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

 




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 (www.schillerinstitute.com) . 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, akademisk.kor.dk

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.




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
City.




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…




”Aktionsdag”: Ungdommen mobiliserer for 1,5 milliarder arbejdspladser verden over med
’LaRouche-planen’

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:

http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/2020/06/invitation-til-konferencevil-menneskeheden-blomstre-op-eller-gaa-til-grundefremtiden-kraever-et-fire-magts-topmoede-nu/

 




Bemandede amerikanske raketter vender tilbage til rummet – dét er ‘genåbning’!

Den 25. maj (EIRNS) ‒ Det bemærkelsesværdige program for at skabe 50 millioner produktive amerikanske arbejdspladser, som blev udgivet denne uge af LaRouchePAC ‒ “LaRouche-planen for at genåbne den amerikanske Økonomi: Verden har brug for 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive Arbejdspladser” ‒ er det eneste, seriøse svar på “the big one”: Den samtidige sygdomspandemi, hungersnødspandemi, arbejdsløshedspandemi, samt finanssammenbruddet. Den amerikanske økonomi som “genåbner” bliver nødt til at være en ny økonomi, omstruktureret og omdannet til at genopbygge en knust verdensøkonomi, der skaber et moderne sundhedssystem i alle underudviklede nationer, samt ny infrastruktur indenfor energiproduktion, vandforsyning og højhastighedstransport. Med andre ord, en åbning til Det amerikanske System for industrialisering og videnskabeligt fremskridt, i global målestok.

Vi bifalder NASA’s opsendelse på onsdag, for første gang i 9 år, af en amerikansk-produceret raket ud i rummet, som en del af iværksættelsen af denne verdensomspændende mobilisering for opbygning af infrastruktur. En international Måne-til-Mars-mission er en “videnskabsmotor” for den samlede proces for at skabe ny, højteknologisk, produktiv beskæftigelse, samt uddannelse af unge mennesker, der kan påtage sig nye forskningsområder. Kinas ubemandede Mars-mission med et “rumsonde-landingsfartøj”, sendes op i juli.

Hvad er den umiddelbare mission? COVID-19-pandemien spreder sig nu over hele den sydlige halvkugle, og godt over en milliard mennesker dér er i karantæne uden arbejde, uden indkomst, uden opsparing og med sammenbrudte fødevarekæder, så de står over for hungersnød. Virusset vil vare ved i lang tid; dens ofre må behandles på moderne hospitaler med fuldt udstyr og fulde kapaciteter, med nyligt udviklede medikamenter; og alt dette skal bygges hurtigt.

At skabe snesevis af millioner af nye, produktive arbejdspladser i USA betyder oprettelsen af hundredvis af millioner nye, produktive arbejdspladser i økonomisk udvikling i disse lande.

Det kan kun gennemføres succesfuldt gennem et nyt, internationalt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem, et partnerskab mellem USA og minimum de største teknologiske nationer, Kina, Rusland og Indien.

Hvis et økonomisk “genopretningsprogram” forsøges alene for den amerikanske økonomi ‒ ved at undgå dette samarbejde og ignorere de underudviklede nationers nødråb for hospitalsbyggerier, sundhedsforsyninger, elektricitetsproduktion, vandinfrastruktur og nye transportsystemer ‒ er det garanteret, at Wall Street vil kontrollere det. Og de vil sørge for, at det vil blive en “Grøn New Deal” for at skabe en ny “grøn finansboble” til Wall Street og City of London, for at erstatte deres “altings boble”, der nu bryder sammen.

For at besejre de “grønne New-Deal-finans”-monstre, som sniger sig ind bag pandemikrisen, må en økonomisk genrejsning betyde den storstilede, verdensomspændende plan for genopbygning, som virkelig er påkrævet, med for mange store teknologiske nationer involverede til at de britiske finansimperialister kan stoppe det. Som Lyndon LaRouche formulerede det i et webcast fra d. 14. juni, 2007: “Der er en uberegnelig global krise i gang… Dette er en krise, som handler om hvem der skal kontrollere verden. Vil det blive en gruppe af nationer, eller vil det blive det genopståede Britiske Imperium, som aldrig rigtig forsvandt ‒ som tager over fra USA og etablerer dets verdensstyre gennem globalisering?”

Lad disse teknologisk avancerede, førende nationer bekæmpe hinanden, og City of Londons og Wall Streets finansfolk vil overtage ethvert program for “økonomisk genrejsning” og gøre det til en global Grøn New Deal, med det formål at reducere en stor del af verdens befolkning til et præindustrielt eksistensniveau.

Imens Præsident Donald Trump ser NASA’s og SpaceX’s bemandede opsendelse på onsdag, tilbyder LaRouche-bevægelsen ham dette “job for at genopbygge verden,” som en udvej til konfrontation med Kina og Rusland. Det er også et våben mod det britiske imperialistiske “kup”, der, siden hans valgsejr, har forsøgt at tvinge ham ud af det Hvide Hus. Et Nyt globalt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem, baseret på det som Franklin Roosevelt havde i sinde: at løfte nationers økonomier over hele verden.

 

Nu kan det opløfte deres unge mennesker til Månen og Mars.

 




Æstetisk opdragelse gennem ballet:
August Bournonvilles koreografiske trosbekendelse

Bournonvilles koreografiske trosbekendelse afspejler Friedrich Schillers begreb om æstetisk dannelse, som man finder udtrykt i hans breve om menneskets æstetiske opdragelse, skrevet til den danske prins Frederik Christian af Augustenborg.
Dansen er en kunst, fordi den forudsætter kald, kundskab og færdighed.

Den er en skøn kunst, fordi den stræber efter idealet, ikke alene i plastisk, men i lyrisk og dramatisk henseende.

Den skønhed, som dansen bør hige efter, er ikke betinget af smag og behag, men grundet på det naturliges uforanderlige love.

Mimikken omfatter alle sjælelige bevægelser; dansen derimod er væsentlig et udtryk for glæden, en trang til at følge musikkens rytmer.

Det er kunstens og navnlig teatrets mission at skærpe tanken, løfte sindet og forfriske sanserne. Dansen bør altså fremfor alt vogte sig for at smigre et blaseret publikums forkærlighed for indtryk, der er fremmede for den sande kunst.

Munterhed er en kraft, berusning er en svækkelse.

Det skønne beholder stedse nyhedens friskhed, det forbavsende trætter i længden.

Dansen kan ved musikkens hjælp hæve sig til poesi, men også ved et overmål af gymnastik nedsynke til gøgleri; det såkaldte vanskelige har utallige adepter, hvorimod det tilsyneladende lette kun opnås af nogle få udvalgte.

Højdepunktet af kunstfærdighed er at dølge mekanismen og anstrengelsen ved harmonisk ro.

Manér er ikke karakter, og affektationen er gratiens afgjorte fjende.

Enhver danser bør betragte sin møjsommelige kunst som et led i skønhedskæden, som en nyttig prydelse for scenen, og denne igen som et betydningsfuldt moment i nationernes åndelige udvikling.

Fra Mit teaterliv: Erindringer og tidsbilleder. Bind 2, Thaning & Appel, 1979

Mere:

Vi behøver Schillers æstetiske breve i dag, Feride Istogu Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets kampagneavis nr. 9, 2009

Den danske hjælp til Schiller, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets kampagneavis nr. 8, sider 10-14, 2009

Friedrich Schiller, Menneskets æstetiske opdragelse, udgivet af Per Øhrgaard, Gyldendal, 1970




For at overvinde vores civilisationskrise må vi forbedre karakteren af vores befolkning
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp LaRouche d. 30 april 2020

Med momentum for løsninger fra Schiller Instituttets konference i sidste weekend, tog Helga Zepp-LaRouche sigte på det kollapsende britiske imperium, med en skarp kampplan for at realisere det Nye Paradigme for civilisationen. Blandt punkterne hun udpegede var: Om den globale fødevarekrise, sagde hun, at Donald Trump traf den rigtige beslutning i at anvende Defence Production Act for at holde slagterierne åbne, men en ende på karteldannelse og en tilbagevenden til paritetspriser (produktionspriser til landmænd –red.) er blandt de kritiske tiltag, som må tages for at sikre fødevaresikkerheden for alle; Det farlige anti-Kina-hysteri, i det øjemed at skabe et fjendebillede som en forløber til krig, er en videreførelse af den samme britisk anførte sabotage af Trumps løfte om at bryde med Bush- Obamas geopolitiske doktriner og opnå et fredeligt samarbejde.

Skønt det rammer begge amerikanske partier, er det specielt vanvittigt blandt republikanske senatorer som Lindsey Graham og Tom Cotton; Den igangværende frigivelse af dokumenter fra statsadvokaten i Mullers sag imod general Michael Flynn har et stort potentiale for at afsløre hele svindelaffæren fra krigsfraktionen, som stod bag Russiagate;Den farlige udvikling mod ”glidebanen”, der bygger på den grundantagelse, at der er nyttesløse spisere, og at deres død kan være et positivt resultat af coronavirusset – eksemplificeret ved den tidligere tyske finansminister Schaubles utrolige udtalelse om, at beskyttelsen af liv ikke nødvendigvis er af højeste værdi – må absolut vendes.

Til slut fremhævede hun vigtigheden af Schiller Instituttets yderst succesfulde konference, især det smukt iscenesatte panel om at skabe en ny renæssance. Krisen vi står overfor i dag, sagde hun, er ikke kun strategisk og økonomisk, men moralsk. Vores arbejde består i at handle for at forbedre karakteren af folk, som beskrevet af Schiller i hans diskussion af den æstetiske uddannelse af mennesket.




’Genstart’ post-pandemisk økonomi? Kun et Nyt Paradigme kan lykkes 

Den 8. april (EIRNS)—Midt i både kvaler og kamp, i forbindelse med COVID-19, lyder der en klar røst, om at et nyt paradigme er tiltrængt, og vil bidrage til at etablere økonomisk aktivitet på det niveau og med de principper, der er nødvendige for at menneskeheden kan lykkedes, både i den umiddelbare sundheds nødsituation og på længere sigt. Dette er synvinklen for Schiller Institut-konferencen, d. 25.-26. april, med overskriften ”Menneskehedens Eksistens afhænger nu af det Nye Paradigmes Grundlæggelse,” hvilket også vil blive afspejlet i emnerne i de næste to ugers LaRouchePAC ”Town Halls”, og relaterede konferenceopkald.

Denne organiseringsproces—endda imens denne er under opsejling—fremmer agendaen for det, som må finde sted på det tidligst mulige tidspunkt: et topmøde mellem de fire stormagter – Præsidenterne Trump, Xi Jinping og Putin, og Premierminister Modi, og andre, der er villige til at drøfte og handle ovenfra og nedefter, for at skabe et verdensomspændende sundheds- og sikkerhedssystem mod pandemier, forøge økonomisk produktion, og føre en udenrigspolitik for fred og gensidig gavn.

Andre røster fremfører visse pointer, i samme retning, enten direkte, og underforstået. For eksempel henvendte den mexicanske præsident, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, sig til sin nation d. 5. april om kampen mod COVID-19, og anklagede ”de sidste 36 års neo-liberalisme” ødelæggelse, og opfordrede til fuldstændigt at gøre op med denne, ligesom Franklin Delano Roosevelt gjorde.

Dette er ikke blot pæn retorik. Der vil hverken være en sejr over COVID-19, eller en magisk ”genstart” af økonomisk aktivitet i den nødvendige størrelsesorden, uden et nyt paradigme og samarbejde. Wall Street og City of London systemet, som skabte betingelserne for den nuværende pandemi og andre økonomiske kriser, er nu brudt sammen under sin egen onde natur. Alligevel, i USA i dag, hvor Præsident Trump havde et konferenceopkald med ledere på statsniveau, nogle lokale embedsmænd – enten desperate eller ført bag lyset – gør sig til talsmænd for den forfængelige tanke, at hver af de 3000 landskredse selv skal have lov til at bestemme, hvordan og hvornår de kan ”gå tilbage til arbejdet”, og alt vil blive godt igen.

I virkeligheden må der træffes foranstaltninger for bevidst, at fremme agroindustriel produktion; for at skabe et globalt sundhedssystem, og for at forsyne hvert eneste aspekt i livet og arbejdet, alt fra mad, til boliger, til vand, elektricitet, transport, uddannelse og sundhedsvæsen. Mest af alt involverer dette et specielt fokus på Afrika, dele af det amerikanske kontinent og Asien, der bevidst er holdt nede af det, nu døde Britiske Imperies monetære system.

Schiller Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede, i hendes ugentlige webcast i dag: ”Jeg kan kun gentage: Kun hvis man beslutter at bekæmpe denne pandemi, på den måde den skal bekæmpes på, er der en chance for at få den under kontrol, uden at millioner og atter millioner dør. Millioner af mennesker vil dø, men det er strengt nødvendigt, at tilgangen er den, som vi har krævet i flere uger nu, og vi vil eskalere dette: For omgående at få et globalt sundhedssystem, er det nødvendigt at opbygge et sundhedsvæsen i hvert eneste land, som har samme standard, som det plejede at være med Hill-Burton-loven i USA, og som det plejede at være før Tyskland og Frankrig privatiserede deres sundhedssystemer, som plejede at være fortræffelige sundhedssystemer, før privatiseringen. Og vi har brug for en international mobilisering for at opnå dette.”.

”Og det er det som økonomien burde være rettet mod. Enhver idé om blot at sætte fart i økonomien og vende tilbage det sædvanlige, uden at tage dette, som den primære fokus, er blot tåbeligt.”.

Et politisk skrift vil snart blive udgivet af Schiller Instituttet angående dette perspektiv — hvad USA og verden skal gøre nu, for at stoppe styrtdykket til helvede. Dette dokument er en tilføjelse til det materiale, som allerede er tilgængeligt for dem som tilmelder sig til konferencen, d. 25.-26. april, så alle kan udbrede idéen. En videopræsentation af dette perspektiv er også iværksat.
https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/03/29/conference-mankinds-existence- nowdepends-on-the-establishment-of-a-new-paradigm/ 

Målet er en størst mulig deltagelse, begyndende nu, i den fælles opgave at mobilisere for det, som nationer skal gøre. Det vil sige at tage kontakt med alle institutioner og befolkningsgrupper, unge og gamle, fra ufaglærte til eksperter, fra diplomater til landmænd, og alle sjæle derimellem. Det er blevet bekræftet, at der nu er arrangeret direkte oversættelser til konferencen i april, inkluderende spansk, tysk, fransk, italiensk, og måske kinesisk. Dette er øjeblikket. 




At overvinde krisen begynder med at skrotte geopolitik og neoliberalisme
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast m. Helga Zepp LaRouche d. 8 april 2020

Den 8.april. For at gøre en ende på de forbundne kriser, den nye coronavirus-pandemi og den finansielle krise, er det nødvendigt at se den reelle årsag for de to kriser i øjnene: den næsten 50 år lange udbredelse af britisk imperialistisk politik, specielt doktrinerne for geopolitik og neoliberal økonomi. Fra dette udgangspunkt, gav Helga Zepp- LaRouche en påtrængende nødvendig oversigt over de seneste udviklinger. Der har været taget nogle brugbare tiltag for at takle krisen, men der er ”ønsketænkning hos det neoliberale etablissement”, at vi snarligt kan vende tilbage til hvad der var regnet som normalt tre måneder tidligere, hvilket ville være en meget farlig beslutning.

Men det man går uden om, som ’katten om den varme grød’, er, at vægringen ved at afslutte kolonipolitikken i udviklingslandene, som håndhæves af IMF, har bragt hovedparten af de folk som bor der i fare, og truer med at blive grundlaget for at coronavirusset vender tilbage til den nordlige halvklode til efteråret. En fuldstændig omdannelse af det globale sundhedssystem er afgørende, hvilket indbefatter planer for at omstille maskinværktøjssektoren og fremstillingsindustrien i det hele taget, og gøre en ende på privatisering og et system baseret på spekulative profitter for at imødekomme et sådan systems behov. Ligeledes er fiaskoen omkring fyringen af kaptajn Crozier af en flådeminister, der insisterer på at vi er i krig med Kina, viser, at krigsfaren forbliver så længe krigshøge som Pompeo forbliver i administrationen, og fjolser som Bolton kan vedblive med at udspy deres gift gennem medierne. (Flådeministeren, Modly, trak sig efterfølgende tilbage, men ikke Pompeo og Esper!).

Der er nu dem der står frem og anerkender, at systemet har fejlet, som for eksempel den tidligere vicebankdirektør for Frankrigs nationalbank, Peltier, som krævede et nyt Bretton Woods, og Tremonti fra Italien og Sinn fra Tyskland, der advarede om, at redningspakkerne der er på vej vil forårsage hyperinflation.

Helga opfordrede lytterne til at registrere sig til Schiller Instituttets konference den 25.-26. april, for at medvirke til at forandre dagsordenen for at skabe en mere menneskelig menneskehed.

Tilmelding til konferencen kan ske her:

https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/20200425_national_conference?recruiter_id=8

 




INTERNATIONAL VIDEOKONFERENCE I DAG LØRDAG KL. 16 OG I MORGEN SØNDAG KL. 17:
Menneskehedens eksistens afhænger af etableringen af et nyt paradigme nu!
SE DEN LIVE HER.

SE INVITATIONEN NEDENUNDER.

Lørdag den 25. april, kl. 16:00 dansk tid


Panel 1: “Det presserende behov for at erstatte geopolitik med et nyt paradigme indenfor internationale relationer”

Dette panel vil drøfte de principper hvorpå en ny strategisk orden omgående må iværksættes – de fælles mål for menneskeheden, alle nationers suverænitet og den gensidige fordel for alle medlemmer af det menneskelige samfund. Disse principper forefindes i de bedste bidrag til civilisationens universal-historie, i de videnskabelige principper for det fysiske univers og i stor klassisk kunst. Principperne må afspejles i definitionen af menneskehedens interesse, set ud fra hvor udviklingen af vores art skal være om 100 år fra nu af. Dette fremtidige perspektiv skal være bestemmende for hvordan vi udformer en ny økonomisk platform, samt en ny sikkerhedsinfrastruktur, nye former for videnskabeligt samarbejde og en dialog mellem klassiske kulturer.

Panel Moderator: Dennis Speed

10:00 — Opening Remarks & Introduction
Dennis Speed, Schiller Institute 

10:15 — Keynote Address
Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Founder and Chairman, Schiller Institute 

10:55 — Dmitriy Polyanskiy, 1st Deputy Permanent Representative
The Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

11:10 —H.E.  Ambassador Huang Ping
Consul General of the People’s Republic of China in New York
“For a Better Future: Proposed Principles Needed to Ensure Peaceful and Productive Relations Between China and the United States”

11:25–12:00 — Q&A with Zepp-LaRouche and representatives of Russia and China

12:00 — Jacques Cheminade
Chairman, Solidarité et Progrès, former French Presidential Candidate
“A Europe Not To Be Ashamed Of”

12:20 — Michele Geraci
Economist from Italy, former Undersecretary to the Development Ministry in Rome 

12:35–1:15 — Q&A with Zepp-LaRouche, Cheminade, and Geraci

1:15 — Helga Zepp-LaRouche
“Introducing the LaRouche Legacy Foundation”

1:30–2:00 — Q&A continued

 

Lørdag den 25. april, kl. 21:00 dansk tid


Panel 2: “Kreativitet som det enestående træk ved den menneskelige kultur: Behovet for en klassisk renæssance”

Det forfald, der har indsneget sig i meget af kulturen i den vestlige verden, er i sig selv et tegn på systemets endeligt. Grimhedskulten dominerer meget af det, der giver sig ud for at være kunst i dag. Meningsløs vold og perversion i den såkaldte underholdningsindustri spiller en rolle for udformningen af en populærkultur, hvor masseskyderier, narkotikamisbrug og kulturel pessimisme er fremherskende.

Erstatningen af den mørke tidsalder i det 14. århundrede, beskrevet i litteraturen af Boccaccio og i malerier af Bruegel og Bosch, med den kulturelle optimisme og det nye menneskebillede i den gyldne renæssance i Italien og andre dele af Europa er et godt eksempel på, at menneskelig opfindsomhed kan overvinde forfærdelige kriser og erstatte dem med nye ideer og kunstværker.

I dag er en genoplivning af klassisk kunst den uundværlige forudsætning for, at menneskeheden kan åbne et nyt kapitel i dets historie. En renæssance af klassisk musik og en dialog mellem de bedste klassiske traditioner indenfor alle kulturer skal lægge grundlaget for en ny renæssance. Værker af Dante, Leonardo da Vinci, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Du Fu, Shakespeare, Schiller, Tagore, Huang Gongwang, Rembrandt, Goya, Cervantes, Rabelais og Pushkin, for blot at nævne nogle få, legemliggør principper der inspirerer det menneskelige sinds kreativitet, og er lige så universelle som fysiske videnskabelige principper. Viden om disse kunstarter er grundlaget for menneskets æstetiske uddannelse. Som Lyndon LaRouche smukt skrev det, er kærligheden essensen af stor kunst. I dette Beethoven-år kan vi absolut finde den indre styrke til at mestre krisen ved at fremkalde hans ånd og ved at tænke lige som den store komponist.

 

Søndag den 26. april kl. 17:00 dansk tid


Panel 3: “For en bedre forståelse af hvordan vores univers fungerer”

Eksistentielle trusler mod menneskeheden, såsom den nuværende COVID-19-pandemi, kan kun overvindes ved den strikse anvendelse af foranstaltninger til epidemisk kontrol, hvilket Kina har skabt en ny standard for. Samtidig må den biologiske og virologiske grundforskning (inklusive optisk biofysik) udvides, for at forstå hvad liv virkelig er, og for bedre at forstå samspillet mellem det ikke-levende, biosfæren og den menneskelige noösfære. Tankerne fra Kepler, Leibniz, Vernadsky og Gurwitsch i form af en ”universets harmoni” er afgørende.

Lyndon LaRouche kaldte denne tilgang “Strategisk Forsvar af Jorden”, hvilket omfatter både planetens forsvar mod asteroider og kometer, og kampen mod pandemier. Dette kræver udvikling af nye teknologier baseret på højere energi-gennemstrømningstætheder, såsom avanceret nuklear teknologi, energi og partikelstråling, rumvidenskab, superledere, nye materialer, additive fremstillingsprocesser og robotter. Konfronteret med de to vira – COVID-19 og monetarisme – er det nu vigtigere end nogensinde at være optimistisk med hensyn til det menneskelige potentiale til at opbygge en bedre verden, i modsætning til den malthusianske pessimisme der betragter mennesket som et rovdyr og en forurener.

