Beethoven og kreativitet, af Michelle Rasmussen

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

This article appears in the March 5, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Beethoven and Creativity

by Michelle Rasmussen

[Print version of this article]

View full size

Lithograph by August von Klöber, 1818

Ludwig van Beethoven

Feb. 23—If there was one principle at the center of Lyndon LaRouche’s life’s work, it was that the crucial factor in the progress of human civilization is human creativity. It is human creativity which distinguishes man, and woman, from the beast. It is, or ought to be, the mission of society to foster the potential creativity, which, like a seed, lies dormant in every child, just waiting for loving nourishment to cause it to bloom, to create the most beautiful flower, which, in turn, delights and inspires all others to, themselves, develop their own creative potential. But, you may ask, how do you learn about, and teach creativity?

There is perhaps no better creativity teacher than Ludwig van Beethoven, he who was born 250 years ago, in another time, in another place, whose life-long struggle to perfect his own creative powers, has been, is now, and will forever be a monumental source for the study of creativity. This he was for LaRouche, who would often listen to Beethoven to get his creative juices flowing before sitting down to write. And this he can be for you, dear reader, and all of us, so that we may, also, be creative, that we may “Think like Beethoven.”[fn_1]

And what is the purpose of such creativity? As Beethoven put it, “to work by means of my art for needy humanity.”[fn_2] Not art for art’s sake. Beethoven, like Friedrich Schiller, was conscious of great art’s ability to raise the moral level of humanity, to better enable human beings to form a more perfect society, one where, in Schiller’s immortal words, “All men become brothers,” the very words which Beethoven set to music in his Ninth Symphony.[fn_3]

Beethoven wrote that art and science, “Give us intimations and hopes of a higher life” to unite “the best and noblest people,” and to “raise men to the Godhead.”[fn_4]

To a female friend, urging her to devote herself entirely to music, he wrote: “You who have such feeling for all that is beautiful and good. Why will you not make use of this, in order that you may recognize in so beautiful an art the higher perfection which sheds its rays even on us.”[fn_5]

Concerning his immortal mass, the Missa Solemnis: “In writing this great Mass, it was my chief aim to awaken, and to render lasting, religious feeling as well in the singers as in the hearers.”[fn_6]

Plato wrote that music was the most important education for the soul—to fill the soul with beauty, and make it beautiful. People would then praise beauty, receive it with joy into their souls, and become beautiful souls.[fn_7]

Beauty, Schiller said, ennobles our emotions and our intellect. Not just raw emotions which dominate us, without intellect and reason. Not just intellect and reason, without compassion and agapē—love for our neighbor. But through the freedom of mind and heart, which arises while in the act of play, and especially when experiencing the beauty of great art, the two sides of our nature can be reconciled by rising to a higher, subsuming state of mind, which we call the aesthetical state of mind.

View full size

Friedrich Schiller, in a portrait by Ludovike Simanowiz.

Beethoven quoted Schiller’s play Don Carlos in a letter from 1797: “Wisdom is for the wise, Beauty for the feeling heart; and both belong to each other.” (Die Wahrheit is vorhanden für den Weisen, Die Schönheit für ein fülend Herz; Sie beide gehören für einander.)[fn_8]

Beethoven wielded his creative powers to touch our souls through the beauty of his music.

The Creative Process

To be creative is a process of perfecting the ability to imagine what no one before you has ever thought about. In modern terms, to think “outside of the box,” the box of “This is how it has always been done,” “These are the rules,” “These are the unquestionable doctrines.” And, to be self-conscious about how to do that. But how do you put yourself into a state of mind, where you can think freely? How can you become self-reflective about the creative process and look into your own mind?

The thought process we call the imagination, is not only the key to creativity in the arts, but, also, in scientific discovery. Lyndon LaRouche put it this way in a speech called “Creativity as Such,” in 2011:

And it’s in the process of metaphor, in which we acquire access to experimental knowledge and use of principles which lie outside the domain of sense-certainties, that mankind distinguishes himself from the beasts…. This is the special genius of Classical musical composition…. [Y]ou look at the question of irony, and you take the case of a Bach fugal composition as the perfect test to demonstrate this.… This aspect of the human mind is the location of human creativity. And the promotion of that aspect of the human experience, Classical artistic culture as an expression of the principle of metaphor, is the principle of ordinary discovery, principled discovery. And when you take this kind of thinking over into the department of the practice of physical science, the same thing! And there, you have an example of the role of Classical musical composition, as in the illustrative cases of both Max Planck and Albert Einstein, in particular—and [Vladimir] Vernadsky also! You get a demonstration that in the department of Classical artistic composition, in which the mind is experimenting with the attempt to discover principles, and expresses the yearning for that experimental result as the incentive of creativity for the human mind. That is creativity.[fn_9]

Albert Einstein, better known as a great scientist, lesser known as a devoted amateur violinist, made his greatest discoveries not in a laboratory, but through “thought-experiments.” He had an intriguing insight into the power of the imagination, which he used to make his discoveries, and, also, the power of music to stimulate his own imagination.

View full size

Photo by E.O. Hoppe

“The power of imagination is the ultimate creative power.”
—Albert Einstein.
When he became stuck in solving an intellectual problem, Einstein often played his violin to liberate his mental powers.


The power of imagination is the ultimate creative power … no doubt about that. While knowledge defines all we currently know and understand … imagination points to all we might yet discover and create. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Your imagination is your preview of life’s coming attractions.[fn_10]

Imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.[fn_11]

Imagination is the language of the soul.[fn_12]

Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.[fn_13]

Einstein recounted that when he became stuck in the process of solving an intellectual problem, he would play his violin, and that would often liberate his mental powers.[fn_14]

Beethoven wrote this about the challenge of writing fugues in his late quartets: “The imagination, too, asserts its privileges and today a different, truly poetic element must be manifested in conventional form.”[fn_15]

In 1823, Beethoven wrote suggestions on how to stimulate the imagination to Archduke Rudolph, one of his very few composition students, and an important financial and political supporter:

I hope that Your Imperial Highness will continue to acquire special practice in writing down your ideas straightaway at the piano; for this purpose there should be a small table next to the piano. Not only is the imagination strengthened in this way, but one also learns to pin down the remotest ideas at once, it is likewise necessary to write without a piano. Nor should it give Yr. Imperial Highness a headache, but rather the considerable pleasure of finding yourself absorbed in this art, to elaborate a simple melody at times, a chorale, with simple and, then again, with more varied figurations in counterpoint[fn_16] and so forth to more difficult exercises. This will certainly not give Your Royal Highness a headache, but rather, when one finds oneself absorbed in art, a great pleasure. Gradually we develop the [ability to] express just exactly what we wish to, what we feel within us, a need characteristic of all superior persons [noble-minded men in A.C. Kalischer’s translation].[fn_17]

This power of the imagination involves our ability to think about the future, about how something could be, not bound by what is, in the here and now.

The concept of the imagination is related to forecasting the future effects of current causes, as in LaRouche’s economic forecasts, in which he always proposed alternative courses of action to avoid the dangers stalking in the future as the result of current wrong policies. And, likewise, deciding what to do in the here and now, based on your vision of where you want to arrive in the long-term future, the “future determining the present,” as he put it.

In classical music, imagining the future requires, on the one hand, having an insight into the pregnant possibilities of a single new musical theme or motive, but, on the other hand, the ability to invent a musical idea, which is not a theme, but a generative, developmental process, a specific quality of change—the real subject of a unified composition, which acts upon the themes as objects of creative transformation.

The seed-crystal of this development process is in the mind of the composer from the very beginning.

Beethoven from 1815: “I have always a picture in my mind, when I am composing, and work up to it.”[fn_18]

Regarding his opera Fidelio, “my custom when I am composing even instrumental music is always to keep the whole before my eyes.”[fn_19]

There is a tension between what Plato called “the one and the many”: the one unifying musical idea, and the many motives, developments, and transitions—the unfolding of the unified idea. The great German conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler spoke of the tension between near-hearing (nahhören), the music heard at that moment as it is unfolding, and far-hearing (fernhören), the future, completed, composition.

View full size

EIRNS/Philip Ulanowsky

“The seed-crystal of the development process is in the mind of the composer from the very beginning.” Norbert Brainin, primarius of the Amadeus Quartet, described and demonstrated the process of motivic thorough composition, the subject of Beethoven’s enormously fruitful musical creativity. Here he is (right), with his long-time friend, Lyndon LaRouche, on December 4, 1987.

Beethoven was a master of this process, which we call motivic thorough composition or, in German, motivführung. Just think about the first movement of his Fifth Symphony, and how the first famous four notes—da, da, da, dum—became the object of Beethoven’s enormously fruitful musical creativity. Or the motivführung that traverses several of Beethoven’s late string quartets, as described by Norbert Brainin, the late Amadeus Quartet primarius, at a Schiller Institute seminar, where he started with Op. 132.[fn_20]

Paradoxically the one, unifying musical idea must subsume many free, independent voices. Beethoven wrote the following upon being asked by a composer to criticize his composition:

[N]ot indirectly, but frankly, as is my wont, I only tell you that you might pay a little more attention to the separate conduct of the parts in future works of this kind.[fn_21]

Creativity is not linear. LaRouche emphasized the role of surprise, paradox, metaphor, irony, even jokes, and puns, all of which Beethoven was a master. The listener is consciously led into a trap, where, suddenly, the unexpected occurs. A dramatic new element takes you by surprise, and you are forced to make a mental leap into the realm of the imagination, away from linear thinking. Afterwards, an emotional release occurs, for example, when you “get the joke.” In metaphor, there is a juxtaposition of seemingly unrelated elements in a surprising way, which can only be understood from a higher, subsuming level. (See box: Beethoven Thought
in Metaphor

In the process of unfolding the musical idea in a polyphonic (many-voiced) musical universe, sometimes the different individual voices come into conflict with each other, and dissonances emerge in the contrapuntal process, which urgently demand to be resolved, thus driving the unfolding process forward in a non-linear way.

This is similar to a human dialogue of cultures, where, sometimes, conflicts emerge. These conflicts, however, can be solved through the process of creating a higher unity, the which Nikolaus von Kues (Nicholas of Cusa) called the “coincidence of opposites.” This is actually a common metaphor in Danish known as things “going up in a higher unity” (at gå op i en højere enhed.) In music, the higher unity is the overall musical idea of that particular piece.

The creative process also entails great emotional tension in the midst of problem solving, as if you are hanging on a psychological cliff, or lost in no-man’s land. You begin to doubt if the problem can ever be solved. But the great thinker, whether in music, science, or elsewhere, develops a power of concentration, sometimes lasting years, based on an underlying consciousness of the importance of his or her endeavor, a striving passion, until a breakthrough occurs, as if in a flash of insight, and the problem is solved.

The creative struggle involves trying out new solutions, which are not in the rulebook, and not in your own past productions. To be self-reflective about the creative process requires not only being conscious about new methods of composition, as Beethoven sometimes explicitly wrote that he had invented, which Plato referred to as a “higher hypothesis,” but, also, to be self-conscious about the increasingly creative quality of compositional methods, which Plato called the “hypothesis of the higher hypothesis.”

From Beethoven to a publisher in 1802 regarding Piano Variations Op. 34 and 35:

Both sets are really worked out in a wholly new manner, and each in a separate and different way…. I myself can assure you that in both these works the method is quite new so far as I am concerned.[fn_22]

[W]hen feeling opens up a path for us, then away with all rules.[fn_23]

In fact, LaRouche wrote that Beethoven should be considered a physical scientist, because of his ability to make one creative breakthrough after another, to discover new worlds, new modes of musical expression. In science, we discover new physical principles of nature, even creating new states of matter, never before seen in nature. Opening your mind to the existence of a paradox, that which does not fit into the accepted theories, spurs the mind to seek new, higher, hypotheses, and design crucial physical experiments to prove, or disprove them.

In art, we use the same cognitive powers to discover new artistic principles, and, also, something new about our own creativity, which we can share with others, be they musicians or listeners. We can communicate the power of creativity, itself, to move men’s souls.

Beethoven was a master in making use of known musical forms (for example, the sonata form), and imbuing them with surprising, new, revolutionary content.

Beethoven’s Struggle to Approximate
Divine Creativity

Beethoven was self-conscious about his own divine spark of creativity, that which LaRouche devoted his life to better understand, that Götterfunken (godly spark), of Schiller’s “Ode to Joy”: Freude, schöne Götterfunken[fn_24], the which Beethoven set to music in his monumental Ninth Symphony. LaRouche pondered, what does it mean for man to be in the image of The Creator? It is this capacity for man, also, to be a creator. That, stressed LaRouche, is what separates men and women from beasts. (See the section on the divine spark in every individual in LaRouche’s article in this issue, “In the Garden of Gethsemane,” written in his prison cell in 1990.)

Beethoven wrote to publisher Breitkopf & Härtel in 1812: “my heavenly art, the only true divine gift of Heaven,” and in 1824: “I am free from all small-minded vanity: only the divine art, in it alone is the main-spring which gives me strength to devote the best part of my life to the heavenly Muses.”[fn_25]

After seeing a collection of Schubert’s songs, Beethoven’s friend Anton Schindler records him as saying: “Truly, this Schubert is lit by a divine spark.”[fn_26]

Resenting publishers who line their pockets with profits from an author’s work, treating them as “tasty brain-food,” Beethoven wrote:

The author [Beethoven] is determined to show that the human brain cannot be sold either like coffee beans or like any form of cheese which, as everyone knows, must first be produced from milk, urine and so forth—The human brain is inherently inalienable.[fn_27]

Beethoven was very conscious of his mission in life: to be as creative as he could be, in order to uplift needy humanity with the power of his music. To adopt the immortal mission of the artist: to ennoble the present, and future generations. There was no standing still or entropy, but, instead, what LaRouche called anti-entropy. Motivated by his love for mankind, Beethoven willfully became more and more conscious of his own creative powers, and constantly strove to leap up to the next higher level of creativity, with the explicit goal of more closely reaching the power of God’s own creativity. (See box: Beethoven: ‘To Spread the Rays of the Godhead’)

The Sublime

Beethoven’s passion to fulfill his mission gave him the power to rise above personal adversity, in the form of his increasing deafness. As he put it in his moving Heiligenstadt testament, he was in anguish about losing that very sense which he ought to have in perfection.

Schiller calls this the sublime—our ability to rise above sensual pain, for the purpose of a higher mission.

In 1813, Beethoven wrote: “Lend sublimity to my highest thoughts, enrich them with truths that remain truths forever!”[fn_28]

He copied from another source: “Everything that is called life should be sacrificed to the sublime and be a sanctuary of art.”[fn_29]

Beethoven wrote to his good friend Dr. Franz Wegeler, in about 1801, about his anxiety during the previous two years because of his increasing deafness, and recent happy moments due to a woman he was now in love with, continuing:

For me there is no greater pleasure than that of practicing and displaying my art. My strength, both in body and mind, for some time has been on the increase. Every day brings me nearer to the goal which I feel but cannot describe. And it is only in that condition that your Beethoven can live. There must be no rest—I know of none but sleep…. I will seize fate by the throat; it shall certainly not wholly overcome me. Oh! life is so beautiful. Would that I could have a thousand lives![fn_30]

A year later, in the testament Beethoven wrote in Heiligenstadt addressed to his brothers, but never sent, he penned that he was so desperate, that he had considered taking his own life. But he could not morally allow himself to do so, because he knew that he had so much more music to give humanity:

But what a humiliation for me when someone standing next to me heard a flute in the distance and I heard nothing, or someone heard a shepherd singing and again I heard nothing. Such incidents drove me almost to despair; a little more of that and I would have ended my life—it was only my art that held me back. Ah, it seemed to me impossible to leave the world until I had brought forth all that I felt was within me…. “Divine one, thou seest my inmost soul thou knowest that therein dwells the love of mankind and the desire to do good.” Ever since my childhood my heart and soul have been imbued with the tender feeling of goodwill; and I have always been inclined to accomplish great things.[fn_31]

This became Beethoven’s moral imperative—Beethoven, the musician, and Beethoven, the man.

