000 new jobs in the economy. And in our small economy, we have 1.3 million people in our island, and the labor force is about 650,000, so 50,000 was a big number. However, with the COVID-19 lockdowns and what it’s done to our economies and the whole global economy, we need to increase that number, at least to 150,000 and by combining it with this program from the LaRouche movement for 1.5 billion productive jobs around the world, there is an incredible synergy that we must take advantage of.

Now, one of the things that I’m always concerned about, is that we small states in the Caribbean, we are actually one of the bigger islands, with over a million population; like Jamaica has 2 million, a little over 2; many of the other islands are much, much smaller; there’s a tendency for us to be overlooked, for us to be forgotten in such schemes, and that is part of our lack of development here. But it is not just a matter of a lack of development, it’s also the type of development we’ve been undergoing.

I’m also part of a tradition of intellectuals here, started in the 1960s, soon after our formal independence, called the “New World Group.” And it’s incredible, the overlap with the LaRouche movement in terms of our analysis and our goals and our solutions. I have always found that to be an amazing thing, and it’s just another illustration on how the truth is one, and we can all arrive at the same truth from our very different points in time, space, and circumstance, and this is certainly one of those instances.

For the Caribbean, the point I’m making about the inclusion of the Caribbean in this global program that the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement is proposing, is not just a matter of charity. Because what the LaRouche movement is proposing is an end to the trans-Atlantic system, what might traditionally be called “imperialism,” to the imperial system, to the post-Columbus system, if you want to put it in those terms, and that is precisely what we have been calling for, for decades ourselves. Because, you see, the Caribbean has a special place in this 500-year modern world economic system, that we need to understand, because our participation in it was central. The Caribbean was where the modern world began: It’s where Columbus came in this voyage, it’s where the first global production of sugar, rum, alcohol, etc., which enriched New York, Boston, the East Coast of the United States, fed into the industrial revolution. The organizing of these huge plantations in the Caribbean was a forerunner to industrial capitalism in Europe, and our great intellectuals, such as Dr. Eric Williams, our first Prime Minister spoke about that in his seminal book from 1944, Capitalism and Slavery.

So, we’ve had a long experience, analyzing this, our own experiences. Because we represent the dark side of this modernity. Of course, modernity has brought a lot of good to the world. But in the Caribbean, this type of economy now has become, let’s say since the 1980s and ’90s, the neo-liberal system, but it really starts from the system of slavery in the Caribbean. Because, think about it: These economies were founded on slave labor, which is imported farm labor at cheap or free cost. It decimated local economies. We made nothing for ourselves here. Everything was around sugar production, mainly; sometimes some other people had other crops, but whatever the early English colonists had here for their own self-development — tobacco, food crops, etc.—local settlements, colonies in the true sense of the word, where you’re making your own settlement elsewhere — part of this imperial system that the Caribbean was central to, and this global sugar production, the triangular trade where we were central — this is actually what’s going on in the rest of the world. Because when they established it here, they had to gut out the independent farmers; they had to buy out all the independent landowners, so that the big sugar interests could own all the land, control all the production, in a global system of raw-materials export, where the value added would be done elsewhere, and you break up the whole chain of production.

What did that mean? That meant no manufacturing here. What did that mean? That meant that we were connected to the metropole, rather than to ourselves. So, for example, it’s easier for us in Trinidad to go to New York, and it’s cheaper for us to fly there, than it is to a neighboring island, like Curaçao, or even Antigua, or St. Kitts. Because our communications and infrastructure were always to the metropole. We did not have an internal economy with manufacturing: We did not make our own clothes, we did not make our own food, we did not make our own basic commodities and services for survival. They were all imported. We were a pure import/export economy and we remain so, whether it be in tourism or offshore banking, or oil and gas, like we have in Trinidad and Tobago.

So we’re been struggling with this issue and problem for a very long time. We have some great insight into it, which we can offer the world. And what we see is that this same process is happening around the world, to other countries. So it’s as if they took this early model, pioneered in the Caribbean, which produced tremendous inequality, tremendous misery, tremendous underdevelopment, this is what the trans-Atlantic system is projecting to every country in the world.

Now, solving the problems here will help us solve the problems for the rest of the world. This is where it started. We pose some challenges because of our size, but there are also some opportunities. Our small societies in the Caribbean are like the small city-states of ancient Greece, where Plato and Aristotle and the great philosophers flourished. It’s like the Florentine city-states: These places were 40,000 people at their maximum population. We live in human-scale societies, and these massive, mega-cities which are part of the whole trans-Atlantic system, mainly financial centers processing these huge, global, faceless corporations, those are inhuman environments. And I think it is not coincidental, that much of the violence that we’re seeing in the world is happening in these big cities, where there’s so much anomy, so much alienation, and a lack of humanity, of the face-to-face societies that we have here in the Caribbean, that have produced such amazing creativity, such amazing thinkers, like V.S. Naipaul, like Sir Arthur Lewis, like Derek Walcott, like C.L.R. James, from such tiny, tiny, small islands.

So, this is a plea, a reminder, to think of how we can take our outlying territories, which seem like outliers are the world system, but were essential for the development of the modern world system, and I daresay, we can play an essential part in the remaking of that world system to a more humane, global system.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to make our presentation. I look forward to questions and to interacting with you and also partnering in the future.

Thanks very much.

[Editor’s note: For time reasons, the prerecorded remarks of Mark Sweazy, former UAW trade union leader, were unable to be aired in the panel. We include here his complete remarks, on “Returning the U.S. Work Force to a Culture of Scientific Progress.”]

MARK SWEAZY: Hello, and welcome! My name is Mark Sweazy. I’m the Past President of Local 969 in Columbus, Ohio of the United Auto Workers’ Union. I learned a lot about the Labor Department and how labor works in the United States. With the international union, I chaired for six years the meeting of the 21 Delphi [auto parts] plants in Detroit. When we come together obviously we discussed our problems and the future. What we saw was, the door was shut on our future. 17 of those 21 plants closed. It changed people’s lives forever and ever. I also learned that our history, that you’ve heard some about, teaches us that the struggles and the conflicts and the wars have consequences that become a negative and seldom produce a positive or good result. So, we faced these things over a period of time.