Som LaRouche har påvist indenfor mange områder, er det det den menneskelige arts kreative potentiale, der muliggør etableringen af stadig højere videnskabelige og teknologiske platforme og opdagelse af universets lovmæssigheder på en ubegrænset måde. Udforskning af rummet er dén fysiske udfordring for vores menneskelige identitet, der vil udløse det bedste af vores potentiale for at opdage og inspirere til et skæbnefællesskab..

 

Søndag den 26. april kl. 21:00 dansk tid

Panel 4: “Videnskaben om fysisk økonomi”

Om noget demonstrerer denne sammenbrudskrise den komplette fiasko for det, der under normale omstændigheder går for at være økonomi på universiteterne. Lyndon LaRouches erkendelse af den uredelige karakter af Robert Wiener og John von Neumanns teorier, som stadig i dag dominerer feltet af statistik og algoritmer, lagde grundlaget for hans fremskridt inden for videnskaben om fysisk økonomi. LaRouche baserer sin forståelse på ideerne af Gottfried Leibniz, Friedrich List og ophavsmændene til det amerikanske økonomiske system, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay og Henry C. Carey, og videreudvikler det på grundlag af Bernhard Riemanns og Albert Einsteins fysiske begreber. Hans fortid som økonomisk prognosemager er enestående.

Det er bemærkelsesværdigt, at den kinesiske økonomiske model har meget til fælles med det amerikanske økonomiske system, hvilket blandt andet har at gøre med Sun Yat-sens rolle og de bedre perioder af amerikansk-kinesisk samarbejde.

Fysisk økonomi er ikke en specialiseret gren af videnskab; snarere omfatter den hele den menneskelige viden, da den vedrører kreativiteten hos mennesker som sådan. Hvad der er brug for i dag, er en fuldstændig omdefinering af, hvad økonomisk videnskab faktisk er, for hvilket nye platforme inden for rumvidenskab og rumøkonomi kan tjene til orientering.

Konferencen vil også være lejlighed til med stolthed at præsentere publikationen af det første bind af den planlagte udgave af Lyndon LaRouches ‘samlede værker’, som vil indeholde nogle af hans grundlæggende skrifter om fysisk økonomi.

 

Hvornår

Lørdag den 25. april, kl.16 dansk tid

Søndag den 26. april kl 17. dansk tid

Hvor

via Internet

Invitaiton:

Denne konference finder sted i en tid, som udfordrer vores moralske evne til at overleve. Selv før udbruddet af dobbeltkrisen med coronavirus-pandemien og det igangværende økonomiske sammenbrud stod det klart, at den gamle verdensorden – forsøget på at etablere en unipolær verdensorden efter Sovjetunionens opløsning – var ved at falde fra hinanden. Med spredningen af pandemien og centralbankernes kursændring til “helikopterpenge”, er vi nu nået til præcist det øjeblik, som Lyndon LaRouche advarede om i august 1971, da han forudsagde, at den monetaristiske flydende valutakurspolitik, der blev vedtaget af præsident Nixon, da han forlod Bretton Woods-systemet, ville føre til en ny depression og faren for en ny fascisme. Fra 1974 af advarede LaRouche og hans videnskabsteam gentagne gange og offentliggjorde adskillige undersøgelser, der pegede på faren for en genoplivning af gamle sygdomme og nye pandemier, som et resultat af den nedskæringspolitik som Verdensbanken og IMF pålagde udviklingssektoren.

Meget af den såkaldte ’vestlige verden’ ligger i ruiner. Afviklingen af et tidligere fremragende sundhedssystem af hensyn til privat profit, hvilket nu grelt demonstrerer det liberale etablissements kortsynethed, er kun et af de mange symptomer på et fejlslagent system. Den udviste mangel på solidaritet inden for denne vestlige alliance i krisetider, som det viser sig i kløften mellem USA og EU, såvel som mellem EU og dets medlemslande, er et andet sådant symptom – for ikke at nævne den foragtelige ligegyldighed overfor suveræniteten af, og menneskeliv i, landene i udviklingssektoren. Allerede før udbruddet af pandemien var EU’s moralske krise synlig for verden i lyset af EU’s politik for flygtningene samt indvandrerkrisen.

På den anden side tilbyder Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ (BRI) for første gang i historien et reelt perspektiv for at overvinde fattigdom og underudvikling til udviklingssektoren. Siden det blev lanceret i 2013, har 153 lande tilsluttet sig dette initiativ. Hvis man sammenligner BRI eller Den Nye Silkevej med de konkrete udviklingsplaner for alle kontinenter, der er udarbejdet af LaRouche og hans bevægelse siden 1970’erne, finder man stor affinitet, som det passende er udtrykt i adskillige studier… ‘Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen’, som er en plan for den globale udvikling af vores planet. Dette repræsenterer også den økonomiske platform for det nødvendige nye paradigme for internationale forbindelser, hvilket er det eneste, der kan stoppe den dobbelte pandemi med COVID-19 og den globale spekulative cancer på 1.800 billioner $.

Desværre er et stort segment af verdens liberale etablissement ikke villige til at reflektere over årsagerne til deres systems fiasko, og uvillige til at acceptere at samarbejde med det nye system, der tilbydes af BRI – selv under omstændigheder med pandemi og økonomisk sammenbrud. Men en fortsættelse af geopolitisk konfrontation under disse forhold udgør en trussel mod eksistensen af hele den menneskelige civilisation.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche har derfor fornyet det længe fremsatte forslag fra hendes afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, om at kun kombinationen af de fire mest magtfulde lande – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – kan sætte dagsordenen for et nyt paradigme på bordet. Hun har opfordret til et hastetopmøde mellem præsident Donald Trump, præsident Xi Jinping, præsident Vladimir Putin og premierminister Narendra Modi for at indlede den bydende nødvendige omorganisering af det bankerotte finanssystem gennem et nyt Bretton Woods-system og etableringen et nyt niveau af internationalt samarbejde om strategiske spørgsmål, fælles videnskabelige bestræbelser, fysisk økonomi og en kulturel renæssance.

Schiller Instituttet vil afholde en international konference over internettet den 25.-26. april, der vil samle førende eksperter på disse områder fra forskellige dele af verden, for at diskutere de principper – direkte med et internationalt publikum – som det nye paradigme må baseres på for at garantere den menneskelige arts vedvarende eksistens.

Konferenceformat

Denne internet-konference bliver streamet live. Oplægsholderne forbindes via video og vil få mulighed for at have dialog med hinanden under paneldiskussionerne. Der vil være mulighed for spørgsmål og diskussion med konferencedeltagere i skriftlig form, samt mulighed for at videospørgsmål kan fastlægges.

 




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Helga Zepp-LaRouche opfordrer til aflysning af NATO’s ”Defender Europe-2020”-militærøvelse

Den 12. marts (EIRNS) – ”Vi bliver nødt til at stoppe de nuværende NATO-øvelser i Østeuropa, Defender Europe-2020, der omfatter 40.000 tropper”, udtalte Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche i onsdags i sin ugentlige internationale webcast. ”Selvfølgelig lader virusset sig ikke stoppe af militæret. Og at gennemføre disse ting, samtidig med at der er en umiddelbar sundhedstrussel mod befolkningen, er virkelig noget der ikke giver nogen mening. Så denne NATO-manøvre burde stoppe”.

I stedet for sådanne provokerende og hensynsløse geopolitiske handlinger, tilføjede Zepp-LaRouche, “burde vi gå i retning af at mobilisere for et topmøde mellem de fire stormagter, som Lyndon LaRouche specificerede”, for at tackle de eksistentielle kriser, som planeten står overfor. ”Nogle gange, når man er i en reel krise, kan man kun med en helt ny tankegang, nemlig tanken om at alle de store lande i verden – USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien som et minimum, og så kan andre lande mødes med disse lande – kun hvis man ændrer tankegangen og niveauet for fremgangsmåden, kan der findes en løsning”.

”Man kan ikke bare fortsætte med den politik, der har vist sig at fejle; det må absolut høre op. Jeg ser ikke tegn på, at det europæiske etablissement er i stand til at gøre det på nuværende tidspunkt. Det betyder bare, at der er brug for en mobilisering af befolkningen, fordi dette bliver til en alvorlig eksistentiel krise for os alle, og man er nødt til at tage ansvar for at bringe et nyt paradigme til verden – et paradigme for samarbejde, og så vil man kunne løse de fleste problemer. I det mindste vil man over tid kunne finde løsninger på sådanne problemer som coronavirus. Vi er nødt til at ændre indstillingen hos magthaverne i Europa og USA i forhold til Kina og Rusland; og hele denne idé om, at regimeskifte er tilladeligt under påskud af at sprede ‘demokrati og menneskerettigheder’, er en af disse imperialistiske, kolonialistiske ideer, der må opgives.”

Zepp-LaRouche konkluderede: ”Vi har brug for at tænke helt nyt: Vi befinder os i en mørk tidsalder; denne mørke tidsalder er absolut sammenlignelig med det 14. århundrede, da den sorte død dræbte en tredjedel af den europæiske befolkning, og folk blev skøre!  Der er tegn på lignende sindssyge allerede nu, og vi har derfor brug for en helt anden tilgang, som det skete i det 15. århundrede med den gyldne renæssance i Italien. Folk må erkende, at vi befinder os i en mørk tidsalder, og vi må afvise alle de antagelser, der har ført til den nuværende situation”.




Vil de igangværende chok fremprovokere en ny slags tænkning,
der er nødvendig for at overvinde en ny mørk tidsalder?
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche d. 11. marts 2020

Helga gentager de seriøse advarsler fra ledende tyske eksperter indenfor smitsomme sygdomme og ser på Wuhan-modellen for at bryde smittevejene i begyndelsen. Helga beder lande om at koordinere deres indsats for at besejre denne pandemi, inklusiv at dæmme op for de økonomiske indvirkninger på den globale økonomi, men det betyder ikke at redde Wall Street! (Se hendes opdaterede underskriftsbegæring)

Helga og Harley diskuterer svindelen med her-og- nu-økonomien, og påminder folk om Lyndon LaRouches advarsel, at hvis vi fortsatte ned ad vejen mod nulvækst, ville Vesten ikke længere være i stand til at opretholde sig selv og ville sprænges indad. Hun kræver en ende på geopolitik, og at alle kræfter må være fokuserede på at løse den fælles virus- og finanskrise. Pas på dig selv, og tak for at du følger vores arbejde.

Afskrift på engelsk:

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s March 11, 2020. And now we’re very deep into a process which has been unfolding rapidly with the coronavirus, the emergence of a pandemic worldwide. And Helga, this is something that people in the West have been trying to wish away, but it’s something that’s going to be wished away: It requires a total change in thinking. Why don’t you start with your thoughts on that, because you have been very out front in the need for an emergency call to reject this old paradigm, and move to the new.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think the situation is very serious. It probably will not be possible without a lot of casualties, but nevertheless, if there are decisive measures now, and a complete change in the attitude, the damage can be minimized. Otherwise, it will be catastrophic.

Now, I think it is useful to listen to the experts from Germany who are making regular podcasts, Christian Drosten, the virologist from Berlin Charité hospital, and Professor Lothar Wieler from the Robert Koch Institute, and they put out very drastic warnings. What Drosten said is that there will be no lessening of the increasing in the spring and summer period, which some people temporarily assumed, because we will face a virus wave, and naturally, in the summer period, the virus will continue to spread to the summer hemisphere, where it will be winter, and then in all likelihood return even more, and with possible mutations in the fall, and a vaccine, as of now, cannot be expected before a year or so.

So, Merkel announced what is now commonplace among many leaders of countries, that the infection rate probably will infect 70% of the population, and unfortunately, it is absolutely not true what our Health Minister Jens Spahn still thought in January, which is really incredible, where he said that the coronavirus does not represent a danger for Germany, and that the mortality rate of the coronavirus would be lower than of the common flu — that’s what he said in January.

Now, obviously, that that was not the case was clear, already if people looked to China, which in the month of January was waging an incredible battle, and by closing down the entire city of Wuhan and Hubei province, effecting a lockdown for 60 million people, implementing it and also enforcing it and having a population which was very cooperative in doing so, according to the World Health Organization, China has set a new standard in dealing with such pandemics. And the West could have taken that as an example, but people in the West are just too arrogant, too Euro-centric, or too Western-centric, so they thought they could ignore, or even think “this is affecting China and not coming to Europe or the United States”; so they lost three valuable months, maybe not entirely, but obviously, a completely different attitude would have been necessary.

And now, it is spreading and changing by the hour, so people are completely aware of the fact that this is out of control. And I do not want to add to any panic, but it is very clear that the numbers which are announced right now are not accurate. I talked to my colleagues in France, today, and there are only a little bit more than 1,000 tests which have been made in France so far! That is not a representative figure which comes out, then. And we have some cases where people clearly have symptoms, and they try to get tests, and they were told, there are no tests in France right now, France doesn’t have the production capability and all the tests have been bought up and there simply are no tests. So, obviously, the fact that in Germany, there are only two deaths so far, as of this webcast [midday in Germany March 11 — ed], they attribute that to the very well testing — now, we have to see.

I think the lesson from Wuhan, and now that all of Italy is basically a red zone, after some very irrational behavior on the side of some citizens, after the north was locked down, you have quite an advanced situation; but I think the lesson to be learned from all of that is that is that we have to learn from China. We have to get rid of our Western arrogance, and simply look at the way how China effectively dealt with it, and then the only conclusion is, that you have to enforce these measures before you have a mass of cases. That means that if you have anywhere, a region, like some cities or areas in North Rhine-Westphalia, one should apply the Wuhan model immediately. It should be closed down, there should be a quarantine for a certain number of weeks, and these measures must be taken early on, because everything which counts in this is the speed, to take preemptive measures before the virus spreads completely out of control.

So I think we are in a very serious situation, but it’s not some moment where you can completely panic, but there are clear ways, and I think the Chinese efficiency with which they dealt with this, should be a lesson for everybody.

SCHLANGER: When you speak of the arrogance, I think you’re referring, in particular, to the continued adherence to geopolitics, to the neo-liberal model, the whole idea that the West is superior, the West has solved all the problems. Isn’t this what hampers the thinking of people at the European Union and many of the people in the U.S. Congress, and think tanks in the United States?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the reaction so far by the leading politicians, for example, the European finance ministers — the so-called Eurogroup — they have a meeting on March 16, and on their agenda is first, the European Stability Mechanism, and then something else, and then only third, the coronavirus attack, and it is very clear that the reason why the reaction was so late, and why they didn’t use the word “pandemic,” because they were more concerned about the stock market, the efficiency and the profits coming from the so-called “pandemic bond” — which is an absurdity all by itself, that you would try to finance the cost of pandemics with bonds from which people can make a profit, but only if you have the maturity of the bond. So, I think the thinking is still very much dominated by the geopolitical idea: For example, yesterday, I was listening — and one should actually stop doing that! — I was listening to the ZDF news and this moderator reported about the coronavirus crisis, but then, instead of praising what the Chinese accomplished in Wuhan, he took the occasion to blast China and attack it, or to continue to attack Russia, China, that has to stop! Because if you look at it, the only way how humanity will get out of the crisis, is international cooperation. Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, has just telephoned the Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, and the Chinese offered share their experience, to send their experts; they’re donating masks, protective suits, and tests to Italy. This is a completely different approach. And I think the West has much to learn how to respond to challenges which all of humanity is facing. And this whole geopolitical thinking is really one of troglodytes and should be eliminated completely.

SCHLANGER: We see people like U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continuing to attack China; he calls coronavirus the “Wuhan virus” — you have this kind of attitude, when in fact, what we’re seeing is a significant drop of cases in China. And you mentioned earlier the importance of President Xi Jinping going to Wuhan to talk to the people who are on the front lines. I think it’s important to report this, Helga, because it’s not going out in the Western press.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I have proposed something, which may look impossible to some people, but I dare the prediction that the situation will — because of this ineffectiveness of Western response — that the situation will soon come to the point where more and more people are recognizing that what I’m saying is the only way to address this problem. What I have reiterated is my call to have an emergency summit by Xi Jinping, Putin, Trump, Modi, as a minimum combination, to address all these problems. Because it’s very clear that we need an international cooperation concerning the coronavirus pandemic. This is already threatening the international financial system: We saw, in the last several weeks, several plunges, absolutely of the same dimension as after the 2008 systemic collapse, or after the September 11, 2001 attack; and only because the central banks have now decided to flood the markets, to lower the interest rates — like the Bank of England lowered the interest rate by a half-percent, 50 basis points, today — as if the simple pushing of liquidity would remedy any of the real, physical causes for why the system is collapsing. So, I want to have a mobilization of the population to demand that the leaders of the most important governments — of the United States, Russia, China, and India — need to discuss the Four Points which were proposed by my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, in June 2014, because you need to have an immediate end of the global casino economy, by implementing a Glass-Steagall system; we have discussed this many times on this program, but it is the only combination of measures which would address the problem. Then, you need a national bank in every country; in Germany, we could extend the functions of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau; have a national bank in every other country; have an international cooperation among these national banks, reinstate fixed exchange rates, and then have agreements about industrial development projects, like the industrial development of Southwest Asia, of Africa, and this will become then, a New Bretton Woods system. There must be cooperation with the Chinese New Silk Road to have these kinds of development plans. And we need a crash program to go into a new platform of higher productivity of the economy, joint cooperation in advanced technologies, like fusion, like biophysics, like space research cooperation. And then, such a summit could implement these measures, and then could have a series of such summits, and that way change the geopolitics, and move towards an international cooperation, a shared future of humanity.

And that shift has to occur. And I’m predicting, and I think I’m on the safe side in doing so, that the crisis will accelerate, there will be many more unfortunate consequences, and people will recognize that to establish a completely different level of thinking will be the only way out for all of mankind.

If you agree with that, you should help this mobilization. There is a resolution, which is attachéd to this webcast [https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/four_laws_new], please sign it, please spread it among your friends and colleagues, get more people to sign it: Because we need a public discussion about this, and public demand that the whole world should move into a completely new way of cooperating and solving these kinds of problems.

SCHLANGER: I’ve received a few emails from people who have asked, why do we focus on “neo-liberalism” as the problem? What does that have to do with the virus? And I think it’s important to look at what Dr. Redfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had to say about the need to rebuild the system: That the so-called “just-in-time” system, which has been accepted as an economic model doesn’t work. We need redundancy. And Helga, I think it would be very useful for you to just review again, why this neo-liberal system is the cause, or sets humanity up for these kinds of crises. Because this is what your husband was warning, going back to 1971, with the Biological Holocaust Task Force he set up, and so on.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The prognosis of Lyndon LaRouche, which he made on Aug. 15, 1971, when Nixon dissolved the Bretton Woods system by going to floating exchange rates, by decoupling the dollar from the gold-reserve standard and that way, opening the deregulation of the markets which has escalated ever since. My husband at that point had made the prognosis that if the West would continue on this road, of liberalizing the markets, of going with neo-liberal, monetarist policies, that it would end up in a new depression and the danger of a new fascism; or, one would go to a completely new economic system.

Now, that prognosis has proven to be absolutely on the mark. And the Biological-Ecological Holocaust Task Force which you just mentioned, he set up in 1974, and it was to study the effects of the policies of the IMF and World Bank on the economic system, especially in the developing sector. And in meantime, we have produced many studies, which you can all see in our archives, that if you impose such austerity or zero growth policies, especially on the developing countries, that you would inevitably cause the emergence of old diseases and new diseases, because you cannot consistently lower the living standard of entire continents, as the IMF and World Bank have done in the last 50 years, without creating conditions of breakdown. And that is exactly what you see right now: Because you don’t have only the coronavirus crisis, you have the locust situation getting completely out of control in many African states, in the Horn of Africa, and in the Arabian Peninsula and Pakistan-India, even threatening to go into China.

Then, as part of this geopolitical, liberal scheme of the West, the refugee crisis: It’s not a natural phenomenon, it is the result of the interventionist wars conducted by the Bush Administrations and Obama, with the idea that you have to spread “democracy” and “human rights” and that it’s legitimate to made interventionist wars against Iraq — doesn’t matter if it’s based on lies that there are so-called weapons of mass destruction which Nancy Pelosi, in the meantime has admitted that they all knew it was lie and they did it anyway; Iraq, Afghanistan — these are all the reasons why you have a refugee crisis. The underdevelopment of Africa is a result of these policies.

So that is why I am saying, if we don’t get rid of this paradigm, which has many elements — it has geopolitics, it has neo-liberal economic policies; but it also a Malthusian dimension to it. The Green axiom which says that nature, or some spiders or some ants somewhere are more important than human beings; and I even go so far as to say that I think the reason why there is such an absolutely bestial attitude — I mean, on the coronavirus, do you think that most African countries or Asian and Latin American countries that do not have the health systems we have, do you think they are testing their people? I don’t think so. So the figures are in all likelihood completely off, and the ability of these countries to remedy it is much, much less. And I’m absolutely convinced that there are some people who say, “Oh, there are too many people anyway,” like Bertrand Russell, who said, you need a pandemic every generation — these are quotes we have published many times! And the absolutely disgusting way how the EU is dealing with the refugee crisis, now again erupting at the Turkish-Greek border, that is a mindset which is disgusting! And it is the reflection of geopolitics, of the Malthusian idea that there are too many people anyway.

Now, Erdoğan, obviously, is playing his own, terrible games. But I think in this moment, where innocent people who have nothing, — the whole thing is that these refugees, even if they’re sitting in camps for years on end, and have begun speaking Turkish, and now Erdoğan is instrumentalizing them, that may all be true — that’s what the Greeks are saying — but what is the solution to that? You have to stop insisting that you have regime change in Syria, that has to stop. There has to be recognition that the only legitimate government in Syria is the one which the Syrian people themselves elect. There was a constitutional process under way, which is now stopped again; that has to be resumed. There has to be an end to the war. Turkey should not be backed by NATO — this is an insane idea. The U.S. special envoy for Syria James Jeffrey just demanded that NATO should fully back up Turkey against Syria, that is complete insanity: What needs to be done is you have to have peace with Syria, and then you have to have an orderly negotiation between the Assad government and the opposition, to arrange for the return of the Syrians to their own country, which is what most people want to do, anyway.