On September 17, 1824 to publisher Schott, after writing that his health was poor:

Apollo and the Muses will not yet hand me over to the Scythe Man, for I still owe them much; and before my departure for the Elysian Fields I must finish what the spirit suggests to me [or, as another translation has it: what the Eternal Spirit has infused into my soul[fn_32]] and commands me to finish. It is to me as if I had only written a few notes.[fn_33]

In art, there is a seeming paradox. The artist’s thoughts are often light years ahead of the general population, yet the mission of the artist is to ennoble just those people through the aesthetical experience—to raise the sights of the people to the stars. Beethoven, especially, felt this paradox, but was determined to compose at the highest level he could, despite complaints that his works were either unplayable, or not understandable.

View full size

Beethoven, sculpted by Hugo Hagen in 1898.

Beethoven for Us, Today

Though he could not hear music with his ears, Beethoven heard music in his mind and felt it in his soul. He would go on to produce what many consider the greatest music in human history. That is why people all over the world still perform and listen to his music. That is also why we must strive to present Beethoven’s music to those, emphatically including young people, who don’t know the beauty they are missing. Let us give it to them, as Beethoven’s present to everyone, on the occasion of his 250th birthday.

Dear reader, take the opportunity to celebrate Beethoven’s birthday by immersing yourself in listening to, and even playing and singing, his works, so that you may better understand the creative beings that we are. Notes on paper represent not just tones, but the keys to Beethoven’s creative mind. Thereby, you can confirm a positive image of man, which also had a political dimension for Beethoven—the pursuit of freedom.

Six months after leaving Bonn, Beethoven quoted from Friedrich Schiller’s play, Don Carlos in the commemorative leaf that he wrote for a woman: “Do well where one can, love freedom above all, never renounce the truth, not even before the royal throne.”[fn_34]

As Schiller said, the road to Freedom goes through Beauty. That was Schiller’s solution after the French Revolution, which did not end like the American Revolution, but in a bloodbath.[fn_35] It is not rage and anger that will transform our society for the better, but reasoned future-oriented policy proposals based on the most noble image of man.

Beethoven characterized humanity as “we mortals with immortal minds.” His creativity can speak directly to you from his place in the “simultaneity of eternity,” the place LaRouche often spoke of, outside of space and time, where the emanations of the most creative people in history are found.

From a letter to a painter: “Continue to paint and I shall continue to write down notes, and thus we shall live—forever?—yes, perhaps, forever.”[fn_36]

“I would rather set to music Homer, Klopstock, Schiller, although even these would cause difficulties, but these immortal poets are worth it.”[fn_37]

To fellow composer Luigi Cherubini: “True art is imperishable, and the true artist feels inward pleasure in the production of great works.”[fn_38]

We can drink from this fountain of creativity, and nourish ourselves, so that, hopefully, we may contribute, each in his or her own way, to enriching the flow.

And ye musicians: strive to master Beethoven’s compositional principles so that we may rediscover the almost lost art of composing beautiful and profound music, and, maybe, even, go beyond.

Let Beethoven aid us in developing our own creative powers so that we may generate nothing less than a new global renaissance, for the sake of needy humanity.

Read the author’s other articles on culture at

View full size

EIRNS/Sylvia Spaniolo

“The true artist feels inward pleasure in the production of great works.” —Beethoven. Here, the Schiller Institute NYC Chorus and orchestra in a concert on Schiller’s birthday, St. Bartholomew’s Church, New York, November 18, 2018. The Schiller Institute encourages members of the public to join the Chorus.

[fn_1]1. Lyndon LaRouche, Think Like Beethoven, paperback available here[back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]2. Dr. A.C. Kalischer, Beethoven’s Letters, With Explanatory Notes, Dover, 1972, page 160. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]3. Michelle Rasmussen, “ ‘All Men Become Brothers’: The Decades-Long Struggle for Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony,” EIR Vol. 42, No. 26, June 26, 2015, pages 38-51[back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]4. Maynard Solomon, “Reason and Imagination: Beethoven’s Aesthetic Evolution,” in Historical Musicology: Sources, Methods, Interpretations, by Stephen A. Crist and Roberta Montemorra Marvin (editors), University of Rochester Press, 2008, page 189. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]5. Kalischer, page 68. See note 2. [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]6. Kalischer, page 331. [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]7. From a more extensive footnote about Plato written by Edgar A. Poe in “The Colloquy of Monos and Una.” The Complete Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe, Modern Library, 1938, page 446. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]8. Written in Lenz von Breuning’s album, Kalischer, page 11. [back to text for fn_8]

[fn_9]9. Speech delivered to the Schiller Institute conference, “Classical Culture, an Imperative for Mankind,” held in Rüsselsheim, Germany, July 3, 2011. EIR Vol. 38, No. 27, July 15, 2011, pages 30-38. [back to text for fn_9]

[fn_10]10. [back to text for fn_10]

[fn_11]11. Albert Einstein, Einstein On Cosmic Religion and Other Opinions & Aphorisms. [back to text for fn_11]

[fn_12]12. [back to text for fn_12]

[fn_13]13. /quotes/albert_einstein_121643. [back to text for fn_13]

[fn_14]14. Read the article, “Einstein the Artist,” by Shawna Halevy, one of LaRouche’s collaborators. EIR Vol. 39, No. 19, May 11, 2012, pages 58-66 [back to text for fn_14]

[fn_15]15. Solomon, “Reason and Imagination,” in Historical Musicology, page 194. See note 4. [back to text for fn_15]

[fn_16]16. Counterpoint is the art of writing two or more lines, or voices, of music designed to be in dialogue with each other, from “point against point,” writing a contrary note to a given note, or point. [back to text for fn_16]

[fn_17]17. Michael Hamburger (editor), Beethoven: Letters, Journals and Conversations, Thames & Hudson, 2007, page 199. [back to text for fn_17]

[fn_18]18. Maynard Solomon, Beethoven Essays, Harvard University Press, 1990, page 127. [back to text for fn_18]

[fn_19]19. Solomon, “Reason and Imagination,” in Historical Musicology, page 194. [back to text for fn_19]

[fn_20]20. Over September 20-22, 1995, the Schiller Institute sponsored a series of seminars featuring Lyndon LaRouche’s close friend and collaborator Norbert Brainin, at the Dolná Krupá castle in Slovakia. Watch Mr. Brainin demonstrate the principle of motivic through composition in Seminar No. 4 here, or read more about it here[back to text for fn_20]

[fn_21]21. To Baron Carl August von Klein in 1826, Kalischer, page 365. [back to text for fn_21]

[fn_22]22. Solomon, “Reason and Imagination,” in Historical Musicology, page 191. [back to text for fn_22]

[fn_23]23. Op. cit., page 192. [back to text for fn_23]

[fn_24]24. A word coined before Schiller, by Johann Georg Adam Forster in writing about Benjamin Franklin. [back to text for fn_24]

[fn_25]25. Kalischer, page 330. [back to text for fn_25]

[fn_26]26. Manuel Komroff, Beethoven and the World of Music, Dodd, Mead, 1961, page 164. [back to text for fn_26]

[fn_27]27. Solomon, “Reason and Imagination,” in Historical Musicology, page 190. [back to text for fn_27]

[fn_28]28. Hamburger, Beethoven: Letters, page 122. See note 17. [back to text for fn_28]

[fn_29]29. Birgit Lodes, in William Kinderman (editor), The String Quartets of Beethoven, University of Illinois Press, 2020, page 186. [back to text for fn_29]

[fn_30]30. Kalischer, page 23. [back to text for fn_30]

[fn_31]31. Thayer’s Life of Beethoven, Vol. I, revised and edited by Elliot Forbes, Princeton University Press, 1991, page 305. [back to text for fn_31]

[fn_32]32. Maynard Solomon, Late Beethoven: Music, Thought, Imagination, University of California Press, 2004, page 93. [back to text for fn_32]

[fn_33]33. Kalischer, page 332. [back to text for fn_33]

[fn_34]34. To Theodora Johanna Vocke in Nuremberg, May 22, 1793. Joseph Schmidt-Görg, ”A Schiller Quote from Beethoven in a New Perspective,” in Günter Henle, Music, Edition, Interpretation, 1980, page 423. [back to text for fn_34]

[fn_35]35. Beethoven actually expressed his desire to travel to North America. “If only God will restore me to my health, which to say the least, has improved, I could do myself justice, in accepting offers from all cities in Europe, yes, even North America, and might still prosper.” Beethoven received a request for an oratorio from Boston’s Musical Society, which, in the end, he did not write. Kalischer, page 289. [back to text for fn_35]

[fn_36]36. Solomon, Late Beethoven, page 98. See note 32. [back to text for fn_36]

[fn_37]37. Kalischer, page 321. [back to text for fn_37]

[fn_38]38. Kalischer, page 296. [back to text for fn_38]

Beethoven Thought in Metaphor

Even when he was not composing, Beethoven thought in metaphor. In response to a letter from his brother which was proudly signed “landowner,” Beethoven signed his letter, “brain-owner.”a[fn_1]

From a remembrance by music critic and literary figure, Johann Friedrich Rochlitz: “Once he is in the vein, rough, striking witticisms, droll conceits, surprising and exciting paradoxes suggest themselves to him in a continuous flow.”b[fn_2][fn_3]

From his student Karl Czerny: “He could introduce a play on words anywhere.”c For example, “As regards Frau v. Stein [stone in English], I beg her not to let Herr v. Steiner be petrified, so that he may still be able to serve me.”d[fn_4]

Or he could make up funny words, calling a fugue “tone-flight-work.”e[fn_5]

Here is an example of the great fun Beethoven had when writing to Tobias Hasslinger, publisher Sigmund Anton Steiner’s assistant, who later became the publisher (Beethoven usually called Hasslinger the “little adjutant,” Beethoven being “Generalissimus”):

I dreamed that I was taking a far journey, as far as Syria, as far as India, back again as far as Arabia; finally I came indeed to Jerusalem. The Holy City prompted thoughts about the Holy Writ [Bible], when, and no wonder, I thought of the man Tobias [from the Bible], and naturally that led to my thinking of our little Tobias and our pertobias[sen] [making the name a verb, then a noun meaning to turn the name ‘Tobias’ into musicf[fn_6]]; now, in my dream journey, the following canon occurred to me:g[fn_7]

View full size

Beethoven then forgot the canon*[fn_8], and when he remembered it again, it had turned into a three-voice canon, which he held as strongly as Menelaus had held Proteus.

His letter to Tobias Hasslinger continues:

Soon I shall send in something about Steiner, too, just to prove that he hasn’t a heart of stone. Farewell, very dearest of friends, we wish you continually that you may never be true to the name of publisher and may never be publicly humiliated…. [The pun on Verleger (publisher) and verlegen (embarrassed, at a loss) was one of which Beethoven was especially fond.]h[fn_9]

Enclosed in a letter to a publisher in 1825 with some canons, Beethoven includes:

[A] supplement, a romantic description of the life of Tobias Hasslinger in 3 parts. First part: Tobias is an assistant of the celebrated authority, Capellmeister Fux—and holds the ladder to his Gradus ad Parnassum [steps to Parnassus, the mountain where the Muses live, the name of Fux’s pedantic book on counterpoint]. As he is now inclined to practical joking, through shaking and pushing the ladder he causes many of those who had got fairly high up to fall headlong and break their necks, &c. He now bids farewell to our clod of earth and reappears at the time of Albrechtsberger [a leading counterpoint teacher who gave Beethoven some lessons].

2nd part. The already existing Fuxian nota cambiata [changed note] is now treated in conjunction with A[lbrechtsberger]. and the changing notes thoroughly expounded; the art of creating a musical skeleton is carried on to the highest degree, &c. Tobias, now a caterpillar, is turned into a grub [butterfly larva], is developed, and appears for the third time on this earth.

3rd part. The scarcely formed wings now hasten to the Paternostergässl [the address of the publisher]; he becomes Paternostergässler Capellmeister, and having gone through the school of the changing notes [Wechselnoten] he retains nothing of them but the change [Wechsel], and so gains the friend of his youth, and finally becomes a member of several inland empty-headed societies, &c. If you ask him, he will certainly allow this account of his life to be published.i[fn_10]

[back to text]

[fn_1]a. Russell Sherman, Piano Pieces, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, September 30, 1997, page 114. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]b. Oscar Sonneck (editor), Beethoven: Impressions by His Contemporaries, Dover Books, 1967, page 128. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]c. Solomon, “Reason and Imagination,” in Historical Musicology, page 223. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]d. Kalischer, page 229. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]e. Kalischer, page 356. [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]f. The Free Dictionary Language Forums, by Farlex, “Beethoven’s writing: question.” [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]g. Kalischer, page 281. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8] [WoO 182: O Tobias!, трехголосный канон Бетховен (] [back to text for fn_8]

[fn_9]h. The Unheard Beethoven website, “Canon, O Tobias, WoO 182.” [back to text for fn_9]

[fn_10]i. Kalischer, page 229. [back to text for fn_10]

View full size

Beethoven: ‘To Spread the Rays of the Godhead’

In a letter to Archduke Rudolph, Beethoven wrote:

There is nothing higher than to approach the Godhead more nearly than other mortals and by means of that contact to spread the rays of the Godhead through the human race.j[fn_1]

To Emilie, a girl of 8 to 10 years old, who had written to him in 1812:

Persevere, do not only practice your art, but endeavor also to fathom its inner meaning; it deserves this effort. For only art and science can raise men to the level of gods…. The true artist has no pride. He sees unfortunately that art has no limits; he has a vague awareness of how far he is from reaching his goal; and while others may perhaps be admiring him, he laments the fact that he has not yet reached the point whither his better genius only lights the way for him like a distant sun.

I should probably prefer to visit you and your family than to visit many a rich person who betrays a poverty of mind. If I should ever go to H., then I will call on you and your family. I know of no other human excellences than those which entitle one to be numbered among one’s better fellow creatures. Where I find people of that type, there is my home.k[fn_2]

In the 1790s, he wrote about the need “to strive towards the inaccessible goal which art and nature have set us.”l[fn_3]

When asked which of the string quartets opera 127, 130, 132 was the greatest: “Each in its way. Art demands of us that we shall not stand still…. You will find a new manner of part writing and thank God there is less lack of fancy than ever before.”m[fn_4]

For the artist “there is no more undisturbed, more unalloyed or purer pleasure” than that which comes from rising “ever higher into the heaven of art.”n[fn_5]

Freedom and progress are the aims throughout creation:

[T]he older composers render us double service, since there is generally real artistic value in their works (among them only the German Handel and Seb. Bach possessed genius). But in the world of art, and in the whole of our great creation, freedom and progress are the main objectives. And although we moderns are not quite as far advanced in solidity as our ancestors, yet the refinement of our customs has enlarged many of our conceptions as well.o[fn_6]

Dr. Kalischer commentsp[fn_7] on a letter of Beethoven to a court lawyer, Dr. Johann Baptist Bach: “We may recall the fact that the composer thought of writing an Overture on the name [B-A-C-H: B-flat, A, C, B-natural in German letter notation]; there are many sketches, the following is among some for the Tenth Symphony:

View full size

In a letter to the new directors of the Royal Imperial Court Theatre in Vienna, Beethoven wrote: “[T]he undersigned has always striven less for a livelihood than for the interests of art, the ennoblement of taste and the uplifting of his genius towards higher ideals and perfection.”q[fn_8]     [back to text]

[fn_1]j. Solomon, “Reason and Imagination,” in Historical Musicology, page189. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]k. Emily Anderson (editor), Letter No. 376, in The Letters of Beethoven, Vol. 1, W.W. Norton, 1986, pages 380-381. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]l. Solomon, “Reason and Imagination,” in Historical Musicology, page 191. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]m. Ibid., page 192. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]n. Ibid., page 192. [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]o. Ibid., page 192. Words in parentheses from Kalischer, page 270. [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]p. Kalischer, page 326. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]q. Thayer’s Life of Beethoven, revised and edited by Elliot Forbes, Vol. I, Princeton University Press, 1991, page 426. [back to text for fn_8]



[back to text]

Back to top    Go to home page

This article appears in the March 5, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

January 17, 1990

In the Garden of Gethsemane

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[Print version of this article]

Editor’s Note: This essay was first published in EIR Vol. 44, No. 37, September 15, 2017, pages 19-21.