What we face today is the need to put people back to work, regardless of where you live or what you do. We need to get people gainfully employed in the workforce so that we can make better lives for the people themselves, better lives for their families, and better lives for the area in which they live. So, this is a worldwide situation; it’s not just one locale, or one area of a country. This is worldwide. I hope you understand that little bit of an entry, because it’s important. This affects each and every one of us. If we have pride, we want to restore — let’s say we want to restore a great workforce as infrastructure projects have produced in the past. We’re looking to put people back to work regardless of occupation. You can start one place, and transfer to another. There’s nothing that says in the workforce that you have to continue to do something that you’re not fond of, or you just don’t like that job. You can always retrain and become trained to do another job. So, keep that in mind also.

What rewards do we expect? Our rewards in life are in direct proportion as to what we contribute. So, if we contribute something to life itself, we’re going to see the rewards. That’s important to me, because there’s nothing more rewarding than seeing a person who enjoys what they’re doing, and the fact that what they’re doing is productive to our culture. There’s nothing worse than seeing people that don’t have opportunities. As I visited Mexico, Mexico City, Monterrey, what have you, 9 cities in Mexico, I saw people who were educated, become college graduates. But the opportunity to work was not there, and it broke my heart because I’d look into the eyes of these graduating classes, and I’m saying to them, “Are you happy?” And they’d look at me, and they’re questioning — why would I ask them are they happy? Well, there’s no opportunities to work in Mexico; it’s a darn shame. Very few. They’ve got taxicab drivers that should be an attorney. You’ve got taxicab drivers who could have been an engineer. You’ve got taxicab drivers that could’ve been a doctor. I can’t imagine that. In the country I come from, the United States obviously, I can’t imagine somebody going to school and having that type of training, but not having the opportunity to use that training.

So, this is an opportunity to get worldwide training. Not just in the labor fields, but completely through skilled trades, machine tool trades, tech center trades, the building trades — of course, that’s plumbing, pipe-fitting, welding. There’s no end to what this can offer. And how the unions will actually gain, and all the independents who work without unions will gain as well. But who will gain in the end? The communities and the families. The opportunity is there; we just got to look for it. We’ve got to honestly make it happen. This is not a project that’s going to last one year, six months, one or two years. We’re talking 10-20-year projects.

So, LaRouche organization has lined up projects all over the world. And of course, now Helga’s at the helm, and we have a good leader. We want to continue to carry on with that leadership and get people to work so we have viable jobs. People doing what they can for their own families, and possibly in a few years we’ll see these results. And everybody will benefit. The unions will benefit, the independents will benefit, everybody will benefit on that spectrum. It’s a great opportunity for those that need to be employed, and that’s anybody that’s graduating from a high school or tech school or what-have-you. But take it from there. We’ve got people 30, 40, 50 years old looking for jobs. Everybody knows that; it’s not a secret. And not only in this country. So, the benefits are greater than we’ll ever imagine, and what an opportunity we’ve got today to do it in.

Our world deserves today, tomorrow, and in the future, an immediate effort to develop this program, or this type of program. So, the opportunity is ours; the hard work is yet to happen, but it can be done. And that’s what I want everybody to understand. The work can be done. The infrastructure projects are in front of us. So, let’s pick up our shovels, push out our chairs, let’s get up and go back to work. I think we’ll not only enjoy a better life, but I think we’ll enjoy a better future for our nations, as we work together to solve some of these worldwide problems that can be solved through cooperation. To me, I think that’s the real answer that I would have, is worldwide cooperation. We need that today, more than ever. Working together, forming solidarity, and hoping that we can stay employed because of what took place. This program was the beginning. As we look back, we’ll say, “Well, I was part of that in the beginning.” That’s to me the most rewarding aspect that we could ever say for each of our nations today.

So, with that, I’m not going to hold you to your chairs and hope that you take heed to this, but I pray you will. Because it’s necessary and needed. I want to thank you, take care, and remember, the LaRouche organization is there for you. All you have to do is ask the question; they’ll get you an answer. Thank you. Mark Sweazy over and out.

SPEED: Thank you, also.

Now, we’re going to hear from Bob Baker, who’s the agricultural desk for Schiller Institute, and he’s going to be introducing the next video which is by Mike Callicrate.

BOB BAKER: Thank you, Dennis, and thank you Schiller Institute, Mrs. LaRouche, panelists and participants throughout the world.

Image 1. Coronavirus

Look at the state of farming and food in the world, and you see huge disruptions. Just one little microbe—the new corona virus, coming on top of the system already in breakdown, has led to terrible things.

There is a disaster in the meat industry. The mega-global, cartelized packing houses from Australia to Germany to the Americas, are in a breakdown crisis, as workers are sick and living in poor conditions. Masses of meat animals are stranded. And the farmers were hit hard as they’re forced to kill their own livestock.

IMAGE: 2, 3, 4 Doctors Without Borders, or a migrant worker

There is a disaster in fruits and vegetables. Thousands of workers, who travel between countries, and work in hard and poor conditions in fields and orchards, are sick, from California, to Spain and the Middle East. It’s so bad, Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières) went into Florida last month, to care for thousands of poor farmworkers who had nowhere to turn. In Canada, 60,000 such workers—one-half of them from Mexico—are getting hit, and with the sickness hitting so many Mexican workers in Canada, Mexico’s government suspended travel this week, until something can be worked out.

There is a disaster in the staff of life—wheat, corn, rice. It is—fortunately—not because of a bad crop failure somewhere, except for the locusts in Africa and South Asia, but because we are growing far too little grain. Period.