So I think all of these assumptions, that you just keep going with the policies which have proven to be a failure, that that has to absolutely stop. I don’t see a sign that the European establishment is capable of doing it. That just means we need a mobilization of the population, because this is becoming a serious existential crisis for all of us, and we have to take responsibility to put in a new paradigm — a paradigm of cooperation, and then we can solve most problems; at least over time, we can find solutions to such problems as coronavirus. But we need to change the view of the West towards China and Russia, and this whole idea that regime change is allowed under the pretext of spreading democracy and human rights, is one of these imperial, colonialist ideas which have to go.

SCHLANGER: Another perfect example of that is the expansion of sanctions against Iran and Venezuela for regime change, in the face of this growing pandemic.

I’d like to come back to one other point, which I think you alluded to earlier, which is the financial crisis: We now see, if something is going to be quarantined, we ought to quarantine Wall Street and the Bank of England. The idea that lower interest rates will solve something, but what’s going on with the repo lending, the incredible demand for liquidity without any concern for solvency, this is the other aspect of Mr. LaRouche’s warnings over many years.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I don’t know how long this will continue. And I think what the central banks are proposing is completely irresponsible, because the continuous flooding of the markets with money, and the idea to go even to negative interests rates, all of this is already eating up the savings and life’s earnings of the population, and is threatening at some point to go into a hyperinflation. So these derivatives must be absolutely written off — this is why Glass-Steagall is so crucial — and I think the whole EU program as it was announced by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in this presence of this deplorable Greta Thunberg, that has to go, too! Because you cannot have an industrial state and implement these policies. I think if you want to have hospitals, if you want to have enough intensive care units to deal with such a situation, you have to have a productive society. And that Green policy of von der Leyen it has to go. We need the full package that I talked about before: Glass-Steagall, and the return to Hamiltonian banking, which every time there was a successful economic system in history, whether it was the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, whether it was the reconstruction of Germany in the postwar period, these were the principles which were applied, and that is what is urgently required.

SCHLANGER: And while this is all going on, we have this incredible soap opera in U.S. politics around the Democratic nomination. I think it would be very useful, as we come toward the end of this webcast, for you to emphasize again, what do you think people should do, to make sure we can change the paradigm? There’s a hunger for change, people are still extremely unhappy, and now, very nervous, both because of the financial crisis and the coronavirus, what should people do? How should they respond?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Since you mentioned the U.S. situation, I think it’s a big problem, because, unfortunately Trump said he had a hunch that the mortality rates of the coronavirus is much less than what the World Health Organization was saying. Now, I think that he’s probably saying that because of the election campaign and he thinks that this will intervene. But I think the reality will assert itself very quickly: This will come as fast as it came in Europe, maybe faster even, and the U.S. right now is really unprepared! The health delivery system was taking even more than in Europe. The Democrats have this Biden now as a major candidate — I can only advise people, there is a very interesting collection of videos which was published by Consortium News, the author is Caitlin Johnstone [https://consortiumnews.com/2020/03/06/stop-calling-it-a-stutter-dozens-of-examples-show-bidens-dementia-symptoms/], and she collected about 20 or so videos of speeches of Biden where you clearly can see that he doesn’t have it any more — he’s lost it. So the idea to somebody who has clear signs of aging (to put it mildly), to think that you can run him through the Democratic Convention, the election campaign, and then win the election in November against Trump, is also a sign of extreme mental deterioration of the people who think they can do that and get away with it.

So if you look at all of these things, we need a completely new thinking: We are in a Dark Age, the Dark Age is absolutely comparable to the 14th century when the Black Death killed one-third of the European population, and people just went crazy! You see signs of this insanity, already now, and we need therefore, a completely different approach, like it came with the 15th century and the Golden Renaissance in Italy. We can talk about that some other time, but, I think people have to really recognize, we are in a Dark Age, and we have to reject all the assumptions which have led to this present situation.

And I actually would like to make one other point: I think the coronavirus will force lockdowns, it will force measures, schools and universities are already closed for several weeks in several countries; you don’t know yet what will be the effect of all of this on the financial system, on the real economy, and I think on these circumstances, where Merkel is talking about 70% of the population will become infected, and if you assume worldwide it may be 100 million people, and then, if you take present mortality rates, it will be 2-4 million people — under these circumstances, we should not have war games. And therefore, I think we need to stop the present NATO maneuver in Eastern Europe, the Defender-Europe 2020: Because obviously, the virus does not stop in front of the military. And to have these kinds of things going on, when you have an immediate health threat to the population, is really something which doesn’t make any sense. So this NATO maneuver should stop. Presently I think the highest commander of the U.S. forces in Germany is a victim of the coronavirus and is in quarantine in Wiesbaden: So, that should just give people to think that the virus does not stop in the face of the military.

And I think we should go in the direction of mobilizing for the summit: I know people think that this is too big, but sometimes, when you are in a real crisis, only if you reach a completely new level of thinking, namely the idea that all the major countries of the world — the United States, Russia, China, and India, as a minimum; and then other countries can come together with these countries — only if you change the level of thinking, and the level of approach, can you find a solution. So if you agree with that, then help us in this mobilization, because, you know, we will do other things: We will call for the rebuilding of the health delivery system, there are other things we can do. But I think because of the complexity of the world situation, the interaction of all of the elements of the breakdown, that we will not solve the problem unless we go to a completely new paradigm, a new system of international relations, and you should help us in this mobilization, and that’s the very best thing you can do for your own life and your own future.

SCHLANGER: And I would recommend, toward that end, that people circulate this webcast, get this webcast around, so people can hear the extent of the crisis and the solutions; and secondly, go to our website, and download the call for emergency summit from Helga Zepp-LaRouche, take that to your city council, to your trade union group — well, maybe you shouldn’t go too far, but you can certainly use the internet to get it around and get people signing it and support it.

So, Helga, anything else you want to add?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. I think this is a moment where people will be freaked out and it’s understandable: But sometimes a shock is also healthy if it helps you to get out of a wrong idea, and to think things through and then move ahead and find a solution. So, I would urge people to overcome your present fears and be confident that if we work together as one humanity, we can solve this.

SCHLANGER: OK, well, with that, we’ll see you again, next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

 




Ekspresopdatering af appellen den 28. februar 2020
til præsident Trump, præsident Xi, præsident Putin, premierminister Modi
og andre landes ledere om hastegennemførelse af Lyndon LaRouches fire love

Opdateret den 8 marts 2020

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, præsident for Schiller Instituttet

De fleste sundhedseksperter betegner nu officielt coronavirus som en pandemi, og kun et fåtal undgår dette udtryk for ikke at ‘puste for meget til’ markederne og investeringerne i “pandemiske obligationer’. Det står også klart, at denne pandemi vil være dødsstødet for det i øvrigt allerede bankerotte finanssystem, hvor det største aktiemarkedskollaps siden 2008, det hidtil usete fald i udbyttet på 10-årige amerikanske statsobligationer og meddelelsen fra Bostons centralbankdirektør, Eric Rosengren, om at gå over til ”helikopterpenge”, er alarmerende og ubestridelige signaler.

I stedet for at tage ved lære af Kina, som ifølge WHO har sat en ny standard for håndtering af en sådan krise, har de fleste regeringer (Italien og Japan er undtagelser) ikke brugt den tre måneder lange varselstid, som de fik på grund af Kinas effektive alarmberedskab. Det er chokerende – men ikke overraskende – hvor fuldstændig uformående det liberale etablissement har vist sig at være i forhold til at reflektere over det faktum, at det er deres politik, der er årsagen til at hele den menneskelige civilisation nu er truet, og i forhold til at drage konklusionerne og ændre deres fremgangsmåder.
Allerede i 1974 oprettede Lyndon LaRouche en økologisk-biologisk ‘Holocaust- arbejdsgruppe’ for at undersøge virkningerne af IMF og Verdensbankens politik for nedskæring af fødevare- og energiforbrug samt sundhedsudgifter i udviklingslandene – der viste at dette ville føre til biologiske katastrofer, fremkomsten af gamle og nye sygdomme og pandemier. I de følgende årtier offentliggjorde LaRouche og hans bevægelse mange flere advarsler samt fremlagde konkrete udviklingsprogrammer for alle kontinenter, hvis udførelse ville have forhindret den nuværende krise i at komme ud af kontrol.

Selvfølgelig vil de såkaldt industrialiserede lande på en eller anden måde klare krisen, men til hvilken pris? På grund af privatiseringen – dvs. profitorienteringen – af sundhedssektoren, er der nu alt for få senge til intensiv behandling. Den belgiske læge og leder af den nationale lægefagforening, Dr. Philippe Devos, har netop advaret om, at denne mangel vil føre til nedprioritering af gamle mennesker for de unges skyld, når antallet af tilfælde overstiger antallet af tilgængelige faciliteter til intensiv behandling, hvilket han forventer vil ske. Vil vi vende tilbage til skråplanet med at afslutte “uværdige liv”, som blev fordømt i Nürnberg-retssagerne?

Og hvad med de fattige lande, som ikke engang har kapacitet til test, endsige behandling? Hvad med lande som Haiti, Nigeria og Bangladesh? Hvad med Iran, hvor sanktionerne af medicinske forsyninger helt klart allerede forårsager unødige tab af mange menneskeliv?

Hvad med græshoppeplagen i afrikanske og asiatiske lande, en fare, som har været kendt i mange måneder, og hvor den latterligt lille påkrævede økonomiske hjælp på $ 76 millioner ikke er blevet ydet, så der nu er fare for, at græshoppesværmene udvikler sig til en fuldgyldig invasion, der truer millioner af menneskers liv i løbet af kort tid?

Hvad med de barbariske optrin ved den græsk-tyrkiske grænse, hvor politi fra begge sider bruger tåregas mod flygtninge; hvor den ene side muligvis “iscenesætter” disse mennesker, der absolut ingenting ejer, men den anden side, ikke mindre barbarisk, forsøger at opretholde ”beskyttelsen” af EU’s ydre grænser? Tror EU-etablissementet virkelig, at de kan bygge en ny ‘Limes-linje’ rundt om Europa, (Limes Germanicus var den befæstede grænse, der adskilte Romerriget fra de germanske stammer, red.) mens Sydvestasien og Afrika sprænges indad af en coronavirus-pandemi, en græshoppeplage, sult og desperation?

Dette etablissement vendte det blinde øje til Bush- og Obama-administrationernes interventionskrige, som trods alt er hovedårsagen til flygtningekrisen. De har ikke haft nogen interesse i at opbygge infrastruktur i Afrika i de seneste årtier, hovedsageligt på grund af deres neo-malthusianske ideologi. Har de i virkeligheden accepteret ideen om at lade denne pandemi og denne græshoppeplage følge deres ”naturlige gang”? Og falder dette ikke i tråd med den grønne ideologi, der forkynder at det er godt for miljøet at have færre mennesker?

Der er en løsning på denne eksistentielle krise, men når den såkaldte ”elite” er moralsk uegnet til at indføre de nødvendige reformer, har vi brug for en bred mobilisering af befolkningen, der må blive ”statsborgere” (Staatsbürger). Der må være et udbredt, folkeligt krav om, at de førende lande i verden – startende med USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – støttet af andre – må gennemføre følgende trin i omorganiseringen af det nuværende finanssystem:

1) Der må omgående indføres et globalt system med bankadskillelse, efter nøje forbillede af Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov af den 16. juni 1933. Inden for dette system skal de almindelige banker stilles under statslig beskyttelse og adskilles fuldstændigt med en brandmur fra de spekulative investeringsbanker, der ikke længere har adgang til de almindelige bankers formuer eller til skatteyderbetalte redningsaktioner. Disse bankers giftige papirer, indbefattet løbende derivatkontrakter, skal afskrives. Berettigede fordringer, der har med den reelle økonomi at gøre eller med den arbejdende befolknings pensioner og andre formueværdier, skal også anerkendes som gyldige i det nye system. Visse former for betalingskrav må dog foreløbig indefryses og undersøges af statslige institutioner for deres berettigelse.

2) Der må oprettes en nationalbank i alle lande, i traditionen fra Alexander Hamiltons Bank of the United States eller i stil med den tyske Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau efter 2. Verdenskrig, således at statslige kreditter kan forsyne den fysiske økonomi med de nødvendige midler for produktive investeringer. Udstedelsen af disse kreditter må rette sig efter principperne om en høj energistrømningstæthed og en optimal forøgelse af produktionsmidlernes og arbejdskraftens produktivitet gennem en betoning af videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt.

3) Mellem deltagerlandene må der indføres et system med faste valutakurser, og der skal indgås samarbejdsaftaler mellem suveræne stater angående nøje definerede infrastruktur- og udviklingsprojekter. Disse aftaler udgør tilsammen faktisk et nyt Bretton Woods-system i Roosevelts forstand, med det udtrykkelige formål at fremme udviklingslandenes udvikling.

4) Den yderst nødvendige forøgelse af verdensøkonomiens produktivitet for at kunne forsørge en global befolkning på næsten otte milliarder mennesker i dag må tilvejebringes gennem et internationalt hasteprogram, for at virkeliggøre fusionsenergi og andre avancerede teknologier, såsom optisk biofysik og biovidenskaberne, for at kunne finde løsninger på problemer som coronavirus, såvel som et internationalt samarbejde inden for rumfart og rumteknologi; dette kan skabe den nødvendige næste økonomiske platform for verdensøkonomien, sådan som økonomen Lyndon LaRouche har udviklet det.
Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, der blev indledt af præsident Xi Jinping, og som 157 lande allerede har tilsluttet sig, tilbyder et konkret perspektiv for at bringe den industrielle udvikling til Sydvestasien og Afrika, hvilket der er et presserende behov for. Kina har tilbudt at samarbejde med alle lande på planeten i et ‘win-win-samarbejde’ om at udvide Den Nye Silkevej til Sydvestasien og Afrika og på denne måde give et konkret udviklingsperspektiv, hvilket er den eneste humane måde at løse flygtningekrisen på. USA og alle europæiske nationer må og skal samarbejde om denne plan.

Vi, de undertegnede, retter denne indtrængende appel til de nævnte regeringer om nu at handle i dette øjeblik med dets voldsomme udfordringer for hele menneskehedens sikkerhed og eksistens, for at korrigere fejlene i det nuværende system der førte til den øjeblikkelige krise, og vende tilbage til principperne for det almene vel, nationalstatens suverænitet, fødevare- og energisikkerhed, medens vi antager en vision for menneskehedens fælles mål og et fremtidigt fællesskab for menneskeheden.

Der er intet bedre tidspunkt til at gennemføre disse nødvendige forandringer end lige nu, her i Beethoven-året, hvor hans monumentale værk udgør et smukt billede af et nyt mønster for en bedre fremtid for menneskeslægten.

Underskriv gerne på: https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/four_laws_global




Tænk som Beethoven – Video med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 1. februar 2020

Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, talte om hvor meget det haster med at genopdage Ludwig van Beethovens genialitet i år, 250-årsdagen for hans fødsel, for at løse de store kriser verden står overfor. Som hun udtrykte det i en nylig artikel: “Hvor ellers, bortset fra i klassisk musik, kan man styrke og uddybe den passion, der er nødvendig for at se ud over ens egne bekymringer, og for at håndtere de store udfordringer for menneskeheden?” Læs Zepp-LaRouches artikel, der gennemhuller argumenterne fra dem der i øjeblikket handler for at ødelægge Beethoven og selve skønheden.

Her er et afskrift på engelsk af videoen:

DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed. We have a very special presentation for today. There will be much time to discuss all sorts of matters of political importance, but certainly after this past week, one thing that can be said for certain about the United States and the rest of the world as well, is that a new standard of truth is required of us and of humanity as a whole. Humanity needs to act without the false need of catastrophe. Many times in history, people have been set in motion by something bad, only to then do something good. We’ve seen that often to be the motivation for the necessity for war. We don’t believe that that’s a standard that humanity can afford. We think that humanity should try, for a change, to think like Beethoven. That was a theme of much of the life of Lyndon LaRouche, who is generally talked about as an economist and statesman and Presidential candidate and so forth. But most people are unaware of his work in music.

Recently a volume has been published, entitled Think Like Beethoven, which has a compilation of Mr. LaRouche’s writings. I want to refer to something that he said as a way of introducing our speaker. This is in the essay called “What Is Music, Really?” This was actually a conversation that was transcribed in which the subtitle here is “The Principle of Music Is Love”:

“The essential thing is love. Music is love. The principle of music is love, mankind’s love of mankind. Of what mankind could be. And you want to do something that’s beautiful in terms of what mankind’s nature says. And if it isn’t beautiful, you don’t want to do it. You don’t want ugly things! And the characteristic of the 20th century was ugly music. From the beginning it’s ugly music. And the music has become uglier and uglier and uglier all the time. On every street, even in speaking. In writing. Also in smelling….

“That’s the problem. Mankind tends toward the wrong standards of truth. It starts with the conception that mankind is an animal, and mankind is not an animal. When you start with saying that mankind is an animal, that’s when all the trouble comes in. And the only way you can deal with music, really, is on the basis of love. The love of mankind and what mankind can do that is loving of mankind.

“Because the future is: You’re all going to die. And what is the passion which corresponds, therefore, to mankind? Since everybody is going to die, what’s the meaning of human life? Is it a fact? Not exactly. It’s the creation of a more powerful capability of mankind by purging mankind of its own corruption. Extracting mankind into the freedom from corruption. And all practical measures to craft and improve the quality of art is crap, because they are not sincere. They don’t correspond to some principle of the matter.

“And this is true: You see it in drama; you see it on the musical stage; you see it in performance of all kinds. The beauty is creativity, per se. It’s also the measure of what creativity is.”

So today we’re going to hear from the founder and chairman of the Schiller Institute, and I think that à proposition is going to be placed in front of us all. And I want to dare to anticipate that proposition by saying the following: The only way to celebrate the Beethoven year, this being the 250th birthday of Beethoven, is to do something that Beethoven would do. And we have an indication of what he would do today, from his opera called “Fidelio.” I think you’re going to be hearing a bit of this. Exonerating Lyndon LaRouche would be the kind of action that would indicate that we had actually understood how Beethoven thought. We would be doing what Beethoven would have done; thus indicating that we understood how Beethoven thought. The idea of the liberation of the human mind from its own shackles, is something that was addressed briefly by the President of the United States at Davos, when he referenced the idea of optimism and the great Dome of Florence. An idea which took 140 years to complete.

But it doesn’t take 140 years to recognize the truth. And it shouldn’t take more than a few months to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche. So, though I know that the topics may range widely in the case of the next speaker from I exactly indicated, I’m going to anticipate that she’s certainly going to more than touch on that matter. So, it’s always my honor and pleasure to present Helga Zepp-LaRouche, chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, and the founder of the Schiller Institute.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Let me welcome you, and I will try to talk about the subject which Dennis just announced. But let me situate it in a specific context. We just in the last couple of days had quite tumultuous events, where the impeachment drive against President Trump was finally defeated. He was acquitted, and he gave a rather jubilant press conference or meeting afterwards. So it is actually a moment in which one should reflect on that coup attempt, which first was done with British intelligence, the intelligence community of the United States, the heads of intelligence of the Obama administration. If one would live in a different world, one would think, “Shouldn’t it be the case that the Left opposes the CIA? Opposes the intelligence community? Shouldn’t it be that the liberals somehow have a problem if there is a coup attempt against a sitting, elected President of the United States?”

Well, but we all found out that no such thing occurs. Neither the so-called Left — if it still exists — or the Left liberals had any problem with the fact that there was overwhelming evidence that the intelligence apparatus tried to make a coup by replacing the American Constitution, turning the American republic into a British parliamentarian system; which was emphasized by Dershowitz and others. So, why is that the case?

What my presentation, which is on Beethoven and the question of culture in general, I will investigate why this is. And you will be surprised, some of you naturally know the answer already, that this behavior of the Left and the left liberals in this entire process, is the result of a gigantic — and I really mean gigantic — brainwashing effort which people are not even aware anymore of why this is the case.

What has this to do with the Beethoven year? We have a full year now of many concerts around the world. Alone in Germany there are more than 1000 concerts performing Beethoven’s music. When the first performances occurred, I had the fortune of listening one entire day in an Austrian/Swiss/German TV program to different Beethoven compositions. That is a luxury which you normally don’t have, but if you do that, and you listen for an entire day to all the different pieces — the piano concertos, the symphonies, the Missa Solemnis, Fidelio, and many others — it has an incredible effect on you. Because you are being transformed with your mind and your emotions in a completely different universe.

So, it occurred to me that this Beethoven year was a perfect opportunity, because it coincides with extremely important political and strategic decisions which have to take place. Namely, that we overcome geopolitics; that we go away from the danger of the world plunging into another World War, sleepwalking like in the First World War. That you have the absolute necessity to do what Trump set out to do in the 2016 campaign: Improve the relationship with Russia, with China. We have incredible dangers. So, it occurred to me that we should use the Beethoven year internationally to basically have many people participating in the listening of Beethoven, in the performing of Beethoven; in order to develop this unbelievable emotional strength which comes from great Classical music. And which comes more from Beethoven than from anybody else. Because it has been clear to me since a very long time, that we will politically only succeed if we combine our political efforts with a cultural renaissance of Classical music.

Now Schiller, in his Aesthetical Letters, which was his reaction to the failure and collapse of the French Revolution when the Jacobin Terror had taken over, and therefore the hopes of all republican circles in Europe that the French Revolution could replicate the American Revolution, were shattered. When that hope was shattered, and Schiller said at that time said, “A great moment had found a little people,” because the objective conditions to have a change, to have an American-like Revolution were there. But that the subject of moral condition was lacking.

So Schiller then, in his Aesthetical Letters, said that he believed that any improvement in politics could only come from the moral improvement, the ennoblement of the individual. And I believe that is absolutely true. I have made that my own creed for the last half century. That only if individuals become better human beings, that they become more noble in their emotion, their thinking more great about humanity; only then can you move history forward. Schiller, in his Aesthetical Education Letters gave the answer, that it can only be through great Classical art that that can be accomplished. Now, some people would argue, “No, what do we need Classical art for? We also have religion.” And I’m not denying that also in religion there is the command to improve. There are other people arguing, “But why do you need Classical music? I don’t know it; I don’t like it; it’s alien to me. Why don’t we just concentrate on astronomy, looking at the stars? That is also having an ennobling effect.” So, I’m not denying that either; and I don’t think there is an exclusiveness between these three questions of Classical culture, religion, and astronomy. But it is great Classical art which does something very specific in order to favor the creative faculties of the mind.