A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country.

—Matthew 13:57

Those of us who find ourselves in Gethsemane—a Gethsemane where we are told that we must take a role of leadership with our eye on Christ on the Cross—often experience something which, unfortunately, most people do not. We tend to look at things from a different standpoint. Before trying to situate how I see the recent period, and the period immediately before us, I should try to communicate what my viewpoint is, a viewpoint which I know is shared in some degree of very close approximation by everyone who has gone to Gethsemane with the view of the Cross in his eyes, saying, “He did it, I am now being told that I must, too, walk in His way.”

What I suggest often, in trying to explain this to a person who has not experienced it, is to say: “Imagine a time 50 years after you’re dead. Imagine in that moment, 50 years ahead, that you can become conscious and look back at the entirety of your mortal life, from its beginning to its ending. And, rather than seeing that mortal life as a succession of experiences, you see it as a unity. Imagine facing the question respecting that mortal life, asking, “Was that life necessary in the total scheme of the universe and the existence of mankind, was it necessary that I be born in order to lead that life, the sum total of that number of years between birth and death? Did I do something, or did my living represent something, which was positively beneficial to present generations, and implicitly to future generations after me? If so, then I should have walked through that life with joy, knowing that every moment was precious to all mankind, because what I was doing by living was something that was needed by all mankind, something beneficial to all mankind.”

If I am wise, then 50 years after my death, in looking back at my mortal life, I know that from the beginning with my birth, to the end with my death, that my truest self-interest was the preservation and enhancement of that which made my having lived important to those around me and those who came after me.

That is the beginning, I think, of true wisdom; that is the beginning of the Passion, which sometimes enables each of us when called, to walk through our own peculiar kind of Gethsemane. It is from this standpoint, that the mind of an individual such as our own, can efficiently comprehend history in the large.

A second point, which I often raise, I think is essential to understand the few simple observations I have to make here. It is that, in human reason, in the power, for example, to effect a valid, fundamental scientific discovery, which overturns, in large degree, previous scientific opinion, we see a fundamental distinction between man and all beasts. This power of creative reason, typified by the power to make a valid, fundamental scientific discovery, and also the power to transmit and to receive such a discovery, is that which sets man apart from and above the beasts.

The emotion associated with that kind of human activity, whether in physical science, in the development of creative works or performance of creative works of classical culture or simply in the caring for a child to nurture that quality of potential for discovery in the child, is true love. Creative activity is human activity, and the emotion associated with that kind of activity, is true love.

We start from that and say that society must be based on these considerations, that. every human being, being apart from and above the animals, has the right and the obligation to live an important life. Every human being has the right to do something, such that if one looked back 50 years after the death of that person at his or her whole mortal life, one could have said, that life was necessary to all humanity. At the same time, one could distinguish some use of this creative power of reasoning as the activity which made that life important, simply, sometimes, the development of that creative power.

View full size

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Two Conflicting Views of Mankind

We have, in the entirety of the approximately 2,500 years of Western European history, which includes the history of the Americas, two conflicting views of mankind. One view shares more or less the standpoint I’ve just identified: We view the human individual as bearing the divine spark of potential for reason, as a sacred life; a spark of reason which must be developed by society, nurtured by society, given opportunity for fruitful expression by society; a quality of activity whose good works must be adopted by society, protected by society, and preserved by society, for the benefit of present and future generations. That is the republic, the republic as conceived by Solon’s constitution of Athens—a notion of republic, which, in our time, is made nobler by the Christian understanding, which transforms and elevates the contributions of Solon and Socrates after him.

On the other side, there is the conception of Sparta, a privileged oligarchy, brutalizing the helots, the slaves, the so-called lower classes. That, too, is a model society, not a republic, but an oligarchy.

The struggle between these two views of mankind is epitomized by the struggle between President and General George Washington, on the one side, and King George III on the other. George Washington was a soldier and statesman of the republic, not a perfect one, but a good one. On the opposite side was poor King George III, the puppet of the evil Earl of Shelbourne, and the epitome of oligarchism, the heritage of Sparta. The tradition of King George III, which deems that some men must be kept slaves, is an oligarchical view, which hates the idea of the equality of the individual in respect to the individual human being’s possession of that divine spark, the individual human being’s right to the development of that spark, the nurture of its activity, and the defense and perpetuation of its good works.

Such is the conflict. In our time, the great American Republic, by virtue of the cultivation of ignorance and concern with smallness of mind, and neglect of the importance of what comes after us in the living of our mortal lives, has been so undermined, degraded, and corrupted, that we as a nation no longer are the nation we were conceived to be, but instead have become a nation brain-drained in front of our television sets, thinking with greater passion about mere spectator sports or mere television soap-opera than we do about urgent events in real life. We are a nation seeking gratification in drugs, in sordid forms of sexual activity, in other sordid entertainments, in that kind of pleasure-seeking, which echoes the words Sodom and Gomorrah.

And so, oligarchism, that which George III of England represented back in the eighteenth century, has taken over and rules the land which was once George Washington’s.

What this leads to is this. Today, there is a great revolution around the world against tyranny in all forms. So far, this revolution has manifested itself within the communist sector against communist tyrannies. But it is coming here, too. Wherever the divine spark of reason is being crushed by oligarchical regimes, with all their cruelties, the divine spark of reason within human beings inspires them to arise, to throw off the tyranny—not out of anger and rage against tyranny, but because the divine spark of reason in each person must be affirmed. We seek not merely to be free from oligarchy; we seek to be free from oligarchy, because not to do so would be to betray the divine spark of reason in ourselves and in others.


The secret of great revolutions, of great civil rights movements, as Dr. King’s example illustrates, is this capacity, which the Greek New Testament called agapē, which Latin called caritas, which the King James version of the Bible calls charity, which we otherwise know as love. Whenever this power of love, this recognition of that divine spark, setting us above the beasts, prevails, wherever people can approximate that view of the sum total of their lives, as if from 50 years after their deaths, whenever movements arise which, out of love, produce people who are willing, not fruitlessly, but for a purpose, to lay down their lives, so that their lives might have greater meaning, for this purpose—there you have the great revolutions of history.

If we were to project events on the basis of what is taught in the schools about revolutions and other struggles of the past, then the human race at present were doomed. If we say that people struggle against this and that oppression, and so forth, and out of rage or whatnot, overthrow their cruel oppressor, we should lose; the human race would lose. However, if we touch the force of love, the spark of divine reason, we unleash a force, a creative force, a divine force, which is greater than any adversary, and we win. Those revolutions, which are based upon the appeal to this divine spark of reason within the individual, prevailed. Those which worked otherwise produced abominations, or simply failed.

Yes, we must struggle against injustice. But it is not enough to struggle out of anger. We must struggle out of love. And that we learn best, who have had to walk as leaders of one degree or another, through our own Gethsemane, with the image of the Cross before us.

That is the best I can say. I might say it better, but what I try to say with these poor words, is the best I can say summarily, on the subject of current history. I believe, that the great upsurge of humanity, implicit in the optimism I express, is now in progress. I am persuaded that we shall win, provided that each of us can find in ourselves that which makes us the right arm of the Creator, a man, a woman of providence, within the limits of our own capacities and opportunities.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Dictated from prison

Rochester, Minnesota

January 17, 1990



Live streaming 24-timers Beethoven 250 års fødselsdag fest! 16.-17. december

Videoarkivet bliver klart om 2 dage. Klik her på FFRCC’s hjemmeside.

Vi inviterer dig til at nyde en 24-timers international fejring af Ludwig van Beethoven, fra den 16.-17. december 2020, datoen for hans 250 års fødselsdag. Fejringen blev præsenteret af Schiller Instituttets Venner, The Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture (Fond for genoplivning af klassisk kultur). Deltag! De delte hilsner fra hele verden; videohyldest af forskellige typer; og for det meste hans herlige musik, der fejrer hans sind, kunstneriske vision og mission. Det var levende arrangeret med særlige gæster, kommentarer og sjældne optagelser af Beethovens værker.

”Jeg vil tage skæbnen i kraven; den vil aldrig bøje mig helt efter dens vilje.”
– Ludwig van Beethoven

Beethoven 250 år og menneskehedens æstetiske opdragelse

Afskrift af en tale Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, holdt ved Schiller Instituttet i Danmarks videokonference: Verden efter valget i USA, den 8. december 2020

Se hele konferencen her.

Vi har en civilisationskrise: en konfrontationspolitik, som kan føre til krig med Rusland og Kina, en COVID-19-pandemi, økonomiske og finansielle kriser og en voksende sultkatastofe i Afrika.
Vil vi etablere en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden eller vil det ende i kaos og krig?

Det er en kamp mellem helt forskellige menneskesyn.
LaRouche understregede altid: hvad er forskellen mellem mennesker og dyr?
Er vi dyriske?
Eller har vi en iboende kreativ erkendelsesevne, som gør os i stand til at opdage nye principper — noget nyt, som ingen andre har tænkt på.
I videnskab opdager vi nye naturvidenskabelige principper.
I kunst opdager vi nyt om vores egne kreative evner, som kan deles med andre, som i et orkester eller kor eller med tilhørerene.

Skønhed, som Schiller sagde, forædle vores følelser og vores intellekt —
ikke kun rå følelser som dominerer os uden intellekt,
ikke kun intellekt uden medfølelse og næstekærlighed.

Men gennem at lege, speciel gennem kunst, at spille, kan de to går op i en højere enhed, som vi kalder en æstetisk tilstand, når vi er omfavnet af skønhed.

Det var Schillers løsning efter den franske revolution, som ikke endte som den amerikanske, men i et blodbad.

Platon skrev, at den vigtigste uddannelse for sjælen var musik — at fylde sjælen med skønhed og gøre den skøn.
Mennesket ville så lovprise skønhed, modtage den med glæde i sin sjæl, og blive til en skøn sjæl.

Den 16. december fejrer vi Beethoven 250-års fødselsdag.
Vi fejrer ham, som en af de mest kreative sjæle i historien, men vi fejrer også menneskehedens erkendelsesmæssige evner.

Studér Beethoven for bedre at forstå, hvad vi mennesker er.
Beethoven, selv da han ikke var i stand til at høre sin egne musik, hørte den alligevel i sit sind, og udfordrede sig selv til at lave det ene gennembrud efter det anden.

Der var ingen stilstand eller entropi, men hvad LaRouche kalder ikke-entropi.

At viljemæssigt blive mere og mere bevist om, at kende sine egne erkendelsesmæssige evner, og presse dem til det yderste for at kunne stige op til det næste niveau, og som han skrev, at nærme sig Guds egen skaberkraft.

Og han havde et formål: at opløfte den trængende menneskehed.
Han var bevidst om musikkens rolle med at forædle menneskene.

Gennem at spille, synge eller lytte, kan Beethovens kreativitet deles med andre —
noderne på papiret, er ikke kun toner, men nøglen til Beethovens kreative sind.

Og dermed kan andre mennesker bekræfte et positivt menneskesyn, som også havde en politisk dimension for Beethoven — stræben efter frihed.
Som Schiller sagde, vejen til frihed går gennem skønhed.

For at fejre Beethoven så lyt til eller syng og spil hans værker. Genoplev hans åndelige gennembrud, bekræft den menneskelig kreativitet, skab et samfund, hvor vi kan genopdage den tabte kunst at skabe skøn musik,
måske endnu mere kreativ end Beethoven, og udvikle vores erkendelsesmæssige evner, for hele menneskehedens skyld.

Så blev der spillet den første del af 2. sats af Beethovens 7. symfoni, dirigeret af Wilhelm Furtwängler, som eksempel.
Ud fra en enkel begyndelse tilføjes flere og flere stemmer for at skabe noget stort og opløftende.

Se også Deadlines indslag om Beethoven 250 år den 7. december 2020 14,

Klik her og så 14:46 minuter inde i programmet


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
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

Schiller Instituttets internationale hjemmeside fejrer
Beethovens 250-års fødselsdag med en Beethoven-serie

Den 16. december 2020 markerer Ludwig van Beethovens 250-års fødselsdag. Som en del af de internationale festligheder i år og næste år til ære for Beethoven, er Schiller Instituttet glad for at indvie en ny serie på vores internationale hjemmeside ( . Vi vil regelmæssigt sende videoer af Beethovens musik med korte diskussioner af stykkerne.

Friedrich Schillers smukke ord fra hans digt “Ode til Glæden” bliver storslået udødeliggjort i den sidste sats af Beethovens 9. symfoni:

Freude, schöner Götterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische, den Heiligtum.
Deine Zauber binden wieder,
Was die Mode streng geteilt,
Alle Menschen werden Brüder,
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

Seid umschlungen Millionen!
Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!
Brüder – überm Sternenzelt
Muß ein lieber Vater wohnen.

Til Glæden (dansk oversættelse):

Glæde, skønne gudegnist,
Datter af Elysium,
Vi betræder, berusede af ild,
Himmelske, din helligdom!
Din trolddom genforener,
Hvad vanen strengt har delt;
Alle mennesker bliver brødre,
Hvor din blide vinge dvæler.

Vær omfavnet, millioner,
Dette kys til hele verden! Brødre!
Over stjerneteltet
Må en kærlig fader bo.

Oversat af Werner Knudsen,

Schillers ord og Beethovens musik taler endnu mere lidenskabeligt og kraftfuldt til os i dag i disse tider med pandemiske sygdomme, hungersnød, økonomisk krise, social uro og trussel om krig. Lad os tage Schiller og Beethoven til vore hjerter og sind og skabe et nyt paradigme for fred og udvikling for hele menneskeheden.

Lyt, og lad Beethoven instruere os!

Læs og lyt til de daglige Beethoven indlæg her.

Dansk videokonference søndag den 8. november:
Verden efter valget i USA


Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:
Kan Trump og den amerikanske befolkning forsvare Trumps valgsejr imod valgsvindlen? (på dansk)

Gæstetaler: Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, bestyrelsesmedlem, Bælte- og Vejinitiativ Institut i Sverige (
Nu skal USA og Europa tilslutte sig Kinas nye Silkevej, og mobilisere fødevareressourcer til bekæmpelse af sult i Afrika. (på engelsk)

Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:
Beethoven 250 år. (på dansk)


Hussein Askarys præsentation som skærskilt video:

Hussein Askary’s presentation as a separate video in English:

Kan Trump og den amerikanske befolkning forsvare Trumps valgsejr imod valgsvindlen?

Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

USA: Valgsvindel med stemmerne i svingstaterne for at få Joe Biden valgt som USA’s præsident er en del af den farvede revolution i USA for at få et regimeskifte og få afsat Donald Trump.

Dette regimeskifte har været fokus for efterretningstjenesterne og deres partnere i medierne siden Trump vandt præsidentvalget i 2016. Først med beskyldningerne om tråde til Rusland (Steel-rapporten fra britiske efterretningstjeneste, der kom med falske beskyldninger), så løgnen om Russigate, der er blevet modbevist, rigsretssagen og 4 års angreb fra medierne.