Lyndon LaRouche would say that the way to think of how much food the world needs, is to start from 24 bushels of total grains per person a year. What that would mean is, we should be having a world harvest of 5 billion tons of all kinds of grains together. Currently, the world is growing less than 3 billion tons. And that would mean enough for direct eating as bread, noodles, tortillas—whatever you like, and milk, meat, eggs and so on. Plus, another 25% for reserves, which now, because of the World Trade Organization, does not exist.

In Biblical terms, it’s seven lean years and seven fat years. We should have strategic storage reserves, we should have silos and warehouses all over the world, of grain, cheese, butter, sugar and other basics. Stockpiles in case of storms, epidemics, fires, locusts. We must double food production.

IMAGE 5: World Map of Hunger

Instead, we’ve had decades of what should be called a “famine policy.” The City of London/Wall Street circles have cartelized the farm-food chain so extremely, so they can “harvest money.” Yes: harvest money. They decide where and how anything is produced, and who gets to eat or not. They ripped off the farmers with below-cost of production prices and make record profits from the consumer by jacking up the retail price. And that is how you cause hunger for millions throughout the world.

IMAGE 6 & 7: June map of locust spread

No wonder we are vulnerable to locusts, and diseases. The locusts in South Asia and East Africa are now heading westward. By August they may reach Mauritania. This must be stopped. A fellow speaker today, from Kansas-Colorado area, will be talking more about the physical conditions connected with just “harvesting money” instead of food. And we will soon hear from the Mexican grain belt.

IMAGE 8, 9, 10: Astronaut farmer

How did we get this way? It is not because we had no alternatives.. We are in the age of the astronaut farmer. We can produce food for all. And it wasn’t like we were all given a pill to make us dumb—except that comes from the entertainment and news media: communication monopolies.

We are all played off against each other, and that must stop. Farmer vs. city people. Nation vs. nation. There is all the talk about “competition” in world food trade. And about having a “level playing field.” It’s all Bunk! It’s not a game. It’s not a playing field. It’s food. It’s the means to life! And farmers are on the streets again in Germany with tractorcades for the right to grow food!

In conclusion, I think of President Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s, when the whole United States nation was played off against each other. In fact, the British sent in forces to help bust up the new nation. Still, during Civil War and a great depression, in only a year, Lincoln and others implemented measures for science and hope. They created science-based farm colleges (the Land-Grant system), settle the entire Midwest with the Homestead Act, crossed the country with a new railroad and corridors of development, and issued a new credit called the Greenbacks.

In this same tradition, a hundred years later, with the help of the two fathers of the scientific Green Revolution, Henry Wallace and Norman Borlaug, a scientific Green Revolution spread from Mexico and the U.S. among international scientists, to make India food self-sufficient in 1974, and China self-sufficient in 1984. Let’s make the whole world self-sufficient in food! Let us begin with Africa right now on an emergency basis; and then, open up the universe!

Thank You.

I’d like to now take this opportunity to introduce Mike Callicrate, who is a board member of the Organization for Competitive Markets, a rancher, and a meat producer from the Kansas-Colorado area. His topic is “Food Unites People Around the Planet.”

MICHAEL CALLICRATE: I’m Mike Callicrate, I’m in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I have a company called Ranch Foods Direct. I also produce livestock on my operation in northwest Kansas, which I’ve done for the last 45 years. But my focus has really been to try to build an alternative food system to the industrial one that we have now.

When I’m asked the question, “Prosper or perish?” it makes me think of David Montgomery’s book Dirt. In his book, David Montgomery talks about the erosion of civilizations and the importance of soil. Without soil, we basically don’t have life. So, I’m going to kind of come at this question of “Will humanity prosperity or perish?” from that perspective, because I think soil is critical to our survival as human beings. The impoverishment and nourishment of a civilization is directly with the consolidation and industrialization of the food supply. Concentration of power and wealth is the greatest threat to any free society. Rather than creating new wealth from healthy soil, the current system is mining and destroying our land for the short-term benefit of a few global corporations. This is a photograph from northwest Kansas where I live. This photograph was taken in December 24, 2013, Christmas Eve. The dirt cloud extended 200 miles from Colorado Springs to the Kansas border. It was 12,500 feet high above sea level to the top; 4 miles across, moving at 50 miles per hour. This is soil; this is the blowing away, the destruction of civilization currently. Much of eastern Colorado’s topsoil is already gone. I fly back and forth between my rural community of St. Francis, Kansas and the urban center of Colorado Springs, where we market our meats that we produce. This is what you see across the eastern plains of Colorado, is the mining of these soils. The withering away of that topsoil. Previously, when it had fertility, it grew healthy plants that fed livestock, which in turn became food for human consumption.

We’re mining our water resources. HBO’s “Vice” did a documentary called “Meat Hook; End of Water” that talked about the global water supply being consumed and used up. This is another indication that humanity is going to perish if we don’t change our ways. We’re pumping the precious fossil water from the Ogallala Aquifer, just to name one of many around the world that is being pumped dry for the benefit of industrial agriculture. Again, an example of a mining operation.

We’re ravaging the environment; we’re building factory farms in low-lying areas. These low-lying areas on the East Coast of North Carolina, South Carolina, places where there’s a lot of rainfall. We’re locating these facilities in low-lying areas because it’s the cheap land. It’s also the place where the cheapest workforce resides. So, this is exploitation of the environment, of the workers. Think about being an animal in one of these facilities, inside one of these barns. Again, in Hurricane Florence, we flooded the factory farm facilities, and rather than let these animals out, they sort of learned their lesson. They kept the animals in the barn, where they starved and consumed one another before they died. This is the earlier Hurricane Floyd, where they let the animals out, and so we’ve got a total disregard of animals, which is another indication of a failing system in a failing society. St. Francis of Assisi said, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” Which is certainly what we’re seeing today.

“This global cartel, controlled food system rather than nourish the people who sustain it, consumes them. The result is a food system that concentrates money and power at the top, and poverty at the bottom, while compromising food access, quality, and safety in the process.” That’s a quote from Albert Krebs, Agribusiness Examiner.