Now Schiller, and also Lyn his entire life, proceeded from that assumption. As a matter of fact, all of Schiller’s works — his poems, his dramas — were all characterized and driven by the idea that the result must be the ennoblement of the human being. And the quote you just heard from Dennis by Lyn really expresses the essence of Lyn’s entire work as well. Schiller, Confucius, and some other great thinkers had this idea that the aesthetical education is doing that ennoblement. Because if the person sinks into a great painting of Leonardo da Vinci, or Rembrandt, or listens to a Schubert song, or listens to a beautifully performed American spiritual, then you forget about your greed, you forget about your selfishness. And while thinking in the creative composition you are engaging with, you become a little bit more like that yourself. The more you make that a habit, and the less you do selfish and greedy things in between, the more you become a better person.

Just in parentheses, I want to mention that Xi Jinping, the President of China, also has many times emphasized the need to have aesthetical education, especially of students, but also of all other age brackets of society. Because if people are educated aesthetically, they develop a more beautiful mind and a more beautiful soul. And that is the source of all great works then again.

Now Trump said something just recently, namely that he wants to write an Executive Order that Federal buildings should no longer be modernist, but should be Classical. Hopefully he means Greek Classical and Renaissance Classical, and not Roman Classical, because these notions are sometimes not differentiated. But I think this is a very promising sign that first Trump talks about the Dome in Florence, now he talks about making buildings beautiful. So, we should continue on this road.

Beauty is intelligible. This is a very important point because it goes beyond opinion. People say what is my taste is my thing, and I have the right to find this beautiful, and you have another opinion. But I want to put a notion of beauty against that which is intelligible. It goes to the Italian question of the Golden Mean in Renaissance paintings and buildings, but it is also a standard of composition. It pertains to the famous debate between Schiller and Kant, where Kant in his Critique of Judgement said any arabesque which a painter throws against the wall is more beautiful than a piece of art where you can recognize the intention of the artist. Schiller got very upset about that, and wrote many of his aesthetical writings exactly to rebut this idea of Kant. He said there must be a notion borne out of reason of beauty, and then if the empirical performance and evidence conforms with that idea of reason, it is good, but not the other way around.

Since we are talking about Beethoven, and I recently wrote an open letter to defend Classical performance of Beethoven and I vowed that I would initiate a campaign to really end the acceptance of Classical music being destroyed by the modernists. And end the ugliness in music, which Lyn also did not like, as you previously heard.

I want to talk to you a little bit about “Fidelio,” because this is an opera which is very dear to my heart, and it was very dear to Lyn’s heart. The two of us really thought it was our opera, for reasons which I will come to in a second. First of all, concerning the narrative of “Fidelio,” it definitely is referring to real historical events. I think more research needs to be done, and if some of you, our listeners and audience, feel compelled to join in that, you are welcome. Because we have certain hints, but in the literature about the origins of the libretto of Beethoven’s “Fidelio” there are different views. But I think a very probable hypothesis is that it pertains the arrest and imprisonment of the Marquis de Lafayette, who as you know, was a very much an ally of the American Revolution. And in that capacity, he drew the anger of the then-British Prime Minister, William Pitt, who put pressure on the Austrian emperor to put Lafayette in jail. And there he was for several years in a dungeon. He was then freed among other things, by the courageous intervention of his wife Adrienne, who joined him in the incarceration. And then because of an unbelievable international campaign involving many VIPs appealing to Emperor Franz, he finally was released. He was released in 1797, and only five months after that, the Frenchman Jean-Nicolas Bouilly published the libretto which Beethoven then used, called Leonore, or Married Love [Léonore, ou l’Amour Conjugal].

This is, as I said, very dear to my heart, because when Lyn was put in jail innocently by the Bush Sr. Administration, I launched something called Operation Florestan. Maybe you can show this picture [Fig. 1]. This was a situation where Lyn was put in jail by a combination of the British, the Bush apparatus, and also there were clearly some collaborations with certain Soviet forces. So, when you read this article, you have to see that in 1989, the [berlin] Wall had not yet fallen, the situation was still extremely tense between the Soviet Union and the West. [See EIR article: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1989/ eirv16n11-19890310/eirv16n11-19890310_022-operation_florestan_will_save_la.pdf] So, some of these things have to be seen in the context in which they were written, but I think the setting of putting Lyn in jail innocently, deprived the American population from access to the most beautiful ideas probably ever written and thought in the history of the United States.

What we did with Operation Florestan was that we talked for about five years to thousands and thousands of VIPs. We had probably a couple of thousand signatures from sitting parliamentarians all over the world, from generals, from chiefs of staff, from bishops, from cardinals, from writers, from other notables. And we launched this campaign with the iédea that Operation Florestan, being modelled on the “Fidelio” opera and the example of Lafayette, that we would get Lyn out of jail. That was by no means certain because when Lyn was given this extremely harsh sentence, it was meant that he would die in jail. So, we launched this campaign.

Now I want to talk a little bit about the “Fidelio” to make clear why this is an absolute parallel to what happened to us. First of all, the actual narrative in the “Fidelio” opera is that Florestan is kept as a prisoner by Don Pizarro, a tyrant who basically keeps him there as a political prisoner because he fears that Florestan might reveal some very comprising truth about Pizarro. His wife, Leonore, dresses up as a man; she calls herself Fidelio. She gets hired by the dungeon guard, Rocco. And Rocco’s daughter, Marzelline, falls in love with Fidelio who she thinks is a man, despite the fact that she has a fiancé, Jaquino. In the beginning of the opera, you hear now this beautiful quartet, for which I ask our singers to get ready. This is still at the very beginning of the setting. The four characters — Leonore, Rocco, Jaquino, and Marzelline — are all singing. The beauty about this quartet is that they all sing about their hopes, their inspirations, and they are all different. But despite the fact that they are all very different, the harmonious composition is one of the most beautiful examples of the art of Beethoven. Now, let’s hear “Mir ist so wunderbar.”

[Quartet performed live]

Thank you very much. The reason why we have to do it like this is because neither YouTube nor the record companies allow you, because of copyright issues, to just use some of the performances. So, that’s why we’re doing it in a little bit of an improvised way; so please have an understanding that that’s the reason why we have to do it that way. This was obviously well done, and extremely beautiful.

Now, after this development in the beginning, Pizarro comes to the dungeon to look at the prisoners, because he has learned that the minister wants to come to inspect things. He is his political enemy. And he is afraid the minister will meet Florestan, and then he could reveal these secrets. So, he wants Florestan to be killed. So, he tells Rocco to go to the dungeon and kill Florestan. Rocco does not want to do it, but then eventually he agrees to at least dig the grave, and have then the corpse of Florestan buried. So, he takes Fidelio with him, because it is heavy work and he is a little bit old. So, Leonore and Rocco go into the dungeon, and then Leonore asks Rocco that the prisoners should be allowed to see the light of day, because they are in the dark. Then comes the most beautiful chorus, the Prisoners’ Chorus, which is very famous. If you don’t have it in your ear, you should go home and listen to the whole opera; which you should do in any case.

So then, Florestan, who is struggling in the dark, who has fever, who is feeling horrible, has this beautiful vision that Leonore comes and he sees her as an angel. This again is one of the most beautiful arias you can imagine. So then, Leonore/Fidelio asks Rocco that he allows her to give the prisoner some bread and wine. And while doing that, she recognizes her husband. So, then Pizarro arrives, and he is already moving with the dagger to kill Florestan. Then Leonore throws herself between her husband and Pizarro and says you have to first kill his wife. She threatens Pizarro with a pistol. At that point, the trumpets sound to announce the arrival of the minister. Then, basically the danger is over, and Florestan and Leonore embrace each other and then comes this unbelievable duet of joy, “O namenlose Freude!” While we are hearing this now as an audio, I want you to focus on the absolute beauty of the emotions — the joy, the limitless joy, the nameless joy which unites Leonore and Florestan. It is that emotion which is love; and it is that emotion which is pure joy. The same joy which Beethoven celebrates also in the Ninth Symphony in the Ode to Joy, especially the last movement when he talks about Schiller’s Ode to Joy and this becomes the chorus.

So, let’s now listen to the “O namenlose Freude!”

[Duet is played]

So after that, the minister opens all the dungeons; the prisoners come out and are free. He recognizes Florestan, his friend, then everybody joins in the great finale, the beautiful chorus, the so-called Heil chorus where they celebrate the love of mankind, the love between the two spouses, the absolute victory of freedom over tyranny, and what man can do if you have a good plan, there can be absolutely the defeat of all tyrants. This emotion, this idea that if you struggle for a good cause, and that you overcome all the difficulties that you arrive at this higher level of sublime feeling; this is expressed in this beautiful music. So, let’s hear the “Heil sei dem Tag, Heil sei der Stunde” chorus clip.

[Chorus is played]

Well, this is only the beginning, and I would really urge you to listen to a very good performance of the entire Fidelio. There is a very beautiful one with Christa Ludwig and probably many others, but I really think you should take the time to listen to the entire opera.

So, well, I had a very urgent need to go and see such an opera. It’s a very personal thing, because as you know, in a few days it is one year since Lyn has passed away. And around the Christmas period, I just wanted really badly to see a performance of Florestan. And contrary to my normal habit when I look at the reviews and critiques before I go, which I have not done for a long time, because they are all bad generally. I just went to a performance in the Darmstadt Theatre without checking it out beforehand. And maybe it was a shock, but I think it was a healthy shock, because it was so absolutely terrible that I felt to write the open letter which I mentioned earlier, and which you may have read. [https://larouchepub.com/hzl/2020/4703-year_of_beethoven-hzl.html]

Because what this opera performance did was not only to apply Regietheater to the staging. Regietheater, as you know, is this terrible thing which was developed in the 1960s and has been used ad nauseum a zillion times since, where modern Regietheater would just take a Classical composition of Schiller or Shakespeare or some other Classical poet or dramatist, and put his own projection of what he thinks is relevant and how it should be interpreted. Then you have soldiers not dressed in historical costumes, but sitting on Harley Davidsons or being Nazi officers, just to project whatever the personal opinion of the director is. And normally they have at least one naked scene in it; they copulate on the stage. There were performances which were so ugly, actually pornographic. This has been going on for more than 50 years, so it’s not exactly original. But until recently, this kind of Regietheater was limited to the staging, the words, but they never really attacked the music.

So what happened in this performance was, not only did they apply all the terrible elements of Regietheater — having film clips while people were singing, so it was completely chaotic — but for the first time, they also changed the music. Namely this grand finale, of which you just hear two minutes of the beginning, and a modernist composer with the name of Annette Schlünz, who comes from the Eisler school tradition. This is this basically going to this whole idea of Brecht and Eisler that you also can have the Verfremdung [distancing] effect which is the idea that you should no longer allow the audience to identify with the people on the stage and become elevated; but you have to interrupt this identification every five seconds by a sound or a movie clip or something which interrupts this process; which makes it absolutely unbearable. So, this woman, Mrs. Schlünz, writes in the introduction to the program that she took this music of the final chorus, repeating a beat, then stopping suddenly, introducing alien sounds, have eight vocalists distributed in the audience who then all of a sudden get up, and if you are unhappy and one of these people stands behind you, you can have a heart attack. Then trumpets from the balconies. She described that she had the fantasy of sitting at the mixing console of the music studio, speeding up the music. That when the actual joy in the chorus is expressed, according to her it becomes like a jubalization machine; like children becoming completely hyper when they lose control of their emotions.

So obviously, this woman is completely unable emotionally to comprehend the sublime notions of the music expressed that we saw with the nameless joy, or the love between the couple, or the joy of the victory over tyranny. All of this is alien to them.

Now, where does this come from? Well, this comes all from a very sophisticated, extremely huge CIA operation called the Congress for Cultural Freedom. This was an operation in the postwar period which broke up as huge scandal in 1967. Just recently, there was an exhibition at the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of this CCF in Berlin. There was an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily where the author, in a very rare moment of honesty, says — the title of the article is “How One Steals the Big Words”; meaning freedom and so forth. He says: “The worrisome quintessence of what the CIA did is that they did not sponsor some sinister right-wing ideology, but they helped the left liberalism to become the hegemonic mainstream standard of intellectuals in the West today.” That is exactly what I referred to in the beginning. Why is it that the Left and the liberals are siding with the CIA against Trump and against being on the side of the coup? This is the result of this process.

How did the CCF work? Remember that we are soon celebrating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, where the United States and the Soviet Union fought together in the fight against Nazism. This was going very deep. You will have on the 26th of April in Thurgau at the Elbe, the celebration of when the American and Soviet soldiers met for the first time. This was a very emotional event. For the Russians, this goes extremely deep, because they lost in the Great Patriotic War [World War II] 27 million people. They have absolutely not forgotten that, and they feel, when they allowed for example the German unification in 1989, all the promises were given to them that NATO would never expand to the East, never to the borders of Russia. They feel a tremendous sense of betrayal. This is a whole other story, but going back to this unified fight between the Americans and the Soviet Union, this was the case when Franklin D Roosevelt was still President; who had unfortunately a very untimely death at the end of the Second World War. When Truman came in, this was a much smaller man, and we all have heard from Lyn that he said when he was in India, and he got the news, the soldiers around him were asking “what do you think this signifies?” And Lyn said, I think we just lost a great man for a very little man.

It was the little man Truman who succumbed to the influence of Churchill in the postwar period. Therefore, this great alliance between the Americans and the Soviets was then replaced. Churchill announced in this famous Fulton, Missouri speech on March 5, 1946, where he announced practically what became the Cold War. That meant in the United States, elements of what Eisenhower would later call the military-industrial complex, which has turned in the meantime to what people mistakenly the Deep State, which is really the British subversion of the American intelligence services. They got more influence. In order to change the positive alliance between the Americans and the Soviets into a Cold War, and therefore a geopolitical confrontation, they thought that they had to change the axioms of thinking in the American people, but also in the European people. They had to change that which had allowed Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was after all very much anti-Wall Street, and they wanted to make sure that these values were absolutely replaced.

So in the United States, it was the attack on the tradition and heritage of Roosevelt, and in Europe it was especially that people thought they had to really destroy the roots of the people in their European Classical tradition. The CCF under the leadership of Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner, who at that time was the head of the Office of Policy Coordination in the State Department, were leading the effort. The CCF later was moved into the department for Covert Operations, and then proceeded to set up a huge cultural warfare in 35 countries. They set up 20 major cultural magazines; they controlled practically without exception all art exhibitions, concerts, who became a famous painter, who became a famous author or musician. Many of the people who cooperated with that were unaware of what they were part of; but some of them absolutely were aware.

The CCF was in continuation with the Frankfurt School, which had moved in the Second World War to exile in the United States. It was taken over by the U.S. intelligence services. One was Marcuse, another one was Theodore Adorno. Adorno explicitly said that it was now necessary to eliminate all

. In a piece called “Cultural Critique and Society” in 1949, he wrote that after the atrocity of Auschwitz, no one could write any poems anymore. He also had the absolutely insane idea that it was German idealism like that of Friedrich Schiller which would lead automatically to a radicalism and Nazism. So, that is something I really want to make a point for people to think. The image of man which is associated with the German Classical period, with the thinking of people like Lessing, Bach, Beethoven, Schiller, Humboldt, and many others, is an idea where man is principally good. Man is limitlessly perfectible. The aesthetic education allows for all potentialities in the human being to develop into a beautiful soul, into a beautiful mind, into genius. This idea of the potential of every human being to contribute through his or her self-perfection, to the common good of humanity is a very beautiful idea of man. And it has absolutely nothing to do with, and is the total opposite of what the Nazi ideology was, which was a blood and soil ideology. It was the racist idea that the Aryan race is superior to the colored races. That is what you find today in some people who say that China is the first time there is a threat coming from a non-Caucasian race to the West. Here you have it; that is Nazi ideology. I don’t need to tell you who says these things.

Now, one component to understand the work of the CCF was that also the CIA at that time started the idea that it is OK to lie. That if you have a national security reason or whatever you call it to be such a reason, it allows you to just say whatever you want, and to put in the world all lies possible as long as you have creditable deniability and you can pull you neck out the situation later on. Remember, more recently, Bolton basically said that it is completely legitimate to lie for such reason.

Obviously, the question of how the Classical German culture, which was probably the most culturally advanced period in the history of mankind; and I want to debate that if somebody wants to pick a fight. How did that end up in the pit of the 12 years of National Socialism, is obviously one of the most important questions. How does a great culture plunge into the depths of horrible things? This is a question which Americans had to go through in some recent administrations as well. How did the beautiful idea of the American Revolution turn into what was the policy of interventionist wars and everything we know? That transformation in Germany is a long story; a lot of things went into it. The Romantic movement which started maybe innocently as a literature movement, but became political and was taken over very quickly. The cultural pessimism which went with it; the destruction of the Classical forms through Romanticism; the actual cultural pessimism of people like Schopenhauer; Nietzsche; the different youth movements; the anti-technology youth movements before World War I. Then naturally, World War I, which was a long-orchestrated, British-steered event. The Versailles Treaty, which was completely unjust and could not function for a peace order. The Great Depression of 1929 and the beginning of the 1930s, and then finally World War II, and the takeover by the Nazis. But this is a long, complex story, with many factors going into it. A lot of manipulations. And the role of the British can be traced in many of these aspects.

So, I just say this: to say that the argument of Adorno, that it was German idealism that led to the Nazi atrocity, is just one of these absolute lies.

The CCF then proceeded to deliberately attack Classical music, Classical culture, Classical painting, Classical poetry. For example, they had an enormous repertoire. In 1952, they conducted a one-month music festival in Paris, which they called “Masterpieces of the 20th century,” with more than 100 concerts, ballets, operas, and they introduced all the modernist composers, atonal music, 12-tone music, Arnold Schönberg, Alban Burg, Paul Hindemith, Claude Débussy, Benjamin Britten. Some of these are full-atonal, some are mixed forms, but it was all meant to destroy the idea of Classical composition.

Why is this so absolutely bad? Because the idea that in a chromatic scale, all tones have an equal status, eliminates the possibility of the higher degrees of freedom, which you have if you have a polyphonic, harmonic contrapuntal composition, because it eliminates the possibility for ambiguity, for moving from one scale into another, of creating and fully exhausting a musical idea. It completely eliminates the idea of Motivführung [thorough composition], discussed so many times by Norbert Brainin, the first violinist of the Amadeus Quartet, in long, long beautiful discussions with Lyndon LaRouche: namely the idea that you have a musical idea — a poetical idea, put into music — and then, through thorough composition, you develop this, you exhaust the potential, and you come to a conclusion.

Now, that technique has been described, and should be studied, by Norbert Brainin in beautiful master classes he did with the Schiller Institute, for example, in Slovakia. Lyn has written in the book Dennis showed you in the beginning, Think Like Beethoven, how Joseph Haydn’s music was developed then by Mozart in the Haydn Quartets, reaching the complexity of the late Beethoven Quartets.

Lyn has basically said that Beethoven’s achievement in counterpoint, has never been approximated by any composer to date. I think I can absolutely agree. Lyn even said—and I know some people were upset when I mentioned this recently in a webcast—that Beethoven is the absolutely towering giant of all composers. People said, “What about Bach?” I’m not denying Bach. But I have a quote by Lyn where he says: “Beethoven marks an Everest, which dwarfs even Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Schumann and Brahms to be foothills.” Now, I’m not deprecating these composers. I just want to say that Beethoven is in a completely different league of composition, by applying this method, really in the most advanced form.

Now, Lyn wrote, over 100 pieces on music, where in this book you only find some of them. Already in 1976, he wrote a piece called “Laughter, Music, and Creativity,” which for Lyn was pretty much the same thing. He said that the 12-tone, or atonal music is a reactionary retreat led by dried-out 20th-century composers, who cannot compose. He again makes the argument, that the degrees of freedom are completely eliminated.

One important point, in my view, in this whole thing, is what the harmonic contrapuntal, polyphonic form of composition allows, it creates stress; it creates dissonance. But then, in a lawful way, in an expandable, lawful way, these stress moments get resolved, and you have the sense of completion. While in atonal and 12-tone music you have a lot of stress, for sure, but it’s never resolved. The audience is left with a complete feeling of disarray. And, therefore, exactly what the purpose and beautiful function of great Classical music is—that it elevates the emotion, that it elevates the mind, makes mankind more noble—that is completely destroyed. The whole idea of aesthetical education is denied, it’s opposed, it is meant to be made extinct. This is why this is such a devastating attack on this idea, that a moral improvement of the population can be accomplished.

What Lyn wrote in “What Is Music, Really?” which he gave as a talk on May 10, 2015, is that beauty is creativity per se, and the aim of it is to unleash the beauty of mankind. That was something that was absolutely known by many people. It was known by Confucius, who basically said that if you look at the music of a country, you can say what kind of state that country is in: whether it’s disorganized, whether it’s functioning, or not.

Now, if you apply that Confucian principle to the United States, or much of Europe today, you can say these countries don’t function very well, because their music is, for the most part, pretty horrible. It was also what Albert Einstein, for example, celebrated: Many times before he could continue working on his physical discoveries, he would play the violin, and put himself in that kind of a creative mindset.

That is why I think we cannot allow the destruction of Beethoven. This is why the defense of Classical music, of not allowing people to desecrate the greatest music ever written, that is why I wrote this appeal, asking not only all the lovers of Classical music in Germany, but actually all over the world, that we declare this Year of Beethoven, to be the end of the tolerance for ugliness.

I’m not saying we should forbid it. Let them have their atonal concerts. Let them have three people in the audience, because normal people really don’t like that kind of music, but, let them have it. I’m not for banning it. I’m just saying they should not have the right to destroy the great compositions of the Classical composers, just because they cannot write any music themselves which is beautiful.

I also absolutely want to urge you, that the Beethoven Year must also be the year of the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche. If you read what Lyn writes about music — it should be astonishing to anybody to find somebody who’s a total politician, a statesman, an economist, a scientist, and that he would also have such unbelievable knowledge of music.

I can remember one time, when Lyn was talking with Norbert Brainin for two days, when he visited us at our farm, that after these two days, Norbert Brainin said: “This man knows more about music than I do.” I absolutely can agree with that. Because Lyn knew not only the inner meanings of all the works, the historical periods, but he also knew especially what it meant to “play between the notes,” to have a sense of the inner intention of the composers, and he could communicate that in the most beautiful way.