Mediernes erklæring af, at Biden har vundet valget og NATO-landes lykønskning af Biden, er et forsøg på at etablere et fait accompli og forhindre at valgsvindlen bliver afsløret.

Trump forsøger at få valgene i delstaterne undersøgt så valgsvindlen kan blive afdækket og retfærdigheden ske fyldest. Mobilisering af vælgerne for at forsvare demokratiet og beskytte Trumps valgsejr.

Massiv censur i medierne og på sociale medier for at forhindre præsident Trump i at tale til befolkningen.

Trump fik over 7 millioner flere stemmer end i 2016 selvom ikke alle stemmerne på ham er blevet tilskrevet ham.

Konkrete historier om valgsvindelen begynder at komme frem.

Tidligere NSA tekniker beskriver hvorledes programmet “Scorecard” kan bruges til at ændre stemme rapporterne fra valgstederne.

Vil USA’s befolkning lykkes med at forsvare den demokratiske proces og Trumps valgsejr?

Hvis kuppet lykkes vil demokraterne forsøge at vinde de to sidste senatspladser i Georgia så Bidens kontrollører også kan kontrollere Senatet, udvide Højesteret og få magten der.

Hvis Biden bliver præsident er der konfrontation med Rusland og Kina på dagsorden. Vil vi få krig? Atomkrig?

Oveni COVID-19 krisen i USA og dens økonomiske effekter venter en nedsmeltning af finanssystemet. Med en grøn New Deal vil utilfredsheden i befolkningen blive enorm. Hvad følger efter den censur imod dissidenter, der allerede er i gang?

Topmøde i Davos 9.-11. november med blandt andet Mark Carney, den nye chef for Bank of England Andrew Bailey, Blackrocks Fink, IMF, ECB, Bill Gates etc. om at gennemtvinge kredittørke imod alle investeringer, der ikke er “grønne”. Digitale valutaer så centralbankerne får den fulde økonomiske magt.

Der er en verden uden for Vestens og NATO’s kontrol. Kina og Rusland er ikke kuede.

COVID-19 var et lille bump på vejen for Kina. Man har igen vækst og Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og international økonomisk opbygning fortsætter.

Vesten kan ikke stoppe Kina. Vil man forsøge krig? En atomkrig kan ikke vindes, men vil gale hoveder i Vesten forsøge alligevel?

Vil vi i stedet få en “Sputnik-effekt”, hvor Vesten må skifte kurs tilbage til økonomisk, videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt for at kunne konkurrere med Kina og alle de, der vil samarbejde med Kina? Eller vil Vesten blive irrelevant?

De, der satser på økonomisk vækst drevet af menneskelig kreativitet og videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt vinder i det lange løb.

Vi lever i farlige tider men står også potentielt over for det største spring fremad i menneskehedens historie.

Lyt til hele talen her.


Nu skal USA og Europa tilslutte sig Kinas nye Silkevej, og mobilisere 
fødevareressourcer til bekæmpelse af sult i Afrika.

Gæstetaler: Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, bestyrelsesmedlem, Bælte- og Vejinitiativ Institut i Sverige (

Hussein Askary præsenterede den akutte voksende sultekatastrofe i Afrika og hvordan den kan løses. Dels gennem en nødaktion for at fragte fødevarer fra USA, Europa, Rusland og Kina, men også gennem at opbygge Afrikas egne fødevareproduktion og skabe økonomisk udvikling, især infrastrukturprojekter og industrialisering i samarbejde med Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ. 

Hussein Askary præsenterede Afrikas egne udviklingsplaner, Kinas rolle i at virkeliggøre dem, og hvorfor USA og Europe skal deltage.  

Hussein Askary brugte en Powerpoint præsentation til illustration under talen, som også findes, som en særskilt video på engelsk her.


Beethoven 250 år og menneskehedens æstetiske opdragelse

Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Vi har en civilisationskrise: en konfrontationspolitik, som kan føre til krig med Rusland og Kina, en COVID-19-pandemi, økonomiske og finansielle kriser og en voksende sultkatastofe i Afrika.  
Vil vi etablere en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden eller vil det ende i kaos og krig? 
Det er en kamp mellem helt forskellige menneskesyn. 
LaRouche understregede altid: hvad er forskellen mellem mennesker og dyr? 
Er vi dyriske? 
Eller har vi en iboende kreativ erkendelsesevne, som gør os i stand til at opdage nye principper — noget nyt, som ingen andre har tænkt på. 
I videnskab opdager vi nye naturvidenskabelige principper. 
I kunst opdager vi nyt om vores egne kreative evner, som kan deles med andre, som i et orkester eller kor eller med tilhørerene. 
Skønhed, som Schiller sagde, forædle vores følelser og vores intellekt — 
ikke kun rå følelser som dominerer os uden intellekt,  
ikke kun intellekt uden medfølelse og næstekærlighed. 
Men gennem at lege, speciel gennem kunst, at spille, kan de to går op i en højere enhed, som vi kalder en æstetisk tilstand, når vi er omfavnet af skønhed.  
Det var Schillers løsning efter den franske revolution, som ikke endte som den amerikanske, men i et blodbad. 
Platon skrev, at den vigtigste uddannelse for sjælen var musik — at fylde sjælen med skønhed og gøre den skøn. 
Mennesket ville så lovprise skønhed, modtage den med glæde i sin sjæl, og blive til en skøn sjæl. 
Den 16. december fejrer vi Beethoven 250-års fødselsdag. 
Vi fejrer ham, som en af de mest kreative sjæle i historien, men vi fejrer også menneskehedens erkendelsesmæssige evner.  
Studér Beethoven for bedre at forstå, hvad vi mennesker er. 
Beethoven, selv da han ikke var i stand til at høre sin egne musik, hørte den alligevel i sit sind, og udfordrede sig selv til at lave det ene gennembrud efter det anden. 
Der var ingen stilstand eller entropi, men hvad LaRouche kalder ikke-entropi.  
At viljemæssigt blive mere og mere bevist om, at kende sine egne erkendelsesmæssige evner, og presse dem til det yderste for at kunne stige op til det næste niveau, og som han skrev, at nærme sig Guds egen skaberkraft. 
Og han havde et formål: at opløfte den trængende menneskehed.  
Han var bevidst om musikkens rolle med at forædle menneskene.  
Gennem at spille, synge eller lytte, kan Beethovens kreativitet deles med andre —  
noderne på papiret, er ikke kun toner, men nøglen til Beethovens kreative sind.  
Og dermed kan andre mennesker bekræfte et positivt menneskesyn, som også havde en politisk dimension for Beethoven — stræben efter frihed.  
Som Schiller sagde, vejen til frihed går gennem skønhed. 
For at fejre Beethoven så lyt til eller syng og spil hans værker. Genoplev hans åndelige gennembrud, bekræft den menneskelig kreativitet, skab et samfund, hvor vi kan genopdage den tabte kunst at skabe skøn musik,  
måske endnu mere kreativ end Beethoven, og udvikle vores erkendelsesmæssige evner, for hele menneskehedens skyld. 
Så blev der spillet den første del af 2. sats af Beethovens 7. symfoni, dirigeret af Wilhelm Furtwängler, som eksempel.  
Ud fra en enkel begyndelse tilføjes flere og flere stemmer for at skabe noget stort og opløftende. 



Billede af det amerikanske flag. WikiImages fra Pixabay 

Vi står overfor alvorlige farer, men der er løsninger.
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med
Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 31. september 2020

Med brændpunkter, som optrappes til væbnet konflikt og med provokationer, som tager til på grænsen til Rusland og Kina, gentog Helga Zepp-LaRouche sin holdning, at dette er en tid, hvor folk må hæve sig til et andet tænke-niveau. Der er ingen tvivl om, at faren for krig og truslen om et kup i USA er et resultat af geo-politikernes og ny-liberalisternes bestræbelser på at redde deres system. I stedet for at skifte retning efter, at krakket i 2008 viste, at det neo-liberale system, som dyrker spekulation på bekostning af den fysiske økonomi, er en trussel mod menneskeheden, brugte de den gamle imperialistiske ide om at bruge krige til at aflede opmærksomheden fra deres korruption. Under det gamle imperialistiske system kan små krige hurtigt blive til store krige.

Men der er en løsning, sagde hun, og pegede på ungdomskonferencen i sidste weekend som udforskede hendes mands livsværk, fordi det repræsenterede både et ægte alternativ til det imperialistiske system, såvel som en mulighed for unge mennesker at tage fremtidens udfordringer op.
Ideen om at skabe 1,5 milliarder nye arbejdspladser verden over – hvilket nogle mente var en vild overdrivelse, da vi først kom med forslaget – blev bragt i fokus med ILO (FNs internationale arbejdsorganisation) rapporten, der konstaterede, at 500 millioner arbejdspladser vil forsvinde i år og skal vi tage hånd om pandemien og hungersnøden, kræver det mange nye jobs.

Hun sluttede af med at minde sit publikum om, at dette er Beethoven-året og ved at beskæftige sig med stor klassisk kultur, kan man udvikle den indre styrke, som er nødvendig for at håndtere den krise, vi i dag står overfor.

Rens Lyndon LaRouches navn. Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale ved videokonferencen.
Verdens valg: Udrydelse eller LaRouches æra. den 26. september 2020.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Goddag! Formålet med dagens begivenhed er, at gøre mange unge mennesker i hele verden bekendte med Lyndon LaRouches navn og personlighed og ideer. Hans ideer er absolut nøglen, hvis verden skal komme ud af den nuværende krise. I betragtning af, at han var min mand i 41 år, og jeg i cirka et halvt århundrede var hans politiske allierede – en af mange – så er det følgende ikke bare noget jeg siger, men noget jeg er dybt overbevist om i min sjæl og mit sind. Han var, og fordi han på en vis måde er udødelig, er stadig den smukkeste sjæl og den mest kreative person i sin tid. Der er en meget stor uoverensstemmelse mellem hvem Lyn virkelig var og er, og det billede der tegnes af ham.

Set fra et universalhistorisk synspunkt, hvis man bedømmer et enkelt menneske ud fra hvor meget de bringer udviklingen af menneskeheden frem, mener jeg han er en af de mest enestående personer i hele historien. På den anden side, den næsten uovertrufne vold – og det siger en del, især i nutidens USA – med hvilken hans modstander angreb ham, tilsmudsede ham, dæmoniserede ham, giver jer en ide om hvor skrækslagne de var for ham.

En af de store tyske naturretsfilosoffer, Friherre von der Heydte, sagde, at LaRouche-sagen mindede ham om Dreyfus-affæren i Frankrig. Og tidligere rigsadvokat i USA, Ramsey Clark, udtalte til en kommission, som undersøgte LaRouche-sagen i 1994, at “LaRouche-sagen repræsenterer et bredere omfang af overlagt, beregnende og systematisk retskrænkelse over en længere periode, med misbruget af den føderale regerings magt, end nogen anden retsforfølgelse af den amerikanske regering i min tid, eller efter min viden.”
Det, eller de, der stod bag dette, er hvad folk i dag kalder “Deep State”, eller rettere, det angloamerikanske efterretningsapparat; det samme slags apparat som har stået bag kupforsøget mod præsident Trump siden 2016, bag Russiagate, bag dæmoniseringen af præsident Putin of Xi Jinping, og bag de folk som nu presser voldsomt på for at få gang i en krig; måske endda før det amerikanske valg, eller i det mindste drive inddæmningen af Rusland og Kina så langt, at det kunne gå helt galt, og vi kunne have den 3. Verdenskrig.

Herunder følger resten af talen på engelsk:

The effect of these people having been relatively “successful” — and naturally, I’m saying that in an ironic way — is the reason why we are now on the verge of World War III; that we have an out-of-control pandemic; that we are still threatened with the danger of a financial collapse of the entire system, and that we have famine especially in the developing countries which could quickly reach Biblical dimensions.

If we want to overcome these dangers, it is — even at this very late stage of affairs — it will depend; and we can discuss, but it is my deepest conviction, it will depend on our ability and your help to free Lyn’s name from the lies, slanders, and distortions, and to implement Lyn’s solutions which really have practically taken care of every single problem which is an existential threat to humanity today. In a very beautiful paper called, “The Historical Individual,” which I would urge you to read, he defined that he saw two major missions for himself. One, he said, I want to get you safely through the worst of the presently onrushing world and national crises. And secondly, to foster a new leadership from among the ranks of our young people, which will understand the systemic features of history, and therefore, will be much less likely to make the same mistakes as the foolish members of the recent two adult generations have made until now.

That fostering towards you. You are the young people who are the future. Therefore, it is up to you to develop out of your ranks the kinds of leaders who will make a difference in history. So, Lyn said, in that same paper, when every nation, every culture is in a tragic moment of great crisis, it is “gripped by the need for a sudden and profound change in the quality of its leadership.” Then the survival depends upon its “willingness to choose a new quality of leadership,” and not leave the fate of humanity to those narcissistic leaders who occupy leading positions now, who are only concerned about their performance, but not about the well-being of their nations or the world. You have to have the aspiration to become, all of you, true great statesmen. You have to take as your examples, according to whom you want to orient your life, such people as Benjamin Franklin, or Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jeanne d’Arc, or Martin Luther King; and I would like to add Lyndon LaRouche.

We have now the greatest danger that the world is run by leaders around the world — there are very few exceptions — who are mediocrities; who are really not fit to lead the world out this crisis. This is at a moment when you would need intellectual and moral giants. So, the indispensable leaders for such times as these, Lyn says in this paper, are those people who succeeded practically from childhood to let themselves be taken over by the natural potential for the sublime. The sublime — that is, that quality described by Friedrich Schiller where a human being attachés his or her identity to higher values than even our physical existence; and becomes not physically safe, but morally safe. Such a person rejects the banality of popular culture and taste. Such a person rejects the world of sense certainty; the pleasure in the here and now, and develops that innate power of that quality which is described in I Corinthians 13 — agapē. A profound passionate love for mankind, without which, the world will not get out of this crisis.

Those relatively free souls among us, Lyn says, are the “ugly ducklings,” those who are mistakenly called “eccentrics” because they don’t fit the mainstream popular accepted taste of the social clubs of that kind of paradigm which got us into this crisis. Lyn jokingly, but not so jokingly, called himself many times an “ugly duckling.” But I can assure you, his mind was the most beautiful swan you ever could see.

As a young man, Lyn studied all on his own the ideas of Leibniz, and he listened to Classical music. He rejects Kant — especially his ideas about aesthetics — that there was no meaning in beauty, and that beauty was arbitrary. He rejected Kant’s idea that there was no knowable universal truth. Lyn then joined the Second World War, participating in the India-Burma theatre. He told us many times his experiences in the Calcutta riots of 1946. This was a very decisive moment in his history, because he saw firsthand the brutish character of the British Empire in action. It was clear in his mind from that point on that the natural course of affairs would be that after the Second World War, the Americans would return back and develop India and other developing countries, as was the intention of Franklin D. Roosevelt to develop the developing countries with American technology.

Lyn was absolutely shocked when he heard that Truman would replace Roosevelt, and already told his contemporaries in India that a great man had been replaced by a very little man. And he was completely appalled when he then returned to the United States and saw how people who had developed a certain greatness in fighting Nazism and in fighting fascism and being in World War II, how they really became petit bourgeois; going into the suburban life of American cities. Lyn developed a healthy contempt for that kind of lifestyle. Then, in his function as a business consultant, he came across the theories of Norbert Weiner and John von Neumann. He studied information theory and systems analysis, and immediately recognized that these systems were not capable of describing real economic processes of physical economy, which he had started to develop into his own system based on the ideas of Leibniz.