With the help of the U.S. government, global gangsters have turned our agriculture into a massive agribusiness mining operation. Meet felons Wesley and Joesely Batista of JBS, who have been in prison, and have recently because they’re considered essential, been invited back to run the biggest meat company in the world — JBS. JBS is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado, and has been part of the four big meatpackers now under investigation for lowering prices to livestock producers at the same time they’re raising prices to consumers. These men should not be involved in anything to do with a critical industry, especially food; but our government allows them to operate.

Allan Savory I thought put it well. He said, “We have more to fear from USDA than any foreign power.” USDA refuses to enforce the Packers and Stockyard Act, which would have prevented the shared monopoly that the Batista brothers hold with Tyson, Cargill, and Marfrig (another Brazilian company). USDA makes life for small plants extremely difficult; making it impossible for them to operate, and giving the advantage to the biggest meat plants who have now failed us in this COVID-19 outbreak.

The industrial food system did fail the COVID-19 test. It has no resiliency. It has extracted, it does not create and build well, it extracts well. It destroys our very mechanisms that we create wealth from; that is, the soil. On the left, you see my store in Colorado Springs, on the same day — March 13, 2020 — on the right is the big box stores in Colorado Springs. Shelves were completely empty; no meat was available. Yet in my store on the left, which is about a 200-mile supply chain from St. Francis, Kansas to Colorado Springs, Colorado, you see full shelves. So far, our supply chain has held up well. We don’t stack employees on top of each other; we remain healthy in our operation.

So, let’s look at what I think we ought to be doing. I think we ought to be returning to a regenerative farming and ranching operation. One that’s made sustainable because it’s supported by consumers who care about the soil, who care about communities and people and the environment in general. So, I’ve set up what I call the Callicrate Cattle Company Regenerative Farming and Ranching concept, where basically it’s a circular economy, not a linear economy that extracts. It’s a circular economy that puts back into the soil, into the community, into the people. So, we start with the soil, and we return to the soil. Critical to this concept working is our ability to access a marketplace that demands what we produce.

“The soil is the great connector of lives; the source and destination of all. It is the healer and restorer and resurrector by which disease passes into health, age into youth, death into life. Without proper care for it, we can have no community, because without proper care for it, we can have no life” (Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture).

Creating community around local food will be essential in supporting this new regenerative approach to agriculture and food systems, where family farmers, ranchers, and small businesses can prosper, and consumers can have access to safe, dependable, and healthy food. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you. Our final presentation today is by Alicia Díaz Brown, of the Citizens Movement for Water, Sonora, Mexico. We’re going to play an excerpt of this, because of time constraints. Her presentation is,

“Let Us Return to the Best Moments of the U.S.-Mexico Relationship.”

ALICIA DÍAZ BROWN: Let’s turn to the best moments in the U.S.-Mexico relationship. We thank the Schiller Institute and its President Helga Zepp-LaRouche for kindly giving us the opportunity to participate in this international gathering, in which special importance is given to the problem of food production. In every civilizational crisis the threat of hunger, epidemics and war appears. That is why we agree with the title which headlines this meeting: Will humanity prosper, or perish?

My name is Alicia Díaz Brown and I live in the Yaqui Valley in the south of the state of Sonora in Mexico. I belong to a family of agricultural producers, pioneers in this valley, and I am a member of the Yaqui Agricultural Credit Union and of the Citizens Movement for Water.

For many years, I have been involved in the discussion of problems related to the production of basic grains; but in the last decade I’ve been more intensely involved, because the public policies in Mexico have grown in their disregard of the countryside, to the point of proposing to take water from this region to divert it towards activities which they consider more profitable monetarily, even though that means reducing the land under cultivation and with it the production of food. They don’t care about harming a region that produces 50% of the nation’s wheat production, as well as a significant percentage of its corn production.

I recently saw a photograph that captures a very evocative moment of historical intimacy and common purposes that Mexico and the United States shared in the noble task of producing food to relieve hunger in the world. The picture takes us back to the decade of the 1940s, and the photo shows the then Vice President of the United States Henry Wallace touring a wheat crop in the Texcoco region of Mexico, and receiving a technical explanation from Dr. Norman Borlaug. accompanied by Mexico’s Secretary of Agriculture and ex-President Lázaro Cárdenas. The government of President Ávila Camacho was just underway.

That was a time in which Mexico and the United States enjoyed governments with sufficient social strength to enforce the principle of the general welfare. Those efforts culminated with the Green Revolution, whose improvements in seed genetics made it possible for there to be substantial increases in yields per acre, principally of wheat and corn. The entire world benefited from this; the hunger of hundreds of millions of human beings was relieved for a time, and it turned out to be a fundamental experiment which demolished the Malthusian and anti-population theories which accept hunger and its aftermath of death as a matter of fate.

The Yaqui Valley in Sonora and the Texcoco region in the State of Mexico were experimental centers, in which Borlaug shared with Mexican researchers and producers his own research, his discoveries, but above all his human conviction that, with the systematic use of science, you can constantly maintain growth of production and combat the blights and fungus that damages plants. They proved that hunger is not an inexorable evil, but rather the result of twisted practices in economic and marketing criteria.

So Mexico and the United States share the prize that, at one point in history, we were able to relieve hunger in the world, because this knowledge was taken to India and to the countries most affected by hunger on the African continent.

But we lost that mission, and the production of food, as with other strategic areas of our economies, was trapped by the corporatization of the economy and by monetarist criteria, in which monetary profits comes first and foremost, and physical production is no longer a moral imperative, and instead becomes an optional element dominated by financial speculation. These policies took over at the beginning of the 1990s and they govern the free trade agreements among the United States, Canada and Mexico.