The fact that Lyn’s ideas are being denied to the American people, and to much of the world population, because of the unjust incarceration, because of the same apparatus which was behind the coup against Trump: I think that when President Trump said a few days ago, that one must guarantee that what happened to him, with Russiagate and with the coup attempt, must never happen again — well, there is one absolutely durable way how this will never happen again, and that is the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche. Because, when that happens, it will become clear, that the apparatus of British infiltration of the U.S., of the idea to run the world as an empire based on the Anglo-American special relationship — which was put into place since Teddy Roosevelt, and which has been revived by many Presidents in the meantime — and that is the apparatus which tried to destroy the Presidency of President Trump.

So, if my husband is exonerated, for the sake of the beauty of his ideas, then a durable freedom in the United States, with the United States returning to be a republic, will be absolutely possible.

So, let’s make the Year of Beethoven, the year of the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche. [applause]

SPEED: Thank you very much, Helga. We’ll go right to questions. I want to know whether we have a copy of A Manual on the Rudiments of Registration and Tuning. OK. If we don’t have it, let me just mention something as we go to questions. Some people know that it was Lyn who commissioned the writing of A Manual on Registration and Tuning. John Sigerson was one of the co-writers of that. He’s here. Also Renée Sigerson worked on it.

I cite this because perhaps John or Renée will say something about the occasion at which Lyn began to insist that the problem with the music he was hearing, was that it was incorrectly tuned. Many of us could not figure out what he was talking about. We knew there were different tunings, and we knew that the tuning at the Metropolitan Opera was high. But he was insisting on something that then ended up being verified by Liliana Gorini, the leader of the LaRouche movement in Italy, one of our key members there. Working with her father on this, she went to the library and discovered a document involving Giuseppe Verdi having passed a law when he was a member of Parliament, legislating that the tuning should be at A=432, which was exactly what Lyn was talking about.

I don’t tell this story to impress people. I tell it to say that there are some very fundamental matters that we want to get at with this. We don’t want to avoid controversy, is what I’m trying to say. Because, by not avoiding the controversy around this question, for example, the issue of European culture which will be one thing I will be referring to in a minute—by not avoiding that, not avoiding the controversy around what’s ugly, what “taste” is versus “good music”/ “bad music” — by not avoiding that, we might be able to reunify this nation. It’s probably the only actual, efficient way to do it.

So, it’s very important for us, in this discussion today, to take up all those questions — or begin the process of taking them up. I just wanted to say that, as we go to the questions. Again, I’ll alternate with the questions here, and then I’ll alternate with the questions that have been sent by email or YouTube, and so on.

Q: Hi Helga, this is Denise [ham]. I wanted to bring up the fact that in the Western world, in the United States, in particular, there is a war against children going on. In fact there is a book by that name and it was rewritten and updated, and 10 years later, it was The War Against Children of Color: Psychiatry Targets Inner City Youth [by Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin]. In this book it puts out the idea, that children as young as 5, 6, 7 years old, especially Black children living in poor areas, were targeted; and the idea was that they were going to grow up to be criminals, and they said this explicitly. And what did they do to stop this? They brought in Ritalin and other mind-destroying drugs.

You can imagine, we know that the human brain is not completely developed until the 24th year of life. And you have at the age of 5, 6 and 7 children being put on Ritalin, so they are being destroyed.

Also, besides that, you have this newest thing in New Jersey, and I think across the country, is that children in middle schools are being taught about “gender issues,” you know, “what sex are you?” This is destroying these children, confusing them, and it is mental rape — this is mental rape against children. Rather than having the idea of beauty, and music, of poetry, science being brought up in class — this is what you have. I would like you to address that and let us know what you think can be done about it. Thanks very much.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this is something which, if it’sis not corrected, will lead to the demise of the West. Because there is right now a huge campaign against China: That there is supposedly a fight of the systems, where the Chinese represent a threat to the value system of democracy, of human rights, of the liberal system of the West, and that that must be somehow contained and be defeated.

I can tell you that if we cannot, in the United States, or in Europe, for that matter, go back to a Classical education in science, in culture, and leave the trends you just described correctly, Denise — the absolute exposure to violence, through video games, the drugs; the addiction to digital overconsumption, children who are left by their parents and their environment to watch and play for hours and hours on their laptop, on their smartphone, on their Play Station, there are now many neurological studies which show, that when you do that, the synapses of the brain connect in a completely different way, and completely eliminate the possibility for truly creative work.

Now if you take that brain damage, which is caused by these phenomena, and also the whole idea of Ritalin, and the drug addiction, the violence — if you take all these factors together, I can tell you that our youth are not going to be an effective, competitive, or even equal, partner in the world community. Because the Asians are not doing that. I mean, sure there are some problems with the digital addiction in Asia as well.

But they are doing something we are not doing in the West, and that is, that they are reviving their 5,000-year-old ancient traditions in philosophy, painting, poetry, and are very proud to be some of the cradles of civilizations. They combine that idea of being based in the best tradition, with an absolute optimistic future orientation, which you see in terms of their ambitious programs for space colonization, for fusion research, and other breakthrough areas of knowledge.

So, I think that the West — I’m saying the “West,” because things in the United States and Europe are similar in this respect — if we do not shape up and really go back to a universal education, in the tradition of Wilhelm von Humboldt, who was the co-thinker of Friedrich Schiller; and he was one of the pillars of the German Classical period, who by the way, was extremely influential in the education system of the United States throughout the 19th century, and he had this idea that you had to have as a goal of education, a harmonious person, by teaching in certain areas which are more suitable to this effect than others: namely the command of your own high language, in the best poetic expressions, that would mean Shakespeare and other great poets who have written in English; then the universal history, natural science, philosophy; and that would then lead to the idea of the development of all potentialities, which are embedded in each child.

That was the Humboldt system, which existed in Germany, at least in some form until 1970, when it was replaced by an education reform, which consciously threw out that idea. But it is something which influenced every professor in the United States in the 19th century, who either studied in Germany or who studied with somebody who had been influenced by Humboldt. So there is an American tradition to connect to that. And I think that is what we have to fight for, because even if you don’t agree that this is what should happen, I think if the West is not going back to its own best traditions, they will just be pushed into the corner of history, and will become completely irrelevant.

Now I know that in the United States there is right now a tremendous possibility, because President Trump announced in his State of the Union address that he wants to fight for the full funding of the Artemis program: If you want to have lots of children and young people become astronauts, space scientists, and work on this perspective, you have to have an education system which goes with it, and you have to transform a lot of the children who are now in the condition you are describing, and actually get them in such a better condition; which is why we need a space CCC program [FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps], which must absolutely focus on this unified, harmonized personality, because, as Krafft Ehricke said: It is never the technology which determines whether it’s good or bad; it’s always the human being, who uses the technology. So we have a tremendous job in front of us; I think the potential is absolutely there, but it needs a real studying of what must be such a humanist education. And I think this is what only our organization can bring into this fight.

 




Boltons fremkomst er tegn på desperation
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp LaRouche d. 29 januar 2020

Idet rigsretssagen er ved at falde fra hinanden, vendte de britisk-amerikanske kupmagere mod Præsident Trump og de amerikanske vælgere sig forudsigeligt mod avisen New York Times for at give en forpremiere på John Boltons ”erindringer”, i forsøget på at pumpe liv ind i deres forsøg på regimeskifte i USA. I sit ugentlige webcast påpegede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at dette er et tegn på desperation, da deres retssag effektivt er blevet tilbagevist af Trumps juridiske repræsentanter, og en betydelig del af befolkningen er rasende over det forfatningsstridige angreb på præsidentembedet, og de stigende vanskeligheder de har med at dække dagligdagens nødvendigheder.

Den største fare som de imperiale kræfter bag kuppet står over for, har været Trumps forpligtelse til at ville skabe bedre relationer til Rusland og Kina. Ikke overraskende bliver Bolton, en af dem der er bittert imod et sådant skifte i USA’s strategiske politik, nu omfavnet af demokraterne, der ellers tidligere stemplede ham som en uærlig krigsmager. Dette seneste udbrud på vegne af krigsfraktionen sker, mens præsidenten fremlægger sin fredsplan for Mellemøsten, som LaRouche har beskrevet som et muligt første skridt hen mod en udvidet forhandlingsproces – en proces der må inkludere palæstinenserne, såvel som russerne.

Med socialt kaos verden over og en stadig truende fare for krig, opfordrede hun seerne til at blive aktive i kampen for at besejre geopolitikerne med et stormagtsmøde, der kan garantere sikkerhed og økonomisk samarbejde. Et vigtigt aspekt af denne aktivitet må være en genoplivning af den klassiske kulturs rolle som et middel til at opløfte befolkningen.

 

TRANSCRIPT

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is January 29th, 2020. And as most of you are well aware, we are in the midst of this crazy impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. There have been some significant developments in the last hours, the last couple of days, including the resurfacing of John Bolton, courtesy of the lying New York Times. Helga, what do you make of this situation, where it’s headed now?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the emergence of Bolton, while naturally its designed to put the nail in the coffin for the impeachment of Trump, is also a sign of desperation. Because they could not prove the case, there is no criminal act which they could attribute to President Trump. But Bolton who obviously was guided to write this book — it’s supposed to come out and spill the beans about what Trump supposedly did in the phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. Now, this is obviously an act of desperation on the side of the Democrats, because, if you remember, they used to attack Bolton as a liar, as a completely untrustworthy fellow, but now they are relying on him as the key witness.

Where this will go it’s too early to say. It’s Wednesday. Friday is the vote. If the Senate will allow more witnesses, in which case it would open up not only the potential to have Bolton testify, but the Trump team could bring into the Senate hearing all the other crucial people — Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the so-called “whistleblower,” and many others. Adam Schiff, for example, they could bring out the entire British involvement in the coup attempt against Trump from the very beginning, the Christopher Steele dossier, the FISA Court, all of these things which were mentioned in the Horowitz report. So it could become a big mud fight. And if the Democrats succeed in getting Bolton as a witness, then maybe you have to have the whole truth out. That was the view of President Trump in the beginning. He said, let’s have a big discussion. Later he changed it and said it may be bad for the country to drag this out indefinitely. But if it comes down to that, then maybe the whole truth has to come out.

McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, said he doesn’t have the vote to block the witnesses. This is today, we have to see how this goes until Friday. But I think it is very clear that this is not functioning with the American people. We have picked up an increasing mood of the American population, that they really are enraged. And if you need one proof, yesterday, Trump appeared at a rally in south New Jersey, and there were 175,000 people registered to go to this rally. Naturally not so many could, but that shows you there is a tremendous ferment, and south New Jersey, that is where the so-called “deplorables” live, this is a poor working-class area and obviously this is where Trump is resonating very big in the population.

So, I think we are probably in the end stage of this coup attempt, despite the fact that the Democrats have stated their intention to keep dragging this on. Maxine Waters, for example, said they will continue this impeachment throughout the election campaign; but I think the Democrats are playing a very risky game, because the population is really sick and tired of this whole story.

I think it is becoming very clear this is a coup. There is another very interesting blog piece by Pat Lang, who says that in his former capacity as a person working for the CIA or the military in the dark field of covert operations, he recognizes that there was a continuous political campaign against Trump from day one, and if one operation doesn’t function, they pull up another one: This was Russiagate, then Ukrainegate, now the impeachment, and the Bolton thing being the latest such operation. So it is really a battle where the role of what some people mistakenly call the “deep state” — it really should be better called the Anglo-American British Empire intelligence apparatus — the role of these forces is becoming very, very open. And I think that that may change the character of politics not only in the United States, but internationally, for good.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned that the case was not proven by the Democratic managers. In fact, I think Trump’s attorneys did a very good job of countering it. One of the most significant was the testimony of Alan Dershowitz, who made the point this was not just against Trump; it’s against the Constitution, it’s against the American Presidential system. I think that was quite significant, don’t you?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Dershowitz is not a Trump supporter, he is a Democrat, and he had been very critical of Trump in the past. But he argued very strongly on the question that what is at stake here is the American Constitution: That this is a blatant attempt by the Democrats to turn the U.S., as a republic based on the Constitution, into a British Parliamentary system, that this goes completely against the will of the framers of the Constitution. He takes apart these arguments by the Democrats very efficiently. For example, this ominous notion, which they all of a sudden treated as if this would be the final proof of Trump’s crime, that in the discussion with Ukraine that he pursued a quid pro quo. Now Dershowitz says, so what about it? Even if everything Bolton is saying would be true, this does not constitute a crime, because a quid pro quo is what every head of state uses in any negotiation with any other state, so it is nothing special; it is what normal negotiations among states are. And I think these kinds of arguments which demystify the ghosts which are being created artificially, like this ominous quid pro quo, that he takes it down and takes it apart as a constitutional lawyer, I think is very, very useful. Because there is a lot of confetti spread around and thrown around to have a voice arguing for constitutional matters is extremely useful.

SCHLANGER: I think one of the things that came out from Dershowitz and others is this argument that a policy disagreement is not the basis for impeachment. And Helga, from the beginning we have been emphasizing that you have to look beyond the so-called facts of the case, because the facts of the case don’t exist. But what does exist is this coup, and we see this again in terms of the re-emergence of Bolton who has been opposed to what President Trump was trying to do in working with Russia.

How do you explain this to the American people? I think this is something that has not been fully explained fully enough by the President’s team, but I think we’ve done the job. How would you explain it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Trump — who obviously is not a simple person, he has many sides to him; he does use a language which antagonizes a lot of people — and therefore it is actually very important to note the fact that, despite the fact of all these things which one can argue “is this the style I like, is it not the style I like” — the point is the biggest mortal danger to the existence of the British Empire is the demonstrated willingness by Trump to seek a better relationship with Russia and China. And that has to be understood, because that is the most important. He has made clear that, given the opportunity, he is absolutely easy with Putin; this was demonstrated especially in the Helsinki summit, despite all influences around him to the contrary. He does want to have a positive relationship with China. He still calls Xi Jinping his “good friend.” He praises the great culture of China. And from the standpoint of the British Empire this is the end of them, because once they lose the ability to manipulate the great powers in a geopolitical manner, one against the other, then they will absolutely vanish. And given the potential which we have helped to create in terms of having a summit of these major powers, they are really in a panic.

So, I think it is important for the people who support Trump, especially in the United States, people should really think through, the world is in a terrible condition. We are sitting on a powder keg of a potential blowout; there are many problems we can address as we continue to talk. And there is no way how to solve these problems, unless you have a new level of politics which overcomes geopolitics, and that requires that at least the three Presidents of the United States, Russia and China work together and work out solutions for the world’s problems. If that does not occur there are incredible dangers.

So, the people who are anti-Russian but pro-Trump, or people who are pro-Trump and anti-China, they should really rethink their prejudices. Because a lot of what people think they know or what their dear opinion is, is the result of psychological warfare coming from the mainstream media and other operations. And the fact that Trump wants to have a positive relation with Russia for the sake of world peace, positive relations with China, is the most important factor of the strategic situation and it really explains almost every other aspect of the strategic situation.

SCHLANGER: We see this very clearly in the reaction of Adam Schiff, with trying to use Bolton as the key witness. Schiff, in his presentation as a Democratic manager, constantly stressed, we’re at war with Russia. And he lied about this, he made the whole case again, the Mueller case on Russia;, and it showed that this is a pro-war faction in the Democratic Party that’s opposing Trump.

In this context you mentioned the British Empire, the geopolitics: We’ve now seen at least the beginnings of the so-called “deal of the century,” of a peace plan for the Middle East. From what you’ve seen so far, what’s your analysis of this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I mean we knew this was in the makings, it shows the handwritings of Jared Kushner. It is a first step and I think if you look at the international reactions, which I will mention in a second, it shows it has at least the potential to start a negotiation process. If you look at the proposal itself, naturally it was proposed between Trump and Netanyahu, who faces criminal trial back at home, so he was probably very happy to have that occasion. And it gives Israel practically everything they would possibly ask for: It reaffirms Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel; it says the settlements are okay in the West Bank; the Golan Heights, the Syrian territory, belongs to Israel, so it has all of these things. It gives security guarantees to Israel fully.

The interesting thing is, that it does talk for the first time about the U.S. promoting a Palestinian state. Now the Palestinian Authority was not involved in the discussion, so they even rejected this plan before it was published, because they said all the decisions made before, point in the direction that it does not represent any Palestinian interest. President Abbas called for an emergency summit of the Arab League, which will take place on the Feb. 1. Naturally, the proposed Palestinian state, from a territorial standpoint, is extremely meager. It basically cuts out a lot of the interesting parts. To make it viable, will be very difficult. The proposed money over a certain period of time of $50 billion is not a hell of a lot.

So I think the reactions to it — I would like to mention a couple of them — first of all, Netanyahu will immediately leave Washington and go to Moscow to discuss with Putin. Various Russian spokesmen, Lavrov, Peskov, Kosachev, the head of the International Relations Committee of the Federation Council, they all said they would study it, we will look at it intensively; and negotiations have to be based on the involvement of the so-called “quartet” — the quartet meaning the United Nations, the EU, Russia, and the U.S. In any case it’s an international approach and even the EU foreign representative, Josep Borell, said it has to be based on respect for all the UN resolutions concerning Israel-Palestine, and the representative of the UN General Secretary said, it has to be in respect of all UN resolutions, including the one that Israel has to go back to its pre-1967 borders. So that naturally is not what’s here proposed, but that is the reaction from international forces.

I think it’s useful to start a negotiation process provided that the Palestinians agree to that, which they have not so far. But I want to say very clearly, that it is good to give security guarantees for Israel. That is absolutely crucial. But I think there is not going to be a peace in the region, in Southwest Asia, if you don’t give security interests to all relevant parties, and that includes emphatically Iran. If people go back in history and look at which peace treaties functioned and which didn’t, you have the Peace of Westphalia which explicitly formulated the principle that for the sake of peace, you have to take into account the interest of every other, and that’s why the Peace of Westphalia was such a groundbreaking work and led to the whole development of international law; as compared, in total contrast to the Versailles Treaty, which going against all historical evidence, presumed Germany was the only guilty party for World War I, all the reparations had to be paid by Germany, and that laid the ground for the developments which then led to the Great Depression of 1929 and naturally the emergence of the Nazis, and it led to World War II. If you don’t have a peace which takes into account the interest of every party, it cannot function.

And most importantly, you have to look at the region as a whole. You have to look at Afghanistan—a mess; Iraq—pretty bad; Syria—totally destroyed from the senseless war; Yemen. You can even go into North Africa: Libya. Look at the result of what President Trump clearly wants to end, namely, these endless wars. Therefore, if you want to reconstruct this area and have a durable peace, what you need is an economic development for the entire Southwest Asian region, and that can only happen if all the great powers work together. I think the immediate perspective is given, because the Chinese have offered to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Syria, to extend the New Silk Road. Also the Arabs have many interests of cooperation along the Silk Road with China. That is the only way how you can have the hope to calm down this region. And rather than trying to continue geopolitical games, I think all the great powers—Russia, China, India, the United States, European countries—they should all join hands and reconstruct this area, and then you can have the hope for peace.

So, I think the extension of the New Silk Road from China via Iran, Iraq; into Turkey, Syria; into Egypt, all the way to Africa, developing Africa in the same way. Then, through Turkey, extend the New Silk Road to Europe, to the Balkans; to connect via the Central Asian corridors — If you have a total peace plan like that, I think it can be really the basis for peace.

And I would hope now, this is now a first step. It needs to have more steps. But I think it’s a negotiation basis, and people should take a positive attitude, and then, hopefully, it can lead to the result of a real peace in the region.

SCHLANGER: As we’re discussing these things, there’s been something that has just emerged as a strategic concern in the last days, really last weeks: the spread of the coronavirus out of China. President Trump, in a comment a couple days ago, praised the Chinese for the way they’re handing it. The anti-China lobby is going crazy against China. What’s your assessment of where we stand in dealing with this virus?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, one of the leading Chinese scientists, who is charge of managing this crisis, said that he thinks the peak of the epidemic may be in ten days from now. That would be a very good news. China has done a very big job, by putting about 60 million people into quarantine. In major cities, people are being told to stay home. They have a letter out for the elderly, that they should especially not leave their apartment, because they are more at risk than other people. I think it is an incredible job. There was just a meeting between President Xi Jinping and the leadership of the WHO, the World Health Organization. They praised China, by saying they did an absolute fantastic job, by also giving a standard of how to deal with such a crisis. From an objective standpoint, there is no question that China is handling this extremely well, building three hospitals of more than 1,000 beds in a week — I don’t know what other country could do that at this point.

As you mentioned, there are also some really degenerated minds, who have absolutely no respect for human life. One is the unspeakable Danish newspaper Jyllands-Post with its cartoon, which showed the Chinese flag with the stars in the flag being replaced by the coronavirus. China protested very strongly, and basically said that this is a complete contempt for human decency, and should not be regarded as a cartoon. I think our colleagues from the Schiller Institute in Denmark also put out a similar statement, absolutely condemning the degenerate mindset coming from such “cartoons.”

Other than that, if this Chinese scientist is correct, then hopefully this could be resolved very soon. Naturally, doomsday-sayers, who say the economic impact could be a trigger for the world financial collapse. I don’t think that is more than a cover story, for the fact that this financial system is bankrupt as it is.

SCHLANGER: These very same central bankers and financiers, who have bankrupted the financial system, are circulating this new report from the Bank for International Settlements, talking about the “Green Swan.” They are now saying that the scapegoat for the crash will be man-made climate change. Obviously, this is another aspect of the cover-up, isn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. The “Black Swan” is a synonym for the big financial crash, for the “everything bubble” to collapse, which we are very close to. So, to blame the climate crisis for such an event is ridiculous. The effort to impose green financing, and in that way destroy the basis for industrial economy is a danger to the financial system, if it needed another one, other than the one caused by the insane bailouts and quantitative easing policies.

So, I think this is an absolute lie. I think we are entering a period, where not only a crash is hanging on the horizon, but the effects of this financial policy are causing the entire society, in many countries, to disintegrate. I only want to mention two situations: One, I think now eight weeks of strikes in France; this is not reported at all, but I know about it from our French colleagues. These demonstrations and strikes are becoming more violent all the time. That is the result of the government policy, because the French police have the policy of throwing out sort of a net, isolate different groupings, and basically drive them into violent reactions.

This doesn’t only come from antifa and Black Bloc, but it comes from the Yellow Vests. For example, you have lawyers who are so absolutely furious about the attack on them, that they have thrown down their robes by the hundreds. Tax accountants who throwing their tax codes on the floor. This is really getting out of proportion. And the government of Macron is making absolutely no concession, but keeps absolutely with the line of BlackRock, which is really what this pension reform is driven by.