He developed this idea of physical economy, which became the basis for him to become the most successful economic forecaster of the recent period. His love for Classical music — Bach, Beethoven — had given him very early the appreciation for the importance of the cognitive potential of each individual. From that standpoint, he was one of the very few people in the 1960s, when everybody was mesmerized by the hippies, by flower power, he immediately recognized that this paradigm shift — which was induced by the oligarchy, but people naturally didn’t know that — would destroy the cognitive potential of the population in the long term. He started an endless campaign against the danger of drugs and the combination of the rock-drug-sex counterculture. Then, I think the most important point in this early period was that Lyn recognized, having been familiar with Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the principles of the Bretton Woods system as it was intended by Roosevelt, as compared to what it would become with Churchill and Truman. He recognized in an absolutely prophetic way, what it meant that Richard Nixon, on August 15, 1971, decoupled the dollar from the gold standard, and introduced the floating exchange rates. Lyn said prophetically, that if that monetarist tendency would be continued, it would inevitably lead to the danger of a new depression, a new fascism, the danger of a new world war, or it would be replaced by a just, new world economic order.

Immediately following this in 1973, Lyn constituted a biological taskforce, whose job it was to study the impact of the austerity of the IMF and the World Bank on the developing sector; the infamous conditionalities of the IMF which prevented the developing countries from investing in infrastructure, health, and forced them to pay their debt instead. Lyn said, if you continue to do that, it would inevitably lead to the outbreak of old diseases and new pandemics. He had an absolute foresight for the epidemics and pandemics which developed since AIDS, SARS, MERS, Ebola, and now the coronavirus. All of this would have been not necessary if Lyn’s policies for the development of the developing countries would have been implemented.

From that perspective, Lyn also immediately recognized the absolute devastation of the implementation of the Malthusian policies of the Club of Rome, and how the paradigm shift occurred at the beginning of the 1970s. The idea that it was a natural question that eventually all developing countries would develop, which was expressed in the development decades of the 1950s and ’60s of the United Nations. And how that was replaced by the infamous theories of the Club of Rome; the idea that there are limits to growth, the idea that population is not a good thing. That the population bomb is the greatest threat to humanity; that there is overpopulation. Basically, Lyn obviously knew that was completely wrong; that this was completely against the laws of the actual physical universe. He developed one of his most important conceptions, which was the idea of relative potential population density. Meaning that it is a law of the universe that people must increase; the number of people must increase; they must develop more abilities to have longevity in order to be able to have more people be able to develop more skills which requires longer education. And that the effect of this would be limitless development. He also knew that the premise of the Club of Rome was completely ridiculous. The Earth is not a closed system; the whole assumption of the Malthusians is wrong. Naturally, his image of man was that man is not an accountant who manages the limited resources, and for sure not a parasite as the Greenies today day. But that the discoveries of man, which can again and again show him new physical principles which are part of the development of the universe. As a matter of fact, the most developed part of it.

Lyn, because he saw the danger these ideas would represent for humanity, he decided, as an individual, as somebody who was not backed by Wall Street or the City of London, he decided for President of the United States. He did that first on the Labor Party ticket, a party which he founded in 1973. And basically, he was in this Presidential campaign in 1976, fighting against the Trilateral Commission and all their rotten ideas, the danger of nuclear war, and the urgent need for the industrialization of the developing sector. This was a very bold idea. Lyn meant it; he went in for winning the Presidency. The U.S. Presidency is probably the most powerful institution in the present world; this is due to the American Revolution, the idea of the Declaration of Independence, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the inalienable right of all human beings, given to them by the Creator. This Constitution of the United States defined it as the task of the government to protect those inalienable rights of all human beings. Therefore, it was the first time that there was actually a form of government which was the complete opposite of the oligarchical model which existed with the monarchies and other forms of government in Europe, where the idea was that the purpose of the government was to protect the privileges of the elite and keep the mass of the population backward.

So Lyn, as in independent, decided to go against this plutocracy, the control of the Democratic and Republican Parties by Wall Street. And actually fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. Lyn ran for President eight times, from 1976, and then from 1980 to 2004 as a Democrat. He had the concept that he had to wage this battle to turn the United States into a force for good, as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. Already in year before he started the first campaign, in 1975, he developed a revolutionary conception — the International Development Bank. It was the idea that it should replace the IMF; that it should be an incredible credit institution for technology transfer to industrialize the so-called Third World. He developed also in 1975, the Oasis Plan, which was the idea to develop Southwest Asia; develop new water, green the deserts. He developed with his associates, a plan for the industrialization of Africa.

Naturally, immediately, the establishment regarded Lyn as the greatest threat to their system. Because what became known only later, in 1974, Kissinger had developed a paper called NSSM 200 [National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests], which was a blueprint for population reduction. It quite brazenly defined the raw materials in some of the most populous of the developing countries — actually 13 countries — as belonging to the strategic interest of the United States. Therefore, the population should be reduced, because too many people in these countries would consume too much raw materials. This scandalous paper was only made public in the 1990s, but obviously every word Lyn was saying went completely against these ideas. Then, we published these proceedings of the Africa Development; we had a conference in 1976 in Paris, and also in 1976 when Lyn’s Presidential campaign was already in full gear, I was in Paris organizing a one-week diplomatic seminar with a whole bunch of Arab ambassadors who had planned to invite Lyn to come to Paris and give them a one-week course on the Oasis Plan, on his economic theory. This was really a major event. But what happened was, on the day when the seminar was supposed to start, Lyn had just arrived from the United States. I got a phone call from the Iraqi ambassador, who said, unfortunately, I have to tell you that Mr. LaRouche has to develop a “diplomatic flu.” He must basically say he’s sick and therefore cannot participate in the seminar. Even so, he was supposed to be the main speaker, the main teacher. As it turned out, Henry Kissinger had flown himself personally into Paris that day, making pressure on the French government and all the ambassadors to cancel this event all together.

In 1976, we had already organized for one full year in many countries around the world, to implement the International Development Bank. We had talked to many embassies of the Non-Aligned sector, of Africa, of Latin America. In the fall of 1976, the Non-Aligned Movement adopted practically that plan for a New World Economic Order at the Colombo conference in Sri Lanka. So, we were extremely happy. I called up all the media in Germany and asked, “When are you reporting this?” They said, completely arrogantly, “We are not reporting this, because this is not newsworthy.” I said, “What? Three-quarters of the human species want a New World Economic Order, and you say this is not newsworthy?” Well, that was the first major lesson about the control of the media. Then, what happened was a tremendous backlash, where leaders of the Third World like Indira Gandhi, Mrs. Bandaranaike, Prime Minister Bhutto, were all destabilized, and also Gen. Juan Velasco Alvarado from Peru already in 1975, he was one of the leaders of this movement. They all were ousted or killed. But Fred Wills, the Foreign Minister of Guyana already in 1976, introduced the IDB conception to the UN General Assembly. This all happened on the orders of the IMF and the State Department.

In 1976, Lyn was running for President in the United States, and I was running for Chancellor in Germany. I thought that was necessary because the alternatives were Helmut Kohl and Helmut Schmidt; Kohl being your typical mediocre conservative, and Schmidt, who had some good features, but he had also endorsed Hjalmar Schacht, the Finance Minister of Hitler, or his policies. So, I thought it was absolutely necessary to fight for an alternative. That double candidacy brought us also closer, Lyn and myself. So, in 1977, we got married. This was then the beginning of a truly very beautiful marriage, which is obviously very precious to me. Immediately, death threats started. The so-called Red Army Faction, Bader-Meinhof groups. The Red Army Faction is RAF, which happens to also be short for the Royal Air Force of Great Britain. So, one has to think, because some of the third generation of the RAF actually were probably enemies of Lyn’s conception, and were determined that they would suppress these ideas.

Lyn continued his Presidential campaigns. In 1980, he campaigned against Bush, Sr. and ruined his Presidential ambitions at that time, which got him the lifelong hostility of the Bush family. But it also made him an acquaintance of President Reagan, which turned out to be very fruitful later on.

In 1982, we did an enormous amount of things. López Portillo, the President of Mexico, who had gotten to know our youth movement in Mexico, was completely intrigued by the fact that there would be young people who would fight for such ideas. So, he wanted to find out about LaRouche. When the peso was under massive attack, and there was a huge capital flight organized out of Mexico, he invited us to come to Mexico City. He asked Lyn to help him defend the sovereignty and the currency of Mexico. Lyn immediately wrote a program, not just for Mexico but for all of Latin America. This was called Operation Juárez. It was the idea of an infrastructure development plan, a debt reorganization, and basically developed credit mechanisms for long-term real development of the entire Latin American continent. At that time, Latin America had a $200 billion debt. They had paid that debt many times over; this is what we call “banker’s arithmetic,” but $200 billion — which is now proverbial peanuts in terms of all these quantitative easing trillions being pumped into the system. But $200 billion in 1982 was regarded to be enough to bring down Wall Street and the City of London. When López Portillo implemented that policy on September 1, 1982, it just happened to be that Lyn and I, on the same day, were in Germany in Frankfurt meeting with the management of the credit institution for reconstruction. And at 11 a.m., we just were standing there, talking. One of the biggest currency traders rushed into the room and said, “This is it! Wall Street is finished! This is a debt bomb by the Latin American countries. This is the end of the system!” Lyn just smiled and said, “No, don’t worry.” It’s just a way to save these banks; because if you reorganize them in an orderly fashion, that’s the only way they can actually be saved. So, well, that was really a very interesting moment, but the establishment thought that was the end of their system. It increased the resolve to go after Lyn.

In the same year, we went to India, and we met with Indira Gandhi. We worked with her on a development plan for 40 years for the development of India, which also was part of Lyn’s conception to develop the whole world. The programs together, the Mexico program, the India program, Latin America, Asia, Africa; it basically would have meant that the entire Malthusian order as it was then developed, would have been undone.

The same year, Lyn started to work on another grand design for the change of the world, which was that since the end of the 1970s, we had found out that the Soviet scientists were developing beam weapons. They had developed a point defense system for the city of Moscow. Lyn was actually convinced that the biggest danger of nuclear war would arise when one side — either NATO or the Warsaw Pact — would be able to develop new weapons systems based on new physical principles, making nuclear weapons obsolete. In that moment then, the one side would feel encouraged to use nuclear weapons while they are still usable. You also had the development of the medium-range missile crisis, where in Europe you had both the Pershing II and SS-20 missiles directed against each other, with only three or four minutes until they would hit their target. They were always launch on warning, and at that time, you had a gigantic peace movement of people who knew that we were on the verge of World War III. So, Lyn developed a conception how the two superpowers — the United States and the Soviet Union — would not try to out-develop themselves, but develop these new systems jointly. To develop them, to implement them, and for the first time, make nuclear weapons technologically obsolete. Because also the defense would be less costly than the offensive; it was really an absolutely incredible design. It was not what the media made out of it, who called it Star Wars; but it was an absolutely incredible conception of how to technologically make nuclear weapons obsolete. So, for one full year, we organized conferences — in Rome, in Paris, in Bonn (at that time, Bonn was the capital of Germany), in Warsaw, in Washington. Out of that developed negotiations between Lyn and the representatives of the Soviet Union in a so-called “back channel” discussion, where the Soviet Union seriously studied to adopt that policy. After one year, in February 1983, they sent the message from Moscow that this is rejected, because it would give the West more advantages. Later we found out the reasons — namely that the Ogarkov plan had completely different objectives, and therefore rejected it. But, on the 23rd of March, President Reagan announced that very policy to be the official U.S. strategic policy; the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative. A little bit later, Lyn developed what that policy could have been. Namely, in a protocol for the superpowers, he described how the development of these new technologies based on new physical principles would lead to a science driver in the military field. And that if they would be applied in the civilian sector, they would lead to an incredible increase of the productivity of the economy. Then, if the two superpowers would work together, they could dissolve the military blocs of the Warsaw Pact and NATO, and jointly make a technology transfer to the developing sector; ending the character of these countries as proxies in a superpower confrontation, and really go in the direction of overcoming poverty and the development of the Third World.

President Reagan had adopted that policy. He wrote two official letters to the Soviets, offering American help to apply these technologies in the civilian sector. That is generally not being discussed at all, but we were very close to establishing a completely human world order. At that time, the determination of the oligarchy to really go after Lyn escalated. Because Lyn was not only able to define conceptions which would have changed the world for the better, but he got heads of state to implement these ideas — López Portillo, Indira Gandhi, President Reagan. So, then when the Soviet Union rejected that in 1984, he said if the Soviets keep their existing policy, they will collapse in five years. Now, they did, as you know. In 1989, when the [Berlin] Wall came down, his prediction was fulfilled.

In 1982, when all of this became very clear, that Lyn was having this impact, Henry Kissinger, in May, made an infamous speech in the Chatham House in London, where he admitted that he always was following the orders of the British Empire much more closely than that of the United States government. Kissinger, in August 1982, wrote a letter to the FBI Chief of that time, William Webster, and demanded that there should be an investigation of Lyndon LaRouche as a Soviet agent of influence. Nothing was further from the truth, but that is where basically the entire apparatus which was completely upset, after Reagan started to put the SDI on the agenda, went completely wild. Bush, Shulz, that faction. However, this was a period when we did so much. In 1984, we started the Schiller Institute. It was my idea, but Lyn was completely supportive. Very quickly, the Schiller Institute, which had the idea that you needed to replace the present policy with a foreign policy based on statecraft, and that nations should relate to each other by referring always to the best of the other. The best culture, the best traditions. That you needed to fight for a new world economic order and a renaissance of Classical culture. So, in the 36 years since, the Schiller Institute has become a very influential institution on five continents. Also in 1985, we had a beautiful conference for the honor of Krafft Ehricke, one of the great space visionaries and rocket scientists, who had not only developed beautiful conceptions about colonizing the Moon and the development of Mars, he developed the idea of the extraterrestrial imperative. The idea that mankind would completely transform its nature through space travel. He was a very good friend of Lyn’s and mine.

In all of these years, Lyn was incredibly productive. He had already developed in the 1970s key conceptions about the fundamental laws of the universe. He had developed the Riemann-LaRouche economic model, which was based on the physical principles of the real universe, and not on the sense certainty perception of the mere shadows, which was one of his ways to absolutely be the best forecaster on the planet. He absolutely made clear the fundamental difference between the Plato and Aristotle traditions in European history. He initiated a beautiful campaign for the protection of the principles of Classical music, the so-called Verdi tuning, which was signed by all major singers of that time, and many instrumentalists. Lyn developed out of this a close friendship with Norbert Brainin, who was the first violinist of the famous Amadeus Quartet. After Norbert spent one time two days in our house in Virginia, he and Lyn spoke for hours and hours; two full days about music. At the end of which, Norbert said, “Well, you know so much more about music than I do.” I think this was an absolutely correct characterization. Lyn also developed beautiful friendships with such singers as William Warfield and Sylvia Olden Lee; with Piero Cappuccilli, with Carlo Bergonzi.

Lyn already in 1974 had founded the Fusion Energy Foundation, which was a scientific institution fighting for the frontiers of science. Life sciences engaged in development projects. We had assembled around us in the 1980s, more than 100 top scientists who agreed with us to build three private universities. One in Peru, one in America, one in Germany, to teach Lyn’s scientific method.

Obviously, that was all interrupted with the infamous raid of our house in Leesburg, our offices, and the prosecution which followed. The life of this organization has completely changed. Up until 1986, we were building, we were optimistic, we were only engaged in productive concepts of how to make the world better. But after this raid, we had to really defend ourselves, and obviously with the prosecution of Lyn and him being innocently in jail, this organization had really to fight for our existence. They wanted to get rid of us all together.