During the last 30 years, national grain production in Mexico has lacked a price policy which would guarantee the producer his capitalization. Parity prices were eliminated—they had been the cornerstone for the country to be able to achieve an important degree of self-sufficiency in wheat, corn, beans and rice. The state withdrew from the marketing process; the domestic market was abandoned; and national production passed into the hands of international corporations which monopolize world trade and speculate on grain prices on the Chicago Board of Trade

The result of all this is that Mexico has become an importer of basic grains. The current government talks about food self-sufficiency, but they confuse it with self-consumption, and they disperse resources to regions of the country that only consume what they produce, but which lack the ability to produce the food that the country needs. The regions with the greatest productive capabilities in wheat and corn have been left to the mercy of the big corporations that control the international markets, and they withdrew the compensatory support that allowed them to survive.

They try to make Mexican producers believe that these policies benefit North American producers. But at this meeting we see that authentic American producers are complaining about the same problems. If these policies are harming the producers of both countries, we should ask ourselves: Who are the big winners and predators under these rules of the game?

The big winners and predators are not engaged in producing food; they speculate with existing production. They control the prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, and they have turned the market into a dictatorial instrument. They are not interested in producing. Their preferred world is one of shortages and hunger. And what is sorrier still is that our governments have given in to those interests. In that way, the U.S. loses, Mexico loses, and the world loses.

When governments give in, we citizens have the moral and political duty to enforce the principle of the general welfare. At the beginning of my remarks, I referred to a photograph which bears witness to a historical moment of excellent relations between Mexico and the United States. For now, we do not have in our governments people of the moral stature and courage of those who were shown in that photograph.

For that very reason, I believe that now is the time for citizens to make their governments rise to the challenge. Let these meetings serve to begin to weave an alliance of Mexican and North American producers with the ability to exercise the required political and moral pressure on our governments, and in that way establish common goals in terms of how to increase food production; how to reestablish parity prices; how to increase yields per acre; how to build great infrastructure projects of a bi-national nature to manage increased quantities of water and power, which will allow us to significantly increase land under cultivation.

These are some of the tasks we have before us; but what is most urgent is to tell the world that we have initiated this relationship, that we are going to maintain it, and that we are going to resume the historical impetus of the best moments of the Mexico-U.S. relationship, to demand the required agreements among the world’s powers that are morally obligated to lift humanity out of the uncertainty in which the shocking economic crisis has placed us, with its inherent threats of pandemics, hunger and war.

Thank you very much.

Questions & Answers

SPEED: What we’re going to do now is bring our entire panel — everybody that’s live with us — up on screen. We’ve got one or two pieces of business from the first panel that we have to conclude. One question in particular which we are going to direct to Jacques Cheminade, which will get us started. Then Diane has two questions which will be addressed to the entire panel.

So, this question is from Ambassador Dr. A. Rohan Perera, former Permanent Representative of the Republic of Sri Lanka to the United Nations. I’m going to direct this to Jacques. He says:

“The biggest foreign exchange earner for Sri Lanka has been the tourism sector, which had been dependent on tourist arrivals from Europe, and on the garment export sector, mainly to the U.S. market. The total estimated loss as a consequence of the coronavirus lockdown is in the region of $10 billion. In the garment sector, recovery efforts will require liberal access to the U.S. markets.

“Overall, Sri Lanka will require debt restructuring arrangements with lending agencies like the World Bank and with the developed countries who determine their policies. It may be recalled that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit Declaration — adopted in Colombo at the Fifth Summit in 1976 — cited the New International Economic Order which referred to, among other things, debt restructuring, debt moratoria, and the restructuring of multilateral financial institutions like the World Bank. The idea of BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — is a step in that direction.

“Please comment on the vital question of debt restructuring, amidst this coronavirus crisis, and new institutions that may be required. Thank you.”

JACQUES CHEMINADE: First, on this tourist issue. Very different countries, like Sri Lanka, Cuba, or France, had, because they were not able to develop industrially or to really have a fair development of agriculture, have to make money on tourism; on their beautiful things to see in Sri Lanka, in Cuba, or in France. But this tourism was of a kind not of an educational treatment of the culture of the country, but to a kind of servant economy transformation of the country where there was a service economy based on let’s say arranging things for people who wanted to have fun. This has been a complete disaster. This is because of a lack of a commitment to an economic physical development, like Lyndon LaRouche developed during all his life, and industrial development connected to, as part of representing this in-depth economic development. Therefore, what happened is that progressively, despite the benefits of tourism — I would say because of the type of economy what was created — the countries were trapped into a debt system. This affected first the countries of the Southern Hemisphere. It affected countries of Ibero-America, countries of Asia, and in particular Africa. Through a system of accumulation of interest over interest, this is what our friend Dennis Small calls the banker’s economy or free market. The free market becomes sort of a flee market where they rob you; it has become that. So, it has become debt that accumulates over debt, and you have normally, or if you follow this accumulation of debt because in an unfair economy, you have to pay two, three, four times more debt that what you got from the loans. This is what was imposed on the countries of the South. It is coming inside countries like Spain, Italy, or France at this point.

So, you have the whole world trapped into this debt system. And the whole economy now is an economy which is no more, I would say, a free market economy. It is a controlled free market economy by the laws of the British Empire imposed by central banks. So, this is only maintained through fake money. You have flows and flows of fake money dumped on the markets, which don’t go to the producers, don’t go even to the consumers. This fake money goes into the whole financial secrets of the oligarchy. So, this is what has to be forever eliminated. It’s the British system of Anglo-ization of Anglo-Dutch system of an economy which is not based on a human level and human development, but it’s based on financial dictatorship. Which I call now the system under which we are; a market economy without a market; a dictatorship of these financial interests in all sectors, including culture.

So, we have to free ourselves from that. All the life of Lyndon LaRouche in particular as a point of reference historically, was in 1982 with Lopez Portillo, and in 1976 with our friend Fred Wills in Colombo, was to say we need to be freed from the debt. And we need a bank organized for the development of whole countries of the world. This is what the World Bank was intended to be after World War II. But then, as the Bretton Woods system, it was miscarried by all the Western leaders. What we need now, is what the Chinese with the New Silk Road are doing by let’s say directing economies. It’s an economy based on real physical development, and a growth based on the development of the creative potential of the human being, including in culture. There are efforts in China for Classical culture, for Classical Chinese poetry. And all of this is connected to the whole — which the West would never tell about that — to the whole development of the New Silk Road concept of the Belt and Road Initiative.