You have a similar situation now in Germany, where the German farmers, who are now basically fighting for their existence, they have now changed their tactic. They do flash-mobs at political meetings: All of a sudden, you have 250 tractors showing up; they block the warehouse deliveries from the large food chains. They say they are now being destroyed, between a rock and a hard place, because the food chains lower the prices for their products way below the parity price — you can forget, not even the producer’s price. And then you have the European Union legislations which make it impossible for these farmers to continue to farm.

So, we are looking at a real social explosion, not only in places like Chile and Lebanon and Algeria, but also, increasingly, in the European countries. I can only see this continuing, because if people like [European Commission President Ursula] von der Leyen implement their green legislation, thereby raising the prices for everything—electricity, transport, food—then this social ferment will just explode, because many people are already at the end of their means.

I think this is going to require our intervention, globally, to impose what we have proposed many times, the full package of LaRouche: the Four Laws, Glass-Steagall, national bank, New Bretton Woods, crash program for fusion and space cooperation to increase the productivity of society, and cooperate with the New Silk Road. That is the solution, but we need more people to help us in this mobilization. So, go to the links provided at the end of this webcast. Subscribe to our Alerts and other publications. Sign our petitions and mobilize together with us. I think that’s the only answer you can give.

SCHLANGER: There’s another aspect to this situation, which you’ve addressed many, many times: which is, the social explosion, the social ferment, and social disintegration are occurring at the same time as there’s a cultural collapse, which is engineered by the same British Empire, destroying the image of man. You’ve just written an article on this; you are quite prolific on this. What do people need to know about how we reverse this cultural collapse?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I launched a campaign which I called an “Open Letter to the Lovers of Classical music.” I deliberately do not address this letter only to people in Germany, but I really want to address it to everybody who thinks that Classical music is important for the mental health and creativity of people.

We will put the link of this Open Letter below, so please download it, read it, circulate it, comment on it, because I want to generate a debate. There was this unbelievable assault, where some so-called modern composer dared to change the finale of Fidelio in a performance in Darmstadt. What came out was absolutely horrible ugliness. So, please read my letter and circulate it.

But it points to something which I think is really of a general nature. If you look at what is happening in the United States, you have the drug epidemic, you have the school shootings; you have a lot of violence as a potential breaking out very quickly. In Germany, you now have churches being robbed. People are stealing the sacral instruments for the church service, pictures from the walls. You have attacks on first responders, on the police — I mean, this getting very, very ugly. I think what all of these symptoms—which I could tell you a long, long, long list of, but you probably all know it—all of these are symptoms of a decaying, collapsing society, like the end of the Roman Empire, or some other cultural collapses.

This very dangerous and this is why I take this attack on Classical music as extremely important to be countered. Because if you look at Europe, Europe is in terrible condition right now; political unity doesn’t exist. We just found that the German government already in 2018, at a conference in Berlin on Africa, deliberately countered the proposal which was adopted in 2018 in Abuja, Nigeria, by the governments of the Lake Chad region demanding implementation of the Transaqua project, which we have discussed many times on this show; and Germany gave only Greenie arguments, basically perpetuating the colonial world-outlook toward Africa, condoning the disgusting policy of the EU against the refugees from Africa and Southwest Asia, which is really a murderous policy. The Pope called these camps for refugees “concentration camps,” which I think is absolutely on the mark.

So, if you look at all of these things, the only positive thing which Europe still has — other than its potential to be an industrial powerhouse, if we change our ways; but that is not in the cards right now, if you look at the EU—so the only thing which we is our great Classical tradition: The Italian Renaissance, which indirectly President Trump referred to in his speech in Davos, by pointing to the Cupola of the Florence Duomo, by mentioning the beautiful Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, by referring to the European cathedrals. That ennobled view of man, including the German Classical period, the German, Italian, and other Classical music in general, these are the most precious heritages of Europe which we could contribute to the shaping of a New Paradigm in the world.

And if you have, right now, as a continuation of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) operation, the ongoing destruction of Classical music, with disgusting Regietheater; you can’t go into a German theater any more, since quite a while, without people copulating on the stage, being naked, doing absolutely obscene things. András Schiff, the great pianist, wrote an article recently, where he said that in New York people are talking about this kind of theater as “Eurotrash.” What this unspeakable so-called composer did in this re-write of the finale of Fidelio is nothing but Eurotrash; and that is a mild expression for what was presented there.

We have to defend Classical Culture. We have to go back to the idea that we need beauty in art. I fully agree with Friedrich Schiller, who in a letter exchange with his friend Christian Körner, said that art which is not beautiful, is no art, it’s trash (those are my words, not those of Schiller).

So, I would really ask all of you who have any sense that we cannot allow the continuation of this destruction of great culture to go on, that you should join with us, and that we really create a Renaissance movement as a counter to that. This is completely in the spirit of my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche. His spirit is alive, especially as all of his prognoses in respect to the financial system, the strategic situation, become more obvious; there is a growing recognition of the increasing intellectual role of the work of my late husband. I want to encourage to always include the demand for his exoneration, because people have to have unmediated access to his works, because it is that, what great minds have written, what great composers have composed, which gives us the inner strength to get out of this crisis of humanity. So, help us in really making this Renaissance movement.

SCHLANGER: We also have the benefit that this year is the 250th anniversary celebrating the birth of Beethoven. Your husband gave us the marching orders: “Think Like Beethoven!” which is the way out of this

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

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till next week.

 




Kinesisk nyhedsagentur Xinhua skriver om vores koncert
“En Musikalsk Dialog mellem Kulturer”

31. januar 2020 — Vi har lige erfaret, at det kinesiske nyhedsagentur Xinhua skrev om vores koncert “En Musikalsk Dialog mellem Kulturer”, som fandt sted den 29. november 2019. Koncerten blev arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet, Russisk-Dansk Dialog, Det Russiske Hus og Det Kinesiske Kulturcenter i København.

Her er et link til koncertsiden med videooptagelsen og programmet: EN MUSIKALSK DIALOG MELLEM KULTURER den 29. november 2019

Her er billeder og Google-oversættelser af dækning på:

  1. Xinhuas hjemmesiden
  2. MSN’s kinesiske hjemmeside
  3. www.dzwww.com fra Shandong, Konfutses hjemby.

I bunden findes den kinesiske tekst.

1. Xinhuanet:

 

Bælte og Vej koncert i København. Anmeldelse
Xinhua News Agency, København, den 29. november (Reporter Lin Jing) Koncernen “Bælte og Vej, Tvær-kulturel Dialogue” blev afholdt den 29. i det Russiske Videnskabs- og Teknologicenter i København, Danmark. Dusinvis af musikere fra Kina, Rusland, Polen, Danmark, Schweiz og andre lande præsenterede i fællesskab en “musikalsk fest”, der kombinerede kinesiske og vestlige kulturer og multikulturel kollision.
  Koncerten blev arrangeret i fællesskab af Københavns Kinesiske Kulturcenter, det tyske Schiller-Institut og det Russiske Kultur- og Videnskabskulturcenter. Det viste charmen ved kunstnerisk fusion skabt af den multikulturelle kollision på Silkevejen, hvilket gjorde det muligt for publikum at sætte pris på essensen af ​​forskellige kulturer i øst og vest.
  Den indre mongolske folkesang “Hong Yan” udført af den kinesiske unge violinudøvende kunstner Zhang Kehan ​​og den polske pianist Dominic Wizjan erobrede publikets hjerter. Et russisk publikum sagde: “Jeg føler nostalgi i denne sang. Violinfortolkningen er så eufemistisk, lang, smuk og virkelig underholdende.”
  Derudover fremførte det danske Confucius Conservatory of Music to kinesiske folkesange, “Dunhuang” og “Jiangnan Love Charm”, så publikum kunne opleve de forskellige regionale skikker i det nordvestlige Kina og Jiangnan. Publikum rapporterede varm bifald og kaldte det endda “fremragende og smukt!”
  Zhang Li, direktør for Københavns Kinesiske Kulturcenter, sagde, at dette er tredje år i træk, at der er afholdt en “interkulturel dialog” -koncert i Danmark. Københavns kinesiske kulturcenter er villig til at samarbejde med lokale kulturinstitutioner for at fremme udveksling og dialog mellem forskellige kulturer og fremme sund fornuft blandt folk.
2. MSN’s kinesiske hjemmeside.
 
(XHDW) Interkulturel dialogkoncert i København
Den 29. november i København, Danmark, fremførte lærere og studerende fra Confucius Conservatory of Denmark kinesisk folkemusik på koncerten “Belt og Vej, Tværkulturel Dialog”.
Koncerten “Belt og Vej, Tværkulturel Dialog” blev afholdt den 29. i det russiske videnskabs- og teknologicenter i København. Dusinvis af musikere fra Kina, Rusland, Polen, Danmark, Schweiz og andre lande præsenterede i fællesskab en “musikalsk fest”, der kombinerede kinesiske og vestlige kulturer og multikulturel kollision.
Foto af Xinhua News Agency reporter Lin Jing
3. www.dzwww.com, som er fra Shandong, Konfutses hjemby.
Teksten er den samme som den første artikel på Xinhuas hjemmeside.
Her er den kinesiske tekst:
跨文化对话音乐会在哥本哈根举行
2019-11-30 10:00:47 来源: 新华网

新华社哥本哈根11月29日电(记者林晶)“一带一路·跨文化对话”音乐会29日在丹麦首都哥本哈根俄罗斯科技文化中心举行。来自中国、俄罗斯、波兰、丹麦、瑞士等国的数十位音乐家联袂奉献了一场中西合璧、多元文化碰撞的“音乐盛宴”。

音乐会由哥本哈根中国文化中心联合德国席勒学会和俄罗斯科技文化中心联合举办,展现了丝绸之路上多元文化碰撞下产生的艺术融合魅力,让观众们领略到东西方不同文化的精粹。

中国青年小提琴表演艺术家张可函与波兰钢琴家多米尼克·维子扬共同演绎的内蒙古民歌《鸿雁》征服了现场观众的心。现场一名来自俄罗斯的观众说:“我感受到了这首曲子中浓浓的乡愁,用小提琴演绎显得那么委婉悠长,很美,真的很享受。”

此外,丹麦孔子音乐学院演奏的两首中国民乐《敦煌》和《江南情韵》让观众体验到了中国西北与江南地区的不同地域风情。现场观众报以热烈掌声,连称“精彩、太美了!”

哥本哈根中国文化中心主任张力说,这是连续第三年在丹麦举办“跨文化对话”音乐会。哥本哈根中国文化中心愿同当地文化机构携手共同推动不同文化间的交流对话,促进各国间的民心相通。

 




Et topmøde mellem stormagterne i 2020 giver muligheden for
at sætte dagsordenen for et nyt paradigme

Den 25. januar (EIRNS) – Forslaget den 15. januar fra den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin om et topmøde i 2020 mellem stats- og regeringscheferne for de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd (USA, Rusland, Kina, Frankrig, Storbritannien) – for at konferere om at sikre global fred, afspejler forslaget fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 3. januar, der nu cirkulerer internationalt gennem Schiller Instituttet og andre netværk. Hun opfordrer til et hastemøde mellem præsidenterne Donald Trump, Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin på grund af den øjeblikkelige fare for konfrontation mellem Iran og USA, og desuden for ”at etablere samarbejde på et højere niveau” for at kunne håndtere alle kriser ordentligt.

Selvom de to forslag er forskellige hvad deltagende nationer angår, er konceptet om et topmøde det samme, og en sådan aktion er afgørende på dette tidspunkt i historien. Nu er tiden inde til at alle nationer og borgere organiserer for, hvad der skal være indholdet på et sådant topmøde. Hvad skal der være på dagsordenen? Dette er stedet og tiden for LaRouches politik og principper i forbindelse med hans syn på, at “udvikling er forudsætningen for fred”: Et nyt Bretton Woods-system, der gennemfører hans “Fire love” fra 2014 gennem så konkrete tiltag som samarbejde med Bælte- og Vejinitiativet.

Efter alt at dømme er Putin gået ud over propagandafasen med blot forslag om et topmøde, og ind i den aktive organiseringsfase. Potentielle tidspunkter for et sådant topmøde blev påpeget den 24. januar af den russiske ambassadør i USA, Anatoly Antonov. TASS rapporterer i dag, at Antonov sagde, ”et sådant møde kunne arrangeres, enten før genforhandlingen af NPT-konventionen (atomar ikke-spredningstraktat) i maj måned, eller før eller under fejringen af FN’s 75-års jubilæum (i september under FN’s generalforsamling). “Jeg tror, at gennemførelsen af dette initiativ ville være meget nyttigt for international fred og sikkerhed.” Da Putin gentog sit forslag den 23. januar i Israel, sagde han, at Rusland vil sende meddelelser til lederne uden forsinkelse.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede under drøftelsen af situationen i dag, at et sådant topmøde er presserende, og at selv om folk kan have kritik mod den ene eller anden af de “Fem” [faste medlemmer af] FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, er det dynamikken der tæller. For eksempel har den franske præsident Emmanuel Macron gentagne gange understreget, at det er vigtigt at involvere Rusland i overvejelserne for at løse store kriser. Kansler Angela Merkel tog for nylig initiativ til samarbejde med Rusland og andre magter ved at afholde Berlin-konferencen den 19. januar samt andre foranstaltninger for at søge løsninger på Libyen-krisen.

Vores opgave er at ophøje folk til at forstå, at vi kun gennem internationalt samarbejde kan løse de problemer, vi nu står overfor, og at det må ske med udgangspunkt i den politik, der på enestående vis er foreslået af Lyndon LaRouche. Mange mennesker holder sig tilbage, fordi de bogstaveligt talt “ikke ved hverken ud eller ind”, eller fordi de har opgivet at forandre verden. Men nu er øjeblikket inde til at tage fat på alle relevante “spørgsmål”, i bredeste forstand, som mennesker måtte have, og indgyde optimisme. Præsident Trumps tale i Davos den 21. januar hjælper med til at åbne døren for netop en sådan tilgang.

 

 




Dansk oversættelse: Grænsen for det rimelige er endegyldigt overskredet:
Et åbent brev i Beethovenåret til dem, der holder af klassisk musik
af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Om den manglende evne til at komponere musik.

Et åbent brev i Beethoven-året til de tyskere (og andre), der holder af klassisk musik:

Menneskehedens værdighed er givet i jeres hånd, Bevar den!
Den synker med jer! Med jer vil den sig hæve.
      – Friedrich von Schiller

Det første man kan sige om opførelsen af Beethovens Fidelio på Staatstheater Darmstadt i en iscenesættelse af Georg Dittrich og en musikalsk bearbejdelse af finalen ved Anette Schlünz er: Den er mere end elendig. Fuldstændig elendig ud fra et musikalsk, et kunstnerisk, et filosofisk og et menneskeligt synspunkt. I en lang række af stupide, smagløse, gentagne opførelser af regiteater, sådan som de er blevet fremført i over et halvt århundrede(!) – først indskrænket til teateret, men i nogle år også overført til operaen – var denne opførelse det absolutte lavmål.

Da Hans Neuenfels i sommeren 1966, som en 25 år gammel instruktør på teateret i Trier, lod et flyveblad omdele for at annoncere den »første happening i Rheinland-Pfalz«, hvor han også fremsatte spørgsmålet: »Hvorfor misbruger De ikke småpiger?« var han helt i overensstemmelse med 68-ernes overbevisninger, sådan som man senest så det hos Cohn-Bendit. Siden da – efter 53 år – parrer forskellige nøgne mennesker, rockere, skizofrene eller nazi-klædte sig på scenerne og har med stor succes forvrænget de klassiske digteres og komponisters værker til ukendelighed. Originalitet er noget helt andet.

Darmstadt-teaterets Fidelio-opførelse præsenterer ikke blot et multimedie-miskmask af æstetiske smagløsheder, fremmedgørelseseffekter i Brechts stil og en overlejring af de musikalske scener i den første del med et lærred, der optager hele scenen, og hvorpå der projiceres billeder og filmudsnit, der skal illustrere den tidsmæssige baggrund for de otte opførsler, der har fundet sted fra 1805 til i dag. Det samlede indtryk er kaotisk, man får ondt af de sangere, der må synge imod dette sønderskårne flimmer, som for eksempel Leonore, der hele tiden må løbe rundt på scenen som en hovedløs høne.

Men den virkelige monstrøsitet finder sted i den anden del, hvor finalen, operaens storslåede frihedshymne, sønderhakkes af Anette Schlünz af kompositioner i den nye musikalske stil. Schlünz beskriver sine komponerede indskydelser på følgende måde i programhæftet:

»Lidt efter lidt opstår der sådant et »Heil-kor«, der delvist forstummer, eller hvor kun enkelte stemmer eller ord bliver stående. Flere gange radikaliserer jeg også Beethovens instrumentering for at forstærke hans ideer yderligere, eller jeg gentager enkelte takter og stopper så pludselig. Det var et meget stort ønske hos mig at indflette fremmede klange og indfarve
musikken forskellige steder. Den trompetfanfare, der lyder allerede ved forestillingens begyndelse fra statsteaterets balkon, tager jeg op og udvider: Det er det signal, der giver tegn til opbrud. Enkelte instrumenter og musikere falder så at sige ud af orkesterklangen og bringer derved noget nyt ind i den.

Ensemblestykket i F-dur – et fantastisk stykke musik med en ophøjethed og harmoni, som jeg ikke ville vove at røre ved – lader jeg derimod stå uberørt som en ædelsten. Det følgende mellemspil med min musik, hvor forskellige klange, inklusive otte kvindelige sangeres røster sendes ud i rummet, bryder Beethovens klangverden fuldstændigt op.«

Fra de maltrakterede tilskueres synspunkt havde Schlünz’s indskudte brag, hvor sangerne og musikerne udbasunerede deres øredøvende larm midt blandt publikum og fra alle sider, ikke mere det ringeste med musik at gøre: Grænsen til legemsbeskadigelse var entydigt overskredet.

Hvor stærkt følelsesmæssigt forstyrret Schlünz er, fremgår tydeligt af hendes næste sætninger:

»Når jeg har lyttet, har jeg ofte forestillet mig, at jeg sad ved tangenterne på en mikserpult og skruede hastigheden yderligere op. Og der ville jeg ganske enkelt tillægge Beethoven den ide, at han under kompositionen næsten havde til hensigt at drive musikken over gevind. Det er en rigtig jubelmaskine! Det minder mig om børn, der overreagerer fuldstændig af begejstring, fordi de ikke ved, hvordan de skal styre deres følelser.«

Hvis der er noget der er overreageret her, så er det den ynkelighed, Schlünz demonstrerer her, hendes følelsesmæssige impotens til at begribe det ophøjede ved kærlighedens sejr mellem Leonore og Florestan. Endvidere kan hun øjensynligt ikke udstå denne storhed; hendes forestilling om at skrue musikkens hastighed op ved hjælp af en mikserpult, er det samme ukontrollerede tab af besindelse, som Ibykus’s mordere forråder sig selv med, efter at Erinyernes kor har påkaldt poesiens højere magt i teateret i Korinth. Små, tarveligt tænkende sind kan hverken udstå store ideer eller ophøjede følelser.

Den storslåede finale i Fidelio, hvor Beethoven hylder tyranniets overvindelse ved modet i ægtefællernes kærlighed, er udtryk for den ædleste humanitet, hvor kærlighed, mod og frihedsvilje finder deres musikalske udtryk. I Leonores arie siges der forinden: »Jeg vakler ikke, vort ægteskabs kærlighedspligter styrker mig.« Beethoven valgte operaens stof: en vellykkede idealisering, i Schillers ånd, af en historisk begivenhed: markis de La Fayettes, Den amerikanske Frihedskrigs og de franske republikaneres helts, befrielse fra fangenskabet ved hans hustru Adrienne. Deri kommer Beethovens eget republikanske sindelag til udtryk, hvilket under datidens feudale strukturer og Napoleons felttog krævede personligt mod.

Sådanne dybt menneskelige følelser er ikke længere tilgængelige for det ødelagte følelsesliv hos Frankfurterskolens repræsentanter og den liberale tidsånd. Teaterinstruktøren Paul-Georg Dittrich sagde på afslørende vis i sit interview i programhæftet, at finalen forekommer ham »som en fejring, hvor man ikke engang ved, hvad der egentlig bliver fejret«. Selvom Dittrich og Schlünz ikke ved det, betyder dette under ingen omstændigheder, at de også har retten til at ødelægge denne tilgang for almindelige mennesker gennem dekonstruktionen af Beethovens komposition.

I ånden af Kongressen for Kulturel Frihed

Men præcis dette var fra begyndelsen hensigten med de forskellige strømninger, i hvis tradition Dittrich, Schlünz og hele Darmstadt-produktionen befinder sig – et sammensurium fra Adorno, Eisler-Brecht-skolen og Kongressen for Kulturel Frihed. Med et bemærkelsesværdigt stænk af sandfærdig reportage, berettede FAZ den 12. november 2017 i artiklen »CIA og kulturen: Hvordan man stjæler de store ord« om en udstilling i forbindelse med det 50-årige jubilæum for skandalen, der i 1967 blev offentliggjort, at hele den gigantiske operation fra Kongressen for Kulturel Frihed var en CIA-finansieret operation, der var en del af Den kolde Krig. Og dertil, for FAZ, den nærmest sensationelle tilståelse om det hele: »Den foruroligende pointe, at efterretningstjenesten ikke blot fremmede en ondskabsfuld reaktion, men at de derigennem hjalp med denne venstreliberalismes gennembrud, hvilket til den dag i dag har skabt de vestlige intellektuelles mainstream-standard.«

Darmstadts Fidelio-produktion er til en hvis grad endemorænen af denne proces. Det begyndte med forandringen af den amerikanske efterkrigspolitik. Efter Roosevelts utidige død, under hvis ledelse USA i 2. verdensskrig var allieret med Sovjetunionen i kampen mod fascismen, havnede den intellektuelt væsentlig mindre Truman hurtigt under Churchills indflydelse. Med sin berygtede Fulton-tale den 5. marts 1946 indledte han Den kolde Krig. Dermed fik forløberne til de elementer i det amerikanske sikkerhedsapparat, som Eisenhower, der refererede til dem som det militærindustrielle kompleks, advarede om, og som i dag ofte kaldes for den »dybe stat«, overhånden.