But before the jailing of Lyn happened, he already in 1987, again completely prophetically, wrote an article in 1987, in which he said, if I become President in 1989, I will make sure that there will be a unification of Germany with Berlin as the capital. That idea that Germany should be unified and that Germany should have a peace treaty, was also part of our wedding agreement. We had said that Lyn would be President of the United States for eight years, and then I would be Chancellor of Germany for eight years. So, this was sort of joke, but not totally. It was also meant seriously.

Then, in 1988, Lyn made the famous press conference in the Kempinski Hotel in Berlin, where he predicted that Germany would be soon unified, and Berlin would be soon the capital of Germany. Again, as Lyn’s prognosis that the Soviet Union would collapse, which he said in 1984. In 1988, nobody thought that Germany would be unified. But when the Wall came down one year later, therefore, we were the only ones who had a conception of what to do. Lyn was already sitting innocently in jail, but we immediately worked together on the Productive Triangle, the idea to develop Eastern Europe with the help of modern technology. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, we immediately prolonged that to become the Eurasian Land-Bridge; the idea to connect the population and industrial centers of Europe with those of Asia through development corridors. We promoted that conception in literally hundreds of seminars and conferences. I’m absolutely sure that whole effort very much influenced what then became the Chinese New Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative.

The most important thing Lyn contributed however, was a method of thinking. He opened the access to ideas which had been completely forgotten, pushed aside, by the rewriting of history and the history of ideas through the oligarchy. He again made it possible for people to understand the spiritual power of the mind for hypothesis. A method which, if it would be applied by young people all over the world, would simply mean — and it has to mean — that many of the young people of the world will have a way to access how to become a genius. Many of you will also become outstanding leaders, who can change the world for the better.

So, what is the lesson of all of this? Will we give up just because Lyn’s opponents have made such a mess of the world? They have the questionable success that they succeeded; this is why we are on the verge of World War III, famine, epidemic, and general collapse. But I think if we think — and we will hear about that for the rest of this event — if Lyn’s idea would have been implemented for the past 40 years, we would have Africa to be a blossoming garden. We would have Latin America completely developed. You would have many countries who would be not less developed than China is today. You would have Europe not being the culturally relativistic mess it is right now; but Europe would have revived the beautiful culture of the Golden Renaissance and the German Classical period of Schiller and Beethoven. The United States would be a force for the good, where people would be happy to be friends of that great country.

I think history will, for sure if there is going to be a history, write that Lyn’s enemies were the worst scoundrels, on a match with all the previous scoundrels in the world; among them, Hitler and others. And that the world would have been such a much more beautiful place if Lyn’s ideas would have been implemented. That task is now yours. You will be those people who have to design a new era of mankind. If you think that job is too big, I think you should be confident. The entire history of mankind is the proof that Leibniz’s conception that we are living in the best of all possible worlds is actually true. Every great evil will generate an even greater good. I think that that is exactly what we can do, and it absolutely depends on if there are enough people who have the potential to be truly great leaders. That is what I want you to become.

Schiller Instituttets videokonference for unge lørdag den 26. september 2020 kl. 16 dansk tid:
Verdens valg: Udrydelse eller LaRouches æra. Unge kan deltage aktivt via Zoom.
Alle kan se konferencen via YouTube.

Vær med på Schiller Instituttets eksemplarisk online-konference, for studerende og unge over hele verden. Deltagerne får mulighed for at gå i dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche og andre fremtrædende paneldeltagere.

Unge: Tilmelding for at deltage aktivt via Zoom:

Hvor ville menneskeheden være i dag, hvis Lyndon LaRouche – og hans ideer – ikke var blevet uretfærdigt fængslet, gennem det der er blevet beskrevet som “bevidst og systematisk embeds- og magtmisbrug” og et “tragisk justitsmord”? Hvis hans ideer var blevet hørt uden fordomme i den nationale og internationale politisk debat, havde vi måske allerede udviklet en videnskabelig koloni på Månen, udryddet fattigdom for altid og mestret fusionskraft, hvilket ville have ført til en global økonomisk og videnskabelig renæssance. I dag er behovet for hans frifindelse måske mere presserende end nogensinde.

Schiller Institute indkaldte til en ekstraordinær online-konference for at diskutere LaRouches frifindelse. Deltagerne var unge fra mere end 25 lande fra alle verdensdele. Sagen om LaRouches frifindelse blev præsenteret for dem af nogle af dem, der kender allermest til den;
LaRouches enke, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ledere, der kæmpede for hans prøveløsladelse og efterfølgende frifindelse – Jozef Mikloško, tidligere vicepremierminister for den tjekkiske og slovakiske føderale republik; Marino Elsevyf, advokat i den Dominikanske Republik; og Theo Mitchell, tidligere statssenator fra North Carolina – samt LaRouches kollegaer, som blev sendt i fængsel sammen med ham, Paul Gallagher og Dennis Small.
Videoklip af LaRouches ledende advokat, Odin Anderson, den tidligere statsadvokat Ramsey Clark og Lyndon LaRouche selv, som alle vidnede i LaRouche-sagen ved de “uafhængige høringer om misbrug af det amerikanske justitsministerium” i 1995, udpenslede de forbrydelser, der var blevet begået.

Programmet på engelsk:
Panel 1: “The World Needs the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche”
10:00 AM – 1:00 PM EDT Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder and Chairman, Schiller Institute

– Jozef Mikloško, Former Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic
– Marino Elsevyf, Attorney-at-Law, Dominican Republic, Member of 1995 MLK Tribunal
– Paul Gallagher, EIR Economics Editor, Former Political Prisoner
– Dennis Small, EIR Ibero-American Editor, Former Political Prisoner

Panel 2: LaRouches idéer præsenteret af unge:
“Videnskab, kultur og store projekter i en global renæssance”


– Yao Fei, Ministerråd for Folkerepublikken Kinas ambassade i Spanien: “Kinas syn”.
– Michele Geraci, tidligere italiensk viceminister for økonomisk udvikling.
– Marcelo Muñoz, grundlægger og præsident emeritus, Cátedra Kina, Spanien: “Kina og Vesten: To verdener”.
– Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og præsident, Schiller Instituttet, Tyskland: “Konfutse og Schiller: menneskets æstetiske uddannelse”.
– Dr. Ángel Álvarez, ingeniør, Cátedra Kina, Spanien: “Kinas svagheder i informations- og kommunikationsteknologi i lyset af den aktuelle konflikt med USA”.
– Jacques Cheminade, præsident for Solidarité & Progrès, Frankrig: “Økonomisk sameksistens for at overvinde geopolitik”.

Præsentationer om:

• Verdenslandbroen: udryd fattigdom for altid.

• Tunnellen under Bering-strædet: Forbind verdens kontinenter

• En alliance blandt præsidenter: LaRouches plan for Latinamerika

• LaRouches plan for Afrika: springet ind i et nyt paradigme

• Europas udvikling og en mission for de unge

• Johannes Kepler og sansernes dårskab

• Tænk som Beethoven!

• Kreativitet i en tid med kunstig intelligens

• Alexander Hamilton, LaRouche og kreditsystemet

Schiller Instituttets videokonference
PANEL IV d. 6. sept. 21:00 – 24:00):
Opbygning af tillid i internationale relationer:
Klassisk kulturs rolle og bekæmpelse af global hungersnød

1. Jacques Cheminade (Frankrig), leder af Solidarite & Progres, tidligere præsidentkandidat

2. Marcia Merry Baker (USA), EIR-redaktionen

3. Bob Baker og amerikanske landbrugsledere:

Ron Wieczorek, South Dakota cattle rancher, LaRouchePAC
Nicole Pfrang, Kansas Cattlemen’s Association Secretary-Treasurer, cattle rancher
Mike Callicrate, Colorado, cattle rancher, Owner, Ranch Foods Direct:
4. Paul Gallagher (U.S.), EIR Editorial Board

5. Fred Haight (Canada), Schiller Instituttet

6. Michael Billington (US), chef for asiatiske anliggender, Executive Intelligence Review

7. Spørgsmål og svar

8. Beethoven-messe i C-dur, opførelse af Schiller Instituttets kor i New york

Schiller Instituttets videokonference d. 5 -6. september, foreløbigt program den 1. sept.

31. august (EIRNS) – Påmindelse: begivenheden udsendes live på Zoom og YouTube. Der vil være simultantolkning på spansk, fransk og tysk på Zoom-platformen.

Dette opdaterede program udgives også på Schiller Instituttets NationBuilder-websted:

Bevægelse hen imod krig og Armageddon – eller et nyt paradigme mellem  suveræne nationer, der er forenet af menneskehedens fælles mål?

PANEL I (lørdag 16:00 – 22:00): At overvinde geopolitik: Hvorfor et P-5-topmøde er
presserende nødvendigt nu
1. Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Tyskland), grundlægger og præsident, Schiller Instituttet

2. Andrey Kortunov (Rusland), generaldirektør for Det russiske råd for internationale Anliggender

3. Zhu Feng (Kina), professor i internationale relationer og administrerende direktør, China Center for Collaborative Studies of the South China Sea, Nanjing

4. Dr. Edward Lozansky (US), American University i Moskva; Moskow State University

5. Martin Sieff (USA), senior korrespondent for udenrigsanliggender, UPI; Senior Fellow, American University i Moskva

6. James Jatras (USA), tidligere rådgiver, det amerikanske senats republikanske lederskab

7. Spørgsmål og svar, del 1

8. Marco Zanni (Italien), formand, Europa-Parlamentets gruppe for identitet og demokrati

9. Oberst Richard H. Black (USA ret.), Tidligere leder af hærens strafferetlige afdeling i Pentagon; tidligere statssenator, Virginia

10. William Binney (USA), tidligere teknisk direktør, National Security Agency og andre

11. Spørgsmål og svar, del 2


PANEL II (21:00 – 24:00 ): Videnskabens rolle i skabelsen af menneskehedens fremtid
1. Jason Ross (USA), videnskabsrådgiver ved Schiller Instituttet

2. Dr. Bernard Bigot (Frankrig), generaldirektør for den internationale termonukleare eksperimentelle reaktor (ITER), tidligere direktør for den franske
kommission for alternativ energi og atomenergi (CEA)

3. Sergey Pulinets (Rusland), Principal Research Scientist, Space Research Institute, Det Russiske Videnskabsakademi

4. Dr. Stephen O. Dean (USA), præsident, Fusion Power Associates (10)

5. Michael Paluszek (USA), Princeton Satellite Systems

6. Spørgsmål og svar


PANEL III (16:00 – 20:00): Bælte- og Vejinitiativet bliver til 'Verdenslandbroen': Franklin D.
Roosevelts uafsluttede projekt
1. Dennis Small (USA), latin-amerikansk redaktør, EIR

2. Dr. Natalia Vitrenko (Ukraine), præsident for Progressive Socialist Party, tidligere parlamentsmedlem og præsidentkandidat

3. Michele Geraci (Italien), tidligere minister for økonomisk udvikling

4. Hassan Daud Butt (Pakistan), tidligere projektdirektør, CPEC; Administrerende direktør for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Board of Investment & Trade

5. Marcelo Muñoz (Spanien), grundlægger og præsident emeritus for Cátedra China, dekan for spanske forretningsmænd i Kina

6. Dr. Björn Peters (Tyskland), fysiker, iværksætter og politisk rådgiver inden for energi, bæredygtighed og råvarer

7. Spørgsmål og svar, del 1

8. Dr. Joycelyn Elders (USA), tidligere chef for USA's sundhedsvæsen m.m.

9. Marlette Kyssama-Nsona (Republikken Congo), farmaceutisk kemiker, politisk leder af Panafrican League UMOJA og specialist i folkesundhedsspørgsmål

10. Spørgsmål og svar, del 2


PANEL IV 21:00 – 24:00): Opbygning af tillid i internationale relationer: Klassisk kulturs
rolle og bekæmpelse af global hungersnød
1. Jacques Cheminade (Frankrig), leder af Solidarite & Progres, tidligere præsidentkandidat

2. Marcia Merry Baker (USA), EIR-redaktionen

3. Bob Baker og amerikanske landbrugsledere

4. Fred Haight (Canada), Schiller Instituttet

5. Michael Billington (US), chef for asiatiske anliggender, Executive Intelligence Review

6. Spørgsmål og svar

7. Beethoven-messe i C-dur, opførelse af Schiller Instituttets kor i New york City.

Slut jer til os for at bevæge menneskeheden mod et nyt paradigme.
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 2. september 2020

Denne uges webcast er en forkortet promovering (ca. 12 minutter) for weekendens konference. Helga diskuterer, hvorfor denne konference er nødvendig i betragtning af de voksende strategiske spændinger og farer. Hun gennemgår, hvad der vil blive præsenteret i de fire paneler, og appellerer til seerne om at deltage i mobiliseringen for at få succes med et presserende nødvendigt paradigmeskifte.

Sejr er påkrævet inden valget

Den 25 august (EIRNS) – Demokraternes konvent i sidste uge demonstrerede for hele verden, at mindet om Franklin D. Roosevelt og John F. Kennedy er blevet fuldstændigt udslettet fra grødhovederne i partiets elite, både de ældre ‘boomere’ og den narkotikaplagede yngre generation. Der var ingenting om FDR’s store infrastrukturelle programmer, som skabte den elektrificerede nation, der var i stand til at frembringe “demokratiets arsenal”, som besejrede fascismen. Der var heller ikke tilnærmelsesvis en antydning af inspiration, som i JFK’s erklæring om, at ”Vi vælger at rejse til Månen i dette årti samt gøre de andre ting, ikke fordi de er lette, men fordi de er svære, fordi dette mål vil tjene til at organisere og målrette vores energier og færdigheder”. I stedet for dette præsenterede det smuldrende Demokratiske Parti et racistisk portræt af “identitetspolitik”.

Som Kamala Harris udtrykte det – giver vi folk chancen for at stemme på mennesker, der “ligner dem selv”. Eller som manikæiske Joe udtrykte det: stem på mig, fordi: “Jeg vil være en allieret med lyset, ikke med mørket.” (, –red.)

Nancy Pelosi rasede i dag i medierne, i en tilstand af høj ængstelse, at præsident Donald Trump og hans tilhængere i Kongressen er “statens fjender… indenlandske fjender”, der forsøger at “skræmme folk fra at stemme”, og til at ”bifalde russisk indgriben i vores valg ved at tillade Putin at beslutte, hvem der skal være præsident i stedet for det amerikanske folk”.

Til anerkendelse for det Republikanske Parti, modvirkede de den første aften af deres konvent demokraternes racistiske “identitetspolitik” med optimisme og tro på fremtiden. En række sorte valgte embedsmænd og personligheder pegede på præsident Trumps bekymring for den mest grundlæggende af de menneskerettigheder, der bliver nægtet mindretallene i USA – hvad FDR kaldte “frihed for mangel”. Senator Tim Scott fra South Carolina lukkede konventet og drøftede ”mulighedszoner”, som han og præsidenten har lanceret i de indre byer i Amerika med det formål at skabe job og jobtræning for nationens ”glemte mænd og kvinder”. Han talte om “udviklingen af det sydlige ’hjerte’ [af USA]” og pegede på sin valgsejr over sønnen til en berygtet racist og bemærkede, at hans bedstefar, der droppede ud af skolen i tredje klasse for at plukke bomuld, levede for at se sit barnebarn blive den første sorte mand, der blev valgt til Kongressen og derefter til senatet fra South Carolina. En anden sort valgt embedsmand, statsrepræsentant Vernon Jones, en demokrat fra Georgia, sagde, at det Demokratiske Parti “ikke ville have, at sorte mennesker skulle forlade plantagen,” og roste Trump for at yde finansiering til de historiske sorte universiteter og for at gennemføre kriminalretsmæssige reformer samt for at forsvare politiet mod anarkiet på gaderne.