So you have that as a reference. And you have the whole fight of our lives which comes into this direction. And now we have a big chance that this becomes for us a real point existing in reality and accomplished. So, we have to go much further, and we speak about the World Land-Bridge. There has been a World Land-Bridge, as we said it with the United States, China, Russia, India, and all other countries that would be connected to this system. So, it demands a mobilization of the leaders of the world, but also the populations everywhere to put pressure on the leaders of the world and the economic system. It’s very interesting from that standpoint that the Yellow Vests in France are calling some of us to be experts in this debt moratorium or debt amelioration, which would get rid of this debt system and see what’s fair and unfair debt.

So, the Glass-Steagall proposal is absolutely a part of that. It means that banks which are involved in giving credit or organizing deposit accounts would be separated from banks which are involved in the markets and which are becoming elements or scions of this whole British system. So, the separation would clean the system.

We need much more, that’s why we need a credit system for the future, developing this type of physical economy with increasing productivity per unit of surface per human being and per matter brought into it. So, this is a sense of a high flux density economy; high energy-flux density should be the choice of this economy.

Among the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, this is the fourth law. What you should choose once you clean the system, and once you get rid of this debt system. That’s the key, because it’s there that you have to invest human creativity in things that put human beings at the border of this capacity to create. And it will connect the space programs — the astronaut, after all, has to work both with his brains and his hands; exactly like farmers have to work with their brains and their hands. The more advanced farmers in the United States or in Europe are, in their tractors, real astronauts on Earth. I liked a lot this presentation of our American farmer, Mike Callicrate, who said that the soil itself has to be seen as a living matter. It is something that is alive, and it has to be enriched and developed. It has not to be seen as a support or something that you take advantage of; it is something that you feed into for the future. I think that this concept is what links the astronaut and the farmer and which links all of us in this society. I raise this issue of farmer’s education, because I think, what we always discussed with Lyndon LaRouche, that the type of education that this requires is an education which creates or generates in human beings this constantly increasing capacity and this joy to create when you do something socially good for the others. It’s a big issue today, as Helga said before, is public health, because it’s a matter that involves the whole world. It demands world cooperation. And what I keep repeating is that instead of organizing hospitals through financial management, we should organize states as hospitals for the care and development of the people.

SPEED: Thank you, Jacques. Now, Diane, who is an orchestral conductor, has the following task. We have approximately 15 minutes all together. It means that what we have here is very little time for discussion. In fact, what’s going to happen is, she’s going to pose something that came from a couple of countries, and each of you is going to have approximately two minutes to say whatever you have to say, both to one another, you can choose to respond to the question or not, but that’s what you’re going to have. Diane will now take the floor, and if necessary, I will intervene.

DIANE SARE: OK. This question is from Ambassador Mauricio Ortiz, who is the Ambassador of Costa Rica to Canada. He says:

“In your proposal you mention ‘an emergency mission to build a fully functional health infrastructure for the world particularly in South America, Africa, and parts of Asia.’ This proposal is very much needed in those regions.

“Are the international financial institutions willing to invest in that proposal, and what will be the arguments from the Schiller Institute to these institutions to make it real?

“If your proposal is realized, you might note that our country, Costa Rica, has an efficient primary health system with more than 1,000 rural health posts and, along with Chile and Cuba, one of the best health programs in Latin America. This is a system that can be replicated in other countries, including developed countries.”

I’m going to ask the other question here as well. This one comes from the Mission from Colombia to the United Nations:

“Dear all, on behalf of the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the United Nations I would like to pose the following question: How can Latin America play a determining role in the consolidation of this new global configuration?”

“Best regards, Carolina Gutiérrez Bacci; Third Secretary”

SPEED: OK, so what we’re going to do is this. You can choose to address either of the questions or neither of the questions, because you only have, as I said, a couple of minutes. I’m going to start quickly with Bob Baker.

BOB BAKER: Thank you, Dennis. In terms of the health infrastructure and my particular focus on agriculture, I think it’s an absolutely vital situation to develop a food system where everybody can get a proper diet of nutritional food. That is the basis on which to build the argument why every community should have access to the most advanced healthcare that science has brought us to this day. But the driver in that obstacle behind the scenes is an international financial cartel that’s building world global monopolies to stop that. To the extent the nations of the world can expose that and unite the people to take a stand against it, that’s going to be a very important aspect of getting a healthcare system internationally. But this is also why this type of conference we’re having becomes very instrumental if not a key element of getting that done.

SPEED: Thank you. Now I want to go to Kirk Meighoo, whose presentation I particularly appreciated.

KIRK MEIGHOO: Thank you very much. I’ll quickly address the problem. We’re close neighbors of Costa Rica, and we have some links with them that we’ve established recently. This problem of self-sufficiency is something, especially for a small society, and all these small little islands, the question of self-sufficiency in everything is just simply not there.

So, people have even asked questions whether we deserve to be independent, or should we be permanent colonies? These are questions that stay with us, even after independence. It’s something we struggle with. We do have to have a system where we do access, just as the last speaker said, the best healthcare possible for all humanity. But we cannot simply be recipients, receivers of these things; dependents, colonial dependents as we have been for 500 years. We have to have a system where we are also producers.

So, what is the system of trading a local economy, of local production where we are contributing to our own development, as well as participating with others? That is the type of system that the global financial system has been against, and has never been for. It is the old imperial system, and they are just merely modern continuations of that. What we have to do, what our task is, is to create this new system. Not just money from the old system to create this, but how do we make the system where not only do we each benefit from the best the world has to offer, but that we are also contributors, as full human beings to it, as well. That is where I would like to leave it.

SPEED: OK, thank you. Walter Formento, you’re up.

WALTER FORMENTO: [as translated] All of the contributions that are made are very significant. It’s clear that for South America the call for the five nations that Putin made, which Helga also referred to, is a matter of great hope, because this would allow us to ensure that we could achieve peace. Therefore, it will be international politics that will allow us to decide things based on a dialogue of civilizations, a dialogue of peoples, of nations, what the future of mankind and nature will be. In Argentina in particular, the production of food — Argentina is a great producer of food, along with South America, along with Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay as well. The great multinational conglomerates involved in the food sector have taken control as of 30 years ago in Argentina, both in terms of our ability to produce as well as export.

Therefore, at this moment in Argentina and in South America, governments have changed, and with the backing of such an international conference that President Putin has called for, we can move forward in providing sovereign channels for both producing and exporting. The policies that can be carried out inside Argentina in the food sector have to do with allowing producers’ cooperatives to be a part of the great conglomerates that engage in production. We shouldn’t dissolve large-scale production and technology, but rather introduce the nations and all society through such cooperatives so that they participate in the solution, and to be part of the solution. Therefore, there is a way to democratize production.

SPEED: We’re going to have to stop. Thank you. Sorry, we’re going to have to move on. Mike Callicrate?

CALLICRATE: I was really moved by Dr. Meighoo’s comments about islands and the small economies on those islands. I can really get somebody pretty seriously depressed when we talk about the state of the world. But, I can also lift them and get them more excited when I talk about the possibility of going home. Going home to our communities and making them as good as we possibly can. Become wealth creators, grow things, make things, restore the primary wealth trading enterprises to societies around the world. Like with Kirk, if you can just stop the predators, the economic, financial, big food monopoly predators from extracting the wealth and leaving nothing but poverty behind, I think we can begin to repair this damage. Because we do control, as farmers and ranchers and citizens, we do to a large extent control our ability to create the wealth. It’s what happens to it after we create it. The last speaker talked about we shouldn’t dissolve the big corporations. I would argue yes, we should dissolve them. The big corporations should be broken up; not completely eliminate their facilities, but at least put them to where they have to perform in line with the public good. So, I love that analogy of those small islands of Trinidad and Tobago, and islands all across the Caribbean and how that is very much like the islands in rural America, in rural communities around the world. I’m saying let’s go back to making things and growing things, and teach that and kill this model of industrialization of these critical industries, like food.

SPEED: Thank you, very good. We’re trying to get Diogène Senny’s audio up. I don’t think we have it yet. So, let’s go to Jacques.

CHEMINADE: Just one word about Cuban doctors, to speak about that island. It’s proof that you can have the most advanced medicine, interferon, where French doctors have to go there to learn from them. Then you have the best doctors, because they stay and live where the patients stay and live. And third, they are involved in cooperation with other countries in the whole world. They send them, and they do a very good job. In particular, they are now in Doha, in Europe in Italy, and now in French Martinique, so the French have to recognize — and sometimes it’s difficult for them — that these were the best; a team of 15 Cuban doctors in Martinique now. So that’s proof that an island can do an excellent job in a very advanced field, and at the same time they are most human.

SPEED: Thank you. I hope that we have the audio for the Pan-African Congress representative. We are not going off until I hear that. We’re going to do a sit-in until we hear from him!

SENNY: [as translated] The global question of poverty is just a part of the world situation and the African situation. We all know that when we present the situation of the continent, we are more interested in the question of the debt, money, slavery, and we forget that, for example, monoculture which has been imposed by the international cartels have destroyed agriculture with the hedge funds that I denounce, because they want to make money with our land. They buy what we have in our continent, in our countries, to generate profit for them, for a small group of people. But not allow millions of lives of people to develop their land.

That’s why this question of agriculture and self-sufficiency in Africa is one of the most important problems. It’s not an agriculture, it’s a money culture; that’s the agriculture we have. If we want to have modern rice, we have to have modern developments. It’s very important for us, this agricultural question. We see that it is a world problem. What was used before by the African farmers are not in their own hands, because it is in the hands of the hedge funds, the speculative hedge funds.

It is very important to understand, and it is not very well known in the international debate now. That’s what I wanted to add. Thank you very much.

SPEED: Thank you very much. So, now Diane, you have 45 seconds, and I have 45 seconds. Do your postlude.

SARE: OK. I’ll be very brief. I think we should all remember that we have been blessed to have inhabit a beautiful, fertile planet which is very conducive to sustaining life, and in particular human life, if we are sane. But there are 2 trillion galaxies or more in the universe, and each of these many have many other planets. So, contrary to the views of the Malthusians and the money-changers, the creativity of each and every human being on this planet is urgently needed; because we are not capable of making too many discoveries to develop the universe as a whole. Therefore, we have to grow into a new era of mankind.

SPEED: Thank you. So, I will now conclude this panel — largely due to time — by just pointing out that we’ve had Europe, Africa, South America, the Caribbean, and the United States all on this panel in the form of discussion. This is the process that must be correlative to whatever happens among heads of state. And this process which the Schiller Institute is initiating, which is also bringing up various forms of important ideas and painful truths as well, is crucial to the actual success of the global Four-Power and related summit that we’ve been talking about. Finally, in the era of coronavirus, this is the only means by which people will be able to prosper and not perish; is this people-to-people dialogue we’ve conducted here.

I want to thank all of the panelists who were with us today. I think there’s a lot that can be done also in additional presentations that we may find in the future, pairing some of you together. I’d certainly like to see the Pan-African Congress together with Mr. Mike Callicrate. I’d like to see Kirk Meighoo involved in some discussions like that. Jacques is always welcome, and he’s always teaching us things. He had something new for us today; go back and take a look at his presentation afterwards, because he has some very interesting ideas that he put forward there.

So, we’re going to conclude now…




Vladimir Putin: For at undgå 2. verdenskrigs skæbne må P5-lederne mødes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Hér kan man registrere sig.

 




Bolton slutter sig til kupmagerne

Den 18. juni (EIRNS) – Præsident Trump sagde for nylig, at hvis han ikke havde fyret John Bolton som sin nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, ”ville vi være i 6. verdenskrig nu”. Det står nu klart for verden, at Bolton, der ikke fik mulighed for at starte 6. verdenskrig, endsige 3. verdenskrig, under præsident Donald Trump, slutter sig sammen med sine britiske efterretningsvenner og selv de radikale anarkister på gaderne i Seattle og andre amerikanske og europæiske byer, for at fjerne Trump fra embedet. Hans metode er at skabe maksimal “kaos og forvirring” i nationen, med den hensigt at mindst et af de foreslåede midler til Trumps bortgang, der blev identificeret i Londons The Spectator, den 21. januar 2017, vil manifestere sig: “Vil Donald Trump blive myrdet, udsat for et kup eller blot afsat i en rigsretssag”?

 Den største ironi er, at Bolton længe er blevet udskældt (med rette) af det liberale etablissement som en af de mest rabiate neokonservative krigsmagere i moderne historie, og alligevel svømmer det liberale etablissement i dag over med ros for hans angivelige mod og sanddruelighed, og klager alene over, at han skulle have tilsluttet sig Demokraternes indsats for en rigsretssag sidste år. Faktisk afslutter New York Times i dag sin forpremiere med citater fra Boltons bog: “Havde Repræsentanternes Hus ikke kun fokuseret på de ukrainske aspekter af Trumps sammenblanding af sine personlige interesser, kunne der have været en større chance for at overbevise andre om, at der er blevet begået alvorlige forbrydelser og forseelser”.

 Bolton slutter sig til en broget flok i “tredje fase” af bestræbelserne på at vælte USA’s præsident: Ud over Obama-demokraterne og Obama-efterretningsteamet, der førte an i det forræderiske “Russiagate”-fupnummer på vegne af MI6, og rigsretsfarcen over Ukraine, har man nu også de pensionerede generaler, dem der blev indsat af Bush og Obama for at føre de folkemorderiske “regimeskifte”-krige i Mellemøsten (Mattis, Allen, Powell, m.fl.), der falsk beskylder præsidenten for at have truet med at sætte militæret ind mod “befolkningen”. Så er der Black Lives Matter, ”græsrods”-bevægelsen med over 400 millioner $ i tilskud fra Soros, Ford Foundation og andre Wall Street-kilder, med fuld opbakning fra de etablerede medier, som har til hensigt at vende folks vrede over det økonomiske sammenbrud, nedlukningen af samfundet og politiets brutalitet til et “Trump er racist”-tema.

 Trump har ikke kapituleret. Han reagerede på løgnene fra krigsgeneralerne ved i hans tale til afgangsklassen fra West Point at fortælle dem, at “tidsalderen med uendelige krige er forbi,” og at USA ikke længere vil spille “verdens politimand”. Til Boltons bog svarede han i dag på sin typisk diskrete måde: ”Skøre John Boltons ekstremt kedsommelige (New York Times) bog består af løgne og falske historier. Han sagde alt godt om mig, på tryk, indtil den dag jeg fyrede ham. Et gnavent kedeligt fjols, der ikke ville andet end at gå i krig. Han har aldrig haft en anelse om noget som helst, blev udstødt og heldigvis dumpet. Hvilken tumpe”!

 Vedrørende anarkisterne i Seattle, der besætter en del af byen med den liberale borgmesters støtte, advarede Trump embedsmændene om, at de nu selv skal rydde op i denne opstand, ellers vil han bruge præsidentskabets magt til at genoprette lov og social orden.

 Og dette kaos dirigerer nationens opmærksomhed væk fra den virkelige krise: 50 år med afindustrialisering, nedskæringspolitik, der ødelægger vores folkesundhedskapacitet, finanspolitik, der redder spekulative banker snarere end at opbygge økonomien; og uendelige krige. Denne proces har ødelagt de transatlantiske lande og efterladt udviklingssektoren i ynkelig fattigdom. Sydamerika og Afrika står overfor et ægte holocaust, i takt med at pandemien, fødevareforsyningernes sammenbrud og græshoppeplagen truer millioner af liv i de kommende måneder fremover, hvis der ikke iværksættes nødforanstaltninger straks. Den 17. juni forestod Kina et topmøde mellem Kina og Afrika for at tackle COVID-19-krisen sammen med Den afrikanske Union og Forummet for samarbejde mellem Kina og Afrika. Kina har sikret levering af 30 millioner stykker testudstyr, 10.000 ventilatorer og 80 millioner masker hver måned til Afrika og fortsætter sit løfte, der blev lanceret i 2015, om at bygge 100 hospitaler og klinikker i hele Afrika, Hvorfor har USA ikke tilsluttet sig Kina for at imødegå denne eksistentielle trussel mod den menneskelige race, frem for at tolerere den McCarthy-agtige dæmonisering af Kina som fjenden?

 Trump tog et vigtigt skridt for at dæmpe det anti-kinesiske hysteri ved at udsende udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo – selvom han er en af de mest højrøstede løgnere vedrørende Kina – for at mødes med Kinas øverste udenrigspolitiske embedsmand, Yang Jiechi, på Hawaii den 17. juni. Ud over en middag mødtes de to i syv timers diskussion, der dækkede alle aspekter af forbindelserne mellem USA og Kina og de mange kriser rundt om i verden. Begge sider beskrev mødet som ”konstruktivt”, og begge lovede at arbejde sammen for at konfrontere pandemien.

 At bringe præsidenterne Xi Jinping og Trump sammen, for at imødegå den fælles fjende og samarbejde om at opfylde de fælles mål for menneskeheden, alt imens de slutter sig til Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi og andre verdensledere, er den indtrængende opfordring og budskabet fra Schiller Instituttets mobilisering for et internationalt forum den 27. juni.

 Forummet omfatter tre paneler:

 Panel I: I stedet for geopolitik: Principperne for statsmandskunst;

Panel II: Hvorfor et program med 1.5 mia. produktive jobs kan afslutte krig, hungersnød, fattigdom og sygdom;

Panel III: Ungdommens opgave.

 Man kan tilmelde sig her for deltagelse i dette online forum.