Den nu proklamerede kolde krig krævede, at de dybe følelser, der gennem krigsoplevelsen bandt amerikanere og russere sammen, og som fandt sit højdepunkt ved Elben i Torgau, måtte erstattes af anti-russiske følelser. Der måtte stilles et nyt fjendebillede op, og det samlede aksiomatiske tankesæt i befolkningen måtte forandres. For USA betød dette at forandre de grundantagelser, der havde bidraget til at støtte Roosevelts politik. For Europa, og specifikt for Tyskland, måtte den europæiske humanistiske kulturs rødder, som var den kulturelle identitet, der lå på den anden side af tolv års skrækherredømme, ødelægges, og erstattes gennem en konstruktion – dekonstruktionen af den klassiske kultur.

Instrumentet, der blev skabt til dette formål, var Kongressen for Kulturel Frihed (CCF), et gigantisk program af psykologisk krigsførelse, som udførtes af Allan Dulles’ efterretningskredse under ledelse af Frank Wisner – den datidige chef for udenrigsministeriets kontor for politisk koordination. Senere blev CCF flyttet til afdelingen for skjulte operationer. Operationen varede officielt fra 1950 til 1967, hvor New York Times, den 27. april 1967 offentliggjorde, at CCF var en CIA-operation – en afsløring der udviklede sig til det 20. århundredes største skandale. CCF var aktiv i 35 lande, udgav 20 magasiner, og faktisk talt styrede CIA hver eneste kunstudstilling og kulturel begivenhed. I Europa var der på dette tidspunkt så godt som ingen forfatter, musiker, maler, kritiker eller journalist, som ikke i en eller anden udstrækning stod i forbindelse med dette projekt – nogle gange bevidst, andre gange uden nogen som helst anelse.

Disse kulturprojekters orientering var i væsentlige træk de samme, som dem fra Frankfurterskolen, hvis ledende repræsentanter var i eksil i USA under den nationalsocialistiske periode, og var dér delvist hyret af den amerikanske efterretningstjeneste, som f.eks. Herbert Marcuse og andre. I hvert fald passede Frankfurterskolens syn perfekt i CCF’s program. Theodor Adorno havde f.eks. den absurde og uvidende opfattelse, at Friedrich Schillers idealisme havde ført direkte til nationalsocialismen, fordi den havde indtaget et radikalt standpunkt. Derfor var det nødvendigt at fjerne skønheden fuldkommen fra kunsten. I sin afhandling »Kulturkritik og samfund«, skrevet i 1949, toppede hans misantropiske synspunkt i den ofte citerede sætning: »Efter Auschwitz er det barbarisk at skrive et digt.«

I Darmstadt er her heller ikke noget nyt under solen: I programhæftet til Fidelio-opførelsen udtrykker George Steiner præcis denne samme mening: »Er det muligt, at der i den klassiske humanisme selv, i sin tilbøjelighed til den abstrakte og æstetiske værdibedømmelse, findes et radikalt svigt? Er det muligt, at massemord og dennes ligegyldighed overfor det vederstyggelige, som hjalp nazismen på sin vej, ikke er civilisationens fjender eller negationer, men dennes hæslige, men naturlige, medskyldige?«

Hvad der her meget tydeligt udtrykkes, er præcis CCF’s psykologiske krigsførelse, styret af CIA, som skulle udslukke den humanistiske identitet i den tyske befolkning til fordel for en anglo-amerikansk kulturel værdiskala.

Et spørgsmål om menneskesyn

For nu at understrege det en gang til: Der er ingen større modsigelse end den, der findes mellem humanismens ophøjede menneskesyn og den klassiske kunst og nationalsocialismens barbariske menneskesyn. Det klassiske menneskesyn betragter mennesket som principielt godt, som det eneste fornuftsbaserede væsen, der, gennem den æstetiske opdragelse, kan fuldkommengøre sit medfødte potentiale til et harmonisk hele, til en skøn karakter, som Wilhelm von Humboldt udtrykker dette. De klassiske kunstværker i digtningen, i billedkunsten og i musikken fejrer denne skønne menneskehed og er selv igen inspirationen for læsernes, tilskuernes og tilhørernes kreative evner.

I modsætning hertil er nationalsocialisternes menneskesyn, med dens ‘blod-og-jord’-ideologi, baseret på en racistisk, chauvinistisk og socialdarwinistisk opfattelse af den »ariske« races overlegenhed. At hævde at der er en indre forbindelse mellem disse diametralt modsatte ideer, blot fordi begge fænomener – klassicismen og nationalsocialismen – fandt sted i Tyskland, er lige så absurd som at hævde, at den amerikanske forfatning direkte gav anledning til Bush- og Obama-administrationernes interventionskrige, eller at Jean d’ Arcs (Jomfruen fra Orleans) overbevisninger var grundlaget for den franske kolonipolitik. Påstanden kom faktisk fra CIA’s djævlekøkken, og har senest siden CCF’s tid indeholdt sådanne »opskrifter« som »nødvendige løgne« og »urokkelige benægtelser«. I den seneste periode har verden igen været udsat for en rigelig dosis af dem i det igangværende kup mod præsident Trump, gennem den britiske efterretningstjeneste i samarbejde med den »Dybe Stat«.

Et af de vigtigste spørgsmål her, er spørgsmålet om, hvordan det var muligt at gå fra de tyske klassikeres ideal til nazi-styrets afgrund. For at besvare det er man nødt til at overveje hele idéhistorien fra Romantikkens angreb på Klassicismen og den deraf afledte opløsning af den klassiske form, til starten af kulturpessimismen, der startede med den konservative revolution som reaktion på ideerne fra 1789 og den politiske genoprettelse [restoration] under Wiener-Kongressen, og frem til Schopenhauer og Nietzsche, ungdomsbevægelsen forud for Første Verdenskrig og endelig Første Verdenskrig og dens konsekvenser.

Fremkaldelsen af kulturpessimisme

Fremkaldelse af kulturpessimisme var også målet for diverse CCF-musikprojekter. I 1952 afholdt CCF en månedslang musikfestival i Paris med titlen: »Mesterværker i det 20. århundrede«, hvor over 100 symfonier, koncerter, operaer og balletter af mere end halvfjerds af det 20. århundredes komponister blev opført. Boston Symfoniorkester, der kom til at spille en ledende rolle i andre CCF-projekter, åbnede festivalen med en højst mærkværdig opførelse af Stravinskys »Sacre du Printemps« (»Forårsritual«). Andre stykker blev fremført af de »atonale« komponister som Arnold Schoenberg (en af Adornos lærere) og Alban Berg samt Paul Hindemith, Claude Debussy og Benjamin Britten, for blot at nævne nogle enkelte. Til udbredelse af atonal og tolvtonemusik fulgte yderligere konferencer i Prato og Rom, konferencer, som udelukkende blev tilegnet avantgardemusik. Ved alle disse velfinansierede begivenheder blev det taget for givet, at alle skulle foregive at nyde den hæslige musik.

Ved »Darmstadts Sommerkurser for Ny Musik«, der også blev støttet af den amerikanske militærregering og CCF, optrådte Schoenberg, Anton Webern og Béla Bartók. Foredragsholdere som Adorno, Olivier Messiaen og John Cage holdt foredrag om deres musikteori. I en officiel anmeldelse af disse kurser skrev Ralph Burns – leder af USA’s militærregerings kontor for Kulturanliggender – »Review of Activity«:

»Der var generel enighed om, at meget af denne musik var værdiløs, og ville været bedst tjent med ikke at blive spillet. Overvægten af tolvtonemusik blev beklaget. En kritiker beskrev koncerterne som »en triumf for dilettanteri«.«

Pointen her er ikke at forhindre nogen i at komponere eller lytte til atonal eller tolvtonemusik eller andre former for avantgardemusik. Hver person har sin egen smag. Pointen er, at ideen om ligeværdighed af alle toner i den ‘tempererede’ kromatiske skala massivt begrænser de langt højere frihedsgrader, der flyder fra den polyfoniske, harmoniske og kontrapunktiske komposition, som den blev udviklet af Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann og Brahms. Det eliminerer tvetydigheden forbundet med noderne og forholdet mellem tonearterne og muligheden for harmonisk »forvekslinger«: »Motivführung« er en form for komposition, der ud fra en enkelt musikalsk idé udvikler yderligere temaer, bevægelser og til sidst hele kompositionen. Denne kompositionsteknik blev – som det blev uddybet og grundigt demonstreret i forskellige mesterklasser af Norbert Brainin, førsteviolinist i Amadeus-kvartetten – udviklet til højere kompleksitet og perfektion gennem værker som Haydns »russiske« kvartetter Op. 33, til Mozarts »Haydn«-kvartetter og derefter til Beethovens sene kvartetter.

I betragtning af de højder, som klassisk komposition opnåede med Beethoven, repræsenterer den såkaldte moderne musik – og der findes uden tvivl også gode moderne kompositioner – hvis den kaster disse principper ud af vinduet, en tilbagegang der kan sammenlignes med at reducere et anti-entropisk univers i stadig udvikling og med to billioner hidtil kendte galakser, til en flad Jord.

Klassisk musik forædler

Så godt som alle virkelig kreative mennesker, fra Confucius (Kongfutse) til Albert Einstein, anerkendte og brugte virkningerne af god eller klassisk musik til at fostre deres egne kreative evner og befolkningens æstetiske uddannelse. Confucius bemærkede med rette, at et lands tilstand kan aflæses i kvaliteten af dens musik. Fordybelse i værkerne af de store klassiske komponister åbner op for den dybeste adgang til de kreative evner i menneskets sjæl og ånd. Hvor ellers, hvis ikke i klassisk musik, kan man styrke og uddybe den passion, der er nødvendig for at se ud over ens egne bekymringer og beskæftige sig med menneskehedens store spørgsmål? Eller hvor kan man uddanne den sensibilitet, der er nødvendig for at imødekomme Schillers krav, som det blev sagt i hans tale om universel historie:

»Der skal gløde en ædel længsel i os for, ud fra egne ressourcer, at tilføje vores bidrag til den rige arv af sandhed, moral og frihed, som vi har modtaget fra tidligere tider, og som rigt forøget skal overleveres til de kommende tidsaldre; og til denne umådelige kæde, der snor sig gennem alle menneskets generationer, at fæstne vores egen flygtige eksistens.«

Det er netop denne følelsesmæssige kærlighed, som det kommer til udtryk i finalen af Fidelio, kærlighed til ens ægtefælle, kærlighed til menneskeheden og ideen om nødvendigheden af frihed, ideen om at udføre ens pligt med lidenskab og derved at blive frie, at Schiller definerer de ideelle kvaliteter af geniets smukke sjæl. Det er indbegrebet af hele klassicismens æstetiske metode og i særdeleshed Friedrich Schillers: »Det er gennem skønhed, at man opnår frihed.«

Det er imidlertid netop dette frihedsbegreb, som blev angrebet af tilhængere af det moderne regiteater, disharmonisk musik og postmoderne dekonstruktion, da det, snarere end frihed, går imod deres liberale forestilling om »frihed«.

Derfor dykker de uhæmmet ned i kassen med mølkugler og fremmedgørende effekter a lá Bertolt Brecht: afbrydelser, filmklip, bannere, kameraer, der rettes mod publikum osv., for at »chokere« seerne ud af deres vante lytte- og tænkevaner. Hvad der kom ud af det i Darmstadt var en blanding af »Clockwork Orange« (den voldsomme [filmiske] gru fra Stanley Kubrick, ledsaget af Beethovens niende symfoni), og så popstjernen Helene Fischers intellektuelle dybde. Når Helene Fischer iført et rødt latex-antræk og med orgastiske bevægelser skriger sin sang ud, »Can you feel the love tonight?« til et betaget publikum, er det omtrent lige så subtilt, som hvis spørgsmålet »rører det dig?« skulle lyse op på scenen med store neonbogstaver under hele finalen af Fidelio. Instruktøren Dittrich mener naturligvis, at det intellektuelt udfordrede publikum skal vækkes med en vognstang. Dertil kom så det tidligere nævnte bombardement af øredøvende støj fra instrumentalisterne og kormedlemmerne spredt rundt omkring i operahuset.

Publikum udtrykte sin taknemmelighed med en pligtskyldig mini-applaus. Hvis målet med iscenesættelsen var at indkalde publikum til politisk handling i nuet eller at udbrede moderne musik til et »bredere publikum« (Dittrich), må man i begge tilfælde sige: Missionen mislykkedes. Den (for tysktalende) velkendte »Hurz«-sketch fra Hape Kerkeling (tysk komiker f. 1964, red.) beskriver ganske passende reaktionen fra de fleste tilskuere, der tilsyneladende gennem alt for lang tid er blevet vænnet til de uhyrlige krav fra regiteater og CCF’s kulturkrig, som stadig pågår.

Endelig er det på sin plads med et citat fra Alma Deutscher, der virkelig kan komponere: »Hvis verden er så grim, hvorfor skal vi så gøre den endnu grimmere med grim musik?«

Før eksemplet med Annette Schlünz efterfølges og andre klassiske musikkompositioner »skændes« i Hans Neuenfels ånd, bør denne anmeldelse tjene til at starte en debat i Beethovenåret om, hvordan man kan forsvare klassikerne mod sådanne overgreb.

Fejring af Beethovenåret

Dette Beethovenår, som vil byde på opførelser af mange af mesterens kompositioner, ikke kun i Tyskland, men over hele verden, giver os en vidunderlig mulighed for at huske på vores bedre kulturelle tradition i Tyskland, til at modstå det moralske forfald i de forgangne årtier, og til, ved bevidst at lytte til Beethovens musik, at finde den indre styrke i os selv, til at levendegøre vores egen kreativitet.

Verden befinder sig nu midt i en epokegørende forandring, hvor æraen domineret af de atlantiske lande klart er ved at slutte, og hvor fokus for udvikling skifter til Asien, hvor der er mange nationer og folk, som er meget stolte af deres civilisationer, og som nærer deres klassiske kultur. Nogle af disse civilisationer er mere end 5.000 år gamle. Hvis Europa har noget at bidrage med i en humanistisk ånd til at forme det nye paradigme, der fremkommer i verden, er det vores højkultur fra renæssancen og klassicismen.

Mange videnskabsmænd, kunstnere og folk over hele verden, der sætter pris på Tyskland, har i nogen tid undret sig over, hvad der er galt med tyskerne, siden de har distanceret sig så meget fra at være et folk af digtere og tænkere. Hvis vi tillader Beethovenåret at blive spoleret, vil Tyskland sandsynligvis blive afskrevet for altid som en kultiveret nation.

Yderligere diskussion om dette emne er nødvendig og hilses velkommen.
Skriv din kommentar til: si@schillerinstitut.dk

Del gerne artiklen:
www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/2020/01/beethoven-fidelio-artikel/

Læs også: ‘Alle mennesker bliver brødre’:
Den årtierlange kamp for Beethovens niende Symfoni, af Michelle Rasmussen

 

Her er den engelske udgave af Helga Zepp-LaRouches artikel:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Her er den oprindelige tyske udgave:

Von der Unfähigkeit, Musik zu komponieren

Ein Offener Brief an die Klassikliebhaber Deutschlands im Beethoven-Jahr:
Die Grenze des Zumutbaren ist endgültig überschritten!

 




Trump imødegår grønne fascister i Davos med renæssance-optimisme.
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche d. 22 januar 2020

Alt imens 190 milliardærer og deres lakajer i erhvervsliv og institutioner er forsamlet i Davos og presser på med en grøn fascistisk dagsorden, greb den amerikanske præsident Trump ind med et anderledes sæt af grundregler. Mens hans tale fremprovokerede hysteri, hvor nogle beskyldte ham for “meningsløs optimisme”, priste han Firenzes borgere, der handlede med fantasi og dristighed ved bygningen af den store kuppel – en bedrift, som Lyndon LaRouche ofte omtalte som et eksempel på ånden i menneskelig kreativitet og engagement i fremskridt, der resulterede i renæssancen – og understregede dermed atter, hvorfor oligarkiet er opsat på at afslutte hans præsidentskab.

Helga dækkede en række emner, fra krigsfaren til den stigende sandsynlighed for et økonomisk sammenbrud, og vendte tilbage til nødvendigheden af et hastetopmøde mellem de tre præsidenter som et skridt i retning af et nyt paradigme for at overvinde farerne. Hun opfordrede tilhørerne til at slutte sig til os for at ændre dagsordenen, med henblik på at bringe menneskeheden tilbage til videnskab og kultur for at imødegå krig og ødelæggelse. Udnyt muligheden i dette jubilæumsår for Beethoven til at opdage den sande skønhed i den menneskelige kultur.

 




Et hastetopmøde mellem Trump, Putin og Xi er den eneste løsning for at undgå krig.
Dansk oversættelse af vigtigt webcast fra 8 januar 2020.

STUDIEVÆRT HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hej, jeg er Harley Schlanger fra Schiller Instituttet: Velkommen til den ugentlige webcast med vores grundlægger og præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. I dag er den 8. januar 2020, og man kan sige, vi er gået ind i det nye år med både et enormt potentiale for positiv udvikling, men også en ildevarslende advarsel om faren for atomkrig. Dette har at gøre med mordet i sidste uge på Soleimani, lederen af den iranske »Revolutionsgardes Quds Styrke«. Der er sket meget i de sidste par dage omkring dette, så vi vil starte med en opdatering fra Helga om, hvad der udspiller sig mellem USA og Iran.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Vi er i en meget alvorlig situation, hvilket meget vel kunne være optakten til 3. verdenskrig. Jeg tror, at alle fornuftige parter i verden vil erkende dette, og kun krigsmagerne jubler over mordet på general Qasem Soleimani. Jeg vil henlede jeres opmærksomhed – publikum og tilhørere – på en meget vigtig video, som blev optaget med min afdøde mand, allerede for mere end 20 år siden: Den blev kaldt »Storm Over Asien.« Og jeg vil gerne, at man vil tage sig tid til at se den. For her peger han med forbløffende erkendelsesmæssig klarhed på »the great game« – det store [geopolitiske] spil, som Det Britiske Imperium kører imod Rusland og Kina, og det som vi ser udspille sig lige nu, er faktisk netop dette scenarie.

[https://youtu.be/-695NtUNSII; https://larouchepac.com/20200107/video-three-times-larouche-forecast-todays-crisis-and-way-out]
Se, der er mange ting, der kan siges om det, og vi vil komme ind på noget af det; der florerer mange historier, fortolkninger og så videre, men lad mig starte med et andet punkt: Der er en løsning. Det lyder måske vanskeligt, men efter min opfattelse er der kun èn løsning, og det er et hastetopmøde mellem præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi Jinping med henblik på at diskutere og planlægge en intervention. Fordi jeg mener, at intet mindre kan gøre det… intet mindre vil være tilstrækkeligt til at nedtrappe denne ekstremt komplekse situation.

For indeværende har den iranske respons været forholdsvis behersket. De advarede den irakiske regering 30 minutter før de foretog deres begrænsede gengældelses-angreb mod to irakiske baser, der er hjemsted for amerikanske og, tror jeg, også Nato-styrker. Se, dette korte øjeblik giver faktisk mulighed for en nedtrapning, fordi iranerne foretog en gengældelse, så de kan redde ansigt internt og sige, at de ikke lod dette attentat forblive ubesvaret. Det kan også give præsident Trump en chance for at nedtrappe; faktisk holder han lige nu – mens vi taler – selv en tale, så vi kan ikke tage hans ord med i betragtning. Men Trump har mange gange sagt, selv efter attentatet imod Soleimani, at han ikke ønsker krig og ikke ønsker regimeskifte; så vi er nødt til at vente og se. Vi ved endnu ikke, hvad han vil sige.

Men, hvad jeg foreslår, er faktisk en løsning. Fordi, naturligvis er situationen meget rodet. Det iranske folk er absolut i oprør. Der er en meget stor anti-amerikansk stemning lige nu, så alt, der alene kommer fra amerikansk side, er sandsynligvis ikke tilstrækkeligt. Men, hvis vi fik et topmøde mellem præsidenterne Xi Jinping, Putin og Trump, og de udarbejdede en plan, en omfattende plan med udstedelse af sikkerhedsgarantier til iranerne – og dette vil være nødvendigt, fordi den eneste grund til, at iranerne ønsker et atomvåbenprogram, er, fordi de ved, at Israel har omkring 200-300 atomsprænghoveder, og de føler sig ubeskyttet. Så hvis der kunne tilvejebringes en sikkerhedsgaranti for Iran, ville det absolut være en vigtig ingrediens.

Men så skal der også etableres et samarbejde med disse – de tre vigtigste magter i verden – for at lægge en omfattende fredsplan for hele Sydvestasien på bordet; en plan som ret let kunne udformes, fordi Kinas politik med den Nye Silkevej allerede spiller ind på forskellige aspekter af regionen. Der er investeringer i så henseende i Iran og i Pakistan, og kineserne har forpligtet sig til at hjælpe med genopbygningen af Syrien; Assad har netop sagt, at den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan rekonstruere Syrien, er ved hjælp af den Nye Silkevej. Og der eksisterer allerede en plan mellem den irakiske premierminister og Kina, et aftalememorandum for en olie-for-teknologi-aftale, hvor Irak sælger olie til Kina, og Kina på sin side vil opbygge infrastrukturen, industrien og landbruget i Irak.

Så der er allerede elementer af dette til stede. Men for at sikre, at der absolut ikke kommer en anden provokation, og at der ikke er andre ting, der går galt, fordi det er egenskaben ved store krige, og i særdeles verdenskrigene, at de aldrig opstår som en følge af, hvad folk har planlagt, men at der er stor fare for en fejlkalkulation, for at ting går galt. Så for at forandre det nuværende paradigme tilbundsgående, og få et hastetopmøde mellem de tre præsidenter, må folk gøre sig klart, at vi befinder os på randen af 3. verdenskrig. Og jeg appellerer faktisk til Jer, vore seere og lyttere, om at I hjælper med denne mobilisering: Vi har startet en international mobilisering med en erklæring, som jeg fremlagde sidste fredag, umiddelbart efter mordet på Soleimani, hvori vi opfordrede til præcist dette hastetopmøde. Denne opfordring er blevet til en underskriftsindsamling. Underskriftsindsamlingen udsendes bredt i USA og internationalt, og jeg vil bede Jer om at få den via linket [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/01/09/call-for-presidents-trump-putin-xi-to-convene-emergency-summit-to-address-danger-of-war/] – og downloade den, cirkulere den i jeres egne netværk, e-mails, Facebook, Twitter, sociale medier; få det rundt til venner og kolleger. For kun hvis vi har et internationalt kor af mennesker og kræfter, der kræver, at et sådant topmøde finder sted, kan vi sammen skabe momentum for at vende denne situation: Så dette er min øjeblikkelige appel til Jer. Der bør ikke finde nogen diskussion sted, som ikke kræver dette topmøde. Dette er et vigtigt, internationalt fokus for at vende denne situation.

SCHLANGER: Helga, jeg blev interviewet på Radio Sputnik fra Washington DC i dag, og værterne støttede denne idé, men de var meget fascinerede af, at du tog initiativet til den, og de ønskede især at vide, hvad du mener Putin kan gøre, som ikke kan udføres af en anden. Og jeg sagde til dem, at jeg ville spørge dig for at få dit svar på det.


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: For det første har Putin vist sig at være en glimrende strateg. Allerede for fem måneder siden bragte han hele regionen sammen; han lagde pres på saudierne, på Israel, på Tyrkiet – faktisk er Putin i Tyrkiet i dag; han er der for at deltage i en ceremoni med åbning af »TurkStream«-gasledningen. Han var også i Damaskus. Han har selvfølgelig forbindelser til alle relevante regeringer, og de har alle en interesse i at have et godt forhold til Rusland.

Jeg tror, at iranerne på nuværende tidspunkt under ingen omstændigheder vil stole på Trump eller USA alene uden garantier fra Putin og Xi Jinping; men med en kombination af disse tre ledere, mener jeg, at de reelt repræsenterer lederskabet i verden, og at det er en intervention af den kaliber, der kræves for at afvende faren for krig. Så jeg mener, at enhver, der tænker over det, kan forstå, at det er, hvad der skal til for at nedtrappe en situation, der næsten er ude af kontrol, og som har et enormt potentiale for at eskalere – at kun med den tillid, som nogle lande har til Kina, andre til Rusland, og atter andre til USA… men som du kan se det på »dødvandet« i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, hvis man ikke bryder det, vil den ene part altid stå hårdt over for den anden part, og man vil ikke kunne løse det.

Der er brug for dette hastetopmøde. Og jeg tror, at der på præsidentniveau er en klar intention om at løse det; ikke nødvendigvis overalt på regeringsniveau i Washington, som er meget splittet, og det kan vi vende tilbage til om et øjeblik. Men jeg mener, at Trump adskillige gange har gjort det meget klart, at han ønsker at have et godt forhold til Rusland, på trods af alle vanskeligheder med at forsøge at forbedre situationen i forholdet til Kina. Og jeg tror, at hele kuppet, og alt fra Russiagate til rigsretssagen, blev udarbejdet netop for at afspore Trumps intention. Så hvis man tænker det igennem, mener jeg, at det er den eneste duelige løsning på problemet.

SCHLANGER: Du nævnte før den video din mand lavede, »Storm over Asien«. Selv før det, 15-20 år tidligere, i 1975 mener jeg, rejste han til Irak og fremsatte et forslag om olie for teknologi. Så dette nye forståelsespapir mellem Irak og Kina er i virkeligheden noget, han lagde frem for mange år siden. Hvordan tror du, at sådan noget kunne fungere?


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det er meget enkelt: Det, som min mand udviklede i 1975 efter hans rejse til Irak, blev kaldt »Oasis-planen«, og det var idéen om den nøgleingrediens, der mangler i hele regionen… hele ørkenstrimlen fra den atlantiske kyst i Afrika gennem Sahel, Sahara, gennem Saudi-halvøen og Mellemøsten, og derefter ind i Kina og helt op til det nordlige Kina… man har denne utrolige strimmel af ørken, der vokser. Og der er ingen planter i hele regionen. Jeg fløj en gang over det, og jeg kiggede ud af vinduet, og det er forbløffende – man skimter efter en oase, og der er bare ingen. Så dette forslag fra min mand [tilbage] i 1975 var ideen om, at man er nødt til at tilvejebringe en masse nyt vand ved hjælp af moderne midler. Umiddelbart kan man aftappe grundvandsmagasinerne, men de er begrænsede. Sidenhen er der brug for fredelig energi, små atomreaktorer, for afsaltning af enorme mængder vand, som kan bruges til kunstvanding; der kan også anvendes moderne teknologier såsom ionisering af atmosfæren, som allerede bruges i nogle af Golfstaterne og Israel. Jeg tror også, der kan skabes masser af nyt, frisk vand til kunstvanding, til landbrug, til genplantning. Og så kan der bygges infrastruktur som en forudsætning for industrialisering.

Og hvis man tager den eksisterende kinesiske plan for den Nye Silkevej, Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, som blev foreslået af præsident Xi allerede i 2016, da han besøgte Iran, Saudi-Arabien og Egypten, og hvor han allerede da foreslog at udvide Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet til hele regionen. Og i mellemtiden har man Kina-Pakistan-Økonomiske Korridor (CPEC); man har Assad og Kinas løfte om at rekonstruere Syrien på denne måde; Der var adskillige store konferencer i Golfstaterne, hvor det står klart, at de arabiske stater også har en enorm interesse. Iran har også gode forbindelser med Kina. Og naturligvis har Tyrkiet mange gange udtrykt, at de ønsker at være en integreret del af det.

Så hvis blot man udvider Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet til hele regionen, ville det være meget let. Og jeg sagde for mange år siden – lige som min ægtemand, vi har altid arbejdet sammen om dette – at med de store naboer i regionen, Rusland, Kina, Indien, Iran, Egypten, og også Tyrkiet, endog Saudi-Arabien og selv Israel… alle kunne de indse, at det er til deres fordel at arbejde sammen for udviklingen af hele regionens velstand.

Hvis USA ville indtage en positiv holdning til dette, kunne investorer tjene så mange flere penge på at skabe det største »boom« man kan forestille sig, snarere end at tillægge kontrollen med olien alt for stor betydning. Fossile brændstoffer, olien, er begrænset, den burde alligevel ikke bruges til energi, og hvis man havde et reelt økonomisk investeringsprogram, der var mange, mange gange større end Marshall-planen, kunne der opnås langt større overskud, og det ville være et incitament for mange iværksættere til at engagere sig. Desuden er europæerne – Tyskland, Italien, Frankrig, alle disse lande er opsplittede på grund af flygtningekrisen: Hvis man ville starte en fælles udvikling af alle de store lande, som jeg lige har nævnt, inklusive Indien, der har en interesse i det, f.eks. i Afghanistan, og naturligvis også situationen omkring Kashmir, Pakistan, som kun kan løses, hvis man har en integreret udviklingsplan. Flygtningekrisen kunne løses meget let, hvis man udvikler Sydvestasien og naturligvis Afrika. Så jeg tror, at en sådan intervention er nødvendig.

Nogle gange, har man brug for et chok: Der er brug for den chokerende bevidsthed om, at vi er ved at sprænge verden i luften, hvis vi ikke ændrer paradigmet; et chok, der kan forvandles til en mulighed. Og mange mennesker har nævnt, at det kinesiske skrifttegn for »krise« er det samme som for »mulighed«. Og jeg tror, at hvis vi nu har et kor af mennesker rundt om i verden, folk der er bekymrede over faren for krig, som er bekymrede over de uendelige krige, der må afsluttes; ja, så arbejd sammen med os! Lad os slutte os sammen og skabe en atmosfære, hvor det folkelige pres for et sådant topmøde er så overvældende, at det finder sted.

SCHLANGER: I forlængelse af, at du har præsenteret løsningen på krisen, er en af de ting, der er kommet op, at præsident Trump tog skridt til… hans meddelelse for flere måneder siden om tilbagetrækning fra Syrien, [hvor] alle forudsagde forfærdelige konsekvenser, men det fungerede, og blev koordineret med Erdogan, med Putin og selv med Assad. Derefter rejste han til Afghanistan og talte om at trække tropper tilbage fra Afghanistan. De mennesker, der forsøger at afsætte ham med rigsretssag, gik amok, krigshøgene i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet i begge partier modsatte sig det. Jeg tror, at vi ud fra dette synspunkt er nødt til at se på spørgsmålet om, hvordan denne nylige, denne nuværende krise blev fremskyndet. Hvad var rækkefølgen af begivenheder, der førte til den? For der er nogle meget klare indikationer på, at det er de samme mennesker, der er ude efter at afsætte Trump og som er imod hans fredsprogram, og som der støtter en krig med Iran. Kan du gennemgå en lille smule af denne rækkefølge, Helga?


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja. Der er faktisk en meget interessant artikel af Patrick Lawrence, der er en meget fængslende person; han var den første, der allerede i 2017 i det amerikanske magasin The Nation bragte historien af William Binney om, at der ikke var noget russisk hack. Og så for to dage siden havde han havde en artikel i Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/06/patrick-lawrence-the-iranian-generals-intent/], som jeg også vil opfordre vore lyttere til at læse, fordi der er mange tvivlsomme kilder man ikke kan stole på; men læs denne artikel og dan jeres egen mening: For det, han siger, er en meget interessant hypotese. Han siger, at der faktisk er omstændigheder, som tyder på, at det ikke var Trump, der beordrede mordet. Nu ved jeg, at der overalt er mange mennesker, der reagerer stærkt på, hvad Trump sagde, og nogle af disse udsagn er ganske vist også utilgivelige – jeg mener, man kan ikke sige, at et lands kulturarv nu skal ødelægges. De forsøgte at trække i land på det punkt, og det er fint, men Trump er bare undertiden lidt uberegnelig, og jeg tror, at alle i hele verden ved det. Men det betyder ikke, at han organiserede dette snigmord.

Hvad Patrick Lawrence antyder, og han er selvfølgelig en kilde med gode forbindelser i efterretningskredse, er at det var en »paladsrevolution«, at det var den samme kombination af mennesker, der allerede forsøgte, og gentagne gange effektivt saboterede Trumps politik over for Nordkorea, Syrien, den Persiske Bugt generelt – han peger på aksen mellem Pompeo, forsvarsminister Esper og Milley, formanden for generalstaben. Jeg tror, at Milley var den person, der præsenterede Trump for »muligheder« for, hvad der kunne gøres, og drabet på den øverste militære leder i et andet land, som tilfældigvis også er nummer to i det pågældende land, sætter naturligvis gang i en række af begivenheder; der, hvis der ikke er en seriøs indgriben for at nedkøle konflikten, potentielt kunne gå helt ud af kontrol. Ingen ved deres fulde fem ville give præsidenten for USA en sådan valgmulighed, men der burde have været bestræbelser for med bestemthed at sige: »Dette er IKKE en mulighed.« Men det skete ikke.

I stedet fortalte Pompeo og Esper tilsyneladende Trump, at der var fare for et umiddelbart forestående angreb på amerikanske installationer og personale; for da Trump derefter offentliggjorde denne meddelelse, var det det, han sagde.

Hvis man nu ser på forløbet, hvordan det udviklede sig 10 dage før snigmordet, var der adskillige bombeangreb på en militærbase i Irak, som tilhørte Kataib Hezbollah, hvilket ikke er det samme som det libanesiske Hezbollah, men det er en irakisk paramilitær organisation, der var meget involveret i at bekæmpe IS. Efter disse angreb, som var en reaktion på en granatbeskydning – de var anklaget for at have beskudt en irakisk base tidligere – efter disse bombeangreb, var dernæst demonstrationerne foran den amerikanske ambassade, som blev afblæst. Men dette var forspillet til angrebet på general Soleimani.

Adskillige personer, der inkluderede den irakiske statsminister Abdul-Mahdi, fortalte det irakiske parlament, at Soleimani var på vej til at mødes med Abdul-Mah­di, og at han var på en diplomatisk mission for at forhandle mellem Saudi-Arabien og Iran for at forsøge at finde en eller anden måde at forsone sunni- og shiamuslimerne på, og dette var faktisk beordret af det Hvide Hus, af Trump selv. Med det samme stod Pompeo frem i går og sagde: »Nej, der var ingen sådan mission«, men Abdul-Mahdi sagde, at der var en sådan mission, og hvem end der nu udførte dette angreb, vidste tydeligvis præcis, hvor denne drone skulle ramme, fordi de vidste, at Soleimani ville være til stede på dette tidspunkt, ligesom den stedfortrædende leder af en vigtig milits, der også blev dræbt, og flere andre personer.

Men som vi hørte fra andre militæreksperter, sker denne slags angreb ikke bare ud af den blå luft. Der er faktisk en liste med mål, hvilket, i dette tilfælde, er blevet udarbejdet af USA’s CENTCOM (USA’s centralkommando) Afdeling Orange, som vidst nok er placeret i South Carolina lige nu. Og disse er, med andre ord, lister på mulige mål, og dette skulle aldrig nogensinde være sket. Og Trump blev simpelthen stillet i en situation, hvor han var nødt til at redde ansigt, fordi alt var allerede forberedt.

Pompeo har ikke fremlagt nogen beviser, og naturligvis er dette alt sammen stadig hypotetisk. Jeg synes, at der er brug for en seriøs efterforskning; jeg mener, at der må fremlægges beviser. Men jeg tror, at dette er en meget plausibel hypotese af, hvordan det skete, og konklusionen, som Patrick Lang drager, er, at det er de samme personer, som er involveret i retsforfølgelserne – dette kommer faktisk også fra en række Trump-tilhængere, og folk som ikke støtter Trump – som siger: »Hvorfor skulle vi lytte til de samme aviser og samme kredse, som folk generelt kalder den »dybe stat«, der er involveret i »Russiagate«, i retsforfølgelserne, og imod Trump, og som tydeligvis nu udbreder dette syn? Hvorfor skulle vi pludselig tro på disse personer?«

Så jeg opfordrer jer til at betragte situationen: Det er mere komplekst end det ses ved første blik, og i betragtning af de absolutte uhyrligheder omkring Trump, hvilket sker som et resultat af dette, tror jeg, at et klinisk syn på alt dette er desto vigtigere.
SCHLANGER: Jeg synes, at et af de mere overbevisende argumenter om dette kom fra oberst Lawrence Wilkerson, den tidligere stabschef for Colin Powell, da Powell fremlagde de falske beviser om Iraks masseødelæggelsesvåben i FN. Wilkerson kom med en kort erklæring, hvor han sagde: »Ubestridelige beviser?« Har vi ikke hørt dette før? Ønsker vi at gentage de samme fejl igen og igen?

Og jeg tror at vigtigheden af en undersøgelse af dette er afgørende, men for folk, der ønsker at støtte præsidenten, er det bedste ikke, at lade som om dette er en amerikansk brydekamp, og at hoppe op og ned og heppe, hver gang der er nogen som bliver ramt. Man må begynde fra det højere strategiske standpunkt. Og jeg tror, Helga, at dette er det vigtige ved at kigge på ting som videoen »Storm over Asien« og på, hvem der på længere sigt drager fordel af sådanne slags krige. Og du har været meget oprigtig i din beslutsomhed om at overvinde den geopolitiske doktrin. Er det ikke i sidste ende det, som vi har at gøre med, og det, som Præsident Trump må affinde sig med?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jo. Jeg mener, at Det Britiske Imperiums kontrol, hvis vi går tilbage til »The Great Game«, til Sykes-Picot-aftalen, til Bernard Lewis-planen, til Samuel Huntington, til Brzezinski; alt dette var geopolitik, som udtænkt af Mackinder, af Haushofer-doktrinen, den ondskabsfulde idé, at man måtte forhindre en sammenhængskraft af den eurasiske landmasse, fordi det ville være til skade for de atlantiske magter, nemlig USA og Storbritannien – og at denne doktrin, at man bliver nødt til at manipulere – og da briterne efter 1. verdenskrig opdelte regionen, med Sykes-Picot-aftalen, gjorde de det bevidst! Samuel Huntingtons latterlige bog »Civilisationernes sammenstød«, som jeg for mange år siden pinte mig selv med at læse, – denne fyr havde intet kendskab til nogen af de kulturer og religioner, som han snakkede om – men dette er en håndbog for manipulationer.

Dette må nu ophøre. Og grunden til, at jeg siger, at vi har brug for et samarbejde i denne krise, nu, mellem Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping, og forhåbentlig vil Narendra Modi også deltage i dette samme topmøde – og senere, det er ikke en eksklusiv klub, men andre lande er bestemt også velkomne til at samarbejde – men vi har brug for en kernegruppe, USA, Rusland og Kina som et minimum, forhåbentlig tilslutter Indien sig, men de tre førstenævnte er de vigtigste; hvis de ville gå sammen og sige: Vi forstår at menneskeheden har nået et punkt, hvorfra der muligvis ikke er nogen vej tilbage, og at vi derfor må overvinde dette, og udvikle en fredsplan for regionen, som har været plaget af 19 års krig i Afghanistan, hvor mange millioner af mennesker har mistet livet. Trump sagde, at dette har kostet USA syv billioner dollars, det har kostet millioner af civile livet, mange tusinde amerikanere, og det bliver nødt til at stoppe. Og jeg er absolut sikker, 100 % sikker på, at hvis der kunne skabes et internationalt miljø, hvor man havde et kor af stemmer, af lande, af fredsgrupper, af religiøse grupper, som – der er allerede flere som er mobiliserede gennem underskriftsindsamlinger m.m. – hvis alle disse ville sige: Vi har brug et højere niveau for samarbejde, da er det muligt.

Men jeg mener at vi har brug for en sådan verdensomspændende mobilisering for at få dette til at ske, og det er derfor at jeg appellerer til Jer: Deltag i vores bestræbelser, tilmeld Jer vores nyhedsbrev, del underkriftsindsamlingen med alle I kender, og lad os virkelig få en sådan mobilisering. Fordi det er et meget alvorligt øjeblik i historien.
SCHLANGER: Lad mig bare gentage hovedpointen igen: Løsningen er til stede, men det kræver din aktive medvirken. Gå ind på vores hjemmeside, dér findes appellen fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche; du kan underskrive denne, udbrede den, indsende den som leder til aviser, gøre alt hvad du kan for at skabe en modpol til krigskampagnen, som kommer fra de samme folk, der forsøger at afsætte præsidenten. [https://schillerinstitute.]
Med dette sagt, så ses vi igen i næste uge.
Følg med i Schiller Instituttets ugentlige internationale webcasts med Helga Zepp-LaRouche på:
www.schillerinstitut.dk

 

 




International aktionsdag: Trump, Putin, Xi må afholde hastetopmøde
for at afværge krig og påbegynde udvikling

Den 15. januar (EIRNS) — Dagen i dag, den 15. januar, Martin Luther King Jr.’s fødselsdag, er af Schiller Instituttet og dets tilknyttede organisationer overalt i verden udpeget som en international aktionsdag, til afholdelse af møder og kontakter til institutioner for at give deres besyv med på den presserende nødvendighed af, at præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi indkalder til et hastetopmøde for at afværge faren for krigsudbrud i forbindelse med krisen i Iran og Irak. Der kan ikke være nogen tvivl om, at Dr. King ville tilslutte sig fuldt ud.

Alt imens præsidenterne Trump og Rouhani begge har antydet, at de afstår fra enhver umiddelbar militæraktion, indebærer den fortsatte ustabilitet i regionen risikoen for, at verden endnu en gang kunne ”gå i søvne” ind i en verdenskrig, som det skete i 1914.

Under præsident Trumps tale i det Det Hvide Hus om morgenen den 8. januar, efter Irans missilangreb på amerikansk-irakiske baser, udtrykte han sin påskønnelse af, at ingen blev dræbt i angrebet, og at Iran har gjort det klart, at de ‘holder sig tilbage’. Vigtigst er nok, at han også opfordrede til en helt ny tilgang til krisen – erstatning af den forulykkede iranske atomaftale (JCPOA) med igangsættelsen af nye forhandlinger med Iran og alle underskriverne af JCPOA – dvs. ikke alene Tyskland, Frankrig og Storbritannien, men også Rusland og Kina. Hvis en sådan proces skulle blive indledt, ville den bringe Rusland, Kina og USA sammen for ikke alene at behandle spørgsmålet om Irans atomvåbenpotentiale, men også en samlet løsning på det regionale kaos. Trump har gentagne gange opfordret til at få amerikanske tropper ud af regionen, alt imens han også opfordrer Iran til at fjerne dets militære styrker fra hele regionen. Endnu vigtigere er det, at Ruslands og Kinas tilstedeværelse i drøftelserne giver Iran et grundlag for at stole på eventuelle foreslåede sikkerhedsgarantier, alt imens Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ kunne skabe rammerne for genopbygning af de nationer, der er blevet ødelagt i de amerikansk-britiske ‘regimeskiftekrige’ – forhåbentlig med deltagelse af alle nationer, inklusiv USA, i denne presserende, moralsk nødvendige proces.

Til forfærdelse for mange i hans kabinet, sagde den britiske premierminister Boris Johnson tirsdag til BBC, at han tilslutter sig Trumps forslag vedrørende Iran. ”Fra det amerikanske perspektiv,” sagde Johnson, ”er det en mangelfuld aftale… Lad os erstatte den med Trump-aftalen. Det er hvad vi gerne ser. Præsident Trump er en stor beslutningstager i egne og mange andres øjne. Lad os arbejde sammen om at erstatte JCPOA og få Trump-aftalen i stedet.” Det står ikke klart, hvorvidt Johnson og Trump har koordineret deres handlinger.

Det er en lovende dag. Anklagepunkterne i rigsretssagen, der af det korrupte og mislykkede Demokratiske Parti er grebet ud af den blå luft, skal overleveres til senatet i dag, onsdag; rigsretssagen begynder i næste uge. Endvidere skal USA og Kina i dag underskrive den historiske første fase af en handelsaftale, det første skridt i hvad der må blive til en proces, som løser problemerne med handelsbalancen, og tager fat på den langt mere afgørende nødvendighed af samarbejde mellem USA og Kina om at genopbygge de vestlige nationers smuldrende finansarkitektur, og samarbejde om Bælte & Vej-genopbygning af de tidligere koloniserede nationer i Afrika, Asien og Latinamerika.

Det er et historisk øjeblik – hvorvidt verdens borgere, hver især, vil kigge indad for at finde frem til det der virkelig er universelt, mere dyrebart end livet selv, og handle med henblik på at forme fremtiden for den menneskelige race i retning af værdighed og lykke; eller være smålige og passive, og tillade at verden forfalder til barbarisme – det er betydningen af denne aktionsdag.