Matt Gaetz, en republikaner fra Florida, bemærkede, at Donald Trump er den første præsident siden Ronald Reagan, der ikke har startet en krig.

Men republikanerne har endnu ikke taget fat i de foranstaltninger, der kræves for at vende den eksistentielle trussel, som nationen og verden nu står overfor, som LaRouche-bevægelsen præsenterede i programmet: ”The LaRouche Plan To Reopen the U.S. Economy: The World Needs 1.5 Billion New, Productive Jobs.”  (LaRouche-planen for at genåbne den amerikanske økonomi: Verden har behov for 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive job).

Ironisk nok har præsident Trump selv på forskellige tidspunkter taget fat på flere af de vigtigste punkter i dette program. Han forsøgte at afslutte de ”uendelige krige”, alt imens han forsøgte at opbygge venskab og samarbejde med Rusland og Kina. Men det var ikke kun demokraterne, der samarbejdede med den britiske efterretningstjeneste i “Russiagate” og nu “Chinagate” for at stoppe ethvert amerikansk venskab med Rusland eller Kina – de republikanske kredse, der omgiver præsident Trump – med udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo i spidsen – er lige så opmærksomme på at bryde denne indsats, at dæmonisere både Rusland og Kina og drive verden til randen af krig.

Trump må tage ved lære af Ronald Reagan, der brød med det britiske imperiums kontrollerede miljø for den imperialistiske opdeling af verden i øst mod vest, ved at arbejde med Lyndon LaRouche, og vedtage LaRouches forslag om at samarbejde med russerne (det daværende Sovjetunionen) om opbygning af et rumbaseret forsvar mod atomvåben, for dermed at ”gøre kernevåben forældede”, som Reagan udtrykte det i sin berømte tv-tale til nationen den 23. marts 1983. Hvis præsident Trump fulgte dette eksempel og accepterede LaRouche-planen om et møde mellem lederne af USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien, for at stå op imod det britiske imperiums “del og hersk” og tackle de mange trusler mod civilisationen, som menneskeheden står overfor i dag, kunne disse problemer løses. Putin har foreslået en variation af LaRouches ”fire magts-forslag”, med et topmøde mellem de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, hvilket er blevet accepteret af alle fem ledere, men uden en bestemt dato.

 Schiller Instituttets konference, der er planlagt til 5.-6. september, vil være et eksempel på den slags samarbejde mellem nationer der er påkrævet, med en dagsorden der dækker hele spektret af den globale krise – strategisk, videnskabelig, økonomisk og kulturel. Mobiliser alle I kender til at deltage i denne virtuelle begivenhed. Tilmeld jer til konferencen: “På krigsstien mod Armageddon”, eller “Et nyt paradigme blandt suveræne nationer, der er forenet af de fælles mål for menneskeheden?”


”Russiagate”-kuppets endeligt og genåbningen af sagen om Lyndon LaRouche

Den 3. august (EIRNS) – Det britiske imperium samt allierede amerikanske efterretningsagenturer bag ”overvågningsstaten” er blevet fanget på det forkerte ben, pga. LaRouches politiske Aktionskomités (LaRouchePAC’s) gennembrud, opnået lørdag eftermiddag. I et webcast fra d. 1. august, som blev dækket både af prominente, såvel som mindre prominente, medier og genudgivet på hundredvis af hjemmesider og blogs siden den eftermiddag, deltog Roger Stone, den velkendte politiske konsulent og skydeskive for Robert Mueller, sammen med den højt respekterede ”whistleblower” fra USA’s Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur (NSA), Bill Binney, og talspersoner fra LaRouchePAC, Harley Schlanger og Barbara Boyd. De viste, hvordan anklagerne, samt de offentlige bagvaskelser af Stone, Binney og Lyndon LaRouche alle havde én kilde og én årsag: Beslutningen fra magthaverne i City of London og Wall Street om ikke at tillade, at modstandere af globaliseringen og de ”permanente krige” vil blive hørt.

Roger Stone gjorde det klart, ud fra sin personlige viden efter at have ledt Ronald Reagans præsidentkampagne i New Hampshires primærvalg i 1980, at LaRouche blev retsforfulgt fordi, han ”irriterede Bush-familien” – en veletableret magt i det finansielle etablissement – og fordi han arbejdede med og parallelt til Præsident Ronald Reagan. Yderligere beviste Stone, at både han selv og Præsident Donald Trump er blevet et mål for disse magter på samme måde. Effekten var, at Stone på udførlig manér ødelagde grundlaget for Robert Muellers anklager rettet mod præsidenten; og i processen ”genåbnede sagen om Lyndon LaRouche”, hvis retsforfølgelse i 1980’erne blev iværksat af Mueller og William Weld. Hans afsløringer er yderligere uddybet på LaRouchePAC’s daglige opdatering, ”Morning Briefing”, her til morgen.

Bill Binneys kriminaltekniske bevis på at der ikke fandtes noget ”hack” af den Demokratiske Nationale Komités (DNC’s) computere i 2016, og specielt ikke et af Rusland – kernegrundlaget for ”Russiagate”-angrebene mod Trumps præsidentskab – er ikke blevet tilbagevist, efter at det blev præsenteret i oktober 2017 til daværende CIA-chef, Mike Pompeo, som begravede det fuldstændig i tre år. Men med LaRouchePAC’s aktiviteter i de seneste uger cirkulerer disse beviser nu vidt og bredt. Det er nu vore læseres ansvar at hjælpe med at udbrede disse yderligere.

Dette gennembrud i kampen mod globaliseringens overvågningsstat – som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kaldte ”systemet for permanent uretfærdighed” – er en sejr på et tidspunkt, hvor de transatlantiske finanssystemer, kræfterne bag globaliseringen, er bankerotte. De overlever via centralbankernes massive ”kunstige åndedræt” gennem et årti. Lyndon LaRouches politisk økonomiske nødforanstaltninger, som han kaldte sine ”fire økonomiske love” for at rede nationer, er den eneste vej til økonomisk genrejsning fra sammenbruddet. Megabankerne, centrede i City of London og Wall Street, må opdeles gennem en Glass/Steagall-lovgivning; centralbankerne nationaliseres eller erstattes af hamiltoniske nationale bank- og kreditinstitutter; og de førende nationers bestræbelser indenfor rumfart og fusionsenergiforskning må øges til lynprogrammer for at kolonisere Månen og Mars, således at teknologi og produktivitet kan nå nye højder her på Jorden.

Det var således, at LaRouche definerede ”genrejsning”, og det begynder i denne dybe krise med at ”genåbne hans sag”, og derfra fremlægge hans politik.

Pga. af deres finanssystemers desperate tilstand drives finanseliten, centreret i City of London, til en stadig mere anspændt ”førkrigs”-konfrontation med Kina – og også Rusland. LaRouchePAC og Schiller Instituttet forsøger at befri Præsident Donald Trump fra denne konfrontation i tide til et topmøde for samarbejde blandt FN’s sikkerhedsråds fem permanente medlemmer, som sandsynligvis vil finde sted i begyndelsen af september. For blot et par dage siden pegede en prominent økonom, den nylige chef for Indiens Centralbank, underforstået på den første opgave for et sådant topmøde. USA og Kina er i en enestående position, og må, ifølge Raguram Rajan, ”tage ansvaret og sammen forsyne de underudviklede nationer med ressourcerne til at bekæmpe pandemien”. Denne mission – et nyt verdensomspændende sundhedssystem mod pandemien – har, siden februar, været spydspidsen af Helga Zepp-LaRouches initiativ for disse topmøder.

Målet med denne proces er et Nyt Bretton Woods, internationalt kreditsystem, for at realisere Præsident Franklin Roosevelts udviklingsperspektiv i forbindelse med organiseringen af den oprindelige Bretton Woods-konference. Siden de sene 1980’ere gjorde Lyndon LaRouche, på trods af uretfærdige retsforfølgelser, denne mission for et Nyt Bretton Woods til sin egen. Hvis den seneste uges gennembrud mod det britiske imperium og Wall Street udbredes og opfølges fuldstændigt, kan vi virkeliggøre denne mission.


Sprækker i dæmningen: Stop kuppet, rens LaRouches navn

Den 2. august (EIRNS) – Sprækkerne breder sig i inddæmningen omkring sandheden, der kommer frem vedrørende den russiske løgn, og hele statskuppet mod præsident Trump; et kup der har været afhængig af denne løgn; og om den relaterede, tidligere sag om den uberettigede fængsling og fortsatte bagvaskelse af Lyndon LaRouche. Denne dæmning må nu sprænges helt, hvis vi skal have held med at bryde en vej ud af de nuværende systemiske sammenbrudskriser, som planeten står overfor. Den raserende globale pandemi, den økonomiske nedsmeltning, den voksende fare for atomkrig… alle kræver de presserende handling.

Begivenheden hos LaRouchePAC den 1. august med Roger Stone og Bill Binney sammen med LaRouchePAC’s Barbara Boyd og Harley Schlanger bidrager allerede markant til at nå dette resultat. Fra søndag formiddag havde den historiske begivenhed over 6.000 visninger på YouTube, og Newsweek og Washington Times måtte dække Stones optræden, herunder – for Newsweeks vedkommende – hans eksplosive kommentarer om hvordan LaRouche blev fængslet af Bush-apparatet, samt at han havde arbejdet tæt sammen med Ronald Reagans præsidentskab. Mandag vil der blive bragt yderligere bemærkninger fra Stone i et eksklusivt interview med Harley Schlanger.

Den særlige nødvendighed af at give oprejsning til Lyndon LaRouche og hans ideer blev understreget i begyndelsen af arrangementet den 1. august, hvor uddrag af en international webcast med LaRouche selv fra den 8. september 2009 blev afspillet for publikum; en webcast hvor han viste ”det fremsyn, som gjorde LaRouche farlig” for det britiske imperium, der beordrede hans uretmæssige fængsling. LaRouche beskæftigede sig med betydningen af at menneskeheden begiver sig ud på en mission til Månen og Mars:

”Og det vil forandre karakteren af menneskets opfattelse af sig selv. Mennesket vil ikke længere tænke på sig selv som en jordbunden landstryger. (Ikke landkrabbe, men landstryger.) Mennesket vil opfatte sig selv som en del af solsystemet. Se, det betyder en ændring i menneskets forhold til andre mennesker. Man har et menneske på Mars, som arbejder deroppe, og et menneske på Jorden. Det tager en weekend at rejse derop og tilbage igen. Det vil forandre omstændighederne for menneskelivet. Nu vil alle de teknologier, der bruges til at gøre dette, afspejles i teknologiske revolutioner tilbage på Jorden, herunder dyrkning af føde, fødevarer. Jeg mener – at dyrke grøntsager på Mars: Dette er en virkelig ændring i landbruget. Det udvider ens opfattelse af, hvad landbrug indebærer…

”De [de unge generationer] bliver modtagere og formidlere af denne teknologiske fremgang, og hvad der måtte følge efter. Og så må vi tænke to eller tre generationer forud. Jeg mener, tænker I ikke på jeres børnebørn? Tænker I ikke endog på jeres oldebørn, hvis I er heldige? Er det ikke ens mission i livet? Er det ikke ens fornemmelse for kontinuitet i tilværelsen? Så, hvad er det? En generation, 25 år. Tre generationer, 75 år. Fire generationer, 100 år. Hvad skal I gøre i de næste 100 år, folkens?

”Hvis I tænker på fremtiden, hvis I interesserer jer for jeres børn og børnebørn, der kommer efter jer; hvis I tænker på menneskehedens fremtid og placerer jeres identitet i det I gør for dem, for at muliggøre deres liv, hvad tænker I så over? I tænker over, hvor vi skal være om 75, 100 år fra nu af, og tænker på hvor nøjagtigt vi kan forudsige, hvor vi er til den tid. Hvad er vores muligheder? Hvor er vi på vej hen? Hvad skal vi gøre? Halløjsa, hvad skal I gøre, når I når pensionsalderen i en alder af 75, 78 eller 85 år med forbedret sundhedsvæsen? Hvad skal I stille op med jer selv? Hvad er jeres fremtid? Hvilken slags verden vælger I? Hvilken slags solsystem vælger I at bo i?

”Og det er sådan det gøres. Man gør det ikke ved at komme med en liste over dette eller en liste over hint. Hvad er ens prioriteter? Man går ud med en mission, en mission for menneskeheden. Dette handler ikke om job. Det handler ikke om indkomst. Dette handler om menneskeheden, forskellen mellem mennesket og dyrene. Hvad skal man som menneske gøre, som bekræfter, at man er et menneske, og ikke skamfuld over resultatet set med dine børnebørns øjne? Hvad skal man udrette med sit liv? Vi opnåede noget, vi kom så langt. Hvor langt vil I tage os? Hvor langt videre bringer I den menneskelige race?

”Og det er hvad der får det til at fungere. Det er motivation. Hvordan I vælger at tilbringe jeres liv. Ikke blot få tiden til at gå, men at bruge det, anvende det. Til hvilket formål? Til hvilket endemål? Hvad vil man opdrage børn til, til hvilket endemål? For menneskehedens skyld! Hvorfor skal I huskes af mennesker om to generationer fra nu? Hvorfor skal I respekteres, en generation fra nu af? Hvad skal I gøre for at optjene denne respekt? Jeres identitet som mennesker.

”Og hvis I følger den tankegang og bruger spørgsmålet om rummet, rumforskningen, som en parameter, et paradigme fra vores nylige erfaringsgrundlag, der viser forskellen, så siger I: Vi taler ikke om industripolitik som sådan. Vi taler ikke om landbrugspolitik. Vi taler om menneskelig politik. Vi taler om den menneskelige arts udvikling og fremskridt til et bedre liv for kommende generationer. Og det kræver videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, såvel som de kulturelle fremskridt, der fremmer kreativiteten i det individuelle menneskesind. Det er vores mission”.

Genopvågning af den moralske egnethed til at overleve

Den 28. juli (EIRNS) – De mange strategiske kriser foran os, der hver for sig og i kombination er fremkaldt af det igangværende systemiske sammenbrud af hele det transatlantiske system, bør minde os om Lyndon LaRouches hyppige advarsel om “den katastrofale vedholdenhed af oligarkiske former for samfund… som, hvad enten de dominerer igennem kortere eller længere tid, bedst karakteriseres som kulturer, der i sidste ende er dømt til undergang af deres iboende mangel på tilstrækkelig “moralsk egnethed til at overleve”.

 I dag ser vi det systemiske sammenbrud udtrykt ved:

  • den stigende fare for krig mellem USA og Kina, og også Rusland;
  • fremvæksten af en voldelig “farverevolution” i Amerikas gader, der sigter mod et statskup imod præsident Trump;
  • den “perfekte storm” af en økonomisk implosion, der især vil ramme den fjerdedel af den amerikanske arbejdsstyrke, som de facto er arbejdsløs;
  • den voksende fare for sult og endda hungersnød blandt afrikanske og andre befolkninger; og
  • i den stadig ukontrollerede spredning af COVID-19-pandemien, som truer med at blive et langt værre mareridt, når vi nærmer os efterårets influenzasæson på den nordlige halvkugle.

Hver eneste af disse kriser er resultatet af den dødsrallen gennem 50 år fra et bankerot system, som Lyndon LaRouche længe advarede om ville blive vores skæbne, hvis vi ikke ændrer vores grundlæggende politik. Og bag hver eneste af dem ligger den forsætlige, malthusianske politik fra det britiske imperium og deres medarbejdere på Wall Street og i Washington.

Tag det tiltagende skingre momentum for krig mod Kina, med udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo i spidsen, og nu med neokonservative tumper både i og uden for Trump-administrationen, samt i Kongressen, der mødes i Washington for at beskylde Kina for den væbnede vold i USA’s gader og for at støtte Steve Bannons farlige personlige trussel mod den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, som, sagde Bannon, befinder sig i USA’s “sigtekorn”.

Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, udsendte i dag en skarp advarsel:

“Konfrontationen mod Kina er, hvad angår fjendebilledet, ved at nå en førkrigstilstand. Dette er ekstremt farligt, og vi er nødt til at organisere politikere overalt i verden for at de virkelig må komme ud og fordømme dette. Fordi dette er en kurs, der kun kan føre til en komplet katastrofe. Det gavner ikke Trumps genvalg – faktisk er det den ene ting der garanterer, at det hele ender som en tragedie. Så dette må ikke skubbes til side og ikke nedtones uanset af hvilken grund, fordi det er en form for retorik man ikke har, medmindre man planlægger at gå rigtig i krig …

”Dette kan virkelig få blodet til at stivne i årerne – jeg kan ikke engang finde de rigtige ord til at karakterisere dette. Det er som at beskylde jøderne for alting; det er præcis, hvad nazisterne gjorde før Holocaust. Jeg synes virkelig, at dette går for langt: Det er på tide at tage et moralsk standpunkt om, at dette ikke er sandt. Det er klart udformet til at forårsage en krig, fordi – som jeg har sagt mange gange – der er ingen måde hvorpå man kan “inddæmme” et land med 1,4 milliarder mennesker, medmindre man vil gå i krig”.

 Zepp-LaRouche understregede den organiserende tilgang, som hun og hendes medarbejdere i LaRouche-bevægelsen tager for at tackle denne eksistentielle krise.

 ”Dette er udfordrende tider, og man kan forvente, at det bliver endnu mere broget i den kommende periode. Men vi burde absolut gå videre med den hensigt at bringe Lyndon LaRouches programmatiske ideer ind i diskussionen, som vi har gjort ret vellykket med serien af Schiller Institut-konferencer i de seneste måneder. Vi har en anden Schiller Institut-konference den 15. august for et spansktalende publikum. Derefter afholder vi den 22. august en anden international ungdomsbegivenhed, der fokuserer på behovet for at give Lyndon LaRouche oprejsning. Og så planlægger vi at afholde en anden større international Schiller Institut-konference i begyndelsen af september med ideen om igen at fokusere på det presserende behov for et topmøde mellem de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd for at tage fat på alle disse kriser.

 ”Og jeg kan kun gentage, at af de årsager, som vi diskuterede i lørdags [25. juli] på den offentlige begivenhed med William Binney og andre, er det helt afgørende, at vi involverer spørgsmålet om Lyndon LaRouches oprejsning i enhver organisatorisk aktivitet. Det er omdrejningspunktet i Mueller-apparatet, der blev brugt mod Lyndon LaRouche i 1980’erne og 1990’erne; til at dække over 11. september; til kuppet mod Trump; og det er meget tydeligt, at det er det samme apparat, der står bag krigsfaren. Så det er vigtigt, at vi får folk til virkelig at forstå den fulde dimension af krisen og det akutte behov for at rense Lyndon LaRouches navn. Det er nøglen til at genopvække den moralske egnethed til at overleve”.


Nyt ’rumkapløb’ må skabe en ny økonomi og forhindre en ny verdenskrig

Den 27. juli (EIRNS) – Amerikanske, russiske og kinesiske medier diskuterer mange mulige udfald af det faktum, at tre større Mars-missioner i slutningen af denne uge vil blive opsendt næsten samtidigt for at udforske den røde planet til februar, samt andre missioner til Månens overflade, som nu er under opsejling. Forhandlinger for at undgå at atommagterne begynder en krig i rummet afholdes mellem store amerikanske og russiske delegationer; men på samme tid offentliggjorde kommandøren for den amerikanske ”rumstyrke” også blåstemplingen af en ny ”militærdoktrin for det ydre rum”.

Et topmøde mellem lederne fra de fem nationer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd – USA, Kina, Rusland, Storbritannien og Frankrig – vil sandsynligvis finde sted til efteråret, sågar mens dette potentielt set superproduktive ”rumfartskapløb” med konkurrence og håbefuldt samarbejde er i gang.

Totale ”lynprogrammer” af flere rumfartsnationer på én gang, for endelig at påbegynde den bemandede udforskning af solsystemet fra kolonier på Månen, vil være den ”videnskabsmotor”, som fuldstændigt kan omforme den faldefærdige verdensøkonomi. Denne ”motor” for industri og landbrug vil baseres på nye værktøjsmaskiner med laser- og plasmastråleteknologi og avancerede nukleare teknologier. Dette – hjulpet på vej af en Glass/Steagall-lovgivning til at stoppe plagen fra superspekulative gigantiske banker på Wall Street og i City of London, samt andre af Præsident Franklin Roosevelts økonomiske metoder – har været programmet for Lyndon LaRouche og hans bevægelse siden 1980’erne og hans berømte landsdækkende tv-udsendelse ”Kvinden på Mars” fra 1988, som præsidentkandidat.

Den nuværende pandemi, heraf følgende hungersnød og sammenbrudte økonomier rundt om i verden, gør det nødvendigt at præcis sådan en plan burde opstå fra topmødet, snarligt, mellem disse fem nationer. LaRouches politiske Aktionskomité har fremlagt den som et udarbejdet program: ”Hvordan USA’s økonomi kan genåbnes: Verden behøver 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive job”.

Kommentatorer, som følger de nuværende missioners rumkapløb mod Mars, forestiller sig forskellige scenarier. Hongkongs South China Morning Post skriver i dets leder, at ”verden bør støtte Kinas Mars-mission”, eftersom sund og fredelig konkurrence mellem de førende rumfartsnationer vil skabe flere gennembrud, og hurtigere, med koloniseringen af rummet. I USA citerer en kommentar i The Hill NASA’s administrator, James Bridenstine, som lykønsker Kina: ”Med dagens opsendelse er Kina på vej til at blive en del af gruppen af internationale videnskabsforskere af Mars. Snart vil USA, Europa, Rusland, Indien og snart de Forenede arabiske Emirater byde jer velkomne på Mars og påbegynde et spændende år med videnskabelige opdagelser.” En russisk kommentar, i Regnum-magasinet, går imidlertid endnu længere: Hvis demokraterne overtager Det hvide Hus og Kongressen i november, vil støtten til NASA’s Artemis-program for at vende tilbage til Månen i 2024 simpelthen blive trukket tilbage, og Kina vil dominere Måneforskning og udvikling.

Den erfarne rumfartsjournalist, Mark Whittington, forfattede også en kronik i The Hill, som citerede en artikel fra d. 13. juli fra Ars Technica, der igen refererede til et interview med chefen for Ruslands rumfartsagentur (Roscosmos), Dmitry Rogozin, i Komsomolskaya Pravda, om at Rusland ville foretrække at samarbejde med Kina, frem for at fortsætte det hyppige og meget produktive samarbejde med USA i de sidste tre årtier, ”hvor dets [Ruslands] vigtigste interesser ligger”. Dette identificerer det egentlige problem: Kombinationen af demokraternes sandsynlige tilbagetrækning af støtten til NASA’s Artemis-program og den i London baserede krigsfraktions øgede trusler om konfrontation og krig mod Kina og Rusland – herunder i det ydre rum – bringer Præsident Donald Trump i en vanskelig situation til at gennemføre sin Måne-Mars-mission.

Men han  gennemføre denne, for USA’s og menneskehedens fremskridts skyld. Dette er det afgørende formål med det topmøde, som Schiller Instituttet og LaRouchePAC har påvist nødvendigheden af siden januar, blandt de fem statsoverhoveder, der alle har udtrykt deres respekt overfor Franklin Roosevelts økonomiske udviklingspolitik. Samarbejde i det ydre rum vil ”drive” teknologierne bag denne udvikling, og ikke tillade at supermagterne driver i retning af krig.

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”.


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.


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.

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…

Putin giver værdifulde historiske lektioner
til at imødegå det transatlantiske etablissements geopolitiske dårskab
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche d. 25. juni 2020

Ved en gennemgang af den dybe civilisationskrise, der konfronterer menneskeheden, fortsatte Helga Zepp-LaRouche i sin ugentlige webcast med at vende tilbage til den centrale årsag til det systemiske sammenbrud: dumheden hos dem der fortsætter med at presse på med en geopolitisk og neoliberal politik, længe efter at den er slået fuldstændigt fejl. Tag f.eks. coronavirus-pandemien. Vi har lagt vægt på, at det der kræves er en verdensomspændende “Silkevej”, da årsagen til pandemien har været den økonomiske politik i de sidste fyrre år, som har ødelagt sundhedsvæsenet i store dele af den avancerede sektor, og aldrig har tilladt at det udvikles i de tidligere koloniale nationer.

 Det er det samme problem med det globale økonomiske sammenbrud. Ifølge IMF og adskillige rapporter fra økonomiske tænketanke er vi på vej mod det man kalder en “økonomisk apokalypse”. Den eneste måde at tackle dette på, er sådan som Schiller Instituttet vil gøre det på sin konference på lørdag, med en mobilisering for at bringe de fire mest magtfulde nationer sammen med henblik på at oprette en Ny Bretton Woods-aftale. Anti-Kina-hysteriet, der kommer fra førende regeringer, går i den modsatte retning, symboliseret ved det antikinesiske foto-stunt af den amerikanske forhandler Billingslea – om end selve topmødet mellem Rusland og USA om våbenkontrol var konstruktivt.

 Den sidste tredjedel af hendes diskussion var en grundig rapport om den russiske præsident Putins artikel om erfaringerne fra 2. Verdenskrig. Alle burde læse dette, tilrådede hun, især dem der vil deltage i SI-konferencen 27. juni, eftersom Putin gjorde det klart, at der er en måde at undgå en endnu større katastrofe end 2. Verdenskrig; og det er ved at erkende, at når man befinder sig i en geopolitisk geometri, vil det føre til krig – derfor må nationer mødes for at samarbejde for at løse de udestående problemer iblandt dem.


Putins vægtige intervention er mere end blot en historie om 2. Verdenskrig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.


”Aktionsdag”: Ungdommen mobiliserer for 1,5 milliarder arbejdspladser verden over med

Den 17. juni (EIRNS) – To positive initiativer skiller sig i dag ud fra den omsiggribende pandemi samt andre voksende kriser. Schiller Instituttets ungdomsafdeling ledte en multinational aktionsdag, som opfordrede lederne fra de fire magter – USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien – til at hæve sig over stridighederne og mødes for at igangsætte tiltag for det almene vel, i særdeleshed mht. infrastruktur indenfor sundhed og medicin for at bekæmpe COVID-19, og for at skabe produktivitet i det økonomiske system gennem ”LaRouche-planen” for 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive arbejdspladser, og alt som hører til. For det andet, i samme ånd, blev der i dag afholdt et møde mellem kinesiske og afrikanske ledere, under titlen ”Kina-Afrika-Solidaritetstopmøde mod COVID-19”, som blev ledet og adresseret af Præsident Xi Jinping og den Afrikanske Unions formand, Cyril Ramaphosa, blandt andre.

Det ekstraordinære topmøde skabte en ny ”Platform for medicinske forsyninger til Afrika”, for at alle afrikanske nationer de næste seks måneder kunne få adgang til diagnostiske og terapeutiske forsyninger for at bekæmpe pandemien. Ramaphosa, som i den senere tid har påpeget vigtigheden af rumforskning og kernekraft, lagde vægt på tiltag for at tilsidesætte ubetalelig gæld i Afrika i denne nødsituation, for at bekæmpe virusset.

Schiller Instituttets aktionsdag inkluderede henvendelser, gennem alle former for kommunikation, til hundredvis af individer og organisationer, som har muligheden for at påbegynde de nødvendige initiativer til et nyt økonomisk system, hvis akutte mål er fokuseret på infrastruktur til global sundhed, som overskriften på Schiller Instituttets begæring lyder: ”Forsvar Jordens allervigtigste ressource – mennesket!”

Planen for denne aktivering findes i dokumentet: ”LaRouche-planen til at genåbne USA’s økonomi: Verden har brug for 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive arbejdspladser”. Rapporten, produceret af LaRouchePAC, vil blive diskuteret lørdag d. 20. juni, kl. 20:00 (dansk tid) af landbrugsledere, fagforeningsledere og andre, ved LaRouchePAC’s ugentlige, nationale ”rådhus”, under overskriften: ”1,5 milliarder nye, produktive arbejdspladser verden over – hvordan USA’s arbejdsstyrke bringes tilbage til videnskabsbaseret produktion”. Dette er lyset, som skinner gennem det der ellers kan synes et håbløst mørke af uretfærdighed og lidelse, uden nogen vej imod en produktiv fremtid. Dette er en opfordring til handling.

Det modsatte til denne kampberedte tilgang til et samarbejde om et nyt økonomisk system, blev udstillet i dag i nye amerikanske udenrigspolitiske initiativer mod Syrien, i et modbydeligt skue af britisk imperialistisk geopolitisk taktik for regimeskifte. Det bliver gjort værre af, at sanktionerne bemyndiges og har den samlede støtte fra de neoliberale og neokonservative tosser, der tilføjede det som en paragraf i den seneste Lov for den Nationale Forsvarsmyndighed (National Defense Authorization Act). Udenrigsministeriet bekendtgjorde 39 nye sanktioner mod den syriske præsident, Bashar al-Assad, hans kone, mange familiemedlemmer og andre syriske ledere, hvilket forbyder nogen som helst form for økonomisk støtte til nationen. Dette sker efter at detaljer om den desperate situation med mangel på medicin og fødevarer i Syrien blev formidlet til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd den 16. juni, og gennem advarsler om truende hungersnød i Syrien fra FN’s administrerende direktør for Verdens Fødevareprogram, David Beasley, i et interview den 12. juni med dagbladet The National i de Forenede Arabiske Emirater. Mere end 9 millioner mennesker i Syrien har ingen fødevaresikkerhed (uden tilstrækkelig føde, enten grundet mangler eller forsyninger), og yderligere 2 millioner står på randen.

En del af dette billede inkluderer Libanon, tæt forbundet hermed, hvor banksystemet er brudt sammen. Libanon, en nation med 5 millioner mennesker, har taget imod 1,5 millioner syriske flygtninge. I de seneste dage bliver der taget skridt hen imod et ”nyt paradigme” i samarbejde med Kina, med en intervention for udvikling af infrastruktur og mulig understøttelse af Syrien gennem russiske og iranske initiativer.

Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, talte i sit ugentlige webcast i dag, om hvordan det ”ikke er tid til geopolitiske spil”. Ønsker man at skabe ”et regimeskifte i Syrien gennem hungersnød?”

Efter en detaljeret beskrivelse af situationen, samt andre af dagens udviklinger, såsom at Tyskland og USA ”driver fra hinanden”, sluttede hun af med at understrege den generelle pointe om, hvad der er brug for blandt nationer. ”Tyskland og USA bør arbejde sammen for at løse flygtningekrisen, opbygningen af Sydvestasien, overvindelsen af pandemien, samarbejde om industrialiseringen af Afrika – dette er den slags ting, som vi skulle stikke hovederne sammen om. Vi bliver nødt til at have et andet paradigme og en fuldstændig anden måde at tænke på. Fordi nationale interesser er fine – jeg går fuldt ind for nationale interesser, herunder Tysklands. Men som Friedrich Schiller har sagt mange gange, man kan ikke have nationale interesser, som er i konflikt med menneskehedens. Derfor bliver man nødt til at være en patriot og en verdensborger på samme tid.”

”Så det er denne ånd som Schiller Instituttet forsøger at vække til live. Dette vil være emnet på vores kommende konference, d. 27. juni”. Find indbydelsen til konferencen